Talk:Three tramps

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Three tramps article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

United States: Texas / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

Alternative Views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dallas-Fort Worth (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dallas-Fort WorthWikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthTemplate:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthDallas-Fort Worth articles

History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Archives

Archive 1

Carswell[edit]

Because Wikipedia relies on reliable sources for its content, not personal observations and opinions.

How does he come into this? No explanation offered than the photo caption and one mention that photos were compared with a picture of him. 104.153.40.58 (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask this as well. Carswell's ears and the faces don't match at all. I put up a picture of Roscoe White, as possibly one of the 3 hobos but it was taken down for some reason, I have no idea why... Also same with Sturgis, who doesn't seem to match. The only one who does is Hunt. So what's the deal, why was it taken down? Maurice Mo Jordan (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read up on WP:RS.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some people here need to learn how to edit (starting with signing their posts and providing edit summaries). There is RS for Carswell & Sturgis (including the photo comparisons). Your personal opinion as to whether they match is irrelevant. We work with RS. If you want White in the article, get a RS. And by the way, the place to talk about this is here, not my personal talk page.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rja13ww33, I didn't know this was the place to chat or I would have continued talking here and not on your site. I kind of thought it was all the same, I guess your name we here and there to me. I will not contact you on your site any longer. I didn't want a argue, I just couldn't understand where to have a chat. It kind of all seems the same to me. Anyway, sorry about that, it won't happen again and I didn't mean to be nasty, it was all so confusing to me and I'm trying my best to understand how this all works.

However, I would like to try and reach you and anyone else interested in this part of the story. So the statement, "In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that forensic anthropologists had again analyzed and compared the photographs of the "tramps" with those of Hunt and Sturgis, as well as with photographs of Thomas Vallee, Daniel Carswell, and Fred Lee Crisman.[8] According to the Committee, only Crisman resembled any of the tramps; but the same Committee determined that he was not in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination.[8]" The United States House Select Committee on Assassinations never picked anyone, how it is right that Hunt is up when they didn't pick him, even though I do think it was most likely Hunt. So this Hunt image is from another source, I assume it was assassination researchers Alan J. Weberman and Michael Canfield which redirects to Vincent Bugliosi for some reason, Bugliosi who states Oswald acted alone.

Now looking at Dan Carswell right here, what do you think? I don't see much of a match. Even more so if you match it to the 3 Tramps photo on this page. The eyes are wrong, the nose is wrong. The lower park of the ear is wrong. If you look up all the images of Tramp A, in a few of the shots, it looks like he is wearing a toupee.

Dan Carswell - https://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2018_02/5a909add0640e_threetrampsCOMPAREDTOdAVIDcHRISTAKAdANIELcARSWELL.jpg.cbca252107f88f5ad16b1620295e0ae7.jpg

Tramp A, zoom in to see if you can see it, looks like a toupee - https://library.uta.edu/digitalgallery/sites/library.uta.edu.digitalgallery/files/10000000-10009999new/10005175.jpg

Tramp A, same here, looks like a toupee - https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184800/m1/1/med_res/

Here is a Roscoe White in a toupee - https://jfkplayersandwitnesses.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/roscoe-white-toupee.jpg

As a cop - https://i.ytimg.com/vi/2gN0bmCKn3E/hqdefault.jpg

Mugshot - https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c4/79/4e/c4794e98437f2af83202630791f18b93.jpg

Here is 9 images of him - http://merdist.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Roscoe-collage2-small.png

