Anthony Marsh

unread,

Mar 1, 2012, 6:35:42 PM3/1/12

to

>> Book review ? JFK and the Unspeakable
>>
>> - by Adrian Mack
>>
>> James Douglass? book JFK and the Unspeakable is subtitled ?Why He
>> Died, and Why It Matters?.

>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Dallas County Deputy sheriff Roger Craig has long been one of the most
>> credible, and certainly most tragic witnesses in this area. Shortly after
>> the shooting, in Dealey Plaza, Craig saw either Oswald or his double climb

>> into a green Rambler station wagon driven by a ?husky looking Latin.?

>> Craig then encountered Oswald during his interrogation at the Dallas

>> Police HQ, where Douglass writes, ?It was too late ? for both the

>> government and Roger Craig. Deputy Sheriff Craig had seen and heard too

>> much.?

>>
>> As an insider, Craig bore witness to a number of things that cause the
>> official story to unravel, and he talked. His career was destroyed by his
>> refusal to recant his own testimony. After a number of attempts on his
>> life, one of which left him disabled, Craig reportedly committed suicide
>> in 1975.
>>
>> <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
>>
>> <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
>>

>> One Response to JFK and the Unspeakable ? book review

>>
>> Michelle Palmer says:
>> July 5, 2009 at 8:28 pm
>>
>> Bullshit. You are ALL so full of it. Roger Craig was unstable from
>> childhood. His suicide had more to do with his own mental illness (and

>> being sucked into the GD conspiracy crap) than anything to do with JFK?s

>> actual death.
>>
>> I am his child. I knew him. I knew the people who used him to promote
>> their theories. You are ALL full of it.
>>
>> <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
>>
>> Dave
>
> And the cover-up continues! No, seriously, thanks for alerting us to
> this. Just maybe it might help a few rational fence-sitters or those who
> currently believe in a conspiracy to at least give up the Craig issues,
> which were addressed way back when I was 100 pounds lighter.
>
>

This controversy is idiotic. We don't need Roger Craig at all to prove
conspiracy. I simply ignore him because I know that he was a pathological
liar. And now his own daughter defends him by blaming the conspiracy
believers for feeding his mental illness? Well, I don't think Mark Lane
could possibly get down to Dallas soon enough to whisper in Craig's ear
that the rifle was a Mauser. Craig did not make that mistake. Weitzman did
and admitted it. All Craig did was lie to support a fellow cop. Loyalty is
more important than the truth.

You know you are dealing with a liar when he makes up an unnecessary
detail which is physically impossible. Like seeing the word Mauser so
stamped on the rifle. Or James Files biting on the empty cartridge he left
as his calling card.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Mar 1, 2012, 6:37:18 PM3/1/12

to

>> Book review ? JFK and the Unspeakable
>>
>> - by Adrian Mack
>>
>> James Douglass? book JFK and the Unspeakable is subtitled ?Why He
>> Died, and Why It Matters?.

>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Dallas County Deputy sheriff Roger Craig has long been one of the most
>> credible, and certainly most tragic witnesses in this area. Shortly after
>> the shooting, in Dealey Plaza, Craig saw either Oswald or his double climb

>> into a green Rambler station wagon driven by a ?husky looking Latin.?

>> Craig then encountered Oswald during his interrogation at the Dallas

>> Police HQ, where Douglass writes, ?It was too late ? for both the

>> government and Roger Craig. Deputy Sheriff Craig had seen and heard too

>> much.?

>>
>> As an insider, Craig bore witness to a number of things that cause the
>> official story to unravel, and he talked. His career was destroyed by his
>> refusal to recant his own testimony. After a number of attempts on his
>> life, one of which left him disabled, Craig reportedly committed suicide
>> in 1975.
>>
>> <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
>>
>> <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
>>

>> One Response to JFK and the Unspeakable ? book review

>>
>> Michelle Palmer says:
>> July 5, 2009 at 8:28 pm
>>
>> Bullshit. You are ALL so full of it. Roger Craig was unstable from
>> childhood. His suicide had more to do with his own mental illness (and

>> being sucked into the GD conspiracy crap) than anything to do with JFK?s

>> actual death.
>>
>> I am his child. I knew him. I knew the people who used him to promote
>> their theories. You are ALL full of it.
>>
>> <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
>>
>> Dave
>
> The Roger Craig story is a sad situation that is indeed a puzzle. He
> never wavered in his belief it was LHO in spite of evidence to the

What evidence to the contrary? Show me evidence that it could not
possibly be Oswald.

> contrary. If it wasn't LHO in the Nash Rambler why would The Conspiracy

Even if it wasn't LHO someone could have a theory that the Nash Rambler
picked up the real shooter. Then and only then might it become important.
But first prove that he or anyone else saw a Nash Rambler picking up
anybody at the TSBD. Show me the photograph of the car on Elm Street
extension of behind the TSBD.

> care about Craig's story that only added confusion? Why would they bother
> to harass him? He posed no threat whatsoever.
>

Why shouldn't the Conspiracy harrass someone who interferes with the
cover-up story, even if the person has no weight? Hangers on have been
killed for less. At least Martin got pistol whipped and threatened for
opening his mouth. What kind of a wimpy cover-up is it if no one gets
killed? You want the bad guys to go around saying to witnesses, "You'd
better keep your mouth shut or I'll take you off my Christmas card list"?

> Assuming there was a guy who ran from the TSBD to the Rambler, then who
> was he? Evidently not an employee in Truly's group. He may have worked

Who cares?
First prove that there was a Rambler. Then prove that some guy ran from
the TSBD.

> for another employer in the building. In reading Craig's unpublished
> manuscript it seems he incurred the wrath of Sheriff Decker by having
> compassion for Jack Ruby's sister. To read about Craig's Outstanding
> Deputy of the Year award then his descent into depression and sickness is
> heartrending. Despite all his hardships he never compromised his beliefs.

Lairs rarely admit their lies immediately.

> Was there more than one LHO look-a- like working in the TSBD that day?

Maybe he saw Lovelady standing out in front of the TSBD.

> Perhaps some guy dropping off lunch to his wife or a spectator who needed
> to use the restroom right after the parade? Guess we will never know.
>
> When Craig saw LHO under arrest he was convinced it was the same guy.
> Should we give him some credit for sticking to the truth as he perceived
> it? There never seemed to be any chance for financial gain in promoting
> this story so what was his motivation to put his family through such
> difficulty and eventually cost him a career and health?
>

Pathological liars are rarely motivated by greed.
It is usually all about puffing up their ego.

Robert Harris

unread,

Mar 1, 2012, 6:38:16 PM3/1/12

to

In article
<c40f440e-acd2-4365...@w4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,

Dave Reitzes <drei...@aol.com> wrote:

> 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 bastard 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.

That is correct. As I posted in my forum last year, the L.A. Free Press
interviewed Craig, years before his claim that he saw "Mauser" stamped on
the barrel.

He told them that he had no idea what the make and model of that rifle
was.

There is certainly value in debunking the Roger Craig's and Ed Hoffman's
but it is even more important to realize there are legitimate arguments
for conspiracy that are much more significant and impossible to debunk.

It's a real shame that so many nutters choose to evade those issues.

Robert Harris

Dave Reitzes

unread,

Mar 1, 2012, 6:39:02 PM3/1/12

to

On Mar 1, 12:30 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Roger Craig story is a sad situation that is indeed a puzzle. He
> never wavered in his belief it was LHO in spite of evidence to the
> contrary. If it wasn't LHO in the Nash Rambler why would The Conspiracy
> care about Craig's story that only added confusion? Why would they bother
> to harass him? He posed no threat whatsoever.
>
> Assuming there was a guy who ran from the TSBD to the Rambler, then who
> was he? Evidently not an employee in Truly's group. He may have worked
> for another employer in the building. In reading Craig's unpublished
> manuscript it seems he incurred the wrath of Sheriff Decker by having
> compassion for Jack Ruby's sister. To read about Craig's Outstanding
> Deputy of the Year award then his descent into depression and sickness is
> heartrending. Despite all his hardships he never compromised his beliefs.
> Was there more than one LHO look-a- like working in the TSBD that day?
> Perhaps some guy dropping off lunch to his wife or a spectator who needed
> to use the restroom right after the parade? Guess we will never know.
>
> When Craig saw LHO under arrest he was convinced it was the same guy.
> Should we give him some credit for sticking to the truth as he perceived
> it? There never seemed to be any chance for financial gain in promoting
> this story so what was his motivation to put his family through such
> difficulty and eventually cost him a career and health?

There are two separate issues here: the character of Roger Craig and the
Rambler episode.

After his police career ended (either due to his own unreliability or
because of the immense threat he posed to The Conspiracy -- you decide),
he became a semi-professional assassination witness for people like Penn
Jones, Mark Lane, and Jim Garrison. They helped support him financially.

Craig tried to blackmail a Garrison suspect named Edgar Eugene Bradley,
the only person Garrison charged with conspiracy in JFK's murder other
than Clay Shaw. Some people in California told Garrison that Bradley had
been involved in the assassination, then Roger Craig told Garrison he'd
seen Bradley in Dealey Plaza. He told Bradley he'd retract this claim for
money. Bradley put it this way:

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

There was a deputy sheriff who said that he had seen me posing as a Secret
Service agent outside the Book Depository about the time of the
assassination. Later, he phoned me twice, collect. A paper in Midlothian,
Texas [The Midlothian Mirror, Penn Jones's weekly paper], later wrote that
I was harassing him almost daily. In his last call to me, he indicated
that he needed money and would say just about anything I wanted for money.
I told him that I wouldn't give him a plug nickel because he owed it to
our country and to me to tell the truth, and that he knew he hadn't seen
me. He later committed suicide. ("Interview With Egdar Eugene Bradley:
Accused Assassin of J.F.K.," Contra Mundum, No. 6, Winter 1993.)

<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------

Garrison later quietly dropped the charges and admitted to Bradley (in an
exceedingly rare move) that he had been mistaken in filing them.

Craig told all kinds of false stories, and it looks to me like he often
told people like Garrison, Lane, and Jones what he thought they wanted to
hear; the Bradley episode is an example of this. Another example: at one
time he was claiming that a Mauser had been found on the roof of the TSBD;
but when filmed by Mark Lane years later, he supported a theory from
Lane's RUSH TO JUDGMENT: that the Mauser had been found on the sixth floor
-- and now he claimed he had PERSONALLY examined it:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm#mauser

So, in terms of Roger Craig's character, his daughter's description of him
only confirms what I'd already concluded on my own.

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.

Dave

Jean Davison

unread,

Mar 1, 2012, 10:05:24 PM3/1/12

to jjdavi...@yahoo.com

On Feb 29, 9:29 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:

> http://www.thesnipenews.com/books-comics/books-vancouver/jfk-and-the-...

Hi Dave,

Years ago CT researcher Mary Ferrell posted this on the old
Prodigy forum.

QUOTE:

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
>>>>
UNQUOTE

Jean

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Mar 1, 2012, 11:20:46 PM3/1/12

to

Sure, but are you sure about the time frame and sequence?

> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm#mauser
>
> So, in terms of Roger Craig's character, his daughter's description of him
> only confirms what I'd already concluded on my own.
>

Just because he was a pathological liar does not prove he was insane.

> 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

Prove that it happened.

> 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

Prove that it was a Nash Rambler. Show me a photo of it near the TSBD.

> 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

Wow, someone could have a non-sinister reason for leaving Dealey Plaza?
Amazing. Except of course for Lee Harvey Oswald.

> 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.
>

Sounds like a Files detail to me.
Who said it was a reporter?

> 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.
>

Silly. I think there was a conspiracy and I think the story is nonsense.
You just love to accuse all conspiracy believers of believing in every
conspiracy theory that comes down the pike.

> Dave
>

Dave Reitzes

unread,

Mar 2, 2012, 12:07:16 AM3/2/12

to

Thanks, Jean.

Dave

Ace Kefford

unread,

Mar 2, 2012, 9:41:54 AM3/2/12

to

On Mar 1, 6:38 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <c40f440e-acd2-4365-b4d0-de64f412a...@w4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,

Robert (and Tony),

I am with you, notwithstanding that I am currently quite convinced
that Oswald did it all.

A big problem on the conspiracy end of things has been the inability
to give up arguments and evidence that have been effectively refuted
to the satisfaction of any rational person. Instead they either
ignore the refutations, claim "evidence tampering," "lying" or
"alteration," or try to keep the claim alive with a thinner slice of
the bacon that ends up having no relevant relationship to a possible
conspiracy.

I know you will never get the hard core "believers" to give up some of
their cherished nuggets, but I think on the margins it DOES help to
have those with a conspiracy belief try to sweep out some of the
nonsense. Only then can we get down to the real areas of dispute.

Ace

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Mar 2, 2012, 7:19:39 PM3/2/12

to

The big problem on the WC defender side is the reliance on cheap tricks
like accusing all conspiracy believers of believing in UFOs. Because
they can't do their homework to learn the facts of the case so they
can't debate honestly.

unread,

Dec 28, 2012, 10:37:30 PM12/28/12

to

On 28 Dec 2012 22:29:28 -0500, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Are you aware that the Alyea film shows a Mannlicher-Carcano being
recovered on the sixth floor, and not a Mauser?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day1.jpg

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day2.jpg

Did you know that in 1968, he said he had *heard* about a Mauser found
on the roof, and didn't mention any Mauser on the sixth floor? Indeed,
he said he didn't know about foreign rifles.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/254/craigandjonespage7.jpg/

You really should begin to question some of the conspiracy book
factoids you have been spouting.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Dec 28, 2012, 10:45:13 PM12/28/12

to

No bullets were fired from a Mauser. Have you ever looked at the sabot
theory?

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Dec 29, 2012, 12:46:21 AM12/29/12

to

None of that matters to the alterationists. They can just claim that the
Alyea film is fake and even the TSBD is fake or that it was staged on a
different day.

> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day1.jpg
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day2.jpg
>
> Did you know that in 1968, he said he had *heard* about a Mauser found
> on the roof, and didn't mention any Mauser on the sixth floor? Indeed,
> he said he didn't know about foreign rifles.
>
> http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/254/craigandjonespage7.jpg/
>
> You really should begin to question some of the conspiracy book
> factoids you have been spouting.
>

I don't think we'll live long enough to see that.

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

mainframetech

unread,

Dec 29, 2012, 11:49:12 AM12/29/12

to

On Dec 28, 10:37 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 28 Dec 2012 22:29:28 -0500, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com>

> >http://jfkhistory.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=124;area=showp...

>
> Are you aware that the Alyea film shows a Mannlicher-Carcano being
> recovered on the sixth floor, and not a Mauser?
>

Yep. We don't know that the Mauser was better hidden, and when the
MC was found, they thought they had what they needed. The Mauser (if
there was one) could have been anywhere. Just hidden better.

> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day1.jpg
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day2.jpg
>
> Did you know that in 1968, he said he had *heard* about a Mauser found
> on the roof, and didn't mention any Mauser on the sixth floor? Indeed,
> he said he didn't know about foreign rifles.
>

It was clear that Craig depended on Weitzman's judgement on the
'Mauser 7.65' business. He says as much in his 'recollections' in
"When They Kill A President".

> http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/254/craigandjonespage7.jpg/
>
> You really should begin to question some of the conspiracy book
> factoids you have been spouting.
>

John, I don't read those things, and haven't read a serious book on
the subject since David Lifton ("Best Evidence"), who presented his
case in an organized fashion and very detailed. The more I've looked
into this case, the more convinced I am that it was indeed a
conspiracy, and that there was a great deal of coverup going on, to
this day.

I will say that I'm interested in facts and 'factoids' equally as
long as they're to the point and offer some logic and common sense.

I have debated with anyone who wants to about the subject, and
almost any part of the case. No one has come up with anything that
has shown me that the WCR was anything but a fairy tale to shut people
up from complaining that a coup took place. I'm sure I haven't
convinced anyone of my views, but my being here and pressing my views
as others do to me, only strengthens all our ideas about this case.

It would probably be a good idea for those that disagree with me to
speak up and prove their case separate from the quoting of the WCR.
We may not like what we hear from each other, but as long as I can
take the insults that have come my way so far, I'll keep on in as
proper a fashion as I can.

If we didn't have varying viewpoints, we'd have nothing to talk
about.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Dec 29, 2012, 11:49:18 AM12/29/12

to

> No bullets were fired from a Mauser. Have you ever looked at the sabot
> theory?

You have absolutely NO proof that 'no bullets were fired from a
Mauser' or other type of rifle. A Mauser may well have been hidden
better than the MC, and not found. It would be disposed of later if
that were the case.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Dec 29, 2012, 11:49:25 AM12/29/12

to

On Dec 29, 12:46 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 12/28/2012 10:37 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > On 28 Dec 2012 22:29:28 -0500, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com>

> >>http://jfkhistory.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=124;area=showp...

>
> > Are you aware that the Alyea film shows a Mannlicher-Carcano being
> > recovered on the sixth floor, and not a Mauser?
>
> None of that matters to the alterationists. They can just claim that the
> Alyea film is fake and even the TSBD is fake or that it was staged on a
> different day.
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day1.jpg
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day2.jpg
>
> > Did you know that in 1968, he said he had *heard* about a Mauser found
> > on the roof, and didn't mention any Mauser on the sixth floor? Indeed,
> > he said he didn't know about foreign rifles.
>
> >http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/254/craigandjonespage7.jpg/
>
> > You really should begin to question some of the conspiracy book
> > factoids you have been spouting.
>
> I don't think we'll live long enough to see that.
>

And we may not ever live long enough to see the end of support for
the WCR and it's theories. Yet it gives us things to do in our
leisure time...:)

Chris

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Dec 29, 2012, 2:41:11 PM12/29/12

to

We already have. About 80% of the public does not support or believe in
the WCR and its [sic] theories. That is largely due to the efforts of
the conspiracy believers searching for the evidence and making a strong
case. The alterationists detract from that effort.

>

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Dec 29, 2012, 2:41:48 PM12/29/12

to

This is called "walking back" your claims. So now you admit that it was
really Oswald's Carcano they found in the TSBD and not a Mauser. But for
some reason you still want a Mauser to have been used, but then hidden.
I suggest that you watch the movie Winter Kills. I repeat, no evidence
was found suggesting that a Mauser was shot that day in Dealey Plaza. No
bullet, no fragments. Now, just for fun you could try rerunning the
acoustical evidence to identify a muzzle velocity typical of a Mauser
instead of a Carcano. Tell everyone what the typical muzzle velocity of
a Mauser is.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Dec 29, 2012, 2:44:18 PM12/29/12

to

On 12/29/2012 11:49 AM, mainframetech wrote:

Let me stop you right there. Lifton's Best Evidence is not a serious
book. And you keep spouting all types of nonsense from other books like
Horne's but then you didn't have the common courtesy to actually read
them? Then how can you be sure you got their theories right?
Even I have to read books that I don't like just to verify what they
lied about and know what to attack, like Posner or Bugliosi. And as I
said before Mortal Error is pure nonsense, but it has excellent graphics.

> case in an organized fashion and very detailed. The more I've looked
> into this case, the more convinced I am that it was indeed a
> conspiracy, and that there was a great deal of coverup going on, to
> this day.
>

We were saying it was a conspiracy long before Lifton's book came out.
Before ANY book came out 50% of Americans said it was a conspiracy.

> I will say that I'm interested in facts and 'factoids' equally as
> long as they're to the point and offer some logic and common sense.
>

Someone can assert with logic and common sense that the Earth is flat.
Scientific evidence says it is not. Go with the scientific evidence or
worry about falling over the edge.

> I have debated with anyone who wants to about the subject, and
> almost any part of the case. No one has come up with anything that
> has shown me that the WCR was anything but a fairy tale to shut people
> up from complaining that a coup took place. I'm sure I haven't

Yes, I have. I proved that the reason for the cover up was to prevent
WWIII because everyone in Washington thought that Oswald was a contract
killer working for Castro.

> convinced anyone of my views, but my being here and pressing my views
> as others do to me, only strengthens all our ideas about this case.
>

Wrong. It detracts from the efforts of serious researchers and provides
fodder for the WC defenders to dismiss conspiracy notions.

> It would probably be a good idea for those that disagree with me to
> speak up and prove their case separate from the quoting of the WCR.

The WCR disproves itself. It has since Day One.

> We may not like what we hear from each other, but as long as I can
> take the insults that have come my way so far, I'll keep on in as
> proper a fashion as I can.
>

unread,

Dec 29, 2012, 10:49:06 PM12/29/12

to

No, the evidence says Mauser and a switch at a later time. I have no
problem entertaining other scenarios though. We have 2 Dallas lawmen
swearing that it was a Mauser 7.65 (why say 7.65?) on first blush. Only
overnight did one of them change his mind, while the other (to his own
detriment, it would seem) stayed with his sworn word for years after.

Yes, I said the Mauser could have been hidden better, but thinking over
your good catch of my words, that's not possible. So I'll have to go with
my original belief, and not be so swift to go along with other scenarios.

Did they find the Mauser the same day and say nothing about it? Was the
Mauser found and then taken out and switched outside? Was the MC nearby
and found later? Too many possibilities.

In a case where the POTUS is the victim, getting things right would
seem to be important to the people entrusted with finding and holding the
killer. No one wanted to be the person that made a mistake in the
president's murder and have it told across the networks and the papers.
I expect that the 2 men that swore that it was a Mauser 7.65 were smart
enough to think of that. Yet they were sure enough to name the rifle and
swear to it. Even though Weiotzman's first statement was that it was a
Mauser ('7.65') and he later changed his mind, if I take a note from Marsh
and his 'friend' Loftus', then the first statement is usually the most
true.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Dec 29, 2012, 11:28:17 PM12/29/12

to

This medium doesn't allow you to stop me anywhere from doing anything.
You really shouldn't use such a tone or choice of words. Many people would
find it insulting. I'm sure you can figure out what it implies, and it
doesn't do you well. I know your opinion of both Lifton and of Douglas
Horne who thinks well of Lifton. You are not the person whom I rely on
for good book reviews. Your constant insult that I purvey only "nonsense"
is tiresome, but go on with it if it warms you up. I can handle it for as
long as you can type it. Just keep in mind each time you put out such
insults, I'm think ing the same in response. And since the moderators
find it acceptable, then my saying the same to you is also acceptable.
Consider it said every time you use the word yourself.

Now, let's clear up your latest mistakes and errors. I have not quoted
from books by Horne, but I have quoted from internet articles by him, and
when I do I put the source right after the quote. I wish you would do the
same, but I've learned your style now and can handle what it implies. I
do not have a copy of the 5 volumes Horne wrote up, but one day I will.
Also, your thinking is that I have to buy a book to show "common
courtesy", but that's only YOUR thinking, not mine. If I find it on the
internet, and I think it has merit, I will quote it and point to it as
I've done right along, and I feel no need to buy a book because I quoted
from their work. Further on that, Since most books aren't online in their
entirety yet, I don't read them. Only articles, which tell me all I need
to know. I expect YOU to tell me when you think I've missed something or
misinterptreted a thought from a writer, and you've tried to do that job
to the degree you're able. Thanks for your book suggestions, but no
thanks...:)

> > case in an organized fashion and very detailed. The more I've looked
> > into this case, the more convinced I am that it was indeed a
> > conspiracy, and that there was a great deal of coverup going on, to
> > this day.
>
> We were saying it was a conspiracy long before Lifton's book came out.
> Before ANY book came out 50% of Americans said it was a conspiracy.
>

I'm happy for you being so early with the thought. Did you then
applaud Lifton for voicing your thoughts?

