Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Roger Craig  (Read 101101 times)

Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: Roger Craig
« Reply #384 on: February 18, 2021, 04:26:11 AM »
Advertisement
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. .
« Last Edit: February 18, 2021, 04:40:16 AM by Walt Cakebread »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Roger Craig
« Reply #384 on: February 18, 2021, 04:26:11 AM »


Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2936
Re: Roger Craig
« Reply #385 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:



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:



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.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2021, 01:40:21 PM by Dan O'meara »

Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: Roger Craig
« Reply #386 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:



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:



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. 

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Roger Craig
« Reply #386 on: February 18, 2021, 07:44:36 PM »


Offline Jack Trojan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
Re: Roger Craig
« Reply #387 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:



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:



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. 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!
« Last Edit: February 18, 2021, 08:41:36 PM by Jack Trojan »

Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2936
Re: Roger Craig
« Reply #388 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?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Roger Craig
« Reply #388 on: February 18, 2021, 09:23:31 PM »


Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2936
Re: Roger Craig
« Reply #389 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?

Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: Roger Craig
« Reply #390 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. 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.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Roger Craig
« Reply #390 on: February 18, 2021, 09:58:12 PM »


Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: Roger Craig
« Reply #391 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:



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:



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.