Weisberg on Roger Craig

[John McAdams]

From the Deep Politics Forum:

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%20Disk/Assassination%20Inquiry%20Committee%20Newsletter/Item%2016.pdf

“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 finelooking, 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.”

Mainframe: are you paying attention?

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

[Dave Reitzes]

Yeah, I posted the same quote a year or two ago, I believe. You also
posted this nugget from the grande dame of the conspiracy community, Mary
Ferrell:


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

Subject: Mary Ferrell on Roger Craig
From: john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)
Date: 1/23/04 12:09 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <401154eb...@news.alt.net>

From the old Prodigy Bulletin Board:

<Quote on>

TIME: 8/24 1:25 PM
TO: BILL AMBROSINO
FROM: MARY FERRELL
SUBJECT: JFK-CIA EXPERTISE

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

<Quote off>

Thanks to Bruce Chapman for this old post.

.John

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


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 responded 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>----------------------------------------


After his police career ended (either due to his own unreliability or
because of the immense threat he posed to The Conspiracy -- you decide),
Craig 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, telling people like Garrison, Lane,
and Jones what he thought they wanted to hear. At one time he was claiming
he'd heard 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

But the film taken by newsman Tom Alyea inside the TSBD at the time the
rifle was found proves it was a Mannlicher-Carcano, not a Mauser.

But the worship of St. Roger will no doubt continue until the end of time.
So much for the truth.

Dave

[John McAdams]

Thanks, Dave.

A couple of these I didn't know about. In fact, the Contra Mundum one
I didn't know about, in spite of the fact that it's on my own website!

I wrestle with whether I should put these on my page on Craig, since
they are rather ad hominem (unlike, for example, discussion of ways in
which he has changed his testimony).

But since the conspiracists are always touting him as a paragon of
virtue, and asking things like "why would he lie?," I think I *will*
put all this on my site.

He was simply a disturbed fellow. And his involvemet in the
assassination doubtless make the situation worse.

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

[mainframetech]

On Friday, August 30, 2013 10:19:40 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:

LOL!! Absolutely! I'm sorry to say the writer of the note seems angry
at Roger Craig and Penn for doing well at a time when he is in the gutter
finances-wise. I don't know why the fellow has been out of work for 6
years, but the begging for repayment of the loan is particularly
embarrassing. I don't have Roger Craig's corrections of his testimony, is
that around somewhere? And this fellow isn't specific about the things he
thinks are wrong in Craig's corrections, so that it can't be checked.

In all of the continuing attacks on Craig, remember that he won the
'cop of the year' award, and was promoted 4 times in the years he worked
for his dept. Do you suppose that cops would not recognize a liar or
wacko after the years they worked together, and therefore not give him
awards? All the phony rumors of Craig being crazy have been dispelled,
but I'll bet some folks still use that when they need an excuse to
discredit Craig's statements.

It sure is interesting that all this attack had been built up on Craig,
given that he was the one person that suffered for telling the truth and
keeping on telling it. The one witness that didn't later change his
statements or testimony to suit the WC trend, when he had gone against it.
And his statements go against the WC wacky theories.

It's sort like all the buildup of attacks on Mark Lane. I don't know
if any of the negative comments about Lane are true or not, but I do know
that he ferreted out testimony and statements from many just plain folks
about their experiences related to the assassination, that we might never
have seen or heard if he hadn't been on the lookout for information for
his books. Many of those statements and interviews go against the WC
wacky theories too.

It seems to me, who is a person interested in evidence showing murder
by conspiracy, that anyone that gets any recognition and says things
against the WC faith is quickly lambasted and attacked as if it was a war
on a terrorist. When a person that has espoused the viewpoints from the
WC says something wrong or wacky, they are put aside, but not attacked in
such mad dog manner.

The attacks seems to echo the style used by the Tea Party people
speaking about Barrack Obama.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/31/2013 1:47 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, August 30, 2013 10:19:40 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>> From the Deep Politics Forum:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%20Disk/Assassination%20Inquiry%20Committee%20Newsletter/Item%2016.pdf
>>
>>
>>

>> ?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 finelooking, 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.?

>>
>>
>>
>> Mainframe: are you paying attention?
>>
>>
>>
>> .John
>>
>> --------------
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> LOL!! Absolutely! I'm sorry to say the writer of the note seems angry
> at Roger Craig and Penn for doing well at a time when he is in the gutter
> finances-wise. I don't know why the fellow has been out of work for 6
> years, but the begging for repayment of the loan is particularly
> embarrassing. I don't have Roger Craig's corrections of his testimony, is
> that around somewhere? And this fellow isn't specific about the things he
> thinks are wrong in Craig's corrections, so that it can't be checked.
>
> In all of the continuing attacks on Craig, remember that he won the
> 'cop of the year' award, and was promoted 4 times in the years he worked
> for his dept. Do you suppose that cops would not recognize a liar or

So what. Stop harping on that as if it proves he was perfect. Locally a
cop the year" was just charged with drunk driving. Lance Armstrong, all
time Tour du France winner, admitted that he had been cheating all that
time.

> wacko after the years they worked together, and therefore not give him

So what if all his buddies knew he was a liar? That just makes him one
of them.

> awards? All the phony rumors of Craig being crazy have been dispelled,
> but I'll bet some folks still use that when they need an excuse to
> discredit Craig's statements.
>

Just being a liar doesn't make him crazy.

> It sure is interesting that all this attack had been built up on Craig,
> given that he was the one person that suffered for telling the truth and
> keeping on telling it. The one witness that didn't later change his
> statements or testimony to suit the WC trend, when he had gone against it.

That is the hallmark of a liar. He has to keep lying.
He can't just admit that he was wrong.

> And his statements go against the WC wacky theories.
>

Which wwacky theories? You mean like the videos and photos which show
Oswald's Carcano found on the sixth floor of the TSBD?

> It's sort like all the buildup of attacks on Mark Lane. I don't know
> if any of the negative comments about Lane are true or not, but I do know
> that he ferreted out testimony and statements from many just plain folks
> about their experiences related to the assassination, that we might never
> have seen or heard if he hadn't been on the lookout for information for
> his books. Many of those statements and interviews go against the WC
> wacky theories too.
>

No matter what the government, no matter what the controversy, the
government will always send out agents to attack its critics.

> It seems to me, who is a person interested in evidence showing murder
> by conspiracy, that anyone that gets any recognition and says things
> against the WC faith is quickly lambasted and attacked as if it was a war
> on a terrorist. When a person that has espoused the viewpoints from the
> WC says something wrong or wacky, they are put aside, but not attacked in
> such mad dog manner.
>

How do Craig's lies show conspiracy?

[Anthony Marsh]

Ridiculous. As usual, a few kooks say something and you claim that all
the conspiracists believe it. OK, then all the WC defenders believe that
a SS agent shot JFK in the head.

[Anthony Marsh]

It's fun to make personal attacks on someone when he is dead and no
longer around to defend himself. And no one can dare to object to your
tactics lest he be labelled as a "defender" as we saw with the attacks
on Judyth.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you allow personal attacks on people as long as they come from
another forum. And against a dead person. So it's ok for use to quote
someone else's attacks on you?

[mainframetech]

Here we go again. His statements were too damaging to the WC faithful
and they gathered together and picked at everything they could find and
attacked this person who refused to bend to the general will and change
his testimony. A shame that a noted fellow like McAdams would help it
along like this.

As to the smearing by Michelle Palmer, here is Simkin's response after
she threatened him with legal trouble. This was from the 'Education
Forum':

[Simkin]

"This is the latest email from Michelle Palmer. What do you think I should do?

[Palmer]

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"

[Note the vitriol]

[Palmer]

"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."

[Simkin]

"I have now removed all references to Craig's daughter on my webpage on
Roger Craig. As you can from above, I was only doing what I was asked. You
just cannot please some people."

[Now Jerry Craig gets into it:]

"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".

So there was some difference of opinion as to who was nuts in the
family. The daughter seems to have had a good education based on her
writing, so who paid for that? If the daughter was so vitriolic and hated
her father as noted above, might the mother have taught her to be that
way? When you look at Roger Craig, he made 'cop of the year' and was
promoted 4 times in his dept. Why would cops who are suspicious of most
people (necessary for the job) be taken in so easily by Craig? Or did
they read him correctly and the forces of the WC faithful are just picking
out something in Craig's past to blame HIM for?

Chris

[mainframetech]

Pointing at others who 'fell off the wagon' doesn't have a single thing
to say about Roger Craig. We are all possible fools, but stick with the
foolishness of the subject, not 5 others you can find.

>
>
> > wacko after the years they worked together, and therefore not give him
>
>
>
> So what if all his buddies knew he was a liar? That just makes him one
>
> of them.
>

You missed my point completely. Are you listening, or only to yourself?
I didn't say the other cops saw him as a liar, I said their actions showed
that they saw him as a standup guy.

