Roger Craig

[Dan O'meara]

the brehm stuff is all on the brehm thread , i made my self crystal clear there . i accurately quoted brehm , what he said IS ON FILM . and another posted accurately quoted mark lane who DID NOT QUOTE BREHM VERBATIM , he lane added in his opinion as to what he felt what brehm saw meant . as i said the brehm comments are on the brehm thread , this is a different thread . and no you did not correct me re brehm  , i quoted him accurately . you can feel free to correct me if i am wrong and i will be only too happy to correct my self after that . any opinion that i am wrong is not the same as proof that i am wrong . you are entitled to disagree with me , that is your right , and i wont attack or insult you for doing so .

but as you decided too drag another thread into this one , here is the relevant exchange

"As a ww2 veteran and a man / witness who lone nut advocates say was well experienced in terms of the sounds of gun fire (and i am sure that he was ) if i spoke to him i would have asked him about his undeniable statement about watching a piece of jfks head fly through the air both REARWARD and leftward and land at the curb where he stood . and then asked him if he could explain that via a shot or shots ONLY from the rear . " fergus obrien

at no point in the above did i quote brehm verbatim , had i done so i would have done so within quotes .

here is your reply

a piece of jfks head fly through the air both REARWARD

Hi Fergus, where/when did Brehm make this statement?

mr organ then replied and posted information and telling you the statement was made in lanes rush to judgement .

i had not seen mr organs above reply before i had posted mine , here it is

"you are seriously asking me this ? , he is on film stating this .for the record i have no problem helping a person IE if they genuinely dont know something and need directing to where they can see or find info .but if i could say one thing dan you are no novice , so i cant understand why you would not know about what brehm said on film ." fergus obrien

here is your reply

"Just checking whether this was the Lane interview where Brehm says "whatever it was", meaning he didn't actually know what it was.
So, was it the Lane interview you were referencing.
BTW, it is customary to cite your sources as a matter of practice, You shouldn't have to be asked at all."

yes brehm did mention during the interview WHAT EVER IT WAS , i will grant you that and i would not deny that . but then i posted the relevant segment of the lane / brehm interview verbatim , it is important to have context .here it is again  .

LANE : DID YOU SEE THE EFFECTS OF THE BULLET ON THE PRESIDENT ?
BREHM :WHEN THE SECOND BULLET HIT , THERE WAS , THE HAIR SEEMED TO GO FLYING (brehm indicated the hair on the rear and right of the head , see video below  ) .IT WAS VERY DEFINITE THEN THAT HE WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD WITH THE SECOND BULLET .AND UH YES , I VERY DEFINITELY SAW THE EFFECT OF THE SECOND BULLET .
LANE : DID YOU SEE ANY PARTICLES OF THE PRESIDENTS SKULL FLY WHEN THE BULLET STRUCK HIM IN THE HEAD ? .
BREHM :I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER , OH , OVER IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING .
LANE : IN WHICH DIRECTION DID THAT FLY ? .
BREHM :IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK .
LANE :IN OTHER WORDS THE SKULL PARTICLES FLEW TO THE LEFT AND TO THE REAR OF THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMOUSINE ? .
BREHM :UH SIR WHAT EVER IT WAS THAT I SAW DID FALL BOTH IN THAT DIRECTION AND OVER IN THE CURB THERE .

that was my last post there on that thread , indeed it is the final post on that thread . so NO you did not correct me , i was not wrong , i never originally quoted brehm verbatim .

"The fact of the matter is, Brehm never mentions a piece of JFK's head flying anywhere.
You were wrong to attribute these words to Brehm and you are now being corrected." dan

the above VERBATIM quote of the lane / brehm interview proves otherwise .

"LANE : DID YOU SEE ANY PARTICLES OF THE PRESIDENTS SKULL FLY WHEN THE BULLET STRUCK HIM IN THE HEAD ? .
BREHM :I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER , OH , OVER IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING ."

