Jump to content

Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Sniper Category

Lee Harvey Oswald was not trained as a sniper in the Marines and does not belong in that category, which lists trained professionals in a specific military trade. He was also NOT "good at it" as he never performed as a professional sniper. Competely inappropriate categorization that only reveals ignorance on the part of those that would describe him as such.Michael DoroshTalk 18:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The term thus emphasises field craft and skills of camouflage as well as marksmanship, and is typically used for infantry soldiers so skilled, who specialize in killing selected enemies from concealment with a rifle at long distances. (Sniper)
I see no use of field craft or camouflage, nor was Kennedy an "enemy" of Oswald's, nor was Oswald an "infantry soldier" nor did he "specialize" in long distance shooting. He was a boxboy.Michael DoroshTalk 18:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Ease up on the ignorance talk, reasonable people can simply differ. You're right Oswald was not an 'official' sniper. But someone can easily say that his alleged (and probable) actions in killing JFK is sniper-like, so they want him categorized as such. It doesn't mean anyone is stupid or ignorant, just have a different viewpoint. Ramsquire 19:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Ignorance isn't an insult; each one of us is far more ignorant of the sum total of human knowledge than we are aware...no? As for "sniper-like", I believe that comes under the term "weasel word".Michael DoroshTalk 19:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a loaded word that can easily be taken the wrong way, and is totally unnecessary in this context. Do you want to try to reach a consensus with other editors (ftr-- I agree with the removal of Oswald from the list)? Or just tell us what to do, by being smug and condescending?
Please remember to sign all comments with four tildes...if we've reached consensus, then why the protracted discussion? Or is it de rigeur for this page?Michael DoroshTalk 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
As to your last comment, we are not the only ones here, and other editors may disagree with us, or have valid points that should be considered. As for the signing, I hadn't finished my edit, I don't know what happened? Here's the entire edit:
"It's a loaded word that can easily be taken the wrong way, and is totally unnecessary in this context. Do you want to try to reach a consensus with other editors?(ftr-- I agree with the removal of Oswald from the list) Or just tell us what to do, by being smug and condescending?
Also, keep in mind that "sniper" has two meanings. One is as you have described, but it has also long been used to describe "one who shoots at other people from a concealed place", which clearly would describe Oswald's actions on 11/22/63. Hence, Oswald was "sniper-like" on that day. "
Ramsquire 20:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Oswald took out his selected target from a long distance from a concealed position. If you shoot someone in the head, I think it is fair to say that they are an "enemy", generally speaking. Gamaliel 19:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Depends on your definition of "enemy". In the military sense, which is what "sniper" is, a military and law-enforcement term, it conveys a distinct meaning. JFK doesn't qualify in that sense.Michael DoroshTalk 19:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
My definition of "enemy" is "someone I want to kill with a sniper rifle". Gamaliel 20:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your opinion of what "enemy" means is largely irrelevant to the definition of a sniper in the generally accepted sense.Michael DoroshTalk 16:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Let´s clear this up, before we all fall off the right-hand side of the page.

  • Was Oswald trained as a sniper? Yes/No
  • Was Oswald trained (as any other soldier is) to be able to shoot at a target and hit it? Yes/No

These are questions that need to be asked, and answered. andreasegde 16:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Answer to first question is no. He was a radar operator IIRC, not even in a rifle battalion. Answer to second is irrelevant IMO - check the definition of "Sniper". Shooting someone with a rifle does not make anyone a sniper.Michael DoroshTalk 16:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not agreeing with you, or disagreeing with you, Michael. I would only like this to be cleared up, but... you did not answer the second question. Yes, or no? andreasegde 17:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think squabbling over the precise language in some US Military definition of sniper will get us anywhere. Like it or not, sniper has entered the general English language and its everyday usage should define how we employ it here. Gamaliel 17:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

When people are calling other people ignorant, that is "squabbling".
I was making a new point, not a reply to an existing one, so I saw no need for a colon.
I believe this now qualifies as a "squabble". Yes, or no? Gamaliel 17:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I did not call anyone "ignorant", so please refer your remarks to the people responsible by including their user names in your comments, or you will be misunderstood.
  • You were not making a new point, you made a comment about the previous comments. andreasegde 17:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say you called anyone ignorant. Read my comments again before you get indignant about something I didn't say. Gamaliel 18:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Please use the right amount of colons to signify an answer. andreasegde 18:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Please stop cluttering up the talk page with inane complaints about formatting. Fix it or let it go. Gamaliel 18:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sniper or soldier

So, Michael Dorosh, Oswald was not trained as a sniper, but how was he trained as a soldier? What did that entail? You obviously know more about this, so please contribute to the article. andreasegde 17:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not answering the second question - the answer is that he received training on the service rifle just like any Marine. But he was not employed in a combat role during his service from what I can tell. All Marines train as riflemen, and their creed is that every Marine is a rifleman first, and whatever their actual trade is second (in LHO's case, a radar operator). That is often lip service only. But don't confuse that with being a "trained marksman". All Marines achieve a minimum level of competency with the rifle, but indeed, achieve that with a variety of weapons. Oswald actually did better than average with his rifle, according to Posner in Case Closed and of course the Warren Report(sic). As you correctly identify above, though, "Sniper" is a specific term that has been defined in Wikipedia to be something Oswald certainly was not. Hopefully that answers the question? Just wasn't sure where you were going with the question. I think it is significant to the article and can find some quotes in Posner if you feel the same way.Michael DoroshTalk 17:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the answer, Michael. I am definitely neutral about it (unbelievable as it may seem) but what I want to know is this: Was he good? Could he have got off two shots (the second and third) that hit the target, in your opinion? You know more about this, so your answer is important. Was it possible? (I know this is a difficult question, but I´m asking it anyway...  :) andreasegde 18:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Warren Commission had it wrong about 5.6 seconds, and current thought is that the shots took 8 seconds. He had a 4 power scope - some say misaligned, others that it aided him in the shooting. Kennedy was for all intents and purposes 25 yards away when looking through that scope. Anyone with even marginal experience firing a rifle could have made that shot. I took a girl out shooting with my M-1 Garand the other weekend, her first time, and with rudimentary instructions and firing left-handed because of a bad right eye (she is right handed), she was shooting targets about 1/10 as big as JFK's head from 20 yards with great accuracy. For someone with professional training as Oswald had, as well as practice with that specific weapon, I have no doubt that he was capable of doing the shooting. It certainly didn't take a "sniper". But my opinion is irrelevant - Posner cites experts who say the same things.Michael DoroshTalk 18:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the answer, Michael. So all this talk about Oswald being a good shot, marksman or whatever, is a waste of time. My only thought is about the "25 yards". It seems a bit too short. Note to editors: Does anyone know how far away he was? It must be somewhere... andreasegde 13:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
25 yards is taking into effect the 4 power magnification of the scope - I thought the true range was 98 yards or something like that; I'd have to check the source (I'm at work right now). EDIT - See the discussion here Kennedy range and scope discussionMichael DoroshTalk 14:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • MR. SPECTER. Would the use of a four-power scope be a real advantage...?
    • SERGEANT ZAHM. ... particularly at the range of 100 yards. ... It allows you to see your target clearly, and it is still of a minimum amount of power that it doesn't exaggerate your own body movements...
  • MR. SPECTER. ... would a man with Oswald's marksmanship capabilities be able to complete such a shot and strike the target on the white mark there?
    • SERGEANT ZAHM. Very definitely... With the equipment he had and with his ability, I consider it a very easy shot.
  • MR. SPECTER. ... would a marksman of Mr. Oswald's capabilities using such a rifle with a 4-power scope be able to strike the President in the back of the head?....
    • SERGEANT ZAHM. ... This would have been a little more difficult and probably be to the top of his ability, aiming and striking the President in the head. But assuming that he aimed at the mass of the center portion of the President's body, he would have hit him very definitely someplace... (from URL in above post, excerpted from Oswald's Tale: An American Mystery by Norman Mailer, copyright © 1995 Norman Mailer.)
I thank you kindly, sir. andreasegde 15:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just found this:

Former US Marine snipers, Craig Roberts, and Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock, (who was the senior instructor for the US Marine Corps Sniper Instructor School at Quantico, Virginia) both said it could not be done as described by the FBI investigators.

“Let me tell you what we did at Quantico,” Hathcock said. “We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don’t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn’t duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. Now if I can’t do it, how in the world could a guy who was a non-qual on the rifle range and later only qualified 'marksman' do it?” [1] andreasegde 18:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Which time limit did they use? The Warren Commission says 6 seconds but more recent analysis quoted in Posner gives 8 or 9 seconds.Michael DoroshTalk 18:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The only problem is that I recently saw a stunt team on the Discovery Channel here in the US duplicate the feat. Ramsquire 18:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Which means that we are back at the beginning again. Ho-hum... P.S. If you can find a reference Ramsquire, it should go in the two shooters section on the Theories page. --andreasegde 11:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I wish I could find one but finding those documentary type shows is time-consuming and difficult. There are so many of them. I'll look though. Ramsquire 16:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What was Jackie reaching for?

No offence, but this is probably the 100th time this statement has been added to one of the JFK articles. I may have added it once myself..... The problem, is it almost certainly is not verifiable. It's just conjecture. Any source will just be guessing. I didn't want to just delete it, so it's tagged. I'm trying to be a warmer, fuzzier Mytwocents 04:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)  :-)

She was reaching for parts of his skull and brain matter. Somebody (I can´t remember off the top of my head ) found a small piece of skull bone on the pavement. Jackie was still holding some pieces in her hand at Parkland. They are both to be found somewhere, and are verifiable.
I think that her reaching back to grab them gave rise to the idea that she was "trying to climb out of the car", which she wasn´t - she was trying to (instinctively) protect her husband. andreasegde 11:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
At the sametime Secret Service agent Clint Hill, runs forward from the car behind. As he reaches the limousine he heard her say: "I have a piece of his brain in my hand." Hill managed to get onto the trunk and shove her back into the car, [2]
Mrs. Kennedy had jumped up from the seat and was, it appeared to me, reaching for something coming off the right rear bumper of the car, [3]
then turned and raised out of her seat as if she were reaching to her right rear toward the back of the car for something that had blown out. [4] --andreasegde 09:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
No, at no time does Hill hear Jackie say anything of the kind-- the reference given above does not cite its references and appears to be specious. It is indeed Hill's impression that she is reaching for something, but that's a long, long way from hearing her say she has material in her hand at the time, or seeing that she does (at that time; later in the ER Jackie will hand an ER doc some of JFK's brain). Hill says specifically before the Warren commission that she really said very little else than "My god, they've shot his head off" and he details what she did say. [5] SBHarris 20:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Archive

This page needs an Archive; 0/4 --andreasegde 19:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC) I thank whoever did it. --andreasegde 22:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul May

I deleted the following info because it contains unsupportable unsourced speculation. Although it is likely that Oswald saw the article in question, it is impossible to state that he no doubt read it. Since that portion of the article cannot be wikified (under WP:VERIFY, WP:RS or WP:OR) or confirmed, the rest of the paragraph although sourced is irrelevant.

"Per Paul May, Atlanta, the genesis for the assassination may have ocurred on September 7th, 1963. On that date Fidel Castro was interviewed by A.P. Reporter Daniel Harker at the Brasilian Embassy Havana. Castro went on record stating if the American Government continued its' efforts to "eliminate" Cuban leaders, those efforts would result in kind to American Leaders. This story first appeared September 9th in the New Orleans Times Picyune. As a strong pro Marxist and Castro Supporter, Oswald, living in New Orleans at this time, no doubt read this story."

Also, please make sure that the link to Kennedy's assassination page is at the top or bottom of the section, not in the middle.

Ramsquire 18:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

POV

“Critics have asserted“, and “Some conspiracy theorists say” - without any references - are too weak to be allowed. --andreasegde 23:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review/Edits

I have nominated this article up for peer review so in the next few weeks, there may be a few new editors on this page. I welcome the added input. In that vein, one of the complaints was that the article was too long, and contained a lot of fluffy descriptions and background info. To that end, I have deleted and moved several bits of information which I believe were unnecessarily adding length to the article. Please see my edit summaries. Ramsquire 21:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oswald in fiction and pop culture

This section should be heavily trimmed. --andreasegde 18:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I had started trimming out entries that simply said "An episode of..." but it is very difficult to determine which entries stays and which one goes. Ramsquire 17:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe they could be in external links, or further reading? --andreasegde 18:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe we could chuck the entire section, since it's not really that important.Ramsquire 18:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing Question

This Oswald page is in need of a drastic overhaul. It is in very poor shape. I am going through cite checking the references used to support the assertions in the article. Few things probably make a worse impression on a reader than looking up a citation and it not supporting the contention in the article.

Here is an example. The article stated that:

Oswald once threatened his sister-in-law with a knife and frequently punched his mother in the face Warren Commission Hearings: Vol. XI - Page 38

Unfortunately, the above passage does not reflect the information on page 38 of the Warren Report to which it cites. Instead, the page states it was the mother that was threatened rather than the sister-in-law who Oswald was, instead, defending against the mother.

