Peter McGuire

Thank you Jack for your work on the backyard photos. I bought your tape second hand for a few bucks on Ebay a long time ago. It is great you have it online for free now. Besides the fact that no one would produce such self incriminating material on one's self, ( common sense) , you can see the head is larger in the picture and not that of Oswald. Speaking of Lee Oswald, I think the movie, " Executive Action" shows the framing of Lee Oswald , and the shot sequence very well. Lee Oswald and David Ferrie together.

In my opinion , that idea is not too far fetched , considering that ten Secret Service Agents, including Kellerman and Greer in the Presidential Limousine and eight more Agents in the follow up car did nothing when the shot rang out. There was even a missed shot, which, had Oswald not tested negative on the parifin test, I would have thought he had fired a "warning shot". It seems someone may have. But regarding the Secret Service Agents, how anyone could act that way , is beyond me , and the most disturbing aspect of this tragedy.

Thanks for the post , Michael. Here is the first Amazon review: Michael Evica's "A Certain Arrogance" - Reviewed by RDM*, November 22, 2006 Reviewer: Robert D. Morningstar "Robert D. Morningstar" (New York City) - See all my reviews George Michael Evica's "A Certain Arrogance" A Book Review By Robert D. Morningstar November 22, 2006 Oh, how terrible and barbarous are those Islamic Fundamentalists! How devious and demonic appear those Mullahs and Ayatollahs shown to us on CNN and Fox News each day and night, manipulating and perverting the religious teachings of a "religion of peace" to indoctrinate young minds towards self-destruction, suicide bombing and terrorism. How perverse of them it is to use religion as an excuse to attain political and military objectives. And, Oh, how much more moral are we than they! We, the self-righteous, morally and ethically "superior" Westerners who eschew such debased use of religious dogma as propaganda and mass mind-control tactics in the indoctrination of our own citizens. "Not so!" might say Professor George Michael Evica, an outstanding and well-respected expert of JFK Assassination and US Intelligence History, through his riveting new book, entitled "A Certain Arrogance." In "A Certain Arrogance" (Iron Sights Press, 2006), Professor Evica reveals the history of the recruitment and indoctrination of US intelligence assets (spies/assassins) for OSS and CIA beginning during World War II when, through the work of OSS members Wild Bill Donovan and Allan Dulles, religious institutions, particularly, the Unitarian Church and the Quaker movement, were used as "fronts" in the selection and culling of candidates for espionage and special operations by America's intelligences services, OSS and CIA, domestically and abroad. From OSS World War II operations in Switzerland to the Congo of the 1950s and 1960s to Patrice Lamumba University in Moscow, Evica takes the reader on a meticulously documented tour of international intrigues involved in the training of intelligence operatives through their education and indoctrination at various institutions run by religious organizations. Foremost among these in American intelligence gathering and special operations were the Unitarian Church and the Quakers. However, Evica shows us that these are not the same Quakers we think of when we remember the warmth and quiet courage of Gary Cooper and "Friendly Persuasion." Professor Evica begins his chronicle of covert operations with the recruitment, education and indoctrination of Lee Harvey Oswald as began his peregrinations in 1958-59 toward his defection to Russia by passing through Switzerland's Albert Schweitzer College, where the CIA and FBI maintained contacts and operatives. Evica chronicles the historic role of the Rockefeller clan in funding "missionary activities throughout the world" for intelligence gathering and suppression of undesirable activist social movements beginning in the early 188o's to gather intelligence information in order to quash American Indian activities in the West. Evica states: "As early as 1883, the Rockefellers had `used [Christian] missionaries to gather intelligence about [Native American] insurgencies in the West or to discourage them.' In the United States and later throughout Central and South America, Family Rockefeller power was linked to Christian missionary work." The Rockefeller method of using Christian military activities in conjunction with financial power proved to be so successful in consolidating the Rockefeller Empire in the Americas that it was then employed in the Far East, in China, Korea, Philippines and Taiwan. By 1957, the Rockefellers had enlisted American Fundamentalist Revivalism as a national power base and put their support behind the evangelist, Billy Graham. Evica's book takes the reader back and forth across continents and oceans both to the Far East, Korea and Nationalist Taiwan, and to Europe, but always after short side trips, Evica returns the travels of Lee Harvey Oswald as he made his way inevitably to Dallas, Texas and the site of the JFK Assassination. Ruth and Michael Paine A Quaker & A Unitarian Lee Oswald's Dallas "Handlers" Throughout his meandering journey, Oswald repeated encounters operatives of Unitarian, Quaker and Southern Baptist Fundamentalist missionary activities. For example, Oswald's "friends" and hosts in Dallas, Michael and Ruth Paine, who took Marina Oswald under her wing, were associated with both the Unitarian and the Quaker missionary movements. Evica suggests (as this writer has often asserted) that Michael Paine, "a physical Oswald double," may have acted in that capacity to bring attention in a negative way to Oswald's activities by setting up "political confrontations" at Southern Methodist University on Sundays after attending as "a communicant at a `nearby' Unitarian Church." The religious intrigues surrounding the life and death of Lee Harvey Oswald, as detailed and documented by Evica in this masterful work, shed a disturbing light on the events in Dallas on November 22, 1963 and suggest an almost direct link to current history-altering and world-shaping national and international events in which our nation is today engaged (although "embroiled" may be a more appropriate term). The importance of this work is self-evident and shows that the JFK Assassination is as important today as on the day it happened, exactly 43 years ago today (I chose to compose on this day intentionally for this reason). George Michael Evica's close friend and research associate for many years, Charles Drago, writes in his eloquent introduction to "A Certain Arrogance": "A Certain Arrogance stands as Professor Evica's response to the unavoidable question: How do we define and effect justice in the wake of the world-historic tragedy in Dallas? Clearly he understands that, at this late date, being content merely to identify and, if possible, prosecute the conspiracy's facilitators and mechanics would amount to hollow acts of vengeance. Cleaning and closing the wound while leaving the disease to spread is simply not an option." Mr. Drago goes on to make analogy between the JFK Assassination and a cancer that continues to spread through our government and contaminates and taints our history. From this short and eloquent diagnosis, current events clearly demonstrate that "the cancer" which infected government policy and national politics that day in Dallas, November 22nd, 1963 still persists, continues to grow in virulence and has created an all too patient but sick nation. The question remains "What is the remedy that will rid us of the cancer but not kill the patient?" This reviewer's response is: The remedy that will heal the nation and stop the cancer from spreading any farther is achieving "Justice for JFK." I recommend "A Certain Arrogance" to all those good citizens who are interested in recovering our national security from the Machiavellian manipulation of misguided patriots and religious fanatics who at the core are not dissimilar in credo, strategy and tactics from those same terrorists from whom they pretend to defend us.

