Jump to content

Talk:George Reeves/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Mistaken Gravesite

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

"surrounded by speculation in the years since" — speculation that he was what? murdered? details please. RedWolf 03:59, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC) Jumblejim 02:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Gorge Reeve Projet

2 vndls chngen dis byo, keipe unn duen dis, wil no hep u, wee r duinn oni watt s kurek, nutin moerr, nutin ls, suw gt lse, wee r hierre 2 tsei! User:Vesa 21:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Your "Gorge Reevs Projet" page, which is totally POV (and probably a bogus invention on your part) is already marked for deletion, and your continued bogus editorializing on the Reeves page will "no hep u" either. You silly pudding. Wahkeenah 18:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Pooden? A no pooden!11! U pooden! Gorge Reevs mrdrd nd sht nd nutin u duw baout t. NUUTiN!11!11! User:Vesa 15:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Your "Greevs Projet" page, a copycat of your previous page, is also now marked for deletion.

Wahkeenah 15:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

lk 2 sei u rti. User:Vesa 20:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Update... it is now deleted. You silly pudding. Wahkeenah 20:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
WEE SEI LL!11! User:Vesa 20:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Premiere date of "Adventures of Superman"

Since there is a minor edit war over the start date of the series, I searched on the web and found:

  • According to tv.com the first show was aired on September 19, 1952.
  • imdb.com gives a start date of 1952.
  • amazon.com also give a start date of 1952 in the title of the dvds of the show.
  • this hobbyist-type site quotes from THE COMPLETE DIRECTORY TO PRIME TIME NETWORK AND CABLE TV SHOWS 1946-PRESENT By Tim Brooks and Earle Marsh: "Although the first batch of 26 Superman films were made in 1951, the series did not reach local TV stations until late 1952."
  • this hobbyist-type site says that the first season was filmed in 1951 and gives a TV premiere date of "early 1953"
  • [this hobbyist-type site gives the same dates -- filming in 1951, TV premiere early 1953
  • this hobbyist-type site gives a premiere date of April 1 1952 (and ending in 1957).

So we have:

  • 1952:
  • All three professional sites.
  • The one hobbyist-type site that quotes from a published source.
  • EARLY 1953:
  • Two hobbyist-type sites.
  • EARLY 1951:
  • One hobbyist-type sute.

Considering also that shows premiered in fall. A spring start (either 1951 or 1953) would be most unusual, although note that this was syndicated program. All in all, it seems that 1952 seems the most likely start date. (There are a couple of published books that would clear this all up, but I don't have any of them). So I have changed the start date back to 1952, for now Vesa, if you have sources that describe otherwise, could you cite them here? Herostratus 04:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Please note also that the first season's COPYRIGHT DATE on each episode is 1952. Wahkeenah 05:43, 30 December 2005(UTC)

Uncyclopedic passage

Cut from article:

The book makeintresten agruemnt fr Reevsavin beinn tagrte ov "hit" duw 2 huvenspurned lon-tiem luv wt mub knxshun. hepsis ta cr adent wuss tempedd hei. De r nt ropni envishun bt trng 2 chng dat tifkatt. f Gorge lve 2 sei Juwe seitee, hee ha turun mahct wt lieavieh chmpn hee wul rc muer. Reevs buxn fne nd it hr 2 kunseev hee kl heeseh foer bedai n reen. Gorge Reevs wuss gogluh chmpn n yui wt unfeeteh rekr.

Some of this may well belong in the article, especially if it can be cited, but the whole passage is basically unencyclopedic. Jmabel | Talk 00:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The above piece was written by User:64.107.2.115 31 December 2005 (UTC), whose sock puppets include

Vesa and Projects. You can tell they are the same guy due to their poor English. Wahkeenah 15:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

  • A, sir, this is all part of Gorge Reevs Projet. What is Gorge Reevs Projet? Vey simpel. Gorge Reevs Project correct mistake of pas. It deal wit Gorge Reevs mosty, and alo wit Paul Bern. Paul Bern dye 27 yeh eiralyr unn Bendik Keyun, plce warre Reevs liv. Bot dat suspicis, but far as Bern goes, hee impotnt, nd wass marri bifor nd hee ha a mstrs, chanco tht vey nlikey. Gorge not ha kids, so wenn mohr dye, nubdi left 2 contoll etat, sep gridi indvijuls, packo jms, witch klaem thie luv Gorge bot cnnt wate 2 maek moeni ov imej. Gorge Reevs Projet

straiv 2 kurek dat cetrficitae rfom: DAT BI SWICEID 2: DAT BI GUSHA, REESA UNOW, UNECRTA. Notin moerr, notin ls nd diefientyl t ho t wuss man 2 b. nd majuitei fan wen t ts wuss s wel.

Uh...okay, wackjob. Whatever. Wumbo 15:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Please be aware that it is not the purpose of Wikiepdia to right the world's wrongs. We're only here

to write the world's encyclopedia. Your project should not try to use these pages to further some external goal. Sourced, verifiable information, presented in a neutral fashion, is welcome. Thanks, -Will Beback 21:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Vesa a.k.a. User:Projects (among others) can't even get the air dates right, and the

rest is a POV that is well-covered in the interesting book I cited, Hollywood Kryptonite. "These" users also cannot write proper English, which is what gives away that "they" are the same user, despite "their" denials. Wahkeenah 00:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

DEE U SA WEE R NT CAYG, O NO, I TRI BESD 2 MK NUTLE S POSBL N KURDEN 2 WTT BEE NON N TLKD BUOTE, BY. - 66.99.0.198 13:59, 7 January 2006

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

Even if everything you and your sockpuppets say were absolutely true...

...it is still unacceptable because your usage of English sucks so badly. Go take some classes and come back here when you can write an actual normal English sentence. Wahkeenah 20:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ketuli, mie felu, I not rekmn muvyi!

Is it possible that the above is trolling, pure and simple? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply

s t pssbel usr Jmabel blbben? User:64.107.1.197 23:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC) (sockpuppets include User:Projects, User:Vesa and other now-blocked accounts).

"Is it possible" that the above is a continuation of said trolling? I think one look at my contributions list and that of User:64.107.1.197 will settle the matter. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It has been discussed many times

And you people dont seem to understand, this is how it should look like:

  • And you don't seem to understand that (1) you're pushing a point of view, which is against wiki rules and (2) even if your "facts" were verifiably true, which they are not, your English usage is unacceptably inferior. Your defense that you haven't had "time" to write the article in proper English is no excuse. Wahkeenah 00:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

oniy is yr here, etin tat wuss pt heier t hs beine non nd t iss nt prsnl pynnune, f prsnl pynnune kumm weidi poeppur, tn hwoe cn u cl ti prsnl, duh t kumm feum u1n prsne? GRP!

KUREK!

Really no point to include the entire old version of this entry here, snce it's accessable in the main body of this entry. I'm deleting it.

As of February 7th, 2006...

Nobody is contributing to disprove or approve the above, again shows the ignorance of people who revert the incorrect bio... Wumbo 19:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe everyone is busy... Dyslexic agnostic 20:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
DISBE KUREK BYO GORGE REEVS - unsigned by User:134.58.253.114
Uh, no, it shouldn't. Are you a wack job or something? Wumbo 5:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
sounds a little "paranoid conspiracy"ish... how do you know the above? (and why don't you ever sign your entries with ~~~~ (to identify which of two sockpuppets you are using each time)? - Dyslexic agnostic 06:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
He also has more than two sockpuppets, all of which have been blocked, so various a-none IP's are all he can use. Wahkeenah 09:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Good riddance, the wacko. Wumbo 10:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

How Wong u aRe

No dumb moran, I m from England. Now, this site It is blocked, but at least here the bio is correct, u are nothing but a vandal and correction u are, since your english is pathetic many times, the bio you wote on Reevs mek no sense at all and it missing many facts, once it become available, I back! So now, not too many people cn edit, including u. But for this, u are not forgiven... And as long as takes, I here to stay to show the truth. Witch u Mr. English elqent guy do not no beens abut...

