JFK Assassination Forum

General Discussion & Debate => General Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Mark Carter on September 04, 2018, 12:14:32 AM

Title: Roger Craig
Post by: Mark Carter on September 04, 2018, 12:14:32 AM
 Very few people know this but the Dallas PD solved the assassination the same day that it happened. About 15 minutes after the assassination happened two Dallas Cops Roger Craig and Buddy Walter were examining a bullet mark on the sidewalk down by the triple underpass. 15 minutes after the assassination happened Roger Craig saw Oswald walk down the Grassy Knoll and get into a tan station wagon and drive away. Later on that day at about 5 pm after Oswald was arrested Roger Craig identified Oswald as the same person he saw get into the tan station wagon earlier in the day. Buddy Walters said that earlier in the day he saw that same tan station wagon parked on Ruth Paine's driveway. Oswald replied" Don't try and tie her into this" she had nothing to do with it. So the Oswald that Craig saw wasn't the same Oswald that was arrested at the Texas Theatre. This proves the two Oswald theory. You can read Craig's testimony here.  http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/craig.htm
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Nicholas Turner on September 04, 2018, 01:16:28 AM
Very few people know this but the Dallas PD solved the assassination the same day that it happened. About 15 minutes after the assassination happened two Dallas Cops Roger Craig and Buddy Walter were examining a bullet mark on the sidewalk down by the triple underpass. 15 minutes after the assassination happened Roger Craig saw Oswald walk down the Grassy Knoll and get into a tan station wagon and drive away. Later on that day at about 5 pm after Oswald was arrested Roger Craig identified Oswald as the same person he saw get into the tan station wagon earlier in the day. Buddy Walters said that earlier in the day he saw that same tan station wagon parked on Ruth Paine's driveway. Oswald replied" Don't try and tie her into this" she had nothing to do with it. So the Oswald that Craig saw wasn't the same Oswald that was arrested at the Texas Theatre. This proves the two Oswald theory. You can read Craig's testimony here.  http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/craig.htm

Didn't Fritz say Craig had never been in the interrogation room so couldn't have had this exchange?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Bill Chapman on September 04, 2018, 01:44:38 AM
Very few people know this but the Dallas PD solved the assassination the same day that it happened. About 15 minutes after the assassination happened two Dallas Cops Roger Craig and Buddy Walter were examining a bullet mark on the sidewalk down by the triple underpass. 15 minutes after the assassination happened Roger Craig saw Oswald walk down the Grassy Knoll and get into a tan station wagon and drive away. Later on that day at about 5 pm after Oswald was arrested Roger Craig identified Oswald as the same person he saw get into the tan station wagon earlier in the day. Buddy Walters said that earlier in the day he saw that same tan station wagon parked on Ruth Paine's driveway. Oswald replied" Don't try and tie her into this" she had nothing to do with it. So the Oswald that Craig saw wasn't the same Oswald that was arrested at the Texas Theatre. This proves the two Oswald theory. You can read Craig's testimony here.  http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/craig.htm

Craig was mental. Ask his daughter.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan DAlimonte on September 04, 2018, 03:12:44 AM
Very few people know this but the Dallas PD solved the assassination the same day that it happened. About 15 minutes after the assassination happened two Dallas Cops Roger Craig and Buddy Walter were examining a bullet mark on the sidewalk down by the triple underpass. 15 minutes after the assassination happened Roger Craig saw Oswald walk down the Grassy Knoll and get into a tan station wagon and drive away. Later on that day at about 5 pm after Oswald was arrested Roger Craig identified Oswald as the same person he saw get into the tan station wagon earlier in the day. Buddy Walters said that earlier in the day he saw that same tan station wagon parked on Ruth Paine's driveway. Oswald replied" Don't try and tie her into this" she had nothing to do with it. So the Oswald that Craig saw wasn't the same Oswald that was arrested at the Texas Theatre. This proves the two Oswald theory. You can read Craig's testimony here.  http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/craig.htm

I agree with you, Mark.   Btw ... Welcome to the Forum.
To me the whole Kennedy case hinges on Craig's testimony and what the SS agents - Outside - the motorcade group
did that day.  To me, the two who stayed at Love Field and the head of the reserve SS who was also at Love Field assisted
the police in capturing those suspects in that station wagon at Redbird Airfield.  Just read the link, if you're interested. 
Oh, by the way again.  Do you remember in Craig's story when he relayed the info re that station wagon to a SS agent
and how that guy turned out to be a nut job.  I believe he really was an SS agent.  One of the reserve unit.   

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,120.msg1503.html#msg150
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Colin Crow on September 04, 2018, 06:37:26 AM
Craig was mental. Ask his daughter.

Also supposedly from Craig's daughter about her father, Dallas County Sheriff's Office "Man of the Year" for 1960.

"I'm not disputing that what he thought he saw was something different than what was reported."

and this from Dave Reitzes.....

"Now, the Rambler episode is a whole separate issue. It happened; Craig was not the only person who saw it. Ten minutes after the assassination, a man described as being in his twenties did leave Dealey Plaza in a Nash Rambler. The question is, did this individual have anything to do with the assassination? There's no evidence for it, nor is there any evidence specifically against it.

It's possible that he and the Rambler driver were just bystanders with some non-sinister reason for leaving. It's also possible he was a newsman racing off to file a story, although Craig's description of him as wearing blue trousers and a tan shirt, if accurate, may be inconsistent with this, as I would expect a reporter to be dressed more professionally, unless he had been "off duty," so to speak.

To those who think Oswald was the lone assassin, it doesn't seem important; to those who think there was a conspiracy, it's tantalizing."
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Howard Gee on September 04, 2018, 06:58:57 AM
Tantalizing, huh ?

Yeah, I guess if you think part of the conspiracy plan was to have Saint Patsy leave the scene of the crime by getting picked up in Ruth's Rambler.

I'm tantalized, are you ?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Colin Crow on September 04, 2018, 07:27:34 AM
Tantalizing, huh ?

Yeah, I guess if you think part of the conspiracy plan was to have Saint Patsy leave the scene of the crime by getting picked up in Ruth's Rambler.

I'm tantalized, are you ?

Ask Dave.....his words not mine. Do you believe Fritz would not have talked to "1960 Man of the Year" Craig that afternoon and had him observe Oswald in custody? I seem to remember seeing a video of Chief Curry telling the media that the suspect was seen leaving the scene in a car and that they were looking for Oswald's accomplice. Seems like he had heard Craig's story.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Howard Gee on September 04, 2018, 09:24:05 AM
Ask Dave.....his words not mine. Do you believe Fritz would not have talked to "1960 Man of the Year" Craig that afternoon and had him observe Oswald in custody? I seem to remember seeing a video of Chief Curry telling the media that the suspect was seen leaving the scene in a car and that they were looking for Oswald's accomplice. Seems like he had heard Craig's story.

Sure I believe Fritz and Craig would have spoken, and Roger might have told Will he saw Saint Patsy leave the scene in (according to Buddy) Ruth's Rambler.

I just don't believe there's any chance that's actually how Saint Patsy departed the scene.

Do you ?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Colin Crow on September 04, 2018, 09:59:31 AM
Sure I believe Fritz and Craig would have spoken, and Roger might have told Will he saw Saint Patsy leave the scene in (according to Buddy) Ruth's Rambler.

I just don't believe there's any chance that's actually how Saint Patsy departed the scene.

Do you ?

Not the point Howard......was just responding to your portrait of the man...nothing more....seems Dave R also believes Craig was just relaying what he saw that day when he testified before the WC in '64. I don?t believe Fritz's account of events regarding Craig.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Howard Gee on September 04, 2018, 10:18:14 AM
Not the point Howard......was just responding to your portrait of the man...nothing more....seems Dave R also believes Craig was just relaying what he saw that day when he testified before the WC in '64. I don?t believe Fritz's account of events regarding Craig.

I'm not sure which man you're referring to.

I haven't drawn any portrait of Roger Craig. I think he was wrong about Saint Patsy scrambling down the knoll and leaving in the Rambler. I have sympathy for his apparent mental problems later in life. I certainly don't think he was any kind of martyr though.

If you're talking abt Reitzes, I think Dave has done some very good investigative work and is quite articulate. I just think his conclusion of a conspiracy is completely wrong.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Colin Crow on September 04, 2018, 11:53:27 AM
I'm not sure which man you're referring to.

I haven't drawn any portrait of Roger Craig. I think he was wrong about Saint Patsy scrambling down the knoll and leaving in the Rambler. I have sympathy for his apparent mental problems later in life. I certainly don't think he was any kind of martyr though.

If you're talking abt Reitzes, I think Dave has done some very good investigative work and is quite articulate. I just think his conclusion of a conspiracy is completely wrong.

I was referring to your initial dismissal of Craig as being mental. My reading of Dave R is that he was a CT and what I posted was from his now LN assessment of Craig.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Howard Gee on September 04, 2018, 02:14:36 PM
I was referring to your initial dismissal of Craig as being mental. My reading of Dave R is that he was a CT and what I posted was from his now LN assessment of Craig.

Didn't think I initially dismissed Craig as being mental, just that his assertion that it was Saint Patsy that he saw scrambling down the knoll and getting into the Rambler was clearly incorrect.

It gets even worse when the Rambler becomes Ruth Paine's Rambler and this is somehow considered a tantalizing theory.

Laughable, yes.  Tantalizing, no.

I didn't realize Reitzes has become a LN.  Good for him.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Mark Carter on September 04, 2018, 09:37:09 PM
Sure they got a blue CHEVY wagon and photographed Paine standing next to the wagon to hide her guilt. I believe that the Oswald that Craig saw was the Oswald that Marina Oswald had taken a photo of in Ruth Paine's backyard holding the M Carcano and the pistol that he supposedly shot Tipper with.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Steve Howsley on September 04, 2018, 10:10:05 PM
Sure they got a blue CHEVY wagon and photographed Paine standing next to the wagon to hide her guilt. I believe that the Oswald that Craig saw was the Oswald that Marina Oswald had taken a photo of in Ruth Paine's backyard holding the M Carcano and the pistol that he supposedly shot Tipper with.

This is obviously a joke account. You'll need to hang out better bait than this to entertain the folk (LN, neutral  and CT) here.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Steve Howsley on September 05, 2018, 12:23:18 AM
How about we ask your daughter about you?

How about we ask you kids about you?

Gee, anyone can play this game can't they.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Bill Chapman on September 05, 2018, 12:45:08 AM
How about we ask your daughter about you?

You certainly have seen his daughter's comments about him. Or were those faked as well?

You ought to be banned for what you're implying, John. But I don't snitch on people, unlike you who encouraged C-E Ernie to snitch on me some months ago. And recently, also accused me of plagiarism, yet gave Tom Sorenson, who also didn't provide a link to the same article, a pass (by omission).

You would be the last person on earth that I'd give a positive character reference for, John.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jerry Freeman on September 05, 2018, 05:05:28 AM
Roger Craig must have seen an Oswald imposter. Or it was the imposter who took the cab over to South Beckley and then walked over to meet and shoot Tippit.
The imposter was seen by Helen Markham and the Davis sisters and some others.
Just a glance...a fleeting second.
If it was Oswald that rode in the Rambler...he was taken to the rooming house.
A perplexing story...
Quote
A man walks into the Lucas B & B at 1:30 AM (11/22/?63) and sits down at a table. About an hour goes by, then Jack Ruby comes into the B & B, looks at the young man, then takes a table behind the cash register. Jack says he did not feel good, so just orders a large glass of orange juice. A few minutes later, the young man sits down with Ruby. Afterwards, Ruby pays the tab for himself and the young man, who has actually eaten a meal.

Mary Lawrence, the Lucas B & B waitress, thought that, after Oswald was arrested, she recognized this man as the same individual who had dined with Ruby earlier that morning. The night shift cashier had agreed with her identification. Mary told the FBI ?that he appeared very similar to Lee Harvey Oswald.? She described him as a man ?in his 20?s, 5?7″-9,? medium build, 140 lbs.,? with ?dark hair.? This is a close description of the real Oswald (Contract on America-by David E. Scheim-p. 264-note: the actual Commission document is 223).

Mary?s account to the Dallas Police approximated the one she gave to the FBI. She also reiterated her point that the man had a ?small scar near his mouth, either on the right or left side.? Oswald had no such scar. But Mary positively identified Lee as the man who had met with Ruby at the eatery. She then seemed to back off somewhat, some doubt was expressed, possibly after being pressured by her interrogators.
Quote
On December 3, 1963, two days before her FBI interview, Mary got a call from an unknown male. It was a threatening call, ?If you don?t want to die, you better get out of town.? Somebody wanted Lawrence to button up her lip (ibid p. 264).

Well, that is mainly all of it. True, a shadow of doubt has been cast on Mary?s story. Marina had seen him awake at 12:30 AM at Ruth Paine?s house. This is one hour before he purportedly entered the B & B. Also true, the next morning Wesley Frazier had driven Lee to work to the Depository Building. So maybe Mary was lying, just as the owner, Pete Lucas, had stated. Yet the cashier had corroborated Mary Lawrence?s story.
https://newsblaze.com/usnews/national/ruby-and-oswald-rendezvous-at-lucas-b-b_11034/

There you have it...doppleganger
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 05, 2018, 04:17:07 PM
How about we ask you kids about you?

Gee, anyone can play this game can't they.

I'm glad that you agree that it's a game that Chapman started with his whole "ask his daughter" nonsense.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 05, 2018, 04:20:44 PM
You certainly have seen his daughter's comments about him. Or were those faked as well?

As well as what?

Quote
You ought to be banned for what you're implying, John.

I don't know what you think I'm implying, but that's not my problem.

Quote
But I don't snitch on people,

By all means, go ahead and snitch on me because of what you think I'm implying...

Quote
unlike you who encouraged C-E Ernie to snitch on me some months ago.

You personally attack people all the time here.  You know it's against the rules.

Quote
And recently, also accused me of plagiarism, yet gave Tom Sorenson, who also didn't provide a link to the same article, a pass (by omission).

Did you or did you not post somebody else's words without attribution?  "Tom did it too once" is hardly a justification.

Quote
You would be the last person on earth that I'd give a positive character reference for, John.

I'll try to contain my disappointment.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Bill Chapman on September 05, 2018, 05:43:12 PM


As well as what?
>>> As well as everything else from the WC according to you lot

I don't know what you think I'm implying, but that's not my problem.
>>> Your suggestion that people ask my 'daughter' about me. Ask 'her' about what, John?

By all means, go ahead and snitch on me because of what you think I'm implying
>>> There you go again, twisting what I said, this time to make it look that I threatened to snitch on you. I clearly stated that I don't snitch on people.

You personally attack people all the time here.  You know it's against the rules
>>> Says the primo CT attack-dog

Did you or did you not post somebody else's words without attribution?  "Tom did it too once" is hardly a justification.
>>> Show us where I said 'Tom did it too once'. Where did I say 'once'? Seems you are giving Tom's identical non-link yet another get-out-of-jail card.

Did you give Tom a free pass* or not? Tell us why you keep avoiding that fact. Man up, hypocrite.

I'll try to contain my disappointment.
>>> See above

*By omission
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Bill Chapman on September 05, 2018, 05:56:19 PM
I'm glad that you agree that it's a game that Chapman started with his whole "ask his daughter" nonsense.

@ Lurkers: I stated that Craig was mental. And said ask his daughter. Her email noted below is the reason one should ask her.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Craig's Daughter
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/3-PfhXeqrj0

<quote on>

Back in 2008 John Simkin posted an e-mail he'd received from Michelle Palmer, nee Deanna Craig, daughter of Roger Craig:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3556&st=30


<QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------

John Simkin, on Jun 13 2008, 05:26 PM, said:
Email from Roger Craig's daughter:

[Quote on]

There are a few items in your article about Roger Craig you just might want to correct for the sake of accuracy and truth in reporting. i) His marriage didn't end due to repeated harassment or threats - unless you count his repeated threats to end his own life. ii) The man was disturbed. As his daughter I would place money on the fact that he suffered from either Borderline Personality Disorder or Bi-polar depression. Those last two attempts on his life? The husband of the woman he was fooling around with. Trust me, I met her AND her daughters before the xxxxxx killed himself. The husband met him at the door with that shoulder shot.

Articles like yours only serve to continue the myth. My father was a disturbed man. I'm not disputing that what he thought he saw was something different than what was reported. But let's face it, my dad didn't know a Mauser from a whatever. He was a Wisconsin farmboy who joined the army illegally, and was released from duty because he kept injuring himself - I note you don't mention all the self-inflicted scars from his tour of duty. Furthermore, it is EXACTLY this kind of dramatic license that killed my father. It fed his disease. It fed his paranoia. And in the end, it contributed to his self-destruction. You should be ashamed of yourself for perpetuating this garbage.

<Quote off>
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 05, 2018, 06:35:21 PM
As well as what?
>>> As well as everything else from the WC according to you lot

There you go with your "you lot" nonsense again.

Quote
I don't know what you think I'm implying, but that's not my problem.
>>> Your suggestion that people ask my 'daughter' about me. Ask 'her' about what, John?

Ask her if you are "mental" of course.  That's what you said about Craig.

Quote
>>> Says the primo CT attack-dog

Completely false.  And an attack in an of itself.

Quote
Did you give Tom a free pass* or not? Tell us why you keep avoiding that fact. Man up, hypocrite.

Why would you assume that I even saw Tom's post?  And how does that change what YOU did?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jerry Freeman on September 05, 2018, 08:21:54 PM
I'm glad that you agree that it's a game that Chapman started with his whole "ask his daughter" nonsense.
Was played threads ago. Happens redundantly.
(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/Arguing.gif)
It starts up every time someone posts Craig's name.
It has nothing to do with anything.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 05, 2018, 10:41:24 PM
I've been doing some research on Michelle Palmer.  Her mother Mollie (Molly) Humphreys was married to Roger Craig until they divorced in 1973, but the Texas Birth Index shows Michelle's father as Jetty Andy Hahn, not Roger Craig.  There is no birth record at all for a "Deanna Craig".  Michelle was born in 1963 and was 10 when her mother divorced Roger Craig.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Steve Howsley on September 05, 2018, 10:48:45 PM
I'm glad that you agree that it's a game that Chapman started with his whole "ask his daughter" nonsense.

You are a disgrace. The 'he started it' excuse doesn't wash when you refer to another poster's family when all Bill did was reference the words of Craig's daughter from decades ago ... words that are reported elsewhere. If this was my site I'd ban you.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 05, 2018, 11:01:37 PM
How about we just stick to the facts rather than unsubstantiated gossip from somebody's alleged child?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Steve Howsley on September 05, 2018, 11:09:21 PM
How about we just stick to the facts rather than unsubstantiated gossip from somebody's alleged child?

Red herring alert.

How about you apologize for entering into speculation about a poster's family situation. I expect you now regret doing so but you should still make an apology.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jerry Freeman on September 05, 2018, 11:14:28 PM
You are a disgrace. The 'he started it' excuse doesn't wash  If this was my site I'd ban you.
You ought to be banned for what you're implying, John. 
People who don't agree with the wannabe moderators will be banned?
Then who would be left to argue with?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Steve Howsley on September 05, 2018, 11:17:06 PM
People who don't agree with the wannabe moderators will be banned?
Then who would be left to argue with?

Take it up with the site mod.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 05, 2018, 11:18:49 PM
Red herring alert.

How about you apologize for entering into speculation about a poster's family situation. I expect you now regret doing so but you should still make an apology.

I didn't "speculate about a poster's family situation".  I don't even know if Chapman has a daughter.  Or Roger Craig for that matter.

How about Chapman apologize for using unsubstantiated gossip to smear an inconvenient witness?

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 05, 2018, 11:19:51 PM
People who don't agree with the wannabe moderators will be banned?
Then who would be left to argue with?

They can't argue the facts and evidence so they resort to trying to censor the opposition instead.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Steve Howsley on September 05, 2018, 11:24:25 PM
How about Chapman apologize for using unsubstantiated gossip to smear an inconvenient witness?

You are a laugh a minute.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Mitch Todd on September 06, 2018, 12:23:01 AM
How about we just stick to the facts rather than unsubstantiated gossip from somebody's alleged child?

OK. What about this:

"TIME: 8/24 1:25 PM
TO: BILL AMBROSINO
FROM: MARY FERRELL
SUBJECT: JFK-CIA EXPERTISE
I knew Roger Craig for several years before his death. It is my belief that Roger was a very sick young man. He had made a name for himself as a very promising young law enforcement officer. When he came forward with some of the 'stories' he told following the events of that November weekend, he believed that he would be offered a great deal of money and, possibly, speaking engagements. I am very sorry to say that I am one of the few conspiracy nuts who never believed Roger Craig.

When Roger made a number of speeches about the fact that 'they' prevented him from getting a job, I talked my husband into giving him a job. Roger did not want to work. He wanted people to give him money because he had 'seen something or other.'"

Or, how about Weisberg's opinion of Craig: "Roger Craig may be a brave guy and all of that, but he is also full of what is generally reserved for toilets."



Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 06, 2018, 01:04:00 AM
How could he work if he was crippled from that spill over a cliff?  Or was that episode made up too?
Doesn't look too agile in that interview that Lane used and far from mental(see his upper jaw also, looks wired up).

What did Weisberg and MF think of the daughter?
She sounds more than a little jealous to me and rather angry about it.

I still rather be arrested by a Craig than most robocops.
Sure his story get's distorted, changed and has additions, name one witness who doesn't suffer the same problems, case is littered with 'em.
Robert Jackson has given five reasons for not leaving his car. FIVE! At Least.
IDK about the Rambler sighting but what happens with Fritz/Ossie/Craig is a most strange thing to make up, when it leads nowhere. If he was making it up what do you think he was he doing?  Involving the Paines?  Why?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Steve Howsley on September 06, 2018, 01:08:16 AM
If he was making it up what do you think he was he doing?  Involving the Paines?  Why?

Big noting himself on both counts.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Bill Chapman on September 06, 2018, 01:27:37 AM
There you go with your "you lot" nonsense again.

Ask her if you are "mental" of course.  That's what you said about Craig.

Completely false.  And an attack in an of itself.

Why would you assume that I even saw Tom's post?  And how does that change what YOU did?

Pretty sure my post came directly after Tom's, maybe on the same page. I think I even took a screen shot of both as soon as you started your petty little rant. By the way, I haven't added a link to that post of mine, and won't.

And stop squirming. You cannot weasel your way out of this one. You didn't see his post..? Yeah sure. If not, you've just confirmed that you are only here to attack anyone that challenges your claims.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Bill Chapman on September 06, 2018, 01:39:26 AM
I didn't "speculate about a poster's family situation".  I don't even know if Chapman has a daughter.  Or Roger Craig for that matter.

How about Chapman apologize for using unsubstantiated gossip to smear an inconvenient witness?

Tell us you knew about her email before I posted it.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Mitch Todd on September 06, 2018, 01:47:14 AM
How could he work if he was crippled from that spill over a cliff?  Or was that episode made up too?
Doesn't look too agile in that interview that Lane used and far from mental(see his upper jaw also, looks wired up).

What did Weisberg and MF think of the daughter?
She sounds more than a little jealous to me and rather angry about it.

I still rather be arrested by a Craig than most robocops.
Sure his story get's distorted, changed and has additions, name one witness who doesn't suffer the same problems, case is littered with 'em.
Robert Jackson has given five reasons for not leaving his car. FIVE! At Least.
IDK about the Rambler sighting but what happens with Fritz/Ossie/Craig is a most strange thing to make up, when it leads nowhere. If he was making it up what do you think he was he doing?  Involving the Paines?  Why?
How could he work if he was crippled from that spill over a cliff?
Mary's point wasn't that Craig couldn't work, but that he didn't want to. She knew him at the time, and was therefore a far better judge of what he was capable of (and of his character, generally)  than you or I could ever hope to be. Ditto for Weisberg.

Doesn't look too agile in that interview that Lane used and far from mental
You mean here? Doesn't look like his jaw is wired shut to me. As for agility, how can you tell in a talking-head interview? And how do you define "looks mental?" 

What did Weisberg and MF think of the daughter?
Did Weisberg or Ferrell ever even meet her? She didn't explode onto the Education Forum until after both were dead.

She sounds more than a little jealous to me and rather angry about it.
I'll bet it's pretty normal for the children whose parents commit suicide tend to carry a lot of the emotional turmoil with them through their lives. It doesn't make them dishonest.

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Mark Carter on September 06, 2018, 01:49:04 AM
I think that the Marine Oswald was never in Dealey plaza on Nov 22. The Backyard Oswald had to be the person that Craig saw. Then there was Billy Lovelady who was another Oswald lookalike. He is seen in the Altgens photograph out on the street during the assassination. The multiple Oswalds prove the conspiracy.
 The moderators deleted my website about the JFK assassination that I had posted on the forum. I was just on a JFK assassination forum on Facebook with 1400 other people and the entire forum was shut down. The CIA is upset with these forums.

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jerry Freeman on September 06, 2018, 01:52:11 AM
Take it up with the site mod.
Hard to do if someone is banned.
Meanwhile about Craig... Questions or complaints about his police service [before the assassination] have never surfaced. His testimony about the station wagon can be supported by photographs of the suspected car. There were two other observers who were found that reported this same [type] vehicle had stopped and someone got in. One of these people noted that they almost ran into it.
Quote
Quote Barry Pollard on Today at 01:04:00 AM
    If he was making it up what do you think he was he doing?  Involving the Paines?  Why?
 
Craig did not "involve the Paines".
Quote
Mr. BELIN - All right. Then, what did Captain Fritz say and what did you say and what did the suspect say?
Mr. CRAIG - Captain Fritz then asked him about the---uh---he said, "What about this station wagon?"
And the suspect interrupted him and said, "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine"---I believe is what he said. "Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."
And--uh--Captain Fritz then told him, as close as I can remember, that, "All we're trying to do is find out what happened, and this man saw you leave from the scene."
And the suspect again interrupted Captain Fritz and said, "I told you people I did." And--uh--yeah--then, he said--then he continued and he said, "Everybody will know who I am now."
And he was leaning over the desk. At this time, he had risen partially out of the chair and leaning over the desk, looking directly at Captain Fritz.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/craig.htm
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Howard Gee on September 06, 2018, 03:42:44 AM
This is why I question everything produced by the LNers.

What year did Benavides die ?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jerry Organ on September 06, 2018, 03:59:58 AM
What year did Benavides die ?

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Image62~0.jpg)

Caprio once wrote that the car Johnson was riding in was a sedan.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Mitch Todd on September 06, 2018, 06:40:57 AM
I've been doing some research on Michelle Palmer.  Her mother Mollie (Molly) Humphreys was married to Roger Craig until they divorced in 1973, but the Texas Birth Index shows Michelle's father as Jetty Andy Hahn, not Roger Craig.  There is no birth record at all for a "Deanna Craig".  Michelle was born in 1963 and was 10 when her mother divorced Roger Craig.

So if that were true, who are the following kids he referred to in his WC testimony?

Mr. BELIN - Are you married?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - Family?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; I have a girl and a boy and a stepboy.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Tom Scully on September 06, 2018, 04:15:24 PM
Roger Craig is a salve for those who are attracted to unverified, unverifiable BS that make his boosters look desperate. Who do
you expect would be persuaded by anything Craig claimed who was not already all in on the Mauser switch suspicion and the Oswald
exit transport from the TSBD in a mysterious car driven by a mysterious, unidentified person?

A guy with a family to feed would not act like he did not actually want to work. Why then, did Dallas Sheriff hire Craig's son?


Quote
https://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html
When They Kill A President
By Roger Craig

....My family and I made the trip to New Orleans, where I was interviewed by Willard Robertson, the owner of the company. Mr. Robertson told me he was looking for a Personnel Manager and because of my background of dealing with the public he hired me. After a long trip back to Dallas where we gathered up our meager belongings we moved to New Orleans and I felt good?I was working again!

We had been there but a few days when all of our neighbors and half the people where I was working knew who I was. This was due to the newspaper and television coverage of Jim Garrison?s probe into the assassination. Again came the never-ending questions, which I did not mind because outside of Dallas people were sincerely interested and I certainly did not mind doing what I could to clear up any doubts they had. The people at the office treated me very well.

Unfortunately, after about a month I realized that I was not doing anything but going in to the office and coming home?nothing in between. Although I appreciated Jim Garrison recommending me for the job, I knew by this time that he had done this because he was concerned about my safety and wanted me out of Dallas. Because this company did not really need a Personnel Manager and I couldn?t take the money for a job I was not doing, I submitted my resignation to Mr. Robertson and my family and I returned to Dallas.

We arrived back in Dallas on a cold and snowy seventh of January, 1968, and moved in with Molly?s parents as we had very little money and nowhere to stay. The next few days I spent looking for work. I tried every ad and every lead I could find. The people who interviewed me always seemed interested but like all companies, they wanted to check out my references. When I failed to receive any results from my efforts, I called some of the places where I had placed applications to see what was wrong. I always received the same answer, ?the position had been filled.? Finally, I decided something was wrong and I suspected one employment reference, Bill Decker. I had a friend write Decker asking for an employment reference?he never received an answer! ...
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 06, 2018, 04:44:55 PM
OK. What about this:

"TIME: 8/24 1:25 PM
TO: BILL AMBROSINO
FROM: MARY FERRELL
SUBJECT: JFK-CIA EXPERTISE
I knew Roger Craig for several years before his death. It is my belief that Roger was a very sick young man. He had made a name for himself as a very promising young law enforcement officer. When he came forward with some of the 'stories' he told following the events of that November weekend, he believed that he would be offered a great deal of money and, possibly, speaking engagements. I am very sorry to say that I am one of the few conspiracy nuts who never believed Roger Craig.

When Roger made a number of speeches about the fact that 'they' prevented him from getting a job, I talked my husband into giving him a job. Roger did not want to work. He wanted people to give him money because he had 'seen something or other.'"

Or, how about Weisberg's opinion of Craig: "Roger Craig may be a brave guy and all of that, but he is also full of what is generally reserved for toilets."

I said "facts" not more gossip and armchair psychoanalysis.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 06, 2018, 04:49:04 PM
Pretty sure my post came directly after Tom's, maybe on the same page. I think I even took a screen shot of both as soon as you started your petty little rant.

Now who's twisting things?  What "rant"?  I merely and correctly pointed out that you posted yet another cut-and-pasted paragraph and did not provide any source attribution.

That's not even an attack.  But your defensive posturing and attempts to make it all about me sure are.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Mitch Todd on September 07, 2018, 12:16:39 AM
So if that were true, who are the following kids he referred to in his WC testimony?

Mr. BELIN - Are you married?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - Family?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; I have a girl and a boy and a stepboy.

Thanks to Mr Scully's pointing out that Craig mentions his family in "When They Kill A President," we already know the names of his kids.

"I worked twelve hours a day and Molly did all of the washing, ironing, cooking and cleaning?in addition to caring for Terry, Deanna and Roger Jr. "

Roger, Jr, is obviously RC's son and Deanna has to be his daughter, leaving Terry as the "stepboy." BTW, Craig's, er, memoir and the divorce records both render his wife's name as "Molly." I figure he would know, and the state would require, the proper spelling of her legal name.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Mitch Todd on September 07, 2018, 12:30:52 AM
I said "facts" not more gossip and armchair psychoanalysis.

"Gossip" and "Armchair" imply indirect acquaintance. Both Ferrell and Weisberg knew him firsthand:

"I have met Roger, and he is a fine looking, clean-cut kind of guy who appears to be truthful, serious and all that [...]  He does not impress me as the kind of guy who is out to make trouble. But he is"

"I knew Roger Craig for several years before his death. [...] When Roger made a number of speeches about the fact that 'they' prevented him from getting a job, I talked my husband into giving him a job. Roger did not want to work."

And, you don't have to be Sigmund Freud to note that someone's story changes in contradictory ways, or that they are simply lazy.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 07, 2018, 06:24:15 PM
"Gossip" and "Armchair" imply indirect acquaintance. Both Ferrell and Weisberg knew him firsthand:

Their qualifications to diagnose mental illness is another matter entirely.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 07, 2018, 06:32:57 PM
Roger, Jr, is obviously RC's son and Deanna has to be his daughter, leaving Terry as the "stepboy." BTW, Craig's, er, memoir and the divorce records both render his wife's name as "Molly." I figure he would know, and the state would require, the proper spelling of her legal name.

Her name is spelled "Mollie" in the 1940 census, and by her granddaughter in the Craig family tree on Ancestry.  Not worth quibbling about though, it doesn't really matter.

But the question then becomes, what is the reason for believing that this Michelle Andrea Hahn Palmer person is the same person as "Deanna Craig"?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 08, 2018, 01:42:08 AM
How could he work if he was crippled from that spill over a cliff?
Mary's point wasn't that Craig couldn't work, but that he didn't want to. She knew him at the time, and was therefore a far better judge of what he was capable of (and of his character, generally)  than you or I could ever hope to be. Ditto for Weisberg.

Doesn't look too agile in that interview that Lane used and far from mental
You mean here? Doesn't look like his jaw is wired shut to me. As for agility, how can you tell in a talking-head interview? And how do you define "looks mental?" 

What did Weisberg and MF think of the daughter?
Did Weisberg or Ferrell ever even meet her? She didn't explode onto the Education Forum until after both were dead.

She sounds more than a little jealous to me and rather angry about it.
I'll bet it's pretty normal for the children whose parents commit suicide tend to carry a lot of the emotional turmoil with them through their lives. It doesn't make them dishonest.

Something about the way he's sitting in the chair looks off to me, look a little harder and there's a few times you do see more than just his head, also his right hand in his pocket the entire time.  I said upper jaw wired, wired up, not wired shut :)
On mentality, he is asked about "the man RC" "how does he feel today?" and his answer to this and indeed throughout the entire interview is thoughtful, relaxed and lucid.
He's sat in that same position througout, doesn't even switch cheeks.  Body looks busted and if it was, then who could blame him for not wanting to pick fruit, hump lumber or w/e?
Anger/jealousy can make you many things, dishonest is indeed one of them, in fact it's top of the list.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Barry Pollard on September 08, 2018, 01:57:19 AM
...Craig did not "involve the Paines". http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/craig.htm

Well, the idea is that he was full of it and this is one of the things he invented and yes, sorry but to me it looks like if he made it up then he was, for some reason, involving the Paines by mentioning their name.
"Don't involve them they have nothing to do with it", coming from the prime suspect in a murder case he denies involvement in.  "I think I'll go pay them a visit right now" says any cop worth a damn.
Ignore the Paines then and tell me why this cop, one of the first "not taking part" to react and reach the RRY, who then orders the public pushed back as to not impede their search is making this crap up.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Mark Carter on September 08, 2018, 04:34:48 AM
He wasn't making anything up the day the assassination happened. Craig was murdered in 1975. The reason is that what he saw that day. It was Buddy Walters who involved the Pained because he saw the tan station wagon parked on Ruth Paine's driveway. Walters also died a mysterious death.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Nicholas Turner on September 08, 2018, 08:27:55 AM
He wasn't making anything up the day the assassination happened. Craig was murdered in 1975. The reason is that what he saw that day. It was Buddy Walters who involved the Pained because he saw the tan station wagon parked on Ruth Paine's driveway. Walters also died a mysterious death.

Opinion rather than fact of course.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Mitch Todd on September 08, 2018, 01:43:43 PM
Their qualifications to diagnose mental illness is another matter entirely.

What mental illness did Ferrell or Weisberg diagnose in Craig?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Mitch Todd on September 08, 2018, 02:22:08 PM
Her name is spelled "Mollie" in the 1940 census, and by her granddaughter in the Craig family tree on Ancestry.  Not worth quibbling about though, it doesn't really matter.

But the question then becomes, what is the reason for believing that this Michelle Andrea Hahn Palmer person is the same person as "Deanna Craig"?
My question is, if you couldn't find Deanna, are you looking in the right spot in the first place?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Mitch Todd on September 08, 2018, 02:42:15 PM
Very few people know this but the Dallas PD solved the assassination the same day that it happened. About 15 minutes after the assassination happened two Dallas Cops Roger Craig and Buddy Walter were examining a bullet mark on the sidewalk down by the triple underpass. 15 minutes after the assassination happened Roger Craig saw Oswald walk down the Grassy Knoll and get into a tan station wagon and drive away. Later on that day at about 5 pm after Oswald was arrested Roger Craig identified Oswald as the same person he saw get into the tan station wagon earlier in the day. Buddy Walters said that earlier in the day he saw that same tan station wagon parked on Ruth Paine's driveway. Oswald replied" Don't try and tie her into this" she had nothing to do with it. So the Oswald that Craig saw wasn't the same Oswald that was arrested at the Texas Theatre. This proves the two Oswald theory. You can read Craig's testimony here.  http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/craig.htm

I don't think that Craig ever said the station wagon was tan:

[Sheriff's Dep. affidavit, Nov 22, 1963] I saw what I think was a light colored Rambler Station [sic] wagon with [a] luggage rack on top
[CE1967 Nov 22, 1963] ...a white rambler station wagon...
[CE1993 nov 25, 1963] ...a white white Nash Rambler station wagon with a luggage rack on top...

[WC testimony, 1964]
Mr. BELIN - What kind and what color station wagon was it?
Mr. CRAIG - It was light colored--almost--uh--it looked white to me.
Mr. BELIN - What model or make was it?
Mr. CRAIG - I thought it was a Nash.
Mr. BELIN - Why would you think it was a Nash?
Mr. CRAIG - Because it had a built-in luggage rack on 'the top. And--uh--at the time, this was the only type car I could fit with that type luggage rack.
Mr. BELIN - A Nash Rambler-is that what you're referring to?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; with a rack on the the back portion of the car, you know.

[Shaw trial] ...a light green Rambler station wagon with a chrome luggage rack on the top...It was a light green Rambler station wagon with the luggage rack on the back portion

[When They Kill a President, 1971] A light green Rambler station wagon
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 10, 2018, 06:26:12 PM
My question is, if you couldn't find Deanna, are you looking in the right spot in the first place?

Yes.  Michelle Palmer, daughter of Molly Humpheys, is the one who claims in those old emails posted to the Education Forum that she is "Deanna Craig", daughter of Roger.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 10, 2018, 06:27:40 PM
What mental illness did Ferrell or Weisberg diagnose in Craig?

Do you think by "very sick young man", Mary Ferrell meant that he had the flu?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Mitch Todd on September 11, 2018, 06:25:53 AM
Do you think by "very sick young man", Mary Ferrell meant that he had the flu?
You don't need a doctor to know someone's sick. Diagnosis of the specific condition is what the doctor does.

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Denis Morissette on September 18, 2018, 06:59:45 PM
The most complete Roger Craig resource here:
https://jfkassassinationfiles.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/roger-craig/
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 18, 2018, 08:13:49 PM
The most complete Roger Craig resource here:
https://jfkassassinationfiles.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/roger-craig/

Thanks for the link, Denis...  Interesting stuff.    BUT ...Unfortunately there is nothing there to prove that Roger Craig was a liar ( although it's my personal belief that he embroidered information that was NOT factual.)

But having read the blog, I now wonder if Craig ever saw the rifle in situ.... Because he said that the rifle was lying on a north / south configuration.... with the scope north and the trigger south.    I believe that this configuration is contrary to all other reports from the men who saw the rifle before it was removed from the place where it obviously had been CAREFULLY HIDDEN.

I copied the below from your blog....

My conclusion is that Craig did see a man looking like Oswald getting into a car. Unfortunately, a cab driver testified that he took Oswald as passenger a few minutes after the assassination, Also, a bus driver testified that he had Oswald as a passenger also a few minutes after the assassination. Finally, a bus transfer of that particular bus driver was found on Oswald.

My conclusion is that Craig did see a man looking like Oswald getting into a car.

I also believe that Craig did in fact see a young man who resembled LHO get into a car driven by a dark complected man....( That in itself would had been a non typical happening....    (A white boy taking a ride with a Black man in a car....)   But I believe it happened.


Unfortunately, a cab driver testified that he took Oswald as passenger a few minutes after the assassination,

This is not accurate.....It IS the story that LBJ's cover up committee promoted ....BUT.... It is NOT William Whaley's story....

Whaley said that the man who became his passenger to Oak Cliff was  dressed in BLUE WORK Uniform (Both trousers and jacket were BLUE. )    LHO was dressed in a brownish red colored shirt with a BUTTON DOWN COLLAR and dark gray trousers.   And what's more.... Whaley said the man entered his cab at 12:30   .....Which was about the time that DPD officer Marrion Baker and Roy Truly encounter LHO in the second floor lunchroom.

 Also, a bus driver testified that he had Oswald as a passenger also a few minutes after the assassination. Finally, a bus transfer of that particular bus driver was found on Oswald.

The question is.... Was that bus transfer actually found in the pocket of the shirt that Lee was wearing at the time of his arrest at the theater?????    I DO NOT believe that transfer was in that shirt pocket....


I misunderstood Roger Craigs description of the position of the rifle that was LYING ON THE FLOOR......

having read the blog, I now wonder if Craig ever saw the rifle in situ.... Because he said that the rifle was lying on a north / south configuration.... with the scope north and the trigger south.    I believe that this configuration is contrary to all other reports from the men who saw the rifle before it was removed from the place where it obviously had been CAREFULLY HIDDEN.


he said that the rifle was lying on a north / south configuration.... with the scope north and the trigger south.

Roger's description is the correct orientation of the Mannlicher carcano.....as can be verified by watching as Lt Day picks the carcano up FROM THE FLOOR ( not jammed between boxes)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Nicholas Turner on September 18, 2018, 08:26:30 PM
Thanks for the link, Denis...  Interesting stuff.    BUT ...Unfortunately there is nothing there to prove that Roger Craig was a liar ( although it's my personal belief that he embroidered information that was NOT factual.)

But having read the blog, I now wonder if Craig ever saw the rifle in situ.... Because he said that the rifle was lying on a north / south configuration.... with the scope north and the trigger south.    I believe that this configuration is contrary to all other reports from the men who saw the rifle before it was removed from the place where it obviously had been CAREFULLY HIDDEN.

I copied the below from your blog....

My conclusion is that Craig did see a man looking like Oswald getting into a car. Unfortunately, a cab driver testified that he took Oswald as passenger a few minutes after the assassination, Also, a bus driver testified that he had Oswald as a passenger also a few minutes after the assassination. Finally, a bus transfer of that particular bus driver was found on Oswald.

My conclusion is that Craig did see a man looking like Oswald getting into a car.

I also believe that Craig did in fact see a young man who resembled LHO get into a car driven by a dark complected man....( That in itself would had been a non typical happening....    (A white boy taking a ride with a Black man in a car....)   But I believe it happened.


Unfortunately, a cab driver testified that he took Oswald as passenger a few minutes after the assassination,

This is not accurate.....It IS the story that LBJ's cover up committee promoted ....BUT.... It is NOT William Whaley's story....

Whaley said that the man who became his passenger to Oak Cliff was  dressed in BLUE WORK Uniform (Both trousers and jacket were BLUE. )    LHO was dressed in a brownish red colored shirt with a BUTTON DOWN COLLAR and dark gray trousers.   And what's more.... Whaley said the man entered his cab at 12:30   .....Which was about the time that DPD officer Marrion Baker and Roy Truly encounter LHO in the second floor lunchroom.

 Also, a bus driver testified that he had Oswald as a passenger also a few minutes after the assassination. Finally, a bus transfer of that particular bus driver was found on Oswald.

The question is.... Was that bus transfer actually found in the pocket of the shirt that Lee was wearing at the time of his arrest at the theater?????    I DO NOT believe that transfer was in that shirt pocket....

Whaley told the WC that he didn't keep accurate times and that his 12.30 entry could have been anytime between 12.30 and 12.45. He also told them the passenger had a brown shirt on with a T shirt underneath.

I was wondering about the reference to LHO wearing grey trousers when at work. Where is this mentioned? Whaley described the trousers as faded blue.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 18, 2018, 09:26:28 PM
Whaley told the WC that he didn't keep accurate times and that his 12.30 entry could have been anytime between 12.30 and 12.45. He also told them the passenger had a brown shirt on with a T shirt underneath.

I was wondering about the reference to LHO wearing grey trousers when at work. Where is this mentioned? Whaley described the trousers as faded blue.

Whaley told the WC that he didn't keep accurate times


Nick....You would be doing yourself a big favor if you refrain from using information that you obtain from LBJ's Special Select Blue Ribbon Cover Up Committee

Whaley said that he arrived at the Bus Station at about 12:30 and he confirmed that time by KNOWING the distances and travel times between various points in Dallas by rote.    He KNEW what time he'd been at various sites in Dallas and he knew how long it took to travel between points....( he's been transporting passengers between points for years)   

LBJ's Special Blue Ribbon Cover Up Committee would like us to believe that Whaley didn't know precisely what time He arrived at the Bus Station.....But it is a fact that he knew he'd arrived at 12:25 and his passenger who was dressed on BLUE twill clothing ( Jacket and trousers) entered his cab at about 12:30.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Nicholas Turner on September 18, 2018, 09:40:32 PM
Whaley told the WC that he didn't keep accurate times


Nick....You would be doing yourself a big favor if you refrain from using information that you obtain from LBJ's Special Select Blue Ribbon Cover Up Committee

Whaley said that he arrived at the Bus Station at about 12:30 and he confirmed that time by KNOWING the distances and travel times between various points in Dallas by rote.    He KNEW what time he'd been at various sites in Dallas and he knew how long it took to travel between points....( he's been transporting passengers between points for years)

Where did he say that please? I watched an interview with him saying what he said to the WC.

Quote
LBJ's Special Blue Ribbon Cover Up Committee would like us to believe that Whaley didn't know precisely what time He arrived at the Bus Station.....But it is a fact that he knew he'd arrived at 12:25 and his passenger who was dressed on BLUE twill clothing ( Jacket and trousers) entered his cab at about 12:30.

He described a brown shirt with t shirt underneath too.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 18, 2018, 10:00:56 PM
Whaley claimed that he rounded his times to the nearest 15 minutes.  Not only do the other entries on the timesheet belie this claim, but even if that was true then he would have put 12:45, not 12:30.

(https://nebula.wsimg.com/cf74ef484ade1018da0a49d76c67491c?AccessKeyId=9CD8649F35FCA7653E81&disposition=0&alloworigin=1)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 18, 2018, 10:06:10 PM
He described a brown shirt with t shirt underneath too.

He said "a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it AND he had on some kind of jacket".
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Nicholas Turner on September 18, 2018, 10:17:22 PM
Whaley claimed that he rounded his times to the nearest 15 minutes.  Not only do the other entries on the timesheet belie this claim, but even if that was true then he would have put 12:45, not 12:30.


He said 'I think it is marked 12:30 to 12:45. Now that could have been 10 minutes off in each direction because I didn't use a watch, I just guess, in other words, all my trips are marked about 15 minutes each.'

If this is true it doesn't seem a good idea to use a timing argument against the passenger being Oswald. Do you agree?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 18, 2018, 10:30:31 PM
He said 'I think it is marked 12:30 to 12:45. Now that could have been 10 minutes off in each direction because I didn't use a watch, I just guess, in other words, all my trips are marked about 15 minutes each.'

The official story has Oswald entering the cab at 12:46.  "10 minutes off in each direction" doesn't get you to 12:30 either.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Nicholas Turner on September 18, 2018, 10:33:25 PM
The official story has Oswald entering the cab at 12:46.  "10 minutes off in each direction" doesn't get you to 12:30 either.

True, but do you agree it isn't a good idea to use timing arguments when someone says they don't wear a watch and guess the times?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 18, 2018, 10:37:33 PM
True, but do you agree it isn't a good idea to use timing arguments when someone says they don't wear a watch and guess the times?

Maybe.  But what if he gets the time wrong, the description wrong, the clothing wrong, the drop off point wrong, and the position in the lineup wrong?  At what point do you just decide he's unreliable?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Nicholas Turner on September 18, 2018, 10:45:42 PM
Maybe.  But what if he gets the time wrong, the description wrong, the clothing wrong, the drop off point wrong, and the position in the lineup wrong?  At what point do you just decide he's unreliable?

I agree if every detail can be shown to be wrong then you have to decide someone is unreliable. Could we go through the other points  - starting with the clothes - then maybe we could agree on what we think about his evidence. You say the clothing was wrong. He does mention a brown shirt and T-shirt underneath, which I believe is correct, yes? Faded blue trousers - I think we talked about what colour trousers Oswald wore to work that day but don't think we were sure, is that correct. Was it a blue jacket which he said which is the biggest problem?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 18, 2018, 10:52:09 PM
Where did he say that please? I watched an interview with him saying what he said to the WC.

He described a brown shirt with t shirt underneath too.

Where did he say that please? I watched an interview with him saying what he said to the WC.


(https://nebula.wsimg.com/cf74ef484ade1018da0a49d76c67491c?AccessKeyId=9CD8649F35FCA7653E81&disposition=0&alloworigin=1)

The trip log indicates that he left the Bus Station (with the man who was dressed in the BLUE work clothes) at 12:30 and arrived at 500 N. Beckley at 12:45.....


He described a brown shirt with t shirt underneath too.

That's irrelevant ......   Lee Oswald was NOT wearing a BLUE workman's uniform........
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 18, 2018, 11:02:54 PM
You say the clothing was wrong. He does mention a brown shirt and T-shirt underneath, which I believe is correct, yes?

Not unless you can find a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Nicholas Turner on September 18, 2018, 11:06:46 PM
Where did he say that please? I watched an interview with him saying what he said to the WC.


(https://nebula.wsimg.com/cf74ef484ade1018da0a49d76c67491c?AccessKeyId=9CD8649F35FCA7653E81&disposition=0&alloworigin=1)

The trip log indicates that he left the Bus Station (with the man who was dressed in the BLUE work clothes) at 12:30 and arrived at 500 N. Beckley at 12:45.....


He described a brown shirt with t shirt underneath too.

That's irrelevant ......   Lee Oswald was NOT wearing a BLUE workman's uniform........

He told the WC.
'Mr. Ball.
    Did you notice how he was dressed?
Mr. Whaley.
    Yes, sir. I didn't pay much attention to it right then. But it all came back when I really found out who I had. He was dressed in just ordinary work clothes. It wasn't khaki pants but they were khaki material, blue faded blue color, like a blue uniform made in khaki. Then he had on a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it and he had on some kind of jacket, I didn't notice very close but I think it was a work jacket that almost matched the pants.
    He, his shirt was open three buttons down here. He had on a T-shirt. You know, the shirt was open three buttons down there.'

In his evidence he was asked if he could identify the brown shirt which was Commission Exhibit No. 150

'Mr. Ball.
    I have some clothing here. Commission Exhibit No. 150, does that look like the shirt?
Mr. Whaley.
    That is the shirt, sir, it has my initials on it.
Mr. Ball.
    In other words, this is the shirt the man had on?
Mr. Whaley.
    Yes, sir; that is the same one the FBI man had me identify.
Mr. Ball.
    This is the shirt the man had on who took your car at Lamar and Jackson?
Mr. Whaley.
    As near as I can recollect as I told him. I said that is the shirt he had on because it had a kind of little stripe in it, light-colored stripe. I noticed that.'

He was asked about the trousers but wasn't sure CE152 - couldn't find a photograph). He identified jacket exhibit 162. He mentioned another blue jacket, that is true.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Nicholas Turner on September 18, 2018, 11:09:16 PM
Not unless you can find a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it.

CE150, which he identified - particularly mentioning the silverlike stripe on it as being something he recognised?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 18, 2018, 11:18:55 PM
CE150, which he identified - particularly mentioning the silverlike stripe on it as being something he recognised?

I'll bite.  Where's the silverlike stripe?

(https://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.6392801.1383967120!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/display_960/image.jpg)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 18, 2018, 11:20:39 PM
CE150, which he identified - particularly mentioning the silverlike stripe on it as being something he recognised?

Did this shirt have a BUTTON DOWN COLLAR?......   Lee Oswald told the interrogators that the brownish red shirt that he was wearing at work that morning had a BUTTON DOWN COLLAR.   

The brownish red shirt that the DPD Detectives found in Lee Oswald's dresser had a BUTTON DOWN COLLAR and NO silver stripe .....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Nicholas Turner on September 18, 2018, 11:31:23 PM
I'll bite.  Where's the silverlike stripe?

(https://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.6392801.1383967120!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/display_960/image.jpg)

Its not a question of biting, its discussing.

I don't know what he meant by a silverlike stripe, but when shown the shirt he identified it and sadi it was because he recognised that feature. If you look at the material it has that glossy two tone  look I remember all too well from hideous 80s fashion - maybe that's what he meant. I don't know.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 18, 2018, 11:36:35 PM
Its not a question of biting, its discussing.

I don't know what he meant by a silverlike stripe, but when shown the shirt he identified it and sadi it was because he recognised that feature. If you look at the material it has that glossy two tone  look I remember all too well from hideous 80s fashion - maybe that's what he meant. I don't know.

Sure, maybe.

And maybe he just identified that shirt because it's the shirt the FBI told him that Oswald was wearing.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 18, 2018, 11:37:02 PM
Its not a question of biting, its discussing.

I don't know what he meant by a silverlike stripe, but when shown the shirt he identified it and sadi it was because he recognised that feature. If you look at the material it has that glossy two tone  look I remember all too well from hideous 80s fashion - maybe that's what he meant. I don't know.

Mr Turner, When are you going to face the facts and stop citing the Cover up committe?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Nicholas Turner on September 18, 2018, 11:39:43 PM
Sure, maybe.

And maybe he just identified that shirt because it's the shirt the FBI told him that Oswald was wearing.

So he could have possibly identified the shirt correctly?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 19, 2018, 01:52:45 AM
Thanks for the link, Denis...  Interesting stuff.    BUT ...Unfortunately there is nothing there to prove that Roger Craig was a liar ( although it's my personal belief that he embroidered information that was NOT factual.)

But having read the blog, I now wonder if Craig ever saw the rifle in situ.... Because he said that the rifle was lying on a north / south configuration.... with the scope north and the trigger south.    I believe that this configuration is contrary to all other reports from the men who saw the rifle before it was removed from the place where it obviously had been CAREFULLY HIDDEN.

I copied the below from your blog....

My conclusion is that Craig did see a man looking like Oswald getting into a car. Unfortunately, a cab driver testified that he took Oswald as passenger a few minutes after the assassination, Also, a bus driver testified that he had Oswald as a passenger also a few minutes after the assassination. Finally, a bus transfer of that particular bus driver was found on Oswald.

My conclusion is that Craig did see a man looking like Oswald getting into a car.

I also believe that Craig did in fact see a young man who resembled LHO get into a car driven by a dark complected man....( That in itself would had been a non typical happening....    (A white boy taking a ride with a Black man in a car....)   But I believe it happened.


Unfortunately, a cab driver testified that he took Oswald as passenger a few minutes after the assassination,

This is not accurate.....It IS the story that LBJ's cover up committee promoted ....BUT.... It is NOT William Whaley's story....

Whaley said that the man who became his passenger to Oak Cliff was  dressed in BLUE WORK Uniform (Both trousers and jacket were BLUE. )    LHO was dressed in a brownish red colored shirt with a BUTTON DOWN COLLAR and dark gray trousers.   And what's more.... Whaley said the man entered his cab at 12:30   .....Which was about the time that DPD officer Marrion Baker and Roy Truly encounter LHO in the second floor lunchroom.

 Also, a bus driver testified that he had Oswald as a passenger also a few minutes after the assassination. Finally, a bus transfer of that particular bus driver was found on Oswald.

The question is.... Was that bus transfer actually found in the pocket of the shirt that Lee was wearing at the time of his arrest at the theater?????    I DO NOT believe that transfer was in that shirt pocket....

I now wonder if Craig ever saw the rifle in situ.... Because he said that the rifle was lying on a north / south configuration.... with the scope north and the trigger south.    I believe that this configuration is contrary to all other reports from the men who saw the rifle before it was removed from the place where it obviously had been CAREFULLY HIDDEN.


Watch closely at the 45 second point of the Alyea film.


Notice that the sling is UP as Detective Day reaches down and grabs the sling.....That sling says that Roger Craig was a damne4d liar....When he said that the scope was to the north and the trigger was to the south....

The sling is mounted on the LEFT side of a Carcano.....   If the left side of the rifle was up as it is seen at the 45 second point of this film when Day picks the rifle up, then the scope would be to the SOUTH and the trigger would be toward the North which is exactly the opposite of what liar Roger Craig said.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Mytton on September 19, 2018, 02:35:33 AM
I'll bite.  Where's the silverlike stripe?

Mr. BALL. I have here a bracelet which is marked 383. Take a look at it and tell me if you have ever seen it before.
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; as near as I can tell that is the bracelet he was wearing the day I carried him, the shiny bracelet I was talking about.
Mr. BALL. You mentioned the fact that the man who sat in the front seat of your cab, which you drove from the Greyhound Station on Lamar Street over to 500 North Beckley, had an identification bracelet on him.
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, it looked like an identification bracelet. It looks like this one, sir, it was shiny, I couldn't tell exactly whether that was the bracelet or not.


(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49673/m1/1/med_res/)

Whaley was into jewelry because that what his thing and instantly recognized Oswald's shiny and perhaps silverlike bracelet.

Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; I noticed it; yes, sir. I always notice watchbands, unusual watchbands, and identification bracelets like these, because I make them myself. I made this one.
Representative FORD. In other words, you have a particular interest in them?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, I particularly notice things like that.


And to top it off according to Fritz, Oswald admitted to getting on and off a bus then catching a cab.

Mr. BALL. I don't want you to say he admitted the transfer. I want you to tell me what he said about the transfer.
Mr. FRITZ. He told he that was the transfer the busdriver had given him when he caught the bus to go home. But he had told me if you will remember in our previous conversation that he rode the bus or on North Beckley and had walked home but in the meantime, sometime had told me about him riding a cab.
So, when I asked him about a cab ride if he had ridden in a cab he said yes, he had, he told me wrong about the bus, he had rode a cab. He said the reason he changed, that he rode the bus for a short distance, and the crowd was so heavy and traffic was so bad that he got out and caught a cab, and I asked him some other questions about the cab and I asked him what happened there when he caught the cab and he said there was a lady trying to catch a cab and he told the busdriver, the busdriver told him to tell the lady to catch the cab behind him and he said he rode that cab over near his home, he rode home in a cab.


And Bookout.

Mr. STERN - Yes. Did he ever complain that, "We have been over that ground before," or make any such statement?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - No; I don't recall anything along that line, but I can recall one subject matter probably in the first interview where he talked about his method of transportation after leaving the Texas Book Depository, having gotten on a bus, and then that subject was taken up again, as I recall, in the second interview, expressed the same answer at that time, and then subsequently to that interview he backed up and said that it wasn't actually true as to how he got home. That he had taken a bus, and due to the traffic jam he had left the bus and got a taxicab, by which means he actually arrived at his residence.


JohnM

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Nicholas Turner on September 19, 2018, 08:52:53 AM
Mr Turner, When are you going to face the facts and stop citing the Cover up committe?

I am always happy o face facts when they are presented, not unsupported opinions though. The WC report is a repository of evidence. You may consider it a bad place to refer to but you can't dismiss it all just because the report was flawed (as I have repeatedly said).

Whaley described a brown shirt with a white T shirt underneath and identified the brown shirt recovered from Oswald as the one he had seen. This is a fact. On what basis do you dismiss this, as you seem to?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 19, 2018, 06:46:26 PM
Notice that the sling is UP as Detective Day reaches down and grabs the sling.....That sling says that Roger Craig was a damne4d liar....When he said that the scope was to the north and the trigger was to the south....

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 19, 2018, 06:49:25 PM
Whaley was into jewelry because that what his thing and instantly recognized Oswald's shiny and perhaps silverlike bracelet.

??

Are you saying that the bracelet was the little silverlike stripe that Whaley saw on the brown shirt that Ball showed him?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Nicholas Turner on September 19, 2018, 06:55:00 PM
The learning curve is way too steep for you, why don't you save Duncan some bandwidth?

When you drive a taxi that long you learn to judge people and what I actually thought of the man when he got in was that he was a wino who had been off his bottle for about two days, that is the way he looked, sir, that was my opinion of him.

That's your expert witness right there.

Why so angry? I'm not here to argue and am open to discuss stuff, but not with people with attitude.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 19, 2018, 07:40:53 PM
I am always happy o face facts when they are presented, not unsupported opinions though. The WC report is a repository of evidence. You may consider it a bad place to refer to but you can't dismiss it all just because the report was flawed (as I have repeatedly said).

Whaley described a brown shirt with a white T shirt underneath and identified the brown shirt recovered from Oswald as the one he had seen. This is a fact. On what basis do you dismiss this, as you seem to?

The WC report is a repository of evidence. You may consider it a bad place to refer to but you can't dismiss it all just because the report was flawed (as I have repeatedly said).


The WC report is a repository of evidence.

Yes, that's exactly right....  Unfortunately the Warren REPORT is NOT supported by the information in the 26 volumes.   Students of the case have found hundreds of examples where the FACTS in the volumes have been twisted into something unrecognizable to the witnesses.

You may consider it a bad place to refer

No, I do NOT consider the Warren Report "a bad place to refer" In fact the Warren Report is an excellent document for demonstrating how LBJ's Cover Up committee operated..... and twisted the facts to frame an innocent man.

It seems to me that you, Mr Turner, refuse to see the truth....   I've pointed out the FACTS about what William Whaley said but you refuse to accept those facts.

Whaley said that his passenger got in his cab at about 12:30....   Lee Oswald was seen in the second floro lunchroom of the TSBD at about 12:32.

Whaley said his passenger was wearing a BLUE uniform  which consisted of a BLUE jacket and matching BLUE trousers.

Lee Oswald was wearing a brownish red shirt and dark gray trousers, and he didn't even own any clothing like the clothes described by Whaley
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Nicholas Turner on September 19, 2018, 08:13:09 PM
The WC report is a repository of evidence. You may consider it a bad place to refer to but you can't dismiss it all just because the report was flawed (as I have repeatedly said).


The WC report is a repository of evidence.

Yes, that's exactly right....  Unfortunately the Warren REPORT is NOT supported by the information in the 26 volumes.   Students of the case have found hundreds of examples where the FACTS in the volumes have been twisted into something unrecognizable to the witnesses.

You may consider it a bad place to refer

No, I do NOT consider the Warren Report "a bad place to refer" In fact the Warren Report is an excellent document for demonstrating how LBJ's Cover Up committee operated..... and twisted the facts to frame an innocent man.

It seems to me that you, Mr Turner, refuse to see the truth....   I've pointed out the FACTS about what William Whaley said but you refuse to accept those facts.

Whaley said that his passenger got in his cab at about 12:30....   Lee Oswald was seen in the second floro lunchroom of the TSBD at about 12:32.

Whaley said his passenger was wearing a BLUE uniform  which consisted of a BLUE jacket and matching BLUE trousers.

Lee Oswald was wearing a brownish red shirt and dark gray trousers, and he didn't even own any clothing like the clothes described by Whaley

Whaley said he didn't wear a watch and guessed the time, and gave an approximation which could be 15 mins out. That's a fact isn't it?

He didn't only mention the blue items of clothing but mentioned a brown shirt, which he later identified, and a white T shirt underneath. Marina said LHO owned a blue jacket.

There is a lot of discussion about the jackets (CE162 & 163) I know and there are questions to be answered but don't think you can dismiss Whaley's testimony as it stands.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 19, 2018, 08:30:24 PM
Whaley said he didn't wear a watch and guessed the time, and gave an approximation which could be 15 mins out. That's a fact isn't it?

He didn't only mention the blue items of clothing but mentioned a brown shirt, which he later identified, and a white T shirt underneath. Marina said LHO owned a blue jacket.

There is a lot of discussion about the jackets (CE162 & 163) I know and there are questions to be answered but don't think you can dismiss Whaley's testimony as it stands.

Whaley said he didn't wear a watch and guessed the time, and gave an approximation which could be 15 mins out. That's a fact isn't it?



Obviously you are ignorant of the fact that Taxi's have a clock as part of the meter........And any bus station I've been in has clocks on the walls so passengers won't miss their bus.   Whaley Knew.... that the man in Blue.... entered his cab, at 12:30.  (A little poetry for you)

You can bet that Whaley knew where every public clock in Dallas was located.

He didn't only mention the blue items of clothing but mentioned a brown shirt, which he later identified, and a white T shirt underneath. Marina said LHO owned a blue jacket.


It is a FACT that Whaley said the man was wearing BLUE clothing.....Lee Oswald was NOT wearing BLUE clothing.


I know and there are questions to be answered but don't think you can dismiss Whaley's testimony as it stands.

Who is dismissing Whaley's statements?.....   Whaley said the man was wearing a blue colored workman's uniform.....Lee Oswald didn't even own any Blue Workman's uniform.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Nicholas Turner on September 19, 2018, 08:30:50 PM
Where did you pick up the foolish idea that I'm angry? ....... you have NFI what you're dealing with when it comes to evidence.

Sound angry to me.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Nicholas Turner on September 19, 2018, 08:36:20 PM
Whaley said he didn't wear a watch and guessed the time, and gave an approximation which could be 15 mins out. That's a fact isn't it?


Obviously you are ignorant of the fact that Taxi's have a clock as part of the meter........And any bus station I've been in has clocks on the walls so passengers won't miss their bus.   Whaley Knew.... that the man in Blue.... entered his cab, at 12:30.  (A little poetry for you)

You can bet that Whaley knew where every public clock in Dallas was located.

Maybe, but he did say he guessed the time didn't he?

Quote
It is a FACT that Whaley said the man was wearing BLUE clothing.....Lee Oswald was NOT wearing BLUE clothing.

He did say. He was wearing blue clothing, yes, as I have said before. He also mentioned other clothing which was correct. I think I asked before about what colour trousers Oswald wore to work but don't remember being shown the evidence. Would be happy to see it.

Quote
Who is dismissing Whaley's statements?.....   Whaley said the man was wearing a blue colored workman's uniform.....Lee Oswald didn't even own any Blue Workman's uniform.

Did he own a blue jacket as Marina said?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Nicholas Turner on September 19, 2018, 08:39:26 PM
Sounds like you're in the wrong forum.

Maybe you're right.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 19, 2018, 08:43:16 PM
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)

Why would you post a fake picture in an attempt to refute the Tom Alyea film which clearly shows the rifle was laying on it's right side with the sling side (left side) up.  ????

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)

This is a fake in situ photo that the DPD created to support their lie about Lee dashing by the boxes and tossing the rifle aside as he fled.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Nicholas Turner on September 19, 2018, 08:58:04 PM
I know I am:

Yes you are, about this anyway. Bye then. Enjoy.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 19, 2018, 09:01:11 PM
Maybe, but he did say he guessed the time didn't he?

He did say. He was wearing blue clothing, yes, as I have said before. He also mentioned other clothing which was correct. I think I asked before about what colour trousers Oswald wore to work but don't remember being shown the evidence. Would be happy to see it.

Did he own a blue jacket as Marina said?

he did say he guessed the time didn't he?

I honestly don't know.....The shyster lawyers on LBJ's cover up committee probably did lead him into saying that he guessed at the time...BUT...What does that mean? Does it mean that he didn't look at the man in blue clothes and then look at the bus station clock to determine PRECISELY what time it was???    Or does it mean that He knew the time was approximately 12:30 but he didn't know the PRECISE time???

The DPD detectives who searched Lee's room at about 4:00 pm that afternoon took photos of the evidence and compiled a list of the items they found in Lee's room at 1026 N. Beckley.

Among the items listed are: a reddish brown long sleeve man's shirt with a BUTTON DOWN  collar and a pair of dark gray trousers.

Although the conspirators have managed to confuse the shirt issue they have overlooked the trousers...The trousers are shown in color in official police photos of the evidence and the trousers are dark gray.


Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 19, 2018, 09:04:20 PM
Maybe, but he did say he guessed the time didn't he?

He did say. He was wearing blue clothing, yes, as I have said before. He also mentioned other clothing which was correct. I think I asked before about what colour trousers Oswald wore to work but don't remember being shown the evidence. Would be happy to see it.

Did he own a blue jacket as Marina said?


Who the hell cares?....  It's irrelevant whether Lee owned a blue workman's type jacket.....   He was NOT wearing a blue jacket ( or a jacket of any color)  when he left the TSBD
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 19, 2018, 09:19:53 PM
Whaley said he didn't wear a watch and guessed the time, and gave an approximation which could be 15 mins out. That's a fact isn't it?

No it's not.  He said 10 minutes.

Quote
Marina said LHO owned a blue jacket.

That was the one supposedly found by Frankie Kaiser in the TSBD domino room either a few days later or 4 weeks later (depending on which report you believe), coincidentally the same guy who found the alleged "Oswald clipboard" on the sixth floor that nobody else noticed either.

