Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy/Archive 5

message: The film, JFK II: The Bush Connection is a thin collection of secondary sources, edited together with popular television clips (such as The Simpsons and South Park), and most of the film simply reviews secondary sources such as the film, JFK. It is highly biased in its language, portrayal of people and events, and in its conclusions. There may or may not be evidence to support the thesis of the film (that a declassified document from the 1970s suggests George Bush Sr.'s involvement), but this film certainly does not explore that evidence to the depth that would be required to support citation in an encyclopedia or other research context. If we want to cite that memo, I suggest that we find a primary source (such as the memo itself, or the FOIA case relating to it). -Harmil 05:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of JFK II

message: From RPJ's source:
*The staff of the commission had written: A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder and to the right of the spine.
*Ford suggested changing that to read: A bullet had entered the back of his neck at a point slightly to the right of the spine.
*The final report said: A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine.
None of this Thoracic 3 --JimWae 01:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ford's edit 

message: I removed this block quote from the intro, it just restates the previous paragraph:
Doubts about the Warren Commission's findings were not restricted to ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and four of the seven members of the Warren Commission all articulated, if sometimes off the record, some level of skepticism about the Commission's basic findings.[2]
I left the weblink to the reference.  Mytwocents 17:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't restate the previous paragraph. It will have to be put back in the article where it belongs. (removed off topic comment) 
RPJ 04:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block quote in intro 

message: I removed this quote from agent Hill. This has been discussed on the talk page months before. The Zapruder Film and the official autopsy prove his memory false. It may find a home on the JFK conspiracy theory page.
As the car moved at high speed to the hospital, Hill maintained his position shielding the couple with his body. He later testified  
"The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed."
:If you have information that disagrees with information in an article then put the second viewpoint in, not remove the original material.(removed off topic comment)
RPJ 21:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agent Hill did make the comment, where to put his statement is the issue. Maybe the controversy of 'who saw what and where',(re. the headwound) can be addressed in a seperate section?  Instead of interjecting testimony, piecemeal, that contradicts the WC, throughout the article? Mytwocents 17:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hill quote 

message: This web site has a strict policy of including all viewpoints and letting the reader decide on with which to believe. Yet, in controversial articles, some editors just can't seem to hold themselves back from deleting viewpoints with which they disagree. 
Now, again, important viewpoints are being deleted from this article regarding the assassination of President Kennedy. Even though almost everyone accepts the fact that the rear right hand side of President Kennedy's head was blown out as if shot from the front, this widespread belief is again under attack. A member or two from that small group of believers in the Warren Report are snipping out historical data that conflicts with the much criticized Warren Commission. Deleted from the article, again, is the eyewitness account by the First Lady's personal bodyguard by the name of Clint Hill. Mr. Hill was present when the President suffered the fatal head shot and shielded the President's body on the ride to the hospital. Mr. Hill observed a huge gaping wound in the right 
rear of the President's head. Mr. Hill immediately filed a report stating what he saw. He later testified under oath on what he saw, and described the "President's head on the right rear side was missing" and "leaving  one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head";   
Mr. Hill's testimony is supported by the other eyewitnesses. Roy Kellerman, the President’s bodyguard,  saw a 5 inch diameter hole in the back right hand side of the president’s head.  One of the doctors who attended to the President's wounds in the emergency room approved this drawing of the head wound.    The physician who approved the drawing, Dr. McClelland, looked right at the head wound. 	Dr. McClelland said:
<BLOCKQUOTE> "You could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out."  </blockquote> 
The part of the brain called the cerebellum is at the very bottom of the skull as the link to a medical model of the brain shows. 
	