Correct brithday

The above, George Reeves born on January 5th, as today, I dont no wat is u problem, to change to Janury 6th? For xmpl... http://findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=1284 It say many thing, thing I mention and u kep on reverting, so shme on u all!11!

Hollywoodland

Should the article make mention of this upcoming film? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427969/ IrishGuy 20:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. Wumbo 21:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

dare shud b no mntn f des movie, t wll nt clar hm f dat, ha no legl pouer anyway, movie is like dream seqnce User:64.107.1.187 22:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If and when the film is released it should be mentioned, along with any other books or films about Reeves. -Will Beback 22:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. I concur. Wumbo 23:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to know what that a-none meant by "t wll nt clar hm f dat". What? Wahkeenah 23:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
For that matter, what is meant by "ha no legl pouer"? What the heck does that mean. -Will Beback 23:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Beats the h*ll out of me. It's like being in a dream sequence. Wumbo 23:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
You know, the wording itself is almost like a dream sequence. It looks like English, but makes no sense. Wahkeenah 23:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It mean movy ha no legl pouer, can nt clean somebodi name of suwicied.

User:64.107.220.176 21:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No, but they have influence on public perception. That's why a significant number of yahoos think the Apollo program was a humbug. Wahkeenah 23:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 Because I think your whole guise is a humbug. Wumbo 23:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmbg 2 u but nt 2 othr. But I gre, publk perceptn can goe a lng wae, specalie if majority think thae rite, but it turn owt in long rite, thae long, atcost of cours, many ignorant neverd mit it!
Gee, thanks for that input. -Will Beback 23:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation

Given that nearly half of the article appears to be about controversy over Reeves' death, it is remarkable that there are almost no clear citations in the portion relating to his death. (Books are mentioned. It is not clear what comes from where. In no case are page numbers cited.)
Also, I cannot work out what to make of the line "Unfortunately, both Geisler and Reeves' mother died before anything could be proven." While I suppose death is always unfortunate, "unfortunately" here is POV. Also, given that apparently nothing of what Geisler was trying to prove is even now "proven", the sentence makes almost no sense. - Jmabel | Talk 20:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I reckon they were trying to say "unfortunately for the investigation..." which is obviously redundant. A "however" would have been sufficient. I haven't done much with this page lately. Maybe I can put some more work into it. There was a lunatic vandal on here for awhile, but he seems to have faded into the woodwork, so it might be safe. Wahkeenah 23:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't have much of a problem with the usage of "unfortunately" there; it's common usage. I do, however, have a problem with the extensive uncited discussion of the controversy over Reeve's death. There should be some discussion, but not this uncited mess; hence, it needs to be fixed. Wumbo 23:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
You know, it could almost use a separate article. We need some more contentious issues here. Wahkeenah 14:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be a separate section about all of this controversy over his death. The "Death" section of this article, as is, is particularly bad. The writing isn't great, there's some POV problems, and there's several large paragraphs of controversial allegations with absolutely no citation. I'm not a big citation cop, but if you're going to be making claims about things that run counter to the official story, you should probably provide good reason for it. Wumbo 14:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
It's had a few too many cooks. If you think it's bad now, take a look at what that one lunatic was doing with it a few months back. Once he was banned, things calmed down. But it appears to be too much self-contradictory detail. You had the official story, and the suspicions summarized in Hollywood Kryptonite, and the fact we're never going to know for sure, and that's about it. Wahkeenah 05:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Much of the Article Needs Serious Rewriting

Much of the article needs serious rewriting by someone who is familiar with both writing and with the English language. There are many passages that are very unclear (though there are

cases where it is possible to guess what the intended meaning is).Daqu 02:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Small wonder, considering how much it's been mucked about with. Wahkeenah 02:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should discuss this in an open forum. It might work, you know; so long as that reeves nutjob doesn't come back for a bit... Wumbo 02:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It is against wiki policy to call people by their national origins (anywhere u r anyways) and you are not to vandalize and revert stuff dude. The bio seems good for now, except i you or wakhabee dude mess it...buzz off!@
So, you're back, I see. Well, whatever you do, please don't interfere with this page. It's been honed with great precision, and I would hate to see it all come apart simply because of one user with a vendetta. So, please, remember, remember, the 5th of November, and ciao. Carry on. Skrooball 03:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No screwball, you are wrong as usual, first of all I am not croatian or serfian or whatever is those people call themselves, i only spend few years in their colleges, part of my degree requirement, to take few classes... and latest "upgrades" on reeves bio are terrible, even references and links are missing, somebody added about moore fight, which i did back in january and i was called vandal, now it seems ok, so cool it, ok, i am an expert on reeves and i only made minor adjustments last time 2 months ago, i am not touching it, you can have it and have it all wrong as far as i care, i am only writing to let you know i am an expert on reeves and have many rare links from all over the world, i wanted to share with you screwed ball and others, but you can keep on making wikia much more interesing and "correct", some of the things i added here are still standing but so many mistakes. p.s. Somebody should contact the cemetery and change his birthday, I do not know if that is possible, but good to try you know... It's a shame movie producers use image of people like reeves only to make money but not to fix things for him.

george reeves lives

George Reeves & Psycho

I've done a little searching in regards to the George Reeves/Psycho controversy: Googling shows all Reeves/Psycho references to appear to have originated from Wikipedia. Just to be sure, I checked several books on Hitchcock, including Stephen Rebello's Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho. No mention of George Reeves was found in any of them. Unless someone can find a source that shows evidence to the contrary, this appears to me to be the worst kind of vandalism, intentionally using Wikipedia to spread disinformation. That this hoax seems to be spreading beyond Wikipedia makes it all the worse. Rizzleboffin 23:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yo, my old man's an film expert and has a ton of movie history info; he never found a hint of truth to it. Know what im saying? --Jonathan.Bruce 07:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Imdb Psycho

The movie was in production in 1959, whoever wrote about Reeves and psycho, was a psycho, clearly shows that people can write anything they want here, under trivia I did not see anything associated with Hitchcock's twiested Psycho, as far as I know Hitchcock never even tried to contact Reeves for that part. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054215/ It is amazing how long it took people here to find out about this.,..