But how could Whaley have seen his passenger wearing that?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 19, 2018, 09:25:57 PM
He did say. He was wearing blue clothing, yes, as I have said before. He also mentioned other clothing which was correct.

You mean that brown shirt with the "little silverlike stripe"?

Quote
I think I asked before about what colour trousers Oswald wore to work but don't remember being shown the evidence. Would be happy to see it.

Black.  CE 158

(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0271b.jpg)

But he supposedly told Fritz that he changed his pants at the rooming house.  However, I don't see any blue pants in the evidence exhibits.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 19, 2018, 09:31:07 PM
Why would you post a fake picture in an attempt to refute the Tom Alyea film which clearly shows the rifle was laying on it's right side with the sling side (left side) up.  ????

I know that's the Walt Fabrication, but you don't know what boxes they moved before the Alyea clip starts.  In fact the whole Alyea clip could be a recreation.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 19, 2018, 09:58:38 PM
You mean that brown shirt with the "little silverlike stripe"?

Black.  CE 158

(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0271b.jpg)

But he supposedly told Fritz that he changed his pants at the rooming house.  However, I don't see any blue pants in the evidence exhibits.


he supposedly told Fritz that he changed his pants at the rooming house.

Why supposedly??    There are several reports of the interrogations from several sources that confirm that Lee told them that he went to his room and changed his clothes before going to the theater.  (See Hosty / Bookhout report for 11/ 23 /63 on page 612 of WR)  On page 622 FBI agent James Bookhout's report says....quote...He stated after arriving at the apartment he changed his shirt and trousers because they were dirty. He described his dirty clothing as being a reddish colored, long sleeved shirt with a BUTTON DOWN  COLLAR and gray colored trousers.

And on page 626 Inspector Kelly writes in his report... "He went home changed his trousers and shirt, put his shirt in a dresser. This was a red shirt and he put it with his dirty clothes. He described the shirt as having a BUTTON DOWN COLLAR and of a reddish color. The trousers were gray colored. 


There's no good reason to doubt that Lee went to his room and changed his clothes....and he was NOT wearing any BLUE workman's clothing...   And to those who argue that he was wearing the same shirt the entire day and did not change his clothes....Then show me the BUTTON DOWN  COLLAR on the arrest shirt.    I know the FBI found fibers on the butt of the rifle that they said matched the shirt that Lee was wearing at the theater when he was arrested....BUT ....  Their tale does not add up .....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 19, 2018, 10:18:32 PM
I know that's the Walt Fabrication, but you don't know what boxes they moved before the Alyea clip starts.  In fact the whole Alyea clip could be a recreation.


I know that's the Walt Fabrication,

Thank you....  It certainly DID take a lot of study and effort to construct that "fabrication" ...and it's nice of you to recognize the sturdy construction.

you don't know what boxes they moved before the Alyea clip starts.

You're right....  But the police all swore that NOTHING was touched and no boxes moved prior to Alyea   Detective Day lifting the rifle ....Based on your statement here, I assume that you agree with me that they were lying....and boxes were in fact moved prior to Day picking up the rifle.

The Alyea film clip definitely shows the rifle laying on it's right side with the left side up ....  Now then let's see if I can get this through your thick skull....  If the rifle had been positioned as it is seen in the "on situ" photo With the trigger guard / magazine down and the left hand mounted scope up and supported by boxes ...Then if the boxes were removed the laws of physics would cause the rifle to topple to the left ( because of the weight of the scope off to the left of center)...   Thus the LEFT side of the rifle would have been down and detective Day could not have reached down and grabbed the leather sling, because it would have been on the opposite side of the rifle. 

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 19, 2018, 10:29:58 PM
Thank you....  It certainly DID take a lot of study and effort to construct that "fabrication" ...and it's nice of you to recognize the sturdy construction.

I recognize your sturdy imagination...

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,99.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,99.0.html)

Quote
You're right....  But the police all swore that NOTHING was touched and no boxes moved prior to Alyea lifting the rifle ....Based on your statement here, I assume that you agree with me that they were lying....and boxes were in fact moved prior to Day picking up the rifle.

I didn't know that Alyea ever lifted the rifle, but you're right:  we have plenty of reasons not to trust anything that the Dallas police officers swore to.

Quote
The Alyea film clip definitely shows the rifle laying on it's right side with the left side up ....  Now then let's see if I can get this through your thick skull....  If the rifle had been positioned as it is seen in the "on situ" photo With the trigger guard / magazine down and the left hand mounted scope up and supported by boxes ...Then if the boxes were removed the laws of physics would cause the rifle to topple to the left ( because of the weight of the scope off to the left of center)...   Thus the LEFT side of the rifle would have been down and detective Day could not have reached down and grabbed the leather sling, because it would have been on the opposite side of the rifle.

Wouldn't that depend on which boxes were moved?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 19, 2018, 10:48:32 PM
I recognize your sturdy imagination...

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,99.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,99.0.html)

I didn't know that Alyea ever lifted the rifle, but you're right:  we have plenty of reasons not to trust anything that the Dallas police officers swore to.

Wouldn't that depend on which boxes were moved?

I didn't know that Alyea ever lifted the rifle, but you're right:  we have plenty of reasons not to trust anything that the Dallas police officers swore to.

I didn't know that Alyea ever lifted the rifle,


Ha ha..Ya caught me....  I meant Detective Day lifting the rifle....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 20, 2018, 12:26:05 AM
I recognize your sturdy imagination...

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,99.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,99.0.html)

I didn't know that Alyea ever lifted the rifle, but you're right:  we have plenty of reasons not to trust anything that the Dallas police officers swore to.

Wouldn't that depend on which boxes were moved?

WF9: Tom Alyea filmed the rifle after the clip had slid out.


Please correct this entry.....  Tom Alyea DID NOT film the rifle AFTER the clip slid out.....

Tom Alyea was filming Day as Day dusted the rifle for finger prints behind the sunlit window at the NW corner of the sixth floor.   As detective Day worked with the rifle and turned it in various positions the clip which was loose in magazine was sliding around inside the magazine.  At one point the clip slid out far enough so that the light colored brass was visible. The clip was about 1/4 inch out of the magazine when Tom Alyea's camera recorded it in that position. 
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Tom Scully on September 20, 2018, 04:02:09 AM
Whaley said he didn't wear a watch and guessed the time, and gave an approximation which could be 15 mins out. That's a fact isn't it?

He didn't only mention the blue items of clothing but mentioned a brown shirt, which he later identified, and a white T shirt underneath. Marina said LHO owned a blue jacket.

There is a lot of discussion about the jackets (CE162 & 163) I know and there are questions to be answered but don't think you can dismiss Whaley's testimony as it stands.

Was this age "discrepancy" unremarkable (SoP, of a guy seen below correcting the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS over a single year) or was fraud committed against Whaley's military draft board?
Quote
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/whaley1.htm
Testimony Of William Wayne Whaley
.....
The CHAIRMAN. The witness has been driving a taxicab in Dallas for 36 years.
Mr. WHALEY. Thirty-seven, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Thirty-seven. ....

(http://jfkdebate.com/images/WhaleyDOB1940DraftCard.jpg)
Whaley demonstrating his precision about dates/age was at work again, here, as in the first
statement attributed to witness Whaley included his description of his passenger as 25 or 26 years of age.:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/Whaley23Nov.jpg)
As proven in the page linked below, some time after 1940, William Wayne Whaley added (or cooperated in) three years to his age.:
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/13730776/william-wayne-whaley
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Mike Orr on September 20, 2018, 04:29:09 AM
There wasn't a clip until the Mauser changed into a Mannlicher Carcano. The BS they put Roger Craig through was totally uncalled for. He was railroaded !
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 20, 2018, 01:36:16 PM
There wasn't a clip until the Mauser changed into a Mannlicher Carcano. The BS they put Roger Craig through was totally uncalled for. He was railroaded !


Mike, are you unaware that there are photos of Detective Day leaving the TSBD with the carcano at about 2:30 that afternoon, and the clip is clearly visible sticking out from he magazine / trigger duard of the carcano?

Roger Craig put himself through the wringer...... 
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Steve Logan on September 20, 2018, 03:53:35 PM
Or "white spots of something", in his final more detailed affidavit. He did two drafts, so his "white streaks" changed to spots:

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340663/?q=whaley (first)

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340356/?q=whaley

Needless to say BALL didn't feel like asking why the streak had turned into spots in his affidavit.

Mr. BALL. Is that the same shirt you saw here?
Mr. WHALEY. I think it is, sir. I am not positive but it had the same kind of silver streak in it.
Maybe we shoulda asked Daryl Click.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 20, 2018, 04:13:54 PM
Or "white spots of something", in his final more detailed affidavit. He did two drafts, so his "white streaks" changed to spots:

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340663/?q=whaley (first)

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340356/?q=whaley

Needless to say BALL didn't feel like asking why the streak had turned into spots in his affidavit.

Mr. BALL. Is that the same shirt you saw here?
Mr. WHALEY. I think it is, sir. I am not positive but it had the same kind of silver streak in it.

(http://jfkforum.com/images/Whaley23Nov.jpg)

Notice that Whaley opens his affidavit with the statement .... Yesterday 11 22 / 63 I was sitting at Lamar and Jackson at the Greyhound Bus Station at 12:30 pm waiting for a fare....(when) this boy walked up to to the cab.

This affidavit clearly states that the time was 12:30........Lee Oswald was in the Lunchroom at the TSBD at 12:30.....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 20, 2018, 05:05:58 PM
WF9: Tom Alyea filmed the rifle after the clip had slid out.


Please correct this entry.....  Tom Alyea DID NOT film the rifle AFTER the clip slid out.....

Tom Alyea was filming Day as Day dusted the rifle for finger prints behind the sunlit window at the NW corner of the sixth floor.   As detective Day worked with the rifle and turned it in various positions the clip which was loose in magazine was sliding around inside the magazine.  At one point the clip slid out far enough so that the light colored brass was visible. The clip was about 1/4 inch out of the magazine when Tom Alyea's camera recorded it in that position.

Unfortunately, the forum archives were lost, but you did make this statement early on in the original Alyea discussion and then later changed your mind when somebody convinced you that the edges of the clip are visible in the Alyea film (they're not).
I'll note your retraction.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 20, 2018, 07:24:21 PM
Unfortunately, the forum archives were lost, but you did make this statement early on in the original Alyea discussion and then later changed your mind when somebody convinced you that the edges of the clip are visible in the Alyea film (they're not).
I'll note your retraction.

Huh??  What retraction??....I simply wanted a clarification and posted truthfully.

The way you've posted it it appears that the clip slipped completely out of the magazine....I've never ever proposed that the clip slipped completely out while Day was examining the rifle .....
I believe Day was totally ignorant to the fact that there was a clip in that magazine.....

Tom Alyea's film shows a small bit of the brass clip extending out of the magazine.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 20, 2018, 07:53:27 PM
Tom Alyea's film shows a small bit of the brass clip extending out of the magazine.

No it doesn't.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 20, 2018, 09:09:27 PM
No it doesn't.

Extract your head so you can see....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 20, 2018, 09:19:10 PM
Extract your head so you can see....

They ain't enough drugs in the world to see what you see.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Don Echols on September 21, 2018, 12:18:09 AM
There are photos showing,i guess the police digging from the ground what most say is a bullet by the sidewalk about 50 feet before,you get to the over past.His superiors did nit want to hear anything other,than,case solved,with Oswald being the shooter. You can thank Hoover for that.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 21, 2018, 12:32:43 AM
There are photos showing,i guess the police digging from the ground what most say is a bullet by the sidewalk about 50 feet before,you get to the over past.His superiors did nit want to hear anything other,than,case solved,with Oswald being the shooter. You can thank Hoover for that.

His superiors did not want to hear anything other,than,case solved,with Oswald being the shooter. You can thank Hoover for that.

Yes, you're right,  Hoover was the all powerful puppet master who made the puppets dance to his tune.   And many of those who refused to be manipulated wound up in the dead puppet pile.... 

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Don Echols on September 21, 2018, 01:35:18 AM
Even today technology and video,probably take longer to actually catch a killer. Only took 90 minutes to arrest Oswald.Hoover,would not allow them to look for anyone else.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 21, 2018, 02:08:54 PM
This is all good and nice but Oswald had to get from McWatters bus to the Rooming House somehow and Whaley not only positively ID'd Oswald but he also recognised Oswald's bracelet and his work manifest describes the same journey that Oswald had to take.

And Oswald even admitted taking a cab, where can your speculation possibly go from here?

Mr. BALL. I don't want you to say he admitted the transfer. I want you to tell me what he said about the transfer.
Mr. FRITZ. He told he that was the transfer the busdriver had given him when he caught the bus to go home. But he had told me if you will remember in our previous conversation that he rode the bus or on North Beckley and had walked home but in the meantime, sometime had told me about him riding a cab.
So, when I asked him about a cab ride if he had ridden in a cab he said yes, he had, he told me wrong about the bus, he had rode a cab. He said the reason he changed, that he rode the bus for a short distance, and the crowd was so heavy and traffic was so bad that he got out and caught a cab, and I asked him some other questions about the cab and I asked him what happened there when he caught the cab and he said there was a lady trying to catch a cab and he told the busdriver, the busdriver told him to tell the lady to catch the cab behind him and he said he rode that cab over near his home, he rode home in a cab.


And Bookout.

Mr. STERN - Yes. Did he ever complain that, "We have been over that ground before," or make any such statement?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - No; I don't recall anything along that line, but I can recall one subject matter probably in the first interview where he talked about his method of transportation after leaving the Texas Book Depository, having gotten on a bus, and then that subject was taken up again, as I recall, in the second interview, expressed the same answer at that time, and then subsequently to that interview he backed up and said that it wasn't actually true as to how he got home. That he had taken a bus, and due to the traffic jam he had left the bus and got a taxicab, by which means he actually arrived at his residence.


JohnM

This is all good and nice but Oswald had to get from McWatters bus to the Rooming House somehow and Whaley not only positively ID'd Oswald but he also recognised Oswald's bracelet and his work manifest describes the same journey that Oswald had to take.

Oswald had to get from McWatters bus to the Rooming House somehow

Correction....Lee had to get from the TSBD to the Rooming house somehow.....  There is no solid proof that Lee was ever on Mc Watters bus....   Lee could easily have walked from the TSBD to the Taxi Stand at the Greyhound bus depot and hired Darryl Glick's taxi to take him to the rooming house.

Whaley not only positively ID'd Oswald

No, Whaley DID NOT positively Identify Lee Oswald as the man who entered his cab at 12:30...  he couldn't have, because Lee was in the TSBD lunchroom at 12:30 and furthermore....  Whaley definitely described the man as dressed in Blue Workman uniform type clothes....  Lee was definitely NOT dressed in a BLUE workman uniform.

he also recognised Oswald's bracelet

Utter nonsense....Whaley had seen Lee Oswald's picture on TV, as he was brought into the police station. and he could easily have noticed that Lee was wearing a bracelet.... IF IF Whaley noticed that the man who was wearing the BLUE clothing was wearing a bracelet...it means absolutely nothing....  Two different men and two different bracelets.

his work manifest describes the same journey that Oswald had to take.

HUH??   What is that stuff yer smokin??   What leads you to believe that a Cab Driver was restricted to a particular route???    The Taxi that Lee took could have traveled from the taxi stand at the Greyhound Bus Depot to the rooming house by any number of routes....AND   I would remind you that Whaley said that the man in blue, departed his cab several blocks BEYOND the rooming house and when he walked away from the cab he was walking AWAY from the Rooming house....

BOTTOM LINE.....   Lee Oswald was NOT Whaley's passenger.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 21, 2018, 05:04:44 PM
"Darryl Glick".  LOL.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 21, 2018, 05:30:05 PM
"Darryl Glick".  LOL.

Hey...Didn't yo mama ever tell you it's rude to laugh at peoples names?


Do you happen to know the Hogg family from the Austin area....    As I recall their first names were Ima and Ura .....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 21, 2018, 08:19:53 PM
Hey...Didn't yo mama ever tell you it's rude to laugh at peoples names?

"In Oak Cliff" was not somebody's name.

Quote
Do you happen to know the Hogg family from the Austin area....    As I recall their first names were Ima and Ura .....

Also a fabrication!  There was no "Ura".
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 21, 2018, 08:30:32 PM
"In Oak Cliff" was not somebody's name.

Do you happen to know the Hogg family from the Austin area....    As I recall their first names were Ima and Ura .....


Also a fabrication!  There was no "Ura".

Could be you're right about Ura Hogg.....  But that's the way it was written in the Readers Digest many years ago....

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 21, 2018, 08:41:46 PM
Could be you're right about Ura Hogg.....  But that's the way it was written in the Readers Digest many years ago....

Definitely a persistent myth.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Tom Scully on December 12, 2019, 11:06:43 AM
Help! He just keeps dusting himself off and doing it again. Will it ever stop? Forty-two percent of voters follow the instruction, "Only listen to me," the press is the enemy of the state, I'm the only one who matters.... trust diplomats from Ukraine, not "Obama diplomats," and they eat it up, tricked out in their MAGA merchandise!

Quote
Vince Palamara - Posted December 10, 2019

The author, Steve Cameron (also an actor), became fascinated by Roger Craig at an early age (relatively speaking- he was a toddler when Roger Craig passed away). He obtained exclusive interviews with Roger's lookalike son Roger Craig Junior (who was also a Deputy Sheriff after his dad's tenure-1978 thru the 1980's), as well as other close relatives who, to my knowledge, never spoke before (he has photos of them, as well [Roger Junior presented with him at the conference]). His book contains everything remotely connected to Roger Craig- his manuscript When They Kill A President, rare photos, all relevant documents, etc. It is also a very good read; well put together. He also makes a compelling case that Roger did not commit suicide (or, in the off chance he did, he was compelled to do so via coercion as Gary Shaw eludes in the book, as Roger had several attempts on his life)- the rifle was not his, he was in a good mood that day, he just renewed his fishing license in anticipation of a trip, etc.

The autopsy report was a sophisticated effort of fiction?

Roger, Jr. was not separated from the Sheriff's Dept. in reaction to an alleged sex offense?

Gary Shaw is credible again because he finally shared this?  ("special" copy of Rose Cheramie death certificate indicating  a bullet wound to the skull.)                                                                                                                                   
https://jfkfacts.org/comment-of-the-week-10/

And Roger Craig's daughter contradicts her brother on their Dad being "all there".



Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on December 12, 2019, 05:09:34 PM
Help! He just keeps dusting himself off and doing it again. Will it ever stop? Forty-two percent of voters follow the instruction, "Only listen to me," the press is the enemy of the state, I'm the only one who matters.... trust diplomats from Ukraine, not "Obama diplomats," and they eat it up, tricked out in their MAGA merchandise!

The autopsy report was a sophisticated effort of fiction?

Roger, Jr. was not separated from the Sheriff's Dept. in reaction to an alleged sex offense?

Gary Shaw is credible again because he finally shared this?  ("special" copy of Rose Cheramie death certificate indicating  a bullet wound to the skull.)                                                                                                                                   
https://jfkfacts.org/comment-of-the-week-10/

And Roger Craig's daughter contradicts her brother on their Dad being "all there".

Damned if I can see any entry saying that there was;  "a bullet wound to the skull"  Could you point out that entry?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Tom Scully on December 12, 2019, 05:27:36 PM
Damned if I can see any entry saying that there was;  "a bullet wound to the skull"  Could you point out that entry?

Quote
Hit List: An In-Depth Investigation into the Mysterious ...
https://books.google.com (https://books.google.com/books?id=WHGCDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT64&dq=conspiracy+of+silence+%E2%80%9Cdeep+punctate+stellate+wound+above+her+right+forehead.%E2%80%9D&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjWzPuX0bDmAhVmUN8KHWEnBwoQ6AEwAXoECAQQAg#v=onepage&q=conspiracy%20of%20silence%20%E2%80%9Cdeep%20punctate%20stellate%20wound%20above%20her%20right%20forehead.%E2%80%9D&f=false) › books
Richard Belzer, ‎David Wayne - 2016
Found inside
... to researcher J. Gary Shaw in the book Conspiracy of Silence, the official autopsy of Cheramie has now disappeared. ... her other injuries, she had suffered a “deep punctate stellate wound above her right forehead” (Dateline Dallas, 1993).

The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X
edited by James DiEugenio, Lisa Pease
Link: Page 220 (https://books.google.com/books?id=VZDrXQK1LxIC&pg=PA229&lpg=PA229&dq=cheramie+%E2%80%9Cdeep+punctate+stellate+wound+above+her+right+forehead.%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=LJRlqXSiNE&sig=ACfU3U3EoQzRiHD4tZhTXLvw-uQ56gWjGA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjQ55m6z7DmAhXxlOAKHdCDCC8Q6AEwAXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jerry Freeman on December 12, 2019, 11:00:44 PM
Was played threads ago. Happens redundantly.
It starts up every time someone posts Craig's name.
It has nothing to do with anything.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,948.msg20973.html#msg20973
 http://www.conspiracybomb.com/killapresident.htm
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on December 14, 2019, 05:00:03 PM
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,948.msg20973.html#msg20973
 http://www.conspiracybomb.com/killapresident.htm

Jerry, It's unfortunate that you accept Roger Craig's story as the gospel ....

I believe Roger Craig was an honest man with honorable intentions....  But he was a bit "off key" in singing his song.

I don't know why he insisted on embellishing his tale of seeing a mauser being examined by Detective's Day and Fritz.   He could not have seen a Mauser because there is photographic proof that the rifle being examined by the detectives is a Model 91 /38 Mannlicher Carcano short rifle. 

It's a real shame that Roger Craig's ego would not allow him to admit an error......
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jerry Freeman on December 14, 2019, 05:30:14 PM
Jerry, It's unfortunate that you accept Roger Craig's story as the gospel ....I believe Roger Craig was an honest man with honorable intentions....  But he was a bit "off key" in singing his song. I don't know why he insisted on embellishing his tale of seeing a mauser being examined by Detective's Day and Fritz.   He could not have seen a Mauser because there is photographic proof that the rifle being examined by the detectives is a Model 91 /38 Mannlicher Carcano short rifle. It's a real shame that Roger Craig's ego would not allow him to admit an error..
The old saying... Believe half of what you see and even less of what you hear.
The photo is the "6th floor rifle". I would not wager that there was not any other rifle in that building that day. I will never understand why a man would deliberately ruin his life based on what he said he saw and insisting upon it ceaselessly.
That he was just another nut is such a worn out platitude.   
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on December 15, 2019, 01:51:37 AM
The old saying... Believe half of what you see and even less of what you hear.
The photo is the "6th floor rifle". I would not wager that there was not any other rifle in that building that day. I will never understand why a man would deliberately ruin his life based on what he said he saw and insisting upon it ceaselessly.
That he was just another nut is such a worn out platitude.

I will never understand why a man would deliberately ruin his life based on what he said he saw and insisting upon it ceaselessly.

I doubt that you are able understand....   Not many rational folks can understand the irrational.

I would guess Craig had people who were encouraging him to stick to his story...   Craig absolutely knew that the Dallas Law authorities were involved in the murder of JFK, and he was trying to expose them.... But unfortunately he also had a gargantuan ego and a mental problem that destroyed his credibility.


 
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Tom Scully on December 15, 2019, 02:38:11 AM
I will never understand why a man would deliberately ruin his life based on what he said he saw and insisting upon it ceaselessly.

I doubt that you are able understand....   Not many rational folks can understand the irrational.

I would guess Craig had people who were encouraging him to stick to his story...   Craig absolutely knew that the Dallas Law authorities were involved in the murder of JFK, and he was trying to expose them.... But unfortunately he also had a gargantuan ego and a mental problem that destroyed his credibility.


The guy was out of work and had a family to support. What was his primary concern?..... He'd rather starve, or in his case, relocate to mooch off of his in-laws.
Craig even seemed to miss the point of what a personnel manager does, investigate the backgrounds of prospective hires to protect the business and identify
who was likely a threat vs who likely was a contributor to growth and reputation of a customer service driven company.
Quote
https://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html
When They Kill A President
By Roger Craig

....My family and I made the trip to New Orleans, where I was interviewed by Willard Robertson, the owner of the company. Mr. Robertson told me he was looking for a Personnel Manager and because of my background of dealing with the public he hired me. After a long trip back to Dallas where we gathered up our meager belongings we moved to New Orleans and I felt good?I was working again!

We had been there but a few days when all of our neighbors and half the people where I was working knew who I was. This was due to the newspaper and television coverage of Jim Garrison?s probe into the assassination. Again came the never-ending questions, which I did not mind because outside of Dallas people were sincerely interested and I certainly did not mind doing what I could to clear up any doubts they had. The people at the office treated me very well.

Unfortunately, after about a month I realized that I was not doing anything but going in to the office and coming home?nothing in between. Although I appreciated Jim Garrison recommending me for the job, I knew by this time that he had done this because he was concerned about my safety and wanted me out of Dallas. Because this company did not really need a Personnel Manager and I couldn?t take the money for a job I was not doing, I submitted my resignation to Mr. Robertson and my family and I returned to Dallas.

We arrived back in Dallas on a cold and snowy seventh of January, 1968, and moved in with Molly?s parents as we had very little money and nowhere to stay. The next few days I spent looking for work. I tried every ad and every lead I could find. The people who interviewed me always seemed interested but like all companies, they wanted to check out my references. When I failed to receive any results from my efforts, I called some of the places where I had placed applications to see what was wrong. I always received the same answer, ?the position had been filled.? Finally, I decided something was wrong and I suspected one employment reference, Bill Decker. I had a friend write Decker asking for an employment reference?he never received an answer! ...

Quote
https://jfkfacts.org/fact-check-was-a-mauser-found-in-the-texas-school-book-depository/#comment-21104
Paul May  April 9, 2013 at 5:04 pm
Leslie, no doubt you are familiar with Mary Ferrell. Mary had a relationship of sorts with ... Craig. Here is what Mary had to say:

I knew Roger Craig for several years before his death. It is my belief
that Roger was a very sick young man. He had made a name for himself as a
very promising young law enforcement officer. When he came forward with
some of the “stories” he told following the events of that November
weekend, he believed that he would be offered a great deal of money and,
possibly, speaking engagements. I am very sorry to say that I am one of
the few conspiracy nuts who never believed Roger Craig. When Roger made a number of speeches about the fact that “they” prevented him from getting a job, I talked my husband into giving him a job. Roger
did not want to work. He wanted people to give him money because he had
“seen something or other.”
I have made enemies because I have continued to say that I have never
really believed him.
Mary Ferrell

I had the opportunity to chat with Mary several times before her untimely death. Craig came up several times in conversation. Mary sounded almost embarrassed by Craig’s activities.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on December 17, 2019, 05:52:24 PM
The guy was out of work and had a family to support. What was his primary concern?..... He'd rather starve, or in his case, relocate to mooch off of his in-laws.
Craig even seemed to miss the point of what a personnel manager does, investigate the backgrounds of prospective hires to protect the business and identify
who was likely a threat vs who likely was a contributor to growth and reputation of a customer service driven company.

I had the opportunity to chat with Mary several times before her untimely death. Craig came up several times in conversation. Mary sounded almost embarrassed by Craig’s activities.

Mary was an unusually intelligent and perceptive lady....   She could see through Roger Craig's shenanigan's ...... 
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Gerry Down on March 26, 2020, 03:55:37 AM
I had the opportunity to chat with Mary several times before her untimely death. Craig came up several times in conversation. Mary sounded almost embarrassed by Craig’s activities.

Mary was an unusually intelligent and perceptive lady....   She could see through Roger Craig's shenanigan's ......

You've got to feel for Roger Craig. Made a fool of himself in front of his colleagues. 
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 26, 2020, 04:05:57 PM
I'm not sure which man you're referring to.

I haven't drawn any portrait of Roger Craig. I think he was wrong about Saint Patsy scrambling down the knoll and leaving in the Rambler. I have sympathy for his apparent mental problems later in life. I certainly don't think he was any kind of martyr though.

If you're talking abt Reitzes, I think Dave has done some very good investigative work and is quite articulate. I just think his conclusion of a conspiracy is completely wrong.

It's not difficult to prove that Roger Craig had a mental problem. He was a liar, who would make up things to support something that may or may not have been true.

IOW....Craig would embroidery a vague or unproven event.    And by embroidering he could convince the unwary that what he was saying was the gospel truth.

As an example, Craig said that he saw 7.65 Mauser stamped "right there on the barrel of the rifle" as Captain Fritz and Detective Day were examing the rifle.

This bit of embroidering ( lying)  sounds very convincing.....However there are photos that show that Craig was not anywhere close to Captain  fritz and Lt Day while they were examining the rifle....     Then later Craig said that they Mauser was found later that afternoon on the roof of the TSBD.....  Now wait jest a damned minute Roger.....You've already said that the rifle had 7.65 Mauser stamped right there on the barrel when Fritz and Day were examining it at about 1:50 pm .....and you left the TSBD shortly after that so you couldn't have been referring to the imaginary mauser that was found on the roof.   
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 26, 2020, 04:29:05 PM
The old saying... Believe half of what you see and even less of what you hear.
The photo is the "6th floor rifle". I would not wager that there was not any other rifle in that building that day. I will never understand why a man would deliberately ruin his life based on what he said he saw and insisting upon it ceaselessly.
That he was just another nut is such a worn out platitude.

I would not wager that there was not any other rifle in that building that day.


I agree.....I suspect that there was in fact a Mauser in the TSBD that afternoon..... But Roger Craig never saw it.    And whether the suspected Mauser was connected in any way to the murder of JFK is completely unknown.....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 26, 2020, 04:34:39 PM
The old saying... Believe half of what you see and even less of what you hear.
The photo is the "6th floor rifle". I would not wager that there was not any other rifle in that building that day. I will never understand why a man would deliberately ruin his life based on what he said he saw and insisting upon it ceaselessly.
That he was just another nut is such a worn out platitude.

I will never understand why a man would deliberately ruin his life based on what he said he saw and insisting upon it ceaselessly.

Of course you'll never understand .....   Who knows how a mis-wired brain functions??     Roger Craig had a mental problem.....  and I doubt that even a psychiatrist could tell you why Roger Craig was ruining his life.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 27, 2020, 02:54:37 PM
If everybody is finished squawking out their backside about someone they had never met and only knew about from the diss posts they read...they might consider that--- if Roger Craig was so far off and so mental [as these mental clowns have been saying]...then why did it take Sheriff Bill Decker four years after the assassination to fire him?
I will provide the answer to this right now---
Penn Jones ..who certainly did not agree with the official story and therefor must have been [automatically by definition] mental also ---
started rocking the boat big time in this area.
Penn was very persuasive...and encouraged RC to join forces with those who had questions. The powers that were had Decker fire Craig and discredit him regardless of the officer's otherwise unblemished public service.
Who here can attest to anything Roger Craig did that was out of line in his conduct as a deputy sheriff?
So there was a daughter that said Roger Craig was crazy. How do we know that she wasn't?
Craig said it was a Mauser...so did two other deputy sheriffs and a homicide captain. One of them [Weitzman] described a '7.65 caliber' why was that so specifically stated?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 27, 2020, 03:36:14 PM
If everybody is finished squawking out their backside about someone they had never met and only knew about from the diss posts they read...they might consider that--- if Roger Craig was so far off and so mental [as these mental clowns have been saying]...then why did it take Sheriff Bill Decker four years after the assassination to fire him?
I will provide the answer to this right now---
Penn Jones ..who certainly did not agree with the official story and therefor must have been [automatically by definition] mental also ---
started rocking the boat big time in this area.
Penn was very persuasive...and encouraged RC to join forces with those who had questions. The powers that were had Decker fire Craig and discredit him regardless of the officer's otherwise unblemished public service.
Who here can attest to anything Roger Craig did that was out of line in his conduct as a deputy sheriff?
So there was a daughter that said Roger Craig was crazy. How do we know that she wasn't?
Craig said it was a Mauser...so did two other deputy sheriffs and a homicide captain. One of them [Weitzman] described a '7.65 caliber' why was that so specifically stated?

Jerry,   I value your input and contributions to the forum, and I consider you a friend....  Therefore I'm disappointed that you accept Roger Craig's tales as the truth.

IMO you're nailing one of your feet to the floor and trying advance .....  IOW you're handicapping yourself in believing that the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered was a Mauser.....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Tom Scully on March 27, 2020, 03:40:43 PM
If everybody is finished squawking out their backside about someone they had never met and only knew about from the diss posts they read...they might consider that--- if Roger Craig was so far off and so mental [as these mental clowns have been saying]...then why did it take Sheriff Bill Decker four years after the assassination to fire him?
I will provide the answer to this right now---
Penn Jones ..who certainly did not agree with the official story and therefor must have been [automatically by definition] mental also ---
started rocking the boat big time in this area.
Penn was very persuasive...and encouraged RC to join forces with those who had questions. The powers that were had Decker fire Craig and discredit him regardless of the officer's otherwise unblemished public service.
Who here can attest to anything Roger Craig did that was out of line in his conduct as a deputy sheriff?
So there was a daughter that said Roger Craig was crazy. How do we know that she wasn't?
Craig said it was a Mauser...so did two other deputy sheriffs and a homicide captain. One of them [Weitzman] described a '7.65 caliber' why was that so specifically stated?

Jerry, readers deserve to be informed of the following.....

Roger Craig was given a job in New Orleans by multi-millionaire Willard Robertson. Roger quit that job, knowing his employment options back in Dallas, by his own claims, were slim to none.
He was also claiming he felt physically unsafe in Dallas. He claimed he quit his job as personnel manager at Robertson's regional Volkswagen distributorship because he believed he was not giving Mr. Robertson
his money's worth! I describe below that Roger next moved his family in with his in-laws, after making the effort and expense to uproot his family out of NOLA and move them back to Dallas?

Consider that this behavior is in synch with Mary Ferrell saying he was offered a job by her husband, but did not want to work.

Consider how different your opinions of Roger Craig and Penn Jones are from mine. I attempt to support my opinions with facts, even though I certainly wish Roger Craig and Penn Jones were consistent sources.

The guy was out of work and had a family to support. What was his primary concern?..... He'd rather starve, or in his case, relocate to mooch off of his in-laws.
Craig even seemed to miss the point of what a personnel manager does, investigate the backgrounds of prospective hires to protect the business and identify
who was likely a threat vs who likely was a contributor to growth and reputation of a customer service driven company.
Quote
...Unfortunately, after about a month I realized that I was not doing anything but going in to the office and coming home?nothing in between. Although I appreciated Jim Garrison recommending me for the job, I knew by this time that he had done this because he was concerned about my safety and wanted me out of Dallas. Because this company did not really need a Personnel Manager and I couldn?t take the money for a job I was not doing, I submitted my resignation to Mr. Robertson and my family and I returned to Dallas.

We arrived back in Dallas on a cold and snowy seventh of January, 1968, and moved in with Molly?s parents as we had very little money and nowhere to stay. The next few days I spent looking for work. I tried every ad and every lead I could find. ...

Penn Jones was the Donald Trump of his days, a shameless promoter attempting to make a living from an inadequate business platform, a newspaper in a geographical area too small to generate adequate revenue from its advertising base. Fact checking was never Penn Jones's SOP !

Ask Eddy Benavides or "Jack Zangretti "..... not saying Penn Jones was always unreliable. I'm saying he was very flawed because his primary motive may have been pursuing money and attention.
Compare Penn Jones to Harold Weissberg, as far as overall accuracy and pursuit of money and attention, vs investigating what actually happened and reporting about it.


http://archive.newsok.com/olive/apa/oklahoman/get/pdf.ashx?pdf=Q%2FfgObTGN3TVs%2FBbg3tfCWM%3D
(http://jfkforum.com/images/ZanghettiPennJones1973_1of3.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/ZanghettiPennJones1973_2of3.jpg)
........

Contrary to claims Penn Jones made about "Jack" Zangretti, the actual person Jones UNDOUBTEDLY described and published about in his newspaper, newsletters, and book(s), did not die in 1963.....
Zanghetti was a long time dyin' .... more than eleven years, by the actual, facts supported look of it!
.......
(http://trumpnormal.com/images/CaprioBenavidesRedux.jpg)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 27, 2020, 04:55:11 PM
  Therefore I'm disappointed that you accept Roger Craig's tales as the truth. IOW you're handicapping yourself in believing that the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered was a Mauser.....
I don't believe I ever stated that I thought [one way or another] the rifle was indeed a Mauser. Or ...did I say that I accept anyone's tall tales....the tallest told by the likes of Henry Wade [who I still  loathe after death for my own personal reasons] or J E Hoover [who was probably the most dangerous person this country ever had] or LBJ [maybe the 2nd most]
What 'tale' did Craig tell in his testimony?
He relayed the accounts of Arnold Rowland who testified that he saw a man with a rifle and another guy standing beside him some 15 minutes before the shooting.
That would indicate the probability that there was at least another rifle besides the Carcano that was ultimately produced.
Boone, Weitzman, and Fritz were all in on the Mauser. If a switcheroo did take place, that meant that they all tucked tail and rolled over for Hoover and Johnson. They are all dead now-----------
At this point...no one will ever know for absolutely sure.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 27, 2020, 08:00:00 PM
I don't believe I ever stated that I thought [one way or another] the rifle was indeed a Mauser. Or ...did I say that I accept anyone's tall tales....the tallest told by the likes of Henry Wade [who I still  loathe after death for my own personal reasons] or J E Hoover [who was probably the most dangerous person this country ever had] or LBJ [maybe the 2nd most]
What 'tale' did Craig tell in his testimony?
He relayed the accounts of Arnold Rowland who testified that he saw a man with a rifle and another guy standing beside him some 15 minutes before the shooting.
That would indicate the probability that there was at least another rifle besides the Carcano that was ultimately produced.
Boone, Weitzman, and Fritz were all in on the Mauser. If a switcheroo did take place, that meant that they all tucked tail and rolled over for Hoover and Johnson. They are all dead now-----------
At this point...no one will ever know for absolutely sure.

What 'tale' did Craig tell in his testimony?

In His warren commission testimony, Craig said that he was there on the sixth floor when the spent shells were discovered..... and he heard Mooney call out that he had found evidence of the place where the shots had been fired from.

The spent shells were found by Luke Mooney at about 1:05 pm.....  Roger was NOT on the sixth floor at that time....He arrived with the flashlights from the Sheriff's
office at around 1:15 / 1:20  ......

Q: Officer Craig, were you able to observe the location that the rifle was found in?
A: Yes.
Q: Where was that?
A: In the northeast corner of the sixth floor there was a stack of boxes approximately five fee high and they were stacked in a square and in the middle of the square was a hole and the rifle was in this hole.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Gary Craig on March 27, 2020, 08:24:53 PM
What 'tale' did Craig tell in his testimony?

In His warren commission testimony, Craig said that he was there on the sixth floor when the spent shells were discovered..... and he heard Mooney call out that he had found evidence of the place where the shots had been fired from.

The spent shells were found by Luke Mooney at about 1:05 pm.....  Roger was NOT on the sixth floor at that time....He arrived with the flashlights from the Sheriff's
office at around 1:15 / 1:20  ......

Q: Officer Craig, were you able to observe the location that the rifle was found in?
A: Yes.
Q: Where was that?
A: In the northeast corner of the sixth floor there was a stack of boxes approximately five fee high and they were stacked in a square and in the middle of the square was a hole and the rifle was in this hole.

"The spent shells were found by Luke Mooney at about 1:05 pm.....

If you decipher the 1st day "supplemental investigation reports" from Dallas Sheriff's Department below, they found the shells and the rifle,

you'll see the shells were discovered at 1:12pm and the rifle 10 minutes later at 1:22pm.

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/theSNbag001.jpg)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boone765.jpg)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 27, 2020, 11:55:16 PM
Just as an example to show how details will mutate over time....
Seymour Weitzman worked in a sporting goods store for some length of time. He may have sold rifles, pistols, basketballs, & tennis rackets.
Then in recent years... He was as much as actually owning a gun store in some accounts.
From a JFK  blog---
Quote
Weitzman clearly changed his story. His sworn affadavit that he saw a German Mauser *after* the rifle discovery was not a ‘loose’ misinterpretation of the facts. He had to dictate the affadavit and present the truth. And that document corroborates deputy Craig’s statement to Mark Lane that, “stamped right on the barrel” were the words “7.65 Mauser”. How could two officers – one, Weitzman, who formerly owner a sporting goods store, have conceivably made such a gross error? Let’s not call a square a round hole here.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 28, 2020, 12:20:07 AM
Just as an example to show how details will mutate over time....
Seymour Weitzman worked in a sporting goods store for some length of time. He may have sold rifles, pistols, basketballs, & tennis rackets.
Then in recent years... He was as much as actually owning a gun store in some accounts.
From a JFK  blog---

Weitzman clearly changed his story. His sworn affadavit that he saw a German Mauser *after* the rifle discovery was not a ‘loose’ misinterpretation of the facts. He had to dictate the affadavit and present the truth. And that document corroborates deputy Craig’s statement to Mark Lane that, “stamped right on the barrel” were the words “7.65 Mauser”.

he saw a German Mauser *after* the rifle discovery was not a ‘loose’ misinterpretation of the facts.

I agree that Seymour Weitzman DID in fact see ( and examine )a 7.65 Mauser sometime between 2:30 pm 11/22/63 and 12:00 pm 11/23 /63 ....  The FBI report that was written by FBI agent A1bert  Sawyer on 11/23/63, and the description of the rifle in that report, leaves no doubt that Weitzman was describing a 7.65 Mauser.

So the question becomes..... Who presented a Mauser to Weitzman, and had him describe it for the FBI report??   And what was the motive for getting Weitzman on record as saying the rifle was a mauser?

PS.... What day did Weitzman write the affidavit in which he retracted his identification of the TSBD carcano as a Mauser.?     



Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 28, 2020, 06:59:30 PM
I don't believe I ever stated that I thought [one way or another] the rifle was indeed a Mauser. Or ...did I say that I accept anyone's tall tales....the tallest told by the likes of Henry Wade [who I still  loathe after death for my own personal reasons] or J E Hoover [who was probably the most dangerous person this country ever had] or LBJ [maybe the 2nd most]
What 'tale' did Craig tell in his testimony?
He relayed the accounts of Arnold Rowland who testified that he saw a man with a rifle and another guy standing beside him some 15 minutes before the shooting.
That would indicate the probability that there was at least another rifle besides the Carcano that was ultimately produced.
Boone, Weitzman, and Fritz were all in on the Mauser. If a switcheroo did take place, that meant that they all tucked tail and rolled over for Hoover and Johnson. They are all dead now-----------
At this point...no one will ever know for absolutely sure.

Arnold Rowland who testified that he saw a man with a rifle and another guy standing beside him some 15 minutes before the shooting.
That would indicate the probability that there was at least another rifle besides the Carcano that was ultimately produced.


Good Point!!.....   But it wasn't Arnold Rowland alone who saw a rifle that was NOT a Mannlicher Carcano....Howard Brennan also saw a rifle being aimed out of a sixth floor window that he described as a "High Powered Rifle ( ie; a hunting rifle) Brennan told the cop who asked him if he knew what kind of rifle the man was aiming, and Brennan told him that he didn't know much about rifles, but he guessed that the rifle could have been a 30-30 Winchester.   Thus the early DPD radio dispatches said that the suspect was armed with a 30 caliber rifle.   
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 30, 2020, 05:37:37 AM
Quote
Mr. BALL. Did you ever bring any guns into the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. CASTER. Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL. When?
Mr. CASTER. I believe it was on Wednesday, November 20, during the noon hour.
Mr. BALL. Whose guns were they?
Mr. CASTER. They were my guns.
Mr. BALL. And what kind of guns were they?
Mr. CASTER. One gun was a Remington, single-shot, .22 rifle, and the other was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser.
Mr. BALL. Who owned them?
Mr. CASTER. I had just purchased them during the noon hour that day.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 30, 2020, 07:05:52 PM


Mr. BALL. Did you ever bring any guns into the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. CASTER. Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL. When?
Mr. CASTER. I believe it was on Wednesday, November 20, during the noon hour.
Mr. BALL. Whose guns were they?
Mr. CASTER. They were my guns.
Mr. BALL. And what kind of guns were they?
Mr. CASTER. One gun was a Remington, single-shot, .22 rifle, and the other was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser.
Mr. BALL. Who owned them?
Mr. CASTER. I had just purchased them during the noon hour that day.

A 30.06 Sporterized Mauser??    When was any Mauser produced in the 30.06 caliber.     I'm no expert, but I'm fairly sure that there never ever was a Mauser manufactured that would fire the 30.06 cartridge.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 30, 2020, 08:03:26 PM
A 30.06 Sporterized Mauser??    When was any Mauser produced in the 30.06 caliber.     I'm no expert, but I'm fairly sure that there never ever was a Mauser manufactured that would fire the 30.06 cartridge.
https://www.gunbroker.com/All/search?Keywords=mauser%2030%2006
(https://p1.gunbroker.com/pics/858950000/858950738/pix386635551.jpg)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Tom Scully on March 30, 2020, 08:31:43 PM
Mr. BALL. Did you ever bring any guns into the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. CASTER. Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL. When?
Mr. CASTER. I believe it was on Wednesday, November 20, during the noon hour.
Mr. BALL. Whose guns were they?
Mr. CASTER. They were my guns.
Mr. BALL. And what kind of guns were they?
Mr. CASTER. One gun was a Remington, single-shot, .22 rifle, and the other was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser.
Mr. BALL. Who owned them?
Mr. CASTER. I had just purchased them during the noon hour that day.

A 30.06 Sporterized Mauser??    When was any Mauser produced in the 30.06 caliber.     I'm no expert, but I'm fairly sure that there never ever was a Mauser manufactured that would fire the 30.06 cartridge.

Just in case you're thinking of replying to Jerry that rechambered Mausers in 30 "aught six" must be some new thing.....

(http://jfkforum.com/images/TSBDCasterSporterizedMauser30_06.jpg)

Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield

The .30-06 Springfield cartridge (pronounced "thirty-aught-six"), 7.62×63mm in metric notation and called ".30 Gov't '06" by Winchester,[3] was introduced to the United States Army in 1906 and later standardized; it remained in use until the late-1970s. The ".30" refers to the caliber of the bullet in inches. The "06" refers to the year the cartridge was adopted, 1906. .....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 30, 2020, 09:16:31 PM
https://www.gunbroker.com/All/search?Keywords=mauser%2030%2006
(https://p1.gunbroker.com/pics/858950000/858950738/pix386635551.jpg)

Jerry, these rifles are not MANUFACTURED as 30.06 ....These are custom rifles using the Mauser action and a 30.06 barrel.....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 30, 2020, 10:04:26 PM
 
Jerry, these rifles are not MANUFACTURED as 30.06 ....These are custom rifles using the Mauser action and a 30.06 barrel.....
Isn't that what sporterizing is? Modifying or converting?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporterising.
Anyway I took the Warren Caster affair to that other thread.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 31, 2020, 05:29:38 PM
Isn't that what sporterizing is? Modifying or converting?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporterising.
Anyway I took the Warren Caster affair to that other thread.

Jeeez Jerry!.....  Yes sporterizing is the act of converting a military rifle into a high powered big game hunting rifle.  BUT nobody would simply change the barrel to convert a 7.65 Mauser and leave the rest of the rifle with the military trappings.     

If Warren Caster had a sporterized military rifle that was customized to utilize the 30.06 cartridge ....  Then you can bet that the rifle no longer looked like military rifle.

Mr. BALL. And what kind of guns were they?
Mr. CASTER. One gun was a Remington, single-shot, .22 rifle, and the other was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser.

the other was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser.

I guess I read that differently than you....  As I see it that says.... The rifle was a 30.06 Mauser that was sporterized....   While you apparent interpret it as saying The rifle was a metric mauser that had been sporterized ( converted ) to fire the 30.06 cartridge.  ( and honestly I do believe that is what Caster intended to say...But it certainly is not what he said.)

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Gerry Down on April 01, 2020, 12:58:23 AM
Jeeez Jerry!.....  Yes sporterizing is the act of converting a military rifle into a high powered big game hunting rifle.  BUT nobody would simply change the barrel to convert a 7.65 Mauser and leave the rest of the rifle with the military trappings.     

If Warren Caster had a sporterized military rifle that was customized to utilize the 30.06 cartridge ....  Then you can bet that the rifle no longer looked like military rifle.

Mr. BALL. And what kind of guns were they?
Mr. CASTER. One gun was a Remington, single-shot, .22 rifle, and the other was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser.

the other was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser.

I guess I read that differently than you....  As I see it that says.... The rifle was a 30.06 Mauser that was sporterized....   While you apparent interpret it as saying The rifle was a metric mauser that had been sporterized ( converted ) to fire the 30.06 cartridge.  ( and honestly I do believe that is what Caster intended to say...But it certainly is not what he said.)

Where was Mr caster at the time of the assassination i wonder. He should have been considered a suspect, even if only a very slight possibility of being the shooter.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 01, 2020, 01:56:24 AM
Where was Mr caster at the time of the assassination i wonder. He should have been considered a suspect, even if only a very slight possibility of being the shooter.

I believe that Warren Caster had solid alibi for his whereabouts at the time of the murder.....A better question would be WHERE was his mauser??
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 01, 2020, 05:22:41 AM
I believe that Warren Caster had solid alibi for his whereabouts at the time of the murder.....A better question would be WHERE was his mauser??

I don’t know how solid it was, but he claimed to be at North Texas State University in Denton, TX having lunch with Dr. Vernon V. Payne.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Tom Scully on April 01, 2020, 10:58:22 AM
I don’t know how solid it was, but he claimed to be at North Texas State University in Denton, TX having lunch with Dr. Vernon V. Payne.

Not solid at all, according to Caster's recollection.....

Quote
http://web.archive.org/web/20070407094020/http://www.dealeyplazauk.co.uk/Meeting%20Warren%20Caster.htm
Meeting Warren Caster - by Rick Caster

.........
Warren Commission testimony
 
In March 1964, Warren was contacted by Special Agent E.J. Robertson, of the Dallas FBI. Robertson told Warren that he had to ask him some questions on behalf of the President’s Commission which had been set up to establish the facts pertaining to the death of President Kennedy. Warren attended the questioning, which was carried out at the Post Office Building in Dallas, and he answered the agent’s questions to the best of his ability.
 
Shortly afterwards, on the afternoon of 14th May 1964, Warren again attended at Room 301 of the Post Office Building where he testified before Joseph A. Ball, an Assistant Counsel with the President’s Commission (commonly known as the Warren Commission). I specifically asked Warren how he was treated by Mr Ball during his testimony. Warren replied: “He was very polite and acted as though he did not want to impose on me. I just answered what he asked me and that was that.” (Warren’s testimony is at 7H 386-388).
 
Warren did bring up one interesting point about his testimony. To his knowledge, the Warren Commission never confirmed his alibi with Dr Payne or with anyone else at the University. As Warren said: “They got off my back pretty quick.” He was never contacted again.
 
Warren continued to work at the TSBD for a further eight years, being promoted to the position of Manager of the Southwestern Publishing Company. He eventually moved on to become the Regional Vice-President before retiring in 1983...
Obits of Warren Dee Caster, of his wife, and of his brother. (Links in that order.) :
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=20010924&id=2wJPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Th8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=4544,2852046
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/starnewsonline/obituary.aspx?n=ruthanna-walz-caster&pid=141082166
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=CASTER&GSbyrel=all&GSdyrel=all&GSst=34&GScntry=4&GSob=n&GRid=54204920&df=all&[/quote]
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Gary Craig on April 01, 2020, 07:00:58 PM
Jeeez Jerry!.....  Yes sporterizing is the act of converting a military rifle into a high powered big game hunting rifle.  BUT nobody would simply change the barrel to convert a 7.65 Mauser and leave the rest of the rifle with the military trappings.     

If Warren Caster had a sporterized military rifle that was customized to utilize the 30.06 cartridge ....  Then you can bet that the rifle no longer looked like military rifle.

Mr. BALL. And what kind of guns were they?
Mr. CASTER. One gun was a Remington, single-shot, .22 rifle, and the other was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser.

the other was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser.

I guess I read that differently than you....  As I see it that says.... The rifle was a 30.06 Mauser that was sporterized....   While you apparent interpret it as saying The rifle was a metric mauser that had been sporterized ( converted ) to fire the 30.06 cartridge.  ( and honestly I do believe that is what Caster intended to say...But it certainly is not what he said.)

Quotes from a gun forum discussing Argentine Mausers.

"My son was given a 1903 (Argentine?) Mauser chambered in .30-06. All serial numbers, including barell, matched. The barell
appears to be factory marked as .30-06. It doesn't shoot worth a crap, and the casings show "ridges" on the shoulder as if
the chamber reamer was really worn out. Any suggestions for a decnnt fix? I thought maybe rechambering to .30-06 A I might
be plausible."



"The Argentine mauser is considered the finest mauser action ever built. However they were chamber in the 7.65 Argentine
cartridge. This was a .312" diameter bulleted cartridge. This cartrige was the same head size as the 30-06, but the Argentine
cartridge was shorter. Since ammo was scarce and expensive, many importers simply rechambered them for the 30-06, leaving the
barrel .312" diameter. The 30-06 being .308" diameter the bullets were rather loose going down the barrel."
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 01, 2020, 07:07:21 PM
Quotes from a gun forum discussing Argentine Mausers.

"My son was given a 1903 (Argentine?) Mauser chambered in .30-06. All serial numbers, including barell, matched. The barell
appears to be factory marked as .30-06. It doesn't shoot worth a crap, and the casings show "ridges" on the shoulder as if
the chamber reamer was really worn out. Any suggestions for a decnnt fix? I thought maybe rechambering to .30-06 A I might
be plausible."



"The Argentine mauser is considered the finest mauser action ever built. However they were chamber in the 7.65 Argentine
cartridge. This was a .312" diameter bulleted cartridge. This cartrige was the same head size as the 30-06, but the Argentine
cartridge was shorter. Since ammo was scarce and expensive, many importers simply rechambered them for the 30-06, leaving the
barrel .312" diameter. The 30-06 being .308" diameter the bullets were rather loose going down the barrel."


Thank you for confirming my point, That the Argentine mauser never ever was manufactured to fire the 30.06 cartridge....  Many were converted to accept the 30.06 cartridge but the Argie never was manufactured  as a 30.06.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Gary Craig on April 01, 2020, 07:27:25 PM
Thank you for confirming my point, That the Argentine mauser never ever was manufactured to fire the 30.06 cartridge....  Many were converted to accept the 30.06 cartridge but the Argie never was manufactured  as a 30.06.

Apparently there were some 30.06 Mausers manufactured, (Belgium and Brazil) but none were the Argentine.


Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jerry Freeman on April 01, 2020, 07:35:27 PM
From post #157 by Tom Scully---
http://web.archive.org/web/20070407094020/http://www.dealeyplazauk.co.uk/Meeting%20Warren%20Caster.htm
Meeting Warren Caster - by Rick Caster
From that link---------
Quote
In the building, on his way back to his office, Warren met his friend Roy Truly, the TSBD Superintendent, and he showed the two rifles to Mr Truly, who picked up the larger rifle (the Mauser). Also present at this time while the guns were being examined were William Shelley, Manager of the Distribution Department, and a small group of employees, one of whom, Warren recalled, was Lee Harvey Oswald. After approximately ten minutes of handling and studying  the rifles, the group broke up and Warren replaced the weapons in their boxes. He took them to his office where they remained until 4 o’clock when he put them into the boot of his car and drove home.
As we may recall...Oswald's name was not even mentioned by anyone in Warren Caster's WC testimony.
 
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 01, 2020, 08:01:33 PM
From post #157 by Tom Scully---
http://web.archive.org/web/20070407094020/http://www.dealeyplazauk.co.uk/Meeting%20Warren%20Caster.htm
Meeting Warren Caster - by Rick Caster
From that link---------As we may recall...Oswald's name was not even mentioned by anyone in Warren Caster's WC testimony.

Oswald's name was not even mentioned by anyone in Warren Caster's WC testimony.

That's true, ....but......   Lee Oswald told the interrogators that he'd see this rifle ( the carcano) and two other rifles  outside  Mr Truly's office at lunchtime on Wednesday November 20, 1963.    So I believe that Lee was there....  He may not have been part of the group, and he could have been watching from the distance, but he definitely saw the rifles.....( and he probably heard remarks like "Boy, I'd like to get these sights on that SOB JFK" ) Caster was good friends with HL Hunt the billionaire oilman who hated JFK. and Hunt often visited Caster in the TSBD.. )  If we could know the truth  I would not be surprised  If I were to learn that after seeing the rifles,  Lee Oswald took a note to Hosty at the FBI office in an effort to get Hosty to contact him. 

PS..... If Lee recognized the Carcano as being like the one that he and De Mohrenschildt had ordered from Kleins he may have wanted to verify that the carcano was still in the blanket and that might have been his reason for the trip to Irving on Thursday afternoon.   
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Gerry Down on April 11, 2020, 02:33:41 AM
The spent shells were found by Luke Mooney at about 1:05 pm.....  Roger was NOT on the sixth floor at that time....He arrived with the flashlights from the Sheriff's
office at around 1:15 / 1:20  ......

Its not really possible to determine where people were at any given time with a degree of certainty. Dealey Plaza is a very small area so someone could move around quiet quickly from one spot to the next. This is especially so while running around which they would have been doing given the chaotic circumstances in the plaza at that moment in time.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 11, 2020, 02:54:33 AM
Its not really possible to determine where people were at any given time with a degree of certainty. Dealey Plaza is a very small area so someone could move around quiet quickly from one spot to the next. This is especially so while running around which they would have been doing given the chaotic circumstances in the plaza at that moment in time.

The point is:...Roger Craig said that he was there with Luke Mooney when Mooney spotted the spent shells.    So I ask you ; Was Roger Craig there with Mooney when Mooney spotted the shells.?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jerry Freeman on April 11, 2020, 03:49:49 AM
  Dealey Plaza is a very small area so someone could move around quiet quickly from one spot to the next. 
You really think it is "very small"? How many times have you been?
At any rate...it was an excellent location for an assassination.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Gerry Down on April 11, 2020, 01:49:16 PM
The point is:...Roger Craig said that he was there with Luke Mooney when Mooney spotted the spent shells.    So I ask you ; Was Roger Craig there with Mooney when Mooney spotted the shells.?

Craig kept changing his story so you have to listen to other people as to what Craig was doing that day rather than listening to Craig himself.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 11, 2020, 04:34:58 PM
Craig kept changing his story so you have to listen to other people as to what Craig was doing that day rather than listening to Craig himself.

IOW...Roger Craig was a liar.....  I totally agree with that conclusion.

If Roger had been with Mooney at the time (1:06)  Mooney discovered the spent shells...then he could not have been on the street to hear the citizen using Tippi's radio.

The Primary lie that Roger Craig invented was his lie about seeing "stamped right there on the barrel was ----7.65 Mauser"
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 11, 2020, 07:40:03 PM
IOW...Roger Craig was a liar.....  I totally agree with that conclusion.

If Roger had been with Mooney at the time (1:06)  Mooney discovered the spent shells...then he could not have been on the street to hear the citizen using Tippi's radio.

The Primary lie that Roger Craig invented was his lie about seeing "stamped right there on the barrel was ----7.65 Mauser"

How do you know this? Are were there no rifles with "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the barrel? And don't cite the Alyea film as your proof, because it isn't. And who wasn't a liar? Even the non-conspirators lied to recant their stories after they realized they were being swept up in a conspiracy and their lives were in danger. Wouldn't YOU lie?

ps. I wonder if "7.65 Mauser" was stamped on the rifle that Fritz handed Weitzman. What happened to that Mauser?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 11, 2020, 07:56:56 PM
How do you know this? Are were there no rifles with "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the barrel? And don't cite the Alyea film as your proof, because it isn't. And who wasn't a liar? Even the non-conspirators lied to recant their stories after they realized they were being swept up in a conspiracy and their lives were in danger. Wouldn't YOU lie?

ps. I wonder if "7.65 Mauser" was stamped on the rifle that Fritz handed Weitzman. What happened to that Mauser?

Jack,... Roger Craig said that at the time that Captain Fritz and Detective Day were examining the rifle ( when Fritz removed a live round of 6.5mm carc cartridge from the carcano)  He (Roger Craig) saw "stamped right there on the barrel ---was 7.65 mauser "  He emphasized the words 7.65 mauser.  ( this strong emphasis on the "7.65 mauser" is typical of a liar who is desperate to convince his listeners that he's telling the truth.) 

A) Roger Craig was not close enough to the rifle to read any inscriptions on the rifle.

B) Captain Fritz testified that the live round was stamped "6,5mm carc"   

C) The photos taken of Day departing the TSBD show that he was carrying a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.
 
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 11, 2020, 08:06:35 PM
How do you know this? Are were there no rifles with "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the barrel? And don't cite the Alyea film as your proof, because it isn't. And who wasn't a liar? Even the non-conspirators lied to recant their stories after they realized they were being swept up in a conspiracy and their lives were in danger. Wouldn't YOU lie?

ps. I wonder if "7.65 Mauser" was stamped on the rifle that Fritz handed Weitzman. What happened to that Mauser?

ps. I wonder if "7.65 Mauser" was stamped on the rifle that Fritz handed Weitzman. What happened to that Mauser?

I don't doubt that the mauser that Weitzman examined and provided a detailed description for to Sayer was stamped 7.65 mauser.   

 To be candid,.....   I've long suspected that Weitzman talked to Craig sometime after Weitzman's interview with Sayer, and Weitzman told Craig that "stamped right there on the barrel were the words 7.65 mauser.    And that's where Craig got that information....Unfortunately Craig and his gargantuan ego wanted it to appear hat he had seen the stamp, so rather than tell the truth he  made up the tale about how he had seen the stamp on the barrel.   
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 11, 2020, 08:12:15 PM
Jack,... Roger Craig said that at the time that Captain Fritz and Detective Day were examining the rifle ( when Fritz removed a live round of 6.5mm carc cartridge from the carcano)  He (Roger Craig) saw "stamped right there on the barrel ---was 7.65 mauser "  He emphasized the words 7.65 mauser.  ( this strong emphasis on the "7.65 mauser" is typical of a liar who is desperate to convince his listeners that he's telling the truth.) 

A) Roger Craig was not close enough to the rifle to read any inscriptions on the rifle.

B) Captain Fritz testified that the live round was stamped "6,5mm carc"   

C) The photos taken of Day departing the TSBD show that he was carrying a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.

Jesus tap dancing Christ!

A) Roger Craig was not close enough to the rifle to read any inscriptions on the rifle.

How do you know this?

B) Captain Fritz testified that the live round was stamped "6,5mm carc"

Do you hear yourself? "Captain Fritz" said...anything! Besides, what does that have to do with anything?

C) The photos taken of Day departing the TSBD show that he was carrying a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.

And? Do you think they would have carried out the Mauser the same way? And do you think they wouldn't have squirreled away the Mauser until the heat was off? Give your head a shake and ask yourself where the Mauser that Weitzman described came from? Answer that before you claim that Craig was lying about seeing a Mauser.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 11, 2020, 08:20:26 PM
ps. I wonder if "7.65 Mauser" was stamped on the rifle that Fritz handed Weitzman. What happened to that Mauser?

I don't doubt that the mauser that Weitzman examined and provided a detailed description for to Sayer was stamped 7.65 mauser.   

 To be candid,.....   I've long suspected that Weitzman talked to Craig sometime after Weitzman's interview with Sayer, and Weitzman told Craig that "stamped right there on the barrel were the words 7.65 mauser.    And that's where Craig got that information....Unfortunately Craig and his gargantuan ego wanted it to appear hat he had seen the stamp, so rather than tell the truth he  made up the tale about how he had seen the stamp on the barrel.

I don't doubt that the mauser that Weitzman examined and provided a detailed description for to Sayer was stamped 7.65 mauser.

Then where did Weitzman get the "7.65" part from?

To be candid,.....   I've long suspected that Weitzman talked to Craig sometime after Weitzman's interview with Sayer, and Weitzman told Craig that "stamped right there on the barrel were the words 7.65 mauser.    And that's where Craig got that information....Unfortunately Craig and his gargantuan ego wanted it to appear hat he had seen the stamp, so rather than tell the truth he  made up the tale about how he had seen the stamp on the barrel.

Long suspected? You sound uncertain to me. Why do you assume Craig had a gargantuan ego? Because he lied? Admit it, you don't have a clue how it went down and it was POSSIBLE that Craig read the same barrel that Weitzman saw. Fritz handed him the Mauser so he could attribute Weitzman's testimony to that event instead of the crime scene. Isn't that where critical thinking should take you? Otherwise, what other hypothesis fits all the evidence? Not yours.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 11, 2020, 08:36:59 PM
Jesus tap dancing Christ!

A) Roger Craig was not close enough to the rifle to read any inscriptions on the rifle.

How do you know this?

B) Captain Fritz testified that the live round was stamped "6,5mm carc"

Do you hear yourself? "Captain Fritz" said...anything! Besides, what does that have to do with anything?



C) The photos taken of Day departing the TSBD show that he was carrying a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.

And? Do you think they would have carried out the Mauser the same way? And do you think they wouldn't have squirreled away the Mauser until the heat was off? Give your head a shake and ask yourself where the Mauser that Weitzman described came from? Answer that before you claim that Craig was lying about seeing a Mauser.

I give up, Jack..... You believe what ever floats yer boat.....    I had hopes of flushing the Mauser crap down the toilet where it belongs...but with people like you around that BS is probably going to continue to stink up the atmosphere for a long time..
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jorn Frending on April 11, 2020, 09:16:50 PM
I give up, Jack..... You believe what ever floats yer boat.....    I had hopes of flushing the Mauser crap down the toilet where it belongs...but with people like you around that BS is probably going to continue to stink up the atmosphere for a long time..

Don't give up Walt :)

Just tell them that the Mauser is not necessary to explain that the whole snipers nest business is useless to start with.

The snipers nest is not workable otherwise the reenactment would have been carried out from here .. Not even has any Hollywood movie been able to place an Oswald in a valid shooting position in a similar snipers nest.

The snipers nest was not necessary. You just need a little open space and sitting in a kneeling position using open sights for this distance. A scope for this distance and a moving target makes it difficult to regain the sight picture.

The scope could not be sighed in correctly and had a faulty or not military configured trigger. Since the scope was not sighed in correctly you may had to put the cross hairs on Kellermann to hit JFK. When experts were to repeat the shooting were they furnished with a by then sighed in rifle?

I probably forgot a lot but the snipers nest business is definitely wrong.

It's easy to determine if a rifle has been recently fired or the day before or a week ago (I've checked many rifles when I'm in the army)
Why wasn't such a test carried out?

*Sighted in*, my spellchecker is not friendly today 😊
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jerry Freeman on April 11, 2020, 09:30:07 PM
Captain Fritz testified that the live round was stamped "6,5mm carc"
Walt could you locate and paste where he said that?
When Fritz testified..he would have said his own mother was up there on the 6th floor if he had to.
Quote
Mr. BALL. What did you do?
Mr. FRITZ. I told them not to move the cartridges, not to touch anything until we could get the crime lab to take pictures of them just as they were lying there and I left an officer assigned there to see that that was done, and the crime lab came almost immediately, and took pictures, and dusted the shelfs for prints.
Mr. BALL. Which officers, which officer did you leave there?
Mr. FRITZ. Carl Day was the man I talked to about taking pictures.
Mr. BALL. Day?
Mr. FRITZ. Lieutenant Day; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Do you know whether he took the pictures or not?
Mr. FRITZ. I feel like he did but I don't know because I didn't stay to see whether he could. 
Really on top of things there Capt Will Fritz.
We should put the Mauser thing to bed grave..it has been discussed to death. But the cop's lies are never ending.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 11, 2020, 10:07:41 PM
Walt could you locate and paste where he said that?
When Fritz testified..he would have said his own mother was up there on the 6th floor if he had to.Really on top of things there Capt Will Fritz.
We should put the Mauser thing to bed grave..it has been discussed to death. But the cop's lies are never ending.

Mr. FRITZ. After the pictures had been made then I ejected a live shell, a live cartridge from the rifle.
Mr. BALL. And who did you give that to?
Mr. FRITZ. I believe that I kept that at that time myself. Later I gave it to the crime lab who, in turn, turned it over to the FBI.
Mr. BALL. Did you put any marking of yours on the empty cartridge?
Mr. FRITZ. On that loaded cartridge?
Mr. BALL. On that loaded cartridge.
Mr. FRITZ. I don't know, I am not sure, I don't think so.
Mr. BALL. Was there any conversation you heard that this rifle was a Mauser?
Mr. FRITZ. I heard all kinds of reports about that rifle. They called it most everything.
Mr. BALL. Did you hear any conversation right there that day?
Mr. FRITZ. Right at that time?
Mr. BALL. Yes
Mr. FRITZ. I just wouldn't be sure because there were so many people talking at the same time, I might have; I am not sure whether I did or not.
Mr. BALL. Did you think it was a Mauser?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I knew--you can read on the rifle what it was and you could also see on the cartridge what caliber it was.