Dr. Kemp, Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery, saw big hole at the back of the skull while in the emergency room. He described the President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (Warren Commission --CE#392)
</blockquote> 
The occipital lobe of the brain is just above the cerebellum part of the brain.These descriptions of the head wound in the back of the skull are all consistent with the kill shot to the head coming from the front, blasting out the back of the president's head and knocking him violently backwards in his seat. But, someone wants to delete these descriptions because they conflict with their viewpoints. 
These deletions are wrong. The policy of this web site is to let the readers decide for themselves. 
Please restrain yourself.  
RPJ 03:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop removing viewpoints with which you don't agree 

message: The editor above, writes in support of  deleting  evidence that contradicts the Warren Report conclusions. In this case, evidence was deleted that the Commissioners had seen a picture of the bullet wound to Kennedy's back that is said to be much lower than possible for the Commission’s theory about a “magic bullet” to work. In fact, the evidence  refutes the ultimate conclusion of the Commission that a "magic bullet" theory hit Kennedy up near the neck. Not only does the picture referred to in the formerly secret transcript show the bullet too low, but the transcripts also includes evidence from the autopsy that the bullet wound to the back was only finger-length deep into the back. This would entirely eliminate the “magic bullet” theory which is the foundation of the Report’s conclusion. Therefore, the editor states: The secret transcripts are "junk." 
The editor can't comprehend that the Commissioners, who were primarily politicians, may have compromised the accuracy of their findings in favor of achieving a conclusion desired by President Johnson, the CIA, and Director Hoover of the FBI. Because the editor cannot comprehend such a result, he doesn't recognize that to achieve such a predetermined result may have required the Commissioners to ignore evidence given to them that didn't fit the predetermined result. Finally, the editor can’t comprehend the Commissioners may later have hid the inconsistent evidence under a cloak of secrecy. Now that such secrecy has been lifted, the editor has decided that he now wants to start keeping the evidence secret  from the readers. 
RPJ 07:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor cannot comprehend a conspiracy which supposedly extends to altering things like the Zapruder film, which the FBI wasn't even very interested in, at first. Nor does the editor believe that some vast conspiracy extends to the testimony of physicians who said the same thing about what they'd found, long after retirement. In any case, the editor is tired of your sniping. Tell us where you think JFK was hit, and how. SBHarris 19:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And why would it do that?  Just what in the rules of the universe makes you think that in every case, or even in most cases, of a wound produced by a small-caliber bullet through muscle, you're entitled to stick you finger (or anything else) into the body along the bullet path, as far as you like?  Hmmm? Steve 17:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why keep the evidence secret?

message: Many not only dispute the conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin (claiming that there was a conspiracy), but also claim that Oswald was not involved at all.
The above sentence violates WP:AWW and WP:WEASEL.  We should put a names to the sentence instead of simply saying many.  I cannot think of any researchers, outside of Jim Garrison, who believes that Oswald was totally innocent in the assassination.  I was thinking of Mark Lane, and James Blakey as prominent proponents of a conspiracy.  But I am not aware of the roles they claim Oswald had in the assassination, if he had any at all.  Please update the sentence if you have pertinent information. Ramsquire 18:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any ideas how to fix this sentence 

message: I have just done a survey of the more popular JFK assassination articles, and in almost every article the findings of the HSCA is innacurately stated.
The Final Report of the HSCA finds that:
Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President. 
Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. . . . 
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. . . . 
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html
I have changed the findings to accurately state this when I have come across it.  Please be more careful in relaying the committees findings. 
Ramsquire 18:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you reporting the corrections being made at other web sites; or at this web site? Who are you cautioning? If you are cautioning people on other web sites aren't those the web sites to place your cautionary language?
RPJ 06:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Real Finding of the HSCA... 