>
>
> > awards? All the phony rumors of Craig being crazy have been dispelled,
>
> > but I'll bet some folks still use that when they need an excuse to
>
> > discredit Craig's statements.
>
>
> Just being a liar doesn't make him crazy.
>

Prove that he lied before you damage someone's reputation. That doesn't
speak well for your own reputation otherwise.

>
>
> > It sure is interesting that all this attack had been built up on Craig,
>
> > given that he was the one person that suffered for telling the truth and
>
> > keeping on telling it. The one witness that didn't later change his
>
> > statements or testimony to suit the WC trend, when he had gone against it.
>
>
>
> That is the hallmark of a liar. He has to keep lying.
>
> He can't just admit that he was wrong.
>

Now you're pretending to by a psychiatrist? And attributing things to
someone with NO personal knowledge of them? Correcting you is a never
ending task.

>
>
> > And his statements go against the WC wacky theories.
>
> >
>
>
>

> Which wacky theories? You mean like the videos and photos which show

>
> Oswald's Carcano found on the sixth floor of the TSBD?
>

I never said that a MC was NOT found on the 6th floor, though the
filming was not done just as the discovery was made, but a bit later.
The photog noted that he set up some clips with help from the cops. 3 men
agreed that a Mauser was found, Craig, Weitzman and Fritz. Though
Weitzman was the only one that would definitely recognize a Mauser, it was
stamped right on the rifle and I believe the Mauser logo was too. To have
a Weitzman who was familiar with rifles name the rifle in the murder of a
president and then sign his name and swear to it on an affidavit says that
he believed it and was being careful. We also know that various forces,
such as the FBI were working to promote the wacky WC theories like the
'lone nut' theory. Suddenly after being careful in naming the rifle he
saw as a Mauser, Weitzman came out and said he made a mistake. Just a bit
too pat for me.

>
>
> > It's sort like all the buildup of attacks on Mark Lane. I don't know
>
> > if any of the negative comments about Lane are true or not, but I do know
>
> > that he ferreted out testimony and statements from many just plain folks
>
> > about their experiences related to the assassination, that we might never
>
> > have seen or heard if he hadn't been on the lookout for information for
>
> > his books. Many of those statements and interviews go against the WC
>
> > wacky theories too.
>
> >
>
>
>
> No matter what the government, no matter what the controversy, the
>
> government will always send out agents to attack its critics.
>

Finally we agree. A Government cannot stand for its people not to
believe their every word. It is necessary when they want to cover nasty
doings.

>
>
> > It seems to me, who is a person interested in evidence showing murder
>
> > by conspiracy, that anyone that gets any recognition and says things
>
> > against the WC faith is quickly lambasted and attacked as if it was a war
>
> > on a terrorist. When a person that has espoused the viewpoints from the
>
> > WC says something wrong or wacky, they are put aside, but not attacked in
>
> > such mad dog manner.
>

>
> How do Craig's lies show conspiracy?
>

In one example, he saw Oswald run down the grass at the TSBD and get
into a car (Nash Rambler?) with a short stocky swarthy man. That's 2
people and therefore a conspiracy.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 8/31/13 1:47 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, August 30, 2013 10:19:40 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>> From the Deep Politics Forum:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%20Disk/Assassination%20Inquiry%20Committee%20Newsletter/Item%2016.pdf
>>
>>
>>

>> ?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 finelooking, 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.?

This would be easy enough to find out, if you really wanted to know.

/sandy

[John McAdams]

On 31 Aug 2013 17:00:00 -0400, Anthony Marsh

Tell ya' what, Tony:

Why don't we moderators prohibit attacks on Allen Dulles, and Gerald
Ford, and Arlen Specter, and LBJ, and Richard Helms.

Can't allow people to pick on dead people, right?

Or do you only want dead people you *like* protected.

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

[mainframetech]

'Attacks' on dead people or live people really aren't reasonable for us
to allow ourselves to sink to. It doesn't matter if the subject is alive
or dead, and supportive of LN or CT people. Or even neutral folks. If a
person tells the truth as best they know it and avoids vicious rumor, and
deals only in reasonable, logical or proven facts and knowledge, we're all
smart enough to make our own decisions as to the subject's value to the
case, and to the human race.

Are we just dogs trained to fight with anyone that opposes us? No
intelligent debate? Just a mob hidden under forum rules.

Chris

[John McAdams]

On 1 Sep 2013 19:47:14 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, September 1, 2013 3:26:34 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 31 Aug 2013 17:00:00 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>>
>> >
>>

>> >So you allow personal attacks on people as long as they come from
>>
>> >another forum. And against a dead person.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tell ya' what, Tony:
>>
>>
>>
>> Why don't we moderators prohibit attacks on Allen Dulles, and Gerald
>>
>> Ford, and Arlen Specter, and LBJ, and Richard Helms.
>>
>>
>>
>> Can't allow people to pick on dead people, right?
>>
>>
>>
>> Or do you only want dead people you *like* protected.
>>
>>
>>
>

> 'Attacks' on dead people or live people really aren't reasonable for us
>to allow ourselves to sink to. It doesn't matter if the subject is alive
>or dead, and supportive of LN or CT people. Or even neutral folks. If a
>person tells the truth as best they know it and avoids vicious rumor, and
>deals only in reasonable, logical or proven facts and knowledge, we're all
>smart enough to make our own decisions as to the subject's value to the
>case, and to the human race.
>

So we moderators should not allow anybody to say that Richard Helms
was part of a plot to assassination Kennedy?

Carlos Marcello gets the same protection?

Nobody should be allowed to say that J. Edgar Hoover articulated a
"cover-up?"

While we are at it, nobody should be allowed to say that Lee Harvey
Oswald shot Kennedy?

Do you really mean this, Mainframe, or could it be that you just don't
want your favorite teller of tall tales to be criticized?

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

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/1/2013 3:26 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2013 17:00:00 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/30/2013 10:19 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> From the Deep Politics Forum:
>>>
>>> http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%20Disk/Assassination%20Inquiry%20Committee%20Newsletter/Item%2016.pdf
>>>

>>> ?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 finelooking, 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.?

>>>
>>> Mainframe: are you paying attention?
>>>
>>> .John
>>> --------------
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>>
>>
>>
>> So you allow personal attacks on people as long as they come from
>> another forum. And against a dead person.
>
> Tell ya' what, Tony:
>
> Why don't we moderators prohibit attacks on Allen Dulles, and Gerald
> Ford, and Arlen Specter, and LBJ, and Richard Helms.
>
> Can't allow people to pick on dead people, right?
>
> Or do you only want dead people you *like* protected.
>
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

You sidestepped my point. You are allowing your buddies to cut and paste
personal attacks from another forum in violation of the rules of this
forum.

[Anthony Marsh]

He lied when he said that rifle was stamped MAUSER.

>>
>>
>>> It sure is interesting that all this attack had been built up on Craig,
>>
>>> given that he was the one person that suffered for telling the truth and
>>
>>> keeping on telling it. The one witness that didn't later change his
>>
>>> statements or testimony to suit the WC trend, when he had gone against it.
>>
>>
>>
>> That is the hallmark of a liar. He has to keep lying.
>>
>> He can't just admit that he was wrong.
>>
> Now you're pretending to by a psychiatrist? And attributing things to
> someone with NO personal knowledge of them? Correcting you is a never
> ending task.
>

It is a well known pattern of habitual liars?
Why are you defending his lying? Because you WANT the rifle to be a
Mauser to prop up some kooky conspiracy theory.

>>
>>
>>> And his statements go against the WC wacky theories.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Which wacky theories? You mean like the videos and photos which show
>>
>> Oswald's Carcano found on the sixth floor of the TSBD?
>>
> I never said that a MC was NOT found on the 6th floor, though the
> filming was not done just as the discovery was made, but a bit later.

Wrong.

> The photog noted that he set up some clips with help from the cops. 3 men
> agreed that a Mauser was found, Craig, Weitzman and Fritz. Though

Weitzman and Fritz were men enough to admit that they were wrong. All
you have to rely on is ONE habitual liar.

> Weitzman was the only one that would definitely recognize a Mauser, it was
> stamped right on the rifle and I believe the Mauser logo was too. To have

No, it wasn't.

> a Weitzman who was familiar with rifles name the rifle in the murder of a
> president and then sign his name and swear to it on an affidavit says that
> he believed it and was being careful. We also know that various forces,
> such as the FBI were working to promote the wacky WC theories like the

Why can't the lone nut use a Mauser?

Never happened.

[Dave Reitzes]

On Saturday, August 31, 2013 1:37:51 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
> Thanks, Dave.
>
> A couple of these I didn't know about. In fact, the Contra Mundum one
> I didn't know about, in spite of the fact that it's on my own website!
>
> I wrestle with whether I should put these on my page on Craig, since
> they are rather ad hominem (unlike, for example, discussion of ways in
> which he has changed his testimony).
>
> But since the conspiracists are always touting him as a paragon of
> virtue, and asking things like "why would he lie?," I think I *will*
> put all this on my site.
>
> He was simply a disturbed fellow. And his involvemet in the
> assassination doubtless make the situation worse.

I would encourage you to use all of these statements on your website. If
you claimed that Craig's testimony were false BECAUSE of these statements,
that would indeed be ad hominem. But your website already cites both
photographic evidence (the Alyea film) and Craig's own highly
contradictory statements that discredit him (to put it politely).

The function fulfilled by his daughter, Weisberg, Ferrell, and Bradley, is
that of character witnesses. They starkly illuminate the motivation for
his behavior: he was unstable, dishonest, and irresponsible.

This is particularly relevant when readers of conspiracy books are assured
that stouted-hearted crusaders like Jim Garrison, Penn Jones, and Mark
Lane would swear on a stack of bibles that Craig was a simple, honest,
decent man who just tried to do the right thing by telling the truth about
the JFK conspiracy.

The closest members of Craig's own family think that's a joke, and two of
the most respected first-generation researchers of all strongly agreed.
History has a right to know this.

Dave

[mainframetech]

Forget the tactics. You know exactly what I meant, but I'll be happy to
spell it out. If you believe someone was part of the conspiracy and you
have something that gives you that idea, say it. LBJ looks like he was
one of, or the only head of the conspiracy. If you don't believe Roger
Craig, then say 'I don't believe Roger Craig because...'. But putting out
a note from a guy in need of cash who says nothing specific and gives no
real information, and putting out the note only to crash another person's
reputation, while ignoring facts to the contrary, just ain't nice.

It may be difficult for me to see it objectively, but it appears to me
that the CT side of the argument isn't half as nasty toward the LN side as
the reverse. That's why I related it to the Tea Party all agreeing and
jumping on Obama or some similar target.

You have never heard me say not to run down Oswald because he didn't
fire any shots at anyone in DP, which I believe. I haven't even said
anything against most of the Mark Lane debacle until recently, and then
only as an example. I don't know enough about Mark Lane to defend or
blast him. I only know of the people he puts into video interviews, which
I find interesting and sometimes very important.

With Craig, I've seen some things and heard some things and my general
take on him is that he was a victim of the system that wanted him to say
something else and he stayed with his principles. He could have easily
changed his tune on the Mauser at the same time as Weitzman, and gotten
away from it scot free. He had a wife who taught her daughter to hate her
father and she goes around the online forums and threatens anyone that
mentioned her name with legal action. I've seen people caught in an
existence with a nag and a paranoid, and I know it can be a hard life for
a straight guy.

My problem is not that some people dump on him almost automatically,
but that they don't consider the countering material and give it credence.
The blasts just become nasty and not simply statements of belief.

As a moderator(since you asked above) You might want to be the model for
behavior and not one of the folks that puts out nasty rumors and sets off
a feeding frenzy with no consideration of the countering facts.

Now let's go back to our fun in considering the over 40 people that saw
the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

That means that 2 people lied, since Weitzman also stated the rifle was
a Mauser, and since the Mauser and the MC type rifles are stamped with
identifying information. Weitzman was sure of what he said, and the
simplest way for him to give the right information (in the murder of a
president) was to simply look at the rifle and see the logo or stamp.
That way he would be sure enough to put his signature on an affidavit to
that effect and to swear to it. Did Craig just repeat what he heard
Weitzman said? Maybe. But he believed in Weitzman's abilities to know
rifles. If you check Weitzman's testimony, he really was working for a
sporting goods business for a while.

>
>
> >>> It sure is interesting that all this attack had been built up on Craig,
>
>
> >>> given that he was the one person that suffered for telling the truth and
>
> >>
>
> >>> keeping on telling it. The one witness that didn't later change his
>
> >>
>
> >>> statements or testimony to suit the WC trend, when he had gone against it.
>
>
> >> That is the hallmark of a liar. He has to keep lying.
>

Or the hallmark of a principled honest man. He has to keep telling the
truth. You seem to forget that.

> >>
>
> >> He can't just admit that he was wrong.
>

Especially if he was right.

> >>
>
> > Now you're pretending to by a psychiatrist? And attributing things to
>
> > someone with NO personal knowledge of them? Correcting you is a never
>
> > ending task.
>
> >
>
>
>
> It is a well known pattern of habitual liars?
>
> Why are you defending his lying? Because you WANT the rifle to be a
>
> Mauser to prop up some kooky conspiracy theory.
>

No, it just complicates things. But the information on Craig fits other
things. The terrible condition of the MC rifle, for instance. Remember
that Craig saw Oswald coming down the grass from the TSBD and getting into
a Nash Rambler station wagon. That was said to be a lie, yet there were
other witnesses to the same thing that didn't know Craig or what he had
said. And his description of the driver of the Nash fits with the
description of the guy that might have shot Tippit and was seen reloading
his gun.

Remember too that Craig saw Oswald being questioned in Fritz's office
and heard him say that 'now everyone will know who I am'. Where would
Craig have gotten that piece of information? Did he know more (like most
of the cops) of what was going on around town and know that Oswald was an
informant? Otherwise, how would it occur to him that Oswald was other
than what he acted like?

>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> And his statements go against the WC wacky theories.
>
>
> >> Which wacky theories? You mean like the videos and photos which show
>
> >>
>
> >> Oswald's Carcano found on the sixth floor of the TSBD?
>
> >>
>

> > I never said that an MC was NOT found on the 6th floor, though the

>
> > filming was not done just as the discovery was made, but a bit later.
>
>
>
> Wrong.
>

As is your usual one liner with no backup. Ignored.

>
>
> > The photog noted that he set up some clips with help from the cops. 3 men
>
> > agreed that a Mauser was found, Craig, Weitzman and Fritz. Though
>
>
>
> Weitzman and Fritz were men enough to admit that they were wrong. All
>
> you have to rely on is ONE habitual liar.
>

Why do you not think that truth telling is manly? The manly thing to do
is to tell the truth no matter the consequences, which is what Craig did.
Other slippery fellows told what was not necessarily the truth.

>
>
> > Weitzman was the only one that would definitely recognize a Mauser, it was
>
> > stamped right on the rifle and I believe the Mauser logo was too. To have
>
>
>
> No, it wasn't.
>

Ah. You opened your mouth again. Do you have a picture of the Mauser
so that we can verify your comment? Or was it spirited away before you
got a look at it? With no explanation or backup, I might as well ignore
the comment.

>
>
> > a Weitzman who was familiar with rifles name the rifle in the murder of a
>
> > president and then sign his name and swear to it on an affidavit says that
>
> > he believed it and was being careful. We also know that various forces,
>
> > such as the FBI were working to promote the wacky WC theories like the
>
>
>
> Why can't the lone nut use a Mauser?
>

I didn't say he couldn't. I merely said the 'lone nut' theory was
wacky. And I don't believe Oswald was on the 6th floor, and I don't
believe he shot at anyone in Dealey Plaza. It seems possible the MC rifle
was hidden earlier to be found later, and the shooter (who had a friend
with him) on the 6th floor used a Mauser because it was in better
condition than the MC rifle.

Tell all the other witnesses that. Let's see, there was Helen Forrest,
James Pennington, Marvin C. Robinson, Roy cooper and Roger Craig. So that
wasn't a lie by Craig. His statement about the Mauser was corroborated by
Weitzman, even though he changed his mind the next day. So Craig was not
as much of a liar as he is made out to be. Of course, his statements
suggest conspiracy, which we just can't allow to be voiced at all costs.

[mainframetech]

In the Education Forum the 2 lovely witnesses in Craig's family were
unveiled as paranoids who hated Craig. The mother probably taught the
daughter, who goes online anywhere her name is mentioned and threatens
them with legal action if they don't remove her name and information.
Craig on the other hand was awarded the 'cop of the year' award, and had 4
promotions in his dept. How do a bunch of cops not figure out that a guy
is a liar and unstable? No one asks these questions, which are obvious.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

They know, but they don't care. Cops are always lying.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/2/2013 12:02 PM, mainframetech wrote:

How so, if you won't even admit that it was a Carcano?

> that Craig saw Oswald coming down the grass from the TSBD and getting into
> a Nash Rambler station wagon. That was said to be a lie, yet there were
> other witnesses to the same thing that didn't know Craig or what he had

No, there weren't.

> said. And his description of the driver of the Nash fits with the
> description of the guy that might have shot Tippit and was seen reloading
> his gun.
>
> Remember too that Craig saw Oswald being questioned in Fritz's office
> and heard him say that 'now everyone will know who I am'. Where would

No, he didn't. He was not in Fritz's office.

