Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[Sandy McCroskey]

Why are you switching to something else that you said?

At the top. Then, at the bottom:

Let's talk about my case for conspiracy. One of my arguments is that SA Roy Kellerman exhibited visible, textbook startle reactions. Do you see what you believe, are errors in my descriptions of those reactions, in the presentation link in post 3601?

Oh, the excruciating irony!

If you are that determined to change the subject, sure, let's talk about Kellerman. Here's one of Hank's points that you don't seem to have noticed:

His five-second estimate fits pretty well with my theory, doesn't it, that there was a shot at Z223, and another at Z313, and Kellerman also heard the sound of the impact of the bullet to JFK's head, and thought that sound was a third shot. And thus, the last shot and the sound of the impact became Kellerman's "flurry". It fits in quite a number of ways, doesn't it? Even down to his estimate of the time between those two shots (4.9 seconds between Z223 and Z313 vs his "5 seconds, if that").

 

[HSienzant]

Thanks, Hank. I realized just the other day that I've always misread the LA Press interview excerpt in the article on the McAdams site, by misattributing the comment about a Mauser on the roof to the interviewer rather than the interviewee. Fortunately, it made no difference to the main point, which was that in 1968 Craig wasn't saying the rifle found on the sixth floor was a Mauser. It seems he must have been conflating that story about the cop on the roof with the early misidentification of the MC as a Mauser.

Pretty much. Craig did a lot of conflating. John McAdams has a nice article here

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm about Roger Craig.

And he points out exactly how this kind of stuff happens to Roger Craig. In the instance below, you can see it happening (RC is Roger Craig; PJ is Penn Jones, FP is the LA Free Press interviewer):

== QUOTE ==
But another problem is the fact that this "1:06 p.m." account seems to be a late addition to his story. In the March 1968 Los Angeles Free Press is an interview with Craig and Penn Jones:

RC: Tippit went to Oak Cliff, and subsequently was killed. Why he went to Oak Cliff I can't tell you; I can only make an observation. He was going to meet somebody.
FP: Do you know what time he was killed?
RC: It was about 1:40 —
PJ: No, I think it was a little before 1:15.
RC: Was it?
PJ: Yes, Bill Alexander —
RC: Oh, that's right. The broadcast was put out shortly after 1:15 on Tippit's killer, and it had not been put out yet on Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy.

So Craig, rather than saying that he knew that Tippit had been killed before 1:06, estimates it was at 1:40 — and then accepts Penn Jones' correction that it was "a little before 1:15."
== UNQUOTE ==

And you probably know that Mary Ferrell didn't think much of him (post from the old Prodigy board which I was around at the time to see):

== quote ==
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
== unquote ==

And check out Michelle Palmer's post at the bottom of the conspiracy book link:

http://www.thesnipenews.com/books/reviews-books/jfk-and-the-unspeakable-review/

== quote ==
Michelle Palmer says:

6 years ago


...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.
== unquote ==

And this link contains further info purportedly from an email from Michelle Palmer.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.assassination.jfk/wwrhNDD-YGQ/YLFb8HGA2pMJ

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Pretty much. Craig did a lot of conflating. John McAdams has a nice article here

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm about Roger Craig.

And he points out exactly how this kind of stuff happens (RC is Roger Craig; PJ is Penn Jones, FP is the LA Free Press interviewer)

Yes, that's the one I said I had misread all these years. (Edited above to "LA Free Press.")

 

[HSienzant]

Yes, that's the one I said I had misread all these years. (Edited above to "LA Free Press.")

And Harold Weisberg, in a typed memorandum in his own files, stated that Craig's claims about his testimony being changed is not true:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/C Disk/Craig Roger/Item 22.pdf
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/C Disk/Craig Roger/Item 02.pdf

He also said Craig is full of "what is generally reserved for toilets".
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weis...tion Inquiry Committee Newsletter/Item 16.pdf

Hank

 

[Bubba]

I only looked at the first minute or so of the above video.

The video doesn't match Craig's narration.

Hank

Thank You.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

[...]
He also said Craig is full of "what is generally reserved for toilets".[...]

The Mauser and the Craig story are sort of litmus tests for woo. Anybody who argues that the MC wasn't the rifle found on the sixth floor will fall for (or talk themselves into believing) anything.

 

[Robert Harris]

Asked and answered.

What was the post number?

 

[Robert Harris]

The Mauser and the Craig story are sort of litmus tests for woo. Anybody who argues that the MC wasn't the rifle found on the sixth floor will fall for (or talk themselves into believing) anything.

That is untrue. Besides the fact that a federal agent was told by other officers during the search, that Oswald's rifle was found on a different floor, no one has been able to prove that it was found on the 6th.

The only people who have claimed it was, were police officers who were in a position to be influenced by the FBI, which by it's stated policy, was committed to convince the public that Oswald acted alone.