> > I will say that I'm interested in facts and 'factoids' equally as
> > long as they're to the point and offer some logic and common sense.
>
> Someone can assert with logic and common sense that the Earth is flat.
> Scientific evidence says it is not. Go with the scientific evidence or
> worry about falling over the edge.
>

You use your methods and I'll use mine. I find nothing wrong with
science, but it also can be misused, as in the JFK autopsy. This case is
very good for learning what evidence can be fooled around with and used to
give a wrong impression. Only after years has contrary evidence come out
showing what was done wrong with the original evidence. An example might
be dragging out the condition of the MC rifle when the FBI wanted to test
it. UIt wasn't generally known that it was in terrible condition and th
scope was misaligned and the bolt was stricku andit was 'worn andcorroded'
as per Frazier. This makes th eMC less likely to be the killing weapon,
and forcing us to look elsewhere for a rifle and possibly a shooter.

> > I have debated with anyone who wants to about the subject, and
> > almost any part of the case. No one has come up with anything that
> > has shown me that the WCR was anything but a fairy tale to shut people
> > up from complaining that a coup took place. I'm sure I haven't
>
> Yes, I have. I proved that the reason for the cover up was to prevent
> WWIII because everyone in Washington thought that Oswald was a contract
> killer working for Castro.
>

Nope. Won't do. You SAID that, you didn't prove it, at least not to
me. I told you that I doubted very much that WW3 would start over us
accusing another country of killing JFK. And I continue to nelieve
that. Poll the other folks and se what you get.

> > convinced anyone of my views, but my being here and pressing my views
> > as others do to me, only strengthens all our ideas about this case.
>
> Wrong. It detracts from the efforts of serious researchers and provides
> fodder for the WC defenders to dismiss conspiracy notions.
>

Right. Do you consider yourself a "serious researcher"? And my
experience of WCR denialists is that they would go after any one they see
that doesn't hold to their beliefs. If a "Serious researcher" goes to a
public forum and begins to spout all the most recent things he has
discovered about the JFK murder (other than the WCR theories), he'd be
drummed out of the forum he was in, if it wasn't a JFK forum. ANY mention
of other than WCR theories is CT to most people. Don't try to separate
yourself from others here who just listen and converse.

> > It would probably be a good idea for those that disagree with me to
> > speak up and prove their case separate from the quoting of the WCR.
>
> The WCR disproves itself. It has since Day One.
>

Of course, tell the world and see how far you get without something
major to let out. When you get a Lifton or Horce douing it, they seem to
get noticed more than you or I. Of course they put in a lot more work
with their books than we put into our debating.

unread,

Jan 22, 2015, 8:56:41 PM1/22/15

to

The stories from the daughter and previously from the wife, were bull.
The wife started it and the daughter got it from her mom. I looked into
it long ago and the daughter was posting wherever she could that Roger
Craig was nuts and all sorts of other things wrong with him. But a
brother in the family came onto the same place the daughter had posted and
made it clear that the wife and daughter were nuts and had made Craig's
life a hell. The daughter threatened legal action to leave that statement
online, so much of it was removed, but Simkins still pointed out the
craziness of the daughter.

Think it through. Roger Craig had many promotions in his career with
the Sheriff's department. He also had just gotten the 'cop of the year'
award and was well liked by the others in his group. If you're in a group
of cops for a few years, there's no way they won't catch on that you're
off your head, but they didn't ever say it until after the JFK case when
he wouldn't go back on his words like Weitzman did.

Promoting the stories of Craig's insanity is wrong, and shows that some
folks don't know the story or can't help jumping on someone.

Chris

tom...@cox.net

unread,

Jan 22, 2015, 11:43:37 PM1/22/15

to

paulson...@gmail.com wrote:
> It is pathetic that anybody would bash Roger Craig when he isn't around
> to defend himself. I believe his story as it appears he was proven to be
> truthful by various photographs sited years after his statements were
> made. There is no reason for anybody to bash and attempt to discredit
> his character - particularly since they weren't there to be a fair and
> objective judge. It's no coincidence that so many of the witnesses died
> under questionable circumstances. Roger Craig may have become paranoid,
> but I would too if I were harassed unmercifully for telling my version of
> the truth.
>
> Furthermore, he may have believed he could be paid for statements, but
> regardless, that is no crime. He obviously didn't profit from his truth,
> in fact, quite the opposite. He suffered and died instead. His truth
> never changed.
>
> His daughter, honestly, looks to be a sorry person for disrespecting her
> father in such a vicious way for his frailties and problems which arose
> from circumstances spinning out of control. And the woman who stated he
> NEVER wanted to work, come on! From such lofty accolades for outstanding
> service to unstable employment. Life is in flux, and nobody's life is
> perfect. Give him some credit!!!! PLEASE!
>
> On Thursday, March 1, 2012 at 11:30:12 AM UTC-6, claviger wrote:
> > On Feb 29, 9:29 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > 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=3D3556&st=3D30

> > >
> > > <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 disturb=

> ed.
> > > As his daughter I would place money on the fact that he suffered from
> > > either Borderline Personality Disorder or Bi-polar depression. Those

> > > la=

> st
> > > two attempts on his life? The husband of the woman he was fooling

> > > aroun=

> d
> > > with. Trust me, I met her AND her daughters before the bastard 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

> > > someth=

> ing
> > > 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

> > > du=

> ty.
> > > 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]
> > >
> > > <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
> > >
> > > On a related note, Michelle Palmer responds to a book review that
> > > mentioned her dad:
> > >
> > > http://www.thesnipenews.com/books-comics/books-vancouver/jfk-and-the-

> > > ..=

> .
> > >
> > > <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Book review - JFK and the Unspeakable
> > >
> > > - by Adrian Mack
> > >
> > > James Douglass' book JFK and the Unspeakable is subtitled "Why He
> > > Died, and Why It Matters".
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Dallas County Deputy sheriff Roger Craig has long been one of the
> > > most credible, and certainly most tragic witnesses in this area.

> > > Shortly aft=

> er
> > > the shooting, in Dealey Plaza, Craig saw either Oswald or his double

> > > cl=

> imb
> > > into a green Rambler station wagon driven by a "husky looking Latin."
> > > Craig then encountered Oswald during his interrogation at the Dallas
> > > Police HQ, where Douglass writes, "It was too late - for both the
> > > government and Roger Craig. Deputy Sheriff Craig had seen and heard
> > > too much."
> > >
> > > As an insider, Craig bore witness to a number of things that cause
> > > the official story to unravel, and he talked. His career was

> > > destroyed by h=

> is
> > > refusal to recant his own testimony. After a number of attempts on
> > > his life, one of which left him disabled, Craig reportedly committed

> > > suicid=

> e
> > > in 1975.
> > >
> > > <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
> > >
> > > <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
> > >
> > > One Response to JFK and the Unspeakable - book review
> > >
> > > Michelle Palmer says:
> > > July 5, 2009 at 8:28 pm
> > >
> > > Bullshit. You are ALL so full of it. Roger Craig was unstable from
> > > childhood. His suicide had more to do with his own mental illness
> > > (and being sucked into the GD conspiracy crap) than anything to do

> > > with JFK'=

> s
> > > actual death.
> > >
> > > I am his child. I knew him. I knew the people who used him to promote
> > > their theories. You are ALL full of it.
> > >
> > > <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Dave

> >=20

> > The Roger Craig story is a sad situation that is indeed a puzzle.

> > He=20 never wavered in his belief it was LHO in spite of evidence to
> > the=20 contrary. If it wasn't LHO in the Nash Rambler why would The
> > Conspiracy=
> =20

> > care about Craig's story that only added confusion? Why would they

> > bothe=
> r=20

> > to harass him? He posed no threat whatsoever.

> >=20

> > Assuming there was a guy who ran from the TSBD to the Rambler, then

> > who=
> =20

> > was he? Evidently not an employee in Truly's group. He may have

> > worked=
> =20

> > for another employer in the building. In reading Craig's

> > unpublished=20 manuscript it seems he incurred the wrath of Sheriff
> > Decker by having=20 compassion for Jack Ruby's sister. To read about
> > Craig's Outstanding=20 Deputy of the Year award then his descent into
> > depression and sickness is=
> =20

> > heartrending. Despite all his hardships he never compromised his

> > beliefs=
> . =20

> > Was there more than one LHO look-a- like working in the TSBD that day?

> > =
> =20

> > Perhaps some guy dropping off lunch to his wife or a spectator who

> > needed=
> =20

> > to use the restroom right after the parade? Guess we will never know.

> >=20

> > When Craig saw LHO under arrest he was convinced it was the same

> > guy.=20 Should we give him some credit for sticking to the truth as he
> > perceived=
> =20

> > it? There never seemed to be any chance for financial gain in

> > promoting=
> =20
> > this story so what was his motivation to put his family through such=20

> > difficulty and eventually cost him a career and health?

===========================================================================
==== IN 1960 OR, 1961 ROGER VRAIG WAS FOUND TO BE CALLED "DEPOTY OF THE
YEAR" IN DAS TEXAS ! ! !
===========================================================================
=====

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

Alex Foyle

unread,

Jan 23, 2015, 8:41:22 PM1/23/15

to

On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 2:56:41 AM UTC+1, mainframetech wrote:

> But a brother in the family came onto the same place the daughter had posted
> and made it clear that the wife and daughter were nuts and had made Craig's
> life a hell. The daughter threatened legal action to leave that statement
> online, so much of it was removed, but Simkins still pointed out the
> craziness of the daughter.

Do you have a cite for that or was it all deleted for good reasons?

Does the "brother in the family" (?) have a name and was the Ed Forum the
only place where he made those allegations?

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 23, 2015, 8:51:46 PM1/23/15

to

Interesting. In years here I haven't heard even a single person bash
Tippit. When you find a case of it, let me know.

While Tippit did things near the end of his life that seemed odd,
there isn't any proof of corruption or other wrong on his name that I know
of.

Chris

Mitch Todd

unread,

Jan 23, 2015, 10:30:49 PM1/23/15

to

> > > <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
> > >
> > > One Response to JFK and the Unspeakable - book review
> > >
> > > Michelle Palmer says:
> > > July 5, 2009 at 8:28 pm
> > >
> > > Bullshit. You are ALL so full of it. Roger Craig was unstable from
> > > childhood. His suicide had more to do with his own mental illness (and
> > > being sucked into the GD conspiracy crap) than anything to do with
> > > JFK's
> > > actual death.
> > >
> > > I am his child. I knew him. I knew the people who used him to promote
> > > their theories. You are ALL full of it.
> > >
> > > <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
> > >

It's not just his family. This is Harold Weisberg on 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 have gone over his annotation of
his testimony, as printed, and his account of the changes is utterly
impossible. I spent too many years working with court reporters,
particularly, the firm the Commission used, to find it possible to credit
this in any way. More, have traced that testimony all the way from Dallas
to the Government Printing Office, and it is printed as it was taken down,
I have copies of the typescript sent to the GPO, and I have the letter of
transmittal to DC the bills for taking it, the whole story. Roger is,
despite Penn's great love for him, at best simply wrong, in the newer
areas, what he embellished his original testimony with. Now I have met
Roger, and he is a fine looking, clean-cut kind of guy who appears to be
truthful, serious and all that - just like dozens of guys I once guarded
in an Army locked ward in a large mental institution. He does not impress
me as the kind of guy who is out to make trouble. But he is.???

And Mary Farrell:

"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."