> Craig have gotten that piece of information? Did he know more (like most
> of the cops) of what was going on around town and know that Oswald was an
> informant? Otherwise, how would it occur to him that Oswald was other
> than what he acted like?
>

Non sequitor.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/1/2013 10:56 PM, Dave Reitzes wrote:
> On Saturday, August 31, 2013 1:37:51 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>> Thanks, Dave.
>>
>> A couple of these I didn't know about. In fact, the Contra Mundum one
>> I didn't know about, in spite of the fact that it's on my own website!
>>
>> I wrestle with whether I should put these on my page on Craig, since
>> they are rather ad hominem (unlike, for example, discussion of ways in
>> which he has changed his testimony).
>>
>> But since the conspiracists are always touting him as a paragon of
>> virtue, and asking things like "why would he lie?," I think I *will*
>> put all this on my site.
>>
>> He was simply a disturbed fellow. And his involvemet in the
>> assassination doubtless make the situation worse.
>
>
> I would encourage you to use all of these statements on your website. If
> you claimed that Craig's testimony were false BECAUSE of these statements,
> that would indeed be ad hominem. But your website already cites both

Ad hominem against whom? You mean Roger Craig? That's silly. It goes to
his credibility as a witness.

> photographic evidence (the Alyea film) and Craig's own highly
> contradictory statements that discredit him (to put it politely).
>
> The function fulfilled by his daughter, Weisberg, Ferrell, and Bradley, is
> that of character witnesses. They starkly illuminate the motivation for
> his behavior: he was unstable, dishonest, and irresponsible.
>

Perfect for Cop of the Year.

> This is particularly relevant when readers of conspiracy books are assured
> that stouted-hearted crusaders like Jim Garrison, Penn Jones, and Mark
> Lane would swear on a stack of bibles that Craig was a simple, honest,
> decent man who just tried to do the right thing by telling the truth about
> the JFK conspiracy.
>

When did they ever?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/1/2013 7:51 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 1 Sep 2013 19:47:14 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, September 1, 2013 3:26:34 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 31 Aug 2013 17:00:00 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> So you allow personal attacks on people as long as they come from
>>>
>>>> another forum. And against a dead person.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tell ya' what, Tony:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why don't we moderators prohibit attacks on Allen Dulles, and Gerald
>>>
>>> Ford, and Arlen Specter, and LBJ, and Richard Helms.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can't allow people to pick on dead people, right?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Or do you only want dead people you *like* protected.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 'Attacks' on dead people or live people really aren't reasonable for us
>> to allow ourselves to sink to. It doesn't matter if the subject is alive
>> or dead, and supportive of LN or CT people. Or even neutral folks. If a
>> person tells the truth as best they know it and avoids vicious rumor, and
>> deals only in reasonable, logical or proven facts and knowledge, we're all
>> smart enough to make our own decisions as to the subject's value to the
>> case, and to the human race.
>>
>
> So we moderators should not allow anybody to say that Richard Helms
> was part of a plot to assassination Kennedy?
>

Helms was convicted of lying to Congress. I proved that he lied to
President Kennedy. Helms was in charge of assassinations at the CIA.

> Carlos Marcello gets the same protection?
>
> Nobody should be allowed to say that J. Edgar Hoover articulated a
> "cover-up?"
>

We have the proof in the recordings and documents that Hoover
articulated the cover-up ordered by LBJ.

> While we are at it, nobody should be allowed to say that Lee Harvey
> Oswald shot Kennedy?
>

I sometimes complain when you do, but you don't care.

[John McAdams]

On 2 Sep 2013 22:10:31 -0400, Anthony Marsh

<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 9/1/2013 7:51 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 1 Sep 2013 19:47:14 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, September 1, 2013 3:26:34 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>>>> On 31 Aug 2013 17:00:00 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> So you allow personal attacks on people as long as they come from
>>>>
>>>>> another forum. And against a dead person.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tell ya' what, Tony:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why don't we moderators prohibit attacks on Allen Dulles, and Gerald
>>>>
>>>> Ford, and Arlen Specter, and LBJ, and Richard Helms.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can't allow people to pick on dead people, right?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or do you only want dead people you *like* protected.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> 'Attacks' on dead people or live people really aren't reasonable for us
>>> to allow ourselves to sink to. It doesn't matter if the subject is alive
>>> or dead, and supportive of LN or CT people. Or even neutral folks. If a
>>> person tells the truth as best they know it and avoids vicious rumor, and
>>> deals only in reasonable, logical or proven facts and knowledge, we're all
>>> smart enough to make our own decisions as to the subject's value to the
>>> case, and to the human race.
>>>
>>
>> So we moderators should not allow anybody to say that Richard Helms
>> was part of a plot to assassination Kennedy?
>>
>
>Helms was convicted of lying to Congress. I proved that he lied to
>President Kennedy. Helms was in charge of assassinations at the CIA.
>

So you think it's OK to attack him.

>> Carlos Marcello gets the same protection?
>>
>> Nobody should be allowed to say that J. Edgar Hoover articulated a
>> "cover-up?"
>>
>
>We have the proof in the recordings and documents that Hoover
>articulated the cover-up ordered by LBJ.
>

No, we have no such thing.

So basically, we should allow personal attacks on people Tony Marsh
doesn't like, but prevent personal attacks on people Tony has no
particular grudge against.

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

[Bud]

Ah, it`s ok to attack *them*.

> The mother probably taught the
>
> daughter, who goes online anywhere her name is mentioned and threatens
>
> them with legal action if they don't remove her name and information.
>
> Craig on the other hand was awarded the 'cop of the year' award, and had 4
>
> promotions in his dept. How do a bunch of cops not figure out that a guy
>
> is a liar and unstable?

How does one thing preclude the other?

[Bud]

So you are saying it`s ok to call LBJ a murderer but Craig is off limits.

> It may be difficult for me to see it objectively, but it appears to me
>
> that the CT side of the argument isn't half as nasty toward the LN side as
>
> the reverse.

It`s a common misconception among conspiracy hobbyists that LN/CT are
two sides of the same coin.

> That's why I related it to the Tea Party all agreeing and
>
> jumping on Obama or some similar target.
>
>
>
> You have never heard me say not to run down Oswald because he didn't
>
> fire any shots at anyone in DP, which I believe. I haven't even said
>
> anything against most of the Mark Lane debacle until recently, and then
>
> only as an example. I don't know enough about Mark Lane to defend or
>
> blast him. I only know of the people he puts into video interviews, which
>
> I find interesting and sometimes very important.
>
>
>
> With Craig, I've seen some things and heard some things and my general
>
> take on him is that he was a victim of the system that wanted him to say
>
> something else and he stayed with his principles. He could have easily
>
> changed his tune on the Mauser at the same time as Weitzman, and gotten
>
> away from it scot free. He had a wife who taught her daughter to hate her
>
> father and she goes around the online forums and threatens anyone that
>
> mentioned her name with legal action. I've seen people caught in an
>
> existence with a nag and a paranoid, and I know it can be a hard life for
>
> a straight guy.

How do you know their assessment of Craig isn`t accurate? They lived
with him, you only know him by what he related. He said some things you
were eager to hear, so you think he is great, he helps justify beliefs you
are desperate to believe.

> My problem is not that some people dump on him almost automatically,
>
> but that they don't consider the countering material and give it credence.
>

What about the information that counters what Craig related every step
of the way? Film of a Carcano being found. A witness who knew Oswald and
saw him board a bus, and the transfer found in his pocket when he was
arrested. The cab driver who said he gave Oswald a ride. You`ll have no
problem denigrating this information because it goes against what you want
so desperately to believe.

> The blasts just become nasty and not simply statements of belief.
>
>
>
> As a moderator(since you asked above) You might want to be the model for
>
> behavior and not one of the folks that puts out nasty rumors and sets off
>
> a feeding frenzy with no consideration of the countering facts.

You just said that LBJ was behind Kennedy`s murder. What is that if not
a nasty rumor?

[Dave Reitzes]

On Sunday, September 1, 2013 10:56:51 PM UTC-4, Dave Reitzes wrote:

> I would encourage you to use all of these statements on your website. If
> you claimed that Craig's testimony were false BECAUSE of these statements,
> that would indeed be ad hominem. But your website already cites both
> photographic evidence (the Alyea film) and Craig's own highly
> contradictory statements that discredit him (to put it politely).
>
> The function fulfilled by his daughter, Weisberg, Ferrell, and Bradley, is
> that of character witnesses. They starkly illuminate the motivation for
> his behavior: he was unstable, dishonest, and irresponsible.
>
> This is particularly relevant when readers of conspiracy books are assured
> that stouted-hearted crusaders like Jim Garrison, Penn Jones, and Mark
> Lane would swear on a stack of bibles that Craig was a simple, honest,
> decent man who just tried to do the right thing by telling the truth about
> the JFK conspiracy.

Jones would have sworn on a stack of bibles and meant it. Garrison would
have sworn on a stack of bibles and lied. Lane would dismissively wave
away the bibles and say, "This man's obvious integrity and decency surely
require no affirmations on my part."