  • I wouldn't be surprised if the IMDB story came from this page. It appears to be a hoax. There is nothing about it in Hollywood Kryptonite, and that book has plenty of detail. Reeves was going to do some boxing exhibitions, and also was going to revive the Superman show, even though he was getting a tad old for that at 45. Nothing about either Hitchcock or Psycho. Wahkeenah 01:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • See imdb trivia page for Psycho (retrieved 2006-09-26). This appears to be a "correction" — indicates that the rumor is not true. — ERcheck (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

URBAN LEGENDS ADDITION

I've taken the liberty in adding this. It may be out of format for Wikipedia, but boy, does it seem necessary in this case. Some of the myths are disspelled in the body of the entry, many are dealt with by jimB's referenced IMDb post... and this idiotic PSYCHO nonsense keeps getting re-inserted. And, yes, the myth itself seems to trail right back to Wikipedia, about two months ago, and has spread like measles. Somewhere else there was a post where the author describe his (her?) memory of being on the Paramount lot watching Reeves acting in the film and Hitchcock directing-- neat, except the film wasn't shot on the Paramount lot (and any child who really did grow up in LA would know the difference). Psychiatrists call this "confabulation"-- I consider it wacky troll vandalism. Some people still have a need to keep George Reeves from being thought of as a suicide. User:Ted Newsom

  • Some of this is repetitive overkill, and hopefully future editors will be able to smooth out that situation. I gave up awhile back, but I still watch the page. The Psycho story sounds like a hoax, as it doesn't really square with the timeline, for one thing; and, as you say, there are enough wikipedia copycats to enable hoaxsters to help spread rumors. But if the copycats refresh frequently, fixing it here should also help quell those references. We hope. It is also worth mentioning that although Reeves was officially a suicide, there is plenty of information to both introduce reasonable doubt into that conclusion by itself, and also to suggest murder. But it is unlikely we will ever know for sure, since all the interested parties are now dead, as far as we know. Wahkeenah 15:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The Psycho-troll is back. He-- rather, IT-- deleted the Urban Myth dismissal of this PSYCHO nonsense, then put a self-referential link to IMBd, to the "Trivia" section, where the troll itself planted the spurious information. Can I request a Wiki-type person slap this boy down and tell him it's not nice to lie... or make Wikipedia lie? User:Ted Newsom The IMDb additions are NOT valid references to factual material. What does it take? George Reeves wasn't in Psycho, plain and simple. Never was, isn't now, never will be. This is some fanboy fantasy that cropped up 2 months ago-- HERE-- and the people like Skroolball keep it up. Got a lot of time on your hands, there, bub. Note to Wahkeenah-- it's in your court.User:Ted Newsom

  • In what way? I am not necessarily the keeper of this page. However, I wonder if it is possible to search IMDB history the way we can see history in wikipedia? If so, maybe we could track the source of that apparently bogus IMDB reference. Wahkeenah 19:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I may type too fast, too many things going on, so if i make a little mistake here and there, you should still get the point... yea all parties are dead, that is not the point, like I said.. Assuming they were alive, we would not be able to do a damn thing about it, because there is no evidence, the only way we would be able to prosecute Mannix's is if somebody who was involved in killing confessed, only then an arrest warrant could have been issued. I was told all the people involved in the murder died by 1999, i do not know, somebody claims somebody overheard the confession, i do not know if the priest would ever allow anybody else in the confession room and priest can never say to anybody what he heard no matter what, that means even in death. So, there you have it. As far as psycho goes, there was never even any talk about reeves starring in there, you know how it is, from one mouth to another... after 100 ears hear a story, the original #1 story moves to 2, 3, it may be same, but once it goes too 100th person, it's something totally different. I know, from here to eternity, reeves had major role, then they cut him out and only, what is it, 1 minute remains of him, i can not even remember recognizing him in that pathetic role. Remember, on death certificate says suicide, but that does not mean it really was, the fixers fixed it so it looked that way... One thing I will never understand, how can you say it's suicide without checking hands for smell of gun powder. Some microscopic elements always remain even if the gun was well oiled, no matter.

This is POV. I wish I could be as firm in my belief as you, but unfortuately I know the facts. Like Jim Beaver-- and he really IS the foremost authority on Reeves alive-- I looked into it, not just reading and guessing, but actually doing what the Adrian Broady character did-- went to the house, talked to people who DID know him, read the contemporary newspaper accounts... and listened. And my mind opened up. I don't want a world where my hero kills himself. That's just not right. But that's what happened. All of the so-called "clues" pointing to murder are FAR more explanable when they're looked at as elements of self-death. Depression has no logical emotional governors like good prospects in the future or a gang of friends. When you're deprssed-- I'm not talking sulking, or momentarily down, but chronically, clinically depressed-- you can NOT see the "good" stuff. Life seems pointless; it will always be sad, a chore, unrewarding. What did Honest George have to look forward to? The rest of his life alienated from his mother-- who'd lied to him for years about his father. Marriage to a loudmouthed drunk. More bondage in the monkey suit. Never being hired for any other acting role. POssibly-- nobody's pointed this out, btw-- possibly even losing the house he lived in (it was still in Toni Mannix' name on Reeves' death, I believe.) People who actually knew Reeves, and writers/scholars/investigators who've actually looked at the facts dismiss everything in HOLLYWOOD KRYPTONITE, the source of this "hired hit-man" nonsense. The writers of that book are NOT well-regarded by people who actually know what they're talking about. They claimed to have "inside information" about a hit man, from a "mysterious underworld character." Yeah, right. When you can't solve a mystery yourself, make up a fictional character, stick him in your story, and you changed history. Jack Larson (and others) refer to the book as HOLLYWOOD KRAPTONITE with good reason. Even the elements of it other than the "murder" business are factually innaccurate. Eddie Mannix knew about the relationship. The three of them would dine together through the years; it wasn't as if she was sneaking around on her husband. And Mannix himself had a mistress. It was, as one friend of Reeves said to me, "... quite a sophisticated relationship." Think about it and put yourself in Mannix' shoes. You've spent years keeping your private life and your wife's out of the limelight (along with keeping the priavte lives of your stars away from public view.) The old lady breaks up with the kid. Does it strike you as logical that you (as Mannix) would then throw your entire life and career out the window by hiring a third-party, gun-toting gangster to bump off the well-known ex-boyfriend of your wife-- when you know that if you did, every newspaper and gossip writer in the world is going to be on this like flies on a nasty log? Just doesn't work. Eddie Mannix did not keep his job at MGM by being rash and stupid. Ted Newsom 23:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Ted Newsom Ted Newsom 23:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Questions remain about the official judgment of suicide and whether it fits the physical evidence on the scene. To state with absolutely 100% certainty it was suicide is POV. To claim it was murder is also POV. To state that the ruling was suicide and that questions remain is fair. Wahkeenah 23:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I just googled it. It's all over the Web. Dear Lord... Skrooball 02:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And you must be delighted. How old are you anyway, 14? You clearly no nothing about motion picture production, scheduling, studios, movie history, reading a calendar, Los Angeles geography, publishing, screenwriting, enertainment law contracts nor any other related topic, based on your insistence at putting this material back in. You post "I just wanna know if it's true." Aww, cry me a river, baby. Of course it isn't true. I can post all day that the Sun goes around the Moon, and keep erasing your claims that the Earth goes around the Sun, but that doesn't make it factual. Wikipedia's rules insist-- INSIST-- on referencing facts. And these need to be cited. Find one book, one magazine article from that era, one newspaper clipping-- ANYTHING that suggests your horsepucky Psycho/Reeves story has a sliver of truth in it, then be my guest and have the last word. But post-Wikipedia self-referencing links don't make it-- nor do links to reader-submitted trivia blurbs on IMDb. Ted Newsom

Controversy section

The Controversy section is in very poor style for an encyclopedia. A lot of it is unsourced and frequently employs the weasel words 'some people'. Additionally, much of it presents evidence for both sides, presumably so the reader can decide. This is not encyclopedia style. We should only present sourced analysis by notable others who have examined the evidence. Ashmoo 04:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

True enough, and it should be rewritten for style. But there would be no "controversy" if the facts could not be interpreted several different ways. It's still an "unsolved mystery" to a lot of people, even if the facts point in an obvious direction, like the official police version. The alternative may be to simply omit the topic and state various sources (written and on-line) that offer various theories, and totally keep POV out of the entry. (PS: George Reeves was never in PSYCHO.)Ted Newsom "It is hard for you to kick against the pricks!"--Acts 9:5.

