| Revision as of 19:38, 19 January 2006 edit66.135.233.230 (talk) →Some contributors simply revert evidence they don't like. This is improper.← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:51, 19 January 2006 edit undoRPJ (talk | contribs)1,479 edits →Some contributors simply revert evidence they don't like. This is improper.Next edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| This appears to be one of the drawbacks of the Misplaced Pages system. Gamaliel rarely provides any research but seems to hit the revert button whenever the mood strikes him. | This appears to be one of the drawbacks of the Misplaced Pages system. Gamaliel rarely provides any research but seems to hit the revert button whenever the mood strikes him. | ||
| This has been submitted by RPJ but my signature won't show up when I put it in. | |||
| Unfortunately "Gamaliel" has gotten to be system operator for Misplaced Pages and has some minor but bothersome powers in that postion. ] 19: |
Unfortunately "Gamaliel" has gotten to be system operator for Misplaced Pages and has some minor but bothersome powers in that postion. | ||
| ] 19:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:51, 19 January 2006
The chain of custody of the rifle is very puzzling. If Oswald had admitted killing the president or at least admitted to owning the rifle, perhaps the casual handling and examination of the alleged murder weapon might be understandable, but the fact that Oswald denied everything and in fact claimed he was being framed, would seem to dictate a great deal of care should be used in every aspect of the murder weapon.
And, lets face it professional pride of the people involved would dictate that a murder weapon be handled with the utmost care (especially one used to kill a president).
Others should take a look at this in the transcripts. Explanations may be found for some or all of this. The mystery, according the House Select Committee on Assassinations, revolves around the identity of the alleged second shooter, not whether Oswald was involved.
However, one can understand why some researchers believe that perhaps Oswald was "patsy." RPJ 07:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Some contributors simply revert evidence they don't like. This is improper.
One Contributor named "Gamaliel" continually reverts evidence that doesn not fit into his personal belief system. he rarely gives any reason except to say that what he doesn't like is not a "neutral point of view."
This appears to be one of the drawbacks of the Misplaced Pages system. Gamaliel rarely provides any research but seems to hit the revert button whenever the mood strikes him.
Unfortunately "Gamaliel" has gotten to be system operator for Misplaced Pages and has some minor but bothersome powers in that postion.