This isn't exactly what I was looking for, but perhaps it will do to answer your question....   I recall Fritz saying that the shells were stamped 6,5 Carc

Do you want me to look some more?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jerry Freeman on April 12, 2020, 12:16:11 AM
Quote
Mr. FRITZ. After the pictures had been made then I ejected a live shell, a live cartridge from the rifle.
Mr. BALL. And who did you give that to?
Mr. FRITZ. I believe that I kept that at that time myself. Later I gave it to the crime lab who, in turn, turned it over to the FBI.
Mr. BALL. Did you put any marking of yours on the empty cartridge?
Mr. FRITZ. On that loaded cartridge?
Mr. BALL. On that loaded cartridge.
Mr. FRITZ. I don't know, I am not sure, I don't think so.
Mr. BALL. Was there any conversation you heard that this rifle was a Mauser?
Mr. FRITZ. I heard all kinds of reports about that rifle. They called it most everything.
Mr. BALL. Did you hear any conversation right there that day?
Mr. FRITZ. Right at that time?
Mr. BALL. Yes
Mr. FRITZ. I just wouldn't be sure because there were so many people talking at the same time, I might have; I am not sure whether I did or not.
Mr. BALL. Did you think it was a Mauser?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I knew--you can read on the rifle what it was and you could also see on the cartridge what caliber it was.
Mediocre rehearsal of testimony? Perhaps not.
Those ambiguous convoluted statements are exactly what I meant. Fritz was probably crapping his pants that he would accidentally say something that was factually correct.
Fritz didn't initial the rifle, the ejected cartridge, the spent shells, or the paper bag.
Like Pilate..he was more than ready to wash his hands of the whole mess.
I don't see anybody's initials on this sucker.....

 (https://i.insider.com/59f1fc3bbcf93d1d008b4981?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp)
 
(http://publiusvaleri.us/wp-content/gallery/switched-shells-at-nara/thumbs/thumbs_Fig08-1968-CE543544545.jpg)
(http://publiusvaleri.us/wp-content/gallery/switched-shells-at-nara/thumbs/thumbs_Fig01-1963-FBI-CD1.jpg)
 
Upper photo..closeup of the items in the lower-note the dent in one casing. That would have screwed up the action [I would think]
http://publiusvaleri.us/switched-shells-gallery/  Click photos to enlarge & go figure. I don't see initials on anything.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 12, 2020, 01:00:51 AM
Jesus tap dancing Christ!

A) Roger Craig was not close enough to the rifle to read any inscriptions on the rifle.

How do you know this?

B) Captain Fritz testified that the live round was stamped "6,5mm carc"

Do you hear yourself? "Captain Fritz" said...anything! Besides, what does that have to do with anything?

C) The photos taken of Day departing the TSBD show that he was carrying a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.

And? Do you think they would have carried out the Mauser the same way? And do you think they wouldn't have squirreled away the Mauser until the heat was off? Give your head a shake and ask yourself where the Mauser that Weitzman described came from? Answer that before you claim that Craig was lying about seeing a Mauser.

A) Roger Craig was not close enough to the rifle to read any inscriptions on the rifle.

How do you know this? 

In he video of Roger Craig boasting of having seen the inscription "7.65 Stamped right there on the barrel " Craig is superimposed on the Alyea flim that shows Craig in the back ground.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 12, 2020, 02:46:31 AM
A) Roger Craig was not close enough to the rifle to read any inscriptions on the rifle.

How could you possibly know that?

Quote
B) Captain Fritz testified that the live round was stamped "6,5mm carc"

Where?  I just went through his testimony and I don't see anything like this.

Quote
C) The photos taken of Day departing the TSBD show that he was carrying a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.

How is that supposed to tell you anything about what Roger Craig saw?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 12, 2020, 04:51:24 AM
A) Roger Craig was not close enough to the rifle to read any inscriptions on the rifle.

John I beat me to it.

Quote
How do you know this? 

In he video of Roger Craig boasting of having seen the inscription "7.65 Stamped right there on the barrel " Craig is superimposed on the Alyea flim that shows Craig in the back ground.

You mean the sequence in the film where they were leaving after Fritz had asked Craig and Weitzman to GTFO? Why TF would Fritz ask them to leave? Because they knew about the damn Mauser of course. Why else? After they left, Fritz directed the "discovery" of the MC, which is your Alyea gospel footage that you think proves Craig and Weitzman were damned liars! Don't you find any of this a wee bit suspicious?

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Gerry Down on April 12, 2020, 12:19:00 PM
John I beat me to it.

You mean the sequence in the film where they were leaving after Fritz had asked Craig and Weitzman to GTFO? Why TF would Fritz ask them to leave? Because they knew about the damn Mauser of course. Why else? After they left, Fritz directed the "discovery" of the MC, which is your Alyea gospel footage that you think proves Craig and Weitzman were damned liars! Don't you find any of this a wee bit suspicious?

Why would the Dallas police be covering for the proposed assassins?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jerry Freeman on April 12, 2020, 01:58:42 PM
Why would the Dallas police be covering for the proposed assassins?
1. Cops were involved. 2. Cops cover for cops.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 12, 2020, 04:48:16 PM
John I beat me to it.

You mean the sequence in the film where they were leaving after Fritz had asked Craig and Weitzman to GTFO? Why TF would Fritz ask them to leave? Because they knew about the damn Mauser of course. Why else? After they left, Fritz directed the "discovery" of the MC, which is your Alyea gospel footage that you think proves Craig and Weitzman were damned liars! Don't you find any of this a wee bit suspicious?

https://jfkassassinationfiles.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/roger-craig/
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 12, 2020, 05:20:32 PM
Jesus tap dancing Christ!

A) Roger Craig was not close enough to the rifle to read any inscriptions on the rifle.

How do you know this?

B) Captain Fritz testified that the live round was stamped "6,5mm carc"

Do you hear yourself? "Captain Fritz" said...anything! Besides, what does that have to do with anything?

C) The photos taken of Day departing the TSBD show that he was carrying a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.

And? Do you think they would have carried out the Mauser the same way? And do you think they wouldn't have squirreled away the Mauser until the heat was off? Give your head a shake and ask yourself where the Mauser that Weitzman described came from? Answer that before you claim that Craig was lying about seeing a Mauser.

A) Roger Craig was not close enough to the rifle to read any inscriptions on the rifle.

How do you know this?

Open your eyes and LOOK .....Starting at the 9:52 point in the you tube video ....... Do you see Roger Craig " NOT MORE THAN SIX  or EIGHT INCHES FROM THE RIFLE" and looking at the rifle??   

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jerry Freeman on April 12, 2020, 06:38:07 PM
At the first of the clip..the guy with the arrow pointed at him is not Roger Craig.
He turned out to be an FBI. Somewhere I saw his name and other pictures of him.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 12, 2020, 06:39:24 PM
John I beat me to it.

You mean the sequence in the film where they were leaving after Fritz had asked Craig and Weitzman to GTFO? Why TF would Fritz ask them to leave? Because they knew about the damn Mauser of course. Why else? After they left, Fritz directed the "discovery" of the MC, which is your Alyea gospel footage that you think proves Craig and Weitzman were damned liars! Don't you find any of this a wee bit suspicious?

You mean the sequence in the film where they were leaving after Fritz had asked Craig and Weitzman to GTFO?

THIS is the video that I'm referring to.....


Get your eyes open and LOOK.... starting at the about the 9: 52 point .....  Do you see Roger Craig just "Six or eight inches" from the rifle?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 12, 2020, 07:50:01 PM
Open your eyes and LOOK .....Starting at the 9:52 point in the you tube video ....... Do you see Roger Craig " NOT MORE THAN SIX  or EIGHT INCHES FROM THE RIFLE" and looking at the rifle??   

a) a rifle isn’t even visible in the film segment that focuses on a man that the maker of the YouTube video is apparently identifying as Craig by circling his face in a blue tint.

b) why do you keep assuming that the extant Alyea film captured everything that happened with a rifle or rifles on the sixth floor that afternoon?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 12, 2020, 07:58:42 PM
Craig had to have his reputation completely destroyed because he was saying stuff that was inconvenient for the narrative. Same with Arnold Rowland.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 12, 2020, 08:01:00 PM
a) a rifle isn’t even visible in the film segment that focuses on a man that the maker of the YouTube video is apparently identifying as Craig by circling his face in a blue tint.

b) why do you keep assuming that the extant Alyea film captured everything that happened with a rifle or rifles on the sixth floor that afternoon?

a) a rifle isn’t even visible in the film segment that focuses on a man that the maker of the YouTube video is apparently identifying as Craig by circling his face in a blue tint.

Thank you for proving that you are simply a contrarian AH .....  Because anybody watching the Vid can see Fritz examining the MANNLICHER CARCANO....and Roger Craig is not six or eight inches from the rifle.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 12, 2020, 08:13:08 PM
Craig had to have his reputation completely destroyed because he was saying stuff that was inconvenient for the narrative. Same with Arnold Rowland.

Craig created his reputation.....  And it's a shame, because he might have provided us with some very good information.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 12, 2020, 08:35:44 PM
Thank you for proving that you are simply a contrarian AH .....  Because anybody watching the Vid can see Fritz examining the MANNLICHER CARCANO....and Roger Craig is not six or eight inches from the rifle.

Are you the same Walt Cakebread who just wrote this?

Jack, Apparently you are of the mind set that thinks insults and name calling will win the debate.

Go ahead, Walt, point out the rifle in this screen shot of the alleged Craig.

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/craig-alyea.png)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 13, 2020, 12:54:54 AM
You mean the sequence in the film where they were leaving after Fritz had asked Craig and Weitzman to GTFO?

THIS is the video that I'm referring to.....


Get your eyes open and LOOK.... starting at the about the 9: 52 point .....  Do you see Roger Craig just "Six or eight inches" from the rifle?

Will you f*ck off with the open your eyes crap. All that clip shows is that Fritz lied about Craig being there. Why do you keep insisting that all the footage you refer to shows the complete picture or even the correct sequence of events? A film can't show you what didn't happen. Everyone that was caught up in the conspiracy lied and that included Craig and Weitzman. At least Craig had the guts to blow the whistle and for that you slander him with fabricated evidence. You haven't even proven that he lied about the Mauser. Why would Fritz have asked Craig and Weitzman to leave the CRIME SCENE? Knowing that this was a conspiracy, don't you think Craig thought his life was in danger? Wouldn't that explain his erratic behavior and his "mental illness"? And why do you assume he committed suicide? Is it because you hate him? Open your mind and THINK.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 13, 2020, 02:34:44 AM
Will you f*ck off with the open your eyes crap. All that clip shows is that Fritz lied about Craig being there. Why do you keep insisting that all the footage you refer to shows the complete picture or even the correct sequence of events? A film can't show you what didn't happen. Everyone that was caught up in the conspiracy lied and that included Craig and Weitzman. At least Craig had the guts to blow the whistle and for that you slander him with fabricated evidence. You haven't even proven that he lied about the Mauser. Why would Fritz have asked Craig and Weitzman to leave the CRIME SCENE? Knowing that this was a conspiracy, don't you think Craig thought his life was in danger? Wouldn't that explain his erratic behavior and his "mental illness"? And why do you assume he committed suicide? Is it because you hate him? Open your mind and THINK.

All that clip shows is that Fritz lied about Craig being there.

Clip????   Did you view the video?    I would guess from your response that you didn't.....   But I'm tired of arguing with you....You're hopeless.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 13, 2020, 02:42:30 AM
All that clip shows is that Fritz lied about Craig being there.

Clip????   Did you view the video?    I would guess from your response that you didn't.....   But I'm tired of arguing with you....You're hopeless.

Do you not know what "clip" means? It has no size restrictions. It is a section of film taken from the reel. It can be the whole reel or it can be a single frame. Carry on thinking that you know what you are looking at. Trust me, your lying eyes don't.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 13, 2020, 03:10:42 AM
Do you not know what "clip" means? It has no size restrictions. It is a section of film taken from the reel. It can be the whole reel or it can be a single frame. Carry on thinking that you know what you are looking at. Trust me, your lying eyes don't.

Here's a real simple question.... Do you see Captain Fritz with the carcano there on the sixth floor.... Is Roger Craig anywhere in the close proximity?....Like "six or eight inches from the rifle" so that he could read "right there on the barrel"...the inscription .....  7 .65 Mauser. ?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 13, 2020, 03:14:47 AM
Here's a real simple question.... Do you see Captain Fritz with the carcano there on the sixth floor.... Is Roger Craig anywhere in the close proximity?....Like "six or eight inches from the rifle" so that he could read "right there on the barrel"...the inscription .....  7 .65 Mauser. ?

Walt, you seem obsessed with film footage. You don't seem capable of accepting that it doesn't show everything that happened. Why do you think it does?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 13, 2020, 03:29:45 AM
Walt, you seem obsessed with film footage. You don't seem capable of accepting that it doesn't show everything that happened. Why do you think it does?

Of course the footage most certainly does show that Roger Craig was nowhere near Captain Fritz at the time Fritz was examining the Carcano.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 13, 2020, 04:10:07 AM
Of course the footage most certainly does show that Roger Craig was nowhere near Captain Fritz at the time Fritz was examining the Carcano.

What about the parts where the camera wasn't filming? And what does any footage have to do with whether Craig read the barrel of the Mauser at the crime scene? Do you think Craig should be in this footage 6" from the rifle for his story to be true? Because that's BS. First off, all film must be taken with a grain of salt. You need to know the provenance of the film footage and set the scene to put it into context before you use it to make any claims. And a film cannot show you what didn't happen. EOS.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Gerry Down on April 13, 2020, 05:42:58 AM
You need to know the provenance of the film footage and set the scene to put it into context before you use it to make any claims. And a film cannot show you what didn't happen. EOS.

Very hard to fake film footage. Especially as it was aired on the actual day itself.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 13, 2020, 06:55:30 AM
Here's a real simple question.... Do you see Captain Fritz with the carcano there on the sixth floor.... Is Roger Craig anywhere in the close proximity?....Like "six or eight inches from the rifle" so that he could read "right there on the barrel"...the inscription .....  7 .65 Mauser. ?

Again, Walt, you don't know that this film segment reflects the time that Craig said he was 6 or 8 inches from the rifle.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Gerry Down on April 13, 2020, 11:22:04 AM
Again, Walt, you don't know that this film segment reflects the time that Craig said he was 6 or 8 inches from the rifle.

Craig only stated this YEARS later. Never mentioned it in his WC testimony.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 16, 2020, 06:14:46 AM
There are film clips that shows Lee standing on the stub street in front of the TSBD. 

No there aren’t.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 16, 2020, 01:57:37 PM
No there aren’t.

We have differing opinions.....   But you don't even know what I'm referring to.....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 16, 2020, 06:58:20 PM
I have not been able to find any original source of the Helen Forest/Forrest claim.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 16, 2020, 07:25:02 PM
Roger Craig committed suicide.....

That's how they killed him.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 16, 2020, 07:53:23 PM
That's like asking a monkey not to fling poo.

 :D :D :D
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 16, 2020, 08:30:02 PM
That's how they killed him.

Perhaps you're right..... "They" may have drove Roger Craig to suicide but he committed the act.    This is exactly what I think happened to George De M ....

In some circles of society there is a creed of "death before dishonor"....   And I believe George De M was of that creed.    De M knew the truth about the coup d e'tat, and he knew that Lee had been made the scapegoat....but he couldn't tell the truth to the whole wide world because he would have been putting a noose around his own neck and bringing shame to his kids and grandkids.   
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Gerry Down on April 17, 2020, 07:30:49 AM
Everyone that was caught up in the conspiracy lied and that included Craig and Weitzman. At least Craig had the guts to blow the whistle and for that you slander him with fabricated evidence. You haven't even proven that he lied about the Mauser.

Craig DID see a mauser on the 6th floor. The only problem was that he saw it there in 1968 in his own imagination.

He also really DID see 3 spent shells neatly lined up in the snipers nest (in 1968 in his own imagination).

If people can imagine their own genders, why can't Craig imagine a mauser on the 6th floor?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 17, 2020, 03:24:55 PM
Craig DID see a mauser on the 6th floor. The only problem was that he saw it there in 1968 in his own imagination.

He also really DID see 3 spent shells neatly lined up in the snipers nest (in 1968 in his own imagination).

If people can imagine their own genders, why can't Craig imagine a mauser on the 6th floor?

If we could know the truth, I'd bet that Weitzman talked to Craig about his interview with FBI agent A1bert Sayers and Weitzman told Craig that he'd been handed the rifle that he and Boone had discovered and it was a 7.65 mauser, and that identification of the caliber was "STAMPED RIGHT THERE ON THE BARREL"

But Craig with his gargantuan ego made up the tale that he had seen that stamp when he was "not more than six or eight inches from the rifle" when Day held it up to Fritz.   

PS.... It is reported that Seymour Weitzman had psychological  problems for the rest of his life following the coup d e'tat.    Can anybody verify the rumor ?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jerry Freeman on April 17, 2020, 10:13:01 PM
 
He also really DID see 3 spent shells ...
 
Quote
Mr. BELIN - Do you recall any of the shells right up against the wall at all---- or, don't you recall?
Mr. CRAIG - No; I don't; I didn't look that close.

                                                                                           :-\
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 18, 2020, 04:32:18 PM

                                                                                           :-\

Some DPD photos show only TWO spent shells..... But the DPD mixed the authentic photos in with the fake photos so I'm sure there will be those who point out that other photos show three spent shells.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 18, 2020, 07:25:33 PM
With people like you posting nonsense.... We never will get to the bottom of it....

As if you are going to get to the bottom of it. There is a very good chance that some token shots were taken from the 6th floor so witnesses could direct the cops to where they thought the shots came from. This was crucial so the DPD could converge on Oswald in record time. So that being the case, then an Oswald surrogate took a few shots with a Mauser, ditched it then escaped the scene. You acknowledge that Oswald didn't take any shots himself, so someone else must have. The conspirators would have used a surrogate who looked somewhat like Oswald. What is so nonsensical about that scenario? I think your claim that no shots came from the 6th floor is equally ludicrous because the conspirators needed to draw attention to the 6th floor so Fritz could do his magic. Otherwise, why else did the DPD go there, find the rifle(s) and converge on Oswald in the theater an hour after he supposedly took the shots? Do you think that Fritz was a genius and the DPD were crackerjack cops? Get real.

You need to extract your head and open your lyin' eyes to how the Big Event must have went down rather than focus exclusively on the so-called "evidence" that you glean from the internet, fed to you by the conspirators, which you consider gospel.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 18, 2020, 07:36:12 PM
As if you are going to get to the bottom of it. There is a very good chance that some token shots were taken from the 6th floor so witnesses could direct the cops to where they thought the shots came from. This was crucial so the DPD could converge on Oswald in record time. So that being the case, then an Oswald surrogate took a few shots with a Mauser, ditched it then escaped the scene. You acknowledge that Oswald didn't take any shots himself, so someone else must have. The conspirators would have used a surrogate who looked somewhat like Oswald. What is so nonsensical about that scenario? I think your claim that no shots came from the 6th floor is equally ludicrous because the conspirators needed to draw attention to the 6th floor so Fritz could do his magic. Otherwise, why else did the DPD go there, find the rifle(s) and converge on Oswald in the theater an hour after he supposedly took the shots? Do you think that Fritz was a genius and the DPD were crackerjack cops? Get real.

You need to extract your head and open your lyin' eyes to how the Big Event must have went down rather than focus exclusively on the so-called "evidence" that you glean from the internet, fed to you by the conspirators, which you consider gospel.



You're fool Mr Trojan.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 18, 2020, 07:58:11 PM
You're fool Mr Trojan.

And you're an idiot. Checkmate, fool!  :-*

ps. Let he who claims "nonsense" cast the 1st stone. Extract your head and try again.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 18, 2020, 08:26:46 PM
And you're an idiot. Checkmate, fool!  :-*

ps. Let he who claims "nonsense" cast the 1st stone. Extract your head and try again.

I tried to engage you in a disscussion about the 7.65 mauser......  but you insist that it was found along with the carcano and there were actually two rifles there on the sixth floor....  I believe that is absurd.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 19, 2020, 01:14:24 AM
I tried to engage you in a disscussion about the 7.65 mauser......  but you insist that it was found along with the carcano and there were actually two rifles there on the sixth floor....  I believe that is absurd.

First off, I never insisted there were 2 rifles found on the 6th floor, only that you don't know that there weren't. I'm playing the devil's advocate that you can't be 100% certain that Craig and Weitzman were lying about seeing a Mauser in the TSBD just because it wasn't shown on Alyea's film footage. You think it's absurd because you buy into the testimony from the conspirators and you think that the Alyea film tells the whole story. But Alyea didn't film the hulls at the SN so does that mean they didn't exist? You know damn well the provenance for ALL the evidence is crap as well as shady. The DPD planted all the evidence, didn't they? They certainly weren't worried about getting their prints all over EVERYTHING.

I tried to have a discussion about the 7.65 Mauser with you but you glazed over. I only have a couple of questions for you:

1) Why would Weitzman have been shown a Mauser if it had nothing to do with the Big Event?
2) Why do you think the conspirators would not have placed a shooter in the SN so they could frame Oswald?

Answer my 2 absurd questions and we'll take it from there, if you dare.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 19, 2020, 01:49:53 AM
First off, I never insisted there were 2 rifles found on the 6th floor, only that you don't know that there weren't. I'm playing the devil's advocate that you can't be 100% certain that Craig and Weitzman were lying about seeing a Mauser in the TSBD just because it wasn't shown on Alyea's film footage. You think it's absurd because you buy into the testimony from the conspirators and you think that the Alyea film tells the whole story. But Alyea didn't film the hulls at the SN so does that mean they didn't exist? You know damn well the provenance for ALL the evidence is crap as well as shady. The DPD planted all the evidence, didn't they? They certainly weren't worried about getting their prints all over EVERYTHING.

I tried to have a discussion about the 7.65 Mauser with you but you glazed over. I only have a couple of questions for you:

1) Why would Weitzman have been shown a Mauser if it had nothing to do with the Big Event?
2) Why do you think the conspirators would not have placed a shooter in the SN so they could frame Oswald?

Answer my 2 absurd questions and we'll take it from there, if you dare.

you can't be 100% certain that Craig and Weitzman were lying about seeing a Mause in the TSBD just because it wasn't shown on Alyea's film footage.

But it's not only not seen in the Alyea footage NOBODY reported seeing another rifle .... That is a fact.  We know that Boone Weitzman Craig, and others saw a rifle that they thought was a 7.65 Mauser but Alyea's footage shows the rifle was a carcano....and photographers outside the TSBD verified the Alyea footage.

you can't be 100% certain that Craig and Weitzman were lying about seeing a Mauser in the TSBD

I said Craig was lying.....I said NOTHING about Weitzman....except he was mistaken....and he admitted it.


I have two questions for you....
1) Why would Weitzman have been shown a Mauser if it had nothing to do with the Big Event?

2) Why do you think the conspirators would not have placed a shooter in the SN so they could frame Oswald?

Please answer the questions 
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 19, 2020, 03:25:12 AM
you can't be 100% certain that Craig and Weitzman were lying about seeing a Mause in the TSBD just because it wasn't shown on Alyea's film footage.

But it's not only not seen in the Alyea footage NOBODY reported seeing another rifle .... That is a fact.  We know that Boone Weitzman Craig, and others saw a rifle that they thought was a 7.65 Mauser but Alyea's footage shows the rifle was a carcano....and photographers outside the TSBD verified the Alyea footage.


Would you expect a conspirator to report seeing another rifle? How many non-conspirators were there and did Fritz keep any of them at bay, including Alyea?

Quote
you can't be 100% certain that Craig and Weitzman were lying about seeing a Mauser in the TSBD

I said Craig was lying.....I said NOTHING about Weitzman....except he was mistaken....and he admitted it.
Right, Weitzman was mistaken and "guessed" it was a 7.65 Mauser almost like he read the caliber off a barrel.  ::) You do realize that before he recanted, Weitzman must have known he was caught up in a coup d'etat? Wouldn't you be "mistaken" like him once the light bulb turned on?

Quote
I have two questions for you....
1) Why would Weitzman have been shown a Mauser if it had nothing to do with the Big Event?

2) Why do you think the conspirators would not have placed a shooter in the SN so they could frame Oswald?

Please answer the questions

I assume you didn't answer them yourself because you're afraid to. You leave me no choice but to speculate what your answers would be. It's on your head if I'm wrong.

Jack: Hey Walt, why would Weitzman have been shown a Mauser if it had nothing to do with the Big Event?
Walt: I haven't got a clue. Not even a guess. How about you?
Jack: As I told you before, it was for plausible deniability. Weitzman had to be shown the Mauser on a separate occasion so he could "mistake" it for the one in his affidavit.
Walt: Mr. Trojan you are a fool.
Jack: Perhaps, but why do you think the conspirators would not have placed a shooter in the SN so they could frame Oswald?
Walt: Because it works against my "No Mauser" argument. I realize that if there was a shooter in the SN then he was probably using a more reliable weapon than the MC, such as a Mauser. Since I think a Mauser on the 6th floor is batspombleprofglidnoctobuns absurd, I reject a shooter being on the 6th floor.
Jack: But how did the DPD know to search the building if no shots came from there and where did the shots come from then?
Walt: The shots probably came from the Dal Tex building, the grassy knoll and maybe the overpass. But definitely NOT from the TSBD! NO WAY!!!
Jack: Ok, if you say so. Check Please!
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jerry Freeman on April 19, 2020, 03:55:13 AM
RDC did testify Arnold Rowland told him that he observed some guys moving around some other window. Rowland verified this description. He thought that they were security.
One of them had a rifle he said. [Doubtfully the one the cops found] I believe this unknown guy fired this rifle.
If he hit anything...we will never know.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 19, 2020, 05:35:36 AM
Craig DID see a mauser on the 6th floor. The only problem was that he saw it there in 1968 in his own imagination.

He also really DID see 3 spent shells neatly lined up in the snipers nest (in 1968 in his own imagination).

Hey, I can do that too. Brennan did see Oswald aiming a rifle. In his own imagination. Markham did see Oswald shooting Tippit. In her imagination.

Quote
If people can imagine their own genders, why can't Craig imagine a mauser on the 6th floor?

Transphobe.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 19, 2020, 04:00:25 PM
Would you expect a conspirator to report seeing another rifle? How many non-conspirators were there and did Fritz keep any of them at bay, including Alyea?
Right, Weitzman was mistaken and "guessed" it was a 7.65 Mauser almost like he read the caliber off a barrel.  ::) You do realize that before he recanted, Weitzman must have known he was caught up in a coup d'etat? Wouldn't you be "mistaken" like him once the light bulb turned on?

I assume you didn't answer them yourself because you're afraid to. You leave me no choice but to speculate what your answers would be. It's on your head if I'm wrong.

Jack: Hey Walt, why would Weitzman have been shown a Mauser if it had nothing to do with the Big Event?
Walt: I haven't got a clue. Not even a guess. How about you?
Jack: As I told you before, it was for plausible deniability. Weitzman had to be shown the Mauser on a separate occasion so he could "mistake" it for the one in his affidavit.
Walt: Mr. Trojan you are a fool.
Jack: Perhaps, but why do you think the conspirators would not have placed a shooter in the SN so they could frame Oswald?
Walt: Because it works against my "No Mauser" argument. I realize that if there was a shooter in the SN then he was probably using a more reliable weapon than the MC, such as a Mauser. Since I think a Mauser on the 6th floor is batspombleprofglidnoctobuns absurd, I reject a shooter being on the 6th floor.
Jack: But how did the DPD know to search the building if no shots came from there and where did the shots come from then?
Walt: The shots probably came from the Dal Tex building, the grassy knoll and maybe the overpass. But definitely NOT from the TSBD! NO WAY!!!
Jack: Ok, if you say so. Check Please!

1) Why would Weitzman have been shown a Mauser if it had nothing to do with the Big Event?

Walt: I haven't got a clue. Not even a guess. How about you?   ......However...How do you know that Weitzman was shown the mauser.....FBI agent Sayers is the author of the report....  How do you know that it wasn't Sayers who created the description?     The only hint that Weitzman might have been the author is Weitzman's reply to Ball ( A QUESTION).....Quote... " I said it was a mauser didn't I "???....unquote   Why would Weitzman ask if he was the author?

Mr. Ball - I understand that. Now, in your statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, you gave a description of the rifle, how it looked.
Mr. WEITZMAN - I said it was a Mauser-type action, didn't I?
Mr. BALL - Mauser bolt action.

Sayers report appears to have been created from the affidavits and statements.....He said that Boone was in the NW corner of the sixth floor while Weitzman was in the SW corner when Boone discovered the rifle and Boone called out to Weitzman....."Here it is"     ( or something like that)    Was Weitzman in the SW corner of the sixth floor when the rifle was discovered?  And another point.....Sayers said that Fritz apeared and took the mauser from Weitzman and then ejected a live round from the mauser.....   Do you believe that?


Jack: As I told you before, it was for plausible deniability. Weitzman had to be shown the Mauser on a separate occasion so he could "mistake" it for the one in his affidavit.
Walt:  Yes, I agree that would make sense, but It didn't happen on the sixth floor ..... Weitzman was called to police headquarters later that afternoon....

Walt: Mr. Trojan you are a fool.
Jack: Perhaps, but why do you think the conspirators would not have placed a shooter in the SN so they could frame Oswald?
Walt:  What does this have to do with the Mauser debate???

Walt: The physical layout of the so called "Sniper's Nest" speaks volumes....and it would take a complete book to describe all of the reasons that the tiny nook couldn't have been used as a "Sniper's nest....   But reason #1 is the fact that a sniper who was sitting on a box behind the "rifle rest" could not have rested a rifle on the top box of Rolling Readers and declined the muzzle down onto Elm Street.

Walt: Because it works against my "No Mauser" argument. I realize that if there was a shooter in the SN then he was probably using a more reliable weapon than the MC, such as a Mauser. Since I think a Mauser on the 6th floor is batspombleprofglidnoctobuns absurd, I reject a shooter being on the 6th floor.

Walt:...I don't have a "no mauser " argument.....  There definitely was a 7.65 mauser  being introduced into the evidence stream.....What was the reason for that?

Jack: But how did the DPD know to search the building if no shots came from there and where did the shots come from then?

What does this have to do with the mauser debate?

Walt: The shots probably came from the Dal Tex building, the grassy knoll and maybe the overpass. But definitely NOT from the TSBD! NO WAY!!!

Walt: I've never proposed any such theory.... Please don't put words in my mouth....

Jack: Ok, if you say so. Check Please!
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 19, 2020, 05:47:14 PM
First off, I never insisted there were 2 rifles found on the 6th floor, only that you don't know that there weren't. I'm playing the devil's advocate that you can't be 100% certain that Craig and Weitzman were lying about seeing a Mauser in the TSBD just because it wasn't shown on Alyea's film footage. You think it's absurd because you buy into the testimony from the conspirators and you think that the Alyea film tells the whole story. But Alyea didn't film the hulls at the SN so does that mean they didn't exist? You know damn well the provenance for ALL the evidence is crap as well as shady. The DPD planted all the evidence, didn't they? They certainly weren't worried about getting their prints all over EVERYTHING.

I tried to have a discussion about the 7.65 Mauser with you but you glazed over. I only have a couple of questions for you:

1) Why would Weitzman have been shown a Mauser if it had nothing to do with the Big Event?
2) Why do you think the conspirators would not have placed a shooter in the SN so they could frame Oswald?

Answer my 2 absurd questions and we'll take it from there, if you dare.
I posted this a couple of weeks ago.....

Jerry:  The old saying... Believe half of what you see and even less of what you hear.
The photo is the "6th floor rifle". I would not wager that there was not any other rifle in that building that day. I will never understand why a man would deliberately ruin his life based on what he said he saw and insisting upon it ceaselessly.
That he was just another nut is such a worn out platitude.


Walt; I would not wager that there was not any other rifle in that building that day.


I agree.....I suspect that there was in fact a Mauser in the TSBD that afternoon..... But Roger Craig never saw it.    And whether the suspected Mauser was connected in any way to the murder of JFK is completely unknown.....

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 19, 2020, 05:54:51 PM
Whaley claimed that he rounded his times to the nearest 15 minutes.  Not only do the other entries on the timesheet belie this claim, but even if that was true then he would have put 12:45, not 12:30.

(https://nebula.wsimg.com/cf74ef484ade1018da0a49d76c67491c?AccessKeyId=9CD8649F35FCA7653E81&disposition=0&alloworigin=1)

The fare entered Whaley's taxi at 12:30.....and exited at 12:45.....

(https://nebula.wsimg.com/cf74ef484ade1018da0a49d76c67491c?AccessKeyId=9CD8649F35FCA7653E81&disposition=0&alloworigin=1)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Gerry Down on April 19, 2020, 05:57:31 PM
But the cab journey didn't take exactly 15 minutes and 0 seconds. Whaley was just rounding things off.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 19, 2020, 06:02:51 PM
But the cab journey didn't take exactly 15 minutes and 0 seconds. Whaley was just rounding things off.

I agree..... But the point is LBJ's Special Select Blue Ribbon cover up committee said that Lee entered Whaley's cab at about 12:42 ( if I remember right) that's just three minute before Whaley said the man got ot of his cab.    Whaley said the man entered his taxi at 12:30   ( Lee was still in the TSBD)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 20, 2020, 02:15:41 AM
It’s not rounding to the nearest 15 minutes to change “12:42” to “12:30”.

And if he rounded everything to the nearest 15 minutes then why are there entries that say 9:40, 10:50, and 3:10?

Where do you find the patience to deal with Mr Nonsense?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 21, 2020, 01:51:11 PM
Would you expect a conspirator to report seeing another rifle? How many non-conspirators were there and did Fritz keep any of them at bay, including Alyea?
Right, Weitzman was mistaken and "guessed" it was a 7.65 Mauser almost like he read the caliber off a barrel.  ::) You do realize that before he recanted, Weitzman must have known he was caught up in a coup d'etat? Wouldn't you be "mistaken" like him once the light bulb turned on?

I assume you didn't answer them yourself because you're afraid to. You leave me no choice but to speculate what your answers would be. It's on your head if I'm wrong.

Jack: Hey Walt, why would Weitzman have been shown a Mauser if it had nothing to do with the Big Event?
Walt: I haven't got a clue. Not even a guess. How about you?
Jack: As I told you before, it was for plausible deniability. Weitzman had to be shown the Mauser on a separate occasion so he could "mistake" it for the one in his affidavit.
Walt: Mr. Trojan you are a fool.
Jack: Perhaps, but why do you think the conspirators would not have placed a shooter in the SN so they could frame Oswald?
Walt: Because it works against my "No Mauser" argument. I realize that if there was a shooter in the SN then he was probably using a more reliable weapon than the MC, such as a Mauser. Since I think a Mauser on the 6th floor is batspombleprofglidnoctobuns absurd, I reject a shooter being on the 6th floor.
Jack: But how did the DPD know to search the building if no shots came from there and where did the shots come from then?
Walt: The shots probably came from the Dal Tex building, the grassy knoll and maybe the overpass. But definitely NOT from the TSBD! NO WAY!!!
Jack: Ok, if you say so. Check Please!

You never answered any questions, Jack.    Where did the Mauser come from?.....and why did they try to trick Weitzman into believing the Mauser was the rifle that He and Boone had discovered?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 21, 2020, 07:28:25 PM
You never answered any questions, Jack.    Where did the Mauser come from?.....and why did they try to trick Weitzman into believing the Mauser was the rifle that He and Boone had discovered?

I answered both your questions. Extract your head and have another look. You didn't ans my question because you claimed it had nothing to do with the Mauser discussion, as if that meant you could ignore it. Here it is again.

Why do you assume there was no shooter on the 6th floor?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 21, 2020, 08:31:17 PM
I answered both your questions. Extract your head and have another look. You didn't ans my question because you claimed it had nothing to do with the Mauser discussion, as if that meant you could ignore it. Here it is again.

Why do you assume there was no shooter on the 6th floor?

Why do you assume there was no shooter on the 6th floor?

I'll get to that....But I thought you had the answer to the mauser conundrum ......But if you're going to insist that two rifles ( a carcano and a 7.65 mauser) were discovered by Weitzman and Boone ....then don't bother.....Because I'm not going to accept that for an answer.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jerry Freeman on April 21, 2020, 09:11:51 PM
I heard a news report that they had found a .303 British Enfield up there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee%E2%80%93Enfield
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 21, 2020, 09:56:22 PM
Why do you assume there was no shooter on the 6th floor?

I'll get to that....But I thought you had the answer to the mauser conundrum ......But if you're going to insist that two rifles ( a carcano and a 7.65 mauser) were discovered by Weitzman and Boone ....then don't bother.....Because I'm not going to accept that for an answer.

Why didn't you go back and read my ans? I never said 2 rifles were discovered by Weitzman and Boone, only that you don't know they didn't. Your powers of deductive reasoning aren't the last word here. You don't have enough info to conclude everything went down exactly like the testimony of the conspirators and the Alyea film implies. That's just piss-poor critical thinking at work. You also don't know whether Craig and Weitzman were lying about seeing a Mauser because non-conspirators recant, conspirators tend to lie and film can't show you what isn't on it.

If you think Weitzman recanted his sworn affidavit because he was "mistaken" then you have a "no Mauser" agenda. And I don't mean the Mauser that Weitzman was shown so he could be "mistaken" about it on his affidavit. IMO he was shown a Mauser to give the DPD plausible deniability because he had seen one earlier in the TSBD. The DPD were just covering up their gaffes.

That's my hypothesis, which I know you don't agree with, but you also can't refute. At least not with ad homs and ignorance.

Now stop dodging and ans my foolish, ludicrous, nonsensical question, if you dare. Why didn't the conspirators put a shooter on the 6th floor of the TSBD?

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 21, 2020, 10:36:42 PM
Why didn't you go back and read my ans? I never said 2 rifles were discovered by Weitzman and Boone, only that you don't know they didn't. Your powers of deductive reasoning aren't the last word here. You don't have enough info to conclude everything went down exactly like the testimony of the conspirators and the Alyea film implies. That's just piss-poor critical thinking at work. You also don't know whether Craig and Weitzman were lying about seeing a Mauser because non-conspirators recant, conspirators tend to lie and film can't show you what isn't on it.

If you think Weitzman recanted his sworn affidavit because he was "mistaken" then you have a "no Mauser" agenda. And I don't mean the Mauser that Weitzman was shown so he could be "mistaken" about it on his affidavit. IMO he was shown a Mauser to give the DPD plausible deniability because he had seen one earlier in the TSBD. The DPD were just covering up their gaffes.

That's my hypothesis, which I know you don't agree with, but you also can't refute. At least not with ad homs and ignorance.

Now stop dodging and ans my foolish, ludicrous, nonsensical question, if you dare. Why didn't the conspirators put a shooter on the 6th floor of the TSBD?

I want to know How the mauser ties in......And I don't want nonsense......
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 21, 2020, 10:52:43 PM
Why didn't you go back and read my ans? I never said 2 rifles were discovered by Weitzman and Boone, only that you don't know they didn't. Your powers of deductive reasoning aren't the last word here. You don't have enough info to conclude everything went down exactly like the testimony of the conspirators and the Alyea film implies. That's just piss-poor critical thinking at work. You also don't know whether Craig and Weitzman were lying about seeing a Mauser because non-conspirators recant, conspirators tend to lie and film can't show you what isn't on it.

If you think Weitzman recanted his sworn affidavit because he was "mistaken" then you have a "no Mauser" agenda. And I don't mean the Mauser that Weitzman was shown so he could be "mistaken" about it on his affidavit. IMO he was shown a Mauser to give the DPD plausible deniability because he had seen one earlier in the TSBD. The DPD were just covering up their gaffes.

That's my hypothesis, which I know you don't agree with, but you also can't refute. At least not with ad homs and ignorance.

Now stop dodging and ans my foolish, ludicrous, nonsensical question, if you dare. Why didn't the conspirators put a shooter on the 6th floor of the TSBD?

 I never said 2 rifles were discovered by Weitzman and Boone, only that you don't know they didn't.

I most certainly do know that Weitzman and Boone did NOT discover two rifles..... That idea is simply absurd.....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 22, 2020, 12:50:09 AM
I want to know How the mauser ties in......And I don't want nonsense......

So you won't ans my question unless you like my ans? I replied to your nonsense, so you are either too entrenched in your own nonsense to understand my ans or too chickenspombleprofglidnoctobuns to ans mine. Just say so instead of playing childish games, cuz you are no good at it.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 22, 2020, 12:57:09 AM
I never said 2 rifles were discovered by Weitzman and Boone, only that you don't know they didn't.

I most certainly do know that Weitzman and Boone did NOT discover two rifles..... That idea is simply absurd.....

I have access to the same info you do and I know for a fact that you most certainly know squat. Now extract your head and ans MY question or STFU.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 22, 2020, 02:05:14 AM
I have access to the same info you do and I know for a fact that you most certainly know squat. Now extract your head and ans MY question or STFU.

You simply can't understand an honest appeal for information.    I'm convinced that there was a 7.65 Mauser that was being introduced into the evidence stream.   But Roger Craig never saw it......  You seem to think that you have the answer but your answer so far is utter nonsense.     If you don't know WHO introduced the mauser and why they were attempting to introduce the mauser into evidence, then please don't pretend that you do......
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 22, 2020, 02:52:40 AM
You simply can't understand an honest appeal for information.    I'm convinced that there was a 7.65 Mauser that was being introduced into the evidence stream.   But Roger Craig never saw it......

If a Mauser was introduced into the evidence why couldn’t Roger Craig have seen it?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Rick Plant on April 22, 2020, 03:42:07 AM
You simply can't understand an honest appeal for information.    I'm convinced that there was a 7.65 Mauser that was being introduced into the evidence stream.   But Roger Craig never saw it......  You seem to think that you have the answer but your answer so far is utter nonsense.     If you don't know WHO introduced the mauser and why they were attempting to introduce the mauser into evidence, then please don't pretend that you do......

Roger Craig made a statement that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on a recovered rifle.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 22, 2020, 03:16:06 PM
If a Mauser was introduced into the evidence why couldn’t Roger Craig have seen it?

The only place where Craig could have seen a mauser if it had been there was in the NW corner of the sixth floor.... And THAT IS where he claimed that he was only six or eight inches from Captain Fritz and the mauser when he said that he saw "stamped right there on the barrel 7.65 mauser "   Do you believe that the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered was a mauser?   Or perhaps you believe that there were TWO rifles there at that time....a carcano and a mauser.

Do you want to discuss this further ?......  I'd really like to try to learn about the mauser.....  But there seems to be very little information about it.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 22, 2020, 04:47:06 PM
Roger Craig made a statement that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on a recovered rifle.

Roger Craig made a statement that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on a recovered rifle.

I believe that Roger made that statement many years after the assassination.....  If he had seen a rifle that was stamped 7.65 mauser  it's highly improbable that he would have waited ten years ( or whatever duration) to make that statement.   
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 22, 2020, 06:32:40 PM
The only place where Craig could have seen a mauser if it had been there was in the NW corner of the sixth floor....

If you're speculating that Weitzman saw a Mauser back at the station, then why couldn't Craig have seen the same one?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 22, 2020, 06:37:07 PM
Weitzman said in a sworn affidavit that he was mistaken....He caught only a quick glimpse of the carcano and thought it was a 7.65 mauser.

You of all people should know that swearing an affidavit doesn't make something true.  Roger Craig didn't tow the line and he paid the price.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 22, 2020, 06:39:17 PM
Mr. WEITZMAN - And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn't; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance.

When did Weitzman ever say it was a Weaver?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 22, 2020, 07:00:48 PM
When did Weitzman ever say it was a Weaver?

Don't know..... But I'd guess that he was referring to the mauser examination.....Because I doubt that he could have made that WAG at the time that Lt Day picked up the Carcano FROM THE FLOOR and held it up to Capt Fritz.     I wish I could figger out what the reason that they gave Weitzman a mauser to examine and describe.

It's possible that the senile Fritz became confused when one of his detectives brought the Mauser in from ( the Daltex?) and thought that it was the carcano from the sixth floor......

You may recall that during the early stages of the investigation the authorities were telling reporters that Lee was the leader of a band of communists, so they may have thought that the mauser was the weapon of one of Lee's communist accomplices.     
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Rick Plant on April 23, 2020, 12:30:51 AM
Roger Craig made a statement that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on a recovered rifle.

I believe that Roger made that statement many years after the assassination.....  If he had seen a rifle that was stamped 7.65 mauser  it's highly improbable that he would have waited ten years ( or whatever duration) to make that statement.

Roger Craig was always adamant about finding a 7.65 Mauser and not a Mannlicher-Carcano.

Weitzman changed his mind and later stated it was a Mannlicher-Carcano.

Craig talked with a reporter a few years later telling the same story and was fired from the Police Department.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Gary Craig on April 23, 2020, 04:45:14 AM
When did Weitzman ever say it was a Weaver?

I couldn't find anything other than that statement.

I wonder if there is another affidavit that disappeared that mentions a Weaver scope.

Boone's affidavits/reports are dated 11/22, Weitzman's 11/23. 

Maybe he re-did his affidavit/reports on 11/23 and the FBI sent over Special Agent Sayers to make sure he got it right.

If he did mistake the Carcano for a Mauser, or at least wanted people to think he did, the one part of the set up he wouldn't have shouldn't have got wrong, based on the detail in his description, was the Japanese made scope. IMO

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 23, 2020, 04:09:58 PM
I couldn't find anything other than that statement.

I wonder if there is another affidavit that disappeared that mentions a Weaver scope.

Boone's affidavits/reports are dated 11/22, Weitzman's 11/23. 

Maybe he re-did his affidavit/reports on 11/23 and the FBI sent over Special Agent Sayers to make sure he got it right.

If he did mistake the Carcano for a Mauser, or at least wanted people to think he did, the one part of the set up he wouldn't have shouldn't have got wrong, based on the detail in his description, was the Japanese made scope. IMO

If he did mistake the Carcano for a Mauser, or at least wanted people to think he did, the one part of the set up he wouldn't have shouldn't have got wrong, based on the detail in his description, was the Japanese made scope. IMO

Unfortunately we don't have a photo of the mauser so we can see what the scope on the mauser looked like ......  But we can safely assume that it wasn't very distinctive .....  It would have been stupendous if Weitzman had said that the scope on the mauser was a large and powerful scope ( Like Arnold Rowland described)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 23, 2020, 06:37:30 PM
If he did mistake the Carcano for a Mauser, or at least wanted people to think he did, the one part of the set up he wouldn't have shouldn't have got wrong, based on the detail in his description, was the Japanese made scope. IMO

Unfortunately we don't have a photo of the mauser so we can see what the scope on the mauser looked like ......  But we can safely assume that it wasn't very distinctive .....  It would have been stupendous if Weitzman had said that the scope on the mauser was a large and powerful scope ( Like Arnold Rowland described)

Maybe the Mauser was the rifle with the Weaver scope.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 23, 2020, 08:47:45 PM
Maybe the Mauser was the rifle with the Weaver scope.

A distinct possibility....   These are the kind of ideas that may produce something solid to talk about.....  But arguing that the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered was a mauser  is utter nonsense.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 23, 2020, 09:41:52 PM
That's because the existing Alyea film tells you nothing about what Roger Craig saw.  Or what Weitzman saw for that matter.

the existing Alyea film tells you nothing about what Roger Craig saw.

But the Alyea film and the corroborating testimonies does tell an intelligent person what Roger Craig could NOT have seen....ie; A 7.65 mauser.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 23, 2020, 10:39:21 PM
the existing Alyea film tells you nothing about what Roger Craig saw.

But the Alyea film and the corroborating testimonies does tell an intelligent person what Roger Craig could NOT have seen....ie; A 7.65 mauser.

If Weitzman saw one then Craig could have seen one as well.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 23, 2020, 11:30:30 PM
the existing Alyea film tells you nothing about what Roger Craig saw.

But the Alyea film and the corroborating testimonies does tell an intelligent person what Roger Craig could NOT have seen....ie; A 7.65 mauser.

 BS: Extract your head. Film can't tell you what didn't happen. What part of that don't you get? And your thoughts re a shooter being in the TSBD? Cock a doodle do.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 25, 2020, 03:28:46 PM
Craig exhibited mental problem later on but never wavered from his original stance on the Mauser as the weapon.

Of course you're right...."Craig never wavered from his original stance on the Mauser as the weapon."    But that simply means that in his ( sick) mind that it was the truth.   But if you'll review the 15 minute period from the discovery of the CARCANO  until Lt Day picks the carcano UP FROM THE FLOOR there should be no doubt in your mind that Roger Craig was a liar.....and there was no mauser there.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 26, 2020, 07:46:51 PM
What 15 minute period is available to review?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 26, 2020, 10:56:10 PM
What 15 minute period is available to review?

The 15 minutes between 1:22  the time that Weitzman and Boone discovered the rifle LYING ON THE FLOOR and the time that Lt Day picked the rifle up OFF THE FLOOR  by the leather strap.   I simply use the time of 15 minutes .....It might have a bit more or a bit less....But what everthat period of time was, we have at least a half dozen witness who swore that nobody touched the rifle before Day came with Captain Fritz and picked up the carcano FROM THE FLOOR.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 27, 2020, 04:11:41 AM
The 15 minutes between 1:22  the time that Weitzman and Boone discovered the rifle LYING ON THE FLOOR and the time that Lt Day picked the rifle up OFF THE FLOOR  by the leather strap.   I simply use the time of 15 minutes .....It might have a bit more or a bit less....But what everthat period of time was, we have at least a half dozen witness who swore that nobody touched the rifle before Day came with Captain Fritz and picked up the carcano FROM THE FLOOR.

What rifle did the TSBD shooter use?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jerry Freeman on April 27, 2020, 04:30:00 AM
I think it was the assassination and his involvement in it that ultimately drove RDC nuts.
Beforehand he seemed to be an exemplary law enforcement officer or so his record indicates.
The problem I had with Craig's account was not only just the Mauser thing but the time line of his analysis and certain other narrations.
12:30 he testifies he is at the corner of the Criminal Courts Bldg [Sheriff's office]. After hearing the shots he ran up to the railroad/parking area.
Stated that he hopped the fence...saw a woman leaving the parking lot...confronted her and turned her over to other deputies...looked around there a bit and then questioned the Rowland couple...then joined the probe for a search for some stray bullet/s that hit the curb....saw the suspicious person on the knoll get into a car... Craig describes to the FBI the passenger that entered the car--- white male, height-5'9", weight 140pounds, build slender, hair sandy, dress-brown shirt, blue trousers ...[sounds like the guy that shot Tippit huh?]
Then Craig approached the TSBD where he said it was sealed off. His est. of the time there was 20 minutes after the shots. RC stated that a call was made to secure flashlights in search of the building. Craig returned to the Sheriff's office to obtain an undisclosed number of flashlights. Upon returning to the TSBD and this is interesting----
Quote
Mr. CRAIG - And they were calling for hand lights to search the attic of the building. At that time---uh---they thought the man was still in the building. So, they were calling for hand lights to search the building. So, I went back across to the sheriffs office and got some hand lights and took them back over to them.
Then, I went up on the sixth floor.
Mr. BELIN - Why did you go up on the sixth floor?
Mr. CRAIG - Well, someone said that's where the shots came from. One of the city officers, if I'm not mistaken.
How did this 'city officer' know that the shots came from the sixth floor?
Quote
Around 1 p.m. Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney noticed a pile of cartons in front of the window in the southeast corner of the sixth floor.109 (See Commission Exhibit No. 723, p. 80.) Searching that area he found at approximately 1:12 p.m. three empty cartridge cases on the floor near the window.
According to the timeline---
Quote
At around 1 PM: On the 6th floor. [Roger Craig] Looking for evidence.----------

(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/craig-in-alyea-film-maybe.jpg?w=527&h=409)
https://jfkassassinationfiles.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/roger-craig/
The timing just isn't gelling there at all!
From his LA Free Press interview----
Quote
FP: How did you become aware
of the Tippit killing? Where were
you?

RC: I was in front of the De-
pository. I went upstairs with the
first bunch, and then just a little

bit later I was back downstairs.
They sent me to get some lights
to examine the dark corners. And
I passed a patrol car on the street
and heard the radio.
Criticized by the Report--Oswald did it alone believers, I see nothing wrong with his interview----
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HUtF3fCD1y8/UXlLbLdJNhI/AAAAAAAAuRg/YKInldasQ5E/s1600/RogerCraigInterview.jpg)
If all that is a lie, it can't be proven now.
Quote
Mr. BELIN - Do you feel, in your own mind, that the man you saw at Captain Fritz's office was the same man that you saw running towards the station wagon?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes, I feel like it was.
Mr. BELIN - Do you feel that you might have been influenced by the fact that you knew he was the suspect---subconsciously, or do you----
Mr. CRAIG - Well, it's---it's possible, but I still feel strongly that it was the same person.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 27, 2020, 02:50:34 PM
What rifle did the TSBD shooter use?

There was no TSBD shooter.....

Please show me proof that JFK was hit by a bullet fired from the SE corner window.....Let me remind you that the authorities said that Lee sat on a box behind the three foot high stack of Rolling Readers which he used as a rifle rest.      How did he decline the muzzle of the rifle down onto Elm street?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 27, 2020, 03:42:26 PM
I think it was the assassination and his involvement in it that ultimately drove RDC nuts.
Beforehand he seemed to be an exemplary law enforcement officer or so his record indicates.
The problem I had with Craig's account was not only just the Mauser thing but the time line of his analysis and certain other narrations.
12:30 he testifies he is at the corner of the Criminal Courts Bldg [Sheriff's office]. After hearing the shots he ran up to the railroad/parking area.
Stated that he hopped the fence...saw a woman leaving the parking lot...confronted her and turned her over to other deputies...looked around there a bit and then questioned the Rowland couple...then joined the probe for a search for some stray bullet/s that hit the curb....saw the suspicious person on the knoll get into a car... Craig describes to the FBI the passenger that entered the car--- white male, height-5'9", weight 140pounds, build slender, hair sandy, dress-brown shirt, blue trousers ...[sounds like the guy that shot Tippit huh?]
Then Craig approached the TSBD where he said it was sealed off. His est. of the time there was 20 minutes after the shots. RC stated that a call was made to secure flashlights in search of the building. Craig returned to the Sheriff's office to obtain an undisclosed number of flashlights. Upon returning to the TSBD and this is interesting----How did this 'city officer' know that the shots came from the sixth floor? According to the timeline---
(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/craig-in-alyea-film-maybe.jpg?w=527&h=409)
https://jfkassassinationfiles.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/roger-craig/
The timing just isn't gelling there at all!
From his LA Free Press interview----Criticized by the Report--Oswald did it alone believers, I see nothing wrong with his interview----
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HUtF3fCD1y8/UXlLbLdJNhI/AAAAAAAAuRg/YKInldasQ5E/s1600/RogerCraigInterview.jpg)
If all that is a lie, it can't be proven now.

Hi Jerry,  That newspaper interview of Roger Craig is chock ful of information that I'd like to comment on....   Is it possible that you could post it in a way hat I could highlight and copy something Craig said so that I can respond to his statement.?    If you can't perhaps Gary Craig can do it.

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 27, 2020, 04:19:56 PM
I think it was the assassination and his involvement in it that ultimately drove RDC nuts.
Beforehand he seemed to be an exemplary law enforcement officer or so his record indicates.
The problem I had with Craig's account was not only just the Mauser thing but the time line of his analysis and certain other narrations.
12:30 he testifies he is at the corner of the Criminal Courts Bldg [Sheriff's office]. After hearing the shots he ran up to the railroad/parking area.
Stated that he hopped the fence...saw a woman leaving the parking lot...confronted her and turned her over to other deputies...looked around there a bit and then questioned the Rowland couple...then joined the probe for a search for some stray bullet/s that hit the curb....saw the suspicious person on the knoll get into a car... Craig describes to the FBI the passenger that entered the car--- white male, height-5'9", weight 140pounds, build slender, hair sandy, dress-brown shirt, blue trousers ...[sounds like the guy that shot Tippit huh?]
Then Craig approached the TSBD where he said it was sealed off. His est. of the time there was 20 minutes after the shots. RC stated that a call was made to secure flashlights in search of the building. Craig returned to the Sheriff's office to obtain an undisclosed number of flashlights. Upon returning to the TSBD and this is interesting----How did this 'city officer' know that the shots came from the sixth floor? According to the timeline---
(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/craig-in-alyea-film-maybe.jpg?w=527&h=409)
https://jfkassassinationfiles.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/roger-craig/
The timing just isn't gelling there at all!
From his LA Free Press interview----Criticized by the Report--Oswald did it alone believers, I see nothing wrong with his interview----
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HUtF3fCD1y8/UXlLbLdJNhI/AAAAAAAAuRg/YKInldasQ5E/s1600/RogerCraigInterview.jpg)
If all that is a lie, it can't be proven now.

THE CARCANO WAS LYING ON THE FLOOR

Here's an excerpt from the newspaper article.....

Roger Craig----- " I was also present when the rifle was found.  Now this rifle--- There's no possible way  that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes. He had to drop it in there.  I'm six feet tall and I couldn't reach down and pick that rifle out without climbing on top of those boxes and getting down in em, by moving some of em, to get to the rifle."

There's no possible way  that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes.

He had to drop it in there.

IOW..... The rifle was lying ON THE FLOOR  and not jammed between boxes of books as it is seen in the official police in situ photos....   Which means the DPD staged the in situ photo to enable them to frame Lee Oswald by saying that he dashed by the site and hastily jammed the carcano between the boxes of books.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 27, 2020, 05:29:11 PM
Wait, so now you’re trusting Roger Craig on something?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 27, 2020, 06:06:12 PM
There was no TSBD shooter.....

Please show me proof that JFK was hit by a bullet fired from the SE corner window.....Let me remind you that the authorities said that Lee sat on a box behind the three foot high stack of Rolling Readers which he used as a rifle rest.      How did he decline the muzzle of the rifle down onto Elm street?

Where did the magic bullet shot come from Walt? Wouldn't conspirators take some token shots from the TSBD so the DPD could converge on the building and find the planted MC? You can't conclude that no shots came from the TSBD because the SN wasn't set up for it. It was set up exclusively to frame Oswald. You are trying way too hard to keep a Mauser out of the picture so you can keep ragging on Craig.

Face it, the only reason the DPD converged on the TSBD was because witnesses saw/heard shots come from there. But not from the MC and not by Oswald. What rifle would YOU have used Walt?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 27, 2020, 06:26:25 PM
Where did the magic bullet shot come from Walt? Wouldn't conspirators take some token shots from the TSBD so the DPD could converge on the building and find the planted MC? You can't conclude that no shots came from the TSBD because the SN wasn't set up for it. It was set up exclusively to frame Oswald. You are trying way too hard to keep a Mauser out of the picture so you can keep ragging on Craig.

Face it, the only reason the DPD converged on the TSBD was because witnesses saw/heard shots come from there. But not from the MC and not by Oswald. What rifle would YOU have used Walt?

Wouldn't conspirators take some token shots from the TSBD so the DPD could converge on the building and find the planted MC? Where did the magic bullet shot come from Walt?


I don't know.... Where ever they had a swimming pool or some way to trap the bullet .....

Wouldn't conspirators take some token shots from the TSBD so the DPD could converge on the building and find the planted MC?

Need I remind you that initially everybody in the vicinity thought the shots had came from the area behind the Grassy Knoll.....  However there were a few people who thought that the shots had come from the "old purse factory" ( the Daltex bldg. )  They managed to get everybody to focus on the TSBD.......

You can't conclude that no shots came from the TSBD because the SN wasn't set up for it.

Paul Ernst did an excellent job of proving that the SE corner cubby hole couldn't have been used as a "Sniper's Nest"

It was set up exclusively to frame Oswald. You are trying way too hard to keep a Mauser out of the picture so you can keep ragging on Craig.

You're right the sixth floor had been set up to make it appear that Lee Oswald had fired that old carcano from up there.....And it's possible that Lee himself set the stage up there.    But whoever it was they weren't overly concerned about any close investigation to determine the feasibility of the action.   Lee was playing the same game that he played at Walker's ....which was just a hoax to make it appear that he had shot at JFK.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 27, 2020, 07:10:18 PM
Wouldn't conspirators take some token shots from the TSBD so the DPD could converge on the building and find the planted MC? Where did the magic bullet shot come from Walt?

I don't know.... Where ever they had a swimming pool or some way to trap the bullet .....

You know I didn't mean the actual MB bullet, I meant the bullet that struck JFK in the back.

Quote
Wouldn't conspirators take some token shots from the TSBD so the DPD could converge on the building and find the planted MC?

Need I remind you that initially everybody in the vicinity thought the shots had came from the area behind the Grassy Knoll.....  However there were a few people who thought that the shots had come from the "old purse factory" ( the Daltex bldg. )  They managed to get everybody to focus on the TSBD.......

Why wouldn't the conspirators put a shooter in the TSBD if that's where the patsy worked? Why would the conspirators take a chance that they could get everyone to focus on the TSBD if no shots came from there?

Quote
You can't conclude that no shots came from the TSBD because the SN wasn't set up for it.

Paul Ernst did an excellent job of proving that the SE corner cubby hole couldn't have been used as a "Sniper's Nest"

Why would an actual sniper use the SN set up?

Quote
It was set up exclusively to frame Oswald. You are trying way too hard to keep a Mauser out of the picture so you can keep ragging on Craig.

You're right the sixth floor had been set up to make it appear that Lee Oswald had fired that old carcano from up there.....And it's possible that Lee himself set the stage up there.    But whoever it was they weren't overly concerned about any close investigation to determine the feasibility of the action.   Lee was playing the same game that he played at Walker's ....which was just a hoax to make it appear that he had shot at JFK.

Didn't someone actually take a shot at Walker? What rifle did he use? You have failed to prove your contention that there was not a shooter at the TSBD. There is more evidence suggesting that there was a shooter in the TSBD than any other building. Why wouldn't a shooter be placed there and taken some token shots, perhaps from the roof or another window? They didn't shoot at JFK while he was a sitting duck as the limo turned onto Elm because the sniper needed time to evacuate and ditch the Mauser before the DPD converged on the building.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 27, 2020, 07:50:35 PM
Wait, so now you’re trusting Roger Craig on something?

Isn't it obvious to you that Craig was simply recalling the scene in his mind.    Do you think a liar lies 100% of the time?

As I've said many times....It's a shame that Craig lied so much, because he destroyed his credibility, and he may have had some very useful information, just as he recalled seeing the rifle lying ON THE FLOOR at the bottom of a cavern of boxes of books.

Craig:..... The Scope was facing north the bolt facing upwards and the trigger south.

Craig was right.... that is exactly the position the rifle was in when Lt Day picked up the rifle FROM THE FLOOR.

In the News paper interview he told the reporter that he handled the rifle.....

FP..Did you handle the rifle? 
Craig..... Yes I did ,    That's a double Whopper!!    Craig never touched the rifle .....   If he had he would have said I saw the make of the rifle Stamped right there on the barrel  when I had the rifle in my hands.    And it said 7.65 mauser.....So I knew what kind of rifle it was.

FP..Did you handle the rifle?
RC  Yes I did , I couldn't give it's name, because I don't know foreign  rifles. I know that it was foreign made, and you loaded it downward into a built in clip.
The ID man took it and ejected one live round from it.  The Scope was facing north the bolt facing upwards and the trigger south.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 27, 2020, 09:35:20 PM
You know I didn't mean the actual MB bullet, I meant the bullet that struck JFK in the back.

Why wouldn't the conspirators put a shooter in the TSBD if that's where the patsy worked? Why would the conspirators take a chance that they could get everyone to focus on the TSBD if no shots came from there?

Why would an actual sniper use the SN set up?

Didn't someone actually take a shot at Walker? What rifle did he use? You have failed to prove your contention that there was not a shooter at the TSBD. There is more evidence suggesting that there was a shooter in the TSBD than any other building. Why wouldn't a shooter be placed there and taken some token shots, perhaps from the roof or another window? They didn't shoot at JFK while he was a sitting duck as the limo turned onto Elm because the sniper needed time to evacuate and ditch the Mauser before the DPD converged on the building.

I meant the bullet that struck JFK in the back.

Are you sure a bullet struck JFK in the back??    Would the trajectory from the neck wound through the back make more sense?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 27, 2020, 10:20:13 PM
I meant the bullet that struck JFK in the back.

Are you sure a bullet struck JFK in the back??    Would the trajectory from the neck wound through the back make more sense?

Would you stop dodging? Regardless whether ANY bullets actually struck JFK from the back, how could the conspirators be so stupid as to not have any shots taken from the patsy's workplace? How could they justify searching the TSBD and finding a rifle if no one thought any shots came from there? How would that fit with the lone gunman hypothesis?

Stop being obtuse and admit that there is a good chance that shots came from the TSBD. None of the shots needed to find their mark, but they had to fit the WC narrative. When you are done admitting that there likely was a TSBD shooter, you will answer your own question where the Mauser came from. Craig may have still been lying about it, but he knew the Mauser existed and knew it was used in the coup d'etat. The conspirators managed Craig by painting him as a lone nut liar. It worked and he killed himself. But Craig was actually a whistle blower who embellished so that the Mauser wouldn't get buried along with Oswald and JFK. If not for Craig, would you even have known about the Mauser, which you acknowledge existed?

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 27, 2020, 11:46:19 PM
Isn't it obvious to you that Craig was simply recalling the scene in his mind.    Do you think a liar lies 100% of the time?

And he wasn’t recalling the Mauser scene in his mind?

So he’s a “damn liar” only when you want him to be...
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Gary Craig on April 28, 2020, 12:35:31 AM
Hi Jerry,  That newspaper interview of Roger Craig is chock ful of information that I'd like to comment on....   Is it possible that you could post it in a way hat I could highlight and copy something Craig said so that I can respond to his statement.?    If you can't perhaps Gary Craig can do it.

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/craigandjonespage7.jpg)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 28, 2020, 01:25:26 AM
Would you stop dodging? Regardless whether ANY bullets actually struck JFK from the back, how could the conspirators be so stupid as to not have any shots taken from the patsy's workplace? How could they justify searching the TSBD and finding a rifle if no one thought any shots came from there? How would that fit with the lone gunman hypothesis?

Stop being obtuse and admit that there is a good chance that shots came from the TSBD. None of the shots needed to find their mark, but they had to fit the WC narrative. When you are done admitting that there likely was a TSBD shooter, you will answer your own question where the Mauser came from. Craig may have still been lying about it, but he knew the Mauser existed and knew it was used in the coup d'etat. The conspirators managed Craig by painting him as a lone nut liar. It worked and he killed himself. But Craig was actually a whistle blower who embellished so that the Mauser wouldn't get buried along with Oswald and JFK. If not for Craig, would you even have known about the Mauser, which you acknowledge existed?

How could they justify searching the TSBD and finding a rifle if no one thought any shots came from there? How would that fit with the lone gunman hypothesis?

Your hero Roger Craig, said that they were ordered to search the TSBD because the Dallas Police had determined that shots had been fired from that building...."How they determined that I don't know."...
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 28, 2020, 02:47:49 AM
How could they justify searching the TSBD and finding a rifle if no one thought any shots came from there? How would that fit with the lone gunman hypothesis?

Your hero Roger Craig, said that they were ordered to search the TSBD because the Dallas Police had determined that shots had been fired from that building...."How they determined that I don't know."...

But Craig is a bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns artist and everything he says was a goddamned lie. You can never trust a whistle blower as far as you can throw them. Craig was the real enemy here. I would piss on his grave if I knew where it was.

Walt, just suck it up and admit that there probably was a shooter in the TSBD. That's how you set up a patsy. And if there was a shooter, then they used a Mauser. There's your Mauser origin. Unless you have something better to offer, just admit that you were wrong and we can go from there. It's like a bandaid. After you endure the pain of ripping it off, you're right as rain.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Gerry Down on April 28, 2020, 03:36:05 AM
But Craig is a bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns artist and everything he says was a goddamned lie. You can never trust a whistle blower as far as you can throw them. Craig was the real enemy here. I would piss on his grave if I knew where it was.