It should be noted that Farrell and Weisberg were prominent WC sceptics,
and both had dealt with him personally.

I will say now that I fully expect Chris to miss the point.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jan 24, 2015, 10:44:56 AM1/24/15

to

Get a new brain and stop saying "think it through."

GERALD BOSTOCK

unread,

Jan 24, 2015, 2:12:53 PM1/24/15

to

Tom Rossley has been critical of Tippit. Double Cross: The Explosive,
Inside Story of the Mobster Who Controlled America: Chuck Giancana, Sam
Giancana says that Tippit was involved in the conspiracy.

mainframetech

Jan 25, 2015, 9:18:28 AM1/25/15

to

Interesting! Considering that Giancana's information was probably
closer to the inside than ours...:)

Chris

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jan 25, 2015, 2:37:29 PM1/25/15

to

On 1/24/2015 5:48 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 7:51:46 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 8:30:54 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 9:39:19 PM UTC-6, paulson...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> It is pathetic that anybody would bash Roger Craig when he isn't around to
>>>> defend himself.
>>>
>>> That hasn't stopped CTs from slandering J D Tippit for 50 years. Not only
>>> was he accused of collusion as a getaway driver but he was also identified
>>> as "Badgeman", the sniper who murdered President Kennedy. Think how his
>>> family must feel.
>>
>> Interesting. In years here I haven't heard even a single person bash
>> Tippit. When you find a case of it, let me know.
>>
>> While Tippit did things near the end of his life that seemed odd,
>> there isn't any proof of corruption or other wrong on his name that I know
>> of.
>>
>> Chris
>
> There used to be a major website with a photo of Badgeman morphing into J
> D Tippit. For some reason it is no longer on the Internet.
>
> Here is what you asked for:
>

> alt.assassination.jfk ???

> Tippit's part time job at Texas Theatre
> 11 posts by 8 authors
>

> alt.assassination.jfk ???

> Crucial questions about the Tippit murder
> 85 posts by 14 authors
>

> alt.assassination.jfk ???

> JD Tippit: Things are not right at home:
> 3 posts by 3 authors
>
> Re: JD Tippit - May he rest in peace.
> But when I see conspiracy theorists maligning the good name of JD Tippit,
> ... But hey, that's what they fought and served for (in part): the freedom
> to ...
> 11/29/13 by Peter Makres - 11 posts by 8 authors - 75 views
>

> alt.assassination.jfk ???

> Tippit on the Grassy Knoll?
> 2 posts by 2 authors
>

> alt.assassination.jfk ???

> rigorousintuition.ca ??? View topic - Possible JFK Shooters

> http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?t=13933&p=138106
> Check out this web page comparing enhancements of "Badgeman" to J.D. Tippit!
> Not only that, but the author proposes that Tippit was buried in ...
>
>
> Pin Was the JFK Badgeman JD Tippit? picture to Pinterest
> http://imgdonkey.com/view/Z01ad2xLTQ/was-the-jfk-badgeman-jd-tippit/
>
>
> If you don't know who Badgeman is then... - Covert History
> http://coverthistory.blogspot.com/2005/09/badgeman-if-you-dont-know-who-badgeman.html
> Sep 14, 2005 ... He was the man who did the original Badgeman photographic
> work. ... argues that badge man was Dallas Police patrolman JD Tippet, who
> ...
>
>
> Joseph McBride's 2013 COPA talk on "The Murder of Officer J. D ...
> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?12840-Joe-McBride-on-Tippit
> "In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the
> ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992
>
>
> The X Spot: November 2009
> http://xdell.blogspot.com/2009_11_01_archive.html
> Nov 22, 2009 ... ... dressed in a policeman's uniform (hence the nickname
> 'Badgeman' by ... )--The closest witness to the J.D. Tippit shooting, she
> identified two ...
>
>
> The Murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy: There Never was a ...
> http://www.angelfire.com/nh/hca/jfk.html

> One was Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit, who has been identified by some researchers as the ???Badgeman??? the elusive, phantom figure in police uniform seen ...

>
> I've read some discussions where one CT thought Tippit was a dirty cop who
> hung out at Jack Ruby's clubs and was to meet LHO after he shot the
> President and make him disappear, but LHO got the drop on Tippet first.
> Another theory is Tippit was both Badgeman and LHO's pick-up after the
> shooting to take him to an airport to get out of town.
>
>
>
>

Jeez, you're not trying hard enough. You forgot to mention the conspiracy
theory that his initials stand for Jefferson Davis. Or that it was really
Tippit's body not JFK's at Bethesda because JFK had not really been
killed.

I'm ashamed of you. No soup for you.

Alex Foyle

unread,

Jan 25, 2015, 7:48:55 PM1/25/15

to

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 11:33:27 PM UTC+1, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 8:41:22 PM UTC-5, Alex Foyle wrote:
> > On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 2:56:41 AM UTC+1, mainframetech wrote:
> >
> > > But a brother in the family came onto the same place the daughter had posted
> > > and made it clear that the wife and daughter were nuts and had made Craig's
> > > life a hell. The daughter threatened legal action to leave that statement
> > > online, so much of it was removed, but Simkins still pointed out the
> > > craziness of the daughter.
> >
> > Do you have a cite for that or was it all deleted for good reasons?
> >
> > Does the "brother in the family" (?) have a name and was the Ed Forum the
> > only place where he made those allegations?
>

> The Ed forum is where I saw it. And the fact still remains ....

Hang on there please, because at the moment nothing of your claims
remains, let alone any fact ... do you have a link to that thread at the
Ed Forum where you "saw it"? Kindly don't pull a Tony and tell me to
google it myself, you made the claim you provide a link.

From your answer I assume you don't know or remember the name of the
"brother in the family" who made those claims or do you? Did you check
whether these claims could be true by searching more about this "brother
in the family" at the time?

Bud

unread,

Jan 25, 2015, 11:36:47 PM1/25/15

to

Thats unknown. Only conspiracy hobbyists use unknown information to form
conclusions.

> There was nothing on the police dept. books to
> explain what he was doing away from his assigned area and waiting or
> hunting someone. Who do you suppose, at that time of day, that he was
> trying to connect with?

See? The hobbyist has used the unknown information to conclude that
Tippit was trying to connect with someone.

> Chris

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jan 25, 2015, 11:40:10 PM1/25/15

to

Running around? Stop making up crap.
He was covering that area in his squad car to help because so many cops
had gone down to Dealey Plaza to investigate the assassination.

> was that all about? There was nothing on the police dept. books to
> explain what he was doing away from his assigned area and waiting or
> hunting someone. Who do you suppose, at that time of day, that he was
> trying to connect with?
>

His girlfriend?
Take her to lunch.

> Chris
>

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 26, 2015, 2:10:54 PM1/26/15

to

I have a few surprises for you. First, I gave out the link to the
thread that covered the stuff I mentioned, and I'll put it out again for
you. Also, I copied much of what was still there and showed it here.
Part of it was removed at the threat of the daughter, whose note you can
read. The brother was Jerry Craig.

Here's the thread:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3556&page=3

Don't just skim it. Read it. Some of the real nasty stuff has been
deleted by request of the daughter.

Chris

claviger

unread,

Jan 27, 2015, 10:48:15 AM1/27/15

to

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 8:18:08 AM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>
>
> Since you're so taken with Tippit's honor and courage and so on, can
> you explain his last minutes running around trying to find someone? What
> was that all about?

The President of the United States of America had just been shot and
wounded by a sniper in the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book
Depository. A police dispatcher had just put out a description of the
suspected shooter. Every cop in town was now cruising the streets of
Dallas looking for someone who fit that description. Oak Cliff was close
enough for a suspect to take a short bus ride or shorter cab ride from
Dealey Plaza. Lee Harvey Oswald would fit that general description. He
thought there would be no more work that day so he left his job without
permission and gave himself the rest of the day off.

After arriving at his boarding house he showed no interest in the breaking
news on TV about the shooting in Dealey Plaza, instead put on a jacket,
grabbed his pistol and went for a walk. A DPD patrol officer saw him and
pulled over to check him out. LHO shot the policeman dead, threw off his
jacket, and went to a movie without purchasing a ticket. LHO was acting
more like an assassin on the run than just a lazy employee sneaking off
the job.

> There was nothing on the police dept. books to explain what he was doing away > from his assigned area and waiting or hunting someone. Who do you suppose,
> at that time of day, that he was trying to connect with?
> Chris

____________________________________________________________

On November 22, 1963, J.D. Tippit was working beat number 78, his normal
patrol area in south Oak Cliff, a residential area of Dallas.[14] At 12:45
p.m., 15 minutes after the President's assassination, Tippit received a
radio order to move to the central Oak Cliff area as part of a
concentration of police around the center of the city. At 12:54 Tippit
radioed that he had moved as directed. By then several messages had been
broadcast describing a suspect in the Kennedy assassination[15] as a
slender white male, in his early thirties, 5 feet 10 inches (1.78 m) tall,
and weighing about 165 pounds (75 kg). Oswald was a slender white male, 24
years old, 5 feet 9 inches (1.75 m) tall, and an estimated weight of 150
pounds (68 kg) pounds at autopsy.
____________________________________________________________

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Tippit

Mitch Todd

unread,

Jan 27, 2015, 5:53:11 PM1/27/15

to

"mainframetech" wrote in message
news:c32036f1-73d2-41ce...@googlegroups.com...

Does it, really? And how do you connect one with the other?

>Whether the wife and daughter drove Craig nuts, or the situation of
>losing everything for holding to the truth, I doubt we will know. He
>was going along just fine, and then after he held to a truth, he was
>victimized immediately, and ever thereafter. How will we know what that
>cost him? To go from OK to odd overnight with ONLY the holding to the
>truth being the factor, makes it obvious that he wasn't the problem
>in his family up to that point. You just won't get along with a bunch
>of cops if you're off even a little bit.

That's a fine and dandy speech, that completely and deliberately misses
the point. Farrell dealt with Craig, and even helped support him, but
ultimately came to the conclusion that he was little more than a grifter.
Weisberg also dealt with Craig in person, and came away believing that
Craig was a bullshit artist. Yes, he started off well enough at the
Sherriff's department. But the world is full of flash-in-the-pans. Bernie
Madoff was the toast of Wall Street for years --decades, actually-- before
he was exposed as a fraud. The same for Ken Lay or Dennis Koslowski or
Bernie Ebbers. And those are just the spectacular examples. It happens all
the time on the more mundane levels, as well.

> Here is some of the dispute and simkin's comments:
>
>"'John Simkin', on Jul 11 2008, 05:41 PM, said:
>
>This is the latest email from Michelle Palmer. What do you think I should
>do?
>
>If you do not delete the references to my name, my writing, and myblog, on
>both your website and the forum:
>
>http://educationforu...h...st&p=147641
>
>I'm contacting an attorney.
>
>This is your only warning.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Michelle Palmer
>
>My immediate response was to leave the comments on the web page. I don't
>take kindly to being threatened. However, as several people have pointed
>out, the woman is clearly disturbed and we should not take advantage of
>this. "

Let me interject with Michelle Palmer's feelings about her father's place
in assassination lore:

"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 bastard 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."

A few things jump out at me from her account. The history of self-injury.
The extramarital affair. The pattern of suicide threats. Go look up the
behavior of sociopaths on these points. While you're at it, mix in Mary
Farrell's and Weisberg's descriptions of Craig while you are reading.
For that matter, consider that sociopaths tend to be drawn towards careers
in law enforcement. That they often do quite well in new jobs for a while
before losing interest and going somewhere else.