  • It's not altogether obvious. It's likely that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, also, but it's not 100% conclusive. Questions remain. To deny that questions remain is POV-pushing. However, somebody needs to smack that one psycho that keeps re-posting his Psycho fable and posting pseudo-biblical junk in the edit summary. Wahkeenah 12:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not denying that there is controversy or that the controversy should be included. But we need to describe other people's opinions of the controversy (from all sides), rather than current model, which provides the 'evidence' for each theory. Ashmoo 23:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, too many editors here have tried to make this story the Mystery of the Age. You should read what I went through with some looney back in the springtime or so (before he was banned). One curious thing to explore would be Jack Larson's apparent wishy-washiness on this subject. But this is hardly the JFK assassination, and it just doesn't need that amount of electronic ink. And I say again, there are questions that remain unanswered. To make assertions beyond that is to push a point of view. Wahkeenah 23:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


I'm going to fill in the holes I left regarding links to various stuff, references (maybe even in proper format, when I figure it out), and so on. But I agree this does go on quite a bit. What if the bulk of the material on the show itself gets plunked over onto the Superman board (assuming most of it isn't already there)?

Regarding the "controversy" thing-- there are a jillion Superman sites, some of which are rabidly pro-murder (She did it. No, SHE did it. No, Harry the Hitman did it! And so on), there are a citations and links to answers to all of the questions (Jim Beaver on IMDb and Straight Dope knows what he's talking about and that link pretty much answers all the questions, imho). What about a consise summary saying there's still debate, with links to these things?

(As for Jack L-- I've worked with him once and interviewed him myself a number of times over the years; he's always been consistent in his feelings. I've got a feeling someone quoted him out of context at some point, which made his attitude seem more suspicious than it really was. I mean, Robert Shayne said to me, "I never thought George committed suicide," then immediately added, "although I have no proof otherwise. None of us socialized particularly." Well, if I wanted to come off like a tabloid reporter, I would've just used the first line.)(And for the record... given the previous five years of Lee Oswald's life, I don't believe the popular consensus. There's hinky stuff there. So I do believe in conspracies sometimes.)) NOte to Ashmoo-- I kinda agree with the "let the experts have their say" theme on "Controversy," but the problem is, there really aren't any "experts" on the subject who CAN make a logical arguement for murder or accidental homicide. I suppose everybody who's ever posted here considers themself an expert one way or the other... but the only one here that I'd recognize as such would be Jim Beaver, and his link (on "Straight Dope") deals with every one of the so-called anomales of the case.Ted Newsom 14:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Ted NewsomTed Newsom 14:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

  • An excellent writeup that addresses most of the issues. Interestingly, it confirms what I had said, that Larson has been somewhat inconsistent in his views. That doesn't really mean anything, it's just his opinion, and the author of that piece admitted he changed his view also, in light of new evidence, so it could be that Larson had some doubts at one time, when these questions were raised. It's fair to say that most of the time (at least in the 1970s, and recently), Larson has accepted that it was suicide. The writer makes a pretty good case for suicide. He has to be careful about speculation, since there was a door into the room, and he could have been shot from outside the room. The one thing that has puzzled me more than anything was the peculiar reactions of the individuals involved. "Getting their stories straight" shouldn't seem necessary if it was really suicide... but there's no accounting for behavior among the inebriated. So I say again that questions remain, and you can cite that article that suicide was at least possible, maybe even probable, but it is not appropriate to say with 100% certainty that it was suicide. Wahkeenah 15:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the door... Harry the Hitman must've been a pretty good shot if he nailed somebody through the temple shooting through a closed door (after stealing Reevs' own Luger and then cleverly going into the room and planting it at Reeves' feet...)

POV stuff, but based on my research: there were a lot of reasons a lot of people wanted George's death over and done with, not necessarily to cover up a deliberate homicide. DC Comics, Flamingo Films and the show's sponsor, Kellogg's, for one (or three): not only had they lost the star of thier show, the series would be haunted by the specter of death and (most probably) no kid would ever want to watch it again. I'm sure none of them thought the great affection for the actor, the show and the character would be far greater than the sadness of his death.

The people in the house had every reason to be cagey. They were guests in the home of somebody who just died with a bullet to his brain, and they (and he) were sozzled. Lemmon had an eratic history which included decking a maitre'd at 21 in the 1940s, and heaven knows what else. Carol Von Ronkle was reportedly with Bill Bliss at the time, not exactly something you want the world and your husband to find out. Eddie Mannix had spent twenty years keeping himself and MGM stars OUT of the gossip columns; why would he want to cause his wife and friend of 25 years this kind of public, front-page embarrassment? Toni Mannix never stopped adoring Reeves, even after his death. Would she really want to shoot him (and not Lenore Lemmon instead)? The papers at the time avoided mentioning Toni (which I'm guessing WAS probably Eddie's doing), except when Reeves' will was read, reporting that he bequeathed everything to his "friend" Mrs. Mannix, whom he knew because of their collective Myasthenia Gravis charity work.

Was Lenore Lemmon really engaged to Reeves? That's what she and some contemporary gossip columns said, but based on a 9-year marriage to Ellanora and an 8-year relationship w/Toni, he doesn't strike me as the sort who'd spontaneously marry anybody. Her nephew (see the link) clearly doubts there was ever real marriage plans except in Lemmon's mind, and asks "Where was the engagement ring?" Good question.

Most serious researchers come around to agree with the official conclusion. By "serious," I mean people who have actually gone to primary information sources and double-checked the accuracy, spoken directly to people who were there or were close friends, discussed the facts with professional investigators, cops and doctors. Jim Beaver was certainly convinced the death was intentional-- until he started digging, comparing, and verifying. I suspected the worst, until I started looking at it. Of the bunch, I think only Jan Henderson remains ambiguous and has never drawn conclusions in either of his two books; privately, I've always got the impression that he'd love to lay it at Lemmon's feet. She was really a piece of work. As for the authors of "Hollywood Kryptonite," they get so many other facts absolutely wrong-- they repeat all the usual myths-- that their wacky theory about Harry the Hitman just falls apart. Their unnamed "underworld source" who gave them their inside poop may well be this Lozzi guy. He did apparently know Toni Mannix in her much-later years, but 1) she suffered from Alzheimer's; hello? 2) Priests don't allow eavesdroppers during confession; 3) why would she wait 20 years to confess anyway?

If it wasn't still ambiguous even today, it probably wouldn't be so fascinating. Ted Newsom

  • The clincher would have been to look for powder burns on his hands, and why they didn't do that is anybody's guess. Whatever happened for sure, there is no question Reeves was hanging with some low-lifes. It looks like the usual Hollywood quick-fix-hush-things-up approach helped to fuel the suspicions (as it did with other Hollywood deaths), just as some intercession of the Kennedy clan unwittingly helped to fuel the conspiracy theorists about the JFK killing. At least one parallel between the two events is the desire to keep certain skeletons in their respective closets. All that does is produce red herrings... but as long as the skeletons stay put, they can live with the other fallout. Wahkeenah 21:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I recall when reading Hollywood Kryptonite that their hit-man theory seemed far-fetched, in the sense that it seemed unlikely he could have gotten in and out without someone knowing it. What impressed me most in the book was the kind of people Reeves had in his circle, and it was a prescription for something bad happening eventually, by his own hand or someone else's. Wahkeenah 21:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. George Reeves Lives (aka gorg reev proj)

Your definitions of "hypothesis," "theory" and "POV" are fascinating.