Be nice.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 28, 2020, 03:46:10 AM
Be nice.

Sarcasm. Get with the program.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Gerry Down on April 28, 2020, 03:53:14 AM
Sarcasm. Get with the program.

He has living children. And committed suicide because of chronic pain from a car accident. Be understanding.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 28, 2020, 03:59:42 AM
He has living children. And committed suicide because of chronic pain from a car accident. Be understanding.

You need to deliver that message to Walt. He's the one that wants to piss on Craig's grave.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 28, 2020, 03:28:40 PM
You need to deliver that message to Walt. He's the one that wants to piss on Craig's grave.

 I have no respect for Craig( or his memory) because of what he's done to the case.   He has convinced many people that the rifle that was found by Weitzman and Boone was a mauser .....and some of them simply will not see that Craig was lying.   

I'm sure that Craig had some good solid information that might have helped us understand the case...... but his damned lies have destroyed his credibility and divided us.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Gary Craig on April 28, 2020, 09:55:36 PM
I have no respect for Craig( or his memory) because of what he's done to the case.   He has convinced many people that the rifle that was found by Weitzman and Boone was a mauser .....and some of them simply will not see that Craig was lying.   

I'm sure that Craig had some good solid information that might have helped us understand the case...... but his damned lies have destroyed his credibility and divided us.

"He has convinced many people that the rifle that was found by Weitzman and Boone was a mauser"

I don't think he's convinced that many.
His story creates cognitive dissonance and doubt when it comes to the Mauser.

The documentation in the form of sworn signed and notarized affidavits and the FBI interview of Weitzman
make it hard to dismiss the Mauser. The well worn WC excuse of "they were mistaken" rings hollow.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 28, 2020, 10:44:30 PM
"He has convinced many people that the rifle that was found by Weitzman and Boone was a mauser"

I don't think he's convinced that many.
His story creates cognitive dissonance and doubt when it comes to the Mauser.

The documentation in the form of sworn signed and notarized affidavits and the FBI interview of Weitzman
make it hard to dismiss the Mauser. The well worn WC excuse of "they were mistaken" rings hollow.

I don't think he's convinced that many.
His story creates cognitive dissonance and doubt when it comes to the Mauser.

Then why can't we get this excrement flushed from the legend ????  It does nothing but create havoc....


The sworn affidavits say that they BELIEVED the rifle was a 7.65 mauser.....Neither Boone nor Weitzman got a good look at the rifle....They caught a quick glimpse of it as Day picked it up FROM THE FLOOR.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 29, 2020, 02:04:37 AM
I don't think he's convinced that many.
His story creates cognitive dissonance and doubt when it comes to the Mauser.

Then why can't we get this excrement flushed from the legend ????  It does nothing but create havoc....


The sworn affidavits say that they BELIEVED the rifle was a 7.65 mauser.....Neither Boone nor Weitzman got a good look at the rifle....They caught a quick glimpse of it as Day picked it up FROM THE FLOOR.

Jesus, are you ever going to flush that excrement? You don't know how any of it went down. You are back to Boone and Weitzman just got a quick glance at the "7.65" Mauser. Where is the film footage of Boone actually finding the rifle? Why didn't Alyea film that part? Why did he wait until Day picked it up FROM THE FLOOR? You are just too gullible and you believe your lyin' eyes. Didn't you hear Fritz call out ACTION with a megaphone? For the last time, a film can't show you what isn't on it.

Did you know that Boone was watching the limo go past him on Elm when he heard the shots? Several bystanders had cameras, and Boone said he confiscated them in case anyone had captured anything relevant on their film. He took the cameras back to the Sheriff's Office and left the film to be developed. Then Boone and other deputies went to the book depository to begin a search. Guess who found the rifle?

You obviously can't trust Boone's account. He probably didn't know what kind of rifle was planted. You can't trust Day or Fritz or ANY of them because they were goddamned liars. Instead you have a hate on for Craig because you think he created havoc re the Mauser. Give me a break. What would we know about the Mauser if he hadn't said anything?

There was a Mauser and it was likely the TSBD shooter's rifle. Craig knew this and blew the whistle. And now you hate his guts for it. They were ALL liars, including Weitzman. You are deluding yourself if you think he only got a glimpse of the rifle and mistook it for a 7.65 Mauser. Whose side are you on?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 29, 2020, 06:31:57 PM
Unfortunately, the forum archives were lost, but you did make this statement early on in the original Alyea discussion and then later changed your mind when somebody convinced you that the edges of the clip are visible in the Alyea film (they're not).
I'll note your retraction.


somebody convinced you that the edges of the clip are visible in the Alyea film

That "somebody" is called my "Baby Blues".....  And both of em agreed.

I'll note your retraction.

Thank you.... The ability to change ones mind when faced with facts is called.....Honesty and intelligence.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 29, 2020, 07:08:19 PM
I'll agree that there was a mauser

Then stop calling Roger Craig a liar.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 29, 2020, 07:08:54 PM

somebody convinced you that the edges of the clip are visible in the Alyea film

That "somebody" is called my "Baby Blues".....  And both of em agreed.

How compelling.   ::)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 29, 2020, 07:23:10 PM
True, but do you agree it isn't a good idea to use timing arguments when someone says they don't wear a watch and guess the times?

Whaley knew where every outdoor clock in the city was.....And the bus station definitely had a big clock mounted so passengers would know when the bus would depart.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Nicholas Turner on April 29, 2020, 07:38:48 PM
Whaley knew where every outdoor clock in the city was.....And the bus station definitely had a big clock mounted so passengers would know when the bus would depart.

So you don't believe him when he said he guessed?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Nicholas Turner on April 29, 2020, 08:00:58 PM
Whaley knew where every outdoor clock in the city was.....And the bus station definitely had a big clock mounted so passengers would know when the bus would depart.

Have looked for some picture of the bus station and couldn't see an outdoor clock in any of them. Do you have any? Were there any outdoor clocks on his route that day?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 30, 2020, 06:24:17 PM
Have looked for some picture of the bus station and couldn't see an outdoor clock in any of them. Do you have any? Were there any outdoor clocks on his route that day?

Whaley himself said that he knew where the public clocks were....  I'm not going to chase that down for you....If you don't believe that Whaley knew what time he arrived at the bus station , that's your problem and, I couldn't care less.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Nicholas Turner on April 30, 2020, 06:27:40 PM
Whaley himself said that he knew where the public clocks were....  I'm not going to chase that down for you....If you don't believe that Whaley knew what time he arrived at the bus station , that's your problem and, I couldn't care less.

That's a shame.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 30, 2020, 08:36:01 PM
That's a shame.

I'm sorry Nick.....But I'm sure that Whaley knew what time ( within a couple of minutes)  he departed on any trip.....  And he said the young man who was dressed in a BLUE workman's type uniform entered his cab at 12:30.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Nicholas Turner on April 30, 2020, 08:47:23 PM
I'm sorry Nick.....But I'm sure that Whaley knew what time ( within a couple of minutes)  he departed on any trip.....  And he said the young man who was dressed in a BLUE worThe Lithping Larry Grayson "Oooh Shut That Door" doppleganger's type uniform entered his cab at 12:30.

That's okay Walt. I don't expect you to care and know I don't have the depth of knowledge about the case or the different theories people have but am interested in discussing it. Maybe this isn't the right place for that. It decided that back in 2018 and stopped posting but have been looking in during the lockdown and since you replied to my old post thought I'd dip my toe in again. Anyway, I have read his testimony and watched the film of his journey on Youtube and he talks about having filled in the journey details quite sometime after they happened and that he just put approximate times as he wasn't required to put accurate times. On face value that seems reasonable to me. I'm sure you see it differently and I don't want an argument or to exchange barbs as is often the case here it seems. Probably will go back to just reading posts.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Gary Craig on April 30, 2020, 09:55:29 PM
That's okay Walt. I don't expect you to care and know I don't have the depth of knowledge about the case or the different theories people have but am interested in discussing it. Maybe this isn't the right place for that. It decided that back in 2018 and stopped posting but have been looking in during the lockdown and since you replied to my old post thought I'd dip my toe in again. Anyway, I have read his testimony and watched the film of his journey on Youtube and he talks about having filled in the journey details quite sometime after they happened and that he just put approximate times as he wasn't required to put accurate times. On face value that seems reasonable to me. I'm sure you see it differently and I don't want an argument or to exchange barbs as is often the case here it seems. Probably will go back to just reading posts.

That's basically how those paper logs were kept. They were a required nuisance. I drove a cab for bit when I got out of college, before everything turned digital. If you were busy, there wasn't a convenient place to park or you were trying to get back to a busy taxi stand the log waited till there was time. Then it would be filled in with approximations. You definitely had to turn in a completed log, accounting for your time and rides, at the end of a shift. It wasn't in Texas. A beach town in California. So I don't know if they were close to the same but it sounds like it.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Rick Plant on April 30, 2020, 10:53:08 PM
Of course you're right...."Craig never wavered from his original stance on the Mauser as the weapon."    But that simply means that in his ( sick) mind that it was the truth.   But if you'll review the 15 minute period from the discovery of the CARCANO  until Lt Day picks the carcano UP FROM THE FLOOR there should be no doubt in your mind that Roger Craig was a liar.....and there was no mauser there.

No Mauser there? Then why did Weitzman agree with Craig confirming there was a Mauser? That's 2 professional both agreeing on the same weapon.       
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 01, 2020, 12:30:11 AM
No Mauser there? Then why did Weitzman agree with Craig confirming there was a Mauser? That's 2 professional both agreeing on the same weapon.     

Is there something wrong with your eyes?   Can't you LOOK at Tom Alyeas film and SEE that the rifle that Lt. Day picks up FROM THE FLOOR  ( not jammed between boxes) is a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Rick Plant on May 01, 2020, 12:54:16 AM
The sworn affidavits say that they BELIEVED the rifle was a 7.65 mauser.....Neither Boone nor Weitzman got a good look at the rifle....They caught a quick glimpse of it as Day picked it up FROM THE FLOOR.

Is there something wrong with your eyes?   Can't you LOOK at Tom Alyeas film and SEE that the rifle that Lt. Day picks up FROM THE FLOOR  ( not jammed between boxes) is a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano?

Weitzman confirmed it was a Mauser and you were defending him. Craig stated it was a Mauser as well, but he always maintained it was, even when the photographs show it was a Mannlicher Carcano.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 01, 2020, 02:41:32 AM
Mr Trojan...you're unbelievable STUPID!

I'm "unbelievable" STUPID, am I? :D High praise coming from Walt "The Fabricator" Cakehole.

PS. I always know where your trigger point is. It's when you got nothin but ad homs left. Unbelievably STUPID.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Gary Craig on May 01, 2020, 03:13:13 PM
Is there something wrong with your eyes?   Can't you LOOK at Tom Alyeas film and SEE that the rifle that Lt. Day picks up FROM THE FLOOR  ( not jammed between boxes) is a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano?

Even Alyea said a good amount of the film he took that day was discarded. If in fact they would have let him film the Mauser.

Your proposition is based on a partial film record and the words of people you yourself have said aren't always honest.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 01, 2020, 03:19:55 PM
I'm "unbelievable" STUPID, am I? :D High praise coming from Walt "The Fabricator" Cakehole.

PS. I always know where your trigger point is. It's when you got nothin but ad homs left. Unbelievably STUPID.

 I always know where your trigger point is. It's when you got nothin but ad homs left.

Wrong! Stupid..... My patience runs out when I've repeatedly told you that there are at least a half dozen witnesses ( Weitzman, Boone, Craig, Wiseman, Alyea, Day et al )  who swore that nobody touched the rifle prior to Lt Day picking it up FROM THE FLOOR . and Alyea filmed Day as he picked the rifle up off THE FLOOR.  and yet you being the STUPID person that you are,  insist that the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered  was a mauser but it was switched and the carcano put in place of the mauser.     
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 03, 2020, 03:52:44 PM
Even Alyea said a good amount of the film he took that day was discarded. If in fact they would have let him film the Mauser.

Your proposition is based on a partial film record and the words of people you yourself have said aren't always honest.

a partial film record

I agree that Alyea's film ( what remains of it) is difficult to see..... It has been chopped up to destroy the photographic record of the truth.  But it's still possible to see Lt Day pick the carcano UP OFF THE FLOOR   as opposed to the official DPD in situ photo that shows the rifle jammed between boxes of books.   Alyea's film along with the statement of the witnesses make it clear that the rifle was lying on the floor with the barrel pointing east the scope was to the north and the trigger guard was facing south.  When Boone discovered it the rifle was at the bottom of a chasm of boxes of books and the chasm was covered at the top by boxes of books.    IOW  The rifle was well hidden and it was NOT hastily cast aside as the conspirators have claimed.   One witness said that he was six feet tall and he couldn't have placed the rifle on the floor at the bottom of the chasm unless he moved some of the boxes and got down in the chasm.

I've emphasized the fact that the rifle was ON THE FLOOR to illuastrate that the DPD faked the insitu photo to frame Lee Oswald...by making it appear that he had dashed by the site and jammed the rifle between boxes of books.   The official in situ photo is a damned lie.

and the words of people you yourself have said aren't always honest.

Yes, and this is why I have no respect for Roger Craig.....   He had valuable information.....but he destroyed his credibility by lying and embroidering.     

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 04, 2020, 04:46:03 AM
Unless you can come up with a good reason why Weitzman was shown a 7.65 Mauser, then you can't assume he and Craig didn't see it in the TSBD.

"I" need to establish a reason that  Weitzman allegedly described a 7.65 mauser for FBI agent Sayers?    I'm sure that Weitzman and Boone did not see a mauser in the TSBD.....I don't "ASSUME" that Weitzman and Craig DID NOT see a 7.65 mauser in the TSBD.  Based on Weitzman's and Craigs statements they left the TSBD immediately after the Carcano was picked up FROM THE FLOOR and they did not return to the TSBD.   So I'm sure that they did NOT see a 7.65 mauser in the TSBD that afternoon....   However Weitzman was summoned to the police station later that Friday afternoon and was interviewed by FBI agent Seyers who typed up a report on that interview afterward.  That's when the mauser surfaces....But we don't know that Weitzman actually described the mauser or if Sayers just described it himself ...... As far as I know Weitzman never saw Sayers report.....and he did not initial it......

Mr. Cakehole, you are unbelievably STUPID! Good luck with that.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 04, 2020, 02:39:44 PM
Mr. Cakehole, you are unbelievably STUPID! Good luck with that.

Is this your best?      Can't you do a little better?   Why can't you accept that Roger Craig never saw a mauser in the TSBD that day?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Gary Craig on May 04, 2020, 11:27:10 PM
(Roger ) Craig saw a second Oswald come from the rear of the Depository...

Roger Craig saw other things that were mere figments of his imagination....Like " I was no more than six or eight inches away from the rifle and I saw stamped right there on the barrel 7.65 mauser"     Roger never explained why 7.65 mauser would be stamped on a 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano, but he acknowledged that the spent shells that were discovered beneath the window were 6.5mm carcano.....

Take Roger Craig out of the equation. He's a distraction and not necessary to prove/disprove the existence of the Mauser on the 6th floor on 11/22/63.

Explain away the documentation that Weitzman and Boone created with their affidavits, investigative reports and FBI interview.

"They were mistaken" isn't a valid explanation. IMO They wouldn't have guessed about the make. model and caliber of the murder weapon involving the POTUS.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 05, 2020, 12:05:17 AM
Take Roger Craig out of the equation. He's a distraction and not necessary to prove/disprove the existence of the Mauser on the 6th floor on 11/22/63.

Explain away the documentation that Weitzman and Boone created with their affidavits, investigative reports and FBI interview.

"They were mistaken" isn't a valid explanation. IMO They wouldn't have guessed about the make. model and caliber of the murder weapon involving the POTUS.

They were mistaken" isn't a valid explanation. IMO

Well how do you explain the film which shows Lt Day reaching out and grabbing the leather sling of the rifle that is LYING ON THE FLOOR and pick it up where it is clearly seen and can be identified as a model 91 / 38 Mannlicher Carcano.   
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 06, 2020, 04:36:25 AM
Is this your best?      Can't you do a little better?   Why can't you accept that Roger Craig never saw a mauser in the TSBD that day?

 ;D You didn't even remember that I was quoting your last response to me almost verbatim. You always resort to ad homs when you got nothin.

You still don't get it. I'm not claiming that Craig actually saw a Mauser or wasn't lying. Only that your evidence that he was lying is flimsy at best. You are so convinced that the Alyea film and testimony from the conspirators proves that there was no Mauser that you think everyone else that doesn't see it is a retard. Then you turn around and say, yes there probably was a Mauser, but Craig never saw it! That's the stupid part. If you acknowledge there was a Mauser, then you have to get off your high horse and fit it into your hypothesis. But you can't seem to do that without calling people names for speculating that just maybe the Alyea film doesn't tell the whole story. My question to you is, how can you be so sure that the Alyea film wasn't choreographed by Fritz? You can't. You are way too sure about everything when there is no way you can be. Then you trot out the ad homs whenever someone disagrees with you.

I hope that was a little better than just calling you stupid for not reaching the same conclusions as me. The data is just not there. How much attention would the Mauser have got if not for Craig's lies? Don't hate the whistleblower just because he needed to lie to draw attention to the Mauser. He didn't lie about the Mauser existing, did he? Maybe he didn't lie at all, except when Weitzman sold him out and he realized he was alone and his life was in danger. Then he killed himself. And all you want to do is piss on his grave.

Hypothetical: If there was a token shooter in the TSBD, what rifle did he use?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 06, 2020, 03:15:39 PM
;D You didn't even remember that I was quoting your last response to me almost verbatim. You always resort to ad homs when you got nothin.

You still don't get it. I'm not claiming that Craig actually saw a Mauser or wasn't lying. Only that your evidence that he was lying is flimsy at best. You are so convinced that the Alyea film and testimony from the conspirators proves that there was no Mauser that you think everyone else that doesn't see it is a retard. Then you turn around and say, yes there probably was a Mauser, but Craig never saw it! That's the stupid part. If you acknowledge there was a Mauser, then you have to get off your high horse and fit it into your hypothesis. But you can't seem to do that without calling people names for speculating that just maybe the Alyea film doesn't tell the whole story. My question to you is, how can you be so sure that the Alyea film wasn't choreographed by Fritz? You can't. You are way too sure about everything when there is no way you can be. Then you trot out the ad homs whenever someone disagrees with you.

I hope that was a little better than just calling you stupid for not reaching the same conclusions as me. The data is just not there. How much attention would the Mauser have got if not for Craig's lies? Don't hate the whistleblower just because he needed to lie to draw attention to the Mauser. He didn't lie about the Mauser existing, did he? Maybe he didn't lie at all, except when Weitzman sold him out and he realized he was alone and his life was in danger. Then he killed himself. And all you want to do is piss on his grave.

Hypothetical: If there was a token shooter in the TSBD, what rifle did he use?

there probably was a Mauser, but Craig never saw it! That's the stupid part. If you acknowledge there was a Mauser, then you have to get off your high horse and fit it into your hypothesis.

You believe that the carcano  was a mauser , or a mauser was there, and Roger Craig was only six or eight inches from it, and saw "stamped right there on the barrel were the words --7.65 mauser"   That idea is utterly refuted by all of the witnesses who were there.   Virtually ALL of the witnesses said that the rifle that Boone saw lying ON THE FLOOR ( not jammed between boxes of books) was NOT TOUCHED until Lt Day picked it up by the leather strap.  And the Alyea film shows Day doing that and then holding the rifle up where it can be clearly seen and identified as a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.   THERE WAS NO MAUSER THERE!!!

If you acknowledge there was a Mauser, then you have to get off your high horse and fit it into your hypothesis.

There certainly seems to be a mauser described in FBI agent A1bert Sayer's report.   And you're right.....I don't know how it fits in.   But I am positive that Roger Craig never saw a 7.65 mauser in the TSBD that afternoon.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 06, 2020, 11:50:32 PM
there probably was a Mauser, but Craig never saw it! That's the stupid part. If you acknowledge there was a Mauser, then you have to get off your high horse and fit it into your hypothesis.

You believe that the carcano  was a mauser , or a mauser was there, and Roger Craig was only six or eight inches from it, and saw "stamped right there on the barrel were the words --7.65 mauser"   That idea is utterly refuted by all of the witnesses who were there.   Virtually ALL of the witnesses said that the rifle that Boone saw lying ON THE FLOOR ( not jammed between boxes of books) was NOT TOUCHED until Lt Day picked it up by the leather strap.  And the Alyea film shows Day doing that and then holding the rifle up where it can be clearly seen and identified as a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.   THERE WAS NO MAUSER THERE!!!

If you acknowledge there was a Mauser, then you have to get off your high horse and fit it into your hypothesis.

There certainly seems to be a mauser described in FBI agent A1bert Sayer's report.   And you're right.....I don't know how it fits in.   But I am positive that Roger Craig never saw a 7.65 mauser in the TSBD that afternoon.

Don't try and tell me what I believe without reading/comprehending my posts. I never claimed that the Carcano was a Mauser or Craig wasn't lying. Only that you know squat about how anything went down. You are like a dog with a bone and you must stop your disinformation because you (or anyone) can't be positive about ANYTHING based on the testimony of the conspirators and the Alyea film. You are not a logistician nor an image/data analyst. List ALL of the witnesses who you believe were NOT "in on it" and why. This should be good.

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 07, 2020, 12:01:05 AM
Don't try and tell me what I believe without reading/comprehending my posts. I never claimed that the Carcano was a Mauser or Craig wasn't lying. Only that you know squat about how anything went down. You are like a dog with a bone and you must stop your disinformation because you (or anyone) can't be positive about ANYTHING based on the testimony of the conspirators and the Alyea film. You are not a logistician nor an image/data analyst. List ALL of the witnesses who you believe were NOT "in on it" and why. This should be good.


Jack Trojan wrote:....Instead you have a hate on for Craig because you think he created havoc re the Mauser. Give me a break. What would we know about the Mauser if he hadn't said anything?

There was a Mauser and it was likely the TSBD shooter's rifle. Craig knew this and blew the whistle. And now you hate his guts for it. They were ALL liars, including Weitzman. You are deluding yourself if you think he only got a glimpse of the rifle and mistook it for a 7.65 Mauser.


What would we know about the Mauser if he ( Roger Craig)  hadn't said anything?

Tell me again that you don't believe Craig.....

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 07, 2020, 12:08:31 AM

Jack Trojan wrote:....Instead you have a hate on for Craig because you think he created havoc re the Mauser. Give me a break. What would we know about the Mauser if he hadn't said anything?

There was a Mauser and it was likely the TSBD shooter's rifle. Craig knew this and blew the whistle. And now you hate his guts for it. They were ALL liars, including Weitzman. You are deluding yourself if you think he only got a glimpse of the rifle and mistook it for a 7.65 Mauser.


What would we know about the Mauser if he ( Roger Craig)  hadn't said anything?

Tell me again that you don't believe Craig.....

Jesus Tap Dancing Christ Walt, why don't you get this? Is your ego getting in the way? I believe Craig found out about the Mauser either 1st hand, or thru Weitzman or whomever. I never said he didn't lie about how he knew, only that he knew it was a coup and there was a Mauser. Why the hell can't you grasp this?

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 07, 2020, 01:47:15 AM
Jesus Tap Dancing Christ Walt, why don't you get this? Is your ego getting in the way? I believe Craig found out about the Mauser either 1st hand, or thru Weitzman or whomever. I never said he didn't lie about how he knew, only that he knew it was a coup and there was a Mauser. Why the hell can't you grasp this?

There isn't an iota of evidence that a mauser was on the sixth floor of the TSBD that afternoon....  Even your hero Roger Craig said that there were reports of a mauser found on the roof....  Personally I think he was lying again.... but you apparently believe him.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Gary Craig on May 07, 2020, 02:53:15 AM
There isn't an iota of evidence that a mauser was on the sixth floor of the TSBD that afternoon....  Even you hero Roger Craig said that there were reports of a mauser found on the roof....  Personally I think he was lying again.... but you apparently believe him.

"There isn't an iota of evidence that a mauser was on the sixth floor of the TSBD that afternoon"

 ???

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boone765.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/0433-001.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzman20hand20written.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boonebluesteel2.jpg)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Gary Craig on May 07, 2020, 02:55:53 AM
There isn't an iota of evidence that a mauser was on the sixth floor of the TSBD that afternoon....  Even you hero Roger Craig said that there were reports of a mauser found on the roof....  Personally I think he was lying again.... but you apparently believe him.

"There isn't an iota of evidence that a mauser was on the sixth floor of the TSBD that afternoon"

 ???

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi1a_1.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Weitzmancarcano.png)[/URL]
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 08, 2020, 12:17:35 AM
"There isn't an iota of evidence that a mauser was on the sixth floor of the TSBD that afternoon"

 ???

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boone765.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/0433-001.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzman20hand20written.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boonebluesteel2.jpg)

on 11-22-63 Deputy Boone wrote:....Quote....APPEARED   to be a 7.65 mauser.    "appeared to be" is NOT a positive ID.

And the next day Saturday 11-23 -63 Seymour Weitzman wrote in his hand written affidavit said ...Quote... "This rifle was a 7.65 Mauser bolt action, equipped with a 4 /18 scope, a thick leather brownish /black leather sling  on it. The time the rifle was found was 1:22 pm. Captain Fritz took charge of the rifle & ejected 1 live round from the chamber . I then went back to the office after this."    .....Unquote.   


BINGO!!!...... I now understand the mess......    They displayed a Mauser to Weitzman on Friday afternoon (or Saturday morning) and lead him to believe that it was the rifle that had been found on the sixth floor.  So when Weitzman wrote his affidavit on Saturday 11-23-63 he assumed the rifle was a mauser.




 
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 08, 2020, 02:23:38 AM
BINGO!!!...... I now understand the mess......    They displayed a Mauser to Weitzman on Friday afternoon (or Saturday morning) and lead him to believe that it was the rifle that had been found on the sixth floor.  So when Weitzman wrote his affidavit on Saturday 11-23-63 he assumed the rifle was a mauser.

Now why would they do that? Go back and actually read my posts for a hint.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 08, 2020, 03:46:25 PM
Now why would they do that? Go back and actually read my posts for a hint.

Why don't you just spell it out in plain English.....   Instead of babbling about the Carcano that Lt Day is seen picking up OFF THE FLOOR being a mauser....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 12, 2020, 05:06:07 AM
...Instead of babbling about the Carcano that Lt Day is seen picking up OFF THE FLOOR being a mauser....

Quote my post where I said that. No one claims that. You are the only fool that keeps babbling about it. The rest of us have moved on. You need to know when to bow out gracefully and man up when you are dead wrong. And stop pissing on graves you sick bastage. There must be a law against that.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 12, 2020, 06:29:16 PM
Quote my post where I said that. No one claims that. You are the only fool that keeps babbling about it. The rest of us have moved on. You need to know when to bow out gracefully and man up when you are dead wrong. And stop pissing on graves you sick bastage. There must be a law against that.
Jack Trojan wrote:    You mean the sequence in the film where they were leaving after Fritz had asked Craig and Weitzman to GTFO? Why TF would Fritz ask them to leave? Because they knew about the damn Mauser of course. Why else? After they left, Fritz directed the "discovery" of the MC, which is your Alyea gospel footage that you think proves Craig and Weitzman were damned liars! Don't you find any of this a wee bit suspicious?

It sure appears that you believe that "After they left, Fritz directed the "discovery" of the MC,"
Fritz didn't ask then to leave.....Sheriff Decker sent word to the TSBD and told Boone and Craig to return to the office and let the DPD handle it.

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 12, 2020, 07:23:24 PM
Jack Trojan wrote:    You mean the sequence in the film where they were leaving after Fritz had asked Craig and Weitzman to GTFO? Why TF would Fritz ask them to leave? Because they knew about the damn Mauser of course. Why else? After they left, Fritz directed the "discovery" of the MC, which is your Alyea gospel footage that you think proves Craig and Weitzman were damned liars! Don't you find any of this a wee bit suspicious?

It sure appears that you believe that "After they left, Fritz directed the "discovery" of the MC,"


How does my quote equate to.. Instead of babbling about the Carcano that Lt Day is seen picking up OFF THE FLOOR being a mauser....

I was facetiously referring to Fritz directing Alyea to "film" the discovery of the Carcano. You probably looked high and low for my quote that doesn't exist and that was the closest you could come up with. Pathetic. Just admit that you were wrong and I will accept your apology and we can move on.  ;)

Quote
Fritz didn't ask then to leave.....Sheriff Decker sent word to the TSBD and told Boone and Craig to return to the office and let the DPD handle it.

There you go again believing testimony from the conspirators because it supports your narrative that no one saw a Mauser at the TSBD because the conspirators said so. Who do you think told Decker to get Craig the hell out of there?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 12, 2020, 10:46:09 PM

How does my quote equate to.. Instead of babbling about the Carcano that Lt Day is seen picking up OFF THE FLOOR being a mauser....

I was facetiously referring to Fritz directing Alyea to "film" the discovery of the Carcano. You probably looked high and low for my quote that doesn't exist and that was the closest you could come up with. Pathetic. Just admit that you were wrong and I will accept your apology and we can move on.  ;)

There you go again believing testimony from the conspirators because it supports your narrative that no one saw a Mauser at the TSBD because the conspirators said so. Who do you think told Decker to get Craig the hell out of there?


What about Tom Alyea, and other reporters, and TSBD employees??.   

What do you want me to admit that I was wrong about??
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 12, 2020, 11:10:44 PM

What about Tom Alyea, and other reporters, and TSBD employees??.

What about them? Name them and tell us which ones were not conspirators or under Fritz's thumb.

Quote
What do you want me to admit that I was wrong about??

Instead of babbling about the Carcano that Lt Day is seen picking up OFF THE FLOOR being a mauser....

You were wrong that I (or anyone) claimed that Alyea filmed Day picking up a Mauser OFF THE FLOOR. Your argument has been if a Mauser was seen on in the TSBD, then the conspirators would have admitted it and Alyea would have filmed it. That's just plain faulty logic, yet you use it to libel Craig and poo-poo the Mauser even existing. That is, until your BINGO moment when you suspect Weitzman was shown a Mauser as the murder weapon, BUT HE DIDN'T SEE IT IN THE TSBD. This is also why you refuse to accept that there was a shooter in the TSBD because he would have likely been the source of the Mauser.

Why else would Weitzman have been shown a Mauser and led to believe it was the Carcano? If you admit there might have been a Mauser, then you have to fit it into your argument. But you choose to stick to your guns, instead.


Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 12, 2020, 11:35:41 PM
What about them? Name them and tell us which ones were not conspirators or under Fritz's thumb.

Instead of babbling about the Carcano that Lt Day is seen picking up OFF THE FLOOR being a mauser....

You were wrong that I (or anyone) claimed that Alyea filmed Day picking up a Mauser OFF THE FLOOR. Your argument has been if a Mauser was seen on in the TSBD, then the conspirators would have admitted it and Alyea would have filmed it. That's just plain faulty logic, yet you use it to libel Craig and poo-poo the Mauser even existing. That is, until your BINGO moment when you suspect Weitzman was shown a Mauser as the murder weapon, BUT HE DIDN'T SEE IT IN THE TSBD. This is also why you refuse to accept that there was a shooter in the TSBD because he would have likely been the source of the Mauser.

Why else would Weitzman have been shown a Mauser and led to believe it was the Carcano? If you admit there might have been a Mauser, then you have to fit it into your argument. But you choose to stick to your guns, instead.

 Your argument has been if a Mauser was seen on in the TSBD, then the conspirators would have admitted it and Alyea would have filmed it.

I've made no such a ridiculous  claim.   I've merely pointed out that virtually ALL of the witnesses swore under oath that after Weitzman and Boone discovered the MANNLICHER CARCANO  lying ON THE FLOOR  nobody touched the Mannlicher Carcano until Lt. JC Day came and picked up the CARCANO.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 12, 2020, 11:45:49 PM
Your argument has been if a Mauser was seen on in the TSBD, then the conspirators would have admitted it and Alyea would have filmed it.

I've made such a rididulous  claim.   I've merely pointed out that virtually ALL of the witnesses swore under oath that after Weitzman and Boone discovered the MANNLICHER CARCANO  lying ON THE FLOOR  nobody touched the Mannlicher Carcano until Lt. JC Day came and picked up the CARCANO.

What's the difference?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 13, 2020, 12:54:19 AM
What's the difference?

You've been arguing that the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered was a mauser but they switched the mauser and substituted a carcano.

But literally everybody said the carcano was the rifle that was discovered LYING ON THE FLOOR ( not jammed between boxes) and NOBODY touched the carcano until LT day picked it up.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 13, 2020, 01:32:03 AM
You've been arguing that the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered was a mauser but they switched the mauser and substituted a carcano.

But literally everybody said the carcano was the rifle that was discovered LYING ON THE FLOOR ( not jammed between boxes) and NOBODY touched the carcano until LT day picked it up.

List "literally everybody" and put an asterisk beside the non-conspirators. You rely on vague testimony from the conspirators way too much. Why didn't Alyea film the rifle in situ? Seems to me that once Boone announced he had discovered the rifle that Alyea would have been there filming like a dirty shirt. Instead he waited for Day and Fritz to ham it up during the "discovery". How come?

Where is the Alyea footage of the 3 hulls near the SN window? What kind of journalist was he? Why do you assume Alyea was a straight shooter and not another pawn and Fritz was the Director? If there was a rifle switch, then why do you think you would know about it if Fritz was choreographing the entire event?

Did you know Boone confiscated a bunch of witness cameras during the shooting before showing up in the TSBD? How did he know the shots came from there? Was it because he was a pawn? Or was there actually a shooter on the 6th floor taking token shots at JFK to frame Oswald? If so, what rifle did he use? Not the MC because that was already planted. But the Mauser might have been ditched nearby and Boone accidentally found it 1st. The switch could have been quick and discrete and the MC was left in place until Fritz called ACTION! No one thinks the RIFLE ON THE FLOOR was a Mauser that was swapped for a MC, so stop claiming that and move on.

Otherwise, I accept your apology. Just don't let it happen again.  ;D

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 13, 2020, 03:25:41 PM
List "literally everybody" and put an asterisk beside the non-conspirators. You rely on vague testimony from the conspirators way too much. Why didn't Alyea film the rifle in situ? Seems to me that once Boone announced he had discovered the rifle that Alyea would have been there filming like a dirty shirt. Instead he waited for Day and Fritz to ham it up during the "discovery". How come?

Where is the Alyea footage of the 3 hulls near the SN window? What kind of journalist was he? Why do you assume Alyea was a straight shooter and not another pawn and Fritz was the Director? If there was a rifle switch, then why do you think you would know about it if Fritz was choreographing the entire event?

Did you know Boone confiscated a bunch of witness cameras during the shooting before showing up in the TSBD? How did he know the shots came from there? Was it because he was a pawn? Or was there actually a shooter on the 6th floor taking token shots at JFK to frame Oswald? If so, what rifle did he use? Not the MC because that was already planted. But the Mauser might have been ditched nearby and Boone accidentally found it 1st. The switch could have been quick and discrete and the MC was left in place until Fritz called ACTION! No one thinks the RIFLE ON THE FLOOR was a Mauser that was swapped for a MC, so stop claiming that and move on.

Otherwise, I accept your apology. Just don't let it happen again.  ;D

 Why didn't Alyea film the rifle in situ?

Tom Alyea said that much of his footage ended up on the cutting room floor.....  So how do you know that Alyea didn't have footage of the rifle in situ ON THE FLOOR (not jammed between boxes of books)

Tom did manage to film detective Day as he picked the carcano up FROM THE FLOOR....   And that's the first time anybody touched the rifle after Weitzman and Boone discovered it where it had been CAREFULLY HIDDEN.     It was NOT hastily cast aside as the conspirators have claimed.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 13, 2020, 09:30:48 PM
Why didn't Alyea film the rifle in situ?

Tom Alyea said that much of his footage ended up on the cutting room floor.....  So how do you know that Alyea didn't have footage of the rifle in situ ON THE FLOOR (not jammed between boxes of books)

Like you, I don't have a clue how it all went down. How do you know that Alyea didn't film the discovery of the Mauser and it wound up on the cutting room floor? See how this works?

Quote
Tom did manage to film detective Day as he picked the carcano up FROM THE FLOOR....   And that's the first time anybody touched the rifle after Weitzman and Boone discovered it where it had been CAREFULLY HIDDEN.     It was NOT hastily cast aside as the conspirators have claimed.

I agree that the rifle was planted. And I agree that when Fritz was ready he called over Alyea and had him film the "discovery" and unveiling of the rifle. How much of that was choreographed? No one knows, so stop pretending that you do.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Thomas Graves on May 13, 2020, 09:35:50 PM
Like you, I don't have a clue how it all went down. How do you know that Alyea didn't film the discovery of the Mauser and it wound up on the cutting room floor? See how this works?

I agree that the rifle was planted. And I agree that when Fritz was ready he called over Alyea and had him film the "discovery" and unveiling of the rifle. How much of that was choreographed? No one knows, so stop pretending that you do.

Planted?

LOL!

--  MWT   ;)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 13, 2020, 09:53:58 PM
Planted?

LOL!

--  MWT   ;)

So you think that Oswald smuggled in the MC in pieces then reassembled it, then took 3 shots and hit pay dirt with a wonky scope, then ditched the rifle and left no prints on it?

LOL!
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 13, 2020, 10:35:47 PM
So you think that Oswald smuggled in the MC in pieces then reassembled it, then took 3 shots and hit pay dirt with a wonky scope, then ditched the rifle and left no prints on it?

LOL!

So now you accept that the rifle was a Carcano.   That's a good start.   Now if you can accept that Fritz had no control over Tom Alyea.   

I'm curious to know if you've ever read Tom Alyea's account of the events on the sixth floor?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 13, 2020, 10:57:17 PM
So now you accept that the rifle was a Carcano.   That's a good start.   Now if you can accept that Fritz had no control over Tom Alyea.   

 ::) Give it up Walt. When are you going to learn some reading comprehension? I obviously don't believe the LN narrative. I don't believe that Oswald smuggled the MC into the building in a freaking paper bag. I don't believe he reassembled it with a dime. I don't believe he could score 2 of 3 shots using a wonky scope and I don't believe that he shot the MC at all because he left no prints on it. What part of that didn't you comprehend? And how could you possibly know that Fritz had no control over Alyea? Jeez, get with the program.

Quote
I'm curious to know if you've ever read Tom Alyea's account of the events on the sixth floor?

Sure. Where does he say he was allowed to film any damn thing he wanted and had control over how his film got edited? Otherwise, why would he edit out the juicy bits? Extract your head and stop being so gullible.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 13, 2020, 10:57:53 PM
Planted?

LOL!

--  MWT   ;)

Yes, that's right....The carcano was PLANTED...... It was NOT hastily cast aside or jammed between boxes of books.   Weitzman and Boone discovered the carcano it was LYING ON THE FLOOR with the pallet of books on top of it.....The pallet of books was about one foot south of the south side of the boxes that formed the east/ waest aisle at the top of the stairs.  And there were a couple of boxes of books that formed the top of the chasm in which the rifle had been CAREFULLY HIDDEN.

Nobody touched the rifle until Detective Day arrived with Captain Fritz and took charge....Then the boxes of books were moved out of the way and Lt Day reached down and grabbed the leather strap and picked the carcano UP FROM THE FLOOR. ( not jammed between boxes of books)   Tom alyea filmed Day as he picked the carcano up from the floor.

Roger Craig was there and he described how he saw the rifle just minutes after Boone had called out.."here's the rifle".   Craig said that the rifle was lying on the floor at the bottom of a chacm of boxes . He said that he was six feet tall and he could not have place the rifle down in the cave unless he got down among the boxes and the restacked then after placing the rifle on the floor. Craig said that the muzzle of rifle was pointed east with the trigger guard to the south and the scope to the north ....

Craig was absolutely right....That's exactly the orientation of the rifle when Day picked it up OFF THE FLOOR.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 13, 2020, 11:01:07 PM
Craig was absolutely right.

No he wasn't, he was a goddamned pathological liar! Just like Drumpf.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 13, 2020, 11:37:12 PM
No he wasn't, he was a goddamned pathological liar! Just like Drumpf.

Yes Roger Craig was a liar.... But when he described seeing the rifle ON THE FLOOR he was simply relating how he had seen the rifle.   I don't believe that was even aware that there were official DPD insitu photos that showed a rifle jammed between boxes of books.   Which of course was at variance with the way he had seen the rifle as lay ON THE FLOOR.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 13, 2020, 11:52:33 PM
Yes Roger Craig was a liar.... But when he described seeing the rifle ON THE FLOOR he was simply relating how he had seen the rifle.   I don't believe that was even aware that there were official DPD insitu photos that showed a rifle jammed between boxes of books.   Which of course was at variance with the way he had seen the rifle as lay ON THE FLOOR.

How do you know all this? Are you psychic? And don't tell me you opened your eyes and watched the Alyea film, then Gawd told you.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 14, 2020, 12:25:13 AM
How do you know all this? Are you psychic? And don't tell me you opened your eyes and watched the Alyea film, then Gawd told you.

It's right there in the video of FP interview of Roger Craig.....  Craig told FP how the rifle was positioned....

This is what Roger Craig said at the Clay Shaw trial....

Q: Officer Craig, were you able to observe the location that the rifle was found in?
A: Yes.
Q: Where was that?
A: In the northeast corner of the sixth floor there was a stack of boxes approximately five fee high and they were stacked in a square and in the middle of the square was a hole and the rifle was in this hole.

And his LBJ Cover up committee testimony.....

Mr. BELIN - How far were you from Officer Boone when he hollered?
Mr. CRAIG - About 8-foot.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do then?
Mr. CRAIG - I went over to the--uh--luster of boxes where he was standing and looked down between the boxes and saw the rifle lying on the floor.
Mr. BELIN - When you say "between the cluster of boxes," could you describe which way the boxes were?
Mr. CRAIG - There was a row going east to west on the north side of the weapon, and a box going east to west on the south side of the weapon, and--uh--if I remember, uh--as you'd look down, you had to look kinda back under the north stack of boxes to see the rifle. It was pushed kinda under---uh---or up tight against 'em---you know, where it would be hard to see. And, of course, both ends of the rows were closed off where you couldn't see through 'em. You had to get up and look in 'em.
Mr. BELIN - You are gesturing with your hand there---would you say that the boxes, then, as you gestured, were in the shape of what I would call a rectangular "O", so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes, yes, uh-huh.
Mr. BELIN - And about how high were the walls of this enclosure, so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Well, it-it was different heights. Now, the part where I looked in particularly was about---uh---oh, was about 5-foot.
Mr. BELIN - All right. And you gestured there in such a way that you had to lean over and look straight down? Would that be a fair statement of your gestures?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; yes. You had to lean over the boxes and look down.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Then what happened? After you found this, did people come over---or what?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; several other people came over.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember about what time this was?
Mr. CRAIG - No; I had no idea then how long it had been.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Do you remember who else came over?
Mr. CRAIG - Oh, Officer Mooney and--uh--several of the city officers; Will Fritz came over--Capt. Will Fritz, with the city of Dallas; some of his investigators, I didn't know them; and a criminal identification man, I believe, from the city of Dallas, then came over there to take pictures of the weapon.
Mr. BELIN - The weapon was moved by the time the pictures were taken?
Mr. CRAIG - No; no. The pictures were taken as the weapon was found lying here.

Does this official DPD in situ photo look anything like Craigs description?... Or was the carcano in this position when Lt Day picked it up FROM THE FLOOR?

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)

Here's what Craig told FP....

THE CARCANO WAS LYING ON THE FLOOR

Here's an excerpt from the newspaper article.....

Roger Craig----- " I was also present when the rifle was found.  Now this rifle--- There's no possible way  that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes. He had to drop it in there.  I'm six feet tall and I couldn't reach down and pick that rifle out without climbing on top of those boxes and getting down in em, by moving some of em, to get to the rifle."

There's no possible way  that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes.

He had to drop it in there.

IOW..... The rifle was lying ON THE FLOOR  and not jammed between boxes of books as it is seen in the official police in situ photos....   Which means the DPD staged the in situ photo to enable them to frame Lee Oswald by saying that he dashed by the site and hastily jammed the carcano between the boxes of books.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 14, 2020, 02:53:07 AM
It's right there in the video of FP interview of Roger Craig.....  Craig told FP how the rifle was positioned....

This is what Roger Craig said at the Clay Shaw trial....

Q: Officer Craig, were you able to observe the location that the rifle was found in?
A: Yes.
Q: Where was that?
A: In the northeast corner of the sixth floor there was a stack of boxes approximately five fee high and they were stacked in a square and in the middle of the square was a hole and the rifle was in this hole.

And his LBJ Cover up committee testimony.....

Mr. BELIN - How far were you from Officer Boone when he hollered?
Mr. CRAIG - About 8-foot.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do then?
Mr. CRAIG - I went over to the--uh--luster of boxes where he was standing and looked down between the boxes and saw the rifle lying on the floor.
Mr. BELIN - When you say "between the cluster of boxes," could you describe which way the boxes were?
Mr. CRAIG - There was a row going east to west on the north side of the weapon, and a box going east to west on the south side of the weapon, and--uh--if I remember, uh--as you'd look down, you had to look kinda back under the north stack of boxes to see the rifle. It was pushed kinda under---uh---or up tight against 'em---you know, where it would be hard to see. And, of course, both ends of the rows were closed off where you couldn't see through 'em. You had to get up and look in 'em.
Mr. BELIN - You are gesturing with your hand there---would you say that the boxes, then, as you gestured, were in the shape of what I would call a rectangular "O", so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes, yes, uh-huh.
Mr. BELIN - And about how high were the walls of this enclosure, so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Well, it-it was different heights. Now, the part where I looked in particularly was about---uh---oh, was about 5-foot.
Mr. BELIN - All right. And you gestured there in such a way that you had to lean over and look straight down? Would that be a fair statement of your gestures?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; yes. You had to lean over the boxes and look down.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Then what happened? After you found this, did people come over---or what?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; several other people came over.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember about what time this was?
Mr. CRAIG - No; I had no idea then how long it had been.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Do you remember who else came over?
Mr. CRAIG - Oh, Officer Mooney and--uh--several of the city officers; Will Fritz came over--Capt. Will Fritz, with the city of Dallas; some of his investigators, I didn't know them; and a criminal identification man, I believe, from the city of Dallas, then came over there to take pictures of the weapon.
Mr. BELIN - The weapon was moved by the time the pictures were taken?
Mr. CRAIG - No; no. The pictures were taken as the weapon was found lying here.

Does this official DPD in situ photo look anything like Craigs description?... Or was the carcano in this position when Lt Day picked it up FROM THE FLOOR?

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)

Here's what Craig told FP....

THE CARCANO WAS LYING ON THE FLOOR

Here's an excerpt from the newspaper article.....

Roger Craig----- " I was also present when the rifle was found.  Now this rifle--- There's no possible way  that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes. He had to drop it in there.  I'm six feet tall and I couldn't reach down and pick that rifle out without climbing on top of those boxes and getting down in em, by moving some of em, to get to the rifle."

There's no possible way  that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes.

He had to drop it in there.

What a waste of time. Craig is a red herring. He was a liar wasn't he? Then why do you believe him here? Where does he claim the rifle ON THE FLOOR was a Mauser? He was obviously talking about the planted Carcano ON THE FLOOR. Where in the film does he claim he read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel? Was it before or after Day picked up the rifle ON THE FLOOR? Wasn't he called out of the 6th floor before then? Can you rely on any testimony from Craig or the conspirators?  What part was Craig lying about and what do you think this proves?

Quote
IOW..... The rifle was lying ON THE FLOOR  and not jammed between boxes of books as it is seen in the official police in situ photos....   Which means the DPD staged the in situ photo to enable them to frame Lee Oswald by saying that he dashed by the site and hastily jammed the carcano between the boxes of books.

Why didn't Alyea film any of it? Why only in situ photos? Was Fritz directing traffic? Did the real shooter dash by the site and hastily jam the Mauser between the boxes of books and relied on Boone to find the Carcano ON THE FLOOR 1st? No one knows, especially you.

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 14, 2020, 02:29:03 PM
It's right there in the video of FP interview of Roger Craig.....  Craig told FP how the rifle was positioned....

How convenient that Craig is accurate when you want him to be.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 14, 2020, 02:50:43 PM
What a waste of time. Craig is a red herring. He was a liar wasn't he? Then why do you believe him here? Where does he claim the rifle ON THE FLOOR was a Mauser? He was obviously talking about the planted Carcano ON THE FLOOR. Where in the film does he claim he read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel? Was it before or after Day picked up the rifle ON THE FLOOR? Wasn't he called out of the 6th floor before then? Can you rely on any testimony from Craig or the conspirators?  What part was Craig lying about and what do you think this proves?

Why didn't Alyea film any of it? Why only in situ photos? Was Fritz directing traffic? Did the real shooter dash by the site and hastily jam the Mauser between the boxes of books and relied on Boone to find the Carcano ON THE FLOOR 1st? No one knows, especially you.

Where does he claim the rifle ON THE FLOOR was a Mauser? He was obviously talking about the planted Carcano ON THE FLOOR.

Yes, Craig was referring to the CARCANO ......  That was the rifle that Boone saw when he shined his flashlight down into the dark chasm of boxes and spotted a
 small portion of the butt of the rifle.   And there can be no doubt that the rifle had been planted there BEFORE the shooting ( because there was not enough time AFTER the shooting.)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 14, 2020, 03:02:51 PM
How convenient that Craig is accurate when you want him to be.

Craig was not making an issue out of the rifle being ON THE FLOOR.    He merely mentioned it in passing.... Therefore it is the truth and can be verified by watching Tom Alyea's film of Lt Day picking up the rifle FROM THE FLOOR.    Craig describes that action perfectly...... He said that Lt Day grabbed the leather sling and hoisted the rifle into the air....   and that's exactly what is seen in Tom Alyea's film.   

However .....Even though nobody was questioning the position of the rifle .....Craig must have realized that the official tale of the rifle being jammed between boxes of books was a damned lie.   Craig knew that!.....and he was trying to call attention to this very elementary fact.   He even went so far as to describe the exact orientation of the rifle as it was when he saw it lying ON THE FLOOR. 
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Rick Plant on May 15, 2020, 03:51:42 AM
Craig was not making an issue out of the rifle being ON THE FLOOR.    He merely mentioned it in passing.... Therefore it is the truth and can be verified by watching Tom Alyea's film of Lt Day picking up the rifle FROM THE FLOOR.    Craig describes that action perfectly...... He said that Lt Day grabbed the leather sling and hoisted the rifle into the air....   and that's exactly what is seen in Tom Alyea's film.   

However .....Even though nobody was questioning the position of the rifle .....Craig must have realized that the official tale of the rifle being jammed between boxes of books was a damned lie.   Craig knew that!.....and he was trying to call attention to this very elementary fact.   He even went so far as to describe the exact orientation of the rifle as it was when he saw it lying ON THE FLOOR.

Walt, you stated Craig was a liar with mental problems. So, why are you beliving his description of the rifle on the floor? Wouldn't this just be more of his insanity?       
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 15, 2020, 01:11:27 PM
Walt, you stated Craig was a liar with mental problems. So, why are you beliving his description of the rifle on the floor? Wouldn't this just be more of his insanity?     

Wouldn't this just be more of his insanity? 

No, I don't think so.....  Craig never made an issue of the position of the rifle on the floor.    Like he did with insisting that he saw "7.65 Mauser stamped right there on the barrel.

But you've raised the exact reason that I have no respect for Roger Craig.....  He destroyed his credibility with his lying.  Just as you now doubt his report of the rifle ON THE FLOOR.    HOWEVER in the case of the rifle ON THE FLOOR we do have Tom Alyea's film which does show the rifle ON THE FLOOR just as Craig described it.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 03, 2021, 03:34:27 PM
It's right there in the video of FP interview of Roger Craig.....  Craig told FP how the rifle was positioned....

This is what Roger Craig said at the Clay Shaw trial....

Q: Officer Craig, were you able to observe the location that the rifle was found in?
A: Yes.
Q: Where was that?
A: In the northeast corner of the sixth floor there was a stack of boxes approximately five fee high and they were stacked in a square and in the middle of the square was a hole and the rifle was in this hole.

And his LBJ Cover up committee testimony.....

Mr. BELIN - How far were you from Officer Boone when he hollered?
Mr. CRAIG - About 8-foot.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do then?
Mr. CRAIG - I went over to the--uh--luster of boxes where he was standing and looked down between the boxes and saw the rifle lying on the floor.
Mr. BELIN - When you say "between the cluster of boxes," could you describe which way the boxes were?
Mr. CRAIG - There was a row going east to west on the north side of the weapon, and a box going east to west on the south side of the weapon, and--uh--if I remember, uh--as you'd look down, you had to look kinda back under the north stack of boxes to see the rifle. It was pushed kinda under---uh---or up tight against 'em---you know, where it would be hard to see. And, of course, both ends of the rows were closed off where you couldn't see through 'em. You had to get up and look in 'em.
Mr. BELIN - You are gesturing with your hand there---would you say that the boxes, then, as you gestured, were in the shape of what I would call a rectangular "O", so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes, yes, uh-huh.
Mr. BELIN - And about how high were the walls of this enclosure, so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Well, it-it was different heights. Now, the part where I looked in particularly was about---uh---oh, was about 5-foot.
Mr. BELIN - All right. And you gestured there in such a way that you had to lean over and look straight down? Would that be a fair statement of your gestures?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; yes. You had to lean over the boxes and look down.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Then what happened? After you found this, did people come over---or what?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; several other people came over.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember about what time this was?
Mr. CRAIG - No; I had no idea then how long it had been.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Do you remember who else came over?
Mr. CRAIG - Oh, Officer Mooney and--uh--several of the city officers; Will Fritz came over--Capt. Will Fritz, with the city of Dallas; some of his investigators, I didn't know them; and a criminal identification man, I believe, from the city of Dallas, then came over there to take pictures of the weapon.
Mr. BELIN - The weapon was moved by the time the pictures were taken?
Mr. CRAIG - No; no. The pictures were taken as the weapon was found lying here.

Does this official DPD in situ photo look anything like Craigs description?... Or was the carcano in this position when Lt Day picked it up FROM THE FLOOR?

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)

Here's what Craig told FP....

THE CARCANO WAS LYING ON THE FLOOR

Here's an excerpt from the newspaper article.....

Roger Craig----- " I was also present when the rifle was found.  Now this rifle--- There's no possible way  that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes. He had to drop it in there.  I'm six feet tall and I couldn't reach down and pick that rifle out without climbing on top of those boxes and getting down in em, by moving some of em, to get to the rifle."

There's no possible way  that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes.

He had to drop it in there.

IOW..... The rifle was lying ON THE FLOOR  and not jammed between boxes of books as it is seen in the official police in situ photos....   Which means the DPD staged the in situ photo to enable them to frame Lee Oswald by saying that he dashed by the site and hastily jammed the carcano between the boxes of books.

Does anybody believe that Lee Oswald dashed by the site at the top of the stairs where the carcano was found and placed that carcano on the floor .  (15 feet 4 inches from the N. wall or 0ver four feet south of the E/W aisle)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 03, 2021, 05:40:55 PM
Does anybody believe that Lee Oswald dashed by the site at the top of the stairs where the carcano was found and placed that carcano on the floor .  (15 feet 4 inches from the N. wall or 0ver four feet south of the E/W aisle)

The rifle in this fake in situ photo is about 13 feet from the North wall......
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 03, 2021, 07:09:51 PM
Walt you are still dead wrong about Craig and all you are doing is aiding and abetting the DPD with your stubbornness by castigating a goddamned hero who was a lone voice against a massive conspiracy. And he did it knowingly at great peril. Why would Roger have claimed he saw a Mauser if he didn't at least smell something fishy at the crime scene? He had strong suspicions that caused him to make such a bold claim.  It can only be because he either saw what he saw or he at least saw "the" Mauser in question. How dare you assume he was a lying mental case and you would piss on his grave if given the opportunity based on a few snippits of YouTube videos and some staged photos. And if there was a Mauser involved in this case, which you acknowledge, then it was likely retrieved from the TSBD and Craig could have seen it there.

All 3 of us agree that the DPD planted the MC and setup the crime scene. That's the only reason Craig would "lie" about seeing the Mauser. He wanted to expose the conspiracy and was not part of it. Do you know what kind of balls it took to go alone accusing the DPD of being part of a conspiracy to assassinate the POTUS? And how high did it go? The only way Craig could have been lying is if he truly believed that Fritz and Co. were involved in a conspiracy, heard about the Mauser, and wanted to do the right thing regardless of whether he actually read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel. Fact is, you have no idea whether he's lying or what evidence Fritz allowed you to know about. You will never know what footage Fritz did not allow Alyea to take or talk about. If you think Fritz didn't have complete and utter control over how the event was documented, then I've got a slightly used MC to sell you, to add to your collection.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 03, 2021, 07:41:57 PM
Walt you are still dead wrong about Craig and all you are doing is aiding and abetting the DPD with your stubbornness by castigating a goddamned hero who was a lone voice against a massive conspiracy. And he did it knowingly at great peril. Why would Roger have claimed he saw a Mauser if he didn't at least smell something fishy at the crime scene? He had strong suspicions that caused him to make such a bold claim.  It can only be because he either saw what he saw or he at least saw "the" Mauser in question. How dare you assume he was a lying mental case and you would piss on his grave if given the opportunity based on a few snippits of YouTube videos and some staged photos. And if there was a Mauser involved in this case, which you acknowledge, then it was likely retrieved from the TSBD and Craig could have seen it there.

All 3 of us agree that the DPD planted the MC and setup the crime scene. That's the only reason Craig would "lie" about seeing the Mauser. He wanted to expose the conspiracy and was not part of it. Do you know what kind of balls it took to go alone accusing the DPD of being part of a conspiracy to assassinate the POTUS? And how high did it go? The only way Craig could have been lying is if he truly believed that Fritz and Co. were involved in a conspiracy, heard about the Mauser, and wanted to do the right thing regardless of whether he actually read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel. Fact is, you have no idea whether he's lying or what evidence Fritz allowed you to know about. You will never know what footage Fritz did not allow Alyea to take or talk about. If you think Fritz didn't have complete and utter control over how the event was documented, then I've got a slightly used MC to sell you, to add to your collection.

Jack, This is not about Roger Craig..... I wanted to refocus the lime light on the information about the place where the carcano was found.   It is solid physical evidence that Lee Oswald DID NOT dash by the site and hastily dump the rifle as the liars on the DPD said.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 03, 2021, 08:35:55 PM
Walt you are still dead wrong about Craig and all you are doing is aiding and abetting the DPD with your stubbornness by castigating a goddamned hero who was a lone voice against a massive conspiracy. And he did it knowingly at great peril. Why would Roger have claimed he saw a Mauser if he didn't at least smell something fishy at the crime scene? He had strong suspicions that caused him to make such a bold claim.  It can only be because he either saw what he saw or he at least saw "the" Mauser in question. How dare you assume he was a lying mental case and you would piss on his grave if given the opportunity based on a few snippits of YouTube videos and some staged photos. And if there was a Mauser involved in this case, which you acknowledge, then it was likely retrieved from the TSBD and Craig could have seen it there.

All 3 of us agree that the DPD planted the MC and setup the crime scene. That's the only reason Craig would "lie" about seeing the Mauser. He wanted to expose the conspiracy and was not part of it. Do you know what kind of balls it took to go alone accusing the DPD of being part of a conspiracy to assassinate the POTUS? And how high did it go? The only way Craig could have been lying is if he truly believed that Fritz and Co. were involved in a conspiracy, heard about the Mauser, and wanted to do the right thing regardless of whether he actually read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel. Fact is, you have no idea whether he's lying or what evidence Fritz allowed you to know about. You will never know what footage Fritz did not allow Alyea to take or talk about. If you think Fritz didn't have complete and utter control over how the event was documented, then I've got a slightly used MC to sell you, to add to your collection.

Jack, I believe we are very close to harmony....   But I think you're singing an octave too high.   I agree with 98% of your post.

I had an uncle that I believe was very much like Roger Craig.    He'd tell a lie about something, and then when challenged he would elaborate on a point like " I saw 7.65 stamped right there on the barrel"  in an effort to convince the challenger that he was telling the truth.  But that doesn't mean that Roger didn't have good reason to believe that there was a Mauser involved.    It certainly seems that here in fact was a Mauser that was presented to Seymour Weitzman as though it was the rifle that was found in the NW corner of the sixth floor.  ( Perhaps at that point the DPD were afraid that they weren't going to be able to convince us piss ants that Lee Oswald was the assassin and wanted to introduce a mauser to lead to another patsy.
 But that's a diversion from my reason for trying to rekindle interest in the LOCATION where the carcano was found.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Bill Brown on February 03, 2021, 10:54:18 PM
In 1968, during an interview (along with Penn Jones) with the L.A. Free Press, Roger Craig was asked about the Tippit shooting.  Craig told the interviewer that the shooting occurred at 1:45.

Jones immediately corrected Craig, informing him that the shooting occurred around 1:15.  Craig responded with "Oh?  Is that right? Okay." (or words to that effect, I'm going by memory) 

The bottom line is, in 1968, Craig obviously had no idea what time the Tippit shooting occurred.

Then, in the early 70's when writing his manuscript, Craig tells the story of being in Dealey Plaza and hearing of the shooting of the police officer in Oak Cliff.  In the scenario, Craig supposedly looks at his watch and notes that it said the time was 1:06.

You Roger Craig defenders really don't see anything wrong with this?  Do I really need to spell this out any more clearly?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 03, 2021, 11:23:31 PM
In 1968, during an interview (along with Penn Jones) with the L.A. Free Press, Roger Craig was asked about the Tippit shooting.  Craig told the interviewer that the shooting occurred at 1:45.

Jones immediately corrected Craig, informing him that the shooting occurred around 1:15.  Craig responded with "Oh?  Is that right? Okay." (or words to that effect, I'm going by memory) 

The bottom line is, in 1968, Craig obviously had no idea what time the Tippit shooting occurred.

Then, in the early 70's when writing his manuscript, Craig tells the story of being in Dealey Plaza and hearing of the shooting of the police officer in Oak Cliff.  In the scenario, Craig supposedly looks at his watch and notes that it said the time was 1:06.

You Roger Craig defenders really don't see anything wrong with this?  Do I really need to spell this out any more clearly?

I'm beginning to regret dredging up the old subject..... I wanted to focus on the site where the rifle was found...  Roger Craig was one of the law officers who was there, and recalled how the rifle was positioned. His description of the position is verified by several other cops and Tom Alyea's film ....And as Roger Craig pointed out, There's NO WAY that Lee Oswald could have dashed by the site and put that rifle on the floor 15 feet 4 inches from the North wall.   
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 06, 2021, 12:14:13 PM
What a waste of time. Craig is a red herring. He was a liar wasn't he? Then why do you believe him here? Where does he claim the rifle ON THE FLOOR was a Mauser? He was obviously talking about the planted Carcano ON THE FLOOR. Where in the film does he claim he read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel? Was it before or after Day picked up the rifle ON THE FLOOR? Wasn't he called out of the 6th floor before then? Can you rely on any testimony from Craig or the conspirators?  What part was Craig lying about and what do you think this proves?

Why didn't Alyea film any of it? Why only in situ photos? Was Fritz directing traffic? Did the real shooter dash by the site and hastily jam the Mauser between the boxes of books and relied on Boone to find the Carcano ON THE FLOOR 1st? No one knows, especially you.

Mr. BELIN - When you say "between the cluster of boxes," could you describe which way the boxes were?
Mr. CRAIG - There was a row going east to west on the north side of the weapon, and a box going east to west on the south side of the weapon, and--uh--if I remember, uh--as you'd look down, you had to look kinda back under the north stack of boxes to see the rifle. It was pushed kinda under---uh---or up tight against 'em---you know, where it would be hard to see. And, of course, both ends of the rows were closed off where you couldn't see through 'em. You had to get up and look in 'em.
Mr. BELIN - You are gesturing with your hand there---would you say that the boxes, then, as you gestured, were in the shape of what I would call a rectangular "O", so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes, yes, uh-huh.
Mr. BELIN - And about how high were the walls of this enclosure, so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Well, it-it was different heights. Now, the part where I looked in particularly was about---uh---oh, was about 5-foot.
Mr. BELIN - All right. And you gestured there in such a way that you had to lean over and look straight down? Would that be a fair statement of your gestures?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; yes. You had to lean over the boxes and look down.

What a waste of time. Craig is a red herring. He was a liar wasn't he? Then why do you believe him here? Where does he claim the rifle ON THE FLOOR was a Mauser? He was obviously talking about the planted Carcano ON THE FLOOR. Where in the film does he claim he read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel? Was it before or after Day picked up the rifle ON THE FLOOR? Wasn't he called out of the 6th floor before then? Can you rely on any testimony from Craig or the conspirators?  What part was Craig lying about and what do you think this proves?

Why didn't Alyea film any of it? Why only in situ photos? Was Fritz directing traffic? Did the real shooter dash by the site and hastily jam the Mauser between the boxes of books and relied on Boone to find the Carcano ON THE FLOOR 1st? No one knows, especially you.

What a waste of time. Craig is a red herring. He was a liar wasn't he? Then why do you believe him here? Where does he claim the rifle ON THE FLOOR was a Mauser?

A red herring, and a liar, ....  But still useful   .....   Craig said he saw the rifle picked up by J.C.Day and he said he saw Fritz open the bolt when the live round fell out....    He lied and said that he saw "7.65  Mauser --Stamped right there on the barrel"

That's an obvious lie....  I'm sure you know that.   But that lie came long after the event....after he had been fired for refusing to back away from the event and keep his mouth shut.

He was obviously talking about the planted Carcano ON THE FLOOR. Where in the film does he claim he read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel? Was it before or after Day picked up the rifle ON THE FLOOR? Wasn't he called out of the 6th floor before then? Can you rely on any testimony from Craig or the conspirators?  What part was Craig lying about and what do you think this proves?


In addition to his blatant lie about the stamping on a Mauser ( that was actually a 6.5mm Carcano) He embroidered something that Weitzman had told him into his tale.    I believe that Seymour Weitzman WAS IN FACT given a 7.65 Mauser ( probably on Saturday morning ) and lead to believe that it was the rifle that had been found beneath the boxes of books.   Weitzman wasn't about to argue with Fritz and the FBI man ( He was a young deputy) so he simply described the Mauser as the FBI agent had asked.  ( There's no doubt what- so- ever that the FBI agent describes a 7.65 Mauser )
Later Weitzman told Craig in confidence that he had been mistaken when he at first thought the rifle ( the carcano)  was a Mauser......But there also was a 7.65 Mauser involved because Captain Fritz had showed him the Mauser and he had described that rifle for an FBI agent.   

Roger Craig simply took the tale and embroidered it......

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 10, 2021, 07:55:56 PM
In 1968, during an interview (along with Penn Jones) with the L.A. Free Press, Roger Craig was asked about the Tippit shooting.  Craig told the interviewer that the shooting occurred at 1:45.

Jones immediately corrected Craig, informing him that the shooting occurred around 1:15.  Craig responded with "Oh?  Is that right? Okay." (or words to that effect, I'm going by memory) 

The bottom line is, in 1968, Craig obviously had no idea what time the Tippit shooting occurred.

Then, in the early 70's when writing his manuscript, Craig tells the story of being in Dealey Plaza and hearing of the shooting of the police officer in Oak Cliff.  In the scenario, Craig supposedly looks at his watch and notes that it said the time was 1:06.

You Roger Craig defenders really don't see anything wrong with this?  Do I really need to spell this out any more clearly?

 in the early 70's when writing his manuscript, Craig tells the story of being in Dealey Plaza and hearing of the shooting of the police officer in Oak Cliff.  In the scenario, Craig supposedly looks at his watch and notes that it said the time was 1:06.

You Roger Craig defenders really don't see anything wrong with this?  Do I really need to spell this out any more clearly?


This is exactly why I have no respect for Roger Craig.....   He lied and set himself up to be discredited...  In Fact Craig KNEW that the DPD had framed Lee Oswald, and he was trying to expose the bastards.  It's a shame that he felt he needed to lie...
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 11, 2021, 11:41:38 PM
Walt you are still dead wrong about Craig and all you are doing is aiding and abetting the DPD with your stubbornness by castigating a goddamned hero who was a lone voice against a massive conspiracy. And he did it knowingly at great peril. Why would Roger have claimed he saw a Mauser if he didn't at least smell something fishy at the crime scene? He had strong suspicions that caused him to make such a bold claim.  It can only be because he either saw what he saw or he at least saw "the" Mauser in question. How dare you assume he was a lying mental case and you would piss on his grave if given the opportunity based on a few snippits of YouTube videos and some staged photos. And if there was a Mauser involved in this case, which you acknowledge, then it was likely retrieved from the TSBD and Craig could have seen it there.