Also, the page says nothing about Oswald punching his mother in the face, much less punching her repeatedly. Therefore the above passage was replaced with this passage.


One day, Oswald's mother antagonized Lee, by being very hostile towards Lee's sister-in-law and he pulled out a pocketknife and said that if she made any attempt to do anything about it that he would use it on her, and at the same time Lee struck his mother. Warren Commission Hearings: Vol. XI - Page 38

Another editor then reverted back to the incorrect information and stated: “rv awkward sentence construction.”

That is not a good reason to revert. The page cited doesn’t say what the article claims it said. If there are additional citations that support the punching in the face and threatening the sister, then cite it. Perhaps further pages may contain the information. However, leaving a citation to a source that does not support the text is very unprofessional. A reader will oviously lose confidence in any reference work where that occurs.

Perhaps this sentence structure is better.


One day, Oswald's mother antagonized Lee, by being very hostile towards Lee's sister-in-law. Oswald then pulled out a pocketknife and said that if she made any attempt to do anything about it that he would use it on her, and at the same time Lee struck his mother. Warren Commission Hearings: Vol. XI - Page 38

A suggestion: "One day, Oswald's mother antagonized Lee, by being very hostile towards Lee's sister-in-law. Oswald then pulled out a pocketknife and said that if [if his sister-in-law] made any attempt to do anything about it that he would use it on her. At the same time Lee said this, he struck his mother. Warren Commission Hearings: Vol. XI - Page 38" Unfortunately transcripts sometimes contain awkward language, as here, so I think this would be a more easily understand relaying of the testimony. Ramsquire 22:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


Is it a fair reading that he threatened his sister-in-law? If so, I'll put it in that way.


RPJ 23:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
OK... reading comprehension is a must for the editor who first added the entry (just kidding) and to all our subsequent editors (including myself) who did not take the time to read Pic's testimony carefully. Here is the accurate account of Pic's testimony: "One day, Pic's mother antagonized Lee, by being very hostile towards Pic's wife. Oswald then pulled out a pocketknife and said that if [probably Pic's wife] made any attempt to do anything about it that he would use it on her. At the same time Lee said this, he struck [Pic's] mother. Pic's mother later denied Oswald pulled a pocket-knife on her.Warren Commission Hearings: Vol. XI - Page 38
The article should be edited accordingly.
Ramsquire 23:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this true about Paine's sister?

This document was at the web site that one editor does not believe should be cited by an encyclopedia.

If this document is true then Paine's involvement with Oswald may be for something other than friendship. It seems odd that a number of right wing supporters would seem to have ties to Oswald. The Oswald letter to H.L. Hunt that was discussed in private by the government for so long makes sense. Either the CIA was keeping close tabs on the "communist" Oswald (recently back from Russia) or Oswald was one of them, infiltrating the other side. May be there is another explanation. The evidence needs to be sorted out a bit.

Here is the real (or allegedly fake) memo. Sylvia Hoke is Ruth Paine's sister.

June 30, 1971

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

SUBJECT: HOKE, SYLVIA H.

FILE # 348 201

1. Subject, under name of Sylvia Hoke with an address of 523 Monticello Drive, Falls Church, Virginia, was identified as a CIA employee in the 1961 issue of the Falls Church Virginia Directory:

2. Since it is known that opposition intelligence services have in the past checked similar publications, it should be presumed that the indicated employment of Subject by the CIA is known to other intelligence organizations. The basic memorandum on which paragraph one is based is available in Volume III of Exposure of CIA Personnel, OS #601 818. This memorandum contains no additional information concerning SAC and further review of file # 601 818 can normally be considered unnecessary. Bruce Solie, Deputy Chief, SRS.

Hill's 1961 Falls Church, Virginia, City Directory contained the listing:

Hoke John (Sylvia) emp US Govt h523 Monticello Drive, (Fax Co)

Hoke Sylvia, Mrs. emp CIA r h523 Monticello Drive, (Fax Co).