You have to have some facts before you have a viable theory. Also, just because 98% of people believe the sky is plaid or sharks don't bite doesn't make either of these "hypotheses" true.

I'm sorry you're upset that Honest George the People's Friend is dead. So am I. But he is. That was in 1959. Please get over it.

Yes, it's unfortunate about the date on Reeves' grave marker, but that is none of your business, or my business, or anyone else's but his family-- nor would any of us have the legal right to have it changed.

Since Jim Beaver hasn't published his book yet, I don't think anybody can avoid reading it just yet. But I'd certainly rather this wacky discussion remained here rather than the encyclopedia area. Ted Newsom

  • Don't confuse me with that "George Reeves Project" character. We had enough trouble with that guy last spring or so. Hopefully he's gone for good, but maybe not. >:( Wahkeenah 22:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

POV

Wow, I cant believe this is becoming a little bit of a good conversation, I have to read all of this and get back to some people here, even though they do not deserve wasting my time... What I can say for now is, as I said it before... POV, now, wht is pov, I did mention this before... if POV eventually becomes known and it gets around for many years it is no longer a theory... do you know what I mean, in science we call it a hypothesis, meaning it is a proven theory, but not yet 100% proven to be called a fact or to be accepted by all as certain, however it the scientific community a hypothesis is generally accepted as almost given, meaning most of the folks agree to be true, except they have their reservations, in other words common reason should govern humanity as Aristotle's ethics says, but he does not have to say that, if it is known for some time it is a strong rumor, 98% of Reeves fans are not certain if it was suicide or not, most of them are leaning towards murder, therefore if there is POV, it is no longer pov but generally accepted theories, so there is nothing wrong with mentioning them as most acceptable conclusion. Now... if some morons (here) insist Reeves had a Psycho movie starring role, the only conclusion is that they must be psycho, since I have not heard nor seen nor ever read for the last 20 years that Reeves was scheduled to play a supporting role, I am 100% certain he would be perfect for the role of the psycho or almost any other role, but bringing about such statements, all of a sudden and out of the blue is rediculous and unsubstantiated.

If somebody is interested I can give phone number to Reeves cemetery, they need to change that day there, January 6, any idea why did his mother do that? May be he was born at midnite, but doctors still thought it was the 5th... Any theories so we can make a hypothesis>?

Some of the people here like Wak... believe now that it was suicide, Jim Beaver and his book, I am very much familiar with, but even he himself said there is still little chance Reeves did not kill himself, so it's not for us to know, remember because his book was the last, therefore our opinions will shift towards his opinions. It reminds me of republicans who control oil, now it's down, why... because there is enough now, or a lot in reserve? Pure and simple BS, that may be part of the truth, however if we look at the broader scope of the situation we realize that republics control the oil, now they can say it's down, 2.60$+ it's still terrible... but many people are glad it's down... but in reality it is only temporary, so temporary truth is very misleading, take the iraq II hell in perspective, I can write a book on this but to make things pure and simple... handling of Reeves' body is not acceptable, was not done according to the standards, the certificate was issued suicide, they simply wanted the case closed asap. Way too many things just do not match and do not go hand in hand, and Beaver book, i strongly DO NOT RECOMMEND! Nice work, no doubt, but it is all taken in wrong direction. G R George Reeves Lives

  • Unfortunately, one thing I am 100% certain of is that George Reeves is no longer among the living. His memory lives with us Baby Boomers, but he himself joined the Great Silent Majority in 1959... shot by a Luger containing a Krytonite bullet. :( Wahkeenah 21:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • No, Wahkeenah, you're clearly not Croatian. But maybe I had this "factual" approach all wrong.
    • gergo reev NOT sewerside becos nobuddy evr kilt self in scienc history. Nevre gorg reeve witht Tomi mannx becos my Superman (Kal-L on Krpton real name] not havng sex withm arried woman ever. FACT! Must maarry first nevre with husbnd Eddy "Joe" Mannix (Mike Connors, not Chuck connors Sylvester J. Superman, also on TVs). All reporters (and Clark Kentt) mild mannnrrd rissk deth for Truth Justic and Georg Reevs but Jo Mannix pay $10000million to killl everybody silent cover Up. Truth Fact!
    • Ultimate theory hypottheese and facts always MUrders thru Lemore Lemons, hire by Joe Mannix to make bads St. Georg (and dragon, in ceral play BEFORE Superman!), big disgraces then try make JOHNNY ROCKWELL as Superpup instead! Plot by ACDC Comiks (evil) to make SMALLville but no JFK Oswald with 4-color separations and 90 days with wowee whoa whoowhoo. FACT! Fighting Archie Moore that night, brusied not from other, but alcohol (booze!) and Lemmons in room instead making hypothesis result to 99 and 44/100th% pure in TKO ASAP PDQ DC AMFM POV!

And I double-dare anybody to argue with that kind of logic.Ted Newsom

What is this, wak is croatian, who cares, then pig latin, authentic gibberish, i cant understand a damn word you wrote, fix your keyboard, if you want to be ignorant, you can do better, it seems your keyboard is 20 years old and you can not afford one... At any rate, I do believe that all facts and theories should be mentioned, so far, there are only few. George Reeves Lives

        • I am not Croatian, That's not a knock against Croatians, just against his broken English. He was a major vandal on this article last spring or so, but has since vanished, thankfully. Wahkeenah 23:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd consider all the Lozzi stuff suspect, but I'm not going to be petty and change it... except adding the last line again. As for "facts" and theories about his death, I'd say they're pretty well covered. DC Comics had George Reeves killed because they wanted to do SUPERPUP and he didn't. Simple. User:Ted Newsom

  • I scoped out Mr. Lozzi's own website; to me, at least, far from being "one of Hollywood's premiere publicists" as is claimed, he reps pretty much C-list performers and films no one would ever want to see. One of his claims is rep'ing Rudy Vallee in 1981-84. Well, I profiled Vallee for the LA Daily News during that time and have no memory of any Edward Lozzi being involved. Maybe he made the initial suggestion to my editor, maybe not, but he certainly was nowhere to be found when my wife and I spent the day with Vallee, nor at a formal dinner I attended there, nor did I hear Rudy or Ellie invoke or referenced his name when a friend and I were briefly Vallee's managers (we got him all of one gig). That, and Lozzi's website manages to misspell any number of his clients' names. With due respect... he can't even get his own story into the National Enquirer-- he settles for THE GLOBE. Oy.User:Ted Newsom

Do you have lozzi's website, he is full of crap, also croatian guy was born here, but spent time in croatia, do not judge. Ok, I will reply in a couple of days, very interesting stuff and theories, but Lozzi guy is crazy man or something... Well yea,Toni said mea culpa (praying to Jesus and Reeves) but that does not mean she admitted. I think I can find Lozzi's email, but something is wrong with this guy, I think he is saying all that crap for his own advantage.-George Reeves Lives p.s. Mea culpa in latin means my fault., Prayer for forgivness of sins.