> After this Jerry Craig posted:
>
>"ok just so everybody knows deanna and her mom changed there names not for
>privacy they were the ones paranoid our family never seen then or knew
>what there name were i personaly seen deanna at roger funeral in 75 and my
>moms im 79 and her and her mom wore shades and kept to themselves talk
>about paranoia what does that tell you about there mental states roger
>never hid BUT MOLLY AND DEANNA DID so think about that and see who was
>disturbed"
>
> All this above and more is at the Ed forum. If you go there, check the
>full thread, there's more said by various people:
>
>http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3556&page=4&hl=%2Broger+%2Bcraig#entry243445

Yes, Chris, I saw all of this long ago. Notice that Jerry doesn't actually
deny that Craig had personality issues? He tries to deflect it by throwing
it all back at MP and her mother, but he still can't deny it. In a
roundabout way, he validates Palmer, Weisberg and Ferrell.

Alex Foyle

unread,

Jan 27, 2015, 9:01:41 PM1/27/15

to

On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 8:10:54 PM UTC+1, mainframetech wrote:

> I have a few surprises for you. First, I gave out the link to the
> thread that covered the stuff I mentioned, and I'll put it out again for
> you. Also, I copied much of what was still there and showed it here.
> Part of it was removed at the threat of the daughter, whose note you can
> read. The brother was Jerry Craig.

The brother? Jerry Craig was supposedly Roger Craig's nephew.

> Here's the thread:
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3556&page=3

Thanks for the link.

> Don't just skim it. Read it. Some of the real nasty stuff has been
> deleted by request of the daughter.

Yes, I can imagine why and it should make yoou think too. So I assume also
the bit where Jerry Craig claimed that his aunt and cousin "made (Roger)
Craig's life a hell" and also the bit where Jerry allegedly "made it clear
that the wife and daughter were nuts", because I can't find those quotes
in the thread you provided. This is what Jerry said in that thread:

"ok just so everybody knows deanna and her mom changed there names not for
privacy they were the ones paranoid our family never seen then or knew
what there name were i personaly seen deanna at roger funeral in 75 and my
moms im 79 and her and her mom wore shades and kept to themselves talk
about paranoia what does that tell you about there mental states roger
never hid BUT MOLLY AND DEANNA DID so think about that and see who was
disturbed"

That sounds awefully believable, doesn't it? I will rather believe the
wife and the daughter even more so after reading the above bs. And
whatever happened to Jerry's website www.roger-craig.com? Could it
possibly occur to you that Jerry had ulterior motives when he decided to
smear his aunt and cousin who lived their lifes with Roger Craig contrary
to Jerry?

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jan 27, 2015, 10:40:54 PM1/27/15

to

On 1/27/2015 10:48 AM, claviger wrote:
> On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 8:18:08 AM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>>
>> Since you're so taken with Tippit's honor and courage and so on, can
>> you explain his last minutes running around trying to find someone? What
>> was that all about?
>
> The President of the United States of America had just been shot and
> wounded by a sniper in the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book
> Depository. A police dispatcher had just put out a description of the
> suspected shooter. Every cop in town was now cruising the streets of
> Dallas looking for someone who fit that description. Oak Cliff was close
> enough for a suspect to take a short bus ride or shorter cab ride from
> Dealey Plaza. Lee Harvey Oswald would fit that general description. He
> thought there would be no more work that day so he left his job without
> permission and gave himself the rest of the day off.
>

No. Tippit was assigned to cover Oak Cliff to replace the other cops who
had been sent to Dealey Plaza.

> After arriving at his boarding house he showed no interest in the breaking
> news on TV about the shooting in Dealey Plaza, instead put on a jacket,
> grabbed his pistol and went for a walk. A DPD patrol officer saw him and
> pulled over to check him out. LHO shot the policeman dead, threw off his
> jacket, and went to a movie without purchasing a ticket. LHO was acting
> more like an assassin on the run than just a lazy employee sneaking off
> the job.
>

Oswald did not throw off his jacket at the Tippit murder crime scene. He
did it a couple of blocks away.

Oswald was looking like a criminal trying to hide. That is why the shoe
clerk followed him.

>> There was nothing on the police dept. books to explain what he was doing away > from his assigned area and waiting or hunting someone. Who do you suppose,
>> at that time of day, that he was trying to connect with?

He was assigned to that area to cover for the cops who had gone down to
the TSBD. Listen to the tapes.

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 28, 2015, 1:30:49 PM1/28/15

to

By refreshing it all. Putting them through the disbelief that you
obvious have.

>
> >Whether the wife and daughter drove Craig nuts, or the situation of
> >losing everything for holding to the truth, I doubt we will know. He
> >was going along just fine, and then after he held to a truth, he was
> >victimized immediately, and ever thereafter. How will we know what that
> >cost him? To go from OK to odd overnight with ONLY the holding to the
> >truth being the factor, makes it obvious that he wasn't the problem
> >in his family up to that point. You just won't get along with a bunch
> >of cops if you're off even a little bit.
>
> That's a fine and dandy speech, that completely and deliberately misses
> the point. Farrell dealt with Craig, and even helped support him, but
> ultimately came to the conclusion that he was little more than a grifter.
> Weisberg also dealt with Craig in person, and came away believing that
> Craig was a bullshit artist. Yes, he started off well enough at the
> Sherriff's department. But the world is full of flash-in-the-pans. Bernie
> Madoff was the toast of Wall Street for years --decades, actually-- before
> he was exposed as a fraud. The same for Ken Lay or Dennis Koslowski or
> Bernie Ebbers. And those are just the spectacular examples. It happens all
> the time on the more mundane levels, as well.
>

unread,

Jan 30, 2015, 4:59:04 PM1/30/15

to

Other conspiracy believers have accused Tippit of being part of the
conspiracy.

> Tippit was doing all sorts of things that he wasn't directed to do. I

Like what? Sounds like normal police work to me. Check out the
neighborhood.

> don't know if that's illegal, do you? Why do you keep saying that he was
> doing what he was supposed to do? The list that I pointed you to says he
> wasn't always where he was supposed to be, and was sometimes reporting
> himself on post when he was elsewhere. Make the comparison from your
> beliefs to the list, which appears to be thorough.
>
> And please don't begin to accuse me of bringing 'conspiracy' into the
> discussion, since you just said it, not me. As well, I don't think that
> Tippit was 'badgeman' at all.
>

You have to remember that this is part of their game. In order to appear
superior they have to make all conspiracy believers look like kooks. One
is by creating kooky straw man arguments and claiming that you believe
them.

> Now tell me why you call Gordon Arnold 'goofy'. He was a normal guy in
> an abnormal situation, and he gave normal statements from what he
> experienced. Did someone fool you into thinking lowly of Arnold?
>

He was a low IQ kook.
I watched him tell his tale on TV.

> Chris
>

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jan 30, 2015, 9:27:17 PM1/30/15

to

No. The DPD radio doesn't say that.

Dispatcher 78.
78 (Ptm. J.D. Tippit) 78.
Dispatcher You are in the Oak Cliff area, are you not?
78 Lancaster and Eighth.
Dispatcher You will be at large for any emergency that comes in.
78 10-4.

Alex Foyle

unread,

Jan 30, 2015, 9:53:16 PM1/30/15

to

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 4:07:50 AM UTC+1, mainframetech wrote:

> All those considerations occurred to me. We all read these situations
> differently, and from my experience I read them the way UI have said
> previously. Jerry's comments make it clear to me that he was saying that
> all the insults the mother and her daughter made were really not important
> next to their own "mental state", which he spoke of. I've actually seen
> cases of a mother and daughter in league to destroy the father for
> whatever sin or crime against the mother she believed had been done. In
> one case, a mother and daughter hated men and distrusted them all, and the
> root of it was the mother's beatings at the hands of her father, a drunk.
> A number of men suffered the 'slings and arrows' of these 2 women, though
> they were not guilty of the crimes that began the problems.
>
> I read the Craig situation as being something that Craig put up with and
> tried to keep a normal face on while the trouble brewed at home. I've
> also seen where a good natured person (man or woman) winds up married to
> an overbearing royal pain who constantly berates them and looks for
> evidence of guilt of some kind.

OK, let me just save your insubstantial justification as this seems to be
your best explanation for why you rather believe Jerry Craig than the wife
and daughter of Roger Craig. However, you still failed to provide any cite
for these claims of yours:

> > But a brother in the family came onto the same place the daughter had
> > posted and made it clear that the wife and daughter were nuts and had made > > Craig's life a hell. The daughter threatened legal action to leave that
> > statement online, so much of it was removed, but Simkins still pointed out > > the craziness of the daughter.

The above claims are not to be found in the link you provided. Very weak
reasoning all around on your part, wouldn't you agree?

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 31, 2015, 9:34:33 PM1/31/15

to

Not at all. Did you go both forward and back? And I think that the
post the daughter wanted to take down was her own. I believe she dumped
on Craig pretty strongly and didn't want that floating around to bite her
later.

Odd too, that you never heard a bad word from Craig about the women
that were after him.

As I had said, we will all read it differently based on our own
experiences and what we've seen. I've given my view, and shown what I
base it on.

Chris

Alex Foyle

unread,

Feb 2, 2015, 7:25:22 PM2/2/15

to

Yes, I did go both forward and back, but I can't see the words about
Craig's wife and daughter which you atributed to Jerry Craig. I can't see
him saying those words anywhere in the thread you linked to.

> As I had said, we will all read it differently based on our own
> experiences and what we've seen. I've given my view, and shown what I
> base it on.

unread,

Feb 5, 2015, 9:45:40 PM2/5/15

to

On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 11:27:53 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 2/4/2015 11:08 AM, claviger wrote:
>
> > If Gordon Arnold is telling the truth he is even goofier than if he's
> > lying. He was a witness to the assassination of his Commander-in-Chief
> > and he doesn't bother to notify the Dallas Police Department or the FBI,
> > not does he tell his CO at Fort Wainwright, Alaska 48 hours later?
>
> How could he? He was a deaf mute. Why don't you know anything about this
> case?

Gordon Arnold was a deaf mute? I didn't know that. So we're dealing with
two deaf mutes as GK witnesses?? How did they hear shots on the GK?

> > Doesn't this sound illogical to you? Either he's a craven coward disloyal
> > to the US Government, and the US Constitution he has sworn to defend or he
> > is mentally and morally deficient. Had his CO known about this he could
> > be Court Martialed as a traitor, aiding and abetting the enemy by his
> > silence, and failure to give a description to the FBI. This is not an
> > option but a duty for military personnel.
>
> I think you're exaggerating slightly. Look at how many people made
> mistakes and were not publicly disciplined.

A civilian has the right to step forth or not as a witness. A member of
the US Armed Forces has a sworn duty to provide information about any
threat to the Commander-in-Chief. An attack on the CIC is an attack on
our Constitutional Government and national security. Some CT book authors
claim the death of this President was a political coup. How do we know it
wasn't the work of Cold War enemies? A US soldier on leave may not be
able to stop an ambush on the CIC, but he could damn sure tell his
superior officers what he saw and heard and they could report to Army
Intel and the FBI. Instead Arnold chose to do nothing.

Unless he was a spotter for the snipers and made this story public 15
years later for his own sadistic pleasure. Perhaps to gloat that he and
his hit team got away with it and can now enjoy playing mind games on the
American public. Maybe his perverse way of taking a victory lap.

Then again maybe Arnold was just a Walter Mitty type who imagined all this
happened and when he got noticed decided to play along to see how much
attention he could get. On the other hand, maybe he was completely bored
with his humdrum life and for excitement made up the whole story to see
how gullible the America public really is.

> > If he's lying then he's just a con artist pulling a scam. He could still
> > be prosecuted for interfering with an investigation and providing false
> > evidence.
>
> What investigation? The case was closed. Man, you're a riot!