[CIA 646-277; FBI 105-82555 NR 12.17.63 Sullivan/Branigan; WCD 508p1; 10WH167; WCD 75 p78; WCE1983 p7; FBI 60-109060-1784; ONI Report NCISC-32/dwc 9.13.65; CIA OS SF #348 201 Bruce Solie C/SAG 7.18.78]

RPJ 02:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if it is true, what does it actually say? OK, Paine's sister worked for the CIA. There would have to be a lot more evidence tying people together. Even the CIA needs typists, cleaners and receptionists. --andreasegde 10:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
It's unclear what it means that a friend of Oswald in 1963 [Ruth Paine], may have had a sister working for the CIA. But, here is some additional information about another Oswald friend found in Wikipedia:
"In 1977, de Mohrenschildt [a friend of Oswald's] returned to the United States, . . . and claimed that in 1962 a CIA operative in Dallas named Moore asked him to learn what he could about Oswald's activities in the Soviet Union. De Mohrenschildt said that in exchange he received help in an oil transaction he was attempting to negotiate with Haitian dictator Papa Doc Duvalier."
de Mohernschildt's brother also worked for the CIA. It would seem odd if the CIA didn't try to keep an eye on Oswald after he came back from Russia.

RPJ 21:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That de Mohrenschildt section (death) is not cited at all, and looks dubious. That aside, I agree that the CIA would have been interested in Oswald after he came back. That was their job, afer all... --andreasegde 04:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


Mexico needs editing

I'm just perplexed about this historical article, and I hope someone with editorial skills takes it from there. The Mexico section needs heavy editing. Specifically, as documented on the official LBJ tapes someone DID impersonate Oswald in Mexico. Moreover, this person was inflitrating the higher echelons of US secret service apparatus and leaving a trail about Oswald as a communist extremist - as it's documented by the released documentation by the JFK act of 1990s. This is absolutely crucial, since LBJ claims in the tapes he doesn't want neither a rightwing conspiracy nor leftwing conspiracy, LBJ orders Warren and others to have lone nut conspiracy, i.e. taking the innitial FBI report and threatens everybody with the possibility of nuclear war with Soviets. So, you can have two interpretations, that indeed rightwing or leftwing conspiracy occured but in each case clear cover-up has been pushed over it by LBJ. Details here: http://www.jfklancer.com/backes/newman/ Dr. Newman is formerly with NSA.

Using the LBJ tapes to add anything to this article would be synthesis from a primary source, and is original research. Ramsquire 20:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
How can adding something from LBJ's tapes/memos be original research? It's a primary source, is it not? Would quoting from Nixon's tapes be original research? We can not directly quote from a source (for copyright reasons) but we can paraphrase it, or provide a link. I don't understand this... Please explain. --andreasegde 21:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Geeze, I sound like a moving Wiki policy guide today... Anywhoo... Wiki policy is to use secondary sources whereever possible. See WP:OR. An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position or introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source.
To answer your question, the tapes can be used in a limited sense as a source of what the person said, but it can't be used to source a characterization of what that person is saying. For example, you can't say Nixon was a racist and source it by going to a transcript of the tape where he uses a racial slur. That's original research. However, you can use the tape to state that on such and such date, Nixon used a racial slur. So here, you can use the tapes to show that LBJ was concerned about conspiracy, but you can't use it to say he wanted a cover-up.
Ramsquire 21:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


Crappy schoolnet paragraph

  • The above was taken directly from http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKassassinationsC.htm and "dropped" into this article. Besides the plagiarism issues, there are reliability issues:
    • HSCA did not "discover" much of anything, it heard testimony others had discovered
    • "evidence to suggest" is usually only evidence to the suggestable. HSAC specifically stated it found no evidence that Castellanos was involved - and said the anti-Castros were more vociferous than dangerous
    • the quote is overly selective & omits context HSCA gives - omitting that Castellanos was holding up a Dallas paper with details of the upcoming visit
    • The "obtained evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald met David Ferrie in New Orleans" was a report made by someone who "thought they might have met"
    • neither the clause "individuals active in anti-Castro activities had the motive, means, and opportunity to assassinate President Kennedy" nor any relevant part of it appears in the searches I have made of the HSCA report
  • Rather than give lop-sided websites as sources for what HSCA says, let's go to the source http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/ and specifically http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1c.html#anticastro
  • there is far too much detail about other possible conspirators in this article, which is supposed to focus on LHO. All the other stuff should be in the article I proposed long ago - the Evidence for & against LHO - which would not be full of slanted quotes from slanted web-sites

forgot to sign, will sign now --JimWae 20:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The above Anonymous post

(Personal attack removed by Ramsquire 23:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC))