I provided the sources when I made my original posting on this subject: Assassination, Terrorism and the Arms Trade: The Contracting Out of U.S. Foreign Policy: 1940-2006 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5799 However, here is the relevant section on JFK and the oil depletion allowance. The oil depletion allowance was first introduced in 1913 and allowed oil producers to use the depletion allowed to deduct just 5 per cent of their income and the deduction was limited to the original cost of their property. However, in 1926 the depletion allowance was increased to 27.5 per cent. As Robert Bryce pointed out in his book, Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America's Superstate: "Numerous studies showed that the oilmen were getting a tax break that was unprecedented in American business. While other businessmen had to pay taxes on their income regardless of what they sold, the oilmen got special treatment." Bryce gives an example in his book how the oil depreciation allowance works. "An oilman drills a well that costs $100,000. He finds a reservoir containing $10,000,000 worth of oil. The well produces $1 million worth of oil per year for ten years. In the very first year, thanks to the depletion allowance, the oilman could deduct 27.5 per cent, or $275,000, of that $1 million in income from his taxable income. Thus, in just one year, he's deducted nearly three times his initial investment. But the depletion allowance continues to pay off. For each of the next nine years, he gets to continue taking the $275,000 depletion deduction. By the end of the tenth year, the oilman has deducted $2.75 million from his taxable income, even though his initial investment was only $100,000." (46) Such a system was clearly unfair and only benefited a small group of businessmen in Texas. It seemed only a matter of time before Congress removed this tax loophole. However, these oilmen used some of their great wealth to manipulate the politicians in Washington. The House Ways and Means Committee (which writes tax policy) were under the control of Sam Rayburn between the years 1937-1961. According to fellow congressman, Joe Kilgore, Rayburn personally interviewed members of Congress who applied to join this committee so “he could stress the importance of maintaining the allowance and assure himself that prospective members supported it.” (47) As the historian, Robert Bryce pointed out: “If the congressmen didn’t agree with Rayburn on the oil depletion allowance, they didn’t get on Ways and Means”. (48) Texas was at the heart of American oil development in the 1930s and 1940s. All the great names of the oil industry, J. Paul Getty, H. L. Hunt, Sid Richardson, D. H. Byrd, R. E. Smith, John Mecom and Glenn McCarthy, “belong to Texas” (49) In the 1930s and 1940s Texas was virtually a one-party state. Therefore it was necessary for the oil industry to control the local Democratic Party. Sam Rayburn was the most important supporter of the oil industry in Congress in the 1930s and 1940s. Rayburn was Lyndon Johnson’s mentor. For example, during his 1948 election campaign, Johnson called for the oil depletion allowance to be raised to 30%. (50) However, the situation began to change in the 1950s. The Democratic Party had moved to the left under Roosevelt. This trend was maintained under Truman. Therefore, in 1952, the oil industry backed Dwight Eisenhower. This was reflected in his appointment of Robert B. Anderson as Secretary of the Treasury. Before his appointment, Anderson was president of the Texas Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association. In this post he introduced legislation beneficial to the oil industry. (51) One of Eisenhower’s first actions as president was to stop a grand jury investigation into the “International Petroleum Cartel”. Eisenhower justified his action as the need to maintain “national security”. Eisenhower’s behaviour had an impact on the oil lobby. “In 1956, officials at the nations biggest oil companies gave nearly $350,000 to Republicans while giving less than $15,000 to Democrats.” (52) Eisenhower was personally rewarded by the oil industry. Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson reported that Eisenhower’s farm was paid for by three wealthy oilmen, W. Alton Jones, Billy Byers and George E. Allen. The Internal Revenue Service discovered that these three oilmen gave Eisenhower more than $500,000 at the same time he was making decisions favourable to the oil industry. In their book, The Case Against Congress, Pearson and Anderson point out that on 19th January, 1961, the day before he left the White House, “Eisenhower signed a procedural instruction on the importation of residual oil that required all importers to move over and sacrifice 15 per cent of their quotas to newcomers who wanted a share of the action.” One of the major beneficiaries of this last-minute executive order was a company called Cities Service. The chief executive of Cities Service was W. Alton Jones, one of the men who helped pay for Eisenhower’s farm. Three months later, Jones flew in a small plane to visit the retired president. The plane crashed and Jones was killed. In his briefcase was found $61,000 in cash. No one was ever able to explain why Jones was taking such a large sum of money to Eisenhower. (53) As a U.S. senator, John F. Kennedy voted to reduce the depletion allowance. (54) Texas oilmen were obviously concerned when Kennedy became the front-runner in the 1960 presidential election. It is true that Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn were in a position to try and block the move in Congress. However, Kennedy had the potential to draw attention to this unfair tax loophole. As Sam Rayburn pointed out, if the oil depletion allowance was debated in Congress: “They’d cut it to fifteen, ten, five percent – maybe even take it away altogether. Do you think you could convince a Detroit factory worker that the depletion allowance is a good thing? Once it got on the floor, it would be cut to ribbons.” (55) [qoute]During his election campaign, Kennedy changed his position on the oil depletion allowance. In October, 1960, Kennedy wrote a letter to his Texas campaign manager outlying his policies on the oil industry. He said he wanted to make “clear my recognition of the value and importance of the oil depletion allowance. I realize its purpose and value… The oil-depletion allowance has served us well”. (56) In the first two years of his presidency, Kennedy made no mention of the oil depletion allowance. Nor did he seem to mind that Connolly used his position as Secretary of the Navy to help the oil industry in Texas. In fact, Kennedy showed little interest in bringing the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence Complex under control. This is reflected in what became known as the TFX scandal. [/qoute] 46. Robert Bryce, Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, 2004 (pages 46-49) 47. Anthony Champagne, Congressman Sam Rayburn, 1984 (page 151) 48. Robert Bryce, Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, 2004 (page 50) 49. Kirkpatrick Sale, Power Shift, 1975 (pages 33-39) 50. Robert Bryce, Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, 2004 (page 50) 51. Robert Sherrill, The Accidental President, 1967 (pages 142-147) 52. Robert Bryce, Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, 2004 (page 91) 53. Drew Pearson & Jack Anderson, The Case Against Congress, 1968 (pages 438-440) 54. Jim Marrs, Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy, 1989 (page 277) 55. Anthony Champagne, Congressman Sam Rayburn, 1984 (page 151) 56. Robert Bryce, Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, 2004 (page 92) This is the relevant section on civil rights: In 1960 Kennedy presented himself as someone who held conservative views on both domestic and foreign issues. As Richard D. Mahoney points out in his book, Sons and Brothers: “As senator, Kennedy had zigzagged through the long obstacle course of civil rights legislation, siding in most cases, as a Ted Sorensen memo to Bobby proudly explained in December 1959, ‘with our friends in the South.’ He meant white friends.” (79) As Mahoney goes on to argue: “The most entrenched and skilled leaders of that majority in the Senate – McClellan of Arkansas, Eastland of Mississippi, Ervin of North Carolina, and Fulbright of Arkansas – were all vehement opponents of civil rights as well as close friends of Bobby Kennedy.” Kennedy admits in several interviews that were recorded as part of the Oral History Project, that he had several conversations with people like McClellan and Eastland during the campaign to assure them that the Kennedy administration would not promote the “civil rights issue”. Kennedy later described Harris Wofford, his brother special assistant for civil rights, was eventually removed from his post because he was too committed to the cause: “Wofford was very emotionally involved in all of these matters and was rather in some areas a slight madman.” (80) In his memoirs, Of Kennedys and Kings, Wofford argues that Kennedy was forced into taking a stand on civil rights because of the activities of Martin Luther King and pressure groups like the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). For example, Kennedy did all he could to get the Freedom Riders to call off their activities in 1961. (81) 79. Richard D. Mahoney, Sons and Brothers, 1999 (page 117) 80. Edwin Guthman and Jeffrey Shulman (ed.), Robert Kennedy in his Own Words, 1988 (pages 77-79) 81. Harris Wofford, Of Kennedy and Kings, 1980 (pages 103-200) Great work , John. Can we subtract one more "reason" for the assassination. Or Three?