There is no statute-of-limitations on murder. To the US public it is
still active as the longest ongoing investigation in US history. Every
year someone takes an interest in this mystery with a fresh pair of eyes
who think they can solve the case. Not sure the actual number, but I've
read there are over 1,000 books written about this national tragedy.
Divided by 50 that is 20 books a year. I'm curious, is Colin McLaren the
only police detective to write a book about this murder case?

> > Either way his behavior is despicable.
> > _____________________________________________________________
> >
> > 10 U.S.C. § 502
> >
> > (a) Enlistment Oath.-- Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take
> > the following oath:
> >
> > "I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
> > support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
> > enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance
> > to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the
> > United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according
> > to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces_oath_of_enlistment
> > _____________________________________________________________
> >
> > Not only that his stories don't match. The guy is either a complete flake
> > or had mental problems. Evidently the Police and FBI realized he was a
>
> Why are those two mutually exclusive?
> That's like saying either he was mentally retarded or he was an idiot.
> Does it really make much difference if he was a moron or an idiot?

Good question. A flaky person might be wacky and unconventional but not
crazy. They may be that way just to get attention. A flake is mostly a
normal person immature for their age. Not someone with more serious
mental problems with any condition where they cannot discern reality from
imagination. A liar tries to manipulate information but is well aware
they are doing it with intent. A crazy person cannot tell the difference
and start to believe their own lies.

The line between the two might be blurry and one can evolve into the other
due to circumstances. You can reason with a flake but not a crazy person
who has lost touch with reality. Yes I know Philosophers debate what is
reality. Theologians do too, and with the Hebrew Bible truth is stranger
than fiction. This ancient source indicates ultimate Reality defies the
Laws of Science.

Flaky can be both funny and annoying, whereas mental derangement is a
serious problem. Was LHO just a flake on a losing streak or a dangerous
sociopath?

I think goofy fits Gordon Arnold not only because of alliteration. He was
probably just a harmless flake, not a cowardly soldier who failed to do
his duty.

mainframetech

unread,

Feb 6, 2015, 10:15:45 PM2/6/15

to

A sworn duty to inform someone that the president was shot in front of
hundreds of people, with TV coverage to millions soon after? You've got
to be joking. Do you think that no one knew that it happened? Do you
think Arnold had a responsibility to tell anyone at all, since the whole
world knew about it within minutes of it happening? Including Arnold's
superior officers? Arnold chose not to look like a fool by telling of an
event that the world knew had happened.

> Unless he was a spotter for the snipers and made this story public 15
> years later for his own sadistic pleasure. Perhaps to gloat that he and
> his hit team got away with it and can now enjoy playing mind games on the
> American public. Maybe his perverse way of taking a victory lap.
>

Now we're entering Wonderland.

> Then again maybe Arnold was just a Walter Mitty type who imagined all this
> happened and when he got noticed decided to play along to see how much
> attention he could get. On the other hand, maybe he was completely bored
> with his humdrum life and for excitement made up the whole story to see
> how gullible the America public really is.
>

More Wonderland!

>
> > > If he's lying then he's just a con artist pulling a scam. He could still
> > > be prosecuted for interfering with an investigation and providing false
> > > evidence.
> >
> > What investigation? The case was closed. Man, you're a riot!
>
> There is no statute-of-limitations on murder. To the US public it is
> still active as the longest ongoing investigation in US history. Every
> year someone takes an interest in this mystery with a fresh pair of eyes
> who think they can solve the case. Not sure the actual number, but I've
> read there are over 1,000 books written about this national tragedy.
> Divided by 50 that is 20 books a year. I'm curious, is Colin McLaren the
> only police detective to write a book about this murder case?
>

As far as I know, the case was closed after the WC decided that Oswald
did it as the 'lone nut' killer. Why keep a case open when the killer has
been proven guilty and killed himself? Even his killing by Jack Ruby
ought to be closed shortly after the WC report.

There may be many people that don't agree with the decision to close the
case, but it's closed until further notice.

The above discussion really got whacky! Amazing how you can talk about
Gordon Arnold being crazy, or various versions of it, and present the same
symptoms yourself! Read how silly that all sounds! Including the amateur
psychological guesses! Then go further above and read what's there.

> > > phony witness. Only Gary Mack and Jack White bit on this preposterous
> > > story.
> >
> > In for a penny in for a pound.

In for baloney!

Chris

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Feb 6, 2015, 10:45:35 PM2/6/15

to

On 2/5/2015 9:45 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 11:27:53 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 2/4/2015 11:08 AM, claviger wrote:
>>
>>> If Gordon Arnold is telling the truth he is even goofier than if he's
>>> lying. He was a witness to the assassination of his Commander-in-Chief
>>> and he doesn't bother to notify the Dallas Police Department or the FBI,
>>> not does he tell his CO at Fort Wainwright, Alaska 48 hours later?
>>
>> How could he? He was a deaf mute. Why don't you know anything about this
>> case?
>
> Gordon Arnold was a deaf mute? I didn't know that. So we're dealing with
> two deaf mutes as GK witnesses?? How did they hear shots on the GK?
>

My error. I was thinking of Hoffman. Gordon Arnold said he was afraid and
just wanted to get out of there. But that doesn't matter because he wasn't
even there. The fact is that many witnesses saw things and did not come
forward immediately.

>
>>> Doesn't this sound illogical to you? Either he's a craven coward disloyal
>>> to the US Government, and the US Constitution he has sworn to defend or he
>>> is mentally and morally deficient. Had his CO known about this he could
>>> be Court Martialed as a traitor, aiding and abetting the enemy by his
>>> silence, and failure to give a description to the FBI. This is not an
>>> option but a duty for military personnel.
>>
>> I think you're exaggerating slightly. Look at how many people made
>> mistakes and were not publicly disciplined.
>
> A civilian has the right to step forth or not as a witness. A member of
> the US Armed Forces has a sworn duty to provide information about any
> threat to the Commander-in-Chief. An attack on the CIC is an attack on

And an intelligence officer has a duty to report a threat to kill the
President. But the CIA did not.

> our Constitutional Government and national security. Some CT book authors
> claim the death of this President was a political coup. How do we know it
> wasn't the work of Cold War enemies? A US soldier on leave may not be

I like your conspiracy theory. Tell me more. Was it the same KGB
umbrella man who killed Georgi Markov?

> able to stop an ambush on the CIC, but he could damn sure tell his
> superior officers what he saw and heard and they could report to Army
> Intel and the FBI. Instead Arnold chose to do nothing.
>

No, not if he valued his life.

> Unless he was a spotter for the snipers and made this story public 15
> years later for his own sadistic pleasure. Perhaps to gloat that he and
> his hit team got away with it and can now enjoy playing mind games on the
> American public. Maybe his perverse way of taking a victory lap.
>

Gordon Arnold did not have a high enouh IQ to play mind games.

> Then again maybe Arnold was just a Walter Mitty type who imagined all this
> happened and when he got noticed decided to play along to see how much
> attention he could get. On the other hand, maybe he was completely bored
> with his humdrum life and for excitement made up the whole story to see
> how gullible the America public really is.
>

It's called Munchausen Syndrome.
Inserting yourself into history to play the hero.

>
>>> If he's lying then he's just a con artist pulling a scam. He could still
>>> be prosecuted for interfering with an investigation and providing false
>>> evidence.
>>
>> What investigation? The case was closed. Man, you're a riot!
>
> There is no statute-of-limitations on murder. To the US public it is

The case was officially closed.

> still active as the longest ongoing investigation in US history. Every
> year someone takes an interest in this mystery with a fresh pair of eyes
> who think they can solve the case. Not sure the actual number, but I've
> read there are over 1,000 books written about this national tragedy.
> Divided by 50 that is 20 books a year. I'm curious, is Colin McLaren the
> only police detective to write a book about this murder case?
>

Maybe, but he's a kook if he believe the Hickey theory.

>>> Either way his behavior is despicable.
>>> _____________________________________________________________
>>>

>>> 10 U.S.C. ? 502

I am not sure we've invented a short word to describe him.
I cite Munchausen only because some people have seen the movie.

Alex Foyle

unread,

Feb 8, 2015, 12:01:01 AM2/8/15

to

On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 4:45:35 AM UTC+1, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> It's called Munchausen Syndrome.
> Inserting yourself into history to play the hero.

Sorry, but the Munchhausen Syndrom has absolutely nothing to do with
"Inserting yourself into history to play the hero." Maybe click and read
up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchausen_syndrome

claviger

unread,

Feb 8, 2015, 8:12:13 PM2/8/15

to

Yes. If ordinary citizens stepped forward to give information to the
police, why not a soldier sworn to protect his country? At the very least
he could have told his CO. Instead he kept quiet for 15 years then
decided he wanted to be a celebrity.

> You've got to be joking.

Gordon Arnold was joking and you believed him.

> Do you think that no one knew that it happened?

That two policemen in uniform next to a police car shot a killed the
President? Yes, that would be new information no one else knew about.

> Do you think Arnold had a responsibility to tell anyone at all, since the
> whole world knew about it within minutes of it happening?

Yes, both as a loyal citizen and as a soldier who swore an oath. What
Arnold did could be construed as an Accessory After the Fact.

_______________________________________________________

The word I used was "accessory." There are "accessories before the fact"
and "after the fact." If you know or have good reason to suspect a person
will commit a crime, and do not tell the proper authorities, you are one
of the former, and you are subject to the same penalties the perpetrator
is. Accessories after the fact usually have hidden evidence or helped the
perpetrator escape, etc.

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/slawson-oswald-had-accessories-not-co-conspirators/
_______________________________________________________

> Including Arnold's superior officers?

Absolutely. Why not tell his CO? The Army has a duty to protect their
own CIC and if not in position to do that, at least cooperate with the FBI
to hunt down the snipers. Hard to do that with cowardly soldiers in
position to help, but run away and hide instead.

> Arnold chose not to look like a fool by telling of an event that the world
> knew had happened.

He looks like a bigger fool for not telling this story sooner, when it
would be helpful to the FBI investigation. You claim he never approached
the police instead gave an interview to a reporter. More proof he was a
phony. If he was concerned for his safety then meet the police in private
and keep quiet about it. Instead he blabs to a newspaper reporter and
becomes a celebrity for his 15 minutes of fame. He's either dumb as a
stump or the story was made up so he had nothing to fear.

> > Unless he was a spotter for the snipers and made this story public 15
> > years later for his own sadistic pleasure. Perhaps to gloat that he and
> > his hit team got away with it and can now enjoy playing mind games on the
> > American public. Maybe his perverse way of taking a victory lap.
>
> Now we're entering Wonderland.

The neighborhood where you live.

> > Then again maybe Arnold was just a Walter Mitty type who imagined all this
> > happened and when he got noticed decided to play along to see how much
> > attention he could get. On the other hand, maybe he was completely bored
> > with his humdrum life and for excitement made up the whole story to see
> > how gullible the America public really is.
>
> More Wonderland!

The police are familiar with johnny-come-lately witnesses. It's just
another problem to deal with in highly publicized cases. Gordon Arnold
made up a story and you fell for it.

> > > > If he's lying then he's just a con artist pulling a scam. He could still
> > > > be prosecuted for interfering with an investigation and providing false
> > > > evidence.
> > >
> > > What investigation? The case was closed. Man, you're a riot!

Any murder case can be reopened based on new evidence. Cold cases are
reopened all the time.

> > There is no statute-of-limitations on murder. To the US public it is
> > still active as the longest ongoing investigation in US history. Every
> > year someone takes an interest in this mystery with a fresh pair of eyes
> > who think they can solve the case. Not sure the actual number, but I've
> > read there are over 1,000 books written about this national tragedy.
> > Divided by 50 that is 20 books a year. I'm curious, is Colin McLaren the
> > only police detective to write a book about this murder case?
>
> As far as I know, the case was closed after the WC decided that Oswald
> did it as the 'lone nut' killer. Why keep a case open when the killer has
> been proven guilty and killed himself? Even his killing by Jack Ruby
> ought to be closed shortly after the WC report.
>
> There may be many people that don't agree with the decision to close the
> case, but it's closed until further notice.