All 3 of us agree that the DPD planted the MC and setup the crime scene. That's the only reason Craig would "lie" about seeing the Mauser. He wanted to expose the conspiracy and was not part of it. Do you know what kind of balls it took to go alone accusing the DPD of being part of a conspiracy to assassinate the POTUS? And how high did it go? The only way Craig could have been lying is if he truly believed that Fritz and Co. were involved in a conspiracy, heard about the Mauser, and wanted to do the right thing regardless of whether he actually read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel. Fact is, you have no idea whether he's lying or what evidence Fritz allowed you to know about. You will never know what footage Fritz did not allow Alyea to take or talk about. If you think Fritz didn't have complete and utter control over how the event was documented, then I've got a slightly used MC to sell you, to add to your collection.

Where are you, Jack?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 12, 2021, 06:37:25 PM
Mr. BELIN - When you say "between the cluster of boxes," could you describe which way the boxes were?
Mr. CRAIG - There was a row going east to west on the north side of the weapon, and a box going east to west on the south side of the weapon, and--uh--if I remember, uh--as you'd look down, you had to look kinda back under the north stack of boxes to see the rifle. It was pushed kinda under---uh---or up tight against 'em---you know, where it would be hard to see. And, of course, both ends of the rows were closed off where you couldn't see through 'em. You had to get up and look in 'em.
Mr. BELIN - You are gesturing with your hand there---would you say that the boxes, then, as you gestured, were in the shape of what I would call a rectangular "O", so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes, yes, uh-huh.
Mr. BELIN - And about how high were the walls of this enclosure, so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Well, it-it was different heights. Now, the part where I looked in particularly was about---uh---oh, was about 5-foot.
Mr. BELIN - All right. And you gestured there in such a way that you had to lean over and look straight down? Would that be a fair statement of your gestures?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; yes. You had to lean over the boxes and look down.

What a waste of time. Craig is a red herring. He was a liar wasn't he? Then why do you believe him here? Where does he claim the rifle ON THE FLOOR was a Mauser? He was obviously talking about the planted Carcano ON THE FLOOR. Where in the film does he claim he read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel? Was it before or after Day picked up the rifle ON THE FLOOR? Wasn't he called out of the 6th floor before then? Can you rely on any testimony from Craig or the conspirators?  What part was Craig lying about and what do you think this proves?

Why didn't Alyea film any of it? Why only in situ photos? Was Fritz directing traffic? Did the real shooter dash by the site and hastily jam the Mauser between the boxes of books and relied on Boone to find the Carcano ON THE FLOOR 1st? No one knows, especially you.

What a waste of time. Craig is a red herring. He was a liar wasn't he? Then why do you believe him here? Where does he claim the rifle ON THE FLOOR was a Mauser?

A red herring, and a liar, ....  But still useful   .....   Craig said he saw the rifle picked up by J.C.Day and he said he saw Fritz open the bolt when the live round fell out....    He lied and said that he saw "7.65  Mauser --Stamped right there on the barrel"

That's an obvious lie....  I'm sure you know that.   But that lie came long after the event....after he had been fired for refusing to back away from the event and keep his mouth shut.

He was obviously talking about the planted Carcano ON THE FLOOR. Where in the film does he claim he read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel? Was it before or after Day picked up the rifle ON THE FLOOR? Wasn't he called out of the 6th floor before then? Can you rely on any testimony from Craig or the conspirators?  What part was Craig lying about and what do you think this proves?


In addition to his blatant lie about the stamping on a Mauser ( that was actually a 6.5mm Carcano) He embroidered something that Weitzman had told him into his tale.    I believe that Seymour Weitzman WAS IN FACT given a 7.65 Mauser ( probably on Saturday morning ) and lead to believe that it was the rifle that had been found beneath the boxes of books.   Weitzman wasn't about to argue with Fritz and the FBI man ( He was a young deputy) so he simply described the Mauser as the FBI agent had asked.  ( There's no doubt what- so- ever that the FBI agent describes a 7.65 Mauser )
Later Weitzman told Craig in confidence that he had been mistaken when he at first thought the rifle ( the carcano)  was a Mauser......But there also was a 7.65 Mauser involved because Captain Fritz had showed him the Mauser and he had described that rifle for an FBI agent.   

Roger Craig simply took the tale and embroidered it......

 Craig said he saw the rifle picked up by J.C.Day and he said he saw Fritz open the bolt when the live round fell out.... 

The live round FELL OUT      This means that the live round was NOT seated in the face of the bolt.  That live round had been simply dropped into the chamber, and then the bolt closed....BUT that bolt was not LATCHED    I wasn't latched ( see the Alyea film) because the carcano is designed in a way that will not allow the rifle bolt to be closed if the cartridge isn't seated in (married to)  the face of the bolt.  If the live round had been seated in the face of the bolt then the extractor would have FLIPPED the cartridge out and away from the rifle.....and the cartridge would not merely have fallen on the floor at Capt Fritz feet.

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 12, 2021, 09:28:57 PM
Walt you are still dead wrong about Craig and all you are doing is aiding and abetting the DPD with your stubbornness by castigating a goddamned hero who was a lone voice against a massive conspiracy. And he did it knowingly at great peril. Why would Roger have claimed he saw a Mauser if he didn't at least smell something fishy at the crime scene? He had strong suspicions that caused him to make such a bold claim.  It can only be because he either saw what he saw or he at least saw "the" Mauser in question. How dare you assume he was a lying mental case and you would piss on his grave if given the opportunity based on a few snippits of YouTube videos and some staged photos. And if there was a Mauser involved in this case, which you acknowledge, then it was likely retrieved from the TSBD and Craig could have seen it there.

All 3 of us agree that the DPD planted the MC and setup the crime scene. That's the only reason Craig would "lie" about seeing the Mauser. He wanted to expose the conspiracy and was not part of it. Do you know what kind of balls it took to go alone accusing the DPD of being part of a conspiracy to assassinate the POTUS? And how high did it go? The only way Craig could have been lying is if he truly believed that Fritz and Co. were involved in a conspiracy, heard about the Mauser, and wanted to do the right thing regardless of whether he actually read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel. Fact is, you have no idea whether he's lying or what evidence Fritz allowed you to know about. You will never know what footage Fritz did not allow Alyea to take or talk about. If you think Fritz didn't have complete and utter control over how the event was documented, then I've got a slightly used MC to sell you, to add to your collection.

Jack....Will you assist me in analyzing this photo?

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)

P.S.....This plea is open to anybody who is willing to honestly debate the in situ photo.

Question # 1....  Can you tell me the dimensions of the box above the rifle in the photo?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 13, 2021, 01:08:12 AM
Jack....Will you assist me in analyzing this photo?

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)

P.S.....This plea is open to anybody who is willing to honestly debate the in situ photo.

Question # 1....  Can you tell me the dimensions of the box above the rifle in the photo?

Can you tell me the dimensions of the box above the rifle in the photo?  I estimate the width of the box at approximately 15 inches...But I know the FBI gave the dimensions of the boxes in the evidence list.   I just haven't found those dimensions yet.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 13, 2021, 02:09:27 AM
Jack....Will you assist me in analyzing this photo?

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)

P.S.....This plea is open to anybody who is willing to honestly debate the in situ photo.

Question # 1....  Can you tell me the dimensions of the box above the rifle in the photo?

I won't draw this out for you, however, you need to measure the total length of 1 of your MCs from the end of the stock to the end of the barrel. The image of the MC is 332 pixels, which = X inches. When I measured the MC minus the barrel I got 300 pixels / 34 inches = 8.8 pixels/inch. This tells me that a rifle with the barrel should be 37.7 inches. Let me know if this is correct.

The far edge of the box closest to the rifle is 142 pix @ 8.8 pix/in = 16.1 inches. The side edge of the box is being foreshortened by the cosine of the angle that the top of the box makes with the film plane. But it is also closer to the camera so we can't use 8.8 pix/in to measure it. However, the ratio of the image width of the far edge of the box / the width of the near edge gives us the pixels/inch for the near side: 156px / 142px = 1.09 * 8.8px/in = 9.7px/in. The foreshortening correction is then the average pixels/inch from far to near = (8.8 + 9.7) / 2 = 9.25 pixels/inch. The foreshortening correction for the box top is 170px * 1.09 = 185.3px. The length of the box is then 185.3px / 9.25px/in =20.0 inches

If my original estimate of 34 inches for the the MC without the barrel is accurate, then the dimensions of the box is 16" x 20" +/- .5".
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 13, 2021, 02:33:52 AM
I won't draw this out for you, however, you need to measure the total length of 1 of your MCs from the end of the stock to the end of the barrel. The image of the MC is 332 pixels, which = X inches. When I measured the MC minus the barrel I got 300 pixels / 34 inches = 8.8 pixels/inch. This tells me that a rifle with the barrel should be 37.7 inches. Let me know if this is correct.

The far edge of the box closest to the rifle is 142 pix @ 8.8 pix/in = 16.1 inches. The side edge of the box is being foreshortened by the cosine of the angle that the top of the box makes with the film plane. But it is also closer to the camera so we can't use 8.8 pix/in to measure it. However, the ratio of the image width of the far edge of the box / the width of the near edge gives us the pixels/inch for the near side: 156px / 142px = 1.09 * 8.8px/in = 9.7px/in. The foreshortening correction is then the average pixels/inch from far to near = (8.8 + 9.7) / 2 = 9.25 pixels/inch. The foreshortening correction for the box top is 170px * 1.09 = 185.3px. The length of the box is then 185.3px / 9.25px/in =20.0 inches

If my original estimate of 34 inches for the the MC without the barrel is accurate, then the dimensions of the box is 16" x 20" +/- .5".

Thanks Jack....I wanted the dimensions of the box to use as a scale for the rifle....

This tells me that a rifle with the barrel should be 37.7 inches. Let me know if this is correct.

The official manufacturers length of a model 91/38 carcano short rifle is: 40.125 inches. ( from a gun manual)  And that's exactly what my carcano measures.

You have reversed my thinking....I suspect the photo of rifle is a  composite (ie; a fake photo which seems to show the carcano) but in reality the rifle in the  photo is a created composite.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 13, 2021, 05:20:37 AM
Thanks Jack....I wanted the dimensions of the box to use as a scale for the rifle....

This tells me that a rifle with the barrel should be 37.7 inches. Let me know if this is correct.

The official manufacturers length of a model 91/38 carcano short rifle is: 40.125 inches. ( from a gun manual)  And that's exactly what my carcano measures.

You have reversed my thinking....I suspect the photo of rifle is a  composite (ie; a fake photo which seems to show the carcano) but in reality the rifle in the  photo is a created composite.

John Iocoletti  posted the evidence list that lists the dimensions of the boxes, but i doubt that John would post that information, if he thought that he was aiding me.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 13, 2021, 04:44:32 PM
I won't draw this out for you, however, you need to measure the total length of 1 of your MCs from the end of the stock to the end of the barrel. The image of the MC is 332 pixels, which = X inches. When I measured the MC minus the barrel I got 300 pixels / 34 inches = 8.8 pixels/inch. This tells me that a rifle with the barrel should be 37.7 inches. Let me know if this is correct.

The far edge of the box closest to the rifle is 142 pix @ 8.8 pix/in = 16.1 inches. The side edge of the box is being foreshortened by the cosine of the angle that the top of the box makes with the film plane. But it is also closer to the camera so we can't use 8.8 pix/in to measure it. However, the ratio of the image width of the far edge of the box / the width of the near edge gives us the pixels/inch for the near side: 156px / 142px = 1.09 * 8.8px/in = 9.7px/in. The foreshortening correction is then the average pixels/inch from far to near = (8.8 + 9.7) / 2 = 9.25 pixels/inch. The foreshortening correction for the box top is 170px * 1.09 = 185.3px. The length of the box is then 185.3px / 9.25px/in =20.0 inches

If my original estimate of 34 inches for the the MC without the barrel is accurate, then the dimensions of the box is 16" x 20" +/- .5".

Thank you...I'm happy that you're taking a different approach to the solution....

I used a known measurement from my Carcano and compared it to that measurement in the photo, and found that the multiplier for the photo is 16.29.    IOW....The box would be 18.7 inches wide.... and the rifle would be 43.5 inches long.

I really need the actual measurement of the box......
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 14, 2021, 01:50:20 AM
Thank you...I'm happy that you're taking a different approach to the solution....

I used a known measurement from my Carcano and compared it to that measurement in the photo, and found that the multiplier for the photo is 16.29.    IOW....The box would be 18.7 inches wide.... and the rifle would be 43.5 inches long.

I really need the actual measurement of the box......

The box dimensions are standard 16" x 20" x 14". But you need a ruler of known dimensions within the image to confirm it. You've got it backwards trying to use the box to measure the MC. You must use the known dimensions of the MC to measure the box. Only if the box resolves to a standard size can you use it as a ruler. This will in turn confirm the dimensions of the MC.

Not sure if the image files I linked to will show since they don't for me. My approach is applying photogrammetry which is just measuring 3D objects in 2D photos. Our unit of measurement for images will be pixels which we must convert to a physical unit such as inches. I composed the following image to help you out:

(http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/MC_rifle1.jpg)

I isolated the areas we intend to measure, doubled the resolution and brightened it up enough to clearly make out the ends of the MC. Fortunately, the rifle is almost orthogonal to the POV so there will be no foreshortening to consider. This occurs when one end of an object is farther away from the camera than the other end which compresses the image. The image length is reduced by the cosine of the angle of the lean away from (or towards) the camera. In this case the lean is negligible so we can take direct measurements of the rifle on the image.

In the image I posted I took measurements from the middle of the buttend to the end of the barrel, to the sights, to the piece that Oswald supposedly smuggled into the TSBD in a paper bag (34"), and to the end of the action at the forend. Then I measured the width of the far end of the box.

Note that I cut and pasted horizontal strips of the measurements  at the upper left corner of the image so you can count the pixels for each measurement. Copy and paste this image into MS Paint and hold your cursor at the end of each segment and note the pixel x,y (bottom left corner of Paint). Also note that I placed the measurement of the box as the bottom segment which I denoted with a red bullseye. That is the pixel width for the box. Because it is so close to the rifle, we can assume that both objects occupy the same plane and are commonly scaled.

For example: The rifle part without the barrel which Oswald supposedly smuggled into the TSBD is thought to be 34". In my prev image, that measurement on the MC is 894 pixels long.

(http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/MC_rifle5.gif)

This segment is 894 pixels / 34 inches = 26.3 pixels/inch (specific to this image). The box width is 426 pixels (red bullseye) @ 26.3 pixels/inch = 16.2 inches. This tells me that the 34" measurement of the barrelless MC is accurate.

Now it's your turn to measure these lengths (inches) on your own MC for the segments on the image I posted, and calculate the pixels/inch ratios. They should ALL be 26.3 pixels/inch to be an authentic MC as portrayed in the image. Let me know if the rifle matches yours. Otherwise, forget about the box.

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 14, 2021, 02:52:34 AM
The box dimensions are standard 16" x 20" x 14". But you need a ruler of known dimensions within the image to confirm it. You've got it backwards trying to use the box to measure the MC. You must use the known dimensions of the MC to measure the box. Only if the box resolves to a standard size can you use it as a ruler. This will in turn confirm the dimensions of the MC.

Not sure if the image files I linked to will show since they don't for me. My approach is applying photogrammetry which is just measuring 3D objects in 2D photos. Our unit of measurement for images will be pixels which we must convert to a physical unit such as inches. I composed the following image to help you out:

(http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/MC_rifle1.jpg)

I isolated the areas we intend to measure, doubled the resolution and brightened it up enough to clearly make out the ends of the MC. Fortunately, the rifle is almost orthogonal to the POV so there will be no foreshortening to consider. This occurs when one end of an object is farther away from the camera than the other end which compresses the image. The image length is reduced by the cosine of the angle of the lean away from (or towards) the camera. In this case the lean is negligible so we can take direct measurements of the rifle on the image.

In the image I posted I took measurements from the middle of the buttend to the end of the barrel, to the sights, to the piece that Oswald supposedly smuggled into the TSBD in a paper bag (34"), and to the end of the action at the forend. Then I measured the width of the far end of the box.

Note that I cut and pasted horizontal strips of the measurements  at the upper left corner of the image so you can count the pixels for each measurement. Copy and paste this image into MS Paint and hold your cursor at the end of each segment and note the pixel x,y (bottom left corner of Paint). Also note that I placed the measurement of the box as the bottom segment which I denoted with a red bullseye. That is the pixel width for the box. Because it is so close to the rifle, we can assume that both objects occupy the same plane and are commonly scaled.

For example: The rifle part without the barrel which Oswald supposedly smuggled into the TSBD is thought to be 34". In my prev image, that measurement on the MC is 894 pixels long.

(http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/MC_rifle5.gif)

This segment is 894 pixels / 34 inches = 26.3 pixels/inch (specific to this image). The box width is 426 pixels (red bullseye) @ 26.3 pixels/inch = 16.2 inches. This tells me that the 34" measurement of the barrelless MC is accurate.

Now it's your turn to measure these lengths (inches) on your own MC for the segments on the image I posted, and calculate the pixels/inch ratios. They should ALL be 26.3 pixels/inch to be an authentic MC as portrayed in the image. Let me know if the rifle matches yours. Otherwise, forget about the box.

Since you seem to be very good at analyzing photos.....Here's the deal....  I don't believe that the rifle in the photo was actually there.

1st off ---I believe the photo was taken at night..... The rifle was discovered at 1:22pm and the in situ photo was allegedly taken before 1:45pm , so the area should be bathed in bright sunshine from the window that was in the west wall.

2nd --- If the photo was taken at night then the carcano wouldn't have been available , because the FBI took custody of it. and it was in Wash DC

3rd--- The stock on the rifle does not look like the stock of a carcano but the muzzle does look like a carcano.

I wonder if they could have used a mauser ( the stock looks like a mauser)  to take the photo and then altered the photo by placing the photo of the muzzle of a carcano ( we know they had many photos of the carcano.) on the photo.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 14, 2021, 10:30:21 PM
Since you seem to be very good at analyzing photos.....Here's the deal....  I don't believe that the rifle in the photo was actually there.

1st off ---I believe the photo was taken at night..... The rifle was discovered at 1:22pm and the in situ photo was allegedly taken before 1:45pm , so the area should be bathed in bright sunshine from the window that was in the west wall.

2nd --- If the photo was taken at night then the carcano wouldn't have been available , because the FBI took custody of it. and it was in Wash DC

3rd--- The stock on the rifle does not look like the stock of a carcano but the muzzle does look like a carcano.

I wonder if they could have used a mauser ( the stock looks like a mauser)  to take the photo and then altered the photo by placing the photo of the muzzle of a carcano ( we know they had many photos of the carcano.) on the photo.

1) The shadows in the photo are very pronounced and were not created from the camera flash. The light source came from the right of frame either from the sun or lighting on the 6th floor. If you had a surveyed overhead image of the TSBD (Google Maps) and knew the layout of the 6th floor relative to North, and knew the sun angle at 1:45pm on that fateful day (which any astronomy program can give you) then you could tell whether the shadows contradict the timeline. But that's way too much work, and who would believe you? But fill your boots.

2) Yes, unless the rifle was photographed when the DPD claims they are busted..again, just add it to the plethora of other shenanigans they were up to. How come Alyea wasn't allowed to film the rifle in situ? Because Fritz called the shots.

3) I agree that the stock does not match the MC but the forend definitely matches the MC. If you rotate the rifle Day is holding up ~90 degrees along its axis so it is perpendicular to the floor, it's a perfect match, which includes the 2 screws.

(http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/MC_compare.gif)

However, I couldn't make the rifles match over their entire length when I scaled the forends to match. I couldn't attribute the discrepancies to a simple rotation or foreshortening.

You should be able to settle this by setting your MC down in a similar orientation and take some pics from the same POV and compare the images. You should be able to either match the in situ photo exactly or the gun is smoking. Then you could answer all your own questions. That is unless you don't actually have a MC. Then I would understand your reluctance.

Considering how Fritz controlled the crime scene and exactly how it got documented, including staging an in situ photo of the 3 hulls, which he removed from his pocket and tossed onto the floor in the sniper's nest and had a rookie cop take the photo, I wouldn't doubt that the photo of the MC ditched neatly beside the box is just more Fritz bullspombleprofglidnoctobunse. Add it to the list. Otherwise, I'm done with this one until you post your re-enactment photo with your MC.

Good luck!



Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 14, 2021, 11:51:01 PM
1) The shadows in the photo are very pronounced and were not created from the camera flash. The light source came from the right of frame either from the sun or lighting on the 6th floor. If you had a surveyed overhead image of the TSBD (Google Maps) and knew the layout of the 6th floor relative to North, and knew the sun angle at 1:45pm on that fateful day (which any astronomy program can give you) then you could tell whether the shadows contradict the timeline. But that's way too much work, and who would believe you? But fill your boots.

2) Yes, unless the rifle was photographed when the DPD claims they are busted..again, just add it to the plethora of other shenanigans they were up to. How come Alyea wasn't allowed to film the rifle in situ? Because Fritz called the shots.

3) I agree that the stock does not match the MC but the forend definitely matches the MC. If you rotate the rifle Day is holding up ~90 degrees along its axis so it is perpendicular to the floor, it's a perfect match, which includes the 2 screws.

(http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/MC_compare.gif)

However, I couldn't make the rifles match over their entire length when I scaled the forends to match. I couldn't attribute the discrepancies to a simple rotation or foreshortening.

You should be able to settle this by setting your MC down in a similar orientation and take some pics from the same POV and compare the images. You should be able to either match the in situ photo exactly or the gun is smoking. Then you could answer all your own questions. That is unless you don't actually have a MC. Then I would understand your reluctance.

Considering how Fritz controlled the crime scene and exactly how it got documented, including staging an in situ photo of the 3 hulls, which he removed from his pocket and tossed onto the floor in the sniper's nest and had a rookie cop take the photo, I wouldn't doubt that the photo of the MC ditched neatly beside the box is just more Fritz bullspombleprofglidnoctobunse. Add it to the list. Otherwise, I'm done with this one until you post your re-enactment photo with your MC.

Good luck!

The shadows in the photo are very pronounced and were not created from the camera flash. The light source came from the right of frame either from the sun or lighting on the 6th floor.

The shadows in the photo are very pronounced and were created by a bright light, ( the camera flash)  The light source came from the right of frame 

The photo was taken from the south of the rifle...The rifle is pointed directly east .....so north is away from the camera toward the top of the photo. ( this is verified by the map that Studebaker drew of the sixth floor , He designated the photo DP#22 and placed the arrow on that sight with the camera  pointing due north) The shadows appear to have been created by the camera flash....AND they are being cast slightly east from directly overhead, and since the sun wasn't inside the TSBD the shadow was not created by the sun. And the lighting inside the building was barely adequate.... ( There are many photos that show the old fashioned lighting)  However this location is only about three feet from the West window that would have had bright sunshine blazing through it at 1:45 pm.

I couldn't make the rifles match over their entire length when I scaled the forends to match. I couldn't attribute the discrepancies to a simple rotation or foreshortening.

I also cannot make the rifle in the photo match the actual true length ( 40.125")of a model 91/38 carcano... And I've used the muzzle end of the rifle in the photo as a scale.   The rifle in the photo is over two inches longer than a model 91/38....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 15, 2021, 05:13:55 PM
1) The shadows in the photo are very pronounced and were not created from the camera flash. The light source came from the right of frame either from the sun or lighting on the 6th floor. If you had a surveyed overhead image of the TSBD (Google Maps) and knew the layout of the 6th floor relative to North, and knew the sun angle at 1:45pm on that fateful day (which any astronomy program can give you) then you could tell whether the shadows contradict the timeline. But that's way too much work, and who would believe you? But fill your boots.

2) Yes, unless the rifle was photographed when the DPD claims they are busted..again, just add it to the plethora of other shenanigans they were up to. How come Alyea wasn't allowed to film the rifle in situ? Because Fritz called the shots.

3) I agree that the stock does not match the MC but the forend definitely matches the MC. If you rotate the rifle Day is holding up ~90 degrees along its axis so it is perpendicular to the floor, it's a perfect match, which includes the 2 screws.

(http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/MC_compare.gif)

However, I couldn't make the rifles match over their entire length when I scaled the forends to match. I couldn't attribute the discrepancies to a simple rotation or foreshortening.

You should be able to settle this by setting your MC down in a similar orientation and take some pics from the same POV and compare the images. You should be able to either match the in situ photo exactly or the gun is smoking. Then you could answer all your own questions. That is unless you don't actually have a MC. Then I would understand your reluctance.

Considering how Fritz controlled the crime scene and exactly how it got documented, including staging an in situ photo of the 3 hulls, which he removed from his pocket and tossed onto the floor in the sniper's nest and had a rookie cop take the photo, I wouldn't doubt that the photo of the MC ditched neatly beside the box is just more Fritz bullspombleprofglidnoctobunse. Add it to the list. Otherwise, I'm done with this one until you post your re-enactment photo with your MC.

Good luck!

 How come Alyea wasn't allowed to film the rifle in situ?

Does it make sense that Tom Alyea wouldn't have photographed the rifle as it was found?.....   Alyea was a reporter, I believe that he did in fact film the rifle as it was found.....   and of course they couldn't allow that film to be shown to the public.

Alyea has said that much of his film was "edited" and destroyed.....Hmmmmm??

I believe that Alyea's film showed the rifle at the bottom of the cavern of books ( as described by Roger Craig in his sworn testimony)   And Alyea's film made it clear that no mortal man could have placed that rifle at the bottom of that cavern if that person was standing in the aisle at the top of the stairs.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 16, 2021, 01:35:47 AM
How come Alyea wasn't allowed to film the rifle in situ?

Does it make sense that Tom Alyea wouldn't have photographed the rifle as it was found?.....   Alyea was a reporter, I believe that he did in fact film the rifle as it was found.....   and of course they couldn't allow that film to be shown to the public.

Alyea has said that much of his film was "edited" and destroyed.....Hmmmmm??

I believe that Alyea's film showed the rifle at the bottom of the cavern of books ( as described by Roger Craig in his sworn testimony)   And Alyea's film made it clear that no mortal man could have placed that rifle at the bottom of that cavern if that person was standing in the aisle at the top of the stairs.


(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)

Is the rifle at the bottom of the cavern of books ( as described by Roger Craig in his sworn testimony)

Mr. BELIN - When you say "between the cluster of boxes," could you describe which way the boxes were?
Mr. CRAIG - There was a row going east to west on the north side of the weapon, and a box going east to west on the south side of the weapon, and--uh--if I remember, uh--as you'd look down, you had to look kinda back under the north stack of boxes to see the rifle. It was pushed kinda under---uh---or up tight against 'em---you know, where it would be hard to see. And, of course, both ends of the rows were closed off where you couldn't see through 'em. You had to get up and look in 'em.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 16, 2021, 04:31:01 AM
You forced me to have another look at the rifle photo and I tried to figure out where the light source was coming from that would cast shadows like that. This had to be a flash bulb held in an extended right hand like the old days so the flash wouldn't interfere with the shot. The problem is we are dealing with low quality digital imagery which has no provenance. But there are a few things re the image itself that seem odd to me.

The boxes look arranged to create cover for the ditched MC. Otherwise, Oswald would have had to slide the MC in from the left into the cavern. So it is more likely Oswald laid down the rifle upright on the floor and leaned it against the box in the middle and pulled the other 2 boxes over to somewhat cover the MC. If this was the case, then the DPD must have found Oswald's prints on those boxes, right? Did they find any? Also, you don't damage your scope and put it grossly out of alignment by easing it down and leaning it against some boxes.

All the shadows made sense except for one, providing it is a shadow. When the MC is upright on the floor, there is a big gap where the buttend touches the floor and the stock disappears behind the box. In the photo the whole stock looks dark and it does not show any gap. Therefore the gap must be in shadow so we can't see it. However, I tried to brighten the stock up to resolve the gap but I just got artifacts due to the spombleprofglidnoctobunsty quality of the image. At any rate, if that is not a shadow under the stock then is it an MC stock? If it is a shadow then why is it in the front between the stock and the camera? Or is it just an optical illusion?

I hope the following image displays (it doesn't for me). Otherwise click the link below.

Photo of MC & boxes (http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/MC_boxes_shadow.png)

The only one who can put this one to bed is you Walt. If you actually have the same model MC that was found at the TSBD then you can create a reenactment of this photo and either confirm or refute that this was an authentic photo of a MC. Reenactments are the only method for a layman to analyse photos. They are deadly accurate and they don't lie.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Rick Plant on February 16, 2021, 10:48:45 AM
Wouldn't this just be more of his insanity? 

No, I don't think so.....Craig never made an issue of the position of the rifle on the floor. Like he did with insisting that he saw "7.65 Mauser stamped right there on the barrel.

But you've raised the exact reason that I have no respect for Roger Craig.....  He destroyed his credibility with his lying.  Just as you now doubt his report of the rifle ON THE FLOOR.    HOWEVER in the case of the rifle ON THE FLOOR we do have Tom Alyea's film which does show the rifle ON THE FLOOR just as Craig described it.

What does that have to do with anything? Of course Craig would make an issue about an important discovery. You happen not to agree with that portion of his testimony, so you call him mentally ill to discredit him. 

Craig was right about the rifle on the floor just like he perfectly described in exact detail of the stamped 7.65 Mauser he witnessed and was right about that as well.   

Weitzman confirmed it was a Mauser when he picked it up. He identified the weapon. Weitzman was a pretty much a weapons expert and he even wrote in his report that a Mauser was located at the scene. So, we have two men that saw a Mauser and Craig never changed his testimony with what he witnessed, but yet you call him a liar and mentally ill. So, are you going with the theory that the Mauser was misidentified for a Manlicher-Carcano even though Weitzman was a weapons expert and wrote a report about a Mauser? 

So basically, you like to pick and choose which piece of Roger Criag's testimony you like and then you call him mentally ill for which piece doesn't fit your narrative.   

Walt, you can't call a man mentally ill discounting what says and then agree with him for the rest of what he says. It doesn't work that way.   
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 16, 2021, 04:01:22 PM
What does that have to do with anything? Of course Craig would make an issue about an important discovery. You happen not to agree with that portion of his testimony, so you call him mentally ill to discredit him. 

Craig was right about the rifle on the floor just like he perfectly described in exact detail of the stamped 7.65 Mauser he witnessed and was right about that as well.   

Weitzman confirmed it was a Mauser when he picked it up. He identified the weapon. Weitzman was a pretty much a weapons expert and he even wrote in his report that a Mauser was located at the scene. So, we have two men that saw a Mauser and Craig never changed his testimony with what he witnessed, but yet you call him a liar and mentally ill. So, are you going with the theory that the Mauser was misidentified for a Manlicher-Carcano even though Weitzman was a weapons expert and wrote a report about a Mauser? 

So basically, you like to pick and choose which piece of Roger Criag's testimony you like and then you call him mentally ill for which piece doesn't fit your narrative.   

Walt, you can't call a man mentally ill discounting what says and then agree with him for the rest of what he says. It doesn't work that way.

Craig was right about the rifle on the floor ....

Yes indeed he was....He saw the rifle ON THE FLOOR....just as Boone and Weitzman and Alyea also saw it LYING ON THE FLOOR

 Now I ask you....Is the rifle in this photo  LYING ON THE FLOOR  ??
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)

Before you answer allow me to point out, that the barrel APPEARS TO BE PARALLEL with the floor.....Would the barrel be parallel with the floor if the rifle was lying on the floor? Please notice that the muzzle portion of the rifle is parallel with the box behind it. That box is sitting on the floor ( so obviously it is parallel with the floor)  But the rifle is larger at the butt end than it is at the muzzle so if the rifle were actually on the floor the barrel WOULD NOT be parallel with the floor. ( The bottom of the butt is 6 inches lower than the muzzle when the rifle is held level. IOW The barrel of the rifle should be about 12 degrees relative to the floor and NOT parallel to the floor.) 


Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 16, 2021, 04:56:29 PM
What does that have to do with anything? Of course Craig would make an issue about an important discovery. You happen not to agree with that portion of his testimony, so you call him mentally ill to discredit him. 

Craig was right about the rifle on the floor just like he perfectly described in exact detail of the stamped 7.65 Mauser he witnessed and was right about that as well.   

Weitzman confirmed it was a Mauser when he picked it up. He identified the weapon. Weitzman was a pretty much a weapons expert and he even wrote in his report that a Mauser was located at the scene. So, we have two men that saw a Mauser and Craig never changed his testimony with what he witnessed, but yet you call him a liar and mentally ill. So, are you going with the theory that the Mauser was misidentified for a Manlicher-Carcano even though Weitzman was a weapons expert and wrote a report about a Mauser? 

So basically, you like to pick and choose which piece of Roger Criag's testimony you like and then you call him mentally ill for which piece doesn't fit your narrative.   

Walt, you can't call a man mentally ill discounting what says and then agree with him for the rest of what he says. It doesn't work that way.

Rick...I truly appreciate your response.....  Like a pick up game of basketball....the game is much more interesting if there is an opponent.

 "You happen not to agree with that portion of his testimony, so you call him mentally ill to discredit him."

I'm sure that Craig was embellishing the story that he had heard from Weitzman....  Weitzman had in fact seen and examined a 7.65 Mauser and described that mauser for the FBI agent ( we can only speculate WHY Fritz wanted Weitzman to examine and describe a 7.65 mauser for the FBI)

So Craig was lying about that aspect....  But when he testified before the Warren Commission he said NOTHING about having seen "7.65 mauser stamped right there on the barrel" That came many years later.    However, Craig DID tell the Warren Commission that he saw the rifle at the bottom of a chasm of boxes.   Craig described that chasm as being enclosed on four sides and about five feet deep.  The in situ photo which allegedly was taken before anything was moved does NOT show a rifle lying on the floor at the bottom of a chasm.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 16, 2021, 06:41:14 PM
What does that have to do with anything? Of course Craig would make an issue about an important discovery. You happen not to agree with that portion of his testimony, so you call him mentally ill to discredit him. 

Craig was right about the rifle on the floor just like he perfectly described in exact detail of the stamped 7.65 Mauser he witnessed and was right about that as well.   

Weitzman confirmed it was a Mauser when he picked it up. He identified the weapon. Weitzman was a pretty much a weapons expert and he even wrote in his report that a Mauser was located at the scene. So, we have two men that saw a Mauser and Craig never changed his testimony with what he witnessed, but yet you call him a liar and mentally ill. So, are you going with the theory that the Mauser was misidentified for a Manlicher-Carcano even though Weitzman was a weapons expert and wrote a report about a Mauser? 

So basically, you like to pick and choose which piece of Roger Criag's testimony you like and then you call him mentally ill for which piece doesn't fit your narrative.   

Walt, you can't call a man mentally ill discounting what says and then agree with him for the rest of what he says. It doesn't work that way.


"Weitzman confirmed it was a Mauser when he picked it up. He identified the weapon. Weitzman was a pretty much a weapons expert and he even wrote in his report that a Mauser was located at the scene. So, we have two men that saw a Mauser and Craig never changed his testimony with what he witnessed, but yet you call him a liar and mentally ill. So, are you going with the theory that the Mauser was misidentified for a Manlicher-Carcano even though Weitzman was a weapons expert and wrote a report about a Mauser?"

Weitzman confirmed it was a Mauser when he picked it up---  Weitzman nor anybody else picked up the rifle, until Lt Day picked it up.   

 He identified the weapon.--- Weitzman ventured a guess that it was a mauser....He couldn't see much of the rifle at the bottom of the dark chasm.

Weitzman was a pretty much a weapons expert --- No Seymour Weitzman was not a weapons expert

 he even wrote in his report that a Mauser was located at the scene.  Please post that report.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 16, 2021, 08:49:31 PM
You forced me to have another look at the rifle photo and I tried to figure out where the light source was coming from that would cast shadows like that. This had to be a flash bulb held in an extended right hand like the old days so the flash wouldn't interfere with the shot. The problem is we are dealing with low quality digital imagery which has no provenance. But there are a few things re the image itself that seem odd to me.

The boxes look arranged to create cover for the ditched MC. Otherwise, Oswald would have had to slide the MC in from the left into the cavern. So it is more likely Oswald laid down the rifle upright on the floor and leaned it against the box in the middle and pulled the other 2 boxes over to somewhat cover the MC. If this was the case, then the DPD must have found Oswald's prints on those boxes, right? Did they find any? Also, you don't damage your scope and put it grossly out of alignment by easing it down and leaning it against some boxes.

All the shadows made sense except for one, providing it is a shadow. When the MC is upright on the floor, there is a big gap where the buttend touches the floor and the stock disappears behind the box. In the photo the whole stock looks dark and it does not show any gap. Therefore the gap must be in shadow so we can't see it. However, I tried to brighten the stock up to resolve the gap but I just got artifacts due to the spombleprofglidnoctobunsty quality of the image. At any rate, if that is not a shadow under the stock then is it an MC stock? If it is a shadow then why is it in the front between the stock and the camera? Or is it just an optical illusion?

I hope the following image displays (it doesn't for me).

(http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/MC_boxes_shadow.png)

The only one who can put this one to bed is you Walt. If you actually have the same model MC that was found at the TSBD then you can create a reenactment of this photo and either confirm or refute that this was an authentic photo of a MC. Reenactments are the only method for a layman to analyse photos. They are deadly accurate and they don't lie.


The boxes look arranged to create cover for the ditched MC. Otherwise, Oswald would have had to slide the MC in from the left into the cavern. So it is more likely Oswald laid down the rifle upright on the floor and leaned it against the box in the middle and pulled the other 2 boxes over to somewhat cover the MC.


Oswald Did nothing in placing this rifle in place....  It was placed there by the DPD when they created the fake in situ photo.

However....IF Lee had placed the rifle as it is shown he "would have had to  slide the MC in from the left into the cavern. So it is more likely Oswald laid down the rifle upright on the floor and leaned it against the box in the middle and pulled the other 2 boxes over to somewhat cover the MC."

How much time would you estimate would have been needed to accomplish the act described ?....     More than one second?

Remember that according to the WC Lee arrived in the 2nd floor lunchroom just one second before Baker arrived at the top of the stairs.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 16, 2021, 10:25:04 PM
I may be mistaken, but I don’t think that and gunpowder residue was found in the grooves of the rifled barrel of the MC rifle or in the breech.

So if I’m correct, add this to Walts observation that apparently no one mentioned and smell of gunpowder when examining the alleged recently fired approx 50 min earlier rifle.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 16, 2021, 11:59:15 PM
I may be mistaken, but I don’t think that and gunpowder residue was found in the grooves of the rifled barrel of the MC rifle or in the breech.

So if I’m correct, add this to Walts observation that apparently no one mentioned and smell of gunpowder when examining the alleged recently fired approx 50 min earlier rifle.

Thank you for placing a little icing on the cake Mr Mason.  And you're quite right ...If that rifle had been fired less than an hour prior to the discovery, that chasm where Boone and Weitzman discovered the rifle, would have reeked of the smell of gunpowder.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Rick Plant on February 17, 2021, 12:29:47 PM

Weitzman confirmed it was a Mauser when he picked it up---  Weitzman nor anybody else picked up the rifle, until Lt Day picked it up.

Lt. Day and Captain Fritz both handled the rifle. Fritz was holding it when Weitzman identified it as a Mauser.       

 
He identified the weapon.--- Weitzman ventured a guess that it was a mauser....He couldn't see much of the rifle at the bottom of the dark chasm.

So, you're supporting the Warren Commission findings. Weitzman saw a lot of the rifle. He identified the rifle when Fritz was holding the rifle.

Weitzman was a pretty much a weapons expert --- No Seymour Weitzman was not a weapons expert

Weitzman previously ran a sporting goods store and he knew weapons which is why he knew it was a Mauser until he changed it to a Manlicher-Carcano. What kind of a store owner doesn't know the merchandise he's selling?   
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Rick Plant on February 17, 2021, 12:57:40 PM
Rick...I truly appreciate your response.....  Like a pick up game of basketball....the game is much more interesting if there is an opponent.

 "You happen not to agree with that portion of his testimony, so you call him mentally ill to discredit him."

I'm sure that Craig was embellishing the story that he had heard from Weitzman....  Weitzman had in fact seen and examined a 7.65 Mauser and described that mauser for the FBI agent ( we can only speculate WHY Fritz wanted Weitzman to examine and describe a 7.65 mauser for the FBI)

So Craig was lying about that aspect....  But when he testified before the Warren Commission he said NOTHING about having seen "7.65 mauser stamped right there on the barrel" That came many years later. However, Craig DID tell the Warren Commission that he saw the rifle at the bottom of a chasm of boxes. Craig described that chasm as being enclosed on four sides and about five feet deep.  The in situ photo which allegedly was taken before anything was moved does NOT show a rifle lying on the floor at the bottom of a chasm.

 :D :D :D

Walt, if you're going to be like Doyle by making up nonsene to fit your narrative then I'm out. It serves no purpose to have a discussion because the goal posts keep moving and only new fabrications keep being presented.

Craig was right there next to Weitzman when he identified the weapon as a Mauser. That is witness testimony.

We don't have to speculate anything. Weitzman identified the rifle as a Mauser after Fritz asked if anybody knew what type it was. Since Weitzman knew weapons he was able to make a positive identification of the Mauser until he changed his story.

So what? Just because Craig did not state that before the commission doesn't mean he is lying or "mentally ill" as you claim. His testimony is consistent with what Weitzman originally stated until he changed his testimony.   
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 17, 2021, 05:22:18 PM
Lt. Day and Captain Fritz both handled the rifle. Fritz was holding it when Weitzman identified it as a Mauser.       

 
So, you're supporting the Warren Commission findings. Weitzman saw a lot of the rifle. He identified the rifle when Fritz was holding the rifle.

Weitzman previously ran a sporting goods store and he knew weapons which is why he knew it was a Mauser until he changed it to a Manlicher-Carcano. What kind of a store owner doesn't know the merchandise he's selling?

Weitzman saw a lot of the rifle. He identified the rifle when Fritz was holding the rifle.

Nonsense!....  Anybody who has seen the film clip of Fritz examining the model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano just seconds after Lt Day picked it up by the leather strap, can verify that Weitzman , nor Craig were anywhere close enough to read anyof the small stamping on the carcano.    Use your head, man. 

Weitzman previously ran a sporting goods store

This is an often repeated distortion.....  Seymour Weitzman did not operate a "Sporting goods store".  Weitzman operated a variety store that also sold some sporting goods.   Weitzman himself said that he was not an "expert" on firearms. 

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 17, 2021, 05:30:01 PM
:D :D :D

Walt, if you're going to be like Doyle by making up nonsene to fit your narrative then I'm out. It serves no purpose to have a discussion because the goal posts keep moving and only new fabrications keep being presented.

Craig was right there next to Weitzman when he identified the weapon as a Mauser. That is witness testimony.

We don't have to speculate anything. Weitzman identified the rifle as a Mauser after Fritz asked if anybody knew what type it was. Since Weitzman knew weapons he was able to make a positive identification of the Mauser until he changed his story.

So what? Just because Craig did not state that before the commission doesn't mean he is lying or "mentally ill" as you claim. His testimony is consistent with what Weitzman originally stated until he changed his testimony.

Walt, if you're going to be like Doyle by making up nonsene to fit your narrative then I'm out. It serves no purpose to have a discussion because the goal posts keep moving and only new fabrications keep being presented.

Yes, I agree completely.... So let's use our heads and determine the FACTS....   

Do you agree that the film that shows Lt Day picking up the rifle, clearly shows that the rifle is a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano?  Simply question....is your answer Yes, or no......
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 17, 2021, 05:56:20 PM
You forced me to have another look at the rifle photo and I tried to figure out where the light source was coming from that would cast shadows like that. This had to be a flash bulb held in an extended right hand like the old days so the flash wouldn't interfere with the shot. The problem is we are dealing with low quality digital imagery which has no provenance. But there are a few things re the image itself that seem odd to me.

The boxes look arranged to create cover for the ditched MC. Otherwise, Oswald would have had to slide the MC in from the left into the cavern. So it is more likely Oswald laid down the rifle upright on the floor and leaned it against the box in the middle and pulled the other 2 boxes over to somewhat cover the MC. If this was the case, then the DPD must have found Oswald's prints on those boxes, right? Did they find any? Also, you don't damage your scope and put it grossly out of alignment by easing it down and leaning it against some boxes.

All the shadows made sense except for one, providing it is a shadow. When the MC is upright on the floor, there is a big gap where the buttend touches the floor and the stock disappears behind the box. In the photo the whole stock looks dark and it does not show any gap. Therefore the gap must be in shadow so we can't see it. However, I tried to brighten the stock up to resolve the gap but I just got artifacts due to the spombleprofglidnoctobunsty quality of the image. At any rate, if that is not a shadow under the stock then is it an MC stock? If it is a shadow then why is it in the front between the stock and the camera? Or is it just an optical illusion?

I hope the following image displays (it doesn't for me).

(http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/MC_boxes_shadow.png)

The only one who can put this one to bed is you Walt. If you actually have the same model MC that was found at the TSBD then you can create a reenactment of this photo and either confirm or refute that this was an authentic photo of a MC. Reenactments are the only method for a layman to analyse photos. They are deadly accurate and they don't lie.

The only one who can put this one to bed is you Walt.

Jack, I can't accomplish much by myself.....  I need an honest person to debate....  Someone who will listen and respond honestly.    I'm convinced that this photo is a composite ..... 

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)

(http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/MC_boxes_shadow.png)

That rifle was never in the photo ....  When the photo is scrutinized the rifle appears to be floating in midair..... and the reason it appears to be floating without any support is because if the rifle were resting on the floor there would be only two points  of contact would be at the butt and the muzzle , and the muzzle would be about 6 inches lower than the bottom of the butt.
 ( IOW--- the rifle would not be level  ie; parallel to the floor, as it appears in the photo) 

I believe the rifle was photographically added to the photo.....

Question.... Wouldn't the barrel of the rifle have cast a shadow onto the floor ??
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 18, 2021, 12:10:27 AM
If the Carcano was there why the need for a composite photo?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Alan Ford on February 18, 2021, 12:47:28 AM
The only one who can put this one to bed is you Walt.

Jack, I can't accomplish much by myself.....  I need an honest person to debate....  Someone who will listen and respond honestly.    I'm convinced that this photo is a composite ..... 

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)

Is the rifle straight?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 18, 2021, 12:52:10 AM
If the Carcano was there why the need for a composite photo?

 The DPD took an in situ photo of the rifle at the bottom of the chasm that was formed by the stacked boxes of books. They snapped that photo at about 1:45 that afternoon..... But they soon realized that the in situ photo they had taken clearly showed that Lee Oswald COULD NOT have deposited the rifle during a hasty dash from the SE corner of the sixth floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom.
They knew that it would have taken several minutes to place the rifle in the bottom of that chasm, and then cover the top opening with boxes of books.  They recognized that they needed to destroy the in situ photo they had taken and create another photo that would support the tale they were perpetrating.

If the Carcano was there why the need for a composite photo?

The Carcano wasn't there.....The FBI had snapped it up and whisked it off to Washington DC at midnight 11/22/63. But the DPD did have many photos of the carcano so it wasn't very difficult to take a photo without a rifle in it and then place the rifle in the photo.   But don't take my word for it... EXAMINE the official in situ photo for yourself.....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 18, 2021, 12:55:14 AM
Is the rifle straight?

Is the rifle straight?

I'd love to answer that question but i'm not sure what it is that you are asking......Are you asking if the rifle barrel aligns with the stock ?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Alan Ford on February 18, 2021, 01:00:23 AM
Is the rifle straight?

I'd love to answer that question but i'm not sure what it is that you are asking......Are you asking if the rifle barrel aligns with the stock ?

Forget it, my mistake.

Forgive what is probably a dumb question, but the rifle is laid down on its side here, right? It just looks that way (to my eyes anyway) with the barrel but not with the stock?

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 18, 2021, 01:12:21 AM
Forget it, my mistake

You asked a question....Is the rifle straight?   No, the rifle is NOT straight!....the barrel doe not align with the stock....the barrel appears to be twisted relative to the stock.....   Although this is hard to discern the barrel seems to be rotated slightly counterclockwise relative to the stock.

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Alan Ford on February 18, 2021, 02:07:05 AM
You asked a question....Is the rifle straight?   No, the rifle is NOT straight!....the barrel doe not align with the stock....the barrel appears to be twisted relative to the stock.....   Although this is hard to discern the barrel seems to be rotated slightly counterclockwise relative to the stock.

I edited my last post, Mr Cakebread
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 18, 2021, 02:46:36 AM
I edited my last post, Mr Cakebread

Sorry, if you don't like the answer.....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Alan Ford on February 18, 2021, 03:02:52 AM
Sorry, if you don't like the answer.....

Maybe try reading my edit before assuming I don't like the answer
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 18, 2021, 04:26:11 AM
Maybe try reading my edit before assuming I don't like the answer

I didn't see this in your post... Possibly a pop up obscured it....   Damn pop-ups 
My apology  Mr F..... Sorry.

the rifle is laid down on its side here, right? It just looks that way (to my eyes anyway) with the barrel but not with the stock?

No, the rifle is not on it's side  ( But the men who saw the rifle on the floor said that it was lying on it's side, and the Alyea film shows Lt Day reach out and grab the leather sling....which verifies he eyewitness description of the orientation of the rifle,  and Lt Day could not have reached that leather sling if the rifle had been standing with the leather sling on the far side of the rifle.

the rifle is laid down on its side here, right? It just looks that way ---- with the barrel but not with the stock?

The barrel does appear to be twisted in relation to the stock, but the rifle is not lying on it's side. .
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 18, 2021, 01:38:52 PM
I was looking for the shadow of the rifle.
Looking at the box that obscures the rifle it is possible to get a general idea of which way the shadow falls.
It should be possible to see the shadow of the end of the butt of the rifle being cast away and to the left from the PoV of the camera and I believe it is.
In the pic below note the white reflection of the camera flash on the stock of the rifle.
Note, that towards the butt of the rifle this reflection stops abruptly but there is still a dark patch.
I believe the dark patch is shadow which is why it is not reflecting the camera flash:

(https://i.postimg.cc/j2hbg4yD/hiddenrifle-4.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

On a different point - I noticed that there is a box resting on top of the box that obscures most of the rifle.
This means the rifle was slid along the ground from the left or that the rifle was placed in there and at least one box was then placed over the gap. If it wasn't possible to slide the rifle in from the left we can't seriously assume Oswald took the time to mess about putting boxes over where he hid the rifle:

(https://i.postimg.cc/7PJX3Lqy/hiddenrifle-5.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

I also note a small white cloth next to the rifle. Is this what Oswald was supposed to have wiped the rifle down with? I can't find any mention of it anywhere.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 18, 2021, 07:44:36 PM
I was looking for the shadow of the rifle.
Looking at the box that obscures the rifle it is possible to get a general idea of which way the shadow falls.
It should be possible to see the shadow of the end of the butt of the rifle being cast away and to the left from the PoV of the camera and I believe it is.
In the pic below note the white reflection of the camera flash on the stock of the rifle.
Note, that towards the butt of the rifle this reflection stops abruptly but there is still a dark patch.
I believe the dark patch is shadow which is why it is not reflecting the camera flash:

(https://i.postimg.cc/j2hbg4yD/hiddenrifle-4.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

On a different point - I noticed that there is a box resting on top of the box that obscures most of the rifle.
This means the rifle was slid along the ground from the left or that the rifle was placed in there and at least one box was then placed over the gap. If it wasn't possible to slide the rifle in from the left we can't seriously assume Oswald took the time to mess about putting boxes over where he hid the rifle:

(https://i.postimg.cc/7PJX3Lqy/hiddenrifle-5.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

I also note a small white cloth next to the rifle. Is this what Oswald was supposed to have wiped the rifle down with? I can't find any mention of it anywhere.

Thanks for looking at the photo, Dan....

In the pic below note the white reflection of the camera flash on the stock of the rifle.
Note, that towards the butt of the rifle this reflection stops abruptly but there is still a dark patch.
I believe the dark patch is shadow which is why it is not reflecting the camera flash:


I agree Dan, and that would indicate that the rifle was actually there for the photo....And that shadow was created by the camera flash.    However, It also confirms that the rifle was NOT laying on it's side....And we know from the witnesses and the Alyea film that the rifle WAS IN FACT laying on it's right side ( leather sling up) when Lt Day picked up the rifle, and the in situ photo (DP#22 )was taken BEFORE the rifle was picked up by Day.   So this photo is a fake. 
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 18, 2021, 08:39:23 PM
I was looking for the shadow of the rifle.
Looking at the box that obscures the rifle it is possible to get a general idea of which way the shadow falls.
It should be possible to see the shadow of the end of the butt of the rifle being cast away and to the left from the PoV of the camera and I believe it is.
In the pic below note the white reflection of the camera flash on the stock of the rifle.
Note, that towards the butt of the rifle this reflection stops abruptly but there is still a dark patch.
I believe the dark patch is shadow which is why it is not reflecting the camera flash:

(https://i.postimg.cc/j2hbg4yD/hiddenrifle-4.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

On a different point - I noticed that there is a box resting on top of the box that obscures most of the rifle.
This means the rifle was slid along the ground from the left or that the rifle was placed in there and at least one box was then placed over the gap. If it wasn't possible to slide the rifle in from the left we can't seriously assume Oswald took the time to mess about putting boxes over where he hid the rifle:

(https://i.postimg.cc/7PJX3Lqy/hiddenrifle-5.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

I also note a small white cloth next to the rifle. Is this what Oswald was supposed to have wiped the rifle down with? I can't find any mention of it anywhere.


I guess you don't like to read any posts before the current page. To recap: the boxes look arranged to create cover for the ditched MC, otherwise, Oswald would have had to slide the MC in from the left into the box hole. So it is more likely Oswald set the rifle upright on the floor and leaned it against the box in the middle and pulled the other 2 boxes forward to create the box hole to somewhat cover the MC. But Oswald's prints weren't on those boxes.

The light source in the photo had to be a flash bulb held in an extended right hand as shown in my graphic the shadows from the MC & boxes (http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/MC_boxes_shadow.png). I agree that the reflection of the flash can be seen on the stock, but perhaps not the same light source as the rest of the photo.

The shadows made sense except for one, providing it is a shadow. Note in my graphic the orientation of the MC on the floor leaning against box A. There was a large gap under the stock where the buttend touched the floor and the stock disappears behind the box. From the camera's POV, it would be unlikely not to see the gap, however, in the photo the whole stock looks dark and it does not show any gap. Therefore, we must assume that the gap must be in shadow so we can't see it. However, when the stock is brightened to resolve the gap I got artifacts due to the crappy quality of the digital image. But even if it is a shadow, it should project the contoured outline of the gap onto the floor, not a straight line that appears to be in front of the stock. There isn't a similar shadow on the floor from box B behind the rifle. So what kind of optical illusion is this?

Like I said previously the only one who can move the discussion forward is Walt (or anyone else with a matching MC). If Walt actually has the exact same model MC as depicted in the photo, then he can prove it's a fake with a reenactment of this photo. He can also confirm where the flash was held by replicating the shadows and either confirming or refuting whether this was an authentic photo or a fake darkroom creation. Walt knows that he could possibly debunk this photo with a reenactment but he chooses not to. I wonder why?

Also Walt, even after you finally admit that there was a Mauser at the TSBD, and that the Alyea film was heavily censored and Fritz choreographed the documenting of the crime scene, and that the MC photo was faked, how the hell do you have the gall to still cling to your original assessment of Craig? How can you possible assume that he did not read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel if you can't trust ANY of the film or testimony in this case? I think you owe Craig's family an apology and the only way to redeem yourself is to create a reenactment of this photo with your MC and prove that it was faked and Craig was telling the truth.  ;)

You've got nothing better to do, right? Godspeed Walt!
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 18, 2021, 09:23:31 PM
Thanks for looking at the photo, Dan....

In the pic below note the white reflection of the camera flash on the stock of the rifle.
Note, that towards the butt of the rifle this reflection stops abruptly but there is still a dark patch.
I believe the dark patch is shadow which is why it is not reflecting the camera flash:


I agree Dan, and that would indicate that the rifle was actually there for the photo....And that shadow was created by the camera flash.    However, It also confirms that the rifle was NOT laying on it's side....And we know from the witnesses and the Alyea film that the rifle WAS IN FACT laying on it's right side ( leather sling up) when Lt Day picked up the rifle, and the in situ photo (DP#22 )was taken BEFORE the rifle was picked up by Day.   So this photo is a fake.

Agreed. The rifle in the pic is definitely not lying on its side. If it was, the whole side of the stock would reflect the flash of the camera. As it is, just the top curved edge running the length of the stock reflects the light, proving it is not lying on its side.
If this is meant to be a pic of the rifle in the position it was originally found I would have to question the notion of a fleeing assassin taking the time to carefully place it in this position, as I find the possibility in ended up it its upright position after being thrown or slid in there so remote as to not bother with. It could have landed like that by some near miraculous fluke, it's not impossible, just so unlikely as to not take seriously.

Not knowing much about this particular aspect of the case - why is this photo the fake and not DP#22?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 18, 2021, 09:39:20 PM
I guess you don't like to read any posts before the current page. To recap: the boxes look arranged to create cover for the ditched MC, otherwise, Oswald would have had to slide the MC in from the left into the box hole. So it is more likely Oswald set the rifle upright on the floor and leaned it against the box in the middle and pulled the other 2 boxes forward to create the box hole to somewhat cover the MC. But Oswald's prints weren't on those boxes.

The fleeing assassin starts re-arranging boxes?
Hmmmm....
Not convinced.

What about this - the Toytown Carcano was already snugly in position while the assassin used a real rifle to assassinate JFK?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 18, 2021, 09:58:12 PM
I guess you don't like to read any posts before the current page. To recap: the boxes look arranged to create cover for the ditched MC, otherwise, Oswald would have had to slide the MC in from the left into the box hole. So it is more likely Oswald set the rifle upright on the floor and leaned it against the box in the middle and pulled the other 2 boxes forward to create the box hole to somewhat cover the MC. But Oswald's prints weren't on those boxes.

The light source in the photo had to be a flash bulb held in an extended right hand as shown in my graphic the shadows from the MC & boxes (http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/MC_boxes_shadow.png). I agree that the reflection of the flash can be seen on the stock, but perhaps not the same light source as the rest of the photo.

The shadows made sense except for one, providing it is a shadow. Note in my graphic the orientation of the MC on the floor leaning against box A. There was a large gap under the stock where the buttend touched the floor and the stock disappears behind the box. From the camera's POV, it would be unlikely not to see the gap, however, in the photo the whole stock looks dark and it does not show any gap. Therefore, we must assume that the gap must be in shadow so we can't see it. However, when the stock is brightened to resolve the gap I got artifacts due to the crappy quality of the digital image. But even if it is a shadow, it should project the contoured outline of the gap onto the floor, not a straight line that appears to be in front of the stock. There isn't a similar shadow on the floor from box B behind the rifle. So what kind of optical illusion is this?

Like I said previously the only one who can move the discussion forward is Walt (or anyone else with a matching MC). If Walt actually has the exact same model MC as depicted in the photo, then he can prove it's a fake with a reenactment of this photo. He can also confirm where the flash was held by replicating the shadows and either confirming or refuting whether this was an authentic photo or a fake darkroom creation. Walt knows that he could possibly debunk this photo with a reenactment but he chooses not to. I wonder why?

Also Walt, even after you finally admit that there was a Mauser at the TSBD, and that the Alyea film was heavily censored and Fritz choreographed the documenting of the crime scene, and that the MC photo was faked, how the hell do you have the gall to still cling to your original assessment of Craig? How can you possible assume that he did not read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel if you can't trust ANY of the film or testimony in this case? I think you owe Craig's family an apology and the only way to redeem yourself is to create a reenactment of this photo with your MC and prove that it was faked and Craig was telling the truth.  ;)

You've got nothing better to do, right? Godspeed Walt!


Walt knows that he could possibly debunk this photo with a reenactment but he chooses not to. I wonder why?

Walt doesn't know the view finder from the shutter....He knows nothing about cameras or photography.

Also Walt, even after you finally admit that there was a Mauser at the TSBD,

I admit no such thing....I find no evidence for a mauser being in the TSBD that afternoon.   I do believe that Fritz presented a 7.65 Mauser to  Seymour Weitzman on Saturday 11/23/63 .....and there was an FBI man there who filed a report in which Weitzman had described a Mauser.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 18, 2021, 10:05:09 PM
I was looking for the shadow of the rifle.
Looking at the box that obscures the rifle it is possible to get a general idea of which way the shadow falls.
It should be possible to see the shadow of the end of the butt of the rifle being cast away and to the left from the PoV of the camera and I believe it is.
In the pic below note the white reflection of the camera flash on the stock of the rifle.
Note, that towards the butt of the rifle this reflection stops abruptly but there is still a dark patch.
I believe the dark patch is shadow which is why it is not reflecting the camera flash:

(https://i.postimg.cc/j2hbg4yD/hiddenrifle-4.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

On a different point - I noticed that there is a box resting on top of the box that obscures most of the rifle.
This means the rifle was slid along the ground from the left or that the rifle was placed in there and at least one box was then placed over the gap. If it wasn't possible to slide the rifle in from the left we can't seriously assume Oswald took the time to mess about putting boxes over where he hid the rifle:

(https://i.postimg.cc/7PJX3Lqy/hiddenrifle-5.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

I also note a small white cloth next to the rifle. Is this what Oswald was supposed to have wiped the rifle down with? I can't find any mention of it anywhere.

If it wasn't possible to slide the rifle in from the left we can't seriously assume Oswald took the time to mess about putting boxes over where he hid the rifle:

A Model 91/38 Carcano is 40 inches long .....The rifle was found less than three feet from the west wall ( the butt of the rifle is closest to the west wall in the fake photo  ( And there were boxes stacked 4 feet high along the west wall north of the window.)

Bottom line Lee couldn't have slid that rifle with the scope and bolt knob sticking out perpendicular to the rifle into that space.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 18, 2021, 10:15:55 PM
Agreed. The rifle in the pic is definitely not lying on its side. If it was, the whole side of the stock would reflect the flash of the camera. As it is, just the top curved edge running the length of the stock reflects the light, proving it is not lying on its side.
If this is meant to be a pic of the rifle in the position it was originally found I would have to question the notion of a fleeing assassin taking the time to carefully place it in this position, as I find the possibility in ended up it its upright position after being thrown or slid in there so remote as to not bother with. It could have landed like that by some near miraculous fluke, it's not impossible, just so unlikely as to not take seriously.

Not knowing much about this particular aspect of the case - why is this photo the fake and not DP#22?

Thank you again, Dan.... For asking intelligent questions...  I've said it before but I'll repeat...  The DPD had taken an insitu photo of the MANNLICHER CARCANO at about 1:45 that afternoon,  (BEFORE anybody touched the rifle)   Later when the investigators realized that the rifle that the had photographed could not have been placed at the bottom of that chasm of books by any fleeing assassin. ( Because the site was too far away from the E/W aisle at the top of the stairs, and the rifle was at the bottom of a well) ) They knew they could not allow the photo (DP#22) to be seen by the public, so they created the in situ photo that we are now examining.

PS... Dan, can you enlarge the muzzle end of the rifle as you have the butt end?....   I'd like to see if there is a shadow of the muzzle being cast onto the floor....  I'm rather certain there is not any shadow of the muzzle. which would mean the muzzle was added photographically .....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 18, 2021, 10:25:41 PM
I was looking for the shadow of the rifle.
Looking at the box that obscures the rifle it is possible to get a general idea of which way the shadow falls.
It should be possible to see the shadow of the end of the butt of the rifle being cast away and to the left from the PoV of the camera and I believe it is.
In the pic below note the white reflection of the camera flash on the stock of the rifle.
Note, that towards the butt of the rifle this reflection stops abruptly but there is still a dark patch.
I believe the dark patch is shadow which is why it is not reflecting the camera flash:

(https://i.postimg.cc/j2hbg4yD/hiddenrifle-4.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

On a different point - I noticed that there is a box resting on top of the box that obscures most of the rifle.
This means the rifle was slid along the ground from the left or that the rifle was placed in there and at least one box was then placed over the gap. If it wasn't possible to slide the rifle in from the left we can't seriously assume Oswald took the time to mess about putting boxes over where he hid the rifle:

(https://i.postimg.cc/7PJX3Lqy/hiddenrifle-5.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

I also note a small white cloth next to the rifle. Is this what Oswald was supposed to have wiped the rifle down with? I can't find any mention of it anywhere.

Compare the photo of the carcano with the scope as seen on page 82 of the WR....with the photo below. 

(https://i.postimg.cc/j2hbg4yD/hiddenrifle-4.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

WHERE IS THE SCOPE??
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 18, 2021, 10:38:09 PM
Here's a couple of images to study:

(https://i.postimg.cc/4dt0DT2S/hiddenrifle-6.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/fyD81S9V/Screenshot-43.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 18, 2021, 11:01:43 PM
Here's a couple of images to study:

(https://i.postimg.cc/4dt0DT2S/hiddenrifle-6.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/fyD81S9V/Screenshot-43.png) (https://postimages.org/)

(https://i.postimg.cc/4dt0DT2S/hiddenrifle-6.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

A) ....Notice that the barrel is parallel with the floor .... What is supporting the rifle in a manner that woul keep the barrel parallel with the floor?    The rifle is six inches smaller at the muzzle end  relative to the sock...IOW...The barrel should be higher at the left side than at the right ( muzzle)   I believe if you inquire of old Pythagoras to solve the angle involved in a right triangle that is 6 inches by 40 inches.....you'll find the angle of the barrel should be about 12 degrees relative to the floor...and NOT parallel to the floor.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 18, 2021, 11:10:15 PM

Walt knows that he could possibly debunk this photo with a reenactment but he chooses not to. I wonder why?

Walt doesn't know the view finder from the shutter....He knows nothing about cameras or photography.


LOL. You don't need to be a photographer. You just actually need to own a MC and lay it down on the floor among some boxes and hold a flashlight in your right hand until the shadows look like the photo and take a pic with your phone in the other hand. Shirley, you have a camera in your phone? Or are you still using your dial phone? Why aren't you excited to do it? Don't you want to be the hero who solves the case? :)

Quote

Also Walt, even after you finally admit that there was a Mauser at the TSBD,

I admit no such thing....I find no evidence for a mauser being in the TSBD that afternoon.   I do believe that Fritz presented a 7.65 Mauser to  Seymour Weitzman on Saturday 11/23/63 .....and there was an FBI man there who filed a report in which Weitzman had described a Mauser.

No evidence? Don't you think the photo shows the stock of a Mauser? And why the hell would Fritz show Weitzman a Mauser if he didn't need to? Snap out of it. The Mauser was there for someone to take some token shots at JFK from the 6th floor, probably from a window at the southwest corner. There had to be shots coming from the TSBD to frame Oswald, otherwise, how the hell were they going to justify storming the TSBD looking for the killer? The killer certainly wasn't going to use the MC to take the shots since it was already carefully planted in the box hole. I think Dan O'meara is correct that the rag next to the rifle is supposed to imply that Oswald used it to wipe off ALL his prints from the rifle before ditching it. I guess he must have also used the rag to wipe his prints from the boxes as well, before racing down the stairs and into the lunch room. So how long did it take Oswald to do all that?

Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles both verified that Oswald was not in the building’s only stairwell during the crucial ninety seconds between the last shot and when Patrolman Marrion Baker confronted Oswald on the second floor on his way upstairs to find the shooter. Oswald not only had to wipe off all the prints from the rifle and boxes before ditching it, he had to get down the 72 steps of the 8 flights of stairs from the far corner of the 6th floor in under 90 seconds from the opposite corner of the building from the stairs.

Here is another reenactment for you Walt. See how long it takes you to wipe off your prints from a heavily handled rifle that had supposedly been disassembled then reassembled before being shot 3 times and killing the POTUS, using a wonky scope no less. I'll bet it takes you longer than 90 seconds. Let us know.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 18, 2021, 11:19:45 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/4dt0DT2S/hiddenrifle-6.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

A) ....Notice that the barrel is parallel with the floor .... What is supporting the rifle in a manner that woul keep the barrel parallel with the floor?    The rifle is six inches smaller at the muzzle end  relative to the sock...IOW...The barrel should be higher at the left side than at the right ( muzzle)   I believe if you inquire of old Pythagoras to solve the angle involved in a right triangle that is 6 inches by 40 inches.....you'll find the angle of the barrel should be about 12 degrees relative to the floor...and NOT parallel to the floor.

It's just an optical illusion. Here is how the rifle is laying on the floor (http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/rifle_on_floor.png). When your camera's POV is "overhead" the entire rifle appears to straighten out.

But there's only 1 way to confirm this Walt. You know what to do.  ;)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 18, 2021, 11:22:57 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/4dt0DT2S/hiddenrifle-6.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

A) ....Notice that the barrel is parallel with the floor .... What is supporting the rifle in a manner that woul keep the barrel parallel with the floor?    The rifle is six inches smaller at the muzzle end  relative to the sock...IOW...The barrel should be higher at the left side than at the right ( muzzle)   I believe if you inquire of old Pythagoras to solve the angle involved in a right triangle that is 6 inches by 40 inches.....you'll find the angle of the barrel should be about 12 degrees relative to the floor...and NOT parallel to the floor.

I'm not sure if it is parallel to the floor, might just be the angle.
The tip of the muzzle should be resting on the floor, which doesn't seem to be the case but will have to give it a closer look.
In the meantime, can you tell me where the clip was found? I can't find anything as to it's location.
Is there any reason to take the clip out while fleeing the scene?

(https://i.postimg.cc/KvCjmP03/Allen-4-Day-outside-with-rifle-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 18, 2021, 11:38:24 PM
I'm not sure if it is parallel to the floor, might just be the angle.
The tip of the muzzle should be resting on the floor, which doesn't seem to be the case but will have to give it a closer look.
In the meantime, can you tell me where the clip was found? I can't find anything as to it's location.
Is there any reason to take the clip out while fleeing the scene?

(https://i.postimg.cc/KvCjmP03/Allen-4-Day-outside-with-rifle-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

I'm not sure if it is parallel to the floor, might just be the angle.

(https://i.postimg.cc/4dt0DT2S/hiddenrifle-6.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

Notice that the barrel is parallel with the bottom of the box that is behind the barrel....That verifies that the barrel is parallel to the floor.

The tip of the muzzle should be resting on the floor, Thumb1: Thumb1:

can you tell me where the clip was found?

Yes I can!!...  But I'll need to call on you once again to enlarge a photo....  Tom Alyea filmed Lt Day dusting the rifle and looking for prints...While examining the carcano Lt Day turned the clip ejection port on the bottom of the magazine toward Alyea's camera, and the camera recorded the brass clip just emerging from the ejection port.  ( It aparently was lightly stuck inside the ejection port and the handling of the rifle cause it to start sliding out of the rifle.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 18, 2021, 11:49:17 PM
LOL. You don't need to be a photographer. You just actually need to own a MC and lay it down on the floor among some boxes and hold a flashlight in your right hand until the shadows look like the photo and take a pic with your phone in the other hand. Shirley, you have a camera in your phone? Or are you still using your dial phone? Why aren't you excited to do it? Don't you want to be the hero who solves the case? :)

No evidence? Don't you think the photo shows the stock of a Mauser? And why the hell would Fritz show Weitzman a Mauser if he didn't need to? Snap out of it. The Mauser was there for someone to take some token shots at JFK from the 6th floor, probably from a window at the southwest corner. There had to be shots coming from the TSBD to frame Oswald, otherwise, how the hell were they going to justify storming the TSBD looking for the killer? The killer certainly wasn't going to use the MC to take the shots since it was already carefully planted in the box hole. I think Dan O'meara is correct that the rag next to the rifle is supposed to imply that Oswald used it to wipe off ALL his prints from the rifle before ditching it. I guess he must have also used the rag to wipe his prints from the boxes as well, before racing down the stairs and into the lunch room. So how long did it take Oswald to do all that?

Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles both verified that Oswald was not in the building’s only stairwell during the crucial ninety seconds between the last shot and when Patrolman Marrion Baker confronted Oswald on the second floor on his way upstairs to find the shooter. Oswald not only had to wipe off all the prints from the rifle and boxes before ditching it, he had to get down the 72 steps of the 8 flights of stairs from the far corner of the 6th floor in under 90 seconds from the opposite corner of the building from the stairs.

Here is another reenactment for you Walt. See how long it takes you to wipe off your prints from a heavily handled rifle that had supposedly been disassembled then reassembled before being shot 3 times and killing the POTUS, using a wonky scope no less. I'll bet it takes you longer than 90 seconds. Let us know.

See how long it takes you to wipe off your prints from a heavily handled rifle that had supposedly been disassembled then reassembled before being shot 3 times and killing the POTUS,

Good Point , Jack.....  Nobody could have placed that rifle into the chasm and then afterward wiped the prints off...( they would have had to have gripped the rifle firmly as they hung upside down in that chasm )  IOW the prints had to have been wiped off first and then the boxes of books stacked around it.... Thank you for noticing that detail....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2021, 12:06:45 AM
I'm not sure if it is parallel to the floor, might just be the angle.
The tip of the muzzle should be resting on the floor, which doesn't seem to be the case but will have to give it a closer look.
In the meantime, can you tell me where the clip was found? I can't find anything as to it's location.
(https://i.postimg.cc/KvCjmP03/Allen-4-Day-outside-with-rifle-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

(https://i.postimg.cc/KvCjmP03/Allen-4-Day-outside-with-rifle-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

Is there any reason to take the clip out while fleeing the scene?

(https://i.postimg.cc/KvCjmP03/Allen-4-Day-outside-with-rifle-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

I luv ya, Danny....  Thank you for posting the photo of the clip protruding from the carcano.....

In the Alyea film the brass clip is just emerging from the rifle.... Day knew nothing about the carcano ( he was truly an ignoramus)  so he had no idea that there was a clip required to use the rifle as a repeater.  ( Three shots could not have been fired if there was no clip)   But who ever planted that rifle knew that a clip was required ( I doubt that Lee Oswald ws cognizant of the fact that a clip was required)    So whoever planted that rifle simply stuck the clip into the ejection port before laying the rifle on the floor. Then when Lt Day picked up the rifle and started examining it he turned the rifle so the E port was down and the clip started sliding out of the ejection port. Alyea's camera caught just a smidgen of the brass clip in the E port.   Then as Day continued to handle the rifle ( and he was unaware of the clip) the clip continued to slid out bit by bit, until it had slid out as it is seen in the photo that you posted.   

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2021, 12:17:58 AM
Here's a couple of images to study:
 Notice the scope
(https://i.postimg.cc/KvCjmP03/Allen-4-Day-outside-with-rifle-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

Notice the absence of the scope....
(https://i.postimg.cc/4dt0DT2S/hiddenrifle-6.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/fyD81S9V/Screenshot-43.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Alan Ford on February 19, 2021, 12:20:10 AM
I admit no such thing....I find no evidence for a mauser being in the TSBD that afternoon.   I do believe that Fritz presented a 7.65 Mauser to  Seymour Weitzman on Saturday 11/23/63 .....

Huh? Why the heck would he do that? And how the heck would he do it in such a way as to inadvertently give Mr Weitzman the impression it's the murder weapon?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2021, 12:25:42 AM
Here's a couple of images to study:

(https://i.postimg.cc/KvCjmP03/Allen-4-Day-outside-with-rifle-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

Notice the scope... It extends to the rear of the bolt about 4 inches....

(https://i.postimg.cc/4dt0DT2S/hiddenrifle-6.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)


Notice the absence of a scope...
(https://i.postimg.cc/fyD81S9V/Screenshot-43.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2021, 12:28:00 AM
Huh? Why the heck would he do that? And how the heck would he do it in such a way as to inadvertently give Mr Weitzman the impression it's the murder weapon?

EXCELLENT QUESTIONS Mr F....  Would you please offer some plausible explanation....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Alan Ford on February 19, 2021, 12:34:47 AM
EXCELLENT QUESTIONS Mr F....  Would you please offer some plausible explanation....

Captain Fritz's doing what you claim is your imaginary construct, Mr Cakebread, not mine!
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2021, 12:48:14 AM
Captain Fritz's doing what you claim is your imaginary construct, Mr Cakebread, not mine!

Well I'd hoped that you might offer some idea...

I'll admit I can only speculate...But....I seriously believe that ol Cap Fritz was in the early stages of Alzheimers (and that's why he was involved in the conspiracy in the first place) 

I believe that the daft Capt Fritz really believed that he could pull a switch-a-roo and present a 7.65 mauser that could be traced to an "Oswald accomplice'....   He knew that there were more shots fired than the carcano was capable of delivering in 6 seconds...   Therefore he needed another Scapegoat to assist Oswald in performing the ambush.   So Shazam! he found the accomplice's rifle.....  And he presented that rifle for Seymour Weitzman's  inspection, and description to the FBI.

That little bud never blossomed , because it wasn't necessary after they lynched Lee Oswald....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Alan Ford on February 19, 2021, 12:53:40 AM
Well I'd hoped that you might offer some idea...

I'll admit I can only speculate...But....I seriously believe that ol Cap Fritz was in the early stages of Alzheimers (and that's why he was involved in the conspiracy in the first place) 

I believe that the daft Capt Fritz really believed that he could pull a switch-a-roo and present a 7.65 mauser that could be traced to an "Oswald accomplice'....   He knew that there were more shots fired than the carcano was capable of delivering in 6 seconds...   Therefore he needed another Scapegoat to assist Oswald in performing the ambush.   So Shazam! he found the accomplice's rifle.....  And he presented that rifle for Seymour Weitzman's  inspection, and description to the FBI.

That little bud never blossomed , because it wasn't necessary after they lynched Lee Oswald....

Funny how the little Mauser bud blossomed BEFORE the Carcano bud--------------------all the DPD talk 11/22 was of a Mauser. You've gotten the switcheroo back to front
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2021, 01:07:33 AM
Funny how the little Mauser bud blossomed BEFORE the Carcano bud--------------------all the DPD talk 11/22 was of a Mauser. You've gotten the switcheroo back to front

Nope!....  The carcano existed even though the dumbasses didn't know what it was....( While still in the TSBD before taking the carcano ( see photos) to police headquarters ,Day scribbled that the rifle was a 6.5mm LEVER ACTION rifle.   They dumbasses guessed that it was a mauser....   Even as late as midnight when they were typing up the evidence list they listed the rifle as a 6.5mm Italian make rifle.   
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 19, 2021, 01:09:25 AM
You've probably seen this before but the bit at the end where everyone is reporting a Mauser is interesting.

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Alan Ford on February 19, 2021, 01:24:07 AM
ATF Agent Frank Ellsworth claimed the Carcano was found on a floor lower than the 6th floor
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 19, 2021, 01:30:38 AM
This is from a clip of Day dusting the Carcano.
Am I right to say the clip is not in the rifle:

(https://i.postimg.cc/YS1yrLWz/Screenshot-45.png) (https://postimages.org/)

(https://i.postimg.cc/nrLdGdw3/Screenshot-47.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2021, 01:36:15 AM
You've probably seen this before but the bit at the end where everyone is reporting a Mauser is interesting.


The Alyea film clip that you've posted is not the best copy of that film clip....However....Open your eyes and LOOK at the rifle seen at the 1:50 point of the film.    Now ask yourself if that is a Mannlicher Carcano.

Also notice the configuration of the boxes where the rifle was picked up from in the early frames of the film...Do those boxes look anything like the configuration of the boxes in the official DPD in situ photo???
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2021, 01:42:40 AM
This is from a clip of Day dusting the Carcano.
Am I right to say the clip is not in the rifle:

(https://i.postimg.cc/YS1yrLWz/Screenshot-45.png) (https://postimages.org/)

(https://i.postimg.cc/nrLdGdw3/Screenshot-47.png) (https://postimages.org/)

Am I right to say the clip is not in the rifle:

(https://i.postimg.cc/nrLdGdw3/Screenshot-47.png) (https://postimages.org/)

Only you can determine that, Dan.  But can you explain what that light colored slice of "something" in the ejection port is ?

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2021, 01:48:51 AM
You've probably seen this before but the bit at the end where everyone is reporting a Mauser is interesting.


You've probably seen this before

Yes I have, and this is a poor copy of the Alyea film....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 19, 2021, 02:04:16 AM
Am I right to say the clip is not in the rifle:

(https://i.postimg.cc/nrLdGdw3/Screenshot-47.png) (https://postimages.org/)

Only you can determine that, Dan.  But can you explain what that light colored slice of "something" in the ejection port is ?

"Only you can determine that, Dan."

Unlike you Walt, I don't own any Carcanos so it would be nice to get the opinion of someone in the know rather than a cryptic remark. I'll try it differently:

Is the clip such a different colour that it appears as a dark rectangle when in place?
Or does the dark rectangle (where I assume the clip goes) mean the clip is not in?
Does the Carcano eject the clip after it empties?
Your expert opinion is being sought.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2021, 02:49:11 AM
"Only you can determine that, Dan."

Unlike you Walt, I don't own any Carcanos so it would be nice to get the opinion of someone in the know rather than a cryptic remark. I'll try it differently:

Is the clip such a different colour that it appears as a dark rectangle when in place?
Or does the dark rectangle (where I assume the clip goes) mean the clip is not in?
Does the Carcano eject the clip after it empties?


Is the clip such a different colour that it appears as a dark rectangle when in place?

No,   The clip was made from yellow colored brass....

Or does the dark rectangle (where I assume the clip goes) mean the clip is not in?

The dark rectangle is the dark "hole" of the ejection port ..... The light color on the edge of the E port is the brass clip.

Does the Carcano eject the clip after it empties?

Yes... But "eject" is a misnomer....  The clip merely falls out of the ejection port by the force of gravity. The clip is NOT ejected by any mechanical mechanism .   If the rifle is positioned in any position other than the normal firing position of the magazine on the bottom of the rifle then the clip cannot drop away out of the E port.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 19, 2021, 02:56:49 AM
Is the clip such a different colour that it appears as a dark rectangle when in place?

No,   The clip was made from yellow colored brass....

Or does the dark rectangle (where I assume the clip goes) mean the clip is not in?

The dark rectangle is the dark "hole" of the ejection port ..... The light color on the edge of the E port is the brass clip.

Does the Carcano eject the clip after it empties?

Yes... But "eject" is a misnomer....  The clip merely falls out of the ejection port by the force of gravity.  If the rifle is positioned in any position other than the normal firing position of the magazine on the bottom of the rifle ten the clip cannot drop away out of the Eport.
Your expert opinion is being sought.

I get it. The clip loads from the top and falls out of the ejection port.

In your opinion should the clip have fallen out after the third shot if the Carcano was being used in a normal firing position?

When Day is carrying it around what's stopping the clip from just falling out?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2021, 03:19:08 AM
I get it. The clip loads from the top and falls out of the ejection port.

In your opinion should the clip have fallen out after the third shot if the Carcano was being used in a normal firing position?

When Day is carrying it around what's stopping the clip from just falling out?

The clip loads from the top and falls out of the ejection port.

Yes.... when the clip has live cartridges in it.... It MUST be loaded from the top with the bolt retracted.....It is pushed down against a spring loaded elevator that pushes the live cartridges up as the spent cartridges are ejected.  When the last round in the clip is chambered the clip simply falls out of the E port.

In your opinion should the clip have fallen out after the third shot if the Carcano was being used in a normal firing position?

I'd bet my life on it....there is a .0001 percent chance that the clip might not drop out after the last cartridge is chambered...

IOW..there is a very slim possibility that something like a dirty clip might prevent the clip from dropping out.

When Day is carrying it around what's stopping the clip from just falling out?[/b]

Nothing....Is preventing it from falling out ...the photos show that it is falling out.... albeit at a very slow pace....  And that's because the E port was never in the down position long enough to allow the clip to fall free. 
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2021, 03:27:27 AM
I get it. The clip loads from the top and falls out of the ejection port.

In your opinion should the clip have fallen out after the third shot if the Carcano was being used in a normal firing position?

When Day is carrying it around what's stopping the clip from just falling out?

In your opinion should the clip have fallen out after the third shot if the Carcano was being used in a normal firing position?

I'd bet my life on it....and since the official tale says that the last round was in the firing chamber then the clip should have been on the floor beneath the window along with the spent shells....   The FACT that the clip was in the rifle when Day picked the rifle up can only mean that the clip was placed in the ejection port when the rifle was carefully laid on the floor before the boxes of books were stacked around and over it.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 19, 2021, 03:38:35 AM
In your opinion should the clip have fallen out after the third shot if the Carcano was being used in a normal firing position?

I'd bet my life on it....and since the official tale says that the last round was in the firing chamber then the clip should have been on the floor beneath the window along with the spent shells....   The FACT that the clip was in the rifle when Day picked the rifle up can only mean that the clip was placed in the ejection port when the rifle was carefully laid on the floor before the boxes of books were stacked around and over it.

I've not come across anyone who has pointed that out (not that I've got much knowledge about this particular issue) and it seems to me this is something that should constitute a very serious argument against the Carcano being used for the shooting.
Why isn't the clip on the floor with the shells?
Why didn't it fall out as the assassin carried the rifle across the 6th floor?
Why didn't the clip fall out when the rifle was placed in an upright position with the E-port facing downward?
Why didn't it just fall out when Day picked it up?

Because the Carcano was already tucked away while the assassin used a proper rifle perhaps?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2021, 04:00:05 AM
I've not come across anyone who has pointed that out (not that I've got much knowledge about this particular issue) and it seems to me this is something that should constitute a very serious argument against the Carcano being used for the shooting.
Why isn't the clip on the floor with the shells?
Why didn't it fall out as the assassin carried the rifle across the 6th floor?
Why didn't the clip fall out when the rifle was placed in an upright position with the E-port facing downward?
Why didn't it just fall out when Day picked it up?

Because the Carcano was already tucked away while the assassin used a proper rifle perhaps?

Why isn't the clip on the floor with the shells?
Why didn't it fall out as the assassin carried the rifle across the 6th floor?

Dan...The liars on LBJ's cover up committee DID address the issue ....

They said the clip was deformed and therefore it was binding in the E port and couldn't fall out.....

The photos that you have posted proves that the clip was NOT deformed and it was in fact free to fall out of the rifle...( the photos show that the clip is falling out)

Why didn't the clip fall out when the rifle was placed in an upright position with the E-port facing downward?

The E port was NOT downward when the rifle was found..the rifle was lying on it's right side.....However the E Port is down in the fake in stu photo.

Why didn't it just fall out when Day picked it up?

Because the rifle was on it's side and Day grasped the leather sling near the butt which caused the rifle to assume the muzzle down position and the E port was horizontal ( not vertical) and therefore the clip remained in the rifle.

Because the Carcano was already tucked away while the assassin used a proper rifle perhaps

That seems to be a very rational conclusion.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2021, 04:13:43 AM
I've not come across anyone who has pointed that out (not that I've got much knowledge about this particular issue) and it seems to me this is something that should constitute a very serious argument against the Carcano being used for the shooting.
Why isn't the clip on the floor with the shells?
Why didn't it fall out as the assassin carried the rifle across the 6th floor?
Why didn't the clip fall out when the rifle was placed in an upright position with the E-port facing downward?
Why didn't it just fall out when Day picked it up?

Because the Carcano was already tucked away while the assassin used a proper rifle perhaps?

Because the Carcano was already tucked away while the assassin used a proper rifle perhaps

while the assassins  used  proper rifles perhaps  and none of them were firing from the sixth floor....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 19, 2021, 11:26:39 AM
Why isn't the clip on the floor with the shells?
Why didn't it fall out as the assassin carried the rifle across the 6th floor?

Dan...The liars on LBJ's cover up committee DID address the issue ....

They said the clip was deformed and therefore it was binding in the E port and couldn't fall out.....

The photos that you have posted proves that the clip was NOT deformed and it was in fact free to fall out of the rifle...( the photos show that the clip is falling out)

Why didn't the clip fall out when the rifle was placed in an upright position with the E-port facing downward?

The E port was NOT downward when the rifle was found..the rifle was lying on it's right side.....However the E Port is down in the fake in stu photo.

Why didn't it just fall out when Day picked it up?

Because the rifle was on it's side and Day grasped the leather sling near the butt which caused the rifle to assume the muzzle down position and the E port was horizontal ( not vertical) and therefore the clip remained in the rifle.

Because the Carcano was already tucked away while the assassin used a proper rifle perhaps

That seems to be a very rational conclusion.

"The E port was NOT downward when the rifle was found..the rifle was lying on it's right side.....However the E Port is down in the fake in stu photo."

The picture of the rifle you are calling fake is CE 514. This was shown to Boone during his WC testimony and he confirmed that was exactly how the rifle was when he found it.
I'm wondering whether CE 514 was just a close-up portion of CE 517:

(https://i.postimg.cc/QMRML1N8/Screenshot-52.png) (https://postimages.org/)

This appears to be the same pic but taken from further away. In it we can see, what I presume is Day's knee as he takes the photo.

Craig is also adamant the Day pics were taken before the rifle was moved

Mr. BELIN - The weapon was moved by the time the pictures were taken?
Mr. CRAIG - No; no. The pictures were taken as the weapon was found lying here.

I think you may be wrong about the rifle being found lying on its side.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2021, 03:08:23 PM
"The E port was NOT downward when the rifle was found..the rifle was lying on it's right side.....However the E Port is down in the fake in stu photo."

The picture of the rifle you are calling fake is CE 514. This was shown to Boone during his WC testimony and he confirmed that was exactly how the rifle was when he found it.
I'm wondering whether CE 514 was just a close-up portion of CE 517:

(https://i.postimg.cc/QMRML1N8/Screenshot-52.png) (https://postimages.org/)

This appears to be the same pic but taken from further away. In it we can see, what I presume is Day's knee as he takes the photo.

Craig is also adamant the Day pics were taken before the rifle was moved

Mr. BELIN - The weapon was moved by the time the pictures were taken?
Mr. CRAIG - No; no. The pictures were taken as the weapon was found lying here.

I think you may be wrong about the rifle being found lying on its side.

(https://i.postimg.cc/QMRML1N8/Screenshot-52.png) (https://postimages.org/)

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)
"The E port was NOT downward when the rifle was found..the rifle was lying on it's right side.....However the E Port is down in the fake in stu photo."

The picture of the rifle you are calling fake is CE 514. This was shown to Boone during his WC testimony and he confirmed that was exactly how the rifle was when he found it.
I'm wondering whether CE 514 was just a close-up portion of CE 517:

(https://i.postimg.cc/QMRML1N8/Screenshot-52.png) (https://postimages.org/)

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)

This appears to be the same pic but taken from further away. In it we can see, what I presume is Day's knee as he takes the photo.

Craig is also adamant the Day pics were taken before the rifle was moved

Mr. BELIN - The weapon was moved by the time the pictures were taken?
Mr. CRAIG - No; no. The pictures were taken as the weapon was found lying here.

I think you may be wrong about the rifle being found lying on its side.


This appears to be the same pic but taken from further away. In it we can see, what I presume is Day's knee as he takes the photo.

Ok, but please explain how Studebaker got his leg into the photo when the first photo  ( the fake) shows a stack of boxes where Studebaker's knee appears.  ???

I think you may be wrong about the rifle being found lying on its side.

If you've never seen a better copy of Alyea's film clip ....I can understand your doubt....  The but of the rifle is seen in better copies of Alyea's film... The rifle is lying on it's side.

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 19, 2021, 06:31:55 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMRML1N8/Screenshot-52.png) (https://postimages.org/)

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)
This appears to be the same pic but taken from further away. In it we can see, what I presume is Day's knee as he takes the photo.

Ok, but please explain how Studebaker got his leg into the photo when the first photo  ( the fake) shows a stack of boxes where Studebaker's knee appears.  ???

Hadn't spotted that.
After checking Day's WC testimony he states that he took the photo of the rifle we've been studying and Studebaker took the one with the knee in it.

Quote
I think you may be wrong about the rifle being found lying on its side.

If you've never seen a better copy of Alyea's film clip ....I can understand your doubt....  The but of the rifle is seen in better copies of Alyea's film... The rifle is lying on it's side.

Day himself states the rifle was in an upright position:

"Mr. BELIN. Do you have any estimate as to how wide or what the width was of that particular area in which the rifle was placed? In other words, the area between the boxes, how much space was there?
Mr. DAY. It was just wide enough to accommodate that rifle and hold it in an upright position."

However, the Alyea film certainly seems to show that when Day picks it up the rifle is on its side.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2021, 08:00:37 PM
Hadn't spotted that.
After checking Day's WC testimony he states that he took the photo of the rifle we've been studying and Studebaker took the one with the knee in it.

Day himself states the rifle was in an upright position:

"Mr. BELIN. Do you have any estimate as to how wide or what the width was of that particular area in which the rifle was placed? In other words, the area between the boxes, how much space was there?
Mr. DAY. It was just wide enough to accommodate that rifle and hold it in an upright position."

However, the Alyea film certainly seems to show that when Day picks it up the rifle is on its side.
[/quote

After checking Day's WC testimony he states that he took the photo of the rifle we've been studying and Studebaker took the one with the knee in it.

I thought we agreed that both photo's are the same photo ....except one of them has Studebaker's knee in it....   

Are you now contending that they are two different photos....and everything just happens too appear to be identical except for the lower right hand corner?

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 19, 2021, 08:36:00 PM
Those are 2 different photos taken from almost the same POV but E-35 was taken slightly farther back so that you couldn't see the end of the box on the left.

Comparing MC photos (http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/e35.gif)

So how many photos were taken? And what makes you think that's a knee in E-35?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 19, 2021, 09:39:53 PM
Those are 2 different photos taken from almost the same POV but E-35 was taken slightly farther back so that you couldn't see the end of the box on the left.

Comparing MC photos (http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/e35.gif)

So how many photos were taken? And what makes you think that's a knee in E-35?

Mr. BELIN. Was any other picture of that rifle made in that position?
Mr. DAY. Nos. 22 and 23 were both made.
Mr. BELIN. Your pictures which you have marked No. 22 and No. 23 were both made, one was made by you, is that Commission Exhibit 718----
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. And the other was made by----
Mr. DAY. Detective Studebaker.
Mr. BELIN. Whose knee appears?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; showing. Identical shots, we just made both to be sure that one of us made it and it would be in focus.
Mr. BELIN. For this reason I am introducing only 718, if that is satisfactory.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2021, 09:52:18 PM
Hadn't spotted that.
After checking Day's WC testimony he states that he took the photo of the rifle we've been studying and Studebaker took the one with the knee in it.

Day himself states the rifle was in an upright position:

"Mr. BELIN. Do you have any estimate as to how wide or what the width was of that particular area in which the rifle was placed? In other words, the area between the boxes, how much space was there?
Mr. DAY. It was just wide enough to accommodate that rifle and hold it in an upright position."

However, the Alyea film certainly seems to show that when Day picks it up the rifle is on its side.

There had been NO  identifiable prints found on the rifle ( and even to this very day, no identifiable prints have been found) BUT...Dallas's DA Henry Wade had told reporters that they had found Lee Harrrrvey Ossssswald's prints on the gun...He was lying through his teeth....But they desperately needed something to tie Lee Oswald to the murder, thus the tale about Lt Day finding the print on the metal barrel and his neglecting to tell the FBI that he'd found that print .  The whole tale is BS....  What the "experts" have told us was Oswald's palm print that was lifted from the metal barrel is actually simply an unidentifiable smudge that Lt Day Lifted from the WOODEN foregrip of the carcano. Day spotted what he imagined to be a palm print on that wooden fore grip just minutes after he pulled the rifle from beneath the pallet where the rifle had been carefully hidden ( not carelessly tossed aside as the liars have told us) Day knew the wood of the foregrip would absorb the "print" so he decided to use scotch tape to lift that "print". Tom Alyea watched him as he lifted that smudge and placed the scotch tape on a 3 X 5 card and scribbled the pertinent information on that card.   Day wrote... "Off underside gun barrel near end of foregrip " C 2766  .  ( If he had been in the Dallas PD Crime lab he would have used the typewriter and a clean sheet of paper to record the information, and he probably would have written more details about the discovery.)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2021, 09:58:32 PM
Mr. BELIN. Was any other picture of that rifle made in that position?
Mr. DAY. Nos. 22 and 23 were both made.
Mr. BELIN. Your pictures which you have marked No. 22 and No. 23 were both made, one was made by you, is that Commission Exhibit 718----
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. And the other was made by----
Mr. DAY. Detective Studebaker.
Mr. BELIN. Whose knee appears?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; showing. Identical shots, we just made both to be sure that one of us made it and it would be in focus.
Mr. BELIN. For this reason I am introducing only 718, if that is satisfactory.

Dan, I can understand your acceptance of the honesty of Lawyer's of the WC and the law officers who testified before the WC.
We all want to believe the authorities.....But there is a mountain of evidence that clearly shows that Lt Day was a damned liar....I believe he was a more accomplished liar than Roger Craig...
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 19, 2021, 10:51:21 PM
There had been NO  identifiable prints found on the rifle ( and even to this very day, no identifiable prints have been found) BUT...Dallas's DA Henry Wade had told reporters that they had found Lee Harrrrvey Ossssswald's prints on the gun...He was lying through his teeth....But they desperately needed something to tie Lee Oswald to the murder, thus the tale about Lt Day finding the print on the metal barrel and his neglecting to tell the FBI that he'd found that print .  The whole tale is BS....  What the "experts" have told us was Oswald's palm print that was lifted from the metal barrel is actually simply an unidentifiable smudge that Lt Day Lifted from the WOODEN foregrip of the carcano. Day spotted what he imagined to be a palm print on that wooden fore grip just minutes after he pulled the rifle from beneath the pallet where the rifle had been carefully hidden ( not carelessly tossed aside as the liars have told us) Day knew the wood of the foregrip would absorb the "print" so he decided to use scotch tape to lift that "print". Tom Alyea watched him as he lifted that smudge and placed the scotch tape on a 3 X 5 card and scribbled the pertinent information on that card.   Day wrote... "Off underside gun barrel near end of foregrip " C 2766  .  ( If he had been in the Dallas PD Crime lab he would have used the typewriter and a clean sheet of paper to record the information, and he probably would have written more details about the discovery.)

I'm not disputing any of this Walt, we weren't even talking about it.
I think the rifle was found in an upright position
I also think it was put there before any shots were fired.
And I think the point about the clip proves this.

You have your own way of looking at things but it seems to rely on everyone lying and all the evidence being faked or manipulated.
I'm not saying evidence wasn't manipulated or lost/destroyed.
I'm not saying the authorities never lied.
I'm a minimalist and think the set-up was very close to the official narrative.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 19, 2021, 10:54:10 PM
Dan, I can understand your acceptance of the honesty of Lawyer's of the WC and the law officers who testified before the WC.
We all want to believe the authorities.....But there is a mountain of evidence that clearly shows that Lt Day was a damned liar....I believe he was a more accomplished liar than Roger Craig...

A bit of a cheap shot there Walt but that's okay.
So you think the authorities lied about a knee in a photo?
I won't ask why as I doubt I'll agree with the answer.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2021, 11:56:41 PM
I'm not disputing any of this Walt, we weren't even talking about it.
I think the rifle was found in an upright position
I also think it was put there before any shots were fired.
And I think the point about the clip proves this.

You have your own way of looking at things but it seems to rely on everyone lying and all the evidence being faked or manipulated.
I'm not saying evidence wasn't manipulated or lost/destroyed.
I'm not saying the authorities never lied.
I'm a minimalist and think the set-up was very close to the official narrative.

I think the rifle was found in an upright position

I'm absolutely sure that it was lying on it's side...   And I suggest that you watch a good copy of Alyea's film and notice that Lt Day reaches out and grasps the leather sling on the rifle.  If the rifle had been upright the leather sling would have been on the far ( north) side of the rifle and Lt Day could not have reached it so easily.


I also think it was put there before any shots were fired.

Well believing it, and proving it, are two different animals....  I'm trying to prove it....And proving that the in situ photo is a fake  would be a big step toward exposing the liars..   
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 20, 2021, 01:09:28 AM
I think the rifle was found in an upright position

I'm absolutely sure that it was lying on it's side...   And I suggest that you watch a good copy of Alyea's film and notice that Lt Day reaches out and grasps the leather sling on the rifle.  If the rifle had been upright the leather sling would have been on the far ( north) side of the rifle and Lt Day could not have reached it so easily.

I've done this Gif from the Alyea film showing the moment Day picks up the rifle. Two things need to be noted:

1) When it cuts to Day he is already crouching down with his hands on or near the rifle. There is no telling how long he was down there
    before it cuts to him.
2) At the very beginning of the clip the rifle is out of sight so we can't tell what's happening down there.

Conclusion - the Alyea clip cannot be used to support the idea the rifle was lying on its side. As soon as Day grabs the strap the rifle flips into a "lying down" position (I'm sure there's a better way to phrase it)

(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdchm5q/Alyea-clip3.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 20, 2021, 01:37:18 AM
I've done this Gif from the Alyea film showing the moment Day picks up the rifle. Two things need to be noted:

1) When it cuts to Day he is already crouching down with his hands on or near the rifle. There is no telling how long he was down there
    before it cuts to him.
2) At the very beginning of the clip the rifle is out of sight so we can't tell what's happening down there.

Conclusion - the Alyea clip cannot be used to support the idea the rifle was lying on its side. As soon as Day grabs the strap the rifle flips into a "lying down" position (I'm sure there's a better way to phrase it)


(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdchm5q/Alyea-clip3.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

At the very beginning of the clip the rifle is out of sight so we can't tell what's happening down there.

No, that's not correct.... The rifle's metal butt plate is clearly visible.   Dan, can you do a freeze frame at the beginning of the film?

Day he is already crouching down with his hands on or near the rifle.

Yes, that's true....But,  I don't believe he has touched the rifle at the very beginning of the film.

Dan, I don't believe I've ever seen a better copy of Alyea's film....  That metal butt plate on the rifle is very obviously HORIZONTAL.... Look under Lt Day's left elbow just as he starts to lift the rifle.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 20, 2021, 02:12:28 AM
I've done this Gif from the Alyea film showing the moment Day picks up the rifle. Two things need to be noted:

1) When it cuts to Day he is already crouching down with his hands on or near the rifle. There is no telling how long he was down there
    before it cuts to him.
2) At the very beginning of the clip the rifle is out of sight so we can't tell what's happening down there.

Conclusion - the Alyea clip cannot be used to support the idea the rifle was lying on its side. As soon as Day grabs the strap the rifle flips into a "lying down" position (I'm sure there's a better way to phrase it)

(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdchm5q/Alyea-clip3.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

Wow!!... Great Copy of Alyea's film,  Dan....   I don't wish to insult you but maybe you don't know what you're seeing....I can see the metal butt plate in the horizontal position just prior to Lt Lifting the rifle by the leather sling.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 20, 2021, 02:19:00 AM
LOL. You don't need to be a photographer. You just actually need to own a MC and lay it down on the floor among some boxes and hold a flashlight in your right hand until the shadows look like the photo and take a pic with your phone in the other hand. Shirley, you have a camera in your phone? Or are you still using your dial phone? Why aren't you excited to do it? Don't you want to be the hero who solves the case? :)

No evidence? Don't you think the photo shows the stock of a Mauser? And why the hell would Fritz show Weitzman a Mauser if he didn't need to? Snap out of it. The Mauser was there for someone to take some token shots at JFK from the 6th floor, probably from a window at the southwest corner. There had to be shots coming from the TSBD to frame Oswald, otherwise, how the hell were they going to justify storming the TSBD looking for the killer? The killer certainly wasn't going to use the MC to take the shots since it was already carefully planted in the box hole. I think Dan O'meara is correct that the rag next to the rifle is supposed to imply that Oswald used it to wipe off ALL his prints from the rifle before ditching it. I guess he must have also used the rag to wipe his prints from the boxes as well, before racing down the stairs and into the lunch room. So how long did it take Oswald to do all that?

Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles both verified that Oswald was not in the building’s only stairwell during the crucial ninety seconds between the last shot and when Patrolman Marrion Baker confronted Oswald on the second floor on his way upstairs to find the shooter. Oswald not only had to wipe off all the prints from the rifle and boxes before ditching it, he had to get down the 72 steps of the 8 flights of stairs from the far corner of the 6th floor in under 90 seconds from the opposite corner of the building from the stairs.

Here is another reenactment for you Walt. See how long it takes you to wipe off your prints from a heavily handled rifle that had supposedly been disassembled then reassembled before being shot 3 times and killing the POTUS, using a wonky scope no less. I'll bet it takes you longer than 90 seconds. Let us know.

Jack, Have you seen Dan's latest post?    He's posted the best copy of the Alyea film that I've ever seen....Take a look and offer your observation about the orientation of the rifle's metal butt plate ( just beyond Day's left elbow)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 20, 2021, 02:25:18 AM
I've done this Gif from the Alyea film showing the moment Day picks up the rifle. Two things need to be noted:

1) When it cuts to Day he is already crouching down with his hands on or near the rifle. There is no telling how long he was down there
    before it cuts to him.
2) At the very beginning of the clip the rifle is out of sight so we can't tell what's happening down there.

Conclusion - the Alyea clip cannot be used to support the idea the rifle was lying on its side. As soon as Day grabs the strap the rifle flips into a "lying down" position (I'm sure there's a better way to phrase it)


The rifle was already laying down when Day grabbed the strap. He actually grabbed the strap after he rotated the rifle towards him with his right hand (probably by the scope) before grabbing the strap with his left hand. He was pretending to be mindful of prints.

Had he grabbed the strap and flipped the rifle on its side then the stock would not rotate toward him as he lifted it up. The bottom of the rifle would come up 1st and the rifle would be upside down from the get go. Besides, I doubt Day would pick the rifle up by the strap and flip the rifle on its side. He may have laid the rifle on its side before picking it up, for some inexplicable reason, but his general handling of the evidence is damning. Everyone there was handling the evidence bare handed and made some token gestures about "protecting" potential prints.

Here is a shorter version of your GIF showing just the pick up. Day definitely grabbed the rifle somewhere with his bare right hand, rotated it towards him, then slid his hand under the rifle and grabbed the strap as he picked it up. Otherwise, the rifle would not have rotated towards him if he had picked it up by the strap.

MC pick up (http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/Alyea-pickup.gif)

But the elephant in the room is where is the strap in the still photos? Did Oswald take the time to hide the strap from view behind the rifle during his 90 second jaunt to the lunchroom?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 20, 2021, 02:44:26 AM
The Alyea footage does seem staged. Day would have had to move the boxes to get at the rifle, which Alyea never captured. It's as if Day waited for his cue to pick up the rifle. The rifle must have flipped over as they moved the boxes, which demonstrates more reckless handling of the evidence. Those guys were the Keystone Cops of the coup.

It must have been nice for the DPD not to actually have to apply any forensics to the evidence. They only needed to pretend to solve the case in record time. That's why they had a total disregard for the evidence. They should have at least pretended a little harder than they did. They were staging photos of the crime scene (Fritz staged the photo of the hulls in the SN), planting evidence, mishandling evidence, sheep-dipping Oswald, delivering Oswald to Ruby. The screw up with the Mauser was par for the course.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 20, 2021, 01:05:51 PM
At the very beginning of the clip the rifle is out of sight so we can't tell what's happening down there.

No, that's not correct.... The rifle's metal butt plate is clearly visible.   Dan, can you do a freeze frame at the beginning of the film?

Day he is already crouching down with his hands on or near the rifle.

Yes, that's true....But,  I don't believe he has touched the rifle at the very beginning of the film.

Dan, I don't believe I've ever seen a better copy of Alyea's film....  That metal butt plate on the rifle is very obviously HORIZONTAL.... Look under Lt Day's left elbow just as he starts to lift the rifle.

This Gif shows the first few frames from the moment Day appears on the Alyea film slowed down.
His hands are down where the rifle is.
The rifle is out of view.
The Alyea film does not tell us the rifle was lying down when Day picked it up.
I believe, after moving some boxes about, Day reached over the rifle and grabbed the strap.
The second he pulled the strap the rifle flipped to the horizontal position.
To a certain extent I imagine the scene has been staged but only in terms of telling Alyea to come and film the moment the rifle is picked up - 3..2..1..Action!

(https://i.postimg.cc/kXCcCLPB/Ayea-rifle-walt.gif) (https://postimages.org/)


The photos are real.
The rifle is found in an upright position.
Somehow the clip is still inside.
Alyea films the moment the rifle is picked up.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 20, 2021, 02:20:13 PM
Wow!!... Great Copy of Alyea's film,  Dan....   I don't wish to insult you but maybe you don't know what you're seeing....I can see the metal butt plate in the horizontal position just prior to Lt Lifting the rifle by the leather sling.

Excuse my ignorance on this matter Walt but I can't find a pic that satisfactorily answers this question - Does the Carcano have a metal butt plate?

Later edit: Ignore the above question, I've found a pic that does appear to show such a plate.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 20, 2021, 07:49:35 PM
Excuse my ignorance on this matter Walt but I can't find a pic that satisfactorily answers this question - Does the Carcano have a metal butt plate?

Later edit: Ignore the above question, I've found a pic that does appear to show such a plate.

Dan the film clip is now no longer the same clip that you posted earlier.....  I downloaded that earlier film clip and I know it is more detailed than the one now being presented.      What's the idea?   
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 20, 2021, 08:23:13 PM
The Alyea footage does seem staged. Day would have had to move the boxes to get at the rifle, which Alyea never captured. It's as if Day waited for his cue to pick up the rifle. The rifle must have flipped over as they moved the boxes, which demonstrates more reckless handling of the evidence. Those guys were the Keystone Cops of the coup.

It must have been nice for the DPD not to actually have to apply any forensics to the evidence. They only needed to pretend to solve the case in record time. That's why they had a total disregard for the evidence. They should have at least pretended a little harder than they did. They were staging photos of the crime scene (Fritz staged the photo of the hulls in the SN), planting evidence, mishandling evidence, sheep-dipping Oswald, delivering Oswald to Ruby. The screw up with the Mauser was par for the course.

The screw up with the Mauser was par for the course.

Explain.......
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 20, 2021, 08:39:31 PM
This Gif shows the first few frames from the moment Day appears on the Alyea film slowed down.
His hands are down where the rifle is.
The rifle is out of view.
The Alyea film does not tell us the rifle was lying down when Day picked it up.
I believe, after moving some boxes about, Day reached over the rifle and grabbed the strap.
The second he pulled the strap the rifle flipped to the horizontal position.
To a certain extent I imagine the scene has been staged but only in terms of telling Alyea to come and film the moment the rifle is picked up - 3..2..1..Action!

(https://i.postimg.cc/kXCcCLPB/Ayea-rifle-walt.gif) (https://postimages.org/)


The photos are real.
The rifle is found in an upright position.
Somehow the clip is still inside.
Alyea films the moment the rifle is picked up.

(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdchm5q/Alyea-clip3.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

(https://i.postimg.cc/kXCcCLPB/Ayea-rifle-walt.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

Why did you cut the frames that show the butt plate horizontal??
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 20, 2021, 09:41:00 PM
This Gif shows the first few frames from the moment Day appears on the Alyea film slowed down.
His hands are down where the rifle is.
The rifle is out of view.
The Alyea film does not tell us the rifle was lying down when Day picked it up.

Day obviously laid it down, but it was already laying down before this sequence, probably when Day first moved the boxes to expose the rifle, whenever that was.

Quote
I believe, after moving some boxes about, Day reached over the rifle and grabbed the strap.
The second he pulled the strap the rifle flipped to the horizontal position.

Nope. Day had both hands on the rifle and picked it up from its laying position on the floor. Note how the top of the stock rotated toward him as he picked it up. The rifle would have rotated the other way if Day picked it up by the strap only and flipped it on its side. His right hand rotated the rifle toward him before he grabbed the strap and picked it up.

Quote
To a certain extent I imagine the scene has been staged but only in terms of telling Alyea to come and film the moment the rifle is picked up - 3..2..1..Action!

That's right, but the DPD planted the rifle there ahead of time and Fritz managed to remove the Mauser from the scene after Craig read "7.65" off the barrel. Only then was Alyea permitted to document the staged discovery of the MC.

Quote
The photos are real.
The rifle is found in an upright position.
Somehow the clip is still inside.
Alyea films the moment the rifle is picked up.


Alyea appeared to film the cameraman as he took the photos but we have no idea whether those photos are the ones he took. I don't think they were, otherwise, where is the strap? And 2 lousy token pics of the MC in situ? That's a joke. Was Fritz relying on Alyea to document the crime scene? Fritz was in total control of documenting the staged evidence and he choreographed everything. We have no idea how the Alyea film was spliced together for the final presentation. Alyea sure as hell ain't talking. He had to be complicit in the whole thing. No way would Fritz allow a freelancer to document their staged investigation. No way! We can't trust the sequence of events as depicted in the Alyea film by any stretch of the imagination.

Don't forget that the DPD (Roscoe White in particular) were darkroom specialists assigned to sheep-dip Oswald with the backyard photos, to connect him to the rifle. The DPD obviously had access to the rifle, which they later planted in the TSBD. The DPD also created CE-399 by firing the rifle into a swimming pool then retrieving it so it could magically show up on the wrong stretcher with no DNA on it in pristine condition. The DPD would later set up Oswald for Ruby to take out to remove any connection to him. Oswald knew full well that the DPD were up to their eyeballs in the Big Event.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 20, 2021, 09:59:07 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/kXCcCLPB/Ayea-rifle-walt.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

Why did you cut the frames that show the butt plate horizontal??

Dan was only isolating the section where Day 1st reached down for the rifle. He thinks Day grabbed the strap and flipped the rifle on its side before lifting it up. He's just wrong, not trying to deceive you. However, Day could have tipped the rifle forward so he could grab the strap, which is mysteriously missing from the only 2 in-situ photos taken of the murder weapon for the crime of the century.

Here is a slowed down section showing the butt plate. (http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/Alyea-buttplate.gif)


Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 20, 2021, 10:15:44 PM
Dan was only isolating the section where Day 1st reached down for the rifle. He thinks Day grabbed the strap and flipped the rifle on its side before lifting it up. He's just wrong, not trying to deceive you.

Here is a slowed down section showing the butt plate. (http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/Alyea-buttplate.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdchm5q/Alyea-clip3.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/kXCcCLPB/Ayea-rifle-walt.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Count three seconds after the detective ( Studebaker?) lifts the camera.. and notice the metal butt plate of the rifle.  Day has  just grabbed the leather sling and the butt plate is HORIZONTAL.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 20, 2021, 11:41:36 PM
Count three seconds after the detective ( Studebaker?) lifts the camera.. and notice the metal butt plate of the rifle.  Day has  just grabbed the leather sling and the butt plate is HORIZONTAL.


Here are my thoughts re this sequence:

1) Day could have reached down and tipped the rifle on its side with his right hand so he could grab the strap with his left hand. Then when he lifted the rifle into view, it was horizontal. But he still had hold of the rifle with his right hand when he lifted it up then shifted it to his left hand holding it by the strap and letting go with his right hand. IOWs, the rifle could have been upright before he lifted it from the floor. But I don't think so.

2) Or when Day moved the boxes he laid down the rifle on its side 1st, then he went back to it for the "discovery scene" with Alyea filming. The photos were taken well before the boxes were moved. But when?

3) Note how Day grabs the strap which is in front of the rifle as it lays on its side. If you rotated the rifle upright the strap would still be in front of the stock and in plain view. A photo would clearly show the strap and the 2 photos taken by the DPD did not.

I believe those photos were taken well before the Big Event and were just more staged evidence to frame Oswald. It is preposterous to think that Alyea would have shot footage of the photographer taking the photos of the rifle in-situ and not shot footage of the rifle as well. I am willing to bet that Alyea actually did film the rifle in-situ but it was cut from the film when they noticed it did not match the 2 photos.

But how could the Alyea footage not match the 2 photos taken by the photographer so they would have to cut it out? The mismatch was either the footage showed the strap when the photos didn't or the footage showed a Mauser in-situ, which they had to swap out for the MC, before letting Alyea film the discovery scene. This would explain how a Mauser got into the mix, yet the Alyea film shows Day picking up an MC. But their edits render the timeline of events to horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns.

But why would they use the 2 staged photos of the strapless MC in-situ when the actual 2 pics taken would have matched the Alyea footage? Why did they decide to use the staged photos and cut the footage from the Alyea film instead? I think they were so arrogant that they went with the staged pics and later realized they didn't match the Alyea footage so by that point it was easier to cut it out of the film because they probably tossed out the actual pics taken at the scene or they might not have even had film in the camera. The fact that they only took 2 lousy pics of the murder weapon for the crime of the century is bad enough.

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 20, 2021, 11:59:39 PM
Dan the film clip is now no longer the same clip that you posted earlier.....  I downloaded that earlier film clip and I know it is more detailed than the one now being presented.      What's the idea?   

It's explained in my post.
These are a few frames from the clip I posted from the moment we first see Day.
The point is to demonstrate that when the Alyea film cuts to Day his hands are already down by the rifle and the rifle is out of sight
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 21, 2021, 12:23:33 AM
It's explained in my post.
These are a few frames from the clip I posted from the moment we first see Day.
The point is to demonstrate that when the Alyea film cuts to Day his hands are already down by the rifle and the rifle is out of sight

No, the rifle is clearly visible as Lt Day grabs the leather sling ( which is right there at his finger tips)  Count off three seconds after detective Studebaker ( perched on top of the boxes, he has just taken the in situ photo) ...lifts his camera then three seconds later the rifle is clearly visible LYING ON IT's RIGHT SIDE ....( The butt plate is horizontal) in the next fram Day is starting to lift the rifle.

(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdchm5q/Alyea-clip3.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 21, 2021, 03:50:09 AM

That's right, but the DPD planted the rifle there ahead of time and Fritz managed to remove the Mauser from the scene after Craig read "7.65" off the barrel. Only then was Alyea permitted to document the staged discovery of the MC.

Alyea appeared to film the cameraman as he took the photos but we have no idea whether those photos are the ones he took. I don't think they were, otherwise, where is the strap? And 2 lousy token pics of the MC in situ? That's a joke. Was Fritz relying on Alyea to document the crime scene? Fritz was in total control of documenting the staged evidence and he choreographed everything. We have no idea how the Alyea film was spliced together for the final presentation. Alyea sure as hell ain't talking. He had to be complicit in the whole thing. No way would Fritz allow a freelancer to document their staged investigation. No way! We can't trust the sequence of events as depicted in the Alyea film by any stretch of the imagination.

"He had to be complicit in the whole thing."

Came across the article from an interview with Tom Alyea. It has corrections at the end by Alyea himself.
I think you'll have to agree Alyea isn't complicit in any way as he is incredibly critical of Fritz and the investigation in general.
It's well worth checking out.

https://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 21, 2021, 06:57:54 AM
"He had to be complicit in the whole thing."

Came across the article from an interview with Tom Alyea. It has corrections at the end by Alyea himself.
I think you'll have to agree Alyea isn't complicit in any way as he is incredibly critical of Fritz and the investigation in general.
It's well worth checking out.

https://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html

I already read that article and used to think Alyea was just a pawn in the coup until I realized the extent of the DPD's involvement. There is no way in hell Fritz would let a freelance photographer film anything without an agreement ahead of time that Fritz called all the shots and had total control over the crime scene. You only get that from complicity. Alyea was allowed to criticize the DPD with unfounded suspicions to give himself some plausible deniability and to distance himself from the conspiracy. But rest assured Fritz must have had Alyea under his thumb the whole time, otherwise, why wasn't Alyea allowed to keep his film? What option did Alyea have but to deny any involvement and play the inadvertent pawn role.

Once you accept that the DPD were heavily involved in the conspiracy, it becomes easy to spot their gaffes and their pathetic attention to detail. But they never anticipated this level of scrutiny so they thought they could afford to be sloppy. All these years they've been shielded by the WC Defenders who scoffed at the critics and lumped them with the tin foil hat CTs who dared to challenge the LN narrative. Then the internet upped the ante and now their evidence doesn't stand up to the clear light of day.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 21, 2021, 07:11:11 AM
No, the rifle is clearly visible as Lt Day grabs the leather sling ( which is right there at his finger tips)  Count off three seconds after detective Studebaker ( perched on top of the boxes, he has just taken the in situ photo) ...lifts his camera then three seconds later the rifle is clearly visible LYING ON IT's RIGHT SIDE ....( The butt plate is horizontal) in the next fram Day is starting to lift the rifle.

(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdchm5q/Alyea-clip3.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

So what if the rifle is laying on its side? This footage was clearly shot after Day had already moved the boxes to expose the rifle and after the photographer took his 2 photos. Day probably laid the rifle down then, but not necessarily. We need to find out if Alyea took any footage of the rifle in-situ and how it compares to the 2 photos. Otherwise, the footage of Day picking up the rifle is useless to us.

We need to compare the missing Alyea footage with the 2 photos to see if the rifle is laying on its side, but that doesn't matter nearly as much as what happened to the strap?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 21, 2021, 08:21:36 AM
So what if the rifle is laying on its side? This footage was clearly shot after Day had already moved the boxes to expose the rifle and after the photographer took his 2 photos. Day probably laid the rifle down then, but not necessarily. We need to find out if Alyea took any footage of the rifle in-situ and how it compares to the 2 photos. Otherwise, the footage of Day picking up the rifle is useless to us.

We need to compare the missing Alyea footage with the 2 photos to see if the rifle is laying on its side, but that doesn't matter nearly as much as what happened to the strap?

So what if the rifle is laying on its side?

Ok, so recognize that Studebaker had just taken an in situ photo...and you acknowledge that the rifle was laying on it's side with the leather sling up.   But the official in situ photo shows the rifle in a different location and standing with the scope up....
That means the official in situ photo is NOT the way the rifle was found and the official in situ photo is a fake.

This footage was clearly shot after Day had already moved the boxes to expose the rifle and after the photographer took his 2 photos.

Yes.... the BOXES had to be moved because Deputy Boone found the rifle at the bottom of a chasm of books ...BUT.. everybody who saw the rifle swore that nobody touched the rifle prior to Lt grabbing the leather strap and picking it up. And we can see with our own eyes that this is true.   

The point is:.... This site at the bottom of a chasm of books was 15 feet 4 inches from the north wall, and down in a hole that was over four feet deep. No mortal man could have dashed through that aisle ( formed by boxes of books) at the top of the stairs and hastily dumped that rifle as he fled.   The Alyea footage proves that the DPD were lying, and creating fake photos to frame Lee Oswald.

That rifle had to have been placed on the floor and then the boxes stacked around it PRIOR to the murder. That carcano was never fired that day....   And yet the FBI swore that it was the murder weapon.... 

And THAT is....... "THE REST OF THE STORY!" .................... END


Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 21, 2021, 09:19:01 AM
So what if the rifle is laying on its side?

Ok, so recognize that Studebaker had just taken an in situ photo...and you acknowledge that the rifle was laying on it's side with the leather sling up.   But the official in situ photo shows the rifle in a different location and standing with the scope up....
That means the official in situ photo is NOT the way the rifle was found and the official in situ photo is a fake.


No, it doesn't mean that. You don't know when the camera took the photos and when Alyea shot the footage. Obviously, Day had cleared a path to the rifle and moved some boxes and laid down the rifle by that point. He wasn't reaching down to handle the rifle for the 1st time. Therefore the Alyea footage can not be used to prove that the in-situ photos were faked.

Quote
This footage was clearly shot after Day had already moved the boxes to expose the rifle and after the photographer took his 2 photos.

Yes.... the BOXES had to be moved because Deputy Boone found the rifle at the bottom of a chasm of books ...BUT.. everybody who saw the rifle swore that nobody touched the rifle prior to Lt grabbing the leather strap and picking it up. And we can see with our own eyes that this is true. 

We know no such thing. The footage can't tell you that. Maybe the footage cut from the film could tell you that, but not "as is". You have to get past this. Testimony is worthless from the conspirators and you think Craig was a king kong bullspombleprofglidnoctobunster. So toss out all the witnesses because you can't believe any of them. Also, the Alyea film was missing footage and heavily edited by the conspirators so why do you keep treating it like gospel? The photos could very well have been taken prior to the shooting and the missing Alyea footage might have shown the rifle in-situ on its side. This is why they may have cut that scene from the film. But they also cut it out because it showed the strap that was missing from the in-situ photos.

Quote
The point is:.... This site at the bottom of a chasm of books was 15 feet 4 inches from the north wall, and down in a hole that was over four feet deep. No mortal man could have dashed through that aisle ( formed by boxes of books) at the top of the stairs and hastily dumped that rifle as he fled.   The Alyea footage proves that the DPD were lying, and creating fake photos to frame Lee Oswald.

Maybe the cut footage would prove the DPD were lying but not the way it is now. The missing footage might have shown Day moving the boxes to get at the MC and laying the rifle on its side so he could grab the strap. The footage we see cuts in just as he's picking up the rifle from its side, but it doesn't mean it is cutting in as he is touching the rifle for the 1st time. The footage has no time reference relative to the in-situ photos so it proves nothing. Close but no cigar.

Quote
That rifle had to have been placed on the floor and then the boxes stacked around it PRIOR to the murder. That carcano was never fired that day....   And yet the FBI swore that it was the murder weapon.... 

And THAT is....... "THE REST OF THE STORY!" .................... END

One of the rare times I agree with you. How's your re-enactment coming? I want to know how Oswald hid the strap from view as he ditched the rifle among the boxes as depicted in the in-situ photos. It would be a better use of your time because you've reached a dead end otherwise. Move along folks, no proof here.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 21, 2021, 10:43:14 AM
I already read that article and used to think Alyea was just a pawn in the coup until I realized the extent of the DPD's involvement. There is no way in hell Fritz would let a freelance photographer film anything without an agreement ahead of time that Fritz called all the shots and had total control over the crime scene. You only get that from complicity. Alyea was allowed to criticize the DPD with unfounded suspicions to give himself some plausible deniability and to distance himself from the conspiracy. But rest assured Fritz must have had Alyea under his thumb the whole time, otherwise, why wasn't Alyea allowed to keep his film? What option did Alyea have but to deny any involvement and play the inadvertent pawn role.

Your reasoning - that Alyea was 'allowed' to report the criminal negligence of Fritz and his men because he was under Fritz's thumb - doesn't stand up to the mildest scrutiny and, to my ears, screams Tin Foil.

"There is no way in hell Fritz would let a freelance photographer film anything without an agreement ahead of time"

Alyea was in there before Fritz arrived. When, exactly did Alyea thrash out this deal with Fritz about entering the TSBD? Before the shooting?

"But rest assured Fritz must have had Alyea under his thumb the whole time, otherwise, why wasn't Alyea allowed to keep his film?"

Have you really read the article? In it Alyea states:

"I took the film from my camera, placed it back into its metal can, wrapped the tape around it, and tossed it to our News Editor, A. J. L'Hoste, who was waiting outside with the other newsmen who were not allowed in the building. A. J. raced it to the television station which was about three blocks away. About fifteen minutes later the world saw the murder weapon, where it was found and pictures of the crime lab people dusting it for fingerprints, and the shell casings that once housed those bullets. They also saw how the assassin prepared for his ambush and the view he had of the killing zone."

What makes you think he wasn't allowed to keep his film?
None of your reasoning about Alyea and his presence in the TSBD makes any sense and you seem to have a very loose grasp of some key events.

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 21, 2021, 11:00:13 AM
So what if the rifle is laying on its side? This footage was clearly shot after Day had already moved the boxes to expose the rifle and after the photographer took his 2 photos. Day probably laid the rifle down then, but not necessarily. We need to find out if Alyea took any footage of the rifle in-situ and how it compares to the 2 photos. Otherwise, the footage of Day picking up the rifle is useless to us.

We need to compare the missing Alyea footage with the 2 photos to see if the rifle is laying on its side, but that doesn't matter nearly as much as what happened to the strap?

I found some other Alyea footage and made a compilation of any related to the rifle and it's location but in was too big to download.
Below is the opening of it. In it we see Fritz walking into the small area where the rifle is located. There is one shot, quite poor quality, showing the rifle in position near his feet. It is in the upright position:

(https://i.postimg.cc/cHkt0kZ9/Alyea-Fritz.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

in the article I posted Alyea states:

"Still pictures were taken of the positioning of the rifle, then Lt. Day slid it out from its hiding place and held it up for all of us to see. The world has seen my shot of this many times."

In the Alyea footage we don't see Day sliding the rifle out of it's hiding place. We just see him picking up the rifle after he has done so.

What happened to the strap?

(https://i.postimg.cc/4dt0DT2S/hiddenrifle-6.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/fyD81S9V/Screenshot-43.png) (https://postimages.org/)

The strap is clearly on the side facing away from us and out of sight. No real mystery.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 21, 2021, 02:57:20 PM
Your reasoning - that Alyea was 'allowed' to report the criminal negligence of Fritz and his men because he was under Fritz's thumb - doesn't stand up to the mildest scrutiny and, to my ears, screams Tin Foil.

"There is no way in hell Fritz would let a freelance photographer film anything without an agreement ahead of time"

Alyea was in there before Fritz arrived. When, exactly did Alyea thrash out this deal with Fritz about entering the TSBD? Before the shooting?

"But rest assured Fritz must have had Alyea under his thumb the whole time, otherwise, why wasn't Alyea allowed to keep his film?"

Have you really read the article? In it Alyea states:

"I took the film from my camera, placed it back into its metal can, wrapped the tape around it, and tossed it to our News Editor, A. J. L'Hoste, who was waiting outside with the other newsmen who were not allowed in the building. A. J. raced it to the television station which was about three blocks away. About fifteen minutes later the world saw the murder weapon, where it was found and pictures of the crime lab people dusting it for fingerprints, and the shell casings that once housed those bullets. They also saw how the assassin prepared for his ambush and the view he had of the killing zone."

What makes you think he wasn't allowed to keep his film?
None of your reasoning about Alyea and his presence in the TSBD makes any sense and you seem to have a very loose grasp of some key events.

criminal negligence of Fritz and his men

It wasn't "negligence"....   Fritz was a key conspirator....   He was a bit mentally deranged, and truly believed that JFK was a genuine threat to the country that he had grown up in.    Which was the old south of segregation, and white supremacy,
It would not surprise me if it were revealed that Fritz was a leading member of General Walker's Minute Men, or the KKK.
Since Fritz, and many other wealthy, powerful men, in Dallas  believed that they were great patriots and they had saved the(ir)  country with the murder of  John Kennedy they saw no crime in their actions.   

I agree Dan,  Jack has preconceived ideas and he refuses to accept facts....I doubt that he will ever give up the idea that a 7.65 mauser was the rifle that Boone and Weitzman found.  It's a pity that folks latch onto some BS and build a whole case on the BS.....   However, I strongly believe that the government knew that there would be people who would construct such BS cases and encouraged that ( Many "history channel" stories about the coup d e'tat, are based on BS) 
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 21, 2021, 03:08:02 PM
I found some other Alyea footage and made a compilation of any related to the rifle and it's location but in was too big to download.
Below is the opening of it. In it we see Fritz walking into the small area where the rifle is located. There is one shot, quite poor quality, showing the rifle in position near his feet. It is in the upright position:

(https://i.postimg.cc/cHkt0kZ9/Alyea-Fritz.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

in the article I posted Alyea states:

"Still pictures were taken of the positioning of the rifle, then Lt. Day slid it out from its hiding place and held it up for all of us to see. The world has seen my shot of this many times."

In the Alyea footage we don't see Day sliding the rifle out of it's hiding place. We just see him picking up the rifle after he has done so.

What happened to the strap?

(https://i.postimg.cc/4dt0DT2S/hiddenrifle-6.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/fyD81S9V/Screenshot-43.png) (https://postimages.org/)

The strap is clearly on the side facing away from us and out of sight. No real mystery.

The strap is clearly on the side facing away from us and out of sight. No real mystery.

Dan what is it going to take to convince you that the official in situ phots are fakes?

In the Alyea shot that shows the carcano lying on it's right side the leather strap is right there at Day's finger tips, on top of the stock.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 21, 2021, 04:25:00 PM
The strap is clearly on the side facing away from us and out of sight. No real mystery.

Dan what is it going to take to convince you that the official in situ phots are fakes?

In the Alyea shot that shows the carcano lying on it's right side the leather strap is right there at Day's finger tips, on top of the stock.

The in-situ rifle photos are not fake Walt.
Alyea filmed the rifle in the upright position before Day was anywhere near it.
Day slid the rifle out from beneath the overhanging boxes before he picked it up.
We don't see the bit where Day slid the rifle out, we just see the bit where he picked it up.

No offence Walt, but you don not have one grain of evidence the photos were faked.
Absolutely nothing.
But it doesn't change what you believe.

You can repeat the line about the Alyea film all you want.

Walt, what's it going to take to convince you that you are wrong about the in-situ rifle photos being fake?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 21, 2021, 07:41:15 PM
The in-situ rifle photos are not fake Walt.
Alyea filmed the rifle in the upright position before Day was anywhere near it.
Day slid the rifle out from beneath the overhanging boxes before he picked it up.
We don't see the bit where Day slid the rifle out, we just see the bit where he picked it up.

No offence Walt, but you don not have one grain of evidence the photos were faked.
Absolutely nothing.
But it doesn't change what you believe.

You can repeat the line about the Alyea film all you want.

What is happening when Alyea's clip begins...

Detective Studebaker is perched atop the stack of boxes after photographing the rifle in situ.

(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdchm5q/Alyea-clip3.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Then about two to three seconds later the rifle is clearly visible, just beyond Lt Day's left elbow. The light colored metal butt plate on the butt of the rifle is clearly visible and it is in the horizontal position.  The leather sling is right there on top  ( left side of the stock up) at Lt Day's  finger tips and he grabs that leather strap.   then he picks up the carcano and lifts it into the air.

Walt, what's it going to take to convince you that you are wrong about the in-situ rifle photos being fake?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 21, 2021, 08:17:17 PM


As has already been explained, the part of the Alyea film I posted shows Fritz stood in the area where the rifle is. One clip, although poor quality, shows the rifle in an upright position at Fritz's feet.
Alyea states he sees Day slide the rifle out from under the boxes before picking it up. The bit where Day slides the rifle out has not been filmed, just Day picking up the rifle.

This is the footage I've cobbled together from various Alyea clips:

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 21, 2021, 08:18:55 PM
So what if the rifle is laying on its side? This footage was clearly shot after Day had already moved the boxes to expose the rifle and after the photographer took his 2 photos. Day probably laid the rifle down then, but not necessarily. We need to find out if Alyea took any footage of the rifle in-situ and how it compares to the 2 photos. Otherwise, the footage of Day picking up the rifle is useless to us.
We need to compare the missing Alyea footage with the 2 photos to see if the rifle is laying on its side, but that doesn't matter nearly as much as what happened to the strap?

So what if the rifle is laying on its side?

e need to find out if Alyea took any footage of the rifle in-situ and how it compares to the 2 photos.

At this point nobody has touched the carcano..... Detective Studebaker has just photographed the carcano in situ....

This footage was clearly shot after Day had already moved the boxes to expose the rifle and after the photographer took his 2 photos.

Yes, you are right.....( although I don't know the number of photo taken)

Day probably laid the rifle down then, but not necessarily.

Pure speculation, .....and contrary to the testimony, and affidavits, of EVERY witness who was there.

We need to find out if Alyea took any footage of the rifle in-situ and how it compares to the 2 photos.

WAKE UP  Jack.... You're dreamin.....  That footage, if it ever existed, was destroyed long ago.

We need to compare the missing Alyea footage with the 2 photos

How does a person go about comparing something with nothing?....

to see if the rifle is laying on its side, but that doesn't matter nearly as much as what happened to the strap?

The strap is right there on top of the stock ( Left side up) and Day grabs it and lifts the rifle.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 21, 2021, 08:41:05 PM
As has already been explained, the part of the Alyea film I posted shows Fritz stood in the area where the rifle is. One clip, although poor quality, shows the rifle in an upright position at Fritz's feet.
Alyea states he sees Day slide the rifle out from under the boxes before picking it up. The bit where Day slides the rifle out has not been filmed, just Day picking up the rifle.

This is the footage I've cobbled together from various Alyea clips:


Dan at the 7  thru 12 second portion of your video ...Notice the BRIGHT sunshine reflecting off the top of the card board box on the lower left side of the photos .    That is exactly the way the insitu photos should be.....   Why is there no sunshine in the official in situ photos?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 21, 2021, 09:42:36 PM
Dan at the 7  thru 12 second portion of your video ...Notice the BRIGHT sunshine reflecting off the top of the card board box on the lower left side of the photos .    That is exactly the way the insitu photos should be.....   Why is there no sunshine in the official in situ photos?

You'll not that some of the clips seem really 'overexposed' and some don't. It's not really bright sunshine.
I'm also assuming, although I could easily be wrong, that Alyea is using some kind of light source.

You're grasping at straws Walt.
If you want something more solid on Fritz altering the scene of the crime read that Alyea article I posted.
I found it eye-opening to say the least.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 21, 2021, 09:56:39 PM
You'll not that some of the clips seem really 'overexposed' and some don't. It's not really bright sunshine.
I'm also assuming, although I could easily be wrong, that Alyea is using some kind of light source.

You're grasping at straws Walt.
If you want something more solid on Fritz altering the scene of the crime read that Alyea article I posted.
I found it eye-opening to say the least.


If you want something more solid on Fritz altering the scene of the crime

Who said anything about Fritz altering the scene    OF THE CRIME

He merely had much of Alyea's film destroyed....    And then created fake in situ photos.   I wish I could get you to slow down and LOOK at every frame of Alyea's footage....Then you may see that the scene from Alyea's footage does not jibe with the official in situ photo.   The boxes are positioned totally differently in the official in situ photo and the site is about a foot closer to the stairs.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 21, 2021, 10:19:27 PM
"He had to be complicit in the whole thing."

Came across the article from an interview with Tom Alyea. It has corrections at the end by Alyea himself.
I think you'll have to agree Alyea isn't complicit in any way as he is incredibly critical of Fritz and the investigation in general.
It's well worth checking out.

https://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html

Only recently I saw a picture of Lt. Day with a news still cameraman on the 6th floor. Day was shown pointing to the location where the rifle was found. This was nearly 3:30 or after. It was my understanding that Day and Studebaker had taken the prints, rifle and homemade sack back to police headquarters. I personally would like to know what they were doing back at the scene unless it was to reconstruct shots they had failed to take during the primary investigation. But this evidence had been destroyed and they were forced to create their own version.

Day was already lying to newsmen....The point he is pointing to is NOT the place the rifle was found.   

It didn't take a genius like Einstein to see that Lee Oswald could not have dashed by and placed that rifle at the bottom of a chasm that was five feet away from the aisle.  Thus they knew that they had to move that rifle over closer to the aisle and remove the boxes that were stacked around it. ....and That's exactly what Day was doing when he pointed to a spot that was closer to the aisle. 
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 21, 2021, 10:22:48 PM
Only recently I saw a picture of Lt. Day with a news still cameraman on the 6th floor. Day was shown pointing to the location where the rifle was found. This was nearly 3:30 or after. It was my understanding that Day and Studebaker had taken the prints, rifle and homemade sack back to police headquarters. I personally would like to know what they were doing back at the scene unless it was to reconstruct shots they had failed to take during the primary investigation. But this evidence had been destroyed and they were forced to create their own version.

Day was already lying to newsmen....The point he is pointing to is NOT the place the rifle was found.   

It didn't take a genius like Einstein to see that Lee Oswald could not have dashed by and placed that rifle at the bottom of a chasm that was five feet away from the aisle.  Thus they knew that they had to move that rifle over closer to the aisle and remove the boxes that were stacked around it. ....and That's exactly what Day was doing when he pointed to a spot that was closer to the aisle.

"It didn't take a genius like Einstein to see that Lee Oswald could not have dashed by and placed that rifle at the bottom of a chasm that was five feet away from the aisle."

Alyea disagrees on that point

Q - Did Oswald get enough time to hide his weapon so perfectly, if we considered that he was interviewed by Baker and Truly less than 1 minute after the last shot. According to you and with your perfect knowledge of the building, was that possible?

Yes, Oswald had time to hide his rifle. The location was in front of the stairway that Oswald took to leave the floor. It was obviously pre constructed so he could slip the rifle under the overhanging boxes as he entered the down stairway, only about five feet away. It would have not taken him over two seconds. No boxes had to be moved. The rifle did not touch any of the three overhanging boxes, and there were no boxes touching the rifle. When Lt. Day retrieved it, he pulled it effortlessly from under the overhanging boxes. This was the first time any of us saw the scope, bolt and trigger housing.

One minute would be calling it a bit close, however, if I recall correctly, Officer Baker said he encountered Oswald 90 seconds after he entered the building. We are playing with time estimates from an officer who provided a rough calculation. He could be correct, but 90 seconds is well within the time it would take for Oswald to get from the sniper’s window to the second floor. Oswald was accustomed to handling heavy boxes and the race downstairs would certainly not leave him breathless.



http://www.jfk-assassinat.com/index.php?module=pages&type=user&func=display&pageid=170
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 21, 2021, 10:49:24 PM
"It didn't take a genius like Einstein to see that Lee Oswald could not have dashed by and placed that rifle at the bottom of a chasm that was five feet away from the aisle."

Alyea disagrees on that point

Q - Did Oswald get enough time to hide his weapon so perfectly, if we considered that he was interviewed by Baker and Truly less than 1 minute after the last shot. According to you and with your perfect knowledge of the building, was that possible?

Yes, Oswald had time to hide his rifle. The location was in front of the stairway that Oswald took to leave the floor. It was obviously pre constructed so he could slip the rifle under the overhanging boxes as he entered the down stairway, only about five feet away. It would have not taken him over two seconds. No boxes had to be moved. The rifle did not touch any of the three overhanging boxes, and there were no boxes touching the rifle. When Lt. Day retrieved it, he pulled it effortlessly from under the overhanging boxes. This was the first time any of us saw the scope, bolt and trigger housing.

One minute would be calling it a bit close, however, if I recall correctly, Officer Baker said he encountered Oswald 90 seconds after he entered the building. We are playing with time estimates from an officer who provided a rough calculation. He could be correct, but 90 seconds is well within the time it would take for Oswald to get from the sniper’s window to the second floor. Oswald was accustomed to handling heavy boxes and the race downstairs would certainly not leave him breathless.

http://www.jfk-assassinat.com/index.php?module=pages&type=user&func=display&pageid=170

Q - Did Oswald get enough time to hide his weapon so perfectly, if we considered that he was interviewed by Baker and Truly less than 1 minute after the last shot. According to you and with your perfect knowledge of the building, was that possible?

Did Oswald get enough time to hide his weapon so perfectly,

The rifle was "perfectly hidden"....  Do the official DPD insitu photos show a "perfectly hidden" rifle ??

 According to you and with your perfect knowledge of the building, was that possible?

Yes, Oswald had time to hide his rifle. The location was in front of the stairway that Oswald took to leave the floor. It was obviously pre constructed so he could slip the rifle under the overhanging boxes as he entered the down stairway, only about five feet away. It would have not taken him over two seconds. No boxes had to be moved. The rifle did not touch any of the three overhanging boxes, and there were no boxes touching the rifle. When Lt. Day retrieved it, he pulled it effortlessly from under the overhanging boxes. This was the first time any of us saw the scope, bolt and trigger housing.

It was obviously pre constructed

Alyea recognized that the site had to have been constructed BEFORE the shooting.....

he could slip the rifle under the overhanging boxes as he entered the down stairway,

Boone, Weitzman and Craig described the site where the rifle was found .... Boone moved a box that served as a Lid over the top of the chasm of boxes and shined his flashlight down into the dark recess at the bottom of the chasm and spotted a portion of the butt of the rifle that was lying on the floor.  Craig said that the rifle was on the floor at the bottom of a chasm, which was created by boxes of books ..... (Read his testimony)

No fleeing man could have deposited that rifle at the bottom of the chasm.   ( try to put a broom into a space that is 2'X 3 ' by 4 feet deep while you are standing about five feet away from that space.)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 21, 2021, 11:06:19 PM
Q - Did Oswald get enough time to hide his weapon so perfectly, if we considered that he was interviewed by Baker and Truly less than 1 minute after the last shot. According to you and with your perfect knowledge of the building, was that possible?

Did Oswald get enough time to hide his weapon so perfectly,

The rifle was "perfectly hidden"....  Do the official DPD insitu photos show a "perfectly hidden" rifle ??

 According to you and with your perfect knowledge of the building, was that possible?

Yes, Oswald had time to hide his rifle. The location was in front of the stairway that Oswald took to leave the floor. It was obviously pre constructed so he could slip the rifle under the overhanging boxes as he entered the down stairway, only about five feet away. It would have not taken him over two seconds. No boxes had to be moved. The rifle did not touch any of the three overhanging boxes, and there were no boxes touching the rifle. When Lt. Day retrieved it, he pulled it effortlessly from under the overhanging boxes. This was the first time any of us saw the scope, bolt and trigger housing.

It was obviously pre constructed

Alyea recognized that the site had to have been constructed BEFORE the shooting.....

he could slip the rifle under the overhanging boxes as he entered the down stairway,

Boone, Weitzman and Craig described the site where the rifle was found .... Boone moved a box that served as a Lid over the top of the chasm of boxes and shined his flashlight down into the dark recess at the bottom of the chasm and spotted a portion of the butt of the rifle that was lying on the floor.  Craig said that the rifle was on the floor at the bottom of a chasm, which was created by boxes of books ..... (Read his testimony)

No fleeing man could have deposited that rifle at the bottom of the chasm.   ( try to put a broom into a space that is 2'X 3 ' by 4 feet deep while you are standing about five feet away from that space.)

(https://i.postimg.cc/cHkt0kZ9/Alyea-Fritz.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

In the clip above there's a moment when Fritz stands up and the boxes in front of him are about waist level.

Hardly a "chasm", as you insist on calling it.

If Oswald was the fleeing assassin he could've easily leant over and slid the rifle underneath on his way past it.

If it was a set-up, it would not be set up in such a way that Oswald couldn't have easily hidden it there.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 22, 2021, 01:20:23 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/cHkt0kZ9/Alyea-Fritz.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

In the clip above there's a moment when Fritz stands up and the boxes in front of him are about waist level.

Hardly a "chasm", as you insist on calling it.

If Oswald was the fleeing assassin he could've easily leant over and slid the rifle underneath on his way past it.

If it was a set-up, it would not be set up in such a way that Oswald couldn't have easily hidden it there.

Mr. CBAKJ. About S-foot.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. Cmo. I went over to the-uh-cluster of boxes where he was standing
and looked down between the boxes and saw the rifle lying on the floor.
Mr. BF.LIN. When you say “between the cluster of boxes,” could you describe
which way the boxes were?
Mr. &AK+. There was a row going east to west on the north side of the
weapon, and a box going east to west on the south side of the weapon, and-uhif I remember, uh-as you’d look down, you had to look kinda back under
268
the north stack of boxes to see the rifle. It was pushed kinda under-uh-or
up tight against ‘em-you know, where it would be hard to see. bud, of course,
both ends of the rows were closed off where you couldn’t see through ‘em. You
had to get up and look in ‘em.
Mr. BELIN. You are gesturing with your hand there-woultl you say that
the boxes, then, as you gestured, were in the shape of what I would call a
rectangular “O”, so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes, yes, uh-huh.
Mr. BEWN. And about how high were the walls of this enclosure, so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG. Well, it-it was different heights. Sow. the part where I looked
in particularly was about-uh-oh, was about s-foot.

Mr. BELIN. All right.
And you gestured there in such a way that you had to lean over and look
straight down? Would that be a fair statemeut of your gestures?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes; yes. You had to lean over the boses and look down.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Then what happened? After you found this, did people come over-or what?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 22, 2021, 01:43:42 AM
Mr. CBAKJ. About S-foot.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. Cmo. I went over to the-uh-cluster of boxes where he was standing
and looked down between the boxes and saw the rifle lying on the floor.
Mr. BF.LIN. When you say “between the cluster of boxes,” could you describe
which way the boxes were?
Mr. &AK+. There was a row going east to west on the north side of the
weapon, and a box going east to west on the south side of the weapon, and-uhif I remember, uh-as you’d look down, you had to look kinda back under
268
the north stack of boxes to see the rifle. It was pushed kinda under-uh-or
up tight against ‘em-you know, where it would be hard to see. bud, of course,
both ends of the rows were closed off where you couldn’t see through ‘em. You
had to get up and look in ‘em.
Mr. BELIN. You are gesturing with your hand there-woultl you say that
the boxes, then, as you gestured, were in the shape of what I would call a
rectangular “O”, so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes, yes, uh-huh.
Mr. BEWN. And about how high were the walls of this enclosure, so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG. Well, it-it was different heights. Sow. the part where I looked
in particularly was about-uh-oh, was about s-foot.

Mr. BELIN. All right.
And you gestured there in such a way that you had to lean over and look
straight down? Would that be a fair statemeut of your gestures?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes; yes. You had to lean over the boses and look down.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Then what happened? After you found this, did people come over-or what?


Look at the film again Walt.
As Craig says, the boxes were different heights. You can see that in the film.
One of the sides is about 5ft tall (that's where Studebaker is when he takes the photo).
All Craig is saying is that he was stood by that stack.
The stack opposite is about waist height.
You can see this in the film.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 22, 2021, 01:59:32 AM

Look at the film again Walt.
As Craig says, the boxes were different heights. You can see that in the film.
One of the sides is about 5ft tall (that's where Studebaker is when he takes the photo).
All Craig is saying is that he was stood by that stack.
The stack opposite is about waist height.
You can see this in the film.

There is a record of Craig saying that he was 6 feet tall and he could not have put the rifle at the bottom of that chasm.

Yes, the boxes were stacked to different heights in that area.....But the place where the rifle was found was at the bottom of boxes that were stacked on four sides of the rifle with another box covering the opening at the top ( read Boones statement)

Visualize a 5'9" tall, skinny man reaching out about four feet while holding an 8 pound rifle and then trying to put that rifle at the bottom of a chasm of boxes that was about four feet deep.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 22, 2021, 12:38:02 PM
There is a record of Craig saying that he was 6 feet tall and he could not have put the rifle at the bottom of that chasm.

Yes, the boxes were stacked to different heights in that area.....But the place where the rifle was found was at the bottom of boxes that were stacked on four sides of the rifle with another box covering the opening at the top ( read Boones statement)

Visualize a 5'9" tall, skinny man reaching out about four feet while holding an 8 pound rifle and then trying to put that rifle at the bottom of a chasm of boxes that was about four feet deep.

I'm bored with this Walt.
You can see in the clip below that when Fritz stands up the boxes in front of him are about waist high.
You can see it.
It's evidence.
You can pretend you don't see it because it suits you not to. You're locked in this idea the in-situ photos are fake and will not let go but you're starting to sound a bit silly.
A midget could reach over the boxes in front of Fritz and put a rifle on the floor.

(https://i.postimg.cc/cHkt0kZ9/Alyea-Fritz.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

Tom Alyea reports, more than once, that he was stood next to Fritz when he squeezed into the sniper's nest and picked up the shells lying on the floor. Fritz, a homicide detective, knew not to pick the shells up but he did and then pocketed them. He also pocketed the live round that he ejected out of the rifle, something confirmed by multiple witnesses including Fritz.
I'm going to wander down this path for a while to see what I find, as the fake photo thing is clearly a dead-end.

I find Alyea very credible and am a bit saddened about what he has to say concerning Roger Craig:

"One of them was Roger Craig, who is responsible for giving much misinformation to the press..."

Near the beginning of my research I came across the Lane interview of Craig and instantly had a very strong, completely irrational urge to believe him. I imagined him to be a simple, honest man up against extraordinary forces but standing up against these forces regardless of the danger it put him in (to be honest, I still look at him this way to a large degree). But as time went by little slivers of doubt began to creep in about Craig which I ignored but this little detour into whether the rifle photos were fake has been a tipping point. I feel certain there was no Mauser found on the 6th floor, it was some kind of misunderstanding that escalated. As such, Craig never saw "Mauser" stamped on the barrel.
Why did he lie about that?
Here's the new thing I'd like to believe - the investigation and collection of evidence on the 6th floor was clearly corrupt, not just negligent. Evidence was tampered with and manipulated, some of the evidence that made it into the WC hearings was actually staged. At the heart of this was Fritz, other members of the DPD just went along with it to cover for Fritz but weren't necessarily 'conspirators' in any meaningful way.
Craig, however, would not go along with it. At the expense of his career, family and personal safety he stood against those participating in this gross miscarriage of justice. He wanted to convince the world of the DPD's guilt and, in doing so, created the lie about the Mauser.
That's my story, anyway, and I'm sticking to it
(for now)


Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 22, 2021, 02:53:28 PM
I'm bored with this Walt.
You can see in the clip below that when Fritz stands up the boxes in front of him are about waist high.
You can see it.
It's evidence.
You can pretend you don't see it because it suits you not to. You're locked in this idea the in-situ photos are fake and will not let go but you're starting to sound a bit silly.
A midget could reach over the boxes in front of Fritz and put a rifle on the floor.

(https://i.postimg.cc/cHkt0kZ9/Alyea-Fritz.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

Tom Alyea reports, more than once, that he was stood next to Fritz when he squeezed into the sniper's nest and picked up the shells lying on the floor. Fritz, a homicide detective, knew not to pick the shells up but he did and then pocketed them. He also pocketed the live round that he ejected out of the rifle, something confirmed by multiple witnesses including Fritz.
I'm going to wander down this path for a while to see what I find, as the fake photo thing is clearly a dead-end.

I find Alyea very credible and am a bit saddened about what he has to say concerning Roger Craig:

"One of them was Roger Craig, who is responsible for giving much misinformation to the press..."

Near the beginning of my research I came across the Lane interview of Craig and instantly had a very strong, completely irrational urge to believe him. I imagined him to be a simple, honest man up against extraordinary forces but standing up against these forces regardless of the danger it put him in (to be honest, I still look at him this way to a large degree). But as time went by little slivers of doubt began to creep in about Craig which I ignored but this little detour into whether the rifle photos were fake has been a tipping point. I feel certain there was no Mauser found on the 6th floor, it was some kind of misunderstanding that escalated. As such, Craig never saw "Mauser" stamped on the barrel.
Why did he lie about that?
Here's the new thing I'd like to believe - the investigation and collection of evidence on the 6th floor was clearly corrupt, not just negligent. Evidence was tampered with and manipulated, some of the evidence that made it into the WC hearings was actually staged. At the heart of this was Fritz, other members of the DPD just went along with it to cover for Fritz but weren't necessarily 'conspirators' in any meaningful way.
Craig, however, would not go along with it. At the expense of his career, family and personal safety he stood against those participating in this gross miscarriage of justice. He wanted to convince the world of the DPD's guilt and, in doing so, created the lie about the Mauser.
That's my story, anyway, and I'm sticking to it
(for now)

Dan, We're pretty much in harmony.....The major difference is I believe the corrupt DPD staged the in situ photos. and they did that because the location of the rifle as found would not support the story about Lee Oswald dashing by and hastily dumping the rifle .... 
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 22, 2021, 03:40:43 PM
Dan, We're pretty much in harmony.....The major difference is I believe the corrupt DPD staged the in situ photos. and they did that because the location of the rifle as found would not support the story about Lee Oswald dashing by and hastily dumping the rifle ....

On a lot of this we are in harmony Walt.
This area of the assassination is not something I've focussed on yet but the time has come to get into it.
As far as I'm concerned the fake photos are a dead-end and I've seen more than enough to demonstrate this to my satisfaction.

Now I've started looking into it there are a couple of avenues I'm going to follow:

Alyea's observation of Fritz handling the shells.
I'm going to assume Fritz's culpability in deliberately tampering with this specific evidence.

Various statements and testimonies of members of the DPD present to see if I can discern a pattern of 'covering for the boss'.

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 22, 2021, 03:59:47 PM
On a lot of this we are in harmony Walt.
This area of the assassination is not something I've focussed on yet but the time has come to get into it.
As far as I'm concerned the fake photos are a dead-end and I've seen more than enough to demonstrate this to my satisfaction.

Now I've stated looking into it there are a couple of avenues I'm going to follow:

Alyea's observation of Fritz handling the shells.
I'm going to assume Fritz's culpability in deliberately tampering with this specific evidence.

Various statements and testimonies of members of the DPD present to see if I can discern a pattern of 'covering for the boss'.

Dan, I want you to know that I truly appreciate your replies to my posts....  Although I haven't  been able to open your eyes and see what I see regarding the in situ photo, the very fact that we are in complete harmony with regard to the staged "sniper's nest, the clip being in the rifle when it was found,  etc......  However I would caution you about believing everything that Tom Alyea has said.    He knows that the DPD created false evidence, and yet he believes that Lee Oswald was guilty.

Damned if I know how anybody could know that Lee Oswald was being framed and still believe the men who were framing him.

At any rate.... I truly appreciate your help in examining this aspect of the case....   
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 22, 2021, 05:47:27 PM
Roger Craig must have seen an Oswald imposter. Or it was the imposter who took the cab over to South Beckley and then walked over to meet and shoot Tippit.
The imposter was seen by Helen Markham and the Davis sisters and some others.
Just a glance...a fleeting second.
If it was Oswald that rode in the Rambler...he was taken to the rooming house.
A perplexing story...https://newsblaze.com/usnews/national/ruby-and-oswald-rendezvous-at-lucas-b-b_11034/

There you have it...doppleganger

Roger Craig must have seen an Oswald imposter.
That's a plausible  possibility.....   But there may be other explanations for the man who Craig saw leaving the scene.

Or it was the imposter who took the cab over to South Beckley and then walked over to meet and shoot Tippit.

The man in Whaley's taxi was not Lee Oswald...  I doubt that he had anything to do with the assassination or the Tippit murder.

The Bull Slinging cabbie ( Whaley) made up a tale for his fellow cabbies  about how he had transported the killer to Oak Cliff just minutes after the madman had killer JFK.   Whaley was a damned liar, and he was trapped in that lie.

The imposter was seen by Helen Markham and the Davis sisters and some others.

True ....Markham, Benavides, and the Davis sisters saw a man who was not Lee Oswald.....But whether he was the same man that Craig saw jump into a light colored Rambler station wagon, is an unknown.   It seems clear that the man who shot Tippit knew that Lee Oswald would be in the Theater, and he lured the police in that direction.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 22, 2021, 05:50:05 PM
On a lot of this we are in harmony Walt.
This area of the assassination is not something I've focussed on yet but the time has come to get into it.
As far as I'm concerned the fake photos are a dead-end and I've seen more than enough to demonstrate this to my satisfaction.

Now I've started looking into it there are a couple of avenues I'm going to follow:

Alyea's observation of Fritz handling the shells.
I'm going to assume Fritz's culpability in deliberately tampering with this specific evidence.

Various statements and testimonies of members of the DPD present to see if I can discern a pattern of 'covering for the boss'.

Dan, you shouldn't have any trouble finding evidence that the DPD officers closed ranks behind good ol Cap Fritz....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 22, 2021, 05:55:10 PM
Dan, I want you to know that I truly appreciate your replies to my posts....  Although I haven't  been able to open your eyes and see what I see regarding the in situ photo, the very fact that we are in complete harmony with regard to the staged "sniper's nest, the clip being in the rifle when it was found,  etc......  However I would caution you about believing everything that Tom Alyea has said.    He knows that the DPD created false evidence, and yet he believes that Lee Oswald was guilty.

Damned if I know how anybody could know that Lee Oswald was being framed and still believe the men who were framing him.

At any rate.... I truly appreciate your help in examining this aspect of the case....   

Nice one Walt.

I was already aware of Alyea's opinion regarding Oswald but, in a weird way, it kind of strengthens his position as a witness.
He doesn't believe Oswald was framed.
He seems to believe there was criminal negligence displayed by those investigating the crime. In particular Fritz.
He pulls no punches in reporting this corruption and cannot be considered a CTer with an axe to grind.
He is a very rare creature - a LNer who believes the investigation was corrupt and the findings of the WC suspect.

Definitely worth looking into.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 22, 2021, 08:17:26 PM
Nice one Walt.

I was already aware of Alyea's opinion regarding Oswald but, in a weird way, it kind of strengthens his position as a witness.
He doesn't believe Oswald was framed.
He seems to believe there was criminal negligence displayed by those investigating the crime. In particular Fritz.
He pulls no punches in reporting this corruption and cannot be considered a CTer with an axe to grind.
He is a very rare creature - a LNer who believes the investigation was corrupt and the findings of the WC suspect.

Definitely worth looking into.

Hi Dan, just wanted you to know....I posted this earlier in this thread....

I wrote: .... I misunderstood Roger Craigs description of the position of the rifle that was LYING ON THE FLOOR......

having read the blog, I now wonder if Craig ever saw the rifle in situ.... Because he said that the rifle was lying on a north / south configuration.... with the scope north and the trigger south.    I believe that this configuration is contrary to all other reports from the men who saw the rifle before it was removed from the place where it obviously had been CAREFULLY HIDDEN.


Craig  said that the rifle was lying on a north / south configuration.... with the scope north and the trigger south.  I had incorrectly interpreted this as the rifle being N/S...After rereading it I realized that Craig was describing the rifle as being E/W with the muzzle point east.  And the important point is....He clearly describes the rifle as lying on it's left side ( the magazine was on the south side of the rifle.

Roger's description is the correct orientation of the Mannlicher carcano.....as can be verified by watching as Lt Day picks the carcano up FROM THE FLOOR ( not jammed between boxes)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 22, 2021, 11:59:35 PM
I've done this Gif from the Alyea film showing the moment Day picks up the rifle. Two things need to be noted:

1) When it cuts to Day he is already crouching down with his hands on or near the rifle. There is no telling how long he was down there
    before it cuts to him.
2) At the very beginning of the clip the rifle is out of sight so we can't tell what's happening down there.

Conclusion - the Alyea clip cannot be used to support the idea the rifle was lying on its side. As soon as Day grabs the strap the rifle flips into a "lying down" position (I'm sure there's a better way to phrase it)

(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdchm5q/Alyea-clip3.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

[JFK Forum Screenshot.png][/img]
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 23, 2021, 12:16:36 AM
I've done this Gif from the Alyea film showing the moment Day picks up the rifle. Two things need to be noted:

1) When it cuts to Day he is already crouching down with his hands on or near the rifle. There is no telling how long he was down there
    before it cuts to him.
2) At the very beginning of the clip the rifle is out of sight so we can't tell what's happening down there.

Conclusion - the Alyea clip cannot be used to support the idea the rifle was lying on its side. As soon as Day grabs the strap the rifle flips into a "lying down" position (I'm sure there's a better way to phrase it)

(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdchm5q/Alyea-clip3.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

Copy/Paste this into your Search engine to view the image.
file:///C:/Users/Walt/Pictures/Saved%20Pictures/ScreenShotRifle.png
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 23, 2021, 12:31:03 AM
Copy/Paste this into your Search engine to view the image.
file:///C:/Users/Walt/Pictures/Saved%20Pictures/ScreenShotRifle.png

When I do it just says "Your file can't be accessed"
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 23, 2021, 01:12:52 AM
You would have to be on Walt's computer for that to actually work.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 23, 2021, 01:21:47 AM
You would have to be on Walt's computer for that to actually work.

I'm sorry, I had a friend do a screen shot of the Alyea film ..... I thought they had posted the screen shot....

I'll see if I can post that screen shot.....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 23, 2021, 01:33:13 AM
(http://C:\Users\Walt\Pictures\Saved Pictures\ScreenShotRifle (2).png)


Apparently it didn't up load..... But my young friend made my day .....  When I showed them the Alyea film clip and pointed out what i wanted ( the shot of the rifle butt) And started to explain what it was that they were seeing.....They responded " oh, I could see that it is a rifle butt"    I then showed them the butt plate on a carcano and they recognized that the photo does in fact show the butt plate of a carcano.... which was no surprise to me , but the fact that they recognized it immediately made me smile.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 23, 2021, 04:09:10 AM
(http://C:\Users\Walt\Pictures\Saved Pictures\ScreenShotRifle (2).png)


Apparently it didn't up load..... But my young friend made my day .....  When I showed them the Alyea film clip and pointed out what i wanted ( the shot of the rifle butt) And started to explain what it was that they were seeing.....They responded " oh, I could see that it is a rifle butt"    I then showed them the butt plate on a carcano and they recognized that the photo does in fact show the butt plate of a carcano.... which was no surprise to me , but the fact that they recognized it immediately made me smile.

I use this to upload images.
It's free, pretty straight-forward and reliable.

https://postimages.org/
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 23, 2021, 05:56:55 PM
I use this to upload images.
It's free, pretty straight-forward and reliable.

https://postimages.org/

Thanks, Dan.....  I'm very anxious to post the screen shot....   I know that you've said that you're bored with  talking about the Alyea film, but now that I've seen the screen shot there's no doubt that the scene isn't the same scene that is seen in the official DPD in situ photo.   

I now have a better understanding WHY the DPD allowed the Alyea clip to remain in the public domain.

The clip shows DPD detective Studebaker atop the stack of boxes.  He's just taken the in situ photo.... There's a very brief  interval about two seconds that shows the carcano lying on it's left side as Lt Day reaches out to pick up the rifle by the leather sling....   They never realized that anybody would notice that very brief glimpse of the carcano lying on it's side when they created the fake in situ photo.   ( They may not have realized that the Alyea clip actually shows the carcano....and it takes a certain familiarity with the carcano to spot the rifle. )

At any rate and for whatever reason the scene in that brief glimpse (seen in the stop action screen shot)  is totally different than the scene in the official DPD in situ.   

My friend who tried to help me post the screen shot has no knowledge of what is being filmed, and has no interest in the murder of JFK....  However ..When I pointed out that the man atop the boxes was a DPD detective, and he had just taken photos of the rifle in situ before it had been touched by anybody ....and then showed him the screen shot and the official in situ photo ....He gasped, and exclaimed....  That's ridiculous!         
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on February 23, 2021, 08:27:19 PM
Thanks, Dan.....  I'm very anxious to post the screen shot....   I know that you've said that you're bored with  talking about the Alyea film, but now that I've seen the screen shot there's no doubt that the scene isn't the same scene that is seen in the official DPD in situ photo.   

I now have a better understanding WHY the DPD allowed the Alyea clip to remain in the public domain.

The clip shows DPD detective Studebaker atop the stack of boxes.  He's just taken the in situ photo.... There's a very brief  interval about two seconds that shows the carcano lying on it's left side as Lt Day reaches out to pick up the rifle by the leather sling....   They never realized that anybody would notice that very brief glimpse of the carcano lying on it's side when they created the fake in situ photo.   ( They may not have realized that the Alyea clip actually shows the carcano....and it takes a certain familiarity with the carcano to spot the rifle. )

At any rate and for whatever reason the scene in that brief glimpse (seen in the stop action screen shot)  is totally different than the scene in the official DPD in situ.   

My friend who tried to help me post the screen shot has no knowledge of what is being filmed, and has no interest in the murder of JFK....  However ..When I pointed out that the man atop the boxes was a DPD detective, and he had just taken photos of the rifle in situ before it had been touched by anybody ....and then showed him the screen shot and the official in situ photo ....He gasped, and exclaimed....  That's ridiculous!         

Mr. BALL - And when you did look down there between the cartons, was the gun----
Mr. MOONEY - It was sitting in that position. The scope was up.
Mr. BALL - As shown in 514?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. That is the way it was laying, in that position.
Senator COOPER - It was lying on the floor?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER - With the scope on the upper side?
Mr. MOONEY - The scope in upright position. The stock was back to the east. In other words, the gun was pointed west.

Later addition:
Tom Alyea reports that Day slid the rifle out from under the boxes before he picked it up.
Day sliding it out wasn't filmed.
Day picking it up is the film we see
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 23, 2021, 08:33:53 PM
Mr. BALL - And when you did look down there between the cartons, was the gun----
Mr. MOONEY - It was sitting in that position. The scope was up.
Mr. BALL - As shown in 514?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. That is the way it was laying, in that position.
Senator COOPER - It was lying on the floor?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER - With the scope on the upper side?
Mr. MOONEY - The scope in upright position. The stock was back to the east. In other words, the gun was pointed west.

Mr. MOONEY - The scope in upright position. The stock was back to the east. In other words, the gun was pointed west.

There is no photo that shows a rifle pointed WEST......   I don't believe that Mooney ever saw the rifle in situ..... Mooney was over in the SE corner of the sixth floor .......
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 23, 2021, 09:46:33 PM
Mr. BALL - And when you did look down there between the cartons, was the gun----
Mr. MOONEY - It was sitting in that position. The scope was up.
Mr. BALL - As shown in 514?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. That is the way it was laying, in that position.
Senator COOPER - It was lying on the floor?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER - With the scope on the upper side?
Mr. MOONEY - The scope in upright position. The stock was back to the east. In other words, the gun was pointed west.

Later addition:
Tom Alyea reports that Day slid the rifle out from under the boxes before he picked it up.
Day sliding it out wasn't filmed.
Day picking it up is the film we see

Tom Alyea reports that Day slid the rifle out from under the boxes before he picked it up.

Well, when the Alyea fillm is scurtinized....  Day's action of picking up the carcano could be described as "sliding the rifle out"


And I was about 10 or 15 steps at the most from Officer Boone when he hollered, "Here is the gun."
Mr. BALL - Did you go over there?
Mr. MOONEY - I stepped over there.
Mr. BALL - What did you see?
Mr. MOONEY - I had to look twice before I actually saw the gun laying in there. I had to get around to the right angle before I could see it. And there the gun lay, stuck between these cartons in an upright position. The scope was up.
Mr. BALL - Well, now, will show you a picture, 514.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 514, for identification.)


Senator COOPER - Did you smell any powder?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; not to my knowledge. Of course it was musty odor, with all those cartons and books there.
Mr. BALL - Do you see the picture which is 514? Does it look like anything like that?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir; with the exception there was more cartons around it than that. In other words, the way it looked to me, when I walked over there of course these may have been disturbed at a later date.
Mr. BALL - It looks like there are more cartons?
Mr. MOONEY - No; there is less cartons around it right now. Of course that is looking straight down. Now, there are some more boxes here.
Mr. BALL - I show you a picture which we will mark as 515.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 515 for identification.)

Mr. MOONEY - But that is in the position the gun was laying.
Mr. BALL - That is about the position of the gun?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Now, here is a picture of that marked stairway. Can you orient yourself from that picture?
Mr. MOONEY - Let's see. Here is the staircase right in here. If I remember right, the gun was either in this crack or this one here. I don't remember which.
Mr. BALL - Does that show you about the number of cartons around?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir; that is the way it looked; sure did, because I had to stand up back here, before I could see over off in there.
Mr. BALL - And when you did look down there between the cartons, was the gun----
Mr. MOONEY - It was sitting in that position. The scope was up.
Mr. BALL - As shown in 514?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. That is the way it was laying, in that position.
Senator COOPER - It was lying on the floor?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER - With the scope on the upper side?
Mr. MOONEY - The scope in upright position. The stock was back to the east. In other words, the gun was pointed west.
Mr. BALL - Did a photographer come up and take pictures when you were there?
Mr. MOONEY - There was a number of photographers up there shooting pictures. Who they were or who they represented--I assume it was the press.
Mr. BALL - How long were they there?
Mr. MOONEY - They were there when all these officers and everybody was up there.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 24, 2021, 11:18:00 PM
Tom Alyea reports that Day slid the rifle out from under the boxes before he picked it up.

Well, when the Alyea fillm is scurtinized....  Day's action of picking up the carcano could be described as "sliding the rifle out"


And I was about 10 or 15 steps at the most from Officer Boone when he hollered, "Here is the gun."
Mr. BALL - Did you go over there?
Mr. MOONEY - I stepped over there.
Mr. BALL - What did you see?
Mr. MOONEY - I had to look twice before I actually saw the gun laying in there. I had to get around to the right angle before I could see it. And there the gun lay, stuck between these cartons in an upright position. The scope was up.
Mr. BALL - Well, now, will show you a picture, 514.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 514, for identification.)


Senator COOPER - Did you smell any powder?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; not to my knowledge. Of course it was musty odor, with all those cartons and books there.
Mr. BALL - Do you see the picture which is 514? Does it look like anything like that?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir; with the exception there was more cartons around it than that. In other words, the way it looked to me, when I walked over there of course these may have been disturbed at a later date.
Mr. BALL - It looks like there are more cartons?
Mr. MOONEY - No; there is less cartons around it right now. Of course that is looking straight down. Now, there are some more boxes here.
Mr. BALL - I show you a picture which we will mark as 515.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 515 for identification.)

Mr. MOONEY - But that is in the position the gun was laying.
Mr. BALL - That is about the position of the gun?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Now, here is a picture of that marked stairway. Can you orient yourself from that picture?
Mr. MOONEY - Let's see. Here is the staircase right in here. If I remember right, the gun was either in this crack or this one here. I don't remember which.
Mr. BALL - Does that show you about the number of cartons around?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir; that is the way it looked; sure did, because I had to stand up back here, before I could see over off in there.
Mr. BALL - And when you did look down there between the cartons, was the gun----
Mr. MOONEY - It was sitting in that position. The scope was up.
Mr. BALL - As shown in 514?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. That is the way it was laying, in that position.
Senator COOPER - It was lying on the floor?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER - With the scope on the upper side?
Mr. MOONEY - The scope in upright position. The stock was back to the east. In other words, the gun was pointed west.
Mr. BALL - Did a photographer come up and take pictures when you were there?
Mr. MOONEY - There was a number of photographers up there shooting pictures. Who they were or who they represented--I assume it was the press.
Mr. BALL - How long were they there?
Mr. MOONEY - They were there when all these officers and everybody was up there.

Is it just me....or is there something about Mooney's tale that smells fishy?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Rick Plant on March 09, 2021, 10:01:37 AM
Roger Craig must have seen an Oswald imposter. Or it was the imposter who took the cab over to South Beckley and then walked over to meet and shoot Tippit.
The imposter was seen by Helen Markham and the Davis sisters and some others.
Just a glance...a fleeting second.
If it was Oswald that rode in the Rambler...he was taken to the rooming house.
A perplexing story...https://newsblaze.com/usnews/national/ruby-and-oswald-rendezvous-at-lucas-b-b_11034/

There you have it...doppleganger

  :D :D :D

Yeah, an Oswald "imposter" was placed in the "perfect position" just for Roger Craig to witness.

Like anybody knew Craig would happen to run across Houston Street in that direction, at that exact moment, to have an Oswald "imposter" all ready for him to witness in the same attire getting inside a Rambler. This is QAnon nonsense and then a link from a right wing newsblaze propaganda site as so called "evidence" makes it official. Hilarious.   

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 09, 2021, 03:44:03 PM
Mr. BALL - And when you did look down there between the cartons, was the gun----
Mr. MOONEY - It was sitting in that position. The scope was up.
Mr. BALL - As shown in 514?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. That is the way it was laying, in that position.
Senator COOPER - It was lying on the floor?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER - With the scope on the upper side?
Mr. MOONEY - The scope in upright position. The stock was back to the east. In other words, the gun was pointed west.

Later addition:
Tom Alyea reports that Day slid the rifle out from under the boxes before he picked it up.
Day sliding it out wasn't filmed.
Day picking it up is the film we see

Day sliding it out wasn't filmed.
Day picking it up is the film we see


(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdchm5q/Alyea-clip3.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

Day sliding it out wasn't filmed.....  Day could not have slid the rifle out, because the butt of the 40 inch long rifle was about 24 inches from the west wall.  You cannot slide a 40 inch long rifle into a space of 24 inches....  However As Day picks the rifle up he does appear to pull the rifle back toward the wall .   It's very obvious that the carcano is lying on it's right side with the sling that is mounted on the left side of the stock, up.    Day simply reaches down and grabs the leather sling and pulls the rifle out from between the boxes.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on March 11, 2021, 01:10:16 PM
Craig was a nut.... period !!!  Next case.....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 11, 2021, 03:18:47 PM
Craig was a nut.... period !!!  Next case.....

Just like Lee Oswald and Arnold Rowland were nuts...... That's a pretty easy way to dismiss anybody that disagrees with you....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 19, 2021, 05:12:36 PM
Mr. BALL - And when you did look down there between the cartons, was the gun----
Mr. MOONEY - It was sitting in that position. The scope was up.
Mr. BALL - As shown in 514?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. That is the way it was laying, in that position.
Senator COOPER - It was lying on the floor?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER - With the scope on the upper side?
Mr. MOONEY - The scope in upright position. The stock was back to the east. In other words, the gun was pointed west.

Later addition:


Day sliding it out wasn't filmed.
Day picking it up is the film we see

Look at the 40  / 45 second point and notice that the butt plate of the rifle is horizontal as Lt Day grabs the sling and starts to pick up the Carcano.    This is the way the rifle was positioned when Detective Studebaker took the original in situ photo as he squatted atop the boxes of books ( seen in the first few frames of Alyea's video) 

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 20, 2021, 09:34:26 PM
"The E port was NOT downward when the rifle was found..the rifle was lying on it's right side.....However the E Port is down in the fake in stu photo."

The picture of the rifle you are calling fake is CE 514. This was shown to Boone during his WC testimony and he confirmed that was exactly how the rifle was when he found it.
I'm wondering whether CE 514 was just a close-up portion of CE 517:

(https://i.postimg.cc/QMRML1N8/Screenshot-52.png) (https://postimages.org/)

This appears to be the same pic but taken from further away. In it we can see, what I presume is Day's knee as he takes the photo.

Craig is also adamant the Day pics were taken before the rifle was moved

Mr. BELIN - The weapon was moved by the time the pictures were taken?
Mr. CRAIG - No; no. The pictures were taken as the weapon was found lying here.

I think you may be wrong about the rifle being found lying on its side.

(https://i.postimg.cc/QMRML1N8/Screenshot-52.png) (https://postimages.org/)

This appears to be the same pic but taken from further away. In it we can see, what I presume is Day's knee as he takes the photo.

Sorry Dan, you've been deceived.....The conspirators placed that knee in the photo to trick the viewer into believing that the photo is the authentic in situ photo.....If you'll look at the first couple of frames of Tom Alyea's film You'll see Detective Studebaker perched atop a sack of boxes and taking the original in situ photo.... And Studebaker does not have his knee in the way of the scene.   


Look at the position of the rifle at the 31 /32 second point in the slow motion film.....Notice that the butt plate is horizontal as Lt Day starts to lift the carcano by the leather sling.....THAT is the original position just a Roger Craig said...Craig was right, the rifle was lying on it's right side with the sling side up and the scope also up (because the scope was mounted off set to the left)

It was NOT standing with the butt plate vertical as shown in CE 514, which is a fake in situ pho created by the DPD.

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 20, 2021, 10:38:30 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMRML1N8/Screenshot-52.png) (https://postimages.org/)

This appears to be the same pic but taken from further away. In it we can see, what I presume is Day's knee as he takes the photo.

Sorry Dan, you've been deceived.....The conspirators placed that knee in the photo to trick the viewer into believing that the photo is the authentic in situ photo.....If you'll look at the first couple of frames of Tom Alyea's film You'll see Detective Studebaker perched atop a sack of boxes and taking the original in situ photo.... And Studebaker does not have his knee in the way of the scene.   


Look at the position of the rifle at the 31 /32 second point in the slow motion film.....Notice that the butt plate is horizontal as Lt Day starts to lift the carcano by the leather sling.....THAT is the original position just a Roger Craig said...Craig was right, the rifle was lying on it's right side with the sling side up and the scope also up (because the scope was mounted off set to the left)

It was NOT standing with the butt plate vertical as shown in CE 514, which is a fake in situ pho created by the DPD.


This Gif is from earlier in the Alyea film.
The first clip shows Fritz stepping into the area containing the rifle.
The second clip shows the butt plate end of the rifle in the upright position.
The third clip shows Fritz standing up after, presumably, inspecting the rifle in situ.

(https://i.postimg.cc/660rY9wS/Alyea-Fritz.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 21, 2021, 03:02:34 PM
This Gif is from earlier in the Alyea film.
The first clip shows Fritz stepping into the area containing the rifle.
The second clip shows the butt plate end of the rifle in the upright position.
The third clip shows Fritz standing up after, presumably, inspecting the rifle in situ.

(https://i.postimg.cc/660rY9wS/Alyea-Fritz.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

The second clip shows the butt plate end of the rifle in the upright position.

I cannot see the butt plate of the rifle......Could you post a screen shot?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 21, 2021, 03:38:17 PM
The second clip shows the butt plate end of the rifle in the upright position.

I cannot see the butt plate of the rifle......Could you post a screen shot?

Use the small white cloth for reference. In the pic below the cloth tapers to a distinct point at the 'bottom' (ie: the part of the cloth farthest away from the rifle).
The part of the cloth nearest the rifle tapers but  doesn't quite come to a point, there is a flat spot.

(https://i.postimg.cc/j2hbg4yD/hiddenrifle-4.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

In the screenshot below the same cloth can be seen. It tapers to a point farthest away from the rifle but the line of the upright rifle cuts off the taper we see in the pic above.
The vertical line of the left side of the butt plate end can be clearly discerned:

(https://i.postimg.cc/Hk1bhHH5/Screenshot-80.png) (https://postimg.cc/hfMJXkXP)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 22, 2021, 09:38:44 PM
Use the small white cloth for reference. In the pic below the cloth tapers to a distinct point at the 'bottom' (ie: the part of the cloth farthest away from the rifle).
The part of the cloth nearest the rifle tapers but  doesn't quite come to a point, there is a flat spot.

(https://i.postimg.cc/j2hbg4yD/hiddenrifle-4.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

In the screenshot below the same cloth can be seen. It tapers to a point farthest away from the rifle but the line of the upright rifle cuts off the taper we see in the pic above.
The vertical line of the left side of the butt plate end can be clearly discerned:

(https://i.postimg.cc/Hk1bhHH5/Screenshot-80.png) (https://postimg.cc/hfMJXkXP)

Hi Dan, I believe that the piece of "cloth "  is actually a piece of paper ( look at the way it is torn ) Cloth doesn't tear in that fashion.      But the material of the item isn't important .....   You could be right that the rifle is  lying in a manner that has the butt plate vertical....( but it's certainly far from clear.)   And this video has to have been taken at a different time than the Tom Alyea video...because the two men ( detectives) who were standing in the aisle at the top of the stairs are NOT the same two men who are seen in Tom Alyea's video.   A what's more, Captain Fritz can be seen already standing to the east of the rifle  when Tom Alyea films detective Studebaker perched atop the boxes..   
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 24, 2021, 01:28:26 AM
Hi Dan, I believe that the piece of "cloth "  is actually a piece of paper ( look at the way it is torn ) Cloth doesn't tear in that fashion.      But the material of the item isn't important .....   You could be right that the rifle is  lying in a manner that has the butt plate vertical....( but it's certainly far from clear.)   And this video has to have been taken at a different time than the Tom Alyea video...because the two men ( detectives) who were standing in the aisle at the top of the stairs are NOT the same two men who are seen in Tom Alyea's video.   A what's more, Captain Fritz can be seen already standing to the east of the rifle  when Tom Alyea films detective Studebaker perched atop the boxes..

I'm truly disappointed that you aren't interested in this aspect Mr O'Meara.....You are one of the few who examines and evaluates the evidence....But yur wrong...  The brass clip could not have been in the rifle ( and all of the photos od Day with the rifle prove beyond any doubt that the clip was in the rifle.) if the rifle had been vertical as you believe....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 29, 2021, 08:14:42 PM
This Gif is from earlier in the Alyea film.
The first clip shows Fritz stepping into the area containing the rifle.
The second clip shows the butt plate end of the rifle in the upright position.
The third clip shows Fritz standing up after, presumably, inspecting the rifle in situ.

(https://i.postimg.cc/660rY9wS/Alyea-Fritz.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

Dan have you seen the photos of J.C. Day handling the carcano as he dusts it for prints on the sixth floor, and have you seen the photos of J.C.Day as he carries the carcano from in front of the TSBD ?    Those photos reveal that the clip was in the magazine and it was not stuck.   The photos show that the clip was progressively working it's way out of the magazine ( which means it was in the rifle and it was not stuck.   

Therefore since the clip was free to fall out of the ejection port  IF the rifle had been standing as it is depicted in CE 514..Then the clip would NOT have been in the rifle ....and there is a very high probability  that the clip would have been beneath the SE corner window.... ( if the imaginary scenario presented by LBJ's cover up committee  were true)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Zeon Mason on March 29, 2021, 11:36:16 PM
I don’t understand why this is not a continuous film sequence and the  rifle that’s under the armpit of Fritz in the 3rd cut is what rifle?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 30, 2021, 02:53:41 AM
I don’t understand why this is not a continuous film sequence and the  rifle that’s under the armpit of Fritz in the 3rd cut is what rifle?

The conspirators did not want a good continuous film.....That is not a rifle under Captain Fritz's arm.....That's the shotgun that Fritz was carrying when they searched the TSBD.

The DPD created a fake in situ photo because they realized  there was no way Lee Oswald could have dashed by the place where the rifle was hidden at the bottom of a "well" of boxes and hid that rifle AFTER the shooting.  At the time the rifle was discovered  the cops didn't realize that the way the rifle was hidden would be a problem until AFTER Marrion Baker told reporters that he had encountered Lee Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom less than two minutes after the first shot was fired.   Marrion Baker's report forced them to place the carcano in a position closer to the aisle at he top of the stairs....and not at the bottom of a "well" of boxes of books.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Joffrey van de Wiel on March 30, 2021, 05:19:04 PM
Gentlemen,

If the rifle found hidden among a stack of heavy boxes, and this was the Italian made Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm, where and when was the German Mauser found? Or was the 'assassination rifle" misidentified?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 30, 2021, 09:54:13 PM
Hi Dan, I believe that the piece of "cloth "  is actually a piece of paper ( look at the way it is torn ) Cloth doesn't tear in that fashion.      But the material of the item isn't important .....   You could be right that the rifle is  lying in a manner that has the butt plate vertical....( but it's certainly far from clear.)   And this video has to have been taken at a different time than the Tom Alyea video...because the two men ( detectives) who were standing in the aisle at the top of the stairs are NOT the same two men who are seen in Tom Alyea's video.   A what's more, Captain Fritz can be seen already standing to the east of the rifle  when Tom Alyea films detective Studebaker perched atop the boxes..

Hi Walt.
been busy of late.
It's definitely Aleya, no-one else with a camera up there.
It's not very clear but it's there. The rifle is upright, just as Alyea reports (as do others).
You make a point about Studebaker's knee in the pic. The pic of the rifle in-situ is obviously taken with a flash but we don't see a flash in the Alyea footage of Studebaker. However, it must be noted there is something slightly "staged" in the footage the way Studebaker seems to be taking a pic but actually doesn't. It's not enough to say the pics of the rifle are faked, I just don't accept that.
What's of more interest to me is that every shell/bullet found at the scene ends up in Fritz's pocket at some point.
Alyea actually reports seeing Fritz pick the shells up, put them in his pocket then give them to Studebaker who throws them down to create the images of the shells in situ in the WCR.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 30, 2021, 10:53:50 PM
Hi Walt.
been busy of late.
It's definitely Aleya, no-one else with a camera up there.
It's not very clear but it's there. The rifle is upright, just as Alyea reports (as do others).
You make a point about Studebaker's knee in the pic. The pic of the rifle in-situ is obviously taken with a flash but we don't see a flash in the Alyea footage of Studebaker. However, it must be noted there is something slightly "staged" in the footage the way Studebaker seems to be taking a pic but actually doesn't. It's not enough to say the pics of the rifle are faked, I just don't accept that.
What's of more interest to me is that every shell/bullet found at the scene ends up in Fritz's pocket at some point.
Alyea actually reports seeing Fritz pick the shells up, put them in his pocket then give them to Studebaker who throws them down to create the images of the shells in situ in the WCR.

Hi Dan, I hope that I can stimulate your interest in this aspect of the case so that you will scrutinize the photos very carefully.

You are one of the very few who will honestly evaluate the photos.   ( although many of the photos are fuzzy and not clear. )

It's not enough to say the pics of the rifle are faked, I just don't accept that.

I definitely believe that CE 514 is a fake.....  I'm not even sure that it isn't a composite of a couple of photos ( photo shopped) in the days before we had computers to photo shop photos....  I believe the dead give away is the fact that the barrel of the rifle in CE 514 seems to be floating in air with no support.....it is parallel  to the floor when in fact if the tip of the barrel (muzzle) was actually resting on the floor it would rise up from the floor at about a 6 degree angle. (Simple geometry...when the rifle is level horizontally, the butt of the rifle is about 6.5 inches lower than the muzzle   IOW a right triangle that is 40 inches ( length of the carcano)  by 6.5 inches  ( distance from level barrel to bottom of butt plate.)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Joffrey van de Wiel on March 31, 2021, 12:24:09 AM
All this chatter about boxes and hidden rifles, aren't you even aware of the fact that not a single photo shows the original, undisturbed configuration of boxes on the sixth floor?  The police rearranged them before any photographs were taken.

Craig said the shell casings were lying not an inch apart, all facing in the same direction, near the 'sniper's' window. Fritz pops up, picks them up and tosses them back on the floor. Then the picture is snapped and it shows the casings in a random pattern. Don't put your faith in any photograph, use your mind and think. What does your brain tell you?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 31, 2021, 01:42:59 AM
All this chatter about boxes and hidden rifles, aren't you even aware of the fact that not a single photo shows the original, undisturbed configuration of boxes on the sixth floor?  The police rearranged them before any photographs were taken.

Craig said the shell casings were lying not an inch apart, all facing in the same direction, near the 'sniper's' window. Fritz pops up, picks them up and tosses them back on the floor. Then the picture is snapped and it shows the casings in a random pattern. Don't put your faith in any photograph, use your mind and think. What does your brain tell you?

You're right Joffery.....   Immediately  after the rifle was first seen by Deputy Boone in the beam of his flashlight, Several officers started removing boxes from around the rifle and Boone had to stop them and remind them that the boxes very likely contained the fingerprints of the person who hid that rifle by stacking the boxes around and over it.

( Would Boone have needed a flashlight to see the butt of the rifle if the boxes had been arranged as they are seen in any existing photo of that area?)

The police rearranged them before any photographs were taken.

This could be true.....Because the police did in fact move some of the boxes before Boone stopped them.....But I don't believe there was anything sinister or nefarious about that "rearranging" of the boxes. 

However AFTER that innocent moving of boxes ...the police did in fact arrange the boxes to support the story that the senior officers were creating to support the tale they were constructing.    Tom Alyea observed that it was obvious that the hiding place was constructed BEFORE the shooting.   
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Joffrey van de Wiel on March 31, 2021, 02:45:15 AM
You're right Joffery.....   Immediately  after the rifle was first seen by Deputy Boone in the beam of his flashlight, Several officers started removing boxes from around the rifle and Boone had to stop them and remind them that the boxes very likely contained the fingerprints of the person who hid that rifle by stacking the boxes around and over it.

( Would Boone have needed a flashlight to see the butt of the rifle if the boxes had been arranged as they are seen in any existing photo of that area?)

The police rearranged them before any photographs were taken.

This could be true.....Because the police did in fact move some of the boxes before Boone stopped them.....But I don't believe there was anything sinister or nefarious about that "rearranging" of the boxes. 

However AFTER that innocent moving of boxes ...the police did in fact arrange the boxes to support the story that the senior officers were creating to support the tale they were constructing.    Tom Alyea observed that it was obvious that the hiding place was constructed BEFORE the shooting.   

NONE of the boxes used to conceal the rifle held Oswald's prints. Assuming for a moment that even the cool, calm and collected Oswald was somewhat stressed out by his assumed act of assassination, the lack of his prints on the aforementioned boxes is an indication he did not hide the rifle and therefore had nothing to do with the assassination.

The photos of the arrangement of boxes in and near the so-called sniper's nest aren't depicting them in the way BEFORE police and photographers arrived. The boxes were moved, the photos prove that and the HSCA agreed. Notice that not a single picture shows the paper sack which was supposedly found near the pipes close to the sniper's nest.

I sometimes disagree with you Walt but thanks for caring about what really happened November 22, 1963. Not many do. You are in a way a great inspiration and an encouragement to always dig deeper than the government advises me to.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 31, 2021, 02:52:54 PM
You're right Joffery.....   Immediately  after the rifle was first seen by Deputy Boone in the beam of his flashlight, Several officers started removing boxes from around the rifle and Boone had to stop them and remind them that the boxes very likely contained the fingerprints of the person who hid that rifle by stacking the boxes around and over it.

( Would Boone have needed a flashlight to see the butt of the rifle if the boxes had been arranged as they are seen in any existing photo of that area?)

The police rearranged them before any photographs were taken.

This could be true.....Because the police did in fact move some of the boxes before Boone stopped them.....But I don't believe there was anything sinister or nefarious about that "rearranging" of the boxes. 

However AFTER that innocent moving of boxes ...the police did in fact arrange the boxes to support the story that the senior officers were creating to support the tale they were constructing.    Tom Alyea observed that it was obvious that the hiding place was constructed BEFORE the shooting.   

Hi Walt,

I know what you mean about the rifle appearing to float.
It does look weird. It could be because of the flash but I don't see a shadow where the tip of the rifle should be touching the floor.
As for the boxes around the "rifle nest" - CE 515 and 516 are two shots of the nest from a different distance and slightly different angle:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_514-517.pdf

I made this Gif to highlight a couple of differences I'm seeing between the two pics. Because the shots are from different angles it takes a bit of getting used to. In CE 516 there is a big arrow pointing at a box, the box the arrow is pointing at appears to be in a different position in CE 515. It has clearly been moved between the taking of the two photos.
In CE 515 there are two bright objects at the bottom of the picture, slightly to the right. I can't figure out what they are as they don't seem to appear in CE 516

(https://i.postimg.cc/vZK3hBMx/rifle-nest.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 31, 2021, 08:36:27 PM
Hi Walt,

I know what you mean about the rifle appearing to float.
It does look weird. It could be because of the flash but I don't see a shadow where the tip of the rifle should be touching the floor.
As for the boxes around the "rifle nest" - CE 515 and 516 are two shots of the nest from a different distance and slightly different angle:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_514-517.pdf

I made this Gif to highlight a couple of differences I'm seeing between the two pics. Because the shots are from different angles it takes a bit of getting used to. In CE 516 there is a big arrow pointing at a box, the box the arrow is pointing at appears to be in a different position in CE 515. It has clearly been moved between the taking of the two photos.
In CE 515 there are two bright objects at the bottom of the picture, slightly to the right. I can't figure out what they are as they don't seem to appear in CE 516

(https://i.postimg.cc/vZK3hBMx/rifle-nest.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

I know what you mean about the rifle appearing to float. It does look weird. It could be because of the flash but I don't see a shadow where the tip of the rifle should be touching the floor.

I'd like to point out that the bottom of the box immediately behind the rifle barrel provides a Horizontal reference plane.   we know that box was sitting on the floor...... So we can use the bottom of that box as the horizontal reference.....And the barrel of the rifle is parallel with the bottom of that box, whereas the barrel should not be parallel with the box if the front of the barrel had been resting on the floor.   And you make an excellent point by noting that there should be a shadow of the barrel on the floor , but there is no shadow there.   ( which is a very strong indicator that this is not a real photograph. ) 
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 31, 2021, 09:54:02 PM
NONE of the boxes used to conceal the rifle held Oswald's prints. Assuming for a moment that even the cool, calm and collected Oswald was somewhat stressed out by his assumed act of assassination, the lack of his prints on the aforementioned boxes is an indication he did not hide the rifle and therefore had nothing to do with the assassination.

The photos of the arrangement of boxes in and near the so-called sniper's nest aren't depicting them in the way BEFORE police and photographers arrived. The boxes were moved, the photos prove that and the HSCA agreed. Notice that not a single picture shows the paper sack which was supposedly found near the pipes close to the sniper's nest.

I sometimes disagree with you Walt but thanks for caring about what really happened November 22, 1963. Not many do. You are in a way a great inspiration and an encouragement to always dig deeper than the government advises me to.

NONE of the boxes used to conceal the rifle held Oswald's prints.

This is an astounding statement, Joffery.....  I've never seen any indication that the police checked any of the boxes that were stacked around and over the rifle for finger prints. Where did you get that information?...  Commonsense would dictate that the police would check all of those boxes for prints... but If they did, then that information has never been published..... Has it??   You can bet the farm that if they had found Lee's prints on those boxes they would have got out the bull horns and announced that information from the rooftops.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 01, 2021, 12:41:24 AM
Hi Walt,

I know what you mean about the rifle appearing to float.
It does look weird. It could be because of the flash but I don't see a shadow where the tip of the rifle should be touching the floor.
As for the boxes around the "rifle nest" - CE 515 and 516 are two shots of the nest from a different distance and slightly different angle:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_514-517.pdf

I made this Gif to highlight a couple of differences I'm seeing between the two pics. Because the shots are from different angles it takes a bit of getting used to. In CE 516 there is a big arrow pointing at a box, the box the arrow is pointing at appears to be in a different position in CE 515. It has clearly been moved between the taking of the two photos.
In CE 515 there are two bright objects at the bottom of the picture, slightly to the right. I can't figure out what they are as they don't seem to appear in CE 516

(https://i.postimg.cc/vZK3hBMx/rifle-nest.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

Hi Dan, I believe CE 515 & 516  are basically the same scene but 516 has been taken from about twenty feet farther east ( the camera is pointing west.) That's the west window in the photo that was directly behind ( to west of the the rifle ) 

Eugene Boone had searched westward in the aisle at the top of the stairs until he came to west wall beneath the stairway sign that is visible in the photos.   He then squeezed( southward)between the wall and the rows of boxes  and that's when he moved a box that served as a lid over the stack of boxes that formed a "well" or chasm in which the rifle was hidden.   He shined his flashlight down into the dark "well" and spotted the butt of the rifle beneath the wooden pallet that had boxes of books stacked on it.  That wooden pallet can be seen in both CE 515 and 516.   The arrows that are scrawled on the photos are intended to depict the place the rifle was found. 

( notice the bright sunshine shining in the window ....If the rifle had been in the location depicted by the arrows, Deputy Boone would not have needed a bright flashlight to see the rifle. )

The vertical wooden support pillar was (is ) 12 feet from the north wall ....so using that distance  as a reference, the arrows in CE 515 & 516 point to a location that is approximately 13.5 feet from the north wall...But....There are two maps that were drawn by two different DPD detectives in which they give the distance from the north wall to the rifle as 15 feet 4 inches.   

The cover up conspirators need to move the location of the rifle closer to the aisle to make the tale that Lee Oswald had dashed by that site and hastily jammed the rifle between boxes of books before dashing down the stairs to the second floor lunchroom. Bu as Tom Alyea observed at about 1:30 that afternoon....It was obvious that the  hiding place had been prepared before the shooting.   



Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 01, 2021, 01:34:35 AM
NONE of the boxes used to conceal the rifle held Oswald's prints. Assuming for a moment that even the cool, calm and collected Oswald was somewhat stressed out by his assumed act of assassination, the lack of his prints on the aforementioned boxes is an indication he did not hide the rifle and therefore had nothing to do with the assassination.

The photos of the arrangement of boxes in and near the so-called sniper's nest aren't depicting them in the way BEFORE police and photographers arrived. The boxes were moved, the photos prove that and the HSCA agreed. Notice that not a single picture shows the paper sack which was supposedly found near the pipes close to the sniper's nest.

I sometimes disagree with you Walt but thanks for caring about what really happened November 22, 1963. Not many do. You are in a way a great inspiration and an encouragement to always dig deeper than the government advises me to.

I sometimes disagree with you Walt but thanks for caring about what really happened November 22, 1963. Not many do. You are in a way a great inspiration and an encouragement to always dig deeper than the government advises me to.

Thank you for the kind words Joffery....   Some folks do disagree with me, and that's ok.    I'm forced to speculate on some aspects because we lack the information that we should have received from an honest investigation.  And The fact that the authorities treated us like simpletons by offering us excrement bars and cajoled us to taste it because it was candy.
 Unfortunately far too many did take the bait, and then were too embarrassed to admit they had been duped..so to this very day we have suckers like Chappie and Mr "Smith" who try to get others to take a bite of the same "candy bar" that they ate.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 02, 2021, 07:33:13 PM
Hi Walt,

I know what you mean about the rifle appearing to float.
It does look weird. It could be because of the flash but I don't see a shadow where the tip of the rifle should be touching the floor.
As for the boxes around the "rifle nest" - CE 515 and 516 are two shots of the nest from a different distance and slightly different angle:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_514-517.pdf

I made this Gif to highlight a couple of differences I'm seeing between the two pics. Because the shots are from different angles it takes a bit of getting used to. In CE 516 there is a big arrow pointing at a box, the box the arrow is pointing at appears to be in a different position in CE 515. It has clearly been moved between the taking of the two photos.
In CE 515 there are two bright objects at the bottom of the picture, slightly to the right. I can't figure out what they are as they don't seem to appear in CE 516

(https://i.postimg.cc/vZK3hBMx/rifle-nest.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

Eugene Boone had searched westward in the aisle at the top of the stairs until he came to west wall beneath the stairway sign that is visible in the photos.   He then squeezed( southward)between the wall and the rows of boxes  and that's when he moved a box that served as a lid over the stack of boxes that formed a "well" or chasm in which the rifle was hidden.   He shined his flashlight down into the dark "well" and spotted the butt of the rifle beneath the wooden pallet that had boxes of books stacked on it.  That wooden pallet can be seen in both CE 515 and 516. Seymour Weitzman said that he spotted the rifle at about the same moment that Boone saw the rifle , and Weitzman said that the rifle was beneath the pallet.   The arrows that are scrawled on the photos are intended to depict the place the rifle was found, but that is false information..
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 01, 2021, 08:20:29 PM
This Gif is from earlier in the Alyea film.
The first clip shows Fritz stepping into the area containing the rifle.
The second clip shows the butt plate end of the rifle in the upright position.
The third clip shows Fritz standing up after, presumably, inspecting the rifle in situ.

(https://i.postimg.cc/660rY9wS/Alyea-Fritz.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

Notice that Detective Studebakers knee is NOT in front of the camera. ( OOPS!....I posted this comment below the wrong film clip....)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jerry Freeman on October 01, 2021, 08:39:21 PM
  OOPS!....I posted this comment below the wrong film clip....
Yeah that clip you linked looks like a chain smoker clusterfuk!  :D
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on October 01, 2021, 08:41:26 PM
Notice that Detective Studebakers knee is NOT in front of the camera. ( OOPS!....I posted this comment below the wrong film clip....)

 ;D
You posted recently that you didn't believe Fritz stepped into the area where the rifle was.
What do you believe now?

Also, can you see how the light reflects of the two screws in the butt plate of the rifle clearly indicating it was in an upright position when Fritz stepped in there?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 01, 2021, 09:31:20 PM
;D
You posted recently that you didn't believe Fritz stepped into the area where the rifle was.
What do you believe now?

Also, can you see how the light reflects of the two screws in the butt plate of the rifle clearly indicating it was in an upright position when Fritz stepped in there?

Your eyes are better than mine, Dan... Can you freeze frame the frame?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on October 02, 2021, 01:25:13 AM
Your eyes are better than mine, Dan... Can you freeze frame the frame?

You can't miss them.
You just need to look.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 02, 2021, 06:15:32 PM
You can't miss them.
You just need to look.

Sorry Dan,     The reason I couldn't see the "screws in the butt plate" is because I didn't recognize them as the screws in the butt plate of a carcano.    I'm very familiar with the Manlicher carcano and I know that the butt plate screws are a mere 2 1/4 inches apart ...Whereas the the space between the two bright spots in the film appear to be much greater than 2 1/4".

Also the screws in the butt plate of a carcano are NOT bright metal ..... The butt plate screws are the same color as the butt plate.  That color is a dark gun metal grey.....


If the dark object in the film was the butt of a carcano that butt would be approximately 10 inches across......The butt of a carcano is 4 inches across.....

I hope that you will receive this factual information and use it in reaching conclusions about the carcano ......
 
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on October 05, 2021, 07:52:44 PM

If the dark object in the film was the butt of a carcano that butt would be approximately 10 inches across......The butt of a carcano is 4 inches across.....

10 inches across??
Where are you getting that "factual information"  from?


(https://i.postimg.cc/Hnqt2m1S/Carcano.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

The screws are very distinctive.

LATER EDIT - If, as you say, the butt plate is 4 inches long then the screws in the image above are more than 2 1/4 inches apart.
So much for your factual information!
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on October 05, 2021, 09:19:31 PM

Also the screws in the butt plate of a carcano are NOT bright metal ..... The butt plate screws are the same color as the butt plate.  That color is a dark gun metal grey.....

Below is a still from the Alyea film of Day picking up the Mannlicher.
I've marked where the screw is glinting as in the video I posted.

(https://i.postimg.cc/GtT2k8Ry/Carcano-screw-glint.png) (https://postimg.cc/sGysz2vj)

The Mannlicher was in an upright position when it was found.
I've posted more than enough evidence to illustrate this.
There's not much more anyone else can do to prove you are mistaken on this irrelevant point.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 05, 2021, 09:35:01 PM
10 inches across??
Where are you getting that "factual information"  from?