Close up of Altens photo.

Close up of Altens photo.

In an interview he gave on 3rd July, 1967, John J. McCloy said about the Warren Commission: “I think there’s one thing I would do over again. I would insist on those photographs and the X-rays having being produced before us.” During the investigation members of the Warren Commission were told by Earl Warren that the Kennedy family was blocking access to these photographs and X-rays. John, has a member of the Kennedy family ever confirmed this to be true? I would be reluctant to take Earl Warren's word for it. Which member of the Kennedy family revealed this information? This story will be explained in a book published next year. John, who's the author? If it's true that both Kennedys were romantically involved with Monroe, they certainly had a motive to get rid of her if they feared she might go public. It would be hard to imagine a juicier scandal. Ron and Wim, I have trouble believing JFK and RFK would stoop to that. [qoute]I don't believe it for a second. [/qoute] In fact I consider it to be one of the main components in the Kennedy smears. The subtext being that the Kennedy's murdered so it's ok that they were murdered. Don't worry your little heads John and Jane Q. Public; JFK and RFK aren't worth the angst. Right. There was a time when I subscribed to the "Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword" notion. They promoted that well.

Well I'm really puzzled here. I've read a fair amount of Palamara's research and I disagree with his conclusions about Kellerman. So many sources show Kellerman's behavior to be beyond suspicious that I just have to wonder if Palamara saw these sources. He gives a brief review of about every JFK assassination book on Amazon, so I doubt he missed seeing the books. And he gives a glowing review to "Ultimate Sacrifice," which I consider the official bible of the mob dunnit sect bent on advancing the official post HSCA mythology, which also makes me wonder. Here's part of what he wrote: ""Ultimate Sacrifice" is THE ultimate book on the JFK case (with a nod to Larry Hancock's "Someone Would Have Talked" as a very nice companion volume)! Not only is it very well written and put together (and lengthy: over 900 pages!), it is extremely well documented and thought out. There is no other way to put it: forget all the many "theories" on the case put forward by others, however well meaning---"Ultimate Sacrifice" puts forward solid FACTS via HISTORIANS, utilizing a vast trove of (new) documents and unique-to-the-authors' knowledge obtained from Kennedy insiders, among many others. There WAS indeed a conspiracy involved in the death of JFK...and "Ultimate Sacrifice" lays out the 'who', the 'what', and the 'why' better than any book I have ever seen. Get this book asap! "" Yup, the mob dunnit. Kellerman, in particular, seems dirty as hell. In "Trauma Room 1" he's consistently shown as the "thug" who is in charge of stealing President Kennedy's body from Parkland. He actually pulls a machine gun on the doctors and officials attempting to prevent the theft, and Dr Crenshaw, the author, feels certain he would have killed anyone in his way. In "Body of Evidence" Kellerman is shown, in a transcript, to be actively arranging the diversion of the body to Walter Reed (for alteration) as the empty casket goes to Bethesda. Kellerman's behavior during the Dallas trip was outrageous. He sat and watched Kennedy die as his counterpart SS agent in LBJ's SS car supposedly shielded his charge. [qoute]Do you guys agree with Palamara's assessment of Kellerman as a "patsy"? [/qoute] I am confused by Palamara's "conclusion". Kellerman was a trained agent and soon became the thug at Parkland Hospital when the body was illegally taken to Washington from Texas. No matter what silly story ( security stripping) is floated about that day, all bets were off! Shots were fired. It was the real thing, it was time to do one's job of protecting the President. Kellerman just sat in his front seat for over 6 seconds until he was sure Kennedy was dead. The Secret Service Agents were active participants in the killing. Hill had plenty of time to get to JFK. It was just a show. Greer could have driven away, and Rybka and another Agent were left behind AT THE AIPORT. And although there were eight agents in the follow up car, none came to the aid of the President, none were jogging beside him, and not one Agent moved until it was too late. While at the same time, LBJ's people were ALL over him. Let's not gloss over this. In the famous picture of Hill on the back of the car , do you see all those people on the triple overpass? What are they doing there? Is it within the guidelines of protection to have these people in this position? In the Altgen's pictures , we can see the motorcade " boxed in" , I mean there are people on fire escapes in front of and behind the motorcade! They seem to be just watching, and a what a view indeed!

Thanks for starting this thread , Myra, this is a hard few days for a lot of us. I am going to get some links to some of his best speeches. Rice and such.

Even if it were true, this must be a candidate for the title of Most Absurd Motive Ever Offered for the Assassination, considering that it was a well-known fact that Joseph Kennedy suffered a serious stroke in early 1962, and was ever after unable to communicate by telephone with anyone. Credit Seymour M Hersh in the Dark Side of Camelot. Yeah...about that. I'm trying to decide what's up with Sy. Did he do the hatchet job on President Kennedy for the obvious, CIAesque, reason? He's released some truly good info over the years, thanks to his, uh, access to certain kinds of whistle-blowers. And I've seen him give a speech where he talked about Abu Ghraib torture of kids, which he reported to the embarassment of the regime, and he was damn near crying. I'm having some trouble believing he's a total hack. [qoute]But... that hatchet job on President Kennedy--what's up with that?[/qoute] Exactly, it seemed that trashing Kennedy was , for the most part , off limits. Killing him was good enough, there was no need to do any more damage. Good question , why did they feel , in 1997 , that they had to spread this dirt?

[qoute]Even if it were true, this must be a candidate for the title of Most Absurd Motive Ever Offered for the Assassination, considering that it was a well-known fact that Joseph Kennedy suffered a serious stroke in early 1962, and was ever after unable to communicate by telephone with anyone. [/qoute]Credit Seymour M. Hersh in the Dark Side of Camelot. I bought this book for 99 cents to see what dirt was being spread around about Kennedy. Kennedy did assume office on January 20th, 1961 , so JFK was in office before his father's stroke in December , 1961. FWIW, I take what Hersh says with about a ton of salt. According to Hersh " After his son's election to the presidency, Joe Kennedy served as a one-man kitchen cabinet until his severe stroke in December 1961." I did not say JFK was killed because Seymour Hersh said the President had a dedicaded telephone line installed to his father's residence. The OP's thread was about the possibility of a 24 year old Kennedy dynasty being a motive in the assassination. This idea is certainly not new, and Hersh's assertion is relevant to this theory.

They have been called 'America's royal family'. I think that this is one of the reasons they may give, but is is not the whole story. There is also the issue of national security, which appears to be the reason the files are withheld. Also, if true , the President's father having a dedicated telephone line to the White House was not right , either.

Does anyone know if the first six installments are ever shown on American TV, or have they disappeared also?

How could we believe that Pitzer killed himself with this negative paraffin test and the further conclusion of the pistol being three feet away? There are so many suspicious deaths surrounding this case. The Grave of William Bruce Pitzer

In the picture you can see what he first reported; that the bullet hit Kennedy in his right temple. But in a 1975 interview with Geraldo Rivera, he went back to the party line. This picture was never shown by the mainstream media, nor was the complete film of what Kilduff actually said. It was not until the 1988 "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" series was shown to the public that most people became aware of the statement " it was a simple matter, Tom, of a bullet right through the head", while pointing to where the bullet actually hit Kennedy. The scene always stopped before he got to that part. Kilduff was reporting what he had been told by Dr. Burkley, one of the physicians treating Kennedy. But there would be no "treatment" as Kennedy was dead around 12:30, from this frontal shot.

Great point, Myra:

Shanet: Just read through this thread and as we approach the 22nd of November this year, I think it is time to look at the big picture in the way you have. As quoted in this post, honorable and patriotic men and women are probably thinking the same thing now, as they did in 1963 , that they are "doing the right thing" by continuing the cover up. Clearly, the Secret Service team protecting Kennedy that day were just following orders and did not see themselves as traitors. In fact, I have never seen men with lack of expressions on their face and the ability just to sit or stand there through all the shots, like these men. Finally, by a State sponsored Coup D Etat, don't you mean they will be calling it Regicide a thousand years from now, like I am calling it in 2006. I thought the painting of the Generals in the autopsy room playing cards was a little too graphic.

[qoute]

