Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Roger Craig  (Read 103187 times)

Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: Roger Craig
« Reply #472 on: February 22, 2021, 01:20:23 AM »
Advertisement


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?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Roger Craig
« Reply #472 on: February 22, 2021, 01:20:23 AM »


Offline Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3000
Re: Roger Craig
« Reply #473 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.

Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: Roger Craig
« Reply #474 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.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2021, 03:10:00 AM by Walt Cakebread »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Roger Craig
« Reply #474 on: February 22, 2021, 01:59:32 AM »


Offline Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3000
Re: Roger Craig
« Reply #475 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.



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)



Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: Roger Craig
« Reply #476 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.



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 .... 

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Roger Craig
« Reply #476 on: February 22, 2021, 02:53:28 PM »


Offline Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3000
Re: Roger Craig
« Reply #477 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'.

« Last Edit: February 22, 2021, 05:44:21 PM by Dan O'meara »

Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: Roger Craig
« Reply #478 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....   

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Roger Craig
« Reply #478 on: February 22, 2021, 03:59:47 PM »


Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: Roger Craig
« Reply #479 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.