"Be more careful about what you post. When you are wrong you will be corrected.
And we'll have less of the hysterics if you don't mind." dan

i think you should concern yourself with what you post and the accuracy of that . and please dont clutter topics by talking about stuff that does not belong here . when i mentioned the other thread i did so only because you asked a question that would lead one (whether right or wrong ) to infer you did not know about what was said . and given your previous posts that i read i gave you the respect of believing you to be knowledgeable , so i was surprised to think you were unaware of this .

in fact i posted in reply to you in another thread to day re rowland , i posted very politely in agreement with you . because people can have differing view points but still agree . but some times one wastes their time being polite .

but as you decided too drag another thread into this one

It was YOU who dragged the other thread into this, not me.
What do you think you're playing at?
Is this deliberate deception or don't you know what you're saying?

And let me just clear this bullsh^t up once and for all.
You were wrong to post this:

"if i spoke to him [Brehm] i would have asked him about his undeniable statement about watching a piece of jfks head fly through the air both REARWARD and leftward and land at the curb where he stood"

YOU claimed that Brehm had made an "undeniable statement" about watching a piece of JFK's head fly through the air.
But it IS a deniable statement because Brehm never made any such statement.
You were wrong to attribute this to Brehm as an undeniable statement and trying to sneak out of it now by claiming you didn't use quotation marks isn't going to cut it.
You attributed this statement to Brehm quotation marks or not.

So I asked you a civil question about where you were getting this quote from because it's not in any of Brehm's recorded testimony.
Instead of receiving a civil answer I got a rant beginning with - "you are seriously asking me this ?" - as if I have no right to even ask the question.

in fact i posted in reply to you in another thread to day re rowland , i posted very politely in agreement with you . because people can have differing view points but still agree . but some times one wastes their time being polite

And I have replied with similar politeness.
When I ask a civil question I expect a civil answer.
You were wrong to attribute those words to Brehm and label it an "undeniable statement".

[Fergus O'Brien]

"YOU claimed that Brehm had made an "undeniable statement" about watching a piece of JFK's head fly through the air.
But it IS a deniable statement because Brehm never made any such statement" dan

LANE : DID YOU SEE THE EFFECTS OF THE BULLET ON THE PRESIDENT ?
BREHM :WHEN THE SECOND BULLET HIT , THERE WAS , THE HAIR SEEMED TO GO FLYING (brehm indicated the hair on the rear and right of the head , see video below  ) .IT WAS VERY DEFINITE THEN THAT HE WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD WITH THE SECOND BULLET .AND UH YES , I VERY DEFINITELY SAW THE EFFECT OF THE SECOND BULLET .
LANE : DID YOU SEE ANY PARTICLES OF THE PRESIDENTS SKULL FLY WHEN THE BULLET STRUCK HIM IN THE HEAD ? .
BREHM :I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER , OH , OVER IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING .
LANE : IN WHICH DIRECTION DID THAT FLY ? .
BREHM :IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK .
LANE :IN OTHER WORDS THE SKULL PARTICLES FLEW TO THE LEFT AND TO THE REAR OF THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMOUSINE ? .
BREHM :UH SIR WHAT EVER IT WAS THAT I SAW DID FALL BOTH IN THAT DIRECTION AND OVER IN THE CURB THERE .

"if i spoke to him i would have asked him about his undeniable statement about watching a piece of jfks head fly through the air both REARWARD and leftward and land at the curb where he stood"fergus

LANE : DID YOU SEE ANY PARTICLES OF THE PRESIDENTS SKULL FLY WHEN THE BULLET STRUCK HIM IN THE HEAD ? .
BREHM :I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER , OH , OVER IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING .

once again i have to state what is patently obvious above that I NEVER QUOTED BREHM VERBATIM , but some time the patently obvious is not so obvious to some it would seem .

so what did i say in my post that dan says i should not have  , that he disputes ? . lets review it .

"his undeniable statement " fergus

the above simply means that he spoke on film , logically one cant speak on film and be recorded and deny they did so .because the film is proof they did so .

"You were wrong to attribute those words to Brehm and label it an "undeniable statement".dan

that he spoke on film is undeniable .

"YOU claimed that Brehm had made an "undeniable statement" about watching a piece of JFK's head fly through the air.
But it IS a deniable statement because Brehm never made any such statement" dan

LANE : DID YOU SEE ANY PARTICLES OF THE PRESIDENTS SKULL FLY WHEN THE BULLET STRUCK HIM IN THE HEAD ? .
BREHM :I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER , OH , OVER IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING .

"You were wrong to attribute this to Brehm as an undeniable statement and trying to sneak out of it now by claiming you didn't use quotation marks isn't going to cut it.
You attributed this statement to Brehm quotation marks or not." dan

i attributed HIS OWN WORDING to him nothing else .

LANE : DID YOU SEE ANY PARTICLES OF THE PRESIDENTS SKULL FLY WHEN THE BULLET STRUCK HIM IN THE HEAD ? .
BREHM :I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER , OH , OVER IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING .

"What do you think you're playing at?
Is this deliberate deception or don't you know what you're saying?

And let me just clear this bullsh^t up once and for all.
You were wrong to post this:" dan

if there is any attempts to deceive here it has nothing to do with me . my original comment whether you happen to like that or not did not quote brehm .but it was not inaccurate as can be seen from HIS OWN WORDS .

in regards my comment about direction . here it is

"fly through the air both REARWARD and leftward" fergus

now lets see what brehm said on film .

LANE : IN WHICH DIRECTION DID THAT FLY ? .
BREHM :IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK .
LANE :IN OTHER WORDS THE SKULL PARTICLES FLEW TO THE LEFT AND TO THE REAR OF THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMOUSINE ? .
BREHM :UH SIR WHAT EVER IT WAS THAT I SAW DID FALL BOTH IN THAT DIRECTION AND OVER IN THE CURB THERE .

lane even asked brehm for clarification and brehm clarified it by saying " UH SIR WHAT EVER IT WAS THAT I SAW DID FALL BOTH IN THAT DIRECTION AND OVER IN THE CURB THERE "

as far as i am concerned that is where this nonsense ends .now i wont reply any further in this thread in reply to dan on this matter . i will let the other people posting here carry on with the original topic this thread was intended to have . my apologies to the other posters here and to duncan , it was never any intention of mine to alter the thread , but one some times find they need to defend them selves against unfair or untrue comments . i hope the thread can now get back on topic .

[Dan O'meara]

"YOU claimed that Brehm had made an "undeniable statement" about watching a piece of JFK's head fly through the air.
But it IS a deniable statement because Brehm never made any such statement" dan

LANE : DID YOU SEE THE EFFECTS OF THE BULLET ON THE PRESIDENT ?
BREHM :WHEN THE SECOND BULLET HIT , THERE WAS , THE HAIR SEEMED TO GO FLYING (brehm indicated the hair on the rear and right of the head , see video below  ) .IT WAS VERY DEFINITE THEN THAT HE WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD WITH THE SECOND BULLET .AND UH YES , I VERY DEFINITELY SAW THE EFFECT OF THE SECOND BULLET .
LANE : DID YOU SEE ANY PARTICLES OF THE PRESIDENTS SKULL FLY WHEN THE BULLET STRUCK HIM IN THE HEAD ? .
BREHM :I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER , OH , OVER IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING .
LANE : IN WHICH DIRECTION DID THAT FLY ? .
BREHM :IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK .
LANE :IN OTHER WORDS THE SKULL PARTICLES FLEW TO THE LEFT AND TO THE REAR OF THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMOUSINE ? .
BREHM :UH SIR WHAT EVER IT WAS THAT I SAW DID FALL BOTH IN THAT DIRECTION AND OVER IN THE CURB THERE .

"if i spoke to him i would have asked him about his undeniable statement about watching a piece of jfks head fly through the air both REARWARD and leftward and land at the curb where he stood"fergus

LANE : DID YOU SEE ANY PARTICLES OF THE PRESIDENTS SKULL FLY WHEN THE BULLET STRUCK HIM IN THE HEAD ? .
BREHM :I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER , OH , OVER IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING .

once again i have to state what is patently obvious above that I NEVER QUOTED BREHM VERBATIM , but some time the patently obvious is not so obvious to some it would seem .

so what did i say in my post that dan says i should not have  , that he disputes ? . lets review it .

"his undeniable statement " fergus

the above simply means that he spoke on film , logically one cant speak on film and be recorded and deny they did so .because the film is proof they did so .

"You were wrong to attribute those words to Brehm and label it an "undeniable statement".dan

that he spoke on film is undeniable .