Since you've referenced this situation, I for one would be very interested to know exactly what your posts detailed which prompted Gary Mack to respond to you. Do you mind sharing what your post stated, how he corrected you, and then what his subsequent allegations were? I realize this could all have happened long ago and it's understandable if you no longer have the info. Likewise if you'd rather not share the substance of the encounter. I'll supply that info Mark. Normally I wouldn't post a private email without permission, but in this case it's someone I mistrust repeatedly sending me unsolicited and unwanted email. I assume he does this with many people so it might as well be out in the open. This is gonna be a long thread though. ================================ ----------------------------------------------------------- Here's post 1 he emailed me about, from jfklancer: ----------------------------------------------------------- Myra Bronstein Thu Oct-26-06 06:08 PM Member since Oct 20th 2006 95 posts Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list #52042, "RE: Dallas PD - In on a Conspiracy?" In response to In response to 3 >... >Another lapse was that DPD Homicide Captain Fritz testified >to the WC that someone told him outside his office in the >hallway that Oswald had a room in Oak Cliff and gave him the >address. This was while Oswald had just been taken to Fritz's >office. It was later learned that this address information did >not come from Oswald or the arresting officers. There was no >effort to learn how the source knew where Oswald had a room. >... > >Regards, Charles Captain Fritz was a wee bit of a xxxx. "In his 1975 book Forgive My Grief Vol. III, author Penn Jones wrote, "Roger Craig was a great American." When Jones wrote those words, Craig, a former Deputy in the Dallas County Sheriff's Department, had recently died by his own hand. It was Jones' contention that "...the treatment Craig received after John F. Kennedy was assassinated...caused his death." Roger Dean Craig was an important witness to the JFK assassination, and his testimony is highly indicative of conspiracy. By now his story has been told many times by many different writers. But it appears there are those still attempting to smear Roger Craig's name and discount what he reported seeing on November 22, 1963. ... Craig heard an arrest had been made in connection with the shooting of Officer J.D. Tippit. As he told the Warren Commission, "I kept thinking about this subject that had run and got in the car. So, I called Captain Fritz' office and talked to one of his officers and--uh--told him what I had saw and give him a description of the man, asked him how it fit the man they had picked up as a suspect. And--uh--they asked me to come up and look at him at Captain Fritz's office." Craig took one look at the Tippit shooting suspect and said it was the same man he had seen flee the TSBD. That suspect, of course, was Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. Craig. Captain Fritz then asked him about the--uh--he said, "What about this station wagon?" And the suspect interrupted him and said, "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine"--I believe is what he said. "Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it." And--uh--Captain Fritz then told him, as close as I can remember, that "All we're trying to do is find out what happened, and this man saw you leave from the scene." And the suspect again interrupted Captain Fritz and said, "I told you people I did." And--uh--yeah--then, he said--then he continued and he said, "Everybody will know who I am now."<5> ... Unfortunately for Roger Craig, Captain Fritz said the incident in his office never happened. Mr. Ball. Did ever come into your office and talk to you in the presence of Oswald? Mr. Fritz. In the presence of Oswald? Mr. Ball. Yes. Mr. Fritz. No, sir; I am sure he did not." http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_i...sue/rcraig.html A photograph turned up later showing Craig in Fritz's office when Oswald was there, proving that Fritz had lied. I think the photo is shown in "On the Trail of the Assassins," by Jim Garrison. ----------------------------------------------------------- Here's the thread with his first email to me and my replies: ----------------------------------------------------------- #52042, "RE: Dallas PD - In on a Conspiracy?" gmack@jfk.org to me More options Oct 26 Myra, The photo in question was shot by Dallas Morning News photographer Jack Beers and it was taken on Saturday. The negative strip still survives, I have seen it, and it is unquestionably a Saturday picture. So Fritz wasn't lying after all. Craig's story cannot be confirmed by that picture. Gary Mack Reply Forward Invite gmack@jfk.org to Gmail myra bronstein to gmack More options Oct 26 Thanks Gary. Just to be sure I know who I'm talking to, are you curator of the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas? Are you personally of the opinion that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered President Kennedy, and had no accomplices? I'm curious, how come you didn't post your opinion in the JFK Lancer forum where the discussion is taking place in addition to emailing me? Myra - Show quoted text - On 10/26/06, gmack@jfk.org <gmack@jfk.org> wrote: > > Myra, > > The photo in question was shot by Dallas Morning News photographer Jack Beers and it was taken on Saturday. The negative strip still survives, I have seen it, and it is unquestionably a Saturday picture. > > So Fritz wasn't lying after all. Craig's story cannot be confirmed by that picture. > > Gary Mack > Reply Forward Gary Mack to me More options Oct 26 -----Original Message----- From: myra bronstein [mailto:myra.bronstein@###] Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 