message: One of the editors asks about evidence of  “Where President Kennedy was hit by bullets and how?”  Good question. Here is some of the evidence regarding two bullet wounds:One that hit the back and one that hit the right temple.  
Bullet Number One:
The following  evidence establishes a bullet hit the President in the back at about the third thoracic vertebra:
*President Kennedy’s death certificate states that Kennedy had a bullet wound at about the third thoracic vertebra. The Death Certificate was signed by his personal physician who was both at Parkland Hospital when Kennedy died and at  the Bethesda autopsy.  The physician was also a Rear Admiral in the U.S. Navy. 
*President Kennedy’s suit coat has a bullet hole in the back of it at about the third thoracic vertebra.
*The shirt the President wore underneath his jacket also had a bullet hole at about the third thoracic vertebra.
*The diagram on the autopsy sheet has a bullet hole identified at about the third thoracic vertebra. 
Bullet Number Two
The following evidence, is sampling of evidence  Kennedy was struck by a bullet entering at his  right temple and going in the direction of the back of the head where it exited at the rear right-hand side:
*Tom Robinson: The mortician who reassembled the President's skull after the autopsy. He has stated that he saw a small hole in one of the temples, and that he believes it was in the right temple.  He filled the hole in the temple with wax. He provided the information to the ARRB and drew where the hole was. 
*Patrolman Hurchel Jacks: Saw Kennedy's body at Parkland Hospital before the body was taken inside. He wrote in his report: "[I]t appeared that the bullet had struck him above the right ear or near the temple."
*White House press secretary Malcolm Kilduff described where the bullet entered:
Dr. Burkley [Kennedy's personal physician] told me it is a simple matter . . . of a bullet right through the head. . . . It is my understanding that it entered in the temple, the right temple. 
*Kilduff illustrates his information by pointing to his own right temple. Veteran reporter Seth Kantor attended and the press conference and wrote that the bullet had "entered right temple." 
*Soon after Kilduff's press conference, UPI transmitted the following bulletin:
President Kennedy was shot in the right temple. "It was a simple matter of a bullet right through the head," said Dr. George Burkley, White House Medical Officer.] 
*The SEATTLE POST INTELLIGENCER reported that "President Kennedy was shot in the right temple." The WASHINGTON POST said the President "was shot at 12:30 CST . . . by an assassin, who sent a rifle bullet crashing into his right temple."
*When interviewed on ABC's "20/20," Dr. Charles Crenshaw, one of the Parkland doctors who treated the President, stated that the bullet entered in the area of the right temple and exited the right rear part of the head. 
*Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, told HSCA investigators that he believed the entry wound was on the side of the head, that the bullet "would have come from the side." The back of the head was missing. 
*James Curtis Jenkins: A Navy medical technician who assisted with the autopsy, formed the impression that a bullet had entered the right temple and had exited the right rear part of the skull. He reports that he saw what appeared to be metal smears in the right temple, and that the large wound in the back of the head looked like an exit wound:
And the opening and the way the bone was damaged behind the head would have definitely been a type of exit wound. The reason I have said this is that I saw this before in other wounds and it was very striking. 
The evidence of what the exit to the right rear portion of the head looked like is established by the following evidence:
*Robert Nelson McClelland, who treated President Kennedy in the emergency room in Dallas. Dr. McClelland testified before both the Warren Commission, and then many years later, to the Assassination Records Review Board. He approved of a sketch of the head wound, cited here; . This drawing portrays a large wound, at the back of Kennedy's head  and is supported by his testimony 
*Dr. Charles J. Carrico was also present. His description of the fatal head wound is similar to Dr. McClelland's.
*Clint Hill, Mrs Kennedy’s body guard shielded the Presidents body with his own all the way to the hospital and had a good at the head wound. Agent Hill later testified:  
The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. 
*Newsman Roy Stamps was at Parkland Hospital and saw Kennedy's body before it was taken inside and said,I rushed up and saw Kennedy lying in the car on his side. His foot was hanging over the side of the car. The back of his head was gone. 
*Roy Kellerman, President Kennedy’s body guard testified that the President had a five inch diameter hole in the right rear portion of his head.
*General Godfrey McHugh, attended the autopsy. He got a very good look at the President's head wounds. McHugh said that there was a  large defect in the back of the head, when asked to define what he meant by "back of the head," McHugh replied: The portion that is in the back of the head, when you're lying down in the bathtub, you hit the back of the head. 
*Nurse Doris Nelson:  Emergency Room.. She assisted in treating the President, and helped prepare his body for placement in the coffin. When asked about one of the autopsy photos which show the back of the head intact, she replied:   It's not true. . . . There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. All that area was blown out. 
*Tom Robinson: The mortician who reassembled the President's skull after the autopsy saw a big hole in the back of the head. He drew where the large hole at the back of the head was. 
*Motorcycle Patrolman Willie Price: He was at Parkland hospital.The president was laying forward. I got a good look at him [and] put that coat around his head, Mrs. Kennedy walked between me and his head and she put her hands on the back of his head...I started to push her hands away, but I got to thinking, those guys might be a little gun-happy, so therefore, I better let them do it.  I knew the back of his head was blown out, and...I felt like she shouldn't be getting her hands under there because there wouldn't be nothing but blood... 
Dr. Clark (Parkland doctor):  A large wound in the back of the head 
Dr. Jones (Parkland doctor): A large defect in the back of the head. 
James Sibert (FBI agent: Drew a circle on the back of the skull where he saw Kennedy’s large wound. 
RPJ 08:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where the bullets hit Kennedy 