"YOU claimed that Brehm had made an "undeniable statement" about watching a piece of JFK's head fly through the air.
But it IS a deniable statement because Brehm never made any such statement" dan

LANE : DID YOU SEE ANY PARTICLES OF THE PRESIDENTS SKULL FLY WHEN THE BULLET STRUCK HIM IN THE HEAD ? .
BREHM :I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER , OH , OVER IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING .

"You were wrong to attribute this to Brehm as an undeniable statement and trying to sneak out of it now by claiming you didn't use quotation marks isn't going to cut it.
You attributed this statement to Brehm quotation marks or not." dan

i attributed HIS OWN WORDING to him nothing else .

LANE : DID YOU SEE ANY PARTICLES OF THE PRESIDENTS SKULL FLY WHEN THE BULLET STRUCK HIM IN THE HEAD ? .
BREHM :I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER , OH , OVER IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING .

"What do you think you're playing at?
Is this deliberate deception or don't you know what you're saying?

And let me just clear this bullsh^t up once and for all.
You were wrong to post this:" dan

if there is any attempts to deceive here it has nothing to do with me . my original comment whether you happen to like that or not did not quote brehm .but it was not inaccurate as can be seen from HIS OWN WORDS .

in regards my comment about direction . here it is

"fly through the air both REARWARD and leftward" fergus

now lets see what brehm said on film .

LANE : IN WHICH DIRECTION DID THAT FLY ? .
BREHM :IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK .
LANE :IN OTHER WORDS THE SKULL PARTICLES FLEW TO THE LEFT AND TO THE REAR OF THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMOUSINE ? .
BREHM :UH SIR WHAT EVER IT WAS THAT I SAW DID FALL BOTH IN THAT DIRECTION AND OVER IN THE CURB THERE .

lane even asked brehm for clarification and brehm clarified it by saying " UH SIR WHAT EVER IT WAS THAT I SAW DID FALL BOTH IN THAT DIRECTION AND OVER IN THE CURB THERE "

as far as i am concerned that is where this nonsense ends .now i wont reply any further in this thread in reply to dan on this matter . i will let the other people posting here carry on with the original topic this thread was intended to have . my apologies to the other posters here and to duncan , it was never any intention of mine to alter the thread , but one some times find they need to defend them selves against unfair or untrue comments . i hope the thread can now get back on topic .

they need to defend them selves against unfair or untrue comments

The only person making untrue comments was you.

[Fergus O'Brien]

1.) The Alyea film was aired on WFAA at roughly 3 PM on November 22. It's pretty far fetched to think that they could have re-shot the rifle discovery and got it on air so quickly.

2.) Who said Weitzman was an expert in identifying weapons? He never claimed to be one. He also was a deputy Constable, not a detective. The primary role of the Constables office is to serve court documents and assume the role of bailiff forth the Justice of the Peace.

i just wanted to return to comments directed at me in this thread , where i said that there were photos at the least taken at different times that tragic friday and later . i said photos taken at later times and recreation photos , i said not one word about faking of any photo or film . it is truly quite extraordinary how a person such as my self can write PHOTOS TAKEN AT DIFFERENT TIMES THAT DAY and perhaps on different days there after and LN morph that into FAKED PHOTO AND FILM .let me show here what my original comment was speaking of . i will use an online article also to highlight what i was talking about . i should note of course it is not my article .

"Notice the far window in the two exhibits (above) and the Studebaker photo (right). Notice that it is completely black, showing absolutely no detail. Compare that with the other window, which clearly shows a daylight scene showing the crowd and traffic in front of the County Records Building.

Keep in mind that these photos were allegedly taken at approximately 1:00 PM on the afternoon of the assassination. How can you have possibly have a daylight scene in one window, while the other window shows darkness consistent with midnight rather than mid-day??? We should be able to see the north face of the light colored County Records Building through that window. I believe these photos were taken at a later time, and that they were altered to hide the fact they were taken during the night. The daylight scene we see through the near window was added to the photos to make it appear that they were taken in the afternoon.