Yes, further notice as in new information.

I gave you alternative scenarios that make more sense than anything you've
come up with.

> > > > phony witness. Only Gary Mack and Jack White bit on this preposterous
> > > > story.
> > >
> > > In for a penny in for a pound.
>
> In for baloney!

Much better than your spaghetti dripping off the walls.

> Chris

Rozelli Zavier

unread,

Feb 9, 2015, 12:43:33 AM2/9/15

to

On Thursday, March 1, 2012 at 3:29:06 AM UTC, Dave Reitzes wrote:
> 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 bastard 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]
>
> <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
>
>
> On a related note, Michelle Palmer responds to a book review that
> mentioned her dad:
>
> http://www.thesnipenews.com/books-comics/books-vancouver/jfk-and-the-unspeakable-review/
>
>
> <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
>
> Book review - JFK and the Unspeakable
>
> - by Adrian Mack
>
> James Douglass' book JFK and the Unspeakable is subtitled "Why He
> Died, and Why It Matters".
>
> [...]
>
> Dallas County Deputy sheriff Roger Craig has long been one of the most
> credible, and certainly most tragic witnesses in this area. Shortly after
> the shooting, in Dealey Plaza, Craig saw either Oswald or his double climb
> into a green Rambler station wagon driven by a "husky looking Latin."
> Craig then encountered Oswald during his interrogation at the Dallas
> Police HQ, where Douglass writes, "It was too late - for both the
> government and Roger Craig. Deputy Sheriff Craig had seen and heard too
> much."
>
> As an insider, Craig bore witness to a number of things that cause the
> official story to unravel, and he talked. His career was destroyed by his
> refusal to recant his own testimony. After a number of attempts on his
> life, one of which left him disabled, Craig reportedly committed suicide
> in 1975.
>
> <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------

>
>
> <QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
>
> One Response to JFK and the Unspeakable - book review
>
> Michelle Palmer says:
> July 5, 2009 at 8:28 pm
>
> Bullshit. You are ALL so full of it. Roger Craig was unstable from
> childhood. His suicide had more to do with his own mental illness (and
> being sucked into the GD conspiracy crap) than anything to do with JFK's
> actual death.
>
> I am his child. I knew him. I knew the people who used him to promote
> their theories. You are ALL full of it.
>
> <QUOTE OFF>----------------------------------------
>
>

> Dave

Poor old Roger Craig. His story was certainly fantastic, but full of
blatant lies. One could say that Roger Craig was the first in a long line
of JFK Assassination conspiracy theorists......!!

Mark Florio

unread,

Feb 9, 2015, 5:17:04 PM2/9/15

to

Fine job there, claviger. Mark Florio.

mainframetech

unread,

Feb 9, 2015, 6:48:30 PM2/9/15

to

If you do your homework, you'll find that the wife and daughter had
some serious problems and the daughter went online on occasion to blast
Craig. A brother of Craig pointed out the mental problems that the women
had.

Remember, that Craig worked for the sheriff's department for a number
of years. He was awarded the top cop of the year award too. I think if
he was off or crazy or any of the things the daughter said about him, that
the other deputies would have figured it out pretty quickly. Dumping on
Craig this way doesn't help the case.

Go to Simkin's forum and read it all, and some of the daughter's
craziness that she had removed, so she wouldn't have to hear about it
later:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3556&page=4&hl=%2Broger+%2Bcraig#entry243445

Read both up and down.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Feb 9, 2015, 6:50:37 PM2/9/15

to

If you listened to his story honestly, you'd see why he was nervous
about reporting it, but there were people all around that would report
what they saw. The authorities wouldn't be without the full story. So he
wasn't keeping any info from them. Why would a lowly PFC go to a colonel
or general and report what was on the TV and papers for days? That
doesn't make any sense.

> > You've got to be joking.
>
> Gordon Arnold was joking and you believed him.
>

Joking? Sheesh! Show me the proof that shows he was joking. You're
really getting off the reservation!

> > Do you think that no one knew that it happened?
>
> That two policemen in uniform next to a police car shot a killed the
> President? Yes, that would be new information no one else knew about.
>

Whaaat? Where did 2 policemen come from? Who saw them? Not any of my
witnesses. I don't know where you got that.

> > Do you think Arnold had a responsibility to tell anyone at all, since the
> > whole world knew about it within minutes of it happening?
>
> Yes, both as a loyal citizen and as a soldier who swore an oath. What
> Arnold did could be construed as an Accessory After the Fact.
>

Oh, BULL. He didn't swear an oath to tell his CO anything at all. And
we're dealing with a situation that was reported on TV and in the papers
immediately, or as soon as possible. Anyone that Arnold could tell would
have already heard about it. So it comes down to you insulting the man
for basically nothing.

> _______________________________________________________
>
> The word I used was "accessory." There are "accessories before the fact"
> and "after the fact." If you know or have good reason to suspect a person
> will commit a crime, and do not tell the proper authorities, you are one
> of the former, and you are subject to the same penalties the perpetrator
> is. Accessories after the fact usually have hidden evidence or helped the
> perpetrator escape, etc.
>
> http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/slawson-oswald-had-accessories-not-co-conspirators/
> _______________________________________________________
>

I know the definition of the terms. Now I'll give them to YOU, so that
you'll know them too.

"A person who aids, abets, or encourages another to commit a crime but who
is not present at the scene. An accessory before the fact, like an
accomplice, may be held criminally liable to the same extent as the
principal. Many jurisdictions refer to an accessory before the fact as an
accomplice."

From: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/accessory_before_the_fact

Notice that the legal definition doesn't go into whether you tell
authorities.

> > Including Arnold's superior officers?
>
> Absolutely. Why not tell his CO? The Army has a duty to protect their
> own CIC and if not in position to do that, at least cooperate with the FBI
> to hunt down the snipers. Hard to do that with cowardly soldiers in
> position to help, but run away and hide instead.
>

So you decided that the military (stationed anywhere on any continent)
wouldn't know the president had been shot?

> > Arnold chose not to look like a fool by telling of an event that the world
> > knew had happened.
>
> He looks like a bigger fool for not telling this story sooner, when it
> would be helpful to the FBI investigation. You claim he never approached
> the police instead gave an interview to a reporter.

Nope. I didn't 'claim' anything. And I didn't say that he gave an
interview to a reporter. So you think he should look like an idiot to his
superiors, by telling them of something that they were already aware of?

> More proof he was a
> phony. If he was concerned for his safety then meet the police in private
> and keep quiet about it. Instead he blabs to a newspaper reporter and
> becomes a celebrity for his 15 minutes of fame. He's either dumb as a
> stump or the story was made up so he had nothing to fear.
>

When did he go to a reporter? Please supply links for that. I'm not
aware of it.

> > > Unless he was a spotter for the snipers and made this story public 15
> > > years later for his own sadistic pleasure. Perhaps to gloat that he and
> > > his hit team got away with it and can now enjoy playing mind games on the
> > > American public. Maybe his perverse way of taking a victory lap.
> >
> > Now we're entering Wonderland.
>
> The neighborhood where you live.
>
>
> > > Then again maybe Arnold was just a Walter Mitty type who imagined all this
> > > happened and when he got noticed decided to play along to see how much
> > > attention he could get. On the other hand, maybe he was completely bored
> > > with his humdrum life and for excitement made up the whole story to see
> > > how gullible the America public really is.
> >
> > More Wonderland!
>
> The police are familiar with johnny-come-lately witnesses. It's just
> another problem to deal with in highly publicized cases. Gordon Arnold
> made up a story and you fell for it.
>

Welp, you haven't proved anything yet. Keep trying. So far it sounds
ridiculous to me.

>
> > > > > If he's lying then he's just a con artist pulling a scam. He could still
> > > > > be prosecuted for interfering with an investigation and providing false
> > > > > evidence.
> > > >
> > > > What investigation? The case was closed. Man, you're a riot!
>
> Any murder case can be reopened based on new evidence. Cold cases are
> reopened all the time.
>

Cold cases are not closed. When did they reopen the JFK murder case?
They went through a lot of effort to prove to the public that the case was
closed and done with!

Actually, none made sense to me.

jeanmari...@gmail.com

unread,

Feb 11, 2015, 10:42:50 AM2/11/15

to

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 7:37:19 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 1/21/2015 10:39 PM, paulson...@gmail.com wrote:
> > It is pathetic that anybody would bash Roger Craig when he isn't around to
> > defend himself. I believe his story as it appears he was proven to be
> > truthful by various photographs sited years after his statements were
> > made. There is no reason for anybody to bash and attempt to discredit his
> > character - particularly since they weren't there to be a fair and
> > objective judge. It's no coincidence that so many of the witnesses died
> > under questionable circumstances. Roger Craig may have become paranoid,
> > but I would too if I were harassed unmercifully for telling my version of
> > the truth.
> >

Do you honestly think he was lying? Come on! That makes no sense!

>
> As the Comedians would say, "Too soon?"
> How many years do we have to wait to call someone a liar? 100? 1,000?
> 10,000?
>
> > Furthermore, he may have believed he could be paid for statements, but
> > regardless, that is no crime. He obviously didn't profit from his truth,
> > in fact, quite the opposite. He suffered and died instead. His truth
> > never changed.
> >
> > His daughter, honestly, looks to be a sorry person for disrespecting her
> > father in such a vicious way for his frailties and problems which arose
> > from circumstances spinning out of control. And the woman who stated he
> > NEVER wanted to work, come on! From such lofty accolades for outstanding
> > service to unstable employment. Life is in flux, and nobody's life is
> > perfect. Give him some credit!!!! PLEASE!
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, March 1, 2012 at 11:30:12 AM UTC-6, claviger wrote:

> >>> http://www.thesnipenews.com/books-comics/books-vancouver/jfk-and-the-...

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Feb 11, 2015, 1:01:29 PM2/11/15

to

Maybe he was embarrassed by his friends and family making fun of his
story.

>> You've got to be joking.
>
> Gordon Arnold was joking and you believed him.
>

No, he wasn't joking. He was playing the hero like Muchausen.

>> Do you think that no one knew that it happened?
>
> That two policemen in uniform next to a police car shot a killed the
> President? Yes, that would be new information no one else knew about.

Where's the police car? Show me in a photo and on a map.

>
>> Do you think Arnold had a responsibility to tell anyone at all, since the
>> whole world knew about it within minutes of it happening?
>
> Yes, both as a loyal citizen and as a soldier who swore an oath. What
> Arnold did could be construed as an Accessory After the Fact.
>

Silly. How come you never say that about WC witnesses who didn't tell
their stories on the first day? Because you work hard to be hypocritical.

> _______________________________________________________
>
> The word I used was "accessory." There are "accessories before the fact"
> and "after the fact." If you know or have good reason to suspect a person
> will commit a crime, and do not tell the proper authorities, you are one
> of the former, and you are subject to the same penalties the perpetrator
> is. Accessories after the fact usually have hidden evidence or helped the
> perpetrator escape, etc.
>
> http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/slawson-oswald-had-accessories-not-co-conspirators/
> _______________________________________________________
>
>> Including Arnold's superior officers?
>
> Absolutely. Why not tell his CO? The Army has a duty to protect their
> own CIC and if not in position to do that, at least cooperate with the FBI
> to hunt down the snipers. Hard to do that with cowardly soldiers in
> position to help, but run away and hide instead.
>
>> Arnold chose not to look like a fool by telling of an event that the world
>> knew had happened.
>
> He looks like a bigger fool for not telling this story sooner, when it

So you like it when kooks tell their stories as early as possible. When
they tell it within minutes we have to believe them? Like Jean Hill?