If it was not mystery, it would not be confusing in the first place and

Well since ignorants can answer much, check this out, a little bit of theories....and more

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

    • That's just fine. And there are plenty of boards that would dearly love to deal with all of this, like "The Friendly Adventures of Superman" board. All fans, all well read and polite, all very pro-George. That's where this sort of discussion belongs, not on an encyclopedia. See you there.Ted Newsom 05:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ted NewsomTed Newsom 05:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, one thing we know now: this guy is a liar. He claims to have read part of my book (through his "sources"). My book is in a passworded computer file on a disk in my office and has never, ever been seen by anyone. No one. It does not exist as a book, or even as a narrative. I am the only person who has ever seen my material. Not even my agents, publishers, or colleagues have seen one word of my project. I am working hard to finish the work, but nobody can claim to have seen even a piece of it yet. -----Jim Beaver

Oh, heck, I don't think he actually said he read your book... he just "knows" about it... like a lot of people who know stuff without bothering to read. You just kinda sit back, let the psychic ether carry the information to your brain... Nice revisions, great stuff. I am planning to go in and be picayune about the apostrophes, though. The possesive indicator on a proper noun that ends with an "S" is simply to use an apostrophe, without a redundant "S." Ted Newsom 08:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not read your book, you are very fresh, but if you are an author i would be glad to read your book if it deals with superman. From sources close to beaver i was able to find out more on his book and on the content, not much that is, but his general idea is very simple you know, george killed himself, which I disagree. And I am glad Jim Beaver replied, because you are only destroying the image of George Reeves, I suggest you go do something else, did I SAY I READ YOUR BOOK,NO, From people who know you or those you stayed in touch with, I was able to get in touch and find out something about the book,no more, no less,but do not go around going people liers mr. big time author. I am glad you keep memory of reeves alive but you sure need to be more civil. I will be happy to read your book and disprove you on many things. Assuming this was Reeves replying at any rate, whoever it is, you get the point. George Reeves Lives

As to "George Reeves Lives": Oy. (By the way, you say just above "I did not read your book." But you said further above "I had seen part of the book some time ago (thru my sources). I'm just saying, no you hadn't.Jumblejim 02:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Jim Beaver

As to apostrophes: Every style manual I can find disagrees with you, Ted. Here's what Wikipedia says: "Prominent sources require that almost all singular nouns, including those ending in an s, a z, or an x, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe. Examples include the Modern Language Association, The Elements of Style, The Economist, and Purdue University’s Online Writing Lab. Such sources would demand possessive plurals like these: Senator Jones’s umbrella; Mephistopheles’s cat."Jumblejim 02:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Jim Beaver OK. Contray to everything I was taught. but I be jiggy wif dat. user:Ted Newsom

My fault, i did not read the book, i had to write a lot, i did mean, i read parts of what you are writing about, the idea and concept behind it, your mind, again, i have emails from people you stayed in touch, i can not reveal nor give away, i gave them my word. You did a good job and your research is nice and not bad, I DO NOT DISPUTE THAT, period. I do dispute your general approach and steadfast believe in his murder, but once you also said... there is also 1% chance he did not kill himself, in comparison to others who say, there is also 1% chance he did indeed kill himself, again, we will never know, what I worry about is that your book will destroy the image of reeves, i mean, do you remember how little kids were depressed, we do not want that again and your book should end on a positive note, better yet, just keep it for yourself, it will do no damage. George Reeves Lives
The above:
Here's what Wikipedia says: "Prominent sources require that almost all singular nouns, including those ending in an s, a z, or an x, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe. Examples include the Modern Language Association,
Wikipedia is wrong many times, that is mostly true, all singular nouns have exceptiont and they do not mention or give examples to that, like past tense... I walk, I walked. I go, I went, this is one of those irregular past tense verbs =a word that serves as the predicate of a sentence, a content word that denotes an action or a state.

This little corner of the universe

Let's skip the literacy lesson. (JB: Enough websites I checked have mitigated things to say about plurals on S/Z words, but whatever looks best, dat be jes fine.) Now scratch your head and wonder why it is somehow more positive, uplifting and less depressing to be murdered than it is to take one's own life? Or why someone would devote years of his own life to legitimately research a subject if he did not love the subject?

  • It's not more positive and uplifting to be murdered, because the subject is still dead; however, it's sad for someone to be in such despair they would destroy themselves, whereas being murdered, while also sad, is something that was done to the subject by someone else. Easier to understand than to explain, maybe. Wahkeenah 04:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, someone's added a line that Reeves "often introduced [Lemmon] as his wife." Can we either get a cittion for this or scratch it? User: Ted Newsom

I posted the "often introduced Lemmon as his wife" comment, as it turned up in several of my interviews and also in the supporting data in Reeves's will. I'm not sure how to cite the will, and the interviews are as yet unpublished, so......??? Jim Beaver 68.126.0.222 22:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The Mystery of it all

It is a mystery of life you may say. Sometime ago I proposed calling cemetery and changing the date to Jan 5, but it's not our grave, only family can touch it, still that would be a noble thing to do. Dubious may be. But, hey, he has no family. I noticed in my conversations from one reeves fan to another(over the years), so many of them (and here is no exception) simply feal bad for reeves, either killed or suicide, but when certain subjects are mentioned, war erupts and people argue over what is and is not right.(usually with aging, ignorant baby boomers) I tell you this, too much ethics (those they made up) is no good, what is sufficient, what is not, especially in the murder of reeves... Hard to fathom. But I noticed, reeves fans, many of them can not get along,(well, it's ok if they argue over the movie they made, that movie has nothing extra about it any way you slice it) just like in life, when you try to do good, that good comes back to haunt you,(for no reason at all) e.g. reopening the death investigation, nice, but i disagreee, will get us nowhere, even if all the people were alive. case closed, but doing few other things, even when it's suggested, there are two scenarios.1.No reply,2.A smart ass reply, gee whiz, this way things get more unresolved then resolved. SOmething to ponder upon... But yea, if interested, here's the address of his final resting place...Mountain View Cemetery

2400 N. Fair Oaks Ave Altadena 91003

Marriage...I think he introduced her, shortly before his death, since they were about to get married anyways.-George Reeves Lives

  • Reeves has family survivors. It's their business.

user: Ted Newsom

I agree but you call that family, distant relatives, or the owner of that superman museum who cant even read well, i am saying injsutice for one, is injustice for all, i did not call cemetery yet, but if others do, in a group (i can get many people too) it will make sense. I know what you mean, but still, i think correct day represents a person, different day, different time.

Ghost writer

Ok, can you prove that, he did expect a 2 rounder, if you check the book (hollywood kryptonite) it clearly says 2 rounds, 2 minutes, do not forget to add following trivia... He was (true) to attend hs graduation of son's friend.

Undefeated

Many sources say he was 30-0, for a long time we have been trying to find out the real record find out,... also he was to fight for golden gloves championship and mother hired bandits to beat him up, why would she do that, if he had at least 20 good bouts before him and he was knever ko ed.
Did you guys ask all reeves historians? 2 rounds, not only from a ghost writer.

The absence of fact

Nothing in Hollywood Kryptonte should be taken as fact. The myth of a fight with Archie Moore started long after Reeves was dead. Maybe someone talked about it in real life, maybe not, but no public mention was made or any date specified-- all of which you would have if there was a business agreement between Moore and Reeves. The connection is through Condon, who was writing a piece on Moore. Ditto the Golden Gloves: you'll find no statistics of George Bessolo's Golden Gloves career, because there wasn't one. He boxed, and he got out, possibly at his mother's insistence (he did get a broken nose out of the expeience). Check out the Jim Nolt website (The Adventure Conitinues) and Jan Henderson's SPEEDING BULLET; no mnetion of the fictitous Moore bout. The idea that Helen Bessolo hired goons to bounce him around is nuts. And-- unfortunately for the truth-- your statement that "many sources say..." anything doesn't mean anything is true. So much horsepuckey has been made up about the man after his death that repetitions of the stories seems like truth, but isn't. User:Ted Newsom

Ok, you need to add the fact that reeves was to attend hs graduation of his friend's son, from same home town and in the book hollywood kryptonite, lenore clearly says... "If you can go 2 rounds with the champ, you are my man" So, if there was no match for june 17th, it surely was set soon enough.