2:15 PM To: Gary Mack Subject: Re: #52042, "RE: Dallas PD - In on a Conspiracy?" Thanks Gary. Just to be sure I know who I'm talking to, are you curator of the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas? GM: Yes. Are you personally of the opinion that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered President Kennedy, and had no accomplices? GM: Everyone who knows me knows I personally believe the HSCA acoustics evidence of two gunmen. All known hard evidence says Oswald pulled the trigger. I'm curious, how come you didn't post your opinion in the JFK Lancer forum where the discussion is taking place in addition to emailing me? GM: I don't post on newsgroups for there isn't enough spare time to handle the inquiries and nut cases that result. I gave you some information that you otherwise would have had no way of knowing. Do with it what you want. Gary Mack - Show quoted text - Myra On 10/26/06, gmack@jfk.org <gmack@jfk.org> wrote: > > Myra, > > The photo in question was shot by Dallas Morning News photographer Jack Beers and it was taken on Saturday. The negative strip still survives, I have seen it, and it is unquestionably a Saturday picture. > > So Fritz wasn't lying after all. Craig's story cannot be confirmed by that picture. > > Gary Mack > Reply Forward Invite Gary to Gmail myra bronstein to Gary More options Oct 26 Case Closed then. You can spare me the disinformation in the future. I'll let you get back to your jobs. Myra - Show quoted text - On 10/26/06, Gary Mack <GMack@jfk.org> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: myra bronstein [mailto:myra.bronstein@###] > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 2:15 PM > To: Gary Mack > Subject: Re: #52042, "RE: Dallas PD - In on a Conspiracy?" > > Thanks Gary. > > Just to be sure I know who I'm talking to, are you curator of the Sixth > Floor Museum in Dallas? > > GM: Yes. > > > Are you personally of the opinion that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered > President Kennedy, and had no accomplices? > > GM: Everyone who knows me knows I personally believe the HSCA acoustics > evidence of two gunmen. All known hard evidence says Oswald pulled the > trigger. > > > I'm curious, how come you didn't post your opinion in the JFK Lancer > forum where the discussion is taking place in addition to emailing me? > > GM: I don't post on newsgroups for there isn't enough spare time to > handle the inquiries and nut cases that result. I gave you some > information that you otherwise would have had no way of knowing. Do > with it what you want. > > Gary Mack > > > Myra > > > On 10/26/06, gmack@jfk.org <gmack@jfk.org> wrote: > > > > Myra, > > > > The photo in question was shot by Dallas Morning News photographer > Jack Beers and it was taken on Saturday. The negative strip still > survives, I have seen it, and it is unquestionably a Saturday picture. > > > > So Fritz wasn't lying after all. Craig's story cannot be confirmed by > that picture. > > > > Gary Mack > > > > Reply Forward Gary Mack to me More options Oct 26 Which disinformation would that be? -----Original Message----- From: myra bronstein [mailto:myra.bronstein@###] - Show quoted text - Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 3:51 PM To: Gary Mack Subject: Re: #52042, "RE: Dallas PD - In on a Conspiracy?" Case Closed then. You can spare me the disinformation in the future. I'll let you get back to your jobs. Myra On 10/26/06, Gary Mack <GMack@jfk.org> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: myra bronstein [mailto:myra.bronstein@###] > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 2:15 PM > To: Gary Mack > Subject: Re: #52042, "RE: Dallas PD - In on a Conspiracy?" > > Thanks Gary. > > Just to be sure I know who I'm talking to, are you curator of the > Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas? > > GM: Yes. > > > Are you personally of the opinion that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered > President Kennedy, and had no accomplices? > > GM: Everyone who knows me knows I personally believe the HSCA > acoustics evidence of two gunmen. All known hard evidence says Oswald > pulled the trigger. > > > I'm curious, how come you didn't post your opinion in the JFK Lancer > forum where the discussion is taking place in addition to emailing me? > > GM: I don't post on newsgroups for there isn't enough spare time to > handle the inquiries and nut cases that result. I gave you some > information that you otherwise would have had no way of knowing. Do > with it what you want. > > Gary Mack > > > Myra > > > On 10/26/06, gmack@jfk.org <gmack@jfk.org> wrote: > > > > Myra, > > > > The photo in question was shot by Dallas Morning News photographer > Jack Beers and it was taken on Saturday. The negative strip still > survives, I have seen it, and it is unquestionably a Saturday picture. > > > > So Fritz wasn't lying after all. Craig's story cannot be confirmed > > by > that picture. > > > > Gary Mack > > > > Reply Forward Invite Gary to Gmail myra bronstein to Gary More options Oct 26 On 10/26/06, Gary Mack <GMack@jfk.org> wrote: > Which disinformation would that be? "The photo in question was shot...on Saturday. ... The negative strip still survives, I have seen it, and it is unquestionably a Saturday picture." I don't suppose you have evidence that the picture was taken on Saturday (presumably Nov 23, 1963)? Reply Forward Gary Mack to me, Gary More options Oct 26 Of course I have evidence - that's why I wrote what I did. As you may already know, all Friday pictures of Oswald show him wearing the dark shirt he was arrested in; after the midnight press conference, cops took the shirt, so later Saturday pictures show him wearing only a t-shirt. The strip shows Oswald in one or two frames wearing just the t-shirt. One of the other