[mainframetech]

Correction. Cops don't always lie. Keep this for the future.
Otherwise when Weitzman said he made a mistake when he saw a Mauser rifle,
he was lying and he really DID see a Mauser rifle.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, he is a historical figure. I also think it's ok for you to attack
Hitler.

>>> Carlos Marcello gets the same protection?
>>>
>>> Nobody should be allowed to say that J. Edgar Hoover articulated a
>>> "cover-up?"
>>>
>>
>> We have the proof in the recordings and documents that Hoover
>> articulated the cover-up ordered by LBJ.
>>
>
> No, we have no such thing.
>

I uploaded them. You didn't read them.

> So basically, we should allow personal attacks on people Tony Marsh
> doesn't like, but prevent personal attacks on people Tony has no
> particular grudge against.
>

Silly.

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

[mainframetech]

On Monday, September 2, 2013 10:03:28 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/1/2013 10:56 PM, Dave Reitzes wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, August 31, 2013 1:37:51 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>
> >> Thanks, Dave.
>
> >>
>
> >> A couple of these I didn't know about. In fact, the Contra Mundum one
>
> >> I didn't know about, in spite of the fact that it's on my own website!
>
> >>
>
> >> I wrestle with whether I should put these on my page on Craig, since
>
> >> they are rather ad hominem (unlike, for example, discussion of ways in
>
> >> which he has changed his testimony).
>
> >>
>
> >> But since the conspiracists are always touting him as a paragon of
>
> >> virtue, and asking things like "why would he lie?," I think I *will*
>
> >> put all this on my site.
>
> >>
>
> >> He was simply a disturbed fellow. And his involvemet in the
>
> >> assassination doubtless make the situation worse.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I would encourage you to use all of these statements on your website. If
>
> > you claimed that Craig's testimony were false BECAUSE of these statements,
>
> > that would indeed be ad hominem. But your website already cites both
>
>
>
> Ad hominem against whom? You mean Roger Craig? That's silly. It goes to
>
> his credibility as a witness.
>
>
>
> > photographic evidence (the Alyea film) and Craig's own highly
>
> > contradictory statements that discredit him (to put it politely).
>
> >
>
> > The function fulfilled by his daughter, Weisberg, Ferrell, and Bradley, is
>
> > that of character witnesses. They starkly illuminate the motivation for
>
> > his behavior: he was unstable, dishonest, and irresponsible.
>
> >

Of course, no one questions the mental competence of the mother and
daughter, especially the daughter that goes online and threatens anyone
that uses her name with legal action. They've been accused of being
highly paranoid, and certainly haters of Roger Craig. But the family
problems make a nice way to attempt to discredit Craig, who has been shown
to be honest in at least a few of his statements, such as the Nash
Rambler, to which there were 5 other witnesses, making him honest in that
part of the case. Same for his Mauser statement.

>
>
>
> Perfect for Cop of the Year.
>

You're right. I agree.

>
>
> > This is particularly relevant when readers of conspiracy books are assured
>
> > that stouted-hearted crusaders like Jim Garrison, Penn Jones, and Mark
>
> > Lane would swear on a stack of bibles that Craig was a simple, honest,
>
> > decent man who just tried to do the right thing by telling the truth about
>
> > the JFK conspiracy.
>
> >
>
>
>
> When did they ever?
>
>
>
> > The closest members of Craig's own family think that's a joke, and two of
>
> > the most respected first-generation researchers of all strongly agreed.
>
> > History has a right to know this.
>

Well, we know about THEM.
> >
>
> > Dave
>
> >

[mainframetech]

Nope. Won't do. We need to stop attacking anyone. If we disagree with
someone or think less of them for their honesty or their cover ups of
evidence or whatever, 'attack' isn't the right word. There are plenty of
ways to state our problem with certain individuals without 'attacking'
them. It only brings out attacks on the original attacker in time, and
makes a mess out of a forum with everyone taking sides and soon it can be
chaos. Not your thinking person's environment. The moderators have the
responsibility to stop it from becoming a feeding frenzy with no limit.
Maybe the word here is 'decorum', which displays self-control and
intelligence.

Chris

[lone gunman]

On Saturday, August 31, 2013 3:19:40 AM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote:
> From the Deep Politics Forum:
>
>
>
> http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%20Disk/Assassination%20Inquiry%20Committee%20Newsletter/Item%2016.pdf
>
>
>

> “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 finelooking, 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.”

>
>
>
> Mainframe: are you paying attention?
>
>
>
> .John
>
> --------------
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

I think a few of the things he mentioned may have happened. There is some
truth in what he said.

[Bud]

It doesn`t seem unstable to me to want to keep your name out of the
mouths of crackpots. And of course you are slinging mud at them because
you don`t like their message. You like Craig`s message, so you think he is
great.

> They've been accused of being
>
> highly paranoid,

What were you saying about spreading rumors? I guess innuendo is fine
when it is directed at "bad" people.

And it seems alright to call Weisberg a liar also. And many of the
Dallas police. And then the conspiracy hobbyists bring up Craig`s record,
like a lot of commendations would stop them from attacking a cop who gave
evidence they didn`t like. You don`t think any of these other cops, like
Fritz, Day and Weisberg don`t have commendations on their records?

Heres a guy with a lot of awards and decorations...

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

> and certainly haters of Roger Craig.

How do you know they weren`t just being truthful about what the man was
really like?

> But the family
>
> problems make a nice way to attempt to discredit Craig, who has been shown
> to be honest in at least a few of his statements, such as the Nash
> Rambler, to which there were 5 other witnesses,

Name the five witnesses and provide the details. Many of these so-called
"corroborating" witnesses actually give contrary information.

> making him honest in that
> part of the case. Same for his Mauser statement.

The media filmed the finding of the rifle. It wasn`t a Mauser.

[mainframetech]

Indeed yes. He was corroborated by other witnesses when he said he saw
a Nash Rambler station wagon pick up Oswald and drive off on Elm Street.

When he said that he and Weitzman saw the name 'Mauser' on a rifle on
the 6th floor, Weitzman corroborated his statement. Weitzman went to the
point of swearing out an affidavit and signing his name to it, knowing it
was a presidential murder and would be scrutinized closely. To be that
sure, he must have looked at a Mauser rifle, whatever happened to it. It
appeared to be an MC rifle that was being held up by one of the cops in a
picture of the 6th floor, but those were set up by the photographer.

So all the nasty comments about Craig were not completely true. As
well, he said he saw Oswald in Fritz's office and he said "Now everyone
will know who I am". A statement made by an informant. That couldn't be
allowed to get out. It would make Oswald innocent more than likely
working for authorities. It had to be expunged. How would Craig know
anything about Oswald's probable history with the authorities? So his
statement was right on, if Oswald said the words.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Helen Forrest, James Pennington, Marvin C. Robinson, Roy Cooper. Most
agree with Craig, some only saw the vehicle. Either way, Craig was backed
up.

>
>
> > making him honest in that
>
> > part of the case. Same for his Mauser statement.
>
>
>
> The media filmed the finding of the rifle. It wasn`t a Mauser.
>

The photographer said he set up some of the shots, but I saw the MC
rifle being held up by a cop at one point.

[Anthony Marsh]

In other words you can't back up what you said.

>>
>>
>>> making him honest in that
>>
>>> part of the case. Same for his Mauser statement.
>>
>>
>>
>> The media filmed the finding of the rifle. It wasn`t a Mauser.
>>
>
> The photographer said he set up some of the shots, but I saw the MC
> rifle being held up by a cop at one point.
>

Who? Alyea never said that about finding the rifle.
You are making up crap again.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/3/2013 8:04 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 3:53:45 PM UTC-4, lone gunman wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 31, 2013 3:19:40 AM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote:
>>
>>> From the Deep Politics Forum:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%20Disk/Assassination%20Inquiry%20Committee%20Newsletter/Item%2016.pdf
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>

>>> �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 finelooking, 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.�

>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Mainframe: are you paying attention?
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> .John
>>
>>>
>>
>>> --------------
>>
>>>
>>
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> I think a few of the things he mentioned may have happened. There is some
>>
>> truth in what he said.
>
>
> Indeed yes. He was corroborated by other witnesses when he said he saw
> a Nash Rambler station wagon pick up Oswald and drive off on Elm Street.
>
> When he said that he and Weitzman saw the name 'Mauser' on a rifle on

Were did Roger Craig claim that Weitzman said he saw the name Mauser on
THE rifle? You are making up crap again.

> the 6th floor, Weitzman corroborated his statement. Weitzman went to the
> point of swearing out an affidavit and signing his name to it, knowing it
> was a presidential murder and would be scrutinized closely. To be that
> sure, he must have looked at a Mauser rifle, whatever happened to it. It
> appeared to be an MC rifle that was being held up by one of the cops in a
> picture of the 6th floor, but those were set up by the photographer.
>

Nonsense.

[Bud]

Not really.