  • Got it wrong, I think, pal-- or Hollywood Kryptonite does-- warned you about that rag. Any quotes in that book are either 4x removd from their original sources, or sijply made up from the writers' imaginations. As I understand it, Reeves had promised to attend the graduation of Nati Vacio's son-- Nati wasn't from Reeves' home town in Iowa, Vacio was an Angelino, a friend since high school days. Double-check this if you like, but it makes me wonder if you're the Reeves buff you think you are. In any case, I don't think a promise to attend someone's high school graduation has any pertience to an encyclopedic entry. Nor -still-- is there any contemporary proof at all that there was an Archie Moore fight slated. Just one contemporary, verifiable refernce, that's all I ask-- and we play by Wikipedia's rules.71.109.239.226 04:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ted Newsom

Reeves's parentage

I've reverted the information regarding Reeves's mother falsely claiming one of her husbands had committed suicide. It was his stepfather, Frank Bessolo, whom Helen falsely claimed had killed himself, not Reeves's real father, Don Brewer. The A&E Biography show (in various incarnations) misquotes my own interview with the network. I told them about the false suicide claim, but they mistakenly aired the statement that it was Don rather than Frank whom Helen had made the claim about. To my knowledge, this is the only source of this false information, and as I am the person they got it and misinterpreted it from, I am reverting the material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JimBeaver&action=edit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.110.137.251 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

3-9 record, good to know but...

Yea, can somebody attach the pdf file, are you sure it's 3-9, are you sure it's not some other Reeves ? It's good to know this, but again, as far as Moore bout goes, do you have a paper and date it reported on Moore bout, if it's sparring, sure it's not an exhibition, but those terms intermix, go hand in hand, it's not the same but many times it is. If you have pdf file, simply create some free website, upload the file and let us see.

RESPONSE: As to the 3-9 record, I do not have scans, but the Pasadena Junior College (now Pasadena City College) newspapers carried the stories of the school's boxing team, and the George Bessolo with a 3-9 record is clearly the same person (he's even described in several articles as being in school plays and "maybe he'd better stick to acting.") The files of the newspaper are available on microfilm and in hard copy at the College. Mannie Pineda, the L.A. sportswriter who is quoted in the Long Beach Independent in March, 1958, as saying George wasn't much of a fighter, told me personally (quote): "He and I boxed together, from occasion to occasion. George wasn't very good, to tell you the truth. He weighed about--around that time--oh, I'd say a hundred and sixty, middleweight in the scale. George was kind of slow. He wasn't real quick, being that heavy, so I had the best of him all the time. I used to, a couple of times I bloodied his nose. He could never really land a good solid blow on me... We had football in junior high school, but I know he didn't play at Pasadena. He wasn't that good anyway. He wasn't much of an athlete." As to the Moore event, a Los Angeles Mirror-News 6-17-59 article by Paul Weeks says (direct quote): "The actor only recently had returned to the ring, in a vaudeville manner, and was to have sparred with Archie Moore, the light-heavyweight champ, in San Diego yesterday afternoon." Nothing about this suggests a financially meaningful event, and certainly not the nationally-televised (!) fight some people who haven't researched this have claimed. You can find most of this stuff on internet news archive searches. JIM BEAVER

Ok Jim, this is not bad, but may be that was in middle weight class, may be he moved later, how do we know 3-9 is exact, how do we know he did not have more or less ? We do not have to include much of a fighter statement because 3-9 speaks for itself. Strange, somebody wrote on the internet he was 31-0 and in Hollywood Kryptonite, the book mentions, Reeves was ready for a golden gloves championship and his mother paid some boxer to beat him up in a locker room or practice so he forgets about the career, is that true and where did those stories come from. Also the guy who hit Reeves, the truck driver on April 8 1959, is he alive, do you know the name? Search? Can you provide link, easier said than done. As far as sparring goes, ok... but lost angeles times says exhibition, no matter, both styles are synonomous and mostly fake, and protective gear is essential. But yea, I am glad we found some info, I have been trying to fix this for over a year now... -George Reeves Lives

RESPONSE: The only sanctioned bouts I've been able to find anywhere in Reeves's life are his junior college fights, and his junior college record is recorded in the college newspaper sports pages I cited. He won three fights and lost nine. Please give up trusting Hollywood Kryptonite. Those guys fabricated everything they didn't get from me and Jim Nolt and Jan Henderson, and they twisted everything they got from us. The Golden Gloves story is completely false. I've gone through the records of the California Golden Gloves foundation for the entire 1930s, and George Bessolo never fought a Golden Gloves bout. I know you would prefer for the story of George being an excellent fighter to be true, but it just isn't. Deleting any submissions, even carefully cited ones, which suggest he wasn't great in the ring is a disservice to the truth and to George himself. He wouldn't want false credit.

As to posting copies of the newspapers: I'm in no position to drive to Pasadena, California to search through all those years of newspapers in their archives again. I did so once and made careful notations of the information I found. I have no reason to make this stuff up, and it will all be carefully annotated in my book. Please don't take it for granted that I'm faking stuff just because it isn't what would make you happiest. JIM BEAVER

Affleck

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

Suicide or murder

Jim Beaver has his opininons, I have mine (heck I can even write a book, i have loads of material), other people have their opinions. A simple fact (or two)is bothering me... why did chief Parker declare this suicide so fast, how come there was no official investigation by proper law enforcement group, it is customary in this circumstance, when a Hollywood star dies, there must be deeper investigation. The local coroner also called it a suicide, saying the bullet wound matches suicide examples (cases). What bothers me he also claimed that the position of the body is also classic suicide, but that is pure bs, impossible.(contrary to all other suicide investigations) A gunshot might look like suicide, but not the position of the body. Is it possible somebody was holding on to him, so here's my point... If they were, then blood would have splattered all over those who held him. Did investigators find any blood on the window, or below the window? Around the garden, or if they did they simply cleaned it up? If somebody shot Reeves, no doubt some blood and brain tissue had to be transfered on that person. If you have those photos, let's see them here. Again, read above in my previous statement. (on boxing too). What Leonore said was not true... you are about to kill yourself and she has preminition... he will, dont you think the first thing to do is save that person's life? Something's rotten in Denmark... Hmm... What can I say ? I think it was only Leonore and Bliss who had the party that night, everybody else was asleep. (or more) Bliss came by, they drank, they heard the gun fire. Bliss ran up immediately? Ok, let's think about that, how long does it take to do that, was the window closed, if the window was open (summer) that means no doubt killer escaped, if it was closed, then hard to say, but then case is leaning more towards suicide. But reeves was only slightly drunk and what was the sudden change of mood ? There are millions of possibilities, i can go on and on and on. But for now, let's concentrate on these things. If somebody has copy of death certificate, send link. I am still wondering, how many seconds it took Bliss (total stranger to reeves) to run upstairs and yell "my friend is dead" Or was he on the game as well, came to drink, while others came, he ran first so the killer can run away. Did he claim suicide. How many bullets were in the gun, how many used up? This is where current investigation into this mystery must concentrate. Both Parker and county coroner sound very suspicious. Well, that's that for now, time does not allow me more. GR Lives