If indeed, two murder weapons were found, it is predictable that the one which was not connected to Oswald, would have to go away, which is exactly what happened when the DPD changed its story about the rifles.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Now it's your turn to answer a question, which you've been evading. I repeat:

Let's talk about my case for conspiracy. One of my arguments is that SA Roy Kellerman exhibited visible, textbook startle reactions. Do you see what you believe, are errors in my descriptions of those reactions, in the presentation link in post 3601?

Asked and answered.

What was the post number?

Why don't you go back further, to the first time you posted it here (long before #3601)?

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

That is untrue. Besides the fact that a federal agent was told by other officers during the search, that Oswald's rifle was found on a different floor, no one has been able to prove that it was found on the 6th.

This merely makes me wonder if it is possible to prove anything at all to you that, for whatever reason, you don't want to believe.

Pray tell, what further evidence would you require to prove the MC was found on the sixth floor? We have film, photos, contemporary witness accounts... everything, in fact, that is normally required to establish any fact.

What more should we show Robert Harris to convince him?

The only people who have claimed it was, were police officers who were in a position to be influenced by the FBI, which by it's stated policy, was committed to convince the public that Oswald acted alone.

Wow.
So you are going to continue to misleadingly cite that Katzenberg memo, no matter what anyone tells you!

If indeed, two murder weapons were found, it is predictable that the one which was not connected to Oswald, would have to go away, which is exactly what happened when the DPD changed its story about the rifles.

You know what else is predictable...?

 

[Elagabalus]

Is the theater designed to prop up his own illusions? Or is it supposed to be for the benefit of "lurkers"? Surely he wouldn't direct other people here to see the spanking he's getting and how badly he's embarrassing himself.

I don't know, this lurker has been mighty underwhelmed with the theater.

Also, I believe I read on Robert's YT page (or perhaps somewhere else) that he actually owns or did own a MC. I wonder if he has ever tried to fire it as fast as possible-just as a testable experiment.

 

[HSienzant]

What was the post number?

Go back to the post you're questioning, and click on the little right arrow underneath the quote you're questioning. Or just read the quote underneath the quote you're questioning. It's right there, Robert.

Put there by me. Not "them". In case you're going to question that.

Hank

PS: If you can't find the answer, the post is #3650. I pointed out therein there's a lot of my points you have yet to answer, before I'll be entertaining any questions from you. In other words, the forty balls I lobbed over the net are still in your court.

 

[abaddon]

What was the post number?

Didn't you read it?

 

[JayUtah]

Didn't you read it?

Harris reserved the privilege not too long ago to read and respond only to the posts he felt deserved his attention, due to what he insinuated was an overwhelming demand from the forum.

Even in the most well-ordered debate, a certain number of requests such as, "Please repeat your answer," or "Please link to where you answered my question," or "Please refer me to where you said something," are necessary and thus tolerated. However, beyond a certain frequency they cease to be innocent requests. And especially when directed repeatedly at the person who is providing the most feedback directly related to Harris' content (and hence to whom the most care and attention is expected to be paid), it starts to resemble a technique for maintaining the illusion of engagement in the debate without actually allowing it to proceed.

 

[Robert Harris]

What was the post number?

Hank, have you considered how much easier it would be to just post a single syllable response than to write all these long winded pretenses

 

[Robert Harris]

Go back to the post you're questioning, and click on the little right arrow underneath the quote you're questioning. Or just read the quote underneath the quote you're questioning. It's right there, Robert.

No it isn't . There is nothing there that even attempts to answer me. Here is the question:

Do you see what you believe, are errors in my descriptions of those reactions, in the presentation link in post 3601?


My question only requires a single syllable response.

Is your answer "yes" or "no"?

And if yes, then please be specific about which annotations you believe are incorrect.

 

[RoboTimbo]

... maintaining the illusion of engagement in the debate without actually allowing it to proceed.

As is immediately illustrated again, likely unwittingly. I wonder if he knows he's powerless to do anything more than play the part of every-other-CTist.

 

[Robert Harris]

Harris reserved the privilege not too long ago to read and respond only to the posts he felt deserved his attention, due to what he insinuated was an overwhelming demand from the forum.

Even in the most well-ordered debate, a certain number of requests such as, "Please repeat your answer," or "Please link to where you answered my question,"

We need a ROFLMAO smiley in this place, for the mind boggling hypocrisy of someone lecturing about how to answer questions, who evades every question, almost without exception.

 

[BazBear]

No it isn't . There is nothing there that even attempts to answers me. Here is the question:

Do you see what you believe, are errors in my descriptions of those reactions, in the presentation link in post 3601?


My question only requires a single syllable response.

Is your answer "yes" or "no"?

And if yes, then please be specific about which annotations you believe are incorrect.

My answer is yes or no or maybe something else.

 

[BazBear]

We need a ROFLMAO smiley in this place, for the mind boggling hypocrisy of someone lecturing about how to answer questions, who evades every question, almost without exception.

Well, someone in this thread has been doing that.