The photo on the left shows the same area taken from the opposite direction. Notice the corner of the near window (white rectangle). It shows the same absolute blackness as the other photos. I include this to dispel any notion that the extreme darkness seen through the window was caused by a shadow on the north face of the Records building. The photo on the right was taken by a newsman on the afternoon of the assassination, and shows just how much sunlight filtered through those windows. "

now here are the photos in question

   


There are more indications that Dallas Police Department's sniper's nest photos were not taken the afternoon of the assassination. Notice the object on the window ledge in the photo top right (see circle). This appears in several of the photos taken by newsmen that afternoon after Day & Studebaker took their evidence photos. Closer examination of these photos reveal that the item is a hammer.



Lieutenant Day told the Warren Commission that they took several reconstruction photos on Monday, November 25th. Among the photos, were Commission Exhibits 733 and 734:

Although Day told the Commission that one photograph was taken Monday morning (CE 727). But these two photos were obviously not taken in the morning, for once again we see the black of night through the window. Here's another photo taken at that session:

 


NOTE THE DARKNESS OUTSIDE THE WINDOW ? , NOTE THE DIFFERENT POSITIONS OF THE BOXES AT THE WINDOW ? . so i said photos were taken at different times and days , i used the wording reconstruction photos . i was completely correct in saying this . AT NO POINT DID I EVER SAY PHOTOS AND FILM WERE FAKE .my thanks to the original author for the above segments of the article and the photos provided .

[Fergus O'Brien]

Where do I start with this mess?

OK

Weitzman never quite claimed to "run a sporting goods store. He did say that he "was in the sporting goods business awhile." This was during his tenure at a "discount operation" chain of half a dozen stores named the "Lamont Corp." I've never been able to find out exactly whether the Lamont was specifically a sporting goods outfit, or a department store that sold sporting goods among other things. In either case, Weitzman's tenure was short. Less than a year, and Weitzman concluded his general managership when he "closed up all the stores, [and] retired from the discount operation." When you add up what Weitzman said about his own experience, there is very little reason to see him as the sort of guy who could immediately identify some random rifle at first sight.
 
It's "MADE ITALY" rather than "MADE IN ITALY." And these words are in tiny blued-metal-on-blued-metal letters. They aren't the exactly the easiest things to read, even in good light. I'm not sure why you think Weitzman would have been able to read them. At least he got the text on the scope, but those words are white on a back background, and easy to read.

"It's "MADE ITALY" rather than "MADE IN ITALY." And these words are in tiny blued-metal-on-blued-metal letters. They aren't the exactly the easiest things to read, even in good light. I'm not sure why you think Weitzman would have been able to read them."




i appreciate the above photo is enlarged (my thanks again to the original author / content provider , i will provide a link ) but even so even with some glare from a light source the MADE ITALY is readable .

here is a link to the original content that the photo came from
http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/c2766.html

[Mark A. Oblazney]

"It's "MADE ITALY" rather than "MADE IN ITALY." And these words are in tiny blued-metal-on-blued-metal letters. They aren't the exactly the easiest things to read, even in good light. I'm not sure why you think Weitzman would have been able to read them."




i appreciate the above photo is enlarged (my thanks again to the original author / content provider , i will provide a link ) but even so even with some glare from a light source the MADE ITALY is readable .

here is a link to the original content that the photo came from
http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/c2766.html

You seem to have a problem with basic logic.  What is wrong with you ?

[Fergus O'Brien]

you seem to have a problem in pointing out exactly what it is that you are taking issue with , and doing so in a polite and courteous manner . so what exactly is it that you are complaining about here ? . in this thread i have been asked if i was claiming photographic or indeed film fakery , i never claimed anything of the kind . i was accused in essence of inventing statements that brehm made , i backed up what i posted by posting brehms ACTUAL words RECORDED ON FILM . in this filmed interview he clearly not only stated he saw the affects of the head shot and saw particles fly , but that he saw one fly rearward and leftward and land in the area of the curb where he stood . STILL the previous poster tried to assert that i made this all up that brehm never said it . when he is on film saying it . but i see no comment from you directed at that poster questioning THEIR logic . and lastly i decided to address the comments directed at me in terms of the photos of the snipers nest and clarify what i originally stated . all very simple stuff .

also some threads have interesting topics , contain some good information and i believe it is a good thing to revive these threads every now and then .