message: Shock was followed by renewed speculation and the public began listening more to researchers who insisted that the backward and leftward movement of the President's head observed in this section of the Zapruder film meant, by the simple application of Newton's Second Law of Motion, that he must have been hit by a bullet fired from his right front, forcing the existence of at least one more gunman not in back of the President as Oswald was.. The 1991 major motion picture JFK made a mantra out of what is seen in frame 313 by having a crusading attorney repeat the phrase "back and to the left", hoping to drill this simple physical truth, and its strong implication of conspiracy, into the jurors' (and filmgoers') minds. Yet the cause and nature of this movement turned out to be more complex than the simple transfer of directional momentum and has been a topic for much debate and analysis, particularly by physicists and others who propound a "jet effect"  from a rearward shot whereby matter expelled at high pressure from the exit wound at the top right front of the skull impels the whole body back and to the left. Such effects on model heads moving backward when shot from behind have been duplicated in tests. Further analysis of the president's head motion shows that it does begin between frames 312 and 313 (the frames just before and after the bullet strike) as a rapid forward motion-- an effect first noticed by physicist Richard Feynman at instigation of author David S. Lifton in 1966 Best Evidence, David Lifton, page 51 . Only in later frames does it move backward. The 486 frames of this film have been used in many studies, but the film has not been able to settle all disputes concerning whether or not Oswald was the sole assassin.
I deleted the above paragraph because although the discussion is ostensibly accurate and interesting, it is not appropriate for the section it is in.  What I mean by that is that the section is for recordings of the assassination.  It simply lists person and entities with various recordings of the assassination and then the above paragraph appears.  This lengthy paragraph is more about analysis of the Zapruder film and Kennedy's head movement after the fatal shot and would be more appropriate in the Zapruder film article. Ramsquire 17:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree with your reasoning here, but I won't make a fight of it. This paragraph (along with the bit you left in) simply traces the major happenings through time concerning the Z film, or at least from the assassination through 1991. That it does so in a somewhat detailed way should not disqualify it from this article as it (the Z film) is a central topic and other topics (for instance, the deployment of Dallas police on Nov. 22, 1963), of arguably far less overall importance, are delved into at the same level of detail in this article. I'll wait a while to see if anyone cares to back up my view of this (dear passers-by: please leave comments). If we get no feedback, I'll content myself with working it into the Z film sub-article (yes it should be there, but in greater detail, including donation of original by the Z family to the Sixth Floor Museum in `05) JDG 22:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry if it appears that I have a beef with the length, info or detail of the article.  I don't.  I think maybe we could try to incorporate it into other sections of the article.  Otherwise the paragraph seems like the opening salvo in what could become an argument about the Zapruder film.  However, if there is a consensus to allow it in, I won't fight it.  Ramsquire 16:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  I added a sentence summarizing your paragraph. Ramsquire 16:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for deletion 