  • Some prefer to see mistakes as conspiracies. It seems I forgot to sign the above section. I stand by what is there. Schoolnet is slanted and unreliable --JimWae 20:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Btw, great retort - attacking the person instead of addressing the points raised, while characterizing the criticism as "a vicious attack". Fits in well with deleting material while objecting to deletions of material. Is everything a conspiracy? --JimWae 21:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Section

I deleted the Pop Culture and Fiction section because it has simply become too large, unwieldly and is wholly unencyclopedic. It is an unending list, and should not be put back in to the article. Here it is in it's entirety:

===Oswald in fiction and pop culture===
One of Oswald's Marine Corps comrades, Kerry Thornley, shortly after learning of Oswald's October 1959 departure for the USSR, began writing a novel titled The Idle Warriors; its protagonist of Johnny Shellburne (a disillusioned Marine stationed in Japan who defects to the Soviet Union) being significantly inspired by Oswald's character and actions. The Idle Warriors is currently the only known literary work about Lee Oswald completed before the JFK assassination. Although an unpublished copy of Thornley's completed manuscript had been given to the Warren Commission in 1964 and was later stored in the National Archives, The Idle Warriors was not formally published until 1991.
Stephen Sondheim and John Weidman present another interpretation of the events in their musical Assassins. In the play Oswald goes to work on November 22 with the intention of killing himself, but John Wilkes Booth (Abraham Lincoln's assassin) appears out of the bookcases. When Oswald declares that he has given up on mattering to anyone, Booth replies that in killing himself, Oswald honestly hopes for the pity of people, something to make him matter. But that's not enough. In killing the president of the United States he'll matter more than he ever has. People will hate him; but from starting as a person who is treated only with apathy, to becoming a figure whom people feel so passionately about, he can matter. Other assassins follow and convince Oswald that the way to gain his fame, appreciation and purpose is to shoot Kennedy instead of himself.
He has also been portrayed in various novels, such as Libra by Don DeLillo and The Two Faces of Lee Harvey Oswald by Glenn B. Fleming.
Another novel featuring Oswald and speculation on the Grassy Knoll theory is 1975's The Illuminatus! Trilogy by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson.
Warren Adler's mystery novel, American Quartet, featured the antagonist mimicking Oswald's actions the day of the assassination exactly.
In Ken Grimwood's novel Replay, the protagonist, upon finding himself reliving the month of November 1963, travels to Dallas and sends death threats to Kennedy, signed with Oswald's name, from Oswald's local post office. Oswald is arrested soon after; to the protagonist's surprise, Kennedy is still assassinated on the 22nd.
In the 1973 movie Executive Action, actual archival footage of Oswald is used, while an Oswald "double" in the film is played by James Mac Coll.
In the 1977 movie The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald John Pleshette plays Oswald in a fictional dramatization of the trial that never happened.
In Woody Allen's 1977 film Annie Hall, Woody's character of Alvy Singer obsesses over the JFK assassination, unable to believe the Warren Commission's conclusion that Oswald acted alone. His wife Allison (Carol Kane), accuses him of using his 'conspiracy theory' as "an excuse to avoid sex with me".
In Full Metal Jacket (1987) Gunnery Sergeant Hartman's dictated version of events allows room only for Oswald, who fires three rounds.
In Oliver Stone's 1991 film JFK, which dramatizes the investigation of JFK's assassination, Oswald's character is played by Gary Oldman.
In the movie Zoolander, Oswald is referenced as NOT being the one to shoot JFK; a pair of models instead were the culprits.
In the movie The Rock, Oswald is again listed as not being the true assassin; the real assassin's identity is left ambiguous.
In the British comedy series Red Dwarf, Oswald is knocked out of the window by the arrival of the Red Dwarf crew before he can fire his third shot. Having seen the dystopic future their actions have caused, the crew attempt to set history back on course by sending Oswald up to the top floor so their past selves cannot interfere, but at this higher vantage, the trajectory is so steep that Oswald's shot goes wide and history is changed. With no other recourse, and with none of the crew willing to kill Kennedy, the crew recruit an alternative John F. Kennedy from the future (In the new timeline Kennedy was arrested in 1965 for sharing a mistress with a Mafia boss) to shoot "himself" from behind the Grassy Knoll. The character Lister claims that not only will these actions restore the original timeline, but they will also "drive the conspiracy theorists crazy".
In the 5th season of the show Quantum Leap, the character of Sam Beckett "leaps" into the body of Oswald, days before he's supposed to shoot Kennedy. He leaps into Oswald while posing for the photo of himself holding a rifle, taken by his wife. He leaped back out again just prior to the actual assassination shots and into Secret Service agent Clint Hill running alongside the limo. Had he not leaped, Oswald would have also killed Jacqueline Kennedy. In the episode, Oswald was played by Willie Garson who also played the part in the movie Ruby. The show's creator, Donald P. Bellisario, served in the US Marine Corps with Oswald and the episode recreated a meeting between the two.
Frank Whaley played Oswald in the 1993 TV movie Fatal Deception: Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald, in which Helena Bonham Carter starred as Marina Oswald. Whaley had previously played the role of "Oswald Imposter" in Oliver Stone's JFK.
In a 4th season episode of the show The X-Files, it is revealed that the Cigarette Smoking Man, then an Army Captain, killed Kennedy by shooting him from a storm drain on Elm Street as the President's motorcade was passing by. CSM was secretly ordered to do so by a vindictive army General who felt Kennedy had bungled the Bay of Pigs invasion by withholding air support for the invading fleet. CSM also arranged the situation in such a way as to frame Oswald. Also in the series, three characters print a newsletter that they call The Lone Gunmen. And in their short lived spin off series, a fellow hacker named Lois Runtz goes by several aliases that are all anagrams of Lee Harvey Oswald (the most frequently used being Yves Adele Harlow.)
In the fourth season of the television series Angel, the goddess Jasmine says that there was no conspiracy and that Oswald acted alone. In the fifth season, Lorne says that Kennedy had a deal with the evil law firm Wolfram and Hart and tried to get out of it, and was killed as a result.
In the television series Family Guy, the JFK assassination was parodied having Oswald trying to warn Kennedy of the shooters in the grassy knoll. Then, revealing a rifle, he attempts to shoot them, not Kennedy, from the Depository building. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]
In episode 405 9F04 of the FOX cartoon "The Simpsons" (Treehouse of Horror III), Bart realizes that the spell book he needs to reverse the animation of Springfield's dead as zombies is still in the library. Surrounded by flesh-eating zombies, Homer racks a round into the chamber of his shotgun and declares: "To the Book Depository!".
After saving Abraham Lincoln from assassination in the "The Simpsons" episode "Today I am A Clown", Homer and Lincoln appear next to Oswald while he is loading his rifle. Homer states "You hit him high, I'll hit him low" and the pair attack Oswald, thus preventing JFK's assassination.
In the Simpsons the assassination of Oswald was re-enacted in an episode of Itchy & Scratchy, with Scratchy playing Oswald, and Itchy playing Ruby.
In The Drew Carey Show, one of the main characters is named Oswald Lee Harvey, which is a slightly mix-up of the assassin's name. The character is frequently mocked by other characters because of his name and joking him as

