User talk:Jerryb1961

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

You might want to read up on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The edits you made to Rutles did not fall under this policy. Dysprosia 07:33, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vaughn Meader

Thank you for contributing! Please note that neither Oswald's involvement nor lack thereof in JFK's assassination has even been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (for example, he's been both convicted and acquitted in absentia in carefully controlled television "trials"). Neutrality at Wikipedia is vital. RadioKirk talk to me 05:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read Gerald Posner's excellent "Case Closed". I used to be a conspirati myself. User:jerryb1961

I've read Case Closed—you might want to read Case Open. For every argument one way, there's an equally legitimate argument the other. For every piece of "evidence", there's a house of cards that falls out from underneath—on both sides. In other words, once again, neither his involvement or his lack thereof is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here's a little food for thought regarding Posner's "excellent" book: If we presume the quotes are accurate, he somehow got Parkland medical officials to make a 180-degree turn from their contemporaneous accounts of JFK's wounds—to which I would give more weight, especially given the consensus at the time. Further, using photographs of Dealey Plaza from numerous angles, I've concluded that the first-shot-hit-a-tree-branch-and-richocheted-into-James-Tague theory is not only impossible, but ludicrous. With respect, RadioKirk talk to me 14:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)