message: Under the dictabelt section of the article there is a citation needed for the 2003 ABCnews investigations of Kennedy's Assassination.  The results of that investigation appeared on a program called, "Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination-Beyond Conspiracy" .  I am going to add that as the cite but I wonder if anyone knows if ABC has an Internet site with the results of their investigation.  I'm afraid if I link it to Amazon.com or some other site selling movies, it will appear as though Wiki is trying to hawk products or has a POV on the subject.
Please let me know if it is OK to do so. Ramsquire 16:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears there used to be such a site but ABC probably took it down. There's still at least one piece of material remaining, this poll article.  No link is preferable as a link to Amazon doesn't tell us anything except "yep, it exists, and it's 19.95". Gamaliel 17:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has to be some type of citation that can be checked. Preferably the citation should be susceptable to checking by internet but paper document is ok if generally available. It is also a bad sign when a reference is retracted. RPJ 23:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The film should of course be cited. Whether or not we include an internet link is the question. Gamaliel 05:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help Please... 

message: Sending the reader to a commercial web site to buy the information seems to cross over the border to commercialism though I don't know for sure. Here is what the rule identifies as one of the types of links to be avoided:Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that that require payment to view the relevant content. See External link spamming. 
I haven't seen this done on Wikipedia before. It seems to go against the spirit of the rules. Have public libraries sought out the dvd in question in the normal course of their operations? Or will the Wikipedia article citing the information create an artificial demand for the libraries to purchase. 
::There must be some internet site such as Spartacus that summarizes, in a reliable way,what the ABC newscast said. May be ABC pulled the information off the internet because it wasn't comfortable with  what was said on the show. RPJ 03:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Web site to purchase information

message: The verification of the ABC news story needs to be set forth with better particularity than what has been done so far. Jim Wae presented three web sites that possibly might represent what ABC said during its broadcast about the Kennedy assassination.  We need the particular web site address where the information can be quickly and easily reviewed. How does the reader get there and what is it going to see? Jim Wae doesn't know for sure but thinks the web sites might be helpful. 
I'd find out if they are and then tell why.
RPJ 02:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verification of information

message: Hey RPJ, I am concerned about your edits to the dictabelt section because I think you added information that although accurate is not relevant to the subheading its under.  I only thought the ABC investigation relevant because it was the last known (at least to me) research regarding the dictabelt evidence.  I am not sure the ABC's findings on the single bullet theory, or the location of the wounds in general, fits into that particular section.  Would you want to put your edits into another section of the article? Ramsquire 16:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictabelt section... 

message: I don't understand your first sentence that states you "added a consensus description of the assassination" but thought it would be removed because someone wouldn't agree with the "consensus" description. 
You are right that the assassination part of the article is very short. This is because some of the editors believe the witness testimony is wrong, or too gory, or doesn't conform to a pet theory. 
I'm sorry to inform you that none of the editors, to my knowledge, are interested your narrative description of what occured. It is probably against web site rules.
RPJ 22:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No one wants your interpretations of photos and film

message: Would somebody like to vouch for wiki ? Unless it's certified virus free, I don't think it should be referenced in this article.SBHarris 23:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image clip needs verification 

message: Somebody has finally made a composite of the photos of the back of JFK's head and the skull wound underneath: . It's fairly easy to see here how different people saw different things, depending on how the scalp was placed. In any case, since the films of the assasination and the autopsy all show the scalp intact in this area, and since they are better evidence than Dallas testimony by people who didn't do a good exam (since it wasn't their job), that's what the best evidence argues. Anybody who wants to argue that scalp retraction might have shown something else underneath is free to do so, but please don't do it at the cost of giant conspiracy. That's hearing hoofbeats and thinking zebras. or Unicorns.SBHarris 23:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well. What so you have to say about the background of your big "find?" You are the same editor that misread the death certificate and deleted a significant amount of material. Have you been more careful this time? RPJ 05:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good composite of the back of JFK's head

message: The first thing to do with documents is to authenticate them. Are the pictures what they purport to be? 
This is easy to do. Tell us about the origin and authenticity of the photographs you have identified. One should take those steps before making cute remarks.
RPJ 04:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the source of the documents?