frames shows Marina arriving at Fritz' office, and she didn't go there until Saturday afternoon around 1. The Craig photo is also on that same strip and, while he was inside the Homicide and Robbery Bureau office, the picture cannot be used to place him IN Fritz' office. Fritz' small room was one of several inside that office. The office can be seen behind Craig - it's the room with the Venetian blinds rolled down. How do I know all this? The photographer's widow loaned some contact sheets to The Sixth Floor Museum for reference and that's what I studied. No researchers have ever seen that material, so that's why I took the time to let you know about it. Gary Mack ----- Original Message ----- From: myra bronstein To: Gary Mack Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 5:38 PM Subject: Re: #52042, "RE: Dallas PD - In on a Conspiracy?" - Show quoted text - On 10/26/06, Gary Mack <GMack@jfk.org> wrote: > Which disinformation would that be? "The photo in question was shot...on Saturday. ... The negative strip still survives, I have seen it, and it is unquestionably a Saturday picture." I don't suppose you have evidence that the picture was taken on Saturday (presumably Nov 23, 1963)? Reply Reply to all Forward Invite Gary to Gmail myra bronstein to Gary More options Oct 26 Well that's helpful Gary. Thank you. I should have been more precise though. Do you have evidence that you can share so that I can see it with my own eyes and draw my own conclusions? That would be extremely helpful. If it's a demonstrable fact that the picture was taken on Saturday then I was unknowingly spreading disinformation, which I don't want to do. Myra - Show quoted text - On 10/26/06, Gary Mack <gmackjfk@comcast.net> wrote: > > > Of course I have evidence - that's why I wrote what I did. > > As you may already know, all Friday pictures of Oswald show him wearing the > dark shirt he was arrested in; after the midnight press conference, cops > took the shirt, so later Saturday pictures show him wearing only a t-shirt. > > The strip shows Oswald in one or two frames wearing just the t-shirt. One > of the other frames shows Marina arriving at Fritz' office, and she didn't > go there until Saturday afternoon around 1. > > The Craig photo is also on that same strip and, while he was inside the > Homicide and Robbery Bureau office, the picture cannot be used to place him > IN Fritz' office. Fritz' small room was one of several inside that office. > The office can be seen behind Craig - it's the room with the Venetian blinds > rolled down. > > How do I know all this? The photographer's widow loaned some contact sheets > to The Sixth Floor Museum for reference and that's what I studied. No > researchers have ever seen that material, so that's why I took the time to > let you know about it. > > Gary Mack > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: myra bronstein > To: Gary Mack > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 5:38 PM > Subject: Re: #52042, "RE: Dallas PD - In on a Conspiracy?" > > > On 10/26/06, Gary Mack <GMack@jfk.org> wrote: > > Which disinformation would that be? > > "The photo in question was shot...on Saturday. > ... > The negative strip still survives, I have seen it, and it is > unquestionably a Saturday picture." > > I don't suppose you have evidence that the picture was taken on > Saturday (presumably Nov 23, 1963)? > > Reply Forward Gary Mack to me More options Oct 27 Sorry, that material was returned long ago. I may have a photo copy of the sheets, but since the Museum doesn't own the images, I can't make copies for others. But I can certainly show them to anyone who stops by. It's interesting to me that the photo has been used since at least 1976 as "proof" that Craig was in Fritz' office. And yet either the proponents of the claim either didn't bother to learn WHEN the picture was taken or purposely misrepresented it's actual date. Things like that are what made me realize that I needed to check out everything, and to look at all sides of the various issues. Here's an example. Many books talk about the scope of Oswald's rifle being mounted to the side and couldn't be aligned accurately. But the same books usually don't mention that, at those distances, the scope isn't necessary and would, in fact, slow down the shooter. So what kind of people/books misrepresent such things? The only answer I can figure out is they are either dishonest or ignorant about the details. Gary Mack ----------------------------------------------------------- Here's his email to me which I ignored: ----------------------------------------------------------- #52160, "RE: FBI Security in Dealey Plaza" gmack@jfk.org to me More options Oct 29 Myra, where do you get such bad information? [qoute]Rybka wasn't assigned to red (ride)in the SS car, he was supposed to have stayed at Love Field, and he did. If you'll look at a clear version of the video, not that awful kinescope from YouTube, you'll see that he was smiling. His gesture was one of humor because he was left behind....as planned. Gary Mack [/qoute]"The Smiling Secret Service Agent" , yea right. The guy shrugged his shoulders three times because everything was alright? They had more important things to do at Love Field? ( like wait for the dead President's clothes?) That "smile" by the way, looks bogus and does not match Rybka's appearance in the film. It is an absolute insult to expect us to believe this nonsensical explanation. It is was it appears to be. The Stand Down of protection of the President of the United States, minutes before his death. It is not a theory, it is historical fact; captured on film. It can not be explained away. Secret Service Agent Henry Rybka, shrugging his shoulders after being called off his normal duties jogging beside, and riding behind the President.