> When he said that he and Weitzman saw the name 'Mauser' on a rifle on
>
> the 6th floor, Weitzman corroborated his statement. Weitzman went to the
>
> point of swearing out an affidavit and signing his name to it, knowing it
>
> was a presidential murder and would be scrutinized closely.

If he thought it was a Mauser why wouldn`t he swear to it? That doesn`t
preclude him from being mistaken.

> To be that
>
> sure, he must have looked at a Mauser rifle, whatever happened to it.

It was filmed by the media. It wasn`t a Mauser.

> It
>
> appeared to be an MC rifle that was being held up by one of the cops in a
>
> picture of the 6th floor, but those were set up by the photographer.

It was filmed by Alyea.

> So all the nasty comments about Craig were not completely true.

You are showing you don`t like them, you aren`t showing they aren`t true.

> As
>
> well, he said he saw Oswald in Fritz's office and he said "Now everyone
>
> will know who I am".

<snicker> The conspiracy hobbyists usually are skeptical of what the
cops said that Oswald told them in the interrogations.

> A statement made by an informant.

Sounds like an assassin seeking recognition.

> That couldn't be
>
> allowed to get out.

Yet here you are quoting it.

> It would make Oswald innocent more than likely
>
> working for authorities. It had to be expunged. How would Craig know
>
> anything about Oswald's probable history with the authorities? So his
>
> statement was right on, if Oswald said the words.

Still grasping at straw.

>
>
> Chris

[Bud]

Hmm, don`t see any of these people on the list of known Dealey Plaza
witnesses on the Mary Ferrel site.

http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/index.htm

> Either way, Craig was backed
>
> up.

Can`t expect you to scrutinize information too closely that you like the
sound of.

>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > making him honest in that
>
> >
>
> > > part of the case. Same for his Mauser statement.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The media filmed the finding of the rifle. It wasn`t a Mauser.
>
> >
>
>
>
> The photographer said he set up some of the shots, but I saw the MC
>
> rifle being held up by a cop at one point.

It was filmed by the media, not photographed.

[mainframetech]

Sad. It would appear you can't read. See above and get a second chance
at it.

>
>
> >>> making him honest in that
>
> >>
>
> >>> part of the case. Same for his Mauser statement.
>
>
> >> The media filmed the finding of the rifle. It wasn`t a Mauser.
>
>
> > The photographer said he set up some of the shots, but I saw the MC
>
> > rifle being held up by a cop at one point.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Who? Alyea never said that about finding the rifle.
>
> You are making up crap again.
>
>

Nope. You're foolishly reading what you want and not what was written.
The photographer said he had set up some of the shots using cops to do it.
I also said *I* saw the MC rifle being held up by a cop. The crap you
hear is coming from your head, not my words. Go look above. As to
whether the 'Mauser' was found first or somehow was found at some point,
we don't know. The evidence is very strong that there was a Mauser at
some point that was later removed. There definitely was an MC rifle
there, and I suspect it was supposed to be found.

When the shooter shoved a rifle out the window 14-15 inches, it was
more to be seen by the crowd than to get a better shot. The crowd had to
point out the location of the shooter and when they would check, Oswald
would be found, and the circumstances would be such that someone would
have to shoot him and it would all be over. However, Oswald was smart
enough to figure out that he was the patsy and he got out of there before
they could do him in.

[Anthony Marsh]

Stop the nonsense. There was only one rifle found. It was filmed by
Alyea. That was not staged. It was not days later. It was Oswald's Carcano.

> When the shooter shoved a rifle out the window 14-15 inches, it was

No one shoved a rifle out the window.
The shots were taken from well inside the window.

> more to be seen by the crowd than to get a better shot. The crowd had to
> point out the location of the shooter and when they would check, Oswald
> would be found, and the circumstances would be such that someone would
> have to shoot him and it would all be over. However, Oswald was smart
> enough to figure out that he was the patsy and he got out of there before
> they could do him in.
>

Why? Most people ran to the grassy knoll, not the TSBD.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Saturday, August 31, 2013 11:58:01 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, August 31, 2013 3:08:15 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> > On 8/31/2013 1:47 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >
>

> > > On Friday, August 30, 2013 10:19:40 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >> From the Deep Politics Forum:
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%20Disk/Assassination%20Inquiry%20Committee%20Newsletter/Item%2016.pdf
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>

> > >> ?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 finelooking, 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.?

>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> Mainframe: are you paying attention?
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> .John
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> --------------
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>

> > > It sure is interesting that all this attack had been built up on Craig,
>
> >
>
> > > given that he was the one person that suffered for telling the truth and
>
> >
>
> > > keeping on telling it. The one witness that didn't later change his
>
> >
>
> > > statements or testimony to suit the WC trend, when he had gone against it.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > That is the hallmark of a liar. He has to keep lying.
>
> >
>

> > He can't just admit that he was wrong.
>
> >
>

> Now you're pretending to by a psychiatrist? And attributing things to
>
> someone with NO personal knowledge of them? Correcting you is a never
>
> ending task.
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>

> > > And his statements go against the WC wacky theories.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Which wacky theories? You mean like the videos and photos which show
>
> >
>
> > Oswald's Carcano found on the sixth floor of the TSBD?
>
> >
>

> I never said that a MC was NOT found on the 6th floor, though the

>
> filming was not done just as the discovery was made, but a bit later.
>

> The photog noted that he set up some clips with help from the cops. 3 men
>
> agreed that a Mauser was found, Craig, Weitzman and Fritz. Though
>

> Weitzman was the only one that would definitely recognize a Mauser, it was
>
> stamped right on the rifle and I believe the Mauser logo was too. To have
>

> a Weitzman who was familiar with rifles name the rifle in the murder of a
>
> president and then sign his name and swear to it on an affidavit says that
>
> he believed it and was being careful. We also know that various forces,
>
> such as the FBI were working to promote the wacky WC theories like the
>

Unless the person wasn't Oswald.

And it was most likely Robert MacNeil of the MacNeil - Lehrer News Hour.

In his book, The Right Place at The Right Time, he describes how he
entered the TSBD shortly after the shooting, stopped a person and asked
for the nearest phone, and then called a quick story of the shooting in to
his news desk. He then rushed out of the TSBD and flagged down a car and
hitched a ride to Parkland. Tell me which part of that disagrees with what
Craig said he saw - except for Craig believing it was Oswald. Assuming
Craig was correct about that simply begs the question of what Craig
saw.

(ironically, MacNeil believes he may have stopped Oswald and asked him
where the nearest phone was).

http://www.amazon.com/The-Right-Place-Time/dp/0316542903

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Monday, September 2, 2013 11:57:25 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:

> On Sunday, September 1, 2013 7:51:02 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>
> > On 1 Sep 2013 19:47:14 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>
> >
>
> > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >On Sunday, September 1, 2013 3:26:34 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >> On 31 Aug 2013 17:00:00 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> >
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> >So you allow personal attacks on people as long as they come from
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> >another forum. And against a dead person.
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> Tell ya' what, Tony:
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> Why don't we moderators prohibit attacks on Allen Dulles, and Gerald
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> Ford, and Arlen Specter, and LBJ, and Richard Helms.
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> Can't allow people to pick on dead people, right?
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> Or do you only want dead people you *like* protected.
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 'Attacks' on dead people or live people really aren't reasonable for us
>
> >
>
> > >to allow ourselves to sink to. It doesn't matter if the subject is alive
>
> >
>
> > >or dead, and supportive of LN or CT people. Or even neutral folks. If a
>
> >
>
> > >person tells the truth as best they know it and avoids vicious rumor, and
>
> >
>
> > >deals only in reasonable, logical or proven facts and knowledge, we're all
>
> >
>
> > >smart enough to make our own decisions as to the subject's value to the
>
> >
>
> > >case, and to the human race.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > So we moderators should not allow anybody to say that Richard Helms
>
> >
>
> > was part of a plot to assassination Kennedy?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>

> > Carlos Marcello gets the same protection?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Nobody should be allowed to say that J. Edgar Hoover articulated a
>
> >
>
> > "cover-up?"
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>

> > While we are at it, nobody should be allowed to say that Lee Harvey
>
> >
>
> > Oswald shot Kennedy?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Do you really mean this, Mainframe, or could it be that you just don't
>
> >
>
> > want your favorite teller of tall tales to be criticized?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > .John
>
> >
>
> > --------------
>
> >
>
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>
>
> Forget the tactics. You know exactly what I meant, but I'll be happy to
>
> spell it out. If you believe someone was part of the conspiracy and you
>
> have something that gives you that idea, say it.

Ah, so claiming someone participated in a conspiracy is ok.

> LBJ looks like he was
>
> one of, or the only head of the conspiracy. If you don't believe Roger
>
> Craig, then say 'I don't believe Roger Craig because...'. But putting out
>
> a note from a guy in need of cash who says nothing specific and gives no
>
> real information, and putting out the note only to crash another person's
>
> reputation, while ignoring facts to the contrary, just ain't nice.
>
>

The guy in question is Harold Weisberg. One of the original JFK
researchers. He knew Roger Craig. So did Mary Ferrell. Did you read what
she wrote about him?

