Joe Bauer

In the Mark Lane production "Two Men In Dallas" Roger Craig states that "stamped right on the barrel was 765 Mauser " referring to the rifle that constable Seymour Weitzman and he ( Craig ) were just inches from when "gun buff" Weitzman IDd the rifle as a Mauser. The DPD obviously stated such also as the national media reported the rifle as a Mauser and who do you think the national media got this information from...Roger Craig himself? It is stated in one post here that Craig and Weitzman could not see the Mauser stamp because of the positioning of the scope covering this? Isn't it common sense that many DPD personnel looked at that gun in the first 24 hours of discovering it before sending it off to the FBI and would have noticed such an obvious ( and hugely important ) mistake Weitzman claims he made much sooner than before the national media was reporting the gun as a Mauser to millions of viewers? Why would Roger Craig cling to his Mauser stamp claim the rest of his life if he knew he was lying and how easily this lie could be exposed?

Craig a "disturbed" man ( partly according to his daughter ) because he refused to ever change or recant his recollection of the TXSBD 6th floor found rifle being identified ( and stamped right on the barrel ) as a 7.65 Mauser versus being identified as an Italian 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano ? And the other officer present ( deputy constable Seymour Weitzman - a sporting goods store owning gun buff ) also within inches of the found rifle and who made the first I.D.statement to everyone else present that the rifle was indeed a Mauser and who later made a public announcement that he mis-identified this same rifle that Roger Craig also saw within inches, ends up in a mental institution? Which one of these contradictory rifle I.D. men was truly disturbed?

I would like to read other people's takes on Roger Craig and his credibility or lack there of. Am I missing some huge body of Craig history knowledge and research that shows him to be something far less than Mark Lane's courageous hero?

The really, really sad reality of us as citizens in our American society today ( and obviously back in JFK days as well ) is how much we are all so secretly watched, spied on, investigated, tracked and followed if we ever engage in any kind of meaningful yet constitutionally protected protest ( including writing articles or books and making movies ) of anything questioning the highest echelons of our government and those who have the most power and influence in these. It's a given now...and disturbingly accepted as just the way things are. It's amazing how many things a citizen can do now ( even innocently, legally ) that will have them placed on some type of secret government watch list. We have so many police agencies now and that are all connected to this massive surveillance matrix ( mind boggling in it's size and costs ) that it has to be one of the biggest budget industries in our society ever ... employing what...2 MILLION PEOPLE?! With good salaries and benefits. Trillions of dollars spent on this since JFK times? Extreme paranoia of your own people and their thoughts. Not a healthy mind set.

Being a relatively new member, I hadn't seen this thread before. I am intrigued by Ms.Palmer's assessment of her father Roger Craig. It's obvious she has much personal bitterness towards him. So much so that you really feel that she experienced something on a personal level that made her dislike Roger Craig to the point of saying almost exclusively negative things about him. In my opinion it's a very biased emotional view and an unreasonably unbalanced one. I am not a psychologist so the following are just my layman thoughts regarding Ms. Palmer's strongly negative views of Craig. "his marriage didn't end due to repeated harassment and threats - unless you count his repeated threats to end his own life." The personal bias and bitterness toward Craig in that statement is so obvious. Her statement is more reflective of her personal feelings of animosity toward Craig than any reasonably objective assessment. In regards to Craig mentioning killing himself ( which many people view as cowardly weakness and are even irritated by hearing such ) I can relate to Craig's despondency and hopelessness in this regard. Has anyone here ever injured their back severely? I have. I had 4 bulging discs ( one severe, one moderate, two moderate to mild ) at one time after trying to move us and scores of heavy boxes myself at the age of 64 because we just couldn't afford the cost of help in this endeavor. I went to an Urgent Care and the doctor there said it was just a sprain and to take some pain pills and it would go away! In the next week or so, the pain didn't dissipate or go away. It just kept getting worse! The doctors I saw later kept dodging my request to have an MRI and thought perhaps that I was exaggerating my pain? Finally, one doctor gave me a prescription for an MRI and that's when the real truth came out regarding my back being seriously injured versus just a sprain. Even with Percocet and physical therapy the pain was intense ( could hardly sleep or get up in the morning) and it took months to go away. During those 3 to 4 months the 24 hour pain and drugged feelings from the pain meds made me think - