Roger Craig

[Jack Trojan]

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.



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 bullshite. Add it to the list. Otherwise, I'm done with this one until you post your re-enactment photo with your MC.

Good luck!

[Walt Cakebread]

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.



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 bullshite. 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....

[Walt Cakebread]

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.



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 bullshite. 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.

[Walt Cakebread]

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.

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.

[Jack Trojan]

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 shitty 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

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.

[Rick Plant]

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.   

[Walt Cakebread]

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  ??


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.)