>
> It may be difficult for me to see it objectively, but it appears to me
>
> that the CT side of the argument isn't half as nasty toward the LN side as
>

> the reverse. That's why I related it to the Tea Party all agreeing and

>
> jumping on Obama or some similar target.

Yeah, because calling someone a liar is way worse than saying they
committed treason and participated in a conspiracy to assassinate the
president.

>
>
>
> You have never heard me say not to run down Oswald because he didn't
>
> fire any shots at anyone in DP, which I believe. I haven't even said
>
> anything against most of the Mark Lane debacle until recently, and then
>
> only as an example. I don't know enough about Mark Lane to defend or
>
> blast him. I only know of the people he puts into video interviews, which
>
> I find interesting and sometimes very important.
>
>
>
> With Craig, I've seen some things and heard some things and my general
>
> take on him is that he was a victim of the system that wanted him to say
>
> something else and he stayed with his principles.

Except his story changed a number of times. Which is documented.

> He could have easily
>
> changed his tune on the Mauser at the same time as Weitzman, and gotten
>
> away from it scot free. He had a wife who taught her daughter to hate her
>
> father and she goes around the online forums and threatens anyone that
>

> mentioned her name with legal action.

Wait, a few days ago that was, "maybe the wife taught her daughter to hate
him (or words to that effect). Now it's a fact?

> I've seen people caught in an
>
> existence with a nag and a paranoid, and I know it can be a hard life for
>
> a straight guy.
>

Not to mention a gay man (you appear to be assuming that only straight men
can be in relationships with nags or paranoid people).

>
>
> My problem is not that some people dump on him almost automatically,
>
> but that they don't consider the countering material and give it credence.
>

> The blasts just become nasty and not simply statements of belief.

The evidence is ample that Craig lied repeatedly about the assassination.

>
>
>
> As a moderator(since you asked above) You might want to be the model for
>
> behavior and not one of the folks that puts out nasty rumors and sets off
>
> a feeding frenzy with no consideration of the countering facts.
>
>
>

> Now let's go back to our fun in considering the over 40 people that saw
>
> the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK...:)
>
>
>
> Chris

You want to see the master of that argument?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=222556

Hank

[Anthony Marsh]

Filmed and photographed. Photographed by the DPD. Filmed by the media. The
generic term photographer also refers to Alyea shooting 16 mm film.

[Anthony Marsh]

Was Robin a track star? The timing doesn't work unless he could run a
minute mile. We can see him up near the overpass very shortly after the
shooting. Was that before or after going into the TSBD? And is he dressed
like Oswald? Did he have a hole in his shirt at the elbow? Why would he
need a ride to Parkland? You think he could run there in two minutes.

[mainframetech]

Some of the witnesses described him and recognized him from photos and
TV.

>
>
> And it was most likely Robert MacNeil of the MacNeil - Lehrer News Hour.
>
>
>
> In his book, The Right Place at The Right Time, he describes how he
>
> entered the TSBD shortly after the shooting, stopped a person and asked
>
> for the nearest phone, and then called a quick story of the shooting in to
>
> his news desk. He then rushed out of the TSBD and flagged down a car and
>
> hitched a ride to Parkland. Tell me which part of that disagrees with what
>
> Craig said he saw - except for Craig believing it was Oswald. Assuming
>
> Craig was correct about that simply begs the question of what Craig
>
> saw.
>

Craig didn't know who he saw at first. It was later when he saw Oswald
in Fritz's office that he realized who he saw getting into the car.
MacNeil wasn't who was seen by Craig. Craig was outside when he saw
Oswald run down to the car. MacNeil was tall and had long straight hair
and always wore a suit as far as I know. If MacNeil saw Oswald inside he
was on his way outside and the timing doesn't work. Oswald would have kept
on going past MacNeil while he was on the phone.

[mainframetech]

The daughter put herself online and made comments about her father, then
complained when she got responses she didn't like and demanded they be
removed. She wasn't vetted by a group of cops, Craig was.

You seem to have missed the part where I said I saw the MC rifle being
held up by a cop. I looked at the rifle closely and saw that it was NOT a
Mauser, and it appeared to be a MC type. BUT, Weitzman's sworn affidavit
and sureness in the crime of the century worries me that he actually saw a
Mauser (since they're all stamped right on the receiver, hard to miss, as
was the MC rifle). It has no bearing on whether Oswald fired anything at
anyone from the 6th floor that day, but it's a piece of evidence that is
odd and my urge is to check it out and not throw it away just because it
doesn't readily fit.

>
>
> > When the shooter shoved a rifle out the window 14-15 inches, it was
>
>
>
> No one shoved a rifle out the window.
>
> The shots were taken from well inside the window.
>

WRONG once again. Where do you get this stuff? Are you sure you know
anything at all about this case? Amos Euins said he saw 14-15 inches of
the barrel of a rifle sticking out the 6th floor window at the SN, and he
also was tested on whether he knew what the barrel and the stock were.
He saw a barrel, or a long black tube 14-15 inches long. Check his
testimony before going off half cocked again.

>
>
> > more to be seen by the crowd than to get a better shot. The crowd had to
>
> > point out the location of the shooter and when they would check, Oswald
>
> > would be found, and the circumstances would be such that someone would
>
> > have to shoot him and it would all be over. However, Oswald was smart
>
> > enough to figure out that he was the patsy and he got out of there before
>
> > they could do him in.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Why? Most people ran to the grassy knoll, not the TSBD.
>

Tell that to McAdams, since he ran an informal study using his students
and they came up with 30 something percent that thought they heard a shot
from the GK. Of course, he also corrected some of the counts himself.

>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> Perfect for Cop of the Year.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> You're right. I agree.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> This is particularly relevant when readers of conspiracy books are assured
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> that stouted-hearted crusaders like Jim Garrison, Penn Jones, and Mark
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> Lane would swear on a stack of bibles that Craig was a simple, honest,
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> decent man who just tried to do the right thing by telling the truth about
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> the JFK conspiracy.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> When did they ever?
>
>
> >>>>>>> The closest members of Craig's own family think that's a joke, and two of
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> the most respected first-generation researchers of all strongly agreed.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> History has a right to know this.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>

> >>>>> Well, we know about THEM. History needs truth, not rumor.
>
Chris
> >>
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> Dave
>
> >

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't care what Euins said. He was a bad witness. It never happened.

[mainframetech]

Don't you feel foolish saying such stuff? Euins wasn't the only person
that saw a rifle out the window that day. So Euins has corroboration.
Howard Brennan testified that he saw the rifle sticking out the window,
and he saw 70 t-85 percent of it. He stated that he did NOT see a scope.
Robert Jackson saw a foot of the barrel and 10 inches of the stock.
Malcolm Couch saw a foot of barrel. James Worrell saw 4 inches of the
barrel of the rifle and 2 inches of the stock.

Now that's 4 more people that saw a rifle in the window. Doesn't it
bother you to have to be corrected all the time from all these mistakes
you make? Studying this case may help alleviate these problems.

[Anthony Marsh]

No. In the first place he said it was a pipe.
In the second place no one else said he saw a rifle sticking out of the
window. So there is no corroboration.

> Howard Brennan testified that he saw the rifle sticking out the window,
> and he saw 70 t-85 percent of it. He stated that he did NOT see a scope.
> Robert Jackson saw a foot of the barrel and 10 inches of the stock.
> Malcolm Couch saw a foot of barrel. James Worrell saw 4 inches of the
> barrel of the rifle and 2 inches of the stock.
>
> Now that's 4 more people that saw a rifle in the window. Doesn't it
> bother you to have to be corrected all the time from all these mistakes
> you make? Studying this case may help alleviate these problems.
>

Seeing a rifle IN the window is not the same thing as seeing a rifle
sticking out of the window.

[mainframetech]

Yes, that's what it looked like, no stock seen on it, just a long pipe
looking thing. Later in his testimony he made it clear that he knew it
was a rifle after the second shot was fired, and he had experience
shooting rifles while in the ROTC.

> In the second place no one else said he saw a rifle sticking out of the
>
> window. So there is no corroboration.
>
>
>
> > Howard Brennan testified that he saw the rifle sticking out the window,
>
> > and he saw 70 t-85 percent of it. He stated that he did NOT see a scope.
>
> > Robert Jackson saw a foot of the barrel and 10 inches of the stock.
>
> > Malcolm Couch saw a foot of barrel. James Worrell saw 4 inches of the
>
> > barrel of the rifle and 2 inches of the stock.
>
> >
>

> > Now that's 4 more people that saw a rifle sticking out the window. Doesn't it

>
> > bother you to have to be corrected all the time from all these mistakes
>
> > you make? Studying this case may help alleviate these problems.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Seeing a rifle IN the window is not the same thing as seeing a rifle
>
> sticking out of the window.
>

You know exactly what their seeing the rifle meant. And none of them used the phrase you're trying to insert here of "in the window".

