Talk:George Reeves

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)

The find-a-grave site that you cite states that his mother made a mistake on the grave marker and that his birthday was the 5th, not the 6th. That seems kind of incredible, but who knows? Wahkeenah 15:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, change it then. A definitive source would be nice, but that's good enough for me. Everyking 19:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"surrounded by speculation in the years since" — speculation that he was what? murdered? details please. RedWolf 03:59, Aug 27, 2004 (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your "Greevs Projet" page, a copycat of your previous page, is also now marked for deletion.

Wahkeenah 15:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lk 2 sei u rti. User:Vesa 20:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update... it is now deleted. You silly pudding. Wahkeenah 20:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WEE SEI LL!11! User:Vesa 20:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Can you say obsessed? Dyslexic agnostic 21:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]

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).[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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!

George Bessolo Reeves (born George Keefer Brewer to Don Brewer and Helen Lescher) (January 6, 1914 – June 16, 1959) was an American actor, best known for playing the role of Superman on television in the 1950s.

Early Career

Reeves film career began in 1939. He was featured in minor roles, one being as one of Vivian Leigh's beaus in the initial scene of Gone With the Wind. In 1942 he won acclaim for his part in So Proudly We Hail.

Military Service

Military service then interupted his career. Reeves enlisted in the United States Army Air Corps and appeared in war training films. Reeves found leading parts lacking after the war and at one point was forced to earn a living digging septic systems. (after the end of Superman tv show)

Superman

Reeves, offered the role of Superman in a television series, was reluctant at first to take the role. Like many actors, he considered television to be unimportant and thought that few would see his work. He was astonished when he became a national celebrity. He became so well known that he was often forced to do personal appearances as Superman. This was always embarrassing for the actor because he pointed out that many children would often test his super powers by physically assaulting him. In one instance, a youngster came up to him with a loaded gun and said that he was going to shoot bullets off Superman's chest!

Reeves first appeared as the Superman character in 1951 in a theatrical feature called Superman and the Mole Men. It was effectively a pilot for the TV series, whose regular episodes began filming soon after, during 1951 and 1952. That film was edited down to a two-part episode for the TV series, retitled The Unknown People. The original film was seldom seen after its initial release, but it is on the DVD of the first season which was released in the fall of 2005.

The Superman TV series was broadcast in first-run from the fall of 1951 through the spring of 1958, a total of 104 episodes. In addition, Reeves appeared as Superman in a Goverment short film, entitled either "Stamp Day for Superman" or "Superman's Stamp Day" (title unclear). In this, Superman's job was to catch some crooks and tell kids why they should invest in government bonds. Reeves also appeared as Superman in an episode of "I Love Lucy" in 1956.

After Superman

After the series went off the air, Reeves found himself so typecast as Superman that it was difficult for him find other roles and this was said to have deeply saddened him. One example sometimes cited is that he was upset when his scenes in the classic film [[From Here To Eternity]] were all cut after a preview audience kept yelling "Superman!" whenever he appeared. While the last part of that statement is apparently true, that film was released in 1953, when Reeves was still in his early days as the Superman character. Whether the original theatrical release of the film included those scenes, the DVD release does include Reeves' brief appearance as a former lover of the Deborah Kerr character.

Death

In the early morning hours of June 16 1959, three days before a planned wedding to Lenore Lemmon, Reeves went to bed after a long night with guests. Shortly thereafter, a shot rang out, and he was found dead in his bedroom with a gunshot wound to the head. An official inquiry concluded that the death was suicide. His disbelieving mother conducted an investigation of her own, which was inconclusive.

With suicide the official verdict, much speculation resulted as to whether it was because of his failed career. It was also noted that he had suffered a concussion in an auto accident shortly before that event, leading some to suspect that his mental health had been compromised. These facts are recounted in Gary Grossman's 1976 book, Superman: Serial to Cereal. At that time, suicide was the predominant presumed cause of death, and various reasons were cited to justify or explain it.

In recent years, there have been questions raised again as to whether Reeves' death was really a suicide, or whether it was a murder covered up Hollywood insiders, similar to the claims about suspicious deaths of other Hollywood notables such as Thelma Todd and Paul Bern. The 1996 book, Hollywood Kryptonite, by Sam Kashner and Nancy Schoenberger, discusses the issues, the doubts by friends and relatives, the forensic evidence as to whether suicide was even physically possible, whether the shooting was properly investigated by police, and alternative theories.

The book makes an interesting argument for Reeves having been the target of a "hit" due to having spurned a long-time lover with mob connections. The hypothesis is that the aforementioned car accident was also an attempted hit. There is no question that Reeves' circle of friends included some unsavory characters. There are groups trying to change the death certificate, not reopen the case. However, the allegations and unanswered questions are unlikely ever to be resolved, due to the assage of time and the deaths of apparently everyone who might know the truth. There are many doubters, it is very well possible he was murdered by his former lover Toni. Nobody was accused of anything since people like Toni Mannix and Eddie Mannix were very powerful. There is evidence they wanted to call this death suicide immediately. Coroner did not even check for gun residue on Reeves hands, they were washed of any evidence. Assuming If George lived to see June 17th, he had a 2 round scheduled exhibition match with light heavyweight champion of he world Archie Moore. Reeves was a boxing fan and it's hard to conceive he'd kill himself before his big day in the ring. George Reeves was a golden gloves champion in his youth, with undefeated record. (record uncertain)

On Saturday, February 11 2005 at the WonderCon Comic convention, Noel Neill, aka Lois Lane of the Superman TV series, referred to the studio cover-up of Reeves death as a suicide. She said there were several bullet holes in Reeves' bedroom, a circumstance that suggests murder more than suicide. She mentioned friends who saw the bullet holes and a conversation with a contractor who was hired to patch them up. Neill is about to come out with her own book called "Truth, Justice and the American Way," and may have been dropping teasers to promote sales.

What's your source for Noel Neill's alleged statement? Wahkeenah 17:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Maybe everyone is busy... Dyslexic agnostic 20:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good riddance, the wacko. Wumbo 10:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, definitely. I concur. Wumbo 23:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Beats the h*ll out of me. It's like being in a dream sequence. Wumbo 23:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Because I think your whole guise is a humbug. Wumbo 23:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You know, it could almost use a separate article. We need some more contentious issues here. Wahkeenah 14:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Small wonder, considering how much it's been mucked about with. Wahkeenah 02:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I just googled it. It's all over the Web. Dear Lord... Skrooball 02:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]