I have the full interview, given that afternoon at the WFAA studios , in Real Player on my home computer. I used a search engine and found the interview and downloaded it. This really cemented into my mind , where the shots came from. The fact that they did not hear the missed shot is indeed important since , according to their testimony, it did not come from the "knoll" area. Does anyone know if there is a way I can transfer this media from Real Player? Either by email or possibly transferring to a web site? The file you have should be a 'RAM' file, e.g. 'interview.ram' so you should be able to email it as an attachment. I know you're focusing mainly on televised interviews but I just remembered there's a long interview with Bill Newman in the Larry Sneed book 'No More Silence'. Real player wouldn't let me email the file. I did manage to transfer the file to : www.msnusers.com/jfkinfo But you may need real player to be able to play it. I can't get Yahoo Player out of default and cannot play it myself, but it is in my Real Player account and working fine. Please let me know if you could access the file and feel free to add other material to that group.

Pat, What makes you say "the Discovery Channel has taken a decidedly LN slant"? Did they do a show on the assassination? BK Yes, there was one playing this summer. Awful stuff.

These are very good questions. Tippit, like Ruby, was clearly a major part of the operation that day. I hope we can find the answers to some of these questions. Officer Tippit

Tosh Plumlee? James Sorry about the late reply. Yes, Tosh Plumlee.

I sure hope this ambush ( on the WC) is noticed.

_________________________________ Myra, Good point. But TUM's umbrella can be seen turning in the direction of JFK's limo in the Z-film, as if TUM was "tracking" JFK (IMHO in case a second flechette shot was necessary). Why was TUM wildly pumping the umbrella up and down just a few moments earlier? Answer: Maybe he was both a signaler and a "shooter." --Thomas _________________________________ Oh the umbrella definitely rotates in the direction the limo is moving. It could be that UM is rotating as he watches the motorcade, but I think it's more likely that he'd just turn his head and not his whole body. Thomas, where do you see UM pumping the umbrella up and down? I can't see that on Zapruder. The first I see of the umbrella is after the limo emerges from behind the highway sign, and it rotates with the cars. Thanks. ________________________ Myra, Try Googling "umbrella up and down as if signaling." It will take you to Ron Ecker's excellent article on TUM. Remember to click on "cached." --Thomas _______________________ Well that's just text describing the umbrella movement, no photos or film. I would need to see some actual evidence that the umbrella was raised and lowered. I did however find this: "November 22, 1963, the day President Kennedy was slain, was bright and sunny in Dallas. Why, then, was there a young man with an open umbrella on Elm Street, less than 30 feet from the President's car as it slowly passed by? Presented below is an answer to this puzzle by a former consultant to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. " http://www.ratical.com/ratville/JFK/TUM.html Though the language ("as it passed by") is vague. It could be that UM had to shoot a flechette a longer distance, then the car moved as close as 30 feet. I have always thought that the frontal, throat shot was used to "soften up" Kennedy for the kill. But there was never talk of blood from the neck shot, nor is it visable in the Zapruder film. Now we know why. Layer by layer, the mystery is unraveled. I also believe it was important that JFK could not cry out , since an order from the commander in chief would have been hard to ignore.