sniper.

In Eight-Legged Freaks, Oswald's rifle appears in the hands of the sheriff.
Phil Bennison (Homer Henderson) wrote a song titled "Lee Harvey Was A Friend Of Mine," which has been covered by Laura Cantrell, T. Tex Edwards and Asylum Street Spankers, among others.
In The Postal Service song ‘Sleeping In’: “Last week I had the strangest dream/where everything was exactly how it seemed/where there was never any mystery/of who shot John F. Kennedy/ It was just a man with something to prove/Slightly bored and severely confused he steadied his rifle with his target in the center/and became famous on that day in November/”
Eric Church's song 'Before She Does' mentions Lee Harvey Oswald: "There's absolutely postively no doubt in my mind/ That O.J. did it, Lee Harvey didn't and she's really gone this time"
One of Bill Hicks' favourite routines in his stand-up sets was to talk at length about the Kennedy Assassination, one such riff detailing how he thought that the Assassination Museum set up to look exactly as it did on the day of the assassination was indeed incredibly accurate; "Because Oswald's not in it. Incredible...painstaking detail. I don't know who did the research, but I applaud them."

Ramsquire 23:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[Deleted a long quote of all the pop culture taken out. We can look at it on the history page RPJ 15:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)]

Please do not delete the above text. Please see WP:EP: If you make deletions, you should try to explain why you delete their contributions in the article talk page. This could reduce the possibility of reverting wars and unnecessary arguments. So, whatever you do, try to preserve information....But preserve any old contents you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Ramsquire 19:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lee_Harvey_Oswald/Archive_5&oldid=1133831659"