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

Yes, stuffed was staged.

http://jfkresearch.freehomepage.com/snipersnest.htm

There's one shot where I have seen a close-up of Day's watch and it was
almost 2:00 for the M-C. That means they came back and photoed that
scene.

ATF Ellsworth stated the M-C was brought up from a lower floor, and it
didn't match the rifle barrel seen out the window, nor is it 'Oswald's
Rifle'. Never ordered, never picked up.

CJ

[lone gunman]

On Monday, September 2, 2013 2:50:34 AM UTC+1, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> He lied when he said that rifle was stamped MAUSER.

>
>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> It sure is interesting that all this attack had been built up on Craig,
>
> >>
>
> >>> given that he was the one person that suffered for telling the truth and
>
> >>
>
> >>> keeping on telling it. The one witness that didn't later change his
>
> >>
>
> >>> statements or testimony to suit the WC trend, when he had gone against it.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> That is the hallmark of a liar. He has to keep lying.
>
> >>
>
> >> He can't just admit that he was wrong.
>
> >>
>
> > Now you're pretending to by a psychiatrist? And attributing things to
>
> > someone with NO personal knowledge of them? Correcting you is a never
>
> > ending task.
>
> >
>
>
>

> It is a well known pattern of habitual liars?
>
> Why are you defending his lying? Because you WANT the rifle to be a
>
> Mauser to prop up some kooky conspiracy theory.

>
>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> And his statements go against the WC wacky theories.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Which wacky theories? You mean like the videos and photos which show
>
> >>
>
> >> Oswald's Carcano found on the sixth floor of the TSBD?
>
> >>
>
> > I never said that a MC was NOT found on the 6th floor, though the
>
> > filming was not done just as the discovery was made, but a bit later.
>
>
>

> Wrong.

>
>
>
> > The photog noted that he set up some clips with help from the cops. 3 men
>
> > agreed that a Mauser was found, Craig, Weitzman and Fritz. Though
>
>
>

> Weitzman and Fritz were men enough to admit that they were wrong. All
>
> you have to rely on is ONE habitual liar.

>
>
>
> > Weitzman was the only one that would definitely recognize a Mauser, it was
>
> > stamped right on the rifle and I believe the Mauser logo was too. To have
>
>
>

> No, it wasn't.

>
>
>
> > a Weitzman who was familiar with rifles name the rifle in the murder of a
>
> > president and then sign his name and swear to it on an affidavit says that
>
> > he believed it and was being careful. We also know that various forces,
>
> > such as the FBI were working to promote the wacky WC theories like the
>
>
>

> Why can't the lone nut use a Mauser?

> Never happened.

>
>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> The attacks seems to echo the style used by the Tea Party people
>
> >>
>
> >>> speaking about Barrack Obama.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> > Chris
>
> >

I think he changed his story over the years to make it sound better and
because nobody was taking him seriously.

[lone gunman]

On Monday, September 2, 2013 11:08:16 PM UTC+1, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/2/2013 12:02 PM, mainframetech wrote:

> > That means that 2 people lied, since Weitzman also stated the rifle was
>
> > a Mauser, and since the Mauser and the MC type rifles are stamped with
>
> > identifying information. Weitzman was sure of what he said, and the
>
> > simplest way for him to give the right information (in the murder of a
>
> > president) was to simply look at the rifle and see the logo or stamp.
>
> > That way he would be sure enough to put his signature on an affidavit to
>
> > that effect and to swear to it. Did Craig just repeat what he heard
>
> > Weitzman said? Maybe. But he believed in Weitzman's abilities to know
>
> > rifles. If you check Weitzman's testimony, he really was working for a
>
> > sporting goods business for a while.

>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> It sure is interesting that all this attack had been built up on Craig,
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> given that he was the one person that suffered for telling the truth and
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> keeping on telling it. The one witness that didn't later change his
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> statements or testimony to suit the WC trend, when he had gone against it.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> That is the hallmark of a liar. He has to keep lying.
>
> >>
>

> > Or the hallmark of a principled honest man. He has to keep telling the
>
> > truth. You seem to forget that.

>
> >
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> He can't just admit that he was wrong.
>
> >>
>
> >
>

> > Especially if he was right.

>
> >
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Now you're pretending to by a psychiatrist? And attributing things to
>
> >>
>
> >>> someone with NO personal knowledge of them? Correcting you is a never
>
> >>
>
> >>> ending task.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> It is a well known pattern of habitual liars?
>
> >>
>
> >> Why are you defending his lying? Because you WANT the rifle to be a
>
> >>
>
> >> Mauser to prop up some kooky conspiracy theory.
>
> >>
>

> > No, it just complicates things. But the information on Craig fits other
>
> > things. The terrible condition of the MC rifle, for instance. Remember
>
>
>
> How so, if you won't even admit that it was a Carcano?
>
>
>
> > that Craig saw Oswald coming down the grass from the TSBD and getting into
>
> > a Nash Rambler station wagon. That was said to be a lie, yet there were
>
> > other witnesses to the same thing that didn't know Craig or what he had
>
>
>
> No, there weren't.
>
>
>
> > said. And his description of the driver of the Nash fits with the
>
> > description of the guy that might have shot Tippit and was seen reloading
>
> > his gun.
>
> >
>
> > Remember too that Craig saw Oswald being questioned in Fritz's office
>
> > and heard him say that 'now everyone will know who I am'. Where would
>
>
>
> No, he didn't. He was not in Fritz's office.
>
>
>
> > Craig have gotten that piece of information? Did he know more (like most
>
> > of the cops) of what was going on around town and know that Oswald was an
>
> > informant? Otherwise, how would it occur to him that Oswald was other
>
> > than what he acted like?
>
> >
>
>
>
> Non sequitor.

>
>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> And his statements go against the WC wacky theories.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Which wacky theories? You mean like the videos and photos which show
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Oswald's Carcano found on the sixth floor of the TSBD?
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>

> >>> I never said that an MC was NOT found on the 6th floor, though the

>
> >>
>
> >>> filming was not done just as the discovery was made, but a bit later.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Wrong.
>
> >>
>

> > As is your usual one liner with no backup. Ignored.

>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> The photog noted that he set up some clips with help from the cops. 3 men
>
> >>
>
> >>> agreed that a Mauser was found, Craig, Weitzman and Fritz. Though
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Weitzman and Fritz were men enough to admit that they were wrong. All
>
> >>
>
> >> you have to rely on is ONE habitual liar.
>
> >>
>

> > Why do you not think that truth telling is manly? The manly thing to do
>
> > is to tell the truth no matter the consequences, which is what Craig did.
>
> > Other slippery fellows told what was not necessarily the truth.

>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Weitzman was the only one that would definitely recognize a Mauser, it was
>
> >>
>
> >>> stamped right on the rifle and I believe the Mauser logo was too. To have
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> No, it wasn't.
>
> >>
>

> > Ah. You opened your mouth again. Do you have a picture of the Mauser
>
> > so that we can verify your comment? Or was it spirited away before you
>
> > got a look at it? With no explanation or backup, I might as well ignore
>
> > the comment.

>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> a Weitzman who was familiar with rifles name the rifle in the murder of a
>
> >>
>
> >>> president and then sign his name and swear to it on an affidavit says that
>
> >>
>
> >>> he believed it and was being careful. We also know that various forces,
>
> >>
>
> >>> such as the FBI were working to promote the wacky WC theories like the
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Why can't the lone nut use a Mauser?
>
> >>
>

> > I didn't say he couldn't. I merely said the 'lone nut' theory was
>
> > wacky. And I don't believe Oswald was on the 6th floor, and I don't
>
> > believe he shot at anyone in Dealey Plaza. It seems possible the MC rifle
>
> > was hidden earlier to be found later, and the shooter (who had a friend
>
> > with him) on the 6th floor used a Mauser because it was in better
>
> > condition than the MC rifle.

> > Tell all the other witnesses that. Let's see, there was Helen Forrest,
>
> > James Pennington, Marvin C. Robinson, Roy cooper and Roger Craig. So that
>
> > wasn't a lie by Craig. His statement about the Mauser was corroborated by
>
> > Weitzman, even though he changed his mind the next day. So Craig was not
>
> > as much of a liar as he is made out to be. Of course, his statements
>
> > suggest conspiracy, which we just can't allow to be voiced at all costs.

>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> The attacks seems to echo the style used by the Tea Party people
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> speaking about Barrack Obama.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> > Chris
>
> >
>
> >

Craig probably turned up at the police station only to find his
information (about the Nash Rambler) was not taken seriously. Over the
years he become bitter and his version of events changed.

The Mauser story was a genuine mistake at the time. Over the years he
probably convinced himself he was right about it.

[Anthony Marsh]

Right, he ASSuMEsd it was a rifle when he heard it firing. He didn't
actually see the rifle shooting.