  • Oh, please. The difference between your "opininons" and someone like Jim Beaver (and to a lesser extent, people like Jim Nolt and Jan Henderson, and to a far, far lesser extent, myself) is that those opinions are based on fact-- verifiable fact, from going through contemporry newspapers (not tabloid articles 25 and 30 years after the fact), seeing the locations and documents first-hand, and speaking directly to the people who actually were around. Have fun believing the insane theory in "Hollywood Kryptonite," which is about as fact-based as the Lucky Luciano nonsense in HOT TODDY. You've managed to turn Eddie Mannix-- a retired, behind-the-scenes functionary at one of the half-dozen on-the-skids motion picture studios in 1959-- into a combination Darth Vader and Prof. Moriarty. He didn't "run" L.A. any more than Pinky Lee. Mr. Reeves was found laying on his back with a hole in his head. His gun was found right at his feet. There was blood spattered where it would be expected to be spattered. There was powder residue found where it should be, along the path of the bullet through his brain. The ejected shell was found where it should have been, on the bed, beneath his body (which dropped backward in death from an upright sitting position.) The death was investigated by the appropriate authorities; the results were obvious. As for some nonsensical "cover-up" and a "fast" judgement of suicide, there are some things that don't take an Einstein to figure out. "When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross." Ted Newsom 04:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Ted Newsom
    • I have often read that as Reeves was going up the stairs, his bride-to-be supposedly told her guests, "George is going upstairs to shoot himself", or some such. Did she actually say that? Wahkeenah 00:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Regarding "George Reeves lives"... if he had lived, he would be turning 92 tomorrow (or today, in UTC) and probably no longer able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Wahkeenah 00:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe she said it, maybe not. She was so permanently pickled (and certainly was that night), her own recollections are vague and contradictory. If she did, it was on the order of a smart crack, not some sort of intuition: "Aww, he's prob'ly gonna go shoot himseff." That would pass for a witticism at 1:00am if you've been drinking for about 5 hours, and she would've known there was a gun upstairs, even as drunk as she was.Ted Newsom 05:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, only some coroners agree it was suicide (i will get back to you soon), but bullet projection and everything else simply does not match. Again there might have been another gun... Mannix knew the gun he had, where he had it... the holes in the floor, at least one of them explains... Lenore said she fired one, where did other come from... Probably Mannix knew it, so made another whole to discharge the bullet, the one they had, shot reeves and ran away. Keep in mind neighbours heard car chasing away and one shot. So one shot was by exact gun and another by reeves with silencer, again we need to check those bullets (who has them?) and confirm if all 3 bullets found have exact markings, these days with high technology and microscopic analysis, we can go a long way, but you are still wrong as usual ted on many things... And most historians do not agree with you and I hope beaver's book will not screw things up, also do not judge me or research every word i said, i type this real fast, and I may make a mistake here and there, simply look at the whole picture. gr Lives

    • Hmmm. Maybe he had, in fact, discussed suicide with her before, and she didn't take it seriously. And maybe if one is sufficiently plastered, a comment like that would "make sense" to oneself. The original theory, postulated in Grossman's book in 1975 or whatever, was that the car accident he had had could have messed with his head. Or maybe he was just plain depressed. It's really hard to know for sure what's in somebody's head, especially when heavy drinking is involved. A lot of suicides are accompanied by substance abuse of some kind, aren't they? Anyway, I appreciate your insights on all this. I also appreciate that you speak English natively, but that's another story. :) Wahkeenah 09:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • One of the best things about this summer's so-so Superman film was seeing Jack Larson and Noel Neill connected with it... still good friends after all these years, and seemingly at peace with everything, a peace that the great George Reeves was never able to find. So it goes. Wahkeenah 09:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Toni Mannix confession

I have tons of material, but little time and then when I do find time, not too many praises here. My friend forwarded me an email from the guy who heard the confession. I can post it here if that's ok... You know the Lozi guy, right?! He overheard confession, was he by the door, the way he wrote it, it seems priest allowed him, would he lie, he has a name to hold on to, after my friend asked him few questions, the dude never replied... Possibly offended, but who cares, if he does not reply, screw him. Remember, in latin mea culpa means my fault AND IT DOES NOT MEAN SOMEBODY IS GUILTY OF ANYTHING... Even these days in traditional catholic churches we hear those words, meaning we as hymans confess to our Creator, for our general sins, so, just because she said that we must take that as part of her catholic prayer/christain way. But Lozzi dude is an enigma you may say. But it's worth investigating. I wonder how did he hear all that? GR Lives

  • Lozzi's story is so full of holes you could use it to strain spaghetti. As to why people make up whoppers like this, who knows. Self-serving publicity, probably, and he is a publicist (with, having checked out his website, a weirdly inflated opinion of his own importance.) His Mannix story changes with the tides and phases of the Moon. Recently an old git named John Frederick started claiming he was Superman in 18 shows filmed when Reeves was balking about continuing the series-- more nonsense. If-- and this is an increidbly big IF-- Lozzi was listening at the door of a holy confession, he should be ashamed of himself. IF, in the unlikely event that a priest would allow him to be present during a confession, for him to say anything he heard is appalling. And if he heard, say, Toni Mannix say, "It was all my fault, I killed George, the poor boy would be alive today except for me," or something similar (and this is a LOT of IFs), even THAT doesn't prove anything. Funny that he never replied to your friend's questions, huh? Ted Newsom 16:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I will get back to you, but I would appreciate you use better tone towards me when you reply,(and wacko too) ok, i know few people who are working on this george reeves project so cool it, also, you said projectory of bullet was ok, found beneath body ok, now, NOT OK, majority says not ok! Also, 1975 book where can i get it, how good is it, I was told Hendersons is the best? In what regard?! Shall we reproduce confession here, i have lozzi's official statement.

Take it on the road

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

What about deleting the boxing bit altogether?

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


Well put, but since someone else put the boxing stuff in, my take has been to simply keep it as accurate as can be without summarily deleting someone else's stuff. The fellow who keeps changing my DIRECT QUOTE from Mannie Pineda apparently is more interested in protecting Reeves from anyone thinking he's less than perfect than in the truth, and the simple matter is, I can keep up the reverting thing as long or longer than he can. But if whoever initially posted the boxing stuff wants to delete it, I won't fight that. Jim Beaver 01:44, 20 January 2007

Not at all crazy about these changes

Reeves was most assuredly not "known" for playing in 2-week jungle B-pictures, and scarcely "known" for So Proudly We Hail (he actually has a smallish part, and whatever "know" status he got was gone by the time he got out of the service). Note to the new contributor: articles like this follow a standard newspaper "pyramid" flow: consise information at first, more elaborate information as the piece progresses. The fact that you like George Reeves in obscure B-pictures , OK, great, but that sort of esoterica should (and in fact, already does) come later.

Other wackiness: the producers of the TV show never asked Kirk Alyn or any of the serial cast to appear in the TV show (see Gary Grossman's book-- or any other well-researched book on the subject, for that matter). I think Mr. Alyn latterly made this up from feeling slighted (if, in fact, he wanted anything to do with television.)

Ever wonder what really happened?

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

Now that I think about it, it had to be suicide, considering his alcohol drinking and depression over what the show did to his career. Had they kept it serious and not went campy, it would have been on longer, and Reeves would not have killed himself. Imagine him cameoing in Superman: The Movie alongside Chris Reeve in one scene where Superman saves him!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Reeves/Archive_1&oldid=1161299963"