message: (this is 1) completely untrue 2) far too vague (what investigations? when?) 3) completely unsourced and 4) not at all credible) 
:Gamaliel:
:You are right on 2 & 3... [whoever made the original edit needs to back it up. Should be easy enough to do.]  
:You're wrong on #1 and if this was cited better, #4 would be out the window as well.  But until 2 & 3 are addressed, let's leave it alone. Thanks Dubc0724 17:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what are these investigations? I am not aware of any investigations that concluded conspiracy, much less the "vast majority" of them as the edit asserted. A book by Robert Groden is not, to my mind, an "investigation", nor is Robert Groden a credible and reliable source for such a conclusion. Gamaliel 17:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa...what makes Groden incredible and unreliable, other than your disagreement with his findings? Dubc0724 17:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His testimony at the OJ Simpson trial is one of many examples of his "findings" which fly in the face of science and reality. Gamaliel 17:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fail to see the relevance.  I don't recall OJ Simpson being involved in the JFK Assassination. Although I'm sure someone out there has a conspiracy theory that can implicate him! :-) Dubc0724 17:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure we could easily find a conspiracy theorist who thinks he was the shooter on the grassy knoll. Gamaliel 17:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And if the Warren Commission said he did it, I'm sure the Lone Nutters would fall into lockstep. Dubc0724 17:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup.  Nobody who disagrees with you has looked at the actual evidence.  Nope.  We just take notes from government commissions.  Gamaliel 17:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whew.  I'm glad that's settled! As for the topic at hand, until it's properly cited, I won't help beat this dead horse any further.  I was just curious about the Groden comment, and since I have no idea what you're talking about Re: OJ I've got some studying up to do.  Thanks. Dubc0724 17:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added info about his OJ testimony to the Groden article. Gamaliel 17:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Now, why doesn't that surprise me?  But all joking aside, thanks. Dubc0724 17:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Gamaliel’s revision and reasoning are correct. If you want your edits to stick to this page, they need be factual, accurate, sourced, and devoid of sweeping generalization. There have been suggestions that Gamaliel, due to bias, will reflexively delete any new material that tends to support conspiracy theories. That is false. Check out the assassination theories page. Just today an edit has been added regarding the HSCA investigation’s belief that evidence that David Ferrie was involved in the assassination was “credible,” and Gamaliel has not deleted it (although it does need some cleanup). Joegoodfriend 20:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been suggestions that Gamaliel, due to bias, will reflexively delete any new material that tends to support conspiracy theories. That is false.  I'm not sure I'd characterize it as false.  Simply because he let an entry stand on another page does not mean he's not capable of pushing his POV in this article or elsewhere.  Both the pro-conspiracy crowd and the lone nutters have been guilty of letting their bias come through from time to time, whether intentionally or not. I don't understand this rush to the defense of Gamaliel's edits.  He's explained his position and he was mostly right.  The claims need to be cited. Dubc0724 12:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gamaliel's Edit Comments 

message: Someone added information about a book that was written about the assassination, in the recreations section.  It got me thinking that there should probably be a section at the end of the article listing some of the more popular books written about the assassination.  I know the article is too long as is, but I think it is missing a vital part without it. We have film and television portrayals, but yet no books. Ramsquire 21:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, start adding books under a category of refs. We need Groden and Livingstone and the whole crowd. SBHarris 22:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Books Section