> would be helpful to the FBI investigation. You claim he never approached
> the police instead gave an interview to a reporter. More proof he was a

No. He claims that he told the police and they told him to go away.

> phony. If he was concerned for his safety then meet the police in private
> and keep quiet about it. Instead he blabs to a newspaper reporter and
> becomes a celebrity for his 15 minutes of fame. He's either dumb as a
> stump or the story was made up so he had nothing to fear.
>

Some people were so scared that they didn't come forward for many years.
When they did come forward they were harassed by people like you.

>>> Unless he was a spotter for the snipers and made this story public 15
>>> years later for his own sadistic pleasure. Perhaps to gloat that he and
>>> his hit team got away with it and can now enjoy playing mind games on the
>>> American public. Maybe his perverse way of taking a victory lap.
>>
>> Now we're entering Wonderland.
>
> The neighborhood where you live.
>
>
>>> Then again maybe Arnold was just a Walter Mitty type who imagined all this
>>> happened and when he got noticed decided to play along to see how much
>>> attention he could get. On the other hand, maybe he was completely bored
>>> with his humdrum life and for excitement made up the whole story to see
>>> how gullible the America public really is.
>>
>> More Wonderland!
>
> The police are familiar with johnny-come-lately witnesses. It's just
> another problem to deal with in highly publicized cases. Gordon Arnold
> made up a story and you fell for it.
>
>
>>>>> If he's lying then he's just a con artist pulling a scam. He could still
>>>>> be prosecuted for interfering with an investigation and providing false
>>>>> evidence.
>>>>
>>>> What investigation? The case was closed. Man, you're a riot!
>
> Any murder case can be reopened based on new evidence. Cold cases are
> reopened all the time.
>

Only is the authorities WANT to reopen it. Not if they want to cover it up.

>
>>> There is no statute-of-limitations on murder. To the US public it is
>>> still active as the longest ongoing investigation in US history. Every
>>> year someone takes an interest in this mystery with a fresh pair of eyes
>>> who think they can solve the case. Not sure the actual number, but I've
>>> read there are over 1,000 books written about this national tragedy.
>>> Divided by 50 that is 20 books a year. I'm curious, is Colin McLaren the
>>> only police detective to write a book about this murder case?
>>
>> As far as I know, the case was closed after the WC decided that Oswald
>> did it as the 'lone nut' killer. Why keep a case open when the killer has
>> been proven guilty and killed himself? Even his killing by Jack Ruby
>> ought to be closed shortly after the WC report.
>>
>> There may be many people that don't agree with the decision to close the
>> case, but it's closed until further notice.
>
> Yes, further notice as in new information.
>
>
>>>>> Either way his behavior is despicable.
>>>>> _____________________________________________________________
>>>>>

>>>>> 10 U.S.C. ? 502

Alex Foyle

unread,

Feb 11, 2015, 9:22:01 PM2/11/15

to

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 12:48:30 AM UTC+1, mainframetech wrote:

> If you do your homework, you'll find that the wife and daughter had
> some serious problems and the daughter went online on occasion to blast
> Craig. A brother of Craig pointed out the mental problems that the women
> had.

Sorry to jump in here again, but Jerry Craig claimed to be Craig's nephew
not his brother. Neither did this alleged nephew point out the mental
problems of Craig's wife and daughter which you attributed to him in this
thread.

> Go to Simkin's forum and read it all, and some of the daughter's
> craziness that she had removed, so she wouldn't have to hear about it
> later:
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3556&page=4&hl=%2Broger+%2Bcraig#entry243445
>
> Read both up and down.

Nothing of what you claimed can be found there.

jeanmari...@gmail.com

unread,

Feb 11, 2015, 9:42:18 PM2/11/15

to

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 7:37:19 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 1/21/2015 10:39 PM, paulson...@gmail.com wrote:
> > It is pathetic that anybody would bash Roger Craig when he isn't around to
> > defend himself. I believe his story as it appears he was proven to be
> > truthful by various photographs sited years after his statements were
> > made. There is no reason for anybody to bash and attempt to discredit his
> > character - particularly since they weren't there to be a fair and
> > objective judge. It's no coincidence that so many of the witnesses died
> > under questionable circumstances. Roger Craig may have become paranoid,
> > but I would too if I were harassed unmercifully for telling my version of
> > the truth.
> >
>

Totally sad situation. Most people criticizing him have no clue. Wonder
why his daughter started going by Michelle instead of Deanna. Maybe she
has a reason to slam her dad too. Maybe she is afraid people could catch
up to her. Who knows. Just weird.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Feb 12, 2015, 4:06:10 PM2/12/15

to

On 2/11/2015 10:42 AM, jeanmari...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 7:37:19 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 1/21/2015 10:39 PM, paulson...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> It is pathetic that anybody would bash Roger Craig when he isn't around to
>>> defend himself. I believe his story as it appears he was proven to be
>>> truthful by various photographs sited years after his statements were
>>> made. There is no reason for anybody to bash and attempt to discredit his
>>> character - particularly since they weren't there to be a fair and
>>> objective judge. It's no coincidence that so many of the witnesses died
>>> under questionable circumstances. Roger Craig may have become paranoid,
>>> but I would too if I were harassed unmercifully for telling my version of
>>> the truth.
>>>
>
> Do you honestly think he was lying? Come on! That makes no sense!

Yes. He was only trying to support a fellow cop. Like when a cop is
defending his partner who just killed an unarmed black kid by saying,
"Yeah, I saw the gun too. Maybe he threw it away."

claviger

unread,

Feb 12, 2015, 7:38:15 PM2/12/15

to

On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 9:45:35 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 2/5/2015 9:45 PM, claviger wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 11:27:53 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 2/4/2015 11:08 AM, claviger wrote:
> >>
> >>> If Gordon Arnold is telling the truth he is even goofier than if he's
> >>> lying. He was a witness to the assassination of his Commander-in-Chief
> >>> and he doesn't bother to notify the Dallas Police Department or the FBI,
> >>> not does he tell his CO at Fort Wainwright, Alaska 48 hours later?
> >>
> >> How could he? He was a deaf mute. Why don't you know anything about this
> >> case?
> >
> > Gordon Arnold was a deaf mute? I didn't know that. So we're dealing with
> > two deaf mutes as GK witnesses?? How did they hear shots on the GK?
>
> My error. I was thinking of Hoffman. Gordon Arnold said he was afraid and
> just wanted to get out of there. But that doesn't matter because he wasn't
> even there.

Correct.

> The fact is that many witnesses saw things and did not come forward
> immediately.

How many were on active duty in the US Armed Forces?

> >>> Doesn't this sound illogical to you? Either he's a craven coward disloyal
> >>> to the US Government, and the US Constitution he has sworn to defend or he
> >>> is mentally and morally deficient. Had his CO known about this he could
> >>> be Court Martialed as a traitor, aiding and abetting the enemy by his
> >>> silence, and failure to give a description to the FBI. This is not an
> >>> option but a duty for military personnel.
> >>
> >> I think you're exaggerating slightly. Look at how many people made
> >> mistakes and were not publicly disciplined.
> >
> > A civilian has the right to step forth or not as a witness. A member of
> > the US Armed Forces has a sworn duty to provide information about any
> > threat to the Commander-in-Chief. An attack on the CIC is an attack on
>
> And an intelligence officer has a duty to report a threat to kill the
> President. But the CIA did not.

Yes indeed. When did the CIA have knowledge of a threat to kill the
President?

Are you referring to the LHO outburst at the Cuban embassy and the story
that Castro was aware of it too? If you mean the E Howard Hunt
"confession" then you are quite right. He would have been an "accessory
before the fact" by having prior knowledge and not warning the FBI and
Secret Service. Of course that whole story was BS to begin with. Hunt
had a grudge against both people he insinuated were behind the hit on the
President.

> > our Constitutional Government and national security. Some CT book authors
> > claim the death of this President was a political coup. How do we know it
> > wasn't the work of Cold War enemies? A US soldier on leave may not be
>
> I like your conspiracy theory. Tell me more. Was it the same KGB
> umbrella man who killed Georgi Markov?

No, more like LHO being trained by Spetsnaz to become a sniper.

> > able to stop an ambush on the CIC, but he could damn sure tell his
> > superior officers what he saw and heard and they could report to Army
> > Intel and the FBI. Instead Arnold chose to do nothing.
>
> No, not if he valued his life.

Arnold claimed the snipers were Dallas police officers. He should be safe
from Dallas cops on a US Army base in Alaska. If he told his CO and
wished to remain anonymous how would the DPD hit team know where to find
him? Army Intel could take the info and liaise with the FBI. No one knew
who Arnold was, what he saw, or where he was stationed.

> > Unless he was a spotter for the snipers and made this story public 15
> > years later for his own sadistic pleasure. Perhaps to gloat that he and
> > his hit team got away with it and can now enjoy playing mind games on the
> > American public. Maybe his perverse way of taking a victory lap.
>
> Gordon Arnold did not have a high enouh IQ to play mind games.

Yet he bamboozled Earl Golz, Henry Hurt, Gary Mack, Jim Marrs, and Nigel
Turner. Not bad for a dunderhead conman.

> > Then again maybe Arnold was just a Walter Mitty type who imagined all this
> > happened and when he got noticed decided to play along to see how much
> > attention he could get. On the other hand, maybe he was completely bored
> > with his humdrum life and for excitement made up the whole story to see
> > how gullible the America public really is.
>
> It's called Munchausen Syndrome.
> Inserting yourself into history to play the hero.
>
> >>> If he's lying then he's just a con artist pulling a scam. He could still
> >>> be prosecuted for interfering with an investigation and providing false
> >>> evidence.
> >>
> >> What investigation? The case was closed. Man, you're a riot!
> >
> > There is no statute-of-limitations on murder. To the US public it is
>
> The case was officially closed.

By whom? Maybe the Federal Government, but in Texas there is no statute
of limitations on murder. A "cold case" is not a closed case.

> > still active as the longest ongoing investigation in US history. Every
> > year someone takes an interest in this mystery with a fresh pair of eyes
> > who think they can solve the case. Not sure the actual number, but I've
> > read there are over 1,000 books written about this national tragedy.
> > Divided by 50 that is 20 books a year. I'm curious, is Colin McLaren the
> > only police detective to write a book about this murder case?
>
> Maybe, but he's a kook if he believe the Hickey theory.

He was a senior cop not a kook.

I think goofball is a good fit.

claviger

unread,

Feb 12, 2015, 7:39:33 PM2/12/15

to

Maybe the whole family was crazy, including the brother.

mainframetech

unread,

Feb 12, 2015, 8:09:27 PM2/12/15

to

I would suggest that the daughter was affected by the mother, who stays
more in the background. I've seen this type of thing before with the
children being convinced of the sins of the father by the mother's
storytelling.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Feb 12, 2015, 8:10:10 PM2/12/15

to

Or you don't want to find it. Here's the exact text of the comments:

"ok just so everybody knows deanna and her mom changed there names not for
privacy they were the ones paranoid our family never seen then or knew
what there name were i personaly seen deanna at roger funeral in 75 and my
moms im 79 and her and her mom wore shades and kept to themselves talk
about paranoia what does that tell you about there mental states roger
never hid BUT MOLLY AND DEANNA DID so think about that and see who was
disturbed."

Notice that he speaks of their "mental states" as I said.

I think I know why you've been unable to find the informatio9n. It
seems to be under the name 'Bernice Moore', though it isn't. The link is
right, just go down looking for the name Jerry and it will appear. But
for the above text, you have to follow a line to the far left of the Jerry
name, all the way down to the text. It's the odd way that the Education
forum handles comments within other comments.

Chris