(https://i.postimg.cc/Hnqt2m1S/Carcano.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

The screws are very distinctive.

LATER EDIT - If, as you say, the butt plate is 4 inches long then the screws in the image above are more than 2 1/4 inches apart.
So much for your factual information!



C'mon Dan...Just admit that you were mistaken about the two bright spots being the butt plate screws of a carcano ....

You posted the picture of the butt of a carcano .... It should be obvious that the bright spots in the photo are not the screws in the butt plate of a carcano.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on October 05, 2021, 11:05:17 PM


C'mon Dan...Just admit that you were mistaken about the two bright spots being the butt plate screws of a carcano ....

You posted the picture of the butt of a carcano .... It should be obvious that the bright spots in the photo are not the screws in the butt plate of a carcano.

Well, whatever they are Walt, they reflect light in exactly the same way.
The light reflecting on the spots of the rifle butt by Fritz's feet are exactly the same as the spots reflecting on the butt plate when Day lifts the rifle up.

The reflective spots demonstrate demonstrate the rifle was in an upright position when Fritz entered the area where the rifle was concealed.

That's all there is to it.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 05, 2021, 11:13:42 PM
Well, whatever they are Walt, they reflect light in exactly the same way.
The light reflecting on the spots of the rifle butt by Fritz's feet are exactly the same as the spots reflecting on the butt plate when Day lifts the rifle up.

The reflective spots demonstrate demonstrate the rifle was in an upright position when Fritz entered the area where the rifle was concealed.

That's all there is to it.

No, Dan....  Those bright spots are not the screws in the butt plate of a carcano.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on October 06, 2021, 12:23:18 AM
No, Dan....  Those bright spots are not the screws in the butt plate of a carcano.

Then what are they Walt?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 06, 2021, 01:11:07 AM
Then what are they Walt?

What kinda question is that??..... How the hell would I know???
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on October 06, 2021, 01:30:17 AM
What kinda question is that??..... How the hell would I know???

 :D
Then how do you know they're not the screws?

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 06, 2021, 04:16:03 AM
:D
Then how do you know they're not the screws?

I've already told you I'm very familiar with the carcano....And those white spots are NOT the butt plate screws of a carcano...And since you posted the photo of the butt of a carcano, you should also know that those bright spots are not the butt plate screws of a carcano.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on October 06, 2021, 10:35:52 AM
I've already told you I'm very familiar with the carcano....And those white spots are NOT the butt plate screws of a carcano...And since you posted the photo of the butt of a carcano, you should also know that those bright spots are not the butt plate screws of a carcano.

You're not familiar with the Mannlicher at all.
In a previous post you stated that the butt plate was 4 inches long and that the screws were no more than 2 1/4 inches apart.
This image I posted demonstrates that you are clearly wrong:

(https://i.postimg.cc/Hnqt2m1S/Carcano.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

If you're so familiar with the Mannlicher how can you explain your gross inaccuracy on this point?

The two bright spots are really there. They appear in multiple images. You think you can just deny that they exist.

The two bright spots highlight what can be seen in the clip of the Alyea footage where Fritz has stepped into the boxed area where the rifle was found - that the rifle was in an upright position when it was discovered.

Just accept it and move on Walt

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 06, 2021, 06:34:08 PM
You're not familiar with the Mannlicher at all.
In a previous post you stated that the butt plate was 4 inches long and that the screws were no more than 2 1/4 inches apart.
This image I posted demonstrates that you are clearly wrong:

(https://i.postimg.cc/Hnqt2m1S/Carcano.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

If you're so familiar with the Mannlicher how can you explain your gross inaccuracy on this point?

The two bright spots are really there. They appear in multiple images. You think you can just deny that they exist.

The two bright spots highlight what can be seen in the clip of the Alyea footage where Fritz has stepped into the boxed area where the rifle was found - that the rifle was in an upright position when it was discovered.

Just accept it and move on Walt

I'm measuring the length and width of the carcano butt plate as I type this..... The length is: 4.250 inches....the width is:...1.750 inches...and the screws are 2.250 " apart,  ( inside o inside or 2.750 center to center) And the screws are the same color as the metal of the butt plate.     You posted a photo of a carcano butt and you can plainly see that the screws blend with the metal of the butt plate, they DO NOT stand out as "bright spots" ......

Use your head , Dan
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 06, 2021, 11:28:26 PM
You're not familiar with the Mannlicher at all.
In a previous post you stated that the butt plate was 4 inches long and that the screws were no more than 2 1/4 inches apart.
This image I posted demonstrates that you are clearly wrong:

(https://i.postimg.cc/Hnqt2m1S/Carcano.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

If you're so familiar with the Mannlicher how can you explain your gross inaccuracy on this point?

The two bright spots are really there. They appear in multiple images. You think you can just deny that they exist.

The two bright spots highlight what can be seen in the clip of the Alyea footage where Fritz has stepped into the boxed area where the rifle was found - that the rifle was in an upright position when it was discovered.

Just accept it and move on Walt

You're not familiar with the Mannlicher at all.
In a previous post you stated that the butt plate was 4 inches long and that the screws were no more than 2 1/4 inches apart.
This image I posted demonstrates that you are clearly wrong:



So you believe that I'm wrong..... Get your head out and open your eyes and look at the photo of the carcano on page 82 of the WR.   ( CE 1303)    Notice that there is a tape measure in the photo below the rifle....It's a piece of cake to use a piece of paper and mark the length of the butt plate on the paper and then use the marked paper to measure that distance on the tape measure in the photo....( even an elementary school kid can do it) I'm sure that you'll agree ( unless you've taken leave of your senses) that the butt plate is 4 inches long....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on October 07, 2021, 12:28:15 PM

You're not familiar with the Mannlicher at all.
In a previous post you stated that the butt plate was 4 inches long and that the screws were no more than 2 1/4 inches apart.
This image I posted demonstrates that you are clearly wrong:



So you believe that I'm wrong..... Get your head out and open your eyes and look at the photo of the carcano on page 82 of the WR.   ( CE 1303)    Notice that there is a tape measure in the photo below the rifle....It's a piece of cake to use a piece of paper and mark the length of the butt plate on the paper and then use the marked paper to measure that distance on the tape measure in the photo....( even an elementary school kid can do it) I'm sure that you'll agree ( unless you've taken leave of your senses) that the butt plate is 4 inches long....

You really are something else Walt.
I agree the butt plate is 4 inches long.
Look at the picture I posted, if the butt plate is 4 inches long the screws are far more than 2 1/4 inches apart.
That's the point I was making.
You can measure your Mannlicher all you want but the screws in the butt plate of the assassination weapon are far more than 2 1/4 inches apart.
How can you explain this?

As for the screws blending in with the butt plate...
Again, your old eyes are letting you down.
In the pic below. the green arrow points out where the light is reflecting off the edge of the butt plate. The red arrows point out where the light is reflecting off the screw heads.
The screw heads are NOT blending in with the butt plate. They are reflecting light just as we see in the Alyea footage I posted where these reflections off the screw heads prove the rifle was found in the upright position.

(https://i.postimg.cc/sXw0Wxnz/Carcano-Close-Butt.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 07, 2021, 04:59:10 PM
You really are something else Walt.
I agree the butt plate is 4 inches long.
Look at the picture I posted, if the butt plate is 4 inches long the screws are far more than 2 1/4 inches apart.
That's the point I was making.
You can measure your Mannlicher all you want but the screws in the butt plate of the assassination weapon are far more than 2 1/4 inches apart.
How can you explain this?

As for the screws blending in with the butt plate...
Again, your old eyes are letting you down.
In the pic below. the green arrow points out where the light is reflecting off the edge of the butt plate. The red arrows point out where the light is reflecting off the screw heads.
The screw heads are NOT blending in with the butt plate. They are reflecting light just as we see in the Alyea footage I posted where these reflections off the screw heads prove the rifle was found in the upright position.

(https://i.postimg.cc/sXw0Wxnz/Carcano-Close-Butt.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

If, as you say, the butt plate is 4 inches long then the screws in the image above are more than 2 1/4 inches apart.
So much for your factual information!

I agree the butt plate is 4 inches long.
Look at the picture I posted, if the butt plate is 4 inches long the screws are far more than 2 1/4 inches apart.


Be careful for the words you say....  Keep them soft and sweet... because you never know,...which ones you'll have to eat.

Sp now that you've acknowledged that the butt plate is 4 inches long....Why don't you use that known measurement as a scale in the photo with the pretty red and green arrows and find that the inside to inside distance is 2 1/4 inches ....Or you could simply use the center to center distance of 2 3/4 inches as a scale and find that the butt plate is 4 inches long.

It's really very simple Dan, even a elementary school kid could determine the the butt plale is 4 inches long by knowing the the center to center distance of the screws is 2 3/4 inches. 
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 07, 2021, 06:52:07 PM
Thanks for the link, Denis...  Interesting stuff.    BUT ...Unfortunately there is nothing there to prove that Roger Craig was a liar ( although it's my personal belief that he embroidered information that was NOT factual.)

But having read the blog, I now wonder if Craig ever saw the rifle in situ.... Because he said that the rifle was lying on a north / south configuration.... with the scope north and the trigger south.    I believe that this configuration is contrary to all other reports from the men who saw the rifle before it was removed from the place where it obviously had been CAREFULLY HIDDEN.

I copied the below from your blog....

My conclusion is that Craig did see a man looking like Oswald getting into a car. Unfortunately, a cab driver testified that he took Oswald as passenger a few minutes after the assassination, Also, a bus driver testified that he had Oswald as a passenger also a few minutes after the assassination. Finally, a bus transfer of that particular bus driver was found on Oswald.

My conclusion is that Craig did see a man looking like Oswald getting into a car.

I also believe that Craig did in fact see a young man who resembled LHO get into a car driven by a dark complected man....( That in itself would had been a non typical happening....    (A white boy taking a ride with a Black man in a car....)   But I believe it happened.


Unfortunately, a cab driver testified that he took Oswald as passenger a few minutes after the assassination,

This is not accurate.....It IS the story that LBJ's cover up committee promoted ....BUT.... It is NOT William Whaley's story....

Whaley said that the man who became his passenger to Oak Cliff was  dressed in BLUE WORK Uniform (Both trousers and jacket were BLUE. )    LHO was dressed in a brownish red colored shirt with a BUTTON DOWN COLLAR and dark gray trousers.   And what's more.... Whaley said the man entered his cab at 12:30   .....Which was about the time that DPD officer Marrion Baker and Roy Truly encounter LHO in the second floor lunchroom.

 Also, a bus driver testified that he had Oswald as a passenger also a few minutes after the assassination. Finally, a bus transfer of that particular bus driver was found on Oswald.

The question is.... Was that bus transfer actually found in the pocket of the shirt that Lee was wearing at the time of his arrest at the theater?????    I DO NOT believe that transfer was in that shirt pocket....


I misunderstood Roger Craigs description of the position of the rifle that was LYING ON THE FLOOR......

having read the blog, I now wonder if Craig ever saw the rifle in situ.... Because he said that the rifle was lying on a north / south configuration.... with the scope north and the trigger south.    I believe that this configuration is contrary to all other reports from the men who saw the rifle before it was removed from the place where it obviously had been CAREFULLY HIDDEN.


he said that the rifle was lying on a north / south configuration.... with the scope north and the trigger south.

Roger's description is the correct orientation of the Mannlicher carcano.....as can be verified by watching as Lt Day picks the carcano up FROM THE FLOOR ( not jammed between boxes)

Roger's description is the correct orientation of the Mannlicher carcano.....as can be verified by watching as Lt Day picks the carcano up FROM THE FLOOR ( not jammed between boxes)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 07, 2021, 10:54:30 PM
Below is a still from the Alyea film of Day picking up the Mannlicher.
I've marked where the screw is glinting as in the video I posted.

(https://i.postimg.cc/GtT2k8Ry/Carcano-screw-glint.png) (https://postimg.cc/sGysz2vj)

The Mannlicher was in an upright position when it was found.
I've posted more than enough evidence to illustrate this.
There's not much more anyone else can do to prove you are mistaken on this irrelevant point.

Dan, I'd be ashamed of myself, If I posted this misleading crap...

(https://i.postimg.cc/GtT2k8Ry/Carcano-screw-glint.png) (https://postimg.cc/sGysz2vj)

Obviously you could have posted the frame of detective Day AFTER he picked the rifle up from the floor so you could have posted the frame in which he first grasps the sling....But I understand that you're here to propagate the big lie, so you sure as hell wouldn't post that frame.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on October 07, 2021, 11:02:36 PM
Dan, I'd be ashamed of myself, If I posted this misleading crap...

(https://i.postimg.cc/GtT2k8Ry/Carcano-screw-glint.png) (https://postimg.cc/sGysz2vj)

Obviously you could have posted the frame of detective Day AFTER he picked the rifle up from the floor so you could have posted the frame in which he first grasps the sling....But I understand that you're here to propagate the big lie, so you sure as hell wouldn't post that frame.

WTF are you on about you silly old fool.

What does it matter when this frame is from?
The point is that the screws on the butt plate reflect light as they do in the posted frame.


Take your meds Walt and have a lie down.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 07, 2021, 11:25:47 PM
WTF are you on about you silly old fool.

What does it matter when this frame is from?
The point is that the screws on the butt plate reflect light as they do in the posted frame.


Take your meds Walt and have a lie down.

The point is that the screws on the butt plate reflect light as they do in the posted frame.

Do you actually believe that the reflection off the top of the butt plate is a reflection off the butt plate screws??
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on October 07, 2021, 11:38:20 PM
The point is that the screws on the butt plate reflect light as they do in the posted frame.

Do you actually believe that the reflection off the top of the butt plate is a reflection off the butt plate screws??

Yes I do Walt, do I need to tattoo this on your forehead.
I have provided plenty of evidence to demonstrate that this is the case and you have provided none against except your usual huffing and puffing.

The rifle was found in an upright position (I don't give a sh&t whether it was or it wasn't, it makes no difference to how I view this case).
Alyea filmed it.
Get over it.
Move on.

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 07, 2021, 11:50:48 PM
Yes I do Walt, do I need to tattoo this on your forehead.
I have provided plenty of evidence to demonstrate that this is the case and you have provided none against except your usual huffing and puffing.

The rifle was found in an upright position (I don't give a sh&t whether it was or it wasn't, it makes no difference to how I view this case).
Alyea filmed it.
Get over it.
Move on.

The rifle was lying on it's side beneath the pallet of books ....This is a crucial bit of evidence and it's no trivial matter.   

Lee Oswald could not have placed that rifle in that hiding place AFTER the shooting.  The liar John Howlett used a light piece of 1 X  4 and simply slid that light piece of wood in between the boxes of books....But the carcano weighed 9 pounds and had a scope mounted off to the left side and a floppy sling mounted.... Nobody could have slid that bulky carcano into the crack between the boxes of books.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on October 08, 2021, 12:02:31 AM
The rifle was lying on it's side beneath the pallet of books ....This is a crucial bit of evidence and it's no trivial matter.   

Lee Oswald could not have placed that rifle in that hiding place AFTER the shooting.  The liar John Howlett used a light piece of 1 X  4 and simply slid that light piece of wood in between the boxes of books....But the carcano weighed 9 pounds and had a scope mounted off to the left side and a floppy sling mounted.... Nobody could have slid that bulky carcano into the crack between the boxes of books.

I have no problem with the Mannlicher being tucked away in the boxes as the shooting was taking place.
In fact, it suits my view of the assassination.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 08, 2021, 01:56:18 AM
I have no problem with the Mannlicher being tucked away in the boxes as the shooting was taking place.
In fact, it suits my view of the assassination.

THE CARCANO WAS LYING ON THE FLOOR

Here's an excerpt from the newspaper article.....

Roger Craig----- " I was also present when the rifle was found.  Now this rifle--- There's no possible way  that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes. He had to drop it in there.  I'm six feet tall and I couldn't reach down and pick that rifle out without climbing on top of those boxes and getting down in em, by moving some of em, to get to the rifle."

There's no possible way  that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes.

He had to drop it in there.

IOW..... The rifle was lying ON THE FLOOR  and not jammed between boxes of books as it is seen in the official police in situ photos....   Which means the DPD staged the in situ photo to enable them to frame Lee Oswald by saying that he dashed by the site and hastily jammed the carcano between the boxes of books.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 08, 2021, 02:13:00 AM
I have no problem with the Mannlicher being tucked away in the boxes as the shooting was taking place.
In fact, it suits my view of the assassination.

I have no problem with the Mannlicher being tucked away in the boxes as the shooting was taking place.
In fact, it suits my view of the assassination.


Well, I'll be dipped....  It's all well and good that you have no problem with the carcano not being the murder weapon.....But unless you can show some solid evidence that the carcano was hidden among those boxes of books at the time that JFK was murdered .....  It's teeny tiny  Dan against the powerful giant FBI who have sworn that the carcano was the murder weapon.

Now how do you propose to show that the FBI were liars and framing Lee Oswald?   Do you have any photos or other solid evidence that the carcano couldn't have been the murder weapon??
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on October 08, 2021, 02:13:46 AM
THE CARCANO WAS LYING ON THE FLOOR

Here's an excerpt from the newspaper article.....

Roger Craig----- " I was also present when the rifle was found.  Now this rifle--- There's no possible way  that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes. He had to drop it in there.  I'm six feet tall and I couldn't reach down and pick that rifle out without climbing on top of those boxes and getting down in em, by moving some of em, to get to the rifle."

There's no possible way  that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes.

He had to drop it in there.

Yeah Walt, no problem.
Groovy.

Quote
IOW..... The rifle was lying ON THE FLOOR  and not jammed between boxes of books as it is seen in the official police in situ photos....   Which means the DPD staged the in situ photo to enable them to frame Lee Oswald by saying that he dashed by the site and hastily jammed the carcano between the boxes of books.

Bollocks.
The ranting of a mad man.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on October 08, 2021, 02:30:37 AM

I have no problem with the Mannlicher being tucked away in the boxes as the shooting was taking place.
In fact, it suits my view of the assassination.


Well, I'll be dipped....  It's all well and good that you have no problem with the carcano not being the murder weapon.....But unless you can show some solid evidence that the carcano was hidden among those boxes of books at the time that JFK was murdered .....  It's teeny tiny  Dan against the powerful giant FBI who have sworn that the carcano was the murder weapon.

Now how do you propose to show that the FBI were liars and framing Lee Oswald?   Do you have any photos or other solid evidence that the carcano couldn't have been the murder weapon??

You're the Mannlicher expert, you do it.

As far as I'm concerned Oswald was a patsy and provided the Mannlicher not knowing it was going to be used to frame him. That's the point of this rifle - to frame Oswald.
Maybe the Mannlicher was the murder weapon but the shooter wasn't in any particular rush and had plenty of time to stow it in the boxes.
Maybe it was already in the boxes when the shooter used a proper rifle to do the job.
Either way, it doesn't really matter to the overall picture once it is accepted Oswald didn't do the shooting.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 08, 2021, 09:48:09 PM
You're the Mannlicher expert, you do it.

As far as I'm concerned Oswald was a patsy and provided the Mannlicher not knowing it was going to be used to frame him. That's the point of this rifle - to frame Oswald.
Maybe the Mannlicher was the murder weapon but the shooter wasn't in any particular rush and had plenty of time to stow it in the boxes.
Maybe it was already in the boxes when the shooter used a proper rifle to do the job.
Either way, it doesn't really matter to the overall picture once it is accepted Oswald didn't do the shooting.

You're the Mannlicher expert, you do it.

Thank you for acknowledging that I'm no neophyte about the mannlicher carcano.    And I've been trying for years to open researchers eyes to the FACT that the rifle was NOT hastily cast aside after the shooting.   I'm sure that the carcano was already in that hiding place beneath the pallet of books at the time the shots were fired. So obviously the carcano was not the murder weapon...Furthermore I don't believe any shots were fire from the sixth floor of the TSBD ....Haward Brennan swore that he saw a man STANDING behind a sixth floor window and the man was dressed like a security guard or deputy sheriff and he was aiming a rifle out of the window, but Brennan did not see the rifle fired. 

the shooter wasn't in any particular rush and had plenty of time to stow it in the boxes.

When the WC re-enacted what they had concluded was Lee Oswald's action's They had Secret Service agent John Howlet play the part of Lee Oswald, and Howlett spent about 5 seconds in stuffing a light piece of 1X 4 lumber in a crack between the boxes before hastily departing down the stairs.
.
Howlett arrived at the second floor lunch room just 1 second ahead of officer Marrion Baker ...If the shooter ( Howlett) had actually hidden the 9 pound  carcano beneath that pallet of books AFTER the shooting, he would  never have reached the second floor lunchroom ahead of Baker and Truly.  Howlett would probably still have been on the stairs and would have passed Baker and Truly as he descended the stairs.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Alan Ford on October 09, 2021, 07:00:05 AM
Howlett arrived at the second floor lunch room just 1 second ahead of officer Marrion Baker ...If the shooter ( Howlett) had actually hidden the 9 pound  carcano beneath that pallet of books AFTER the shooting, he would  never have reached the second floor lunchroom ahead of Baker and Truly.  Howlett would probably still have been on the stairs and would have passed Baker and Truly as he descended the stairs.

This would be the reconstruction in which Agent Howlett replicates Mr Oswald's alleged movements by ending up sitting down in the lunchroom.............

(https://i.imgur.com/x31yJpJ.jpg)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 12, 2021, 11:44:09 PM
You're the Mannlicher expert, you do it.

As far as I'm concerned Oswald was a patsy and provided the Mannlicher not knowing it was going to be used to frame him. That's the point of this rifle - to frame Oswald.
Maybe the Mannlicher was the murder weapon but the shooter wasn't in any particular rush and had plenty of time to stow it in the boxes.
Maybe it was already in the boxes when the shooter used a proper rifle to do the job.
Either way, it doesn't really matter to the overall picture once it is accepted Oswald didn't do the shooting.

Notice that every photo of the place where the gun was hidden lists the rifle as "ON THE FLOOR"... Does the official DPD  "in situ" photo show the rifle "On the floor"??
(https://i.postimg.cc/4dt0DT2S/hiddenrifle-6.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

(https://i.imgur.com/llltAeF.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/rXcUE7M.jpg)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 13, 2021, 12:12:13 AM
You're the Mannlicher expert, you do it.

As far as I'm concerned Oswald was a patsy and provided the Mannlicher not knowing it was going to be used to frame him. That's the point of this rifle - to frame Oswald.
Maybe the Mannlicher was the murder weapon but the shooter wasn't in any particular rush and had plenty of time to stow it in the boxes.
Maybe it was already in the boxes when the shooter used a proper rifle to do the job.
Either way, it doesn't really matter to the overall picture once it is accepted Oswald didn't do the shooting.

Dan, could you super impose a photo of the carcano with the scope over the rifle in the Official DPD "in situ photo?

(https://i.postimg.cc/4dt0DT2S/hiddenrifle-6.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

I don't believe that the rifle in the official DPD in situ photo has a scope on it....  If the rifle in the DPD photo had a scape mounted, I believe that the scope would be visible in the photo.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Rick Plant on April 08, 2022, 10:14:23 AM
I don't believe I ever stated that I thought [one way or another] the rifle was indeed a Mauser. Or ...did I say that I accept anyone's tall tales....the tallest told by the likes of Henry Wade [who I still  loathe after death for my own personal reasons] or J E Hoover [who was probably the most dangerous person this country ever had] or LBJ [maybe the 2nd most]
What 'tale' did Craig tell in his testimony?
He relayed the accounts of Arnold Rowland who testified that he saw a man with a rifle and another guy standing beside him some 15 minutes before the shooting.
That would indicate the probability that there was at least another rifle besides the Carcano that was ultimately produced.
Boone, Weitzman, and Fritz were all in on the Mauser. If a switcheroo did take place, that meant that they all tucked tail and rolled over for Hoover and Johnson. They are all dead now-----------
At this point...no one will ever know for absolutely sure.

Weitzman said it was a Mauser and then changed his mind. Craig maintains he saw the Mauser stamp on the rifle and now Weitzman says it was just a glance. Wouldn't Weitzman do more than just "glance" at the murder weapon?   

Joe Ball: In the statement that you made to the Dallas Police Department that afternoon, you referred to the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser bolt action?

Seymour Weitzman: In a glance, that's what it looked like.

Joe Ball: That's what it looked like did you say that or someone else say that?

Seymour Weitzman: No; I said that. I thought it was one.

Joe Ball: Are you fairly familiar with rifles?

Seymour Weitzman: Fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods business awhile....

Joe Ball: Now, in your statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, you gave a description of the rifle, how it looked.

Seymour Weitzman: I said it was a Mauser-type action, didn't I?

Joe Ball: Mauser bolt action.

Seymour Weitzman: And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn't; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on April 08, 2022, 10:49:15 AM
Tom Alyea was present when the rifle was discovered and filmed the whole thing.
The rifle discovered was the Mannlicher Carcano, there can be no doubt about that.
It's surprising this "Mauser" story is still doing the rounds considering Alyea's footage.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Bill Brown on April 08, 2022, 08:23:55 PM
J.C. Day:  "6.5 Made Italy"
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 12, 2022, 10:48:17 PM
Tom Alyea was present when the rifle was discovered and filmed the whole thing.
The rifle discovered was the Mannlicher Carcano, there can be no doubt about that.
It's surprising this "Mauser" story is still doing the rounds considering Alyea's footage.

Several reasons:

- the accounts by Boone, Weitzman, and Craig
- the existing Alyea footage doesn't necessarily show the moment of discovery. At least the box that was allegedly over the top had already been moved.
- the existing Alyea footage is blurry and lacking in identification detail
- we don't know that exactly one rifle was found
- we don't know what did not get captured in the existing footage
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on April 12, 2022, 11:41:38 PM
Several reasons:

- the accounts by Boone, Weitzman, and Craig
- the existing Alyea footage doesn't necessarily show the moment of discovery. At least the box that was allegedly over the top had already been moved.
- the existing Alyea footage is blurry and lacking in identification detail
- we don't know that exactly one rifle was found
- we don't know what did not get captured in the existing footage

This is from Alyea's account of finding the rifle:

Shortly after we arrived back on the 6th floor, Deputy Eugene Boone located the assassin's rifle almost completely hidden by some overhanging boxes near the stairwell. I filmed it as it was found. In my shot, the figure of Captain Fritz is standing within the enclosure next to the rifle.

He is present when the rifle is found and filmed Fritz walking into the rifle "enclosure", standing next to the rifle. There is footage of this below. As you say, the Alyea film is very poor quality but it is a record of the discovery of the rifle, Studebaker taking pics of it, Day retrieving it from it's "hiding place", examining it with Fritz then dusting it for prints.
The clip below shows Fritz walking into the enclosure as Alyea describes. The image is poor quality but by his feet it is possible to make out the butt of a rifle in an upright position:

(https://i.postimg.cc/cHkt0kZ9/Alyea-Fritz.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

As I say, the rest of Alyea's footage concerning the rifle follows it through to Day dusting the rifle at which point it is possible to make out it is a rifle indistinguishable from the MC.

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Mytton on April 12, 2022, 11:51:37 PM

- the existing Alyea footage is blurry and lacking in identification detail


 BS:

(https://i.postimg.cc/dtbm9NMg/gougeinforestockalyeaday.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 12, 2022, 11:54:34 PM
This is from Alyea's account of finding the rifle:

Shortly after we arrived back on the 6th floor, Deputy Eugene Boone located the assassin's rifle almost completely hidden by some overhanging boxes near the stairwell. I filmed it as it was found. In my shot, the figure of Captain Fritz is standing within the enclosure next to the rifle.

He is present when the rifle is found and filmed Fritz walking into the rifle "enclosure", standing next to the rifle. There is footage of this below. As you say, the Alyea film is very poor quality but it is a record of the discovery of the rifle, Studebaker taking pics of it, Day retrieving it from it's "hiding place", examining it with Fritz then dusting it for prints.
The clip below shows Fritz walking into the enclosure as Alyea describes. The image is poor quality but by his feet it is possible to make out the butt of a rifle in an upright position:

(https://i.postimg.cc/cHkt0kZ9/Alyea-Fritz.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

As I say, the rest of Alyea's footage concerning the rifle follows it through to Day dusting the rifle at which point it is possible to make out it is a rifle indistinguishable from the MC.

The clip below shows Fritz walking into the enclosure as Alyea describes. The image is poor quality but by his feet it is possible to make out the butt of a rifle in an upright position:

Are you kidding?....  If you believe that you can see the butt of the carcano near Fritz's feet.....  You probably can see the sniper in the bushes on the GK, also..... 
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on April 12, 2022, 11:59:42 PM
The clip below shows Fritz walking into the enclosure as Alyea describes. The image is poor quality but by his feet it is possible to make out the butt of a rifle in an upright position:

Are you kidding?....  If you believe that you can see the butt of the carcano near Fritz's feet.....  You probably can see the sniper in the bushes on the GK, also.....

Tom Alyea stated:

I filmed it as it was found. In my shot, the figure of Captain Fritz is standing within the enclosure next to the rifle.


This clip shows Fritz standing within the enclosure where the rifle is.
Can you see where the rifle is Walt?
Because this is the area where the rifle is located, this is the arrangement of boxes used to hide the rifle.
So, are you saying there is no rifle there Walt?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 13, 2022, 12:46:43 AM
Tom Alyea stated:

I filmed it as it was found. In my shot, the figure of Captain Fritz is standing within the enclosure next to the rifle.


This clip shows Fritz standing within the enclosure where the rifle is.
Can you see where the rifle is Walt?
Because this is the area where the rifle is located, this is the arrangement of boxes used to hide the rifle.
So, are you saying there is no rifle there Walt?

are you saying there is no rifle there Walt?

I can't see it..... Do you believe that the small white spot BENEATH the overhanging box is the rifle?    And how could a fleeing assassin have placed that rifle BENEATH the overhanging box??

this is the area where the rifle is located,

I'll accept that the rifle was found 15' 4" from the  North wall ....Is this white spot 15 ' 4"  from the N wall? 

this is the arrangement of boxes used to hide the rifle.

So the rifle was HIDDEN?......  The official tale says that Lee ran by that site and hastily dumped the rifle....( he didn't hide it)  How ever Tom Alyea said that it was obvious that the hiding place  had been prepared BEFORE the shooting and this was long before anybody knew that the LHO's Speculated Elapsed time from the SE corner window to the 2nd floor lunchroom was less than 90 seconds. Alyea simply assumed that the fleeing assassin would not have had time to hide the rifle as it had been hidden. Alyea didn't know that LHO had talked to Officer Baker in the 2nd floor lunchroom just 90 seconds after the FIRST ( THAT'S CORRECT) first shot was fired.    It LHO had been the assassin he would have had to have been faster than a speeding bullet to have hidden the rifle beneath the boxes where Boone and Weitzman found by using their bright flashlights. 
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on April 13, 2022, 01:22:51 AM
are you saying there is no rifle there Walt?

I can't see it..... Do you believe that the small white spot BENEATH the overhanging box is the rifle?    And how could a fleeing assassin have placed that rifle BENEATH the overhanging box??

this is the area where the rifle is located,

I'll accept that the rifle was found 15' 4" from the  North wall ....Is this white spot 15 ' 4"  from the N wall? 

this is the arrangement of boxes used to hide the rifle.

So the rifle was HIDDEN?......  The official tale says that Lee ran by that site and hastily dumped the rifle....( he didn't hide it)  How ever Tom Alyea said that it was obvious that the hiding place  had been prepared BEFORE the shooting and this was long before anybody knew that the LHO's Speculated Elapsed time from the SE corner window to the 2nd floor lunchroom was less than 90 seconds. Alyea simply assumed that the fleeing assassin would not have had time to hide the rifle as it had been hidden. Alyea didn't know that LHO had talked to Officer Baker in the 2nd floor lunchroom just 90 seconds after the FIRST ( THAT'S CORRECT) first shot was fired.    It LHO had been the assassin he would have had to have been faster than a speeding bullet to have hidden the rifle beneath the boxes where Boone and Weitzman found by using their bright flashlights.

The point I was making that I was surprised the "Mauser" story was still doing the rounds as Alyea had filmed the discovery of the rifle.
The section of the film regarding the rifle starts with Fritz entering the enclosure with the rifle at his feet, as stated by Alyea.
It's not about whether or not Oswald hid the rifle there, it's about the discovery of the rifle being filmed.
Granted, the footage is very poor quality and the rifle hardly stands out but it is possible to make it out.
In the picture below there is a white cloth or piece of paper next to the rifle pointed out by a red arrow:

(https://i.postimg.cc/T35JtCWB/hiddenrifle-6-red-arrow.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)how to use print screen (https://postimages.org/app)

In the still below the same white cloth/paper is pointed out by a red arrow, the rifle by the green arrow:

(https://i.postimg.cc/Qtf78TTp/Screenshot-80.png) (https://postimages.org/)

I cobbled together as many clips about the rile from different sources. I think it shows the discovery of the MC through to it being dusted for prints.
I'm not arguing about how the rifle ended up in the "enclosure", just trying to show that Alyea seemed to capture it's discovery:

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 13, 2022, 01:54:12 AM
The point I was making that I was surprised the "Mauser" story was still doing the rounds as Alyea had filmed the discovery of the rifle.
The section of the film regarding the rifle starts with Fritz entering the enclosure with the rifle at his feet, as stated by Alyea.
It's not about whether or not Oswald hid the rifle there, it's about the discovery of the rifle being filmed.
Granted, the footage is very poor quality and the rifle hardly stands out but it is possible to make it out.
In the picture below there is a white cloth or piece of paper next to the rifle pointed out by a red arrow:

(https://i.postimg.cc/T35JtCWB/hiddenrifle-6-red-arrow.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)how to use print screen (https://postimages.org/app)

In the still below the same white cloth/paper is pointed out by a red arrow, the rifle by the green arrow:

(https://i.postimg.cc/Qtf78TTp/Screenshot-80.png) (https://postimages.org/)

I cobbled together as many clips about the rile from different sources. I think it shows the discovery of the MC through to it being dusted for prints.
I'm not arguing about how the rifle ended up in the "enclosure", just trying to show that Alyea seemed to capture it's discovery:


There is a box to the south of the rifle  in the photos....The east side of that box seems to align with the foregrip of the carcano in the official DPD in situ photo.

In the photo with the red and green arrows the east edge of that box aligns with the  comb of the stock. ( when comparing the two photos the east edge of the box is 20 " back from the place it appears in the official DPD photo.  (approximately 20 inches toward the butt of the rifle )

I can't access the "cobbled together" video....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on April 13, 2022, 02:05:37 AM
There is a box to the south of the rifle  in the photos....The east side of that box seems to align with the foregrip of the carcano in the official DPD in situ photo.

In the photo with the red and green arrows the east edge of that box aligns with the  comb of the stock. ( when comparing the two photos the east edge of the box is 20 " back from the place it appears in the official DPD photo.  (approximately 20 inches toward the butt of the rifle )

I can't access the "cobbled together" video....

If you go to YouTube and type in "Alyea rifle discovery compilation", you should get it.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 13, 2022, 02:05:54 AM
This is from Alyea's account of finding the rifle:

Shortly after we arrived back on the 6th floor, Deputy Eugene Boone located the assassin's rifle almost completely hidden by some overhanging boxes near the stairwell. I filmed it as it was found. In my shot, the figure of Captain Fritz is standing within the enclosure next to the rifle.

He is present when the rifle is found and filmed Fritz walking into the rifle "enclosure", standing next to the rifle. There is footage of this below. As you say, the Alyea film is very poor quality but it is a record of the discovery of the rifle, Studebaker taking pics of it, Day retrieving it from it's "hiding place", examining it with Fritz then dusting it for prints.
The clip below shows Fritz walking into the enclosure as Alyea describes. The image is poor quality but by his feet it is possible to make out the butt of a rifle in an upright position:

(https://i.postimg.cc/cHkt0kZ9/Alyea-Fritz.gif) (https://postimages.org/)

As I say, the rest of Alyea's footage concerning the rifle follows it through to Day dusting the rifle at which point it is possible to make out it is a rifle indistinguishable from the MC.



"  In my shot"   Alyea refers to a single shot....And the footage seems to show the sequence of Captain Fritz's movements backwards....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on April 13, 2022, 02:17:39 AM


"  In my shot"   Alyea refers to a single shot....And the footage seems to show the sequence of Captain Fritz's movements backwards....

The point is that Alyea appears to have filmed the rifle from it's discovery until we see Day dusting it for prints, at which point it is possible to recognise the rifle is not a Mauser but a Mannlicher Carcano.
This should be the end of the "Mauser" debate but I doubt it will be.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 13, 2022, 05:39:18 AM
The point is that Alyea appears to have filmed the rifle from it's discovery until we see Day dusting it for prints, at which point it is possible to recognise the rifle is not a Mauser but a Mannlicher Carcano.
This should be the end of the "Mauser" debate but I doubt it will be.

The point is that Alyea appears to have filmed the rifle from it's discovery until we see Day dusting it for prints, at which point it is possible to recognise the rifle is not a Mauser but a Mannlicher Carcano.
This should be the end of the "Mauser" debate but I doubt it will be.


I'm not convinced that all of the footage attributed to Tom Alyea was actually taken by Alyea....  It looks to me like some of the footage was spliced into Alyeas film....

This should be the end of the "Mauser" debate but I doubt it will be.

Yes, you're undoubtedly right....  Because there are those who are simply idiots....and there are those who benefit by the continual repeating of disinformation....  ( the authorities )
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Bill Brown on April 13, 2022, 11:09:25 PM
- the existing Alyea footage is blurry and lacking in identification detail

BS:

(https://i.postimg.cc/dtbm9NMg/gougeinforestockalyeaday.gif)

JohnM


(https://i.imgur.com/ttyI5cS.gif)
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Mytton on April 14, 2022, 10:40:46 AM

(https://i.imgur.com/ttyI5cS.gif)

Hi Bill, I made that Gif yonks ago and it could be better, so here you go!

(https://i.postimg.cc/MHgbYPdW/ezgif-1-0f8f51a474.gif)

JohnM

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on April 14, 2022, 11:05:07 AM
Several reasons:

- the accounts by Boone, Weitzman, and Craig
- the existing Alyea footage doesn't necessarily show the moment of discovery. At least the box that was allegedly over the top had already been moved.
- the existing Alyea footage is blurry and lacking in identification detail
- we don't know that exactly one rifle was found
- we don't know what did not get captured in the existing footage

I hope, John, the last few posts have eased your concerns regarding the MC.
You seemed to be unaware that the MC was filmed by Alyea from it's discovery until a point where it could be easily identified as an MC (Day dusting it for prints)
It now becomes clear that Boone and Weitzman were simply mistaken about the Mauser identification, it happens. Craig, stating that he saw"Mauser" stamped right on the barrel, does not put him in a great light, although I would like to believe he was lying for the right reasons.

You make the strange point - "we don't know that exactly one rifle was found".
Is this just some kind of philosophical point or are you referring to something evidence based, that there is something in the evidence that indicates more than one rifle was found?

I think we can safely say the Mauser debate is wrapped up  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 14, 2022, 06:44:06 PM
I hope, John, the last few posts have eased your concerns regarding the MC.
You seemed to be unaware that the MC was filmed by Alyea from it's discovery until a point where it could be easily identified as an MC (Day dusting it for prints)
It now becomes clear that Boone and Weitzman were simply mistaken about the Mauser identification, it happens. Craig, stating that he saw"Mauser" stamped right on the barrel, does not put him in a great light, although I would like to believe he was lying for the right reasons.

You make the strange point - "we don't know that exactly one rifle was found".
Is this just some kind of philosophical point or are you referring to something evidence based, that there is something in the evidence that indicates more than one rifle was found?

I think we can safely say the Mauser debate is wrapped up  Thumb1:

I think we can safely say the Mauser debate is wrapped up  Thumb1:

You're an optimist Danny.....  I certainly wish that the Mauser BS is "wrapped up", But as long as the government   disinformation agents can continue to feed that BS to the gullible it will continue to pop up.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 14, 2022, 09:44:09 PM
I think we can safely say the Mauser debate is wrapped up  Thumb1:

You're an optimist Danny.....  I certainly wish that the Mauser BS is "wrapped up", But as long as the government   disinformation agents can continue to feed that BS to the gullible it will continue to pop up.

WHO??.... in the world would actually believe that the rifle found buried beneath the pallet of books was a MAUSER?..    There are dozens of photos that were taken of the rifle on the afternoon of 11-22-63and there can be no doubt that the rifle was a Carcano.....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 15, 2022, 11:00:59 PM
As I say, the rest of Alyea's footage concerning the rifle follows it through to Day dusting the rifle at which point it is possible to make out it is a rifle indistinguishable from the MC.

"Indistinguishable" in a poor quality video isn't saying much.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 15, 2022, 11:07:54 PM
I hope, John, the last few posts have eased your concerns regarding the MC.
You seemed to be unaware that the MC was filmed by Alyea from it's discovery until a point where it could be easily identified as an MC (Day dusting it for prints)

It now becomes clear that Boone and Weitzman were simply mistaken about the Mauser identification, it happens. Craig, stating that he saw"Mauser" stamped right on the barrel, does not put him in a great light, although I would like to believe he was lying for the right reasons.

You make the strange point - "we don't know that exactly one rifle was found".
Is this just some kind of philosophical point or are you referring to something evidence based, that there is something in the evidence that indicates more than one rifle was found?

I think we can safely say the Mauser debate is wrapped up  Thumb1:

I don't agree with "easily identified" or that this somehow precludes a Mauser being found in the building, nor do I agree with "clear that Boone and Weitzman were simply mistaken" or that you can know that Craig "was lying".
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 15, 2022, 11:36:49 PM
I don't agree with "easily identified" or that this somehow precludes a Mauser being found in the building, nor do I agree with "clear that Boone and Weitzman were simply mistaken" or that you can know that Craig "was lying".

I'm disappointed that you would continue to argue that the rifle that was found isn't "easily identified" as a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano short rifle.

I know that you've seen the video of detective JC Day dusting the rifle looking for finger prints. Alyea shot that footage just minutes after the rifle was pulled from beneath the boxes of books....  That film clearly shows that the rifle is a carcano.   
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Bill Brown on April 16, 2022, 01:49:49 AM
J.C. Day:  "6.5 Made Italy"
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 16, 2022, 01:55:46 AM
J.C. Day:  "6.5 Made Italy"

Did JC Day add any other information about the rifle?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 17, 2022, 11:04:04 PM
I'm disappointed that you would continue to argue that the rifle that was found isn't "easily identified" as a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano short rifle.

I know that you've seen the video of detective JC Day dusting the rifle looking for finger prints. Alyea shot that footage just minutes after the rifle was pulled from beneath the boxes of books....  That film clearly shows that the rifle is a carcano.

Walt, everybody thinks his own subjective opinion is “clearly shown” in blurry photos and videos. That’s not an impressive argument. How many snipers has one poster here said are “clearly shown” in the Z film?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 18, 2022, 03:11:22 AM
Walt, everybody thinks his own subjective opinion is “clearly shown” in blurry photos and videos. That’s not an impressive argument. How many snipers has one poster here said are “clearly shown” in the Z film?

John, I readily agree that some folks claim to see all kinds of images in photos.....however in the case of identifying  the rifle there is NOTHING left to the imagination about the rifle in detective JC Day's hands as he dusts the rifle for prints, and carries it from the TSBD....   The phots clearly show that the rifle is a carcano. 
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 18, 2022, 03:15:52 AM
How do you know the rifle being carried outside is the same one Alyea filmed? Or the only one found?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Mytton on April 18, 2022, 03:37:18 AM
How do you know the rifle being carried outside is the same one Alyea filmed? Or the only one found?

I then went back through all of the photographs I had mentioned to you. In many instances--I believe in 56 different instances--I was able to find markings that appear on this rifle that were on the photographs that were made back there on the day of the assassination.
So, we are very confident that this is indeed the rifle that was carried from the book depository--oh, incidentally, I can carry it farther than that.
I found distinguishing marks of this rifle on a motion picture that was made at the time the police officer picked the rifle up off of the floor of the book depository.

McCamy

JohnM
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on April 18, 2022, 04:29:31 AM
I don't agree with "easily identified" or that this somehow precludes a Mauser being found in the building, nor do I agree with "clear that Boone and Weitzman were simply mistaken" or that you can know that Craig "was lying".

You didn't seem to be aware that the MC had been filmed in situ before the overhanging boxes were removed, or that Alyea's footage captured the MC while it was still in it's original position. I thought this new information might inform your opinion, but apparently not.

I don't agree with "easily identified"

John Mytton has "easily identified" the rifle in the footage as an MC and Walt would appear to know a thing or two about this particular rifle and he has no trouble identifying it. The footage isn't the best quality but there are moments when the rifle is clearly on display and recognisable.
It is indistinguishable from the rifle Day took from the TSBD or the rifle Day held aloft in the DPD, or the rifle in the National Archive or the rifle (bar the strap) in the back yard photos.
That it is indistinguishable from a Mannlicher Carcano means, by default, it is not a Mauser. The rifle filmed by Alyea is 100% not a Mauser. That is a fact.

...or that this somehow precludes a Mauser being found in the building

Of course it doesn't preclude a Mauser being found in the building. Nobody said it did. Finding the MC doesn't preclude a Howitzer being found in the building or a unicorn.
It's a meaningless point you're making.
But what it does preclude is a Mauser being found in the same location as the MC filmed by Alyea.
Boone never mentioned seeing two rifles and neither did Weitzman. As far as I'm aware, nobody reported two rifles being found. This appears to be some fantasy that you are peddling. What evidence do you have that more than one rifle was found? If you don't have any, why do you keep bringing it up?

nor do I agree with "clear that Boone and Weitzman were simply mistaken"

You must surely agree that they didn't find a Mauser in the same location as the MC filmed by Alyea. And that they didn't find one anywhere else. And that they didn't find two rifles.
The remaining options are that they were mistaken, they were lying or that every person on the 6th floor, including Alyea, was involved in some kind of staged event.
I favour that they were simply mistaken, Alyea's footage demonstrates this.
I think I can guess what scenario you favour.

that you can know that Craig "was lying".

I assume he was lying as he states emphatically that "Mauser" was stamped on the barrel but the rifle filmed by Alyea was an MC. That is a fact. He did not see "Mauser" stamped on the barrel of the rifle filmed by Alyea, so I don't know what else to think.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Mytton on April 18, 2022, 06:08:55 AM
You didn't seem to be aware that the MC had been filmed in situ before the overhanging boxes were removed, or that Alyea's footage captured the MC while it was still in it's original position. I thought this new information might inform your opinion, but apparently not.

I don't agree with "easily identified"

John Mytton has "easily identified" the rifle in the footage as an MC and Walt would appear to know a thing or two about this particular rifle and he has no trouble identifying it. The footage isn't the best quality but there are moments when the rifle is clearly on display and recognisable.
It is indistinguishable from the rifle Day took from the TSBD or the rifle Day held aloft in the DPD, or the rifle in the National Archive or the rifle (bar the strap) in the back yard photos.
That it is indistinguishable from a Mannlicher Carcano means, by default, it is not a Mauser. The rifle filmed by Alyea is 100% not a Mauser. That is a fact.

...or that this somehow precludes a Mauser being found in the building

Of course it doesn't preclude a Mauser being found in the building. Nobody said it did. Finding the MC doesn't preclude a Howitzer being found in the building or a unicorn.
It's a meaningless point you're making.
But what it does preclude is a Mauser being found in the same location as the MC filmed by Alyea.
Boone never mentioned seeing two rifles and neither did Weitzman. As far as I'm aware, nobody reported two rifles being found. This appears to be some fantasy that you are peddling. What evidence do you have that more than one rifle was found? If you don't have any, why do you keep bringing it up?

nor do I agree with "clear that Boone and Weitzman were simply mistaken"

You must surely agree that they didn't find a Mauser in the same location as the MC filmed by Alyea. And that they didn't find one anywhere else. And that they didn't find two rifles.
The remaining options are that they were mistaken, they were lying or that every person on the 6th floor, including Alyea, was involved in some kind of staged event.
I favour that they were simply mistaken, Alyea's footage demonstrates this.
I think I can guess what scenario you favour.

that you can know that Craig "was lying".

I assume he was lying as he states emphatically that "Mauser" was stamped on the barrel but the rifle filmed by Alyea was an MC. That is a fact. He did not see "Mauser" stamped on the barrel of the rifle filmed by Alyea, so I don't know what else to think.

Iacoletti doesn't have the best deductive reason skills or even at the very least, the ability to provide a reasonable alternate narrative.
Planting 1 rifle is risky enough but why plant two?
Why on Earth would anybody plant two rifles unless the Mauser was the murder weapon but if that was the case, just set-up Oswald with the Mauser, DUH!
And a Mauser the weapon of the Nazi's with all it's evil connotations would be the ideal weapon to set up Oswald, but cheap ass Oswald bought what was iirc the cheapest rifle available on the Original Kleins ad.

Edit: Oswald's rifle was the cheapest ad on the Kliens ad page and the next most expensive with a telescope option was 40% more expensive than the Carcano with telescope.

(https://i.postimg.cc/7YPR9Vr0/Kleins-Sporting-Goods-Ad-February-1963.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Mytton on April 18, 2022, 12:08:22 PM
but cheap ass Oswald bought what was iirc the cheapest rifle available on the Original Kleins ad.

 BS:

Not even the Warren Commission could support that claim with verified evidence.

They even failed to enter the original ad into evidence.

Learn the evidence, The original coupon is in fact in evidence and as Waldman tells us, the coupon specifically came from "American Rifleman Magazine, issue of February 1963."

Mr. BELIN. Can you just give us one or more of the magazines in which this coupon might have been taken?
Mr. WALDMAN. Well, this coupon was specifically taken from American Rifleman Magazine, issue of February 1963. It's identified by the department number which is shown as--now, if I can read this--shown as Department 358 on the coupon.


(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Lee_Harvey_Oswald%27s_order_form_and_envelope_%28exhibit_CE773%29.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/7YPR9Vr0/Kleins-Sporting-Goods-Ad-February-1963.jpg)

Btw what happened to your side kick Mongo? He's been wiped off the entire Planet!

JohnM

Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Mytton on April 18, 2022, 03:20:59 PM
I already know the evidence, you fail again.

I wasn't referring to the coupon, at least try to pay attention before replying.

Yet the WC entered non-evidence into evidence from Harry Holmes showing up with a November ad from Field and Stream magazine.

ROFL

I'm not aware that anything happened to him but it apperar we're mostly on the same page concerning the evidence in the case.

Quote
I already know the evidence,

You wish.

Quote
I wasn't referring to the coupon, at least try to pay attention before replying.

I don't care what you think you posted, I directly refuted your allegation. In the original post; you claimed that the Warren Commission couldn't support my claim that Oswald bought the cheapest rifle from the original Kleins ad but Waldman tells us that the Kleins ad I posted from February 1963 contained a coupon with the specific Dept No. 358, the dept number is how they tracked which orders came from which magazine, a simple method to calculate the cost effectiveness of ads in different magazines.

but cheap ass Oswald bought what was iirc the cheapest rifle available on the Original Kleins ad.
 BS:
Not even the Warren Commission could support that claim with verified evidence.

Quote
I'm not aware that anything happened to him but it apperar we're mostly on the same page concerning the evidence in the case.

Really? Almost half the threads on the first page were by Mongo and they all disappeared overnight, and you didn't even notice, with such weak observation skills it's no wonder you are so hopeless at solving this case.
Btw Mongo either quit or he was expelled for being a Troll, you'd better watch out, because you could be next!

JohnM
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 18, 2022, 05:00:51 PM
How do you know the rifle being carried outside is the same one Alyea filmed? Or the only one found?

I've seen Tom Alyea's video that was filmed just minutes after Day pulled the rifle from beneath the boxes of books.  Day is dusting the rifle behind the brightly sunlit window and there is not an iota of doubt that the rifle is a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.

How do you know the rifle being carried outside is the same one Alyea filmed? Or the only one found?

C'mon John....You're much too smart to actually propose that the rifle isn't the same rifle that Day pulled from beneath the boxes of books.     I believe you're simply being an antagonist.... But that's not good because there are some simple minds that will accept the idea as valid.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Mytton on April 18, 2022, 05:21:31 PM
I don't intent(sic) to solve the case so once again you've failed royally!

What has your intent to solve this case possibly have to do with my success or failure?

JohnM
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on April 18, 2022, 07:10:54 PM
Lack of something can not make me "so hopeless at solving this case" unless I intend to solve the case.

That's how you failed again.

Get it now?

 :D :D :D

I've just noticed the "tell" proving Weidmann is, indeed, Beck.

It's been bugging me for a while that Weidmann doesn't realise it's "cannot" and not "can not".
It's hardly a coincidence that Otto displays the same basic illiteracy.

#busted
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Vincent Baxter on April 18, 2022, 08:25:00 PM

Only a total loser would be wasting time trolling random forum members to check if their posts disappear.

Whereas creating multiple accounts and aliases on the forum to gang up on people and give the illusion that more members support your argument is the behaviour of a sure fire winner?  :D
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Martin Weidmann on April 18, 2022, 09:25:51 PM
Whereas creating multiple accounts and aliases on the forum to gang up on people and give the illusion that more members support your argument is the behaviour of a sure fire winner?  :D

Take it easy, John. Don't overdo it...
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Martin Weidmann on April 18, 2022, 09:27:42 PM
:D :D :D

I've just noticed the "tell" proving Weidmann is, indeed, Beck.

It's been bugging me for a while that Weidmann doesn't realise it's "cannot" and not "can not".
It's hardly a coincidence that Otto displays the same basic illiteracy.

#busted

Hilarious ignorance

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/cannot-vs-can-not-is-there-a-difference

Do you realize now you've just made a fool of yourself on multiple levels?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Vincent Baxter on April 18, 2022, 09:44:19 PM
Hilarious ignorance

Do you realize now you've just made a fool of yourself on multiple levels?

As opposed to making a fool of yourself on multiple forum accounts  :D
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Martin Weidmann on April 18, 2022, 09:49:10 PM
As opposed to making a fool of yourself on multiple forum accounts  :D

You're overdoing it, Johnny...
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on April 18, 2022, 09:58:11 PM
Hilarious ignorance

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/cannot-vs-can-not-is-there-a-difference

Do you realize now you've just made a fool of yourself on multiple levels?

Roger that  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 19, 2022, 12:43:58 AM
John Mytton has "easily identified" the rifle in the footage as an MC

 :D

“Mytton” draws arrows on photos and declares victory.

Quote
Of course it doesn't preclude a Mauser being found in the building. Nobody said it did. Finding the MC doesn't preclude a Howitzer being found in the building or a unicorn.

Then how can anybody be so certain that the Mauser described by Boone, Weitzman, and Craig was not found?

Quote
But what it does preclude is a Mauser being found in the same location as the MC filmed by Alyea.
Boone never mentioned seeing two rifles and neither did Weitzman. As far as I'm aware, nobody reported two rifles being found.

Sure, but why would any of them be required to be present for both?

Quote
This appears to be some fantasy that you are peddling. What evidence do you have that more than one rifle was found? If you don't have any, why do you keep bringing it up?

There’s evidence that a Mauser was found whether you believe it or not.

Quote
You must surely agree that they didn't find a Mauser in the same location as the MC filmed by Alyea.

I don’t recall Boone or Weitzman making any reference to a location filmed by Alyea. And nobody will ever see the entire Alyea footage anyway.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Mytton on April 19, 2022, 01:49:03 AM

Then how can anybody be so certain that the Mauser described by Boone, Weitzman, and Craig was not found?


Boone and Weitzman cleared it up.

Mr. BALL - In the statement that you made to the Dallas Police Department that afternoon, you referred to the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser bolt action?
Mr. WEITZMAN - In a glance, that's what it looked like.

Mr. BALL - There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this rifle as a Mauser that day?
Mr. BOONE - Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought it was 7.65 Mauser.
Mr. BALL - Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?
Mr. BOONE - I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that is what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is, the ID man was getting ready to photograph it.
We were just discussing it beck and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65 Mauser.


JohnM
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on April 19, 2022, 02:03:44 AM
:D

“Mytton” draws arrows on photos and declares victory.

The rifle in the Alyea footage can be identified as an MC. Your unsupported and unreasonable attempts to imply it can't are weak sauce indeed.

Quote
Then how can anybody be so certain that the Mauser described by Boone, Weitzman, and Craig was not found?

As John has already demonstrated, Boone and Weitzman clear this issue up themselves. More importantly is the location the rifle was found, it is the same location Alyea films and only one rifle is found there.
Again, your unsupported and unreasonable attempts to muddy the water are feeble, to say the least.

Quote
Sure, but why would any of them be required to be present for both?

Waffle.

Quote
There’s evidence that a Mauser was found whether you believe it or not.

But no credible evidence.

Quote
I don’t recall Boone or Weitzman making any reference to a location filmed by Alyea. And nobody will ever see the entire Alyea footage anyway.

Beyond weak.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 19, 2022, 03:13:06 AM
Iacoletti doesn't have the best deductive reason skills

Defined as agreeing with “Mytton’s” fanciful unsubstantiated claims.

Quote
or even at the very least, the ability to provide a reasonable alternate narrative.

Or your irrational narrative wins by default.

Quote
Planting 1 rifle is risky enough but why plant two?

I didn’t say anything about planting. Try again.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 19, 2022, 03:16:46 AM
I've seen Tom Alyea's video that was filmed just minutes after Day pulled the rifle from beneath the boxes of books.  Day is dusting the rifle behind the brightly sunlit window and there is not an iota of doubt that the rifle is a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.

Bull. It’s a blurry, grainy video. You gonna claim you can read the serial number too?
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 19, 2022, 03:19:40 AM
Boone and Weitzman cleared it up.

Right. “Just a glance” after which they described it in detail.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: John Mytton on April 19, 2022, 03:24:04 AM
Right. “Just a glance” after which they described it in detail.

What, do you think the rifle was passed around like a peace pipe? LOL!

JohnM
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 20, 2022, 01:35:41 AM
What, do you think the rifle was passed around like a peace pipe? LOL!

JohnM

Funny that you would compare the rifle to a peace pipe...... Because if that rifle had been fired less than an hour prior to it's discovery the smoke from the firing would have been sealed in the barrel by the live round, and then when Fritz "uncorked the barrel by removing the live round the smell would have been quite apparent by those in the proximity.   But Nobody reported any smell of gunpowder....
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Paul J Cummings on May 21, 2022, 03:59:05 AM
Given Roger Craig's credentials I believe him 100%. HOWEVER I think most people don't go into much about the driver. I guess it's me just believing in Craig but the bigger story IMO is the driver. I believe some of the witnesses describe as Latin heavy set.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Jim Brunsman on May 23, 2022, 12:34:28 AM
Of course Chapman would find some way to try to discredit Craig, since he was a dedicated and thorough law enforcement official. Craig reported several things that are inconvenient to the lone nutters. Recall how he carefully describes finding the Mauser, how Weitzmann, an expert in firearms identified the weapon and even pointed to "7.65 Mauser" printed on the barrel. Craig also saw Oswald running down the hill and entering the Rambler and led the search in the railroad yards. That's a trifecta Chapman is never going to accept. So many dishonest lone nutters...
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on May 23, 2022, 12:45:04 AM
Roger Craig's claim about the Mauser is refuted by Tom Alyea's film.
Alyea films the rifle in it's initial hiding place, being brought out by Day and then dusted for prints.
Craig states he sees "Mauser" stamped on the barrel after it is brought out of it's hiding place.
The rifle is a Mannlicher Carcano and not a Mauser.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 23, 2022, 06:20:23 PM
Roger Craig's claim about the Mauser is refuted by Tom Alyea's film.
Alyea films the rifle in it's initial hiding place, being brought out by Day and then dusted for prints.
Craig states he sees "Mauser" stamped on the barrel after it is brought out of it's hiding place.
The rifle is a Mannlicher Carcano and not a Mauser.

Craig didn't identify the rifle as a mauser on 11/22/63....    At that time nobody actually knew what the rifle was.... Weitzman ventured a guess that it "looked like a mauser"....and others (Craig)  accepted his guess as if it were a fact.   When deyective Day was examining the rifle he discovered that it was "Made in Italy," and it was 6.5 caliber, but it wasn't until Saturday that they learned that it was called a Mannlicher Carcano.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Paul J Cummings on May 24, 2022, 04:42:19 AM
Can't recall the cop wh0 was with Craig but he identified it as Mauser. That person who identified it as a Mauser I believe either owned a gun store or owned a sporting goods store with rifles. Also people need look into this aspect further because three guns were supposedly found in TSBD. Oliver Stone's movie JFK Destiny Betrayed discusses this in the movie.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Rick Plant on May 24, 2022, 02:35:36 PM
Craig didn't identify the rifle as a mauser on 11/22/63....    At that time nobody actually knew what the rifle was.... Weitzman ventured a guess that it "looked like a mauser"....and others (Craig)  accepted his guess as if it were a fact.   When deyective Day was examining the rifle he discovered that it was "Made in Italy," and it was 6.5 caliber, but it wasn't until Saturday that they learned that it was called a Mannlicher Carcano.

That's not true. Craig stated the rifle was a Mauser when he identified the stamp. Weitzman said it was a Mauser as well until he changed his story claiming he only "glanced" at the rifle.   
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 24, 2022, 04:43:51 PM
Can't recall the cop wh0 was with Craig but he identified it as Mauser. That person who identified it as a Mauser I believe either owned a gun store or owned a sporting goods store with rifles. Also people need look into this aspect further because three guns were supposedly found in TSBD. Oliver Stone's movie JFK Destiny Betrayed discusses this in the movie.

Paul, the story that the rifle was a mauser is just silly nonsense.     Seymour Weitzman ventured a WAG that it looked like a mauser before it was removed from beneath the boxes of books, where it had been carefully hidden.   Nobody knew what kind of rifle it was until Saturday morning, when it was found to be a Mannlicher Carcano.   
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 25, 2022, 12:52:15 AM
Also supposedly from Craig's daughter about her father, Dallas County Sheriff's Office "Man of the Year" for 1960.

"I'm not disputing that what he thought he saw was something different than what was reported."

and this from Dave Reitzes.....

"Now, the Rambler episode is a whole separate issue. It happened; Craig was not the only person who saw it. Ten minutes after the assassination, a man described as being in his twenties did leave Dealey Plaza in a Nash Rambler. The question is, did this individual have anything to do with the assassination? There's no evidence for it, nor is there any evidence specifically against it.

It's possible that he and the Rambler driver were just bystanders with some non-sinister reason for leaving. It's also possible he was a newsman racing off to file a story, although Craig's description of him as wearing blue trousers and a tan shirt, if accurate, may be inconsistent with this, as I would expect a reporter to be dressed more professionally, unless he had been "off duty," so to speak.

To those who think Oswald was the lone assassin, it doesn't seem important; to those who think there was a conspiracy, it's tantalizing."

It's possible that he and the Rambler driver were just bystanders with some non-sinister reason for leaving. It's also possible he was a newsman racing off to file a story, although Craig's description of him as wearing blue trousers and a tan shirt, if accurate, may be inconsistent with this, as I would expect a reporter to be dressed more professionally, unless he had been "off duty," so to speak.

To those who think Oswald was the lone assassin, it doesn't seem important; to those who think there was a conspiracy, it's tantalizing."


I'm absolutely sure there was a conspiracy ..... and not at all tantalized by the report of a young man leaving the scene in a Rambler.     Roger Craig warped the story into BS......   However,  I believe that IF? IF ? Roger Craig's description of the young man who climbed into the Rambler was accurate and the man was actually wearing blue trousers and a tan shirt...then that eliminates Lee Oswald as the man because Lee was wearing dark gray trousers and a reddish brown shirt.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Rick Plant on May 25, 2022, 12:30:38 PM
Paul, the story that the rifle was a mauser is just silly nonsense.     Seymour Weitzman ventured a WAG that it looked like a mauser before it was removed from beneath the boxes of books, where it had been carefully hidden.   Nobody knew what kind of rifle it was until Saturday morning, when it was found to be a Mannlicher Carcano.

:D :D :D

What you're saying is silly nonsense. "Nobody knew until Saturday morning"? It doesn't take that long to ID the make of a rifle when top law enforcement experts were all on the case.     

Seymour said it was a Mauser and so did Roger Craig who witnessed the stamp on the rifle. Then Seymour changed his story when he testified.

Why would Roger Craig say he witnessed a Mauser stamp if the rifle was a Mannlicher Carcano? That's a totally different weapon.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Paul J Cummings on May 25, 2022, 01:00:21 PM
It's not nonsense? From the Book "High Treason" pg 144. "Deputy Eugene Boone and and I (Craig) found the rifle which I might add was a 7.65 Mauser, so stamped on the barrel. Weitzman signed an affidavit to the this effect."

"High Treason pg 229. Affidavits sworn at the time of the assassination by Deputy Sheriff Seymour Weitzman state the gun was a German Mauser.

Weitzman- a man with extensive experience in guns, who owned gun shops, who had a graduate degree in Engineering-that the gun was a Mauser, a favored weapon of snipers.

That's pure hogwash they didn't know what type of gun it was until Saturday. So a FULL day after the assassination with FBI, Police and SS nobody could identify the gun until the next day? This gun that killed the President wasn't identified until the next day doesn't hold your claim.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 25, 2022, 06:27:55 PM
It's not nonsense? From the Book "High Treason" pg 144. "Deputy Eugene Boone and and I (Craig) found the rifle which I might add was a 7.65 Mauser, so stamped on the barrel. Weitzman signed an affidavit to the this effect."

"High Treason pg 229. Affidavits sworn at the time of the assassination by Deputy Sheriff Seymour Weitzman state the gun was a German Mauser.

Weitzman- a man with extensive experience in guns, who owned gun shops, who had a graduate degree in Engineering-that the gun was a Mauser, a favored weapon of snipers.

That's pure hogwash they didn't know what type of gun it was until Saturday. So a FULL day after the assassination with FBI, Police and SS nobody could identify the gun until the next day? This gun that killed the President wasn't identified until the next day doesn't hold your claim.

Clearly your mind's made up, Paul, and no amount of reasoning or the presentation of the FACTS is going to move you from your stance.   So continue to believe what you will and remain ignorant.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Paul J Cummings on May 26, 2022, 05:18:34 AM
Please present YOUR facts. I'll take Weitzman (gun expert) over your "theory."
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 26, 2022, 08:12:39 PM
Please present YOUR facts. I'll take Weitzman (gun expert) over your "theory."

I'm sorry, Paul...as I said ... Your mind's made up, and no amount of reasoning or presentation of the facts will change that.

I'm sure you won't believe me, but Seymour Weitzman was NOT a "gun expert"  .....However he was familiar with guns and thought that the carcano was a 7.65 mauser when he saw a small part of it as it was lying on the floor beneath the boxes of books.   That was before the rifle was picked up by Lt Day, and it was merely speculation.    Weitzman himself said that he was mistaken about the rifle being a mauser.    But since you know more about it than Weitzman........Carry on.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Paul J Cummings on May 27, 2022, 02:47:50 AM
I'll go with the first reports given the corruptness of the DPD. You go right ahead and trust them.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 27, 2022, 03:21:45 AM
I'll go with the first reports given the corruptness of the DPD. You go right ahead and trust them.

Trust the DPD?....I believe that the Officers in charge at the DPD were part of the conspiracy.  Roger Craig knew that, and he tried to expose them, but unfortunately he thought that he had twist the facts and he destroyed his credibility. 
And he actually said that he saw.... "7.65 Mauser stamped right there on the barrel"  What a pity!.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Paul J Cummings on May 27, 2022, 03:44:23 AM
Exactly and that's I believe they forced others to get in line of what the gun WAS to be. Mauser not linked to Oswald. That's just touching the power Fritz had in Dallas.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Dan O'meara on May 27, 2022, 10:14:36 AM
Tom Alyea filmed the rifle being removed from it's hiding place.
It was not a Mauser.
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 27, 2022, 05:10:46 PM
Tom Alyea filmed the rifle being removed from it's hiding place.
It was not a Mauser.

Dan,  You're pointing out facts to a blind man.   " None is so blind as he who will not see"
Title: Re: Roger Craig
Post by: Paul J Cummings on May 27, 2022, 06:38:41 PM
At what time did Alyea arrive to film? Fritz picked up the bullets before the camera man came and tainted the alleged sniper window. But hey it took until Saturday to identify the weapon but yet my facts are wrong. Have to be the most ignorant cops if it took them and others a day to identify the type of gun. I'm not ignoring facts it's just I don't trust the