"Compare it to other pictures of Lee Oswald. 

Fabricating pictures was quite primitive in 1963. Look at another Oswald picture on the page.

Which viewpoint does the reader believe?  Is the ""Big Chin"" a sign of a fake or not? 

Gamaliel will now try to change the subject and won't directly discuss the ""Big Chin.""

 

We've already discussed the Big Chin to death.  It was one of many allegations of photo manipulation dismissed by the HSCA. You want to mention it as if 1) it was never debunked 2) it's the most important thing ever 3) it is proof of conspiracy.    

Gamaliel, none of the three things you just wrote make any logical sense. 1)Some believe the chin is not a fabrication. So what? This doesn't mean these true believers have ""debunked"" something. Its their opinion. The policy of this web site is to provide all opinions, and certainly not to hide the evidence. When are you going to understand this rule? 2) How important is it? It is relevant to Oswald's contention that some one was framing him. Whether that is the ""most important thing ever' is up to the reader. 3) Whether it is proof of a conspiracy is also up to the reader. 

Gamaliel, your frantic attempts to delete and hide any information that you disagree with is directly contrary to the web site rules. Why do you continue to do it?
 

Don't forget, there were two Oswald's. Lee Oswald and Harvey Oswald. One worked for the CIA and was the real triggerman, I forget which... But wait a minute, the fatal shot really came from the grassy knoll, from an anti-Castro Cuban, who wanted payback, for no air-support for Brigade 2506, during the Bay of Pigs disaster... No wait a minute Oswald was a paid hitman for the mafia...... oh well It's 3:37 in the AM, all this conspiracy stuff is making me loopy. Goodnight.
 

Gamaliel, is this person above who calls himself ""Mytwocents"" your alter ego, and put in for comic relief?

 

Web site rules of inclusion of all significant viewpoints

The evidence of the fabricated photograph is a significant viewpoint that was discussed in the HSCA report. Some experts believe it shows fabricationsome don't. Under the rules of this web site all significant viewpoints should be presented. 

Claiming that someone else disagrees with a significant viewpoint on a subject is not a ground for excluding it from the article. 

Arguing it is not the ""most important thing ever"" is not a ground for excluding the view point that the photographs are fabrications. 

Arguing that evidence that the photographs were fabricated is evidence of a conspiracy,  is not a ground for excluding the evidence.

Gentlemen. These are basic web site rules.

 

Leave this article in a readable state
Don't leave  after every goddamn sentence in a paragraph.  Use one tag; .  Free free to argue about content, but make sure the current content is at least readable.  I have just fixed a couple of paragraphs; I'm about to go after any others. 

You should control your anger. Content that is both controversial and unreferernced should be taken out. Do that instead. 

Control my anger?  What are you talking about?  I'm not in a position to verify either way - I just want to make sure that the article is readable for the users.

This article is not neutral

Surely it's not the job of Wikipedia contributors to decide whether or not Oswald worked alone, was part of a conspiracy or had anything to do with the assassination at all.  It seems to me that the only way of rendering a neutral article is to state that Oswald was arrested and held on suspicion of Kennedy's murder, but was killed before he could be tried.  It can then be provably stated that the Warren Commission, in its Report, concluded that Oswald was guilty and had worked alone, but that there have since been many efforts and arguments that attempt to disprove this conclusion.  

It's not our business to decide what really happened, which is what some people here are trying to do.  We are here to report on and check verifiable facts, not persuade peop