So, tell me what you think, can you see a likeness? Maurice Mo Jordan (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are still operating under the mistaken impression that we are here to make our own judgments on this. We work with RS to come up with a article. RS says these people were looked at as being the 3 tramps....so that is what we run with. As far as Roscoe White goes, I am not aware of any RS saying he was one of the tramps. Certainly he has been alleged to be one of the grassy knoll shooters.....but this page is about the tramps. (The two aren't necessarily the same.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at the images? These are the people who you say picked these people Alan J. Weberman and Michael Canfield, correct? Interesting bit of on him. ALERT! THIS WEBSITE HAS BEEN SEIZED! THIS WEBSITE HAS BEEN SEIZED BY THE LAW OFFICE OF GARY KURTZ TO ASSIST IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF DEFAMATION JUDGMENTS OBTAINED BY GARY KURTZ AND HIS CLIENT, STEVEN RAMBAM, AGAINST: ALAN JULES WEBERMAN (AKA "AJ" WEBERMAN, DANIEL BEN-TZION) Maurice Mo Jordan (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you reading what I am saying? Where (among these images) is a RS saying White was one of the Tramps?Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you reading what I'm saying? Your RS is from a Book by A. J. Weberman and Michael Canfield, who's info comes from a paperback "Coup d'Etat in America: The CIA and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy"... These are your RS? Also from a man who's website has been seaized. https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKweberman.htm http://ajweberman.com/ So can you not see my problem with this? Maurice Mo Jordan (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And? I thought the subject here was White. After all, that is what you tried to add to the article. (Aside from removing pictures supplied by the HSCA which is RS.) So what exactly are you talking about? And by the way, the Weberman & Canfield book, while not published by the most notable publishing house in the world....was published and not self published. Ergo it is probably RS. In any case, the edits you made to the article have nothing to do with Weberman & Canfield. And furthermore, you still don't understand what RS is.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And... you know the HSCA picked NO ONE as the tramps and they didn't supply these pictures. Those images are Weberman & Canfield assumptions and THIS is your RS? These two guys, who published a book? So clearly you are the one who doesn't understand the concept of a reliable source, if THESE are the people who you think on the experts. These are the only people I know of that had made these assumptions and if you look up "Best books on jfk assassination" on google, there book is no were to be found... So these guys are you RS? Maurice Mo Jordan (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The HSCA didn't supply these pictures?! WTF? Click on one of them....what do see down at the bottom? On the Hunt picture I see this "US Government - House Select Committee on Assassinations, Appendix to Hearings - Volume VI, Page 279 (1979)". And I verified the page(s) on all of them.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But it was not supplied by them, it was supplied Weberman & Canfield, which was discredited by HSCA. Maurice Mo Jordan (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what? The fact that it appears in RS (i.e. the HSCA report) is what is relevant. If you want to call it [whatever]....get a RS for that claim.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this was discredited by HSCA is a lot more relevant. This should mean that any REAL connection to the images should be considered, surely if there is a match to the look of the person, no? They said Hunt was not Tramp C, even though I think it looks a whole lot like him. So is this not part of it as well? They say it's not him, yet there he is on this page. I honestly don't know why you and others are not seeing this discrepancy on this site. Anyone else reading this want to throw there 2 cents in cause I'm kind of losing it. Maurice Mo Jordan (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We already note in the article that the HSCA, the FBI and so on have pretty much discredited the theory that any of these guys were the tramps. There is nothing wrong with publishing material from RS examining claims (even discredited ones). As long as proper judgments are made as far as WEIGHT, RS, and so on.....that is what counts. You seem (again) to want to proceed with stuff like "I think it looks a whole lot like him". That's not how we do it here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go and play Destiny with my friends, to be continued... Maurice Mo Jordan (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You (instead) need to be doing some reading on how to edit here: WP:RS, WP:5P, WP:OR, etc, etc.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HSCA discredited your reliable sources, namely Weberman & Canfield... Sorry but you are not making any sense at all. I can not be the only person here who understands this. Maurice Mo Jordan (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Among the many things you still don't seem to understand is that we examine (false) claims all the time via RS here. By your logic (for example), the Anna Anderson article should be canned and the RS that her claims appear in are no longer RS. That's not how it works. I am (frankly) tired of playing these games and answering a lot of nonsense from someone who doesn't know how to edit here. So this is it for me until you get a clue as to how to post here. But any change to this article that violates the rules of things like RS will get reverted. Count on it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that sounds like a threat... Funny... You have NO RS, sorry, your wrong. Maurice Mo Jordan (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am uninvolved administrator who noticed the report at ANI. A certain amount of latitude is available for new editors but that will expire very soon. As Wikipedia is not a forum, from now on, you must restrict your comments to actionable proposals to improve the article, based on reliable sources. Do not comment about "threats" or "FUNNY" or use other standard internet parrying—at Wikipedia, participants must focus on content using Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you are going to post again, please clearly identify what change to the article you believe should occur and what reliable source supports that change. Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Johnuniq... I get a "WTF?" and ... "But any change to this article that violates the rules of things like RS will get reverted. Count on it." These sound a bit like threats and I did find it a bit funny... Sorry but that is not on me, that's on him...

Weberman & Canfield wrote the book "Coup d'Etat in America: The CIA and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy" in 1975... That was over 45 years ago... They are the only ones who put forth these guys as possible suspects. Those suspects were discredited by HSCA, not only that but Fred Lee Crisman was consider a suspect, not Dan Carswell and Crisman was dismissed as well. So you are telling me that these suspects, picked by amateur investigators Weberman & Canfield 45 years ago must stay, unless I have a reliable source in 2021 that is proof positive, when Sturgis and Carswell are iffy at best. I have to ask, does that make sense to you at all? I mean, maybe I'm just being dumb but I hope you can see my point how this seems to present a conflict of interest. Maurice Mo Jordan (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have an opinion regarding the content of this article. If you have a proposal to improve the article, make it. If you believe something should be removed, spell it out and give a reason. Same if you think something should be changed or added. Regarding your opening comments on Carswell, the response you received is accurate—even if someone is now known to have not been there, the article should still record what was said at the time. If you want to add File:Roscoe White.png, you need to produce a reliable source that makes that connection. Johnuniq (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Notfrompedro but this will get me nowhere... It's like running around in a circle... Maurice Mo Jordan (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want this taken down.... NOW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurice Mo Jordan (talk • contribs)

That isn't how talk pages work. You don't get to blank whole sections because it didn't go your way. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gus Abrams, Harold Doyle, and John Gedney should be named in the opening paragraph[edit]

Gus Abrams, Harold Doyle, and John Gedney should be named in the opening paragraph since essentially they are the solution to the mystery. Currently the opening paragraph doesn't give any conclusion which is accepted by the police etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.210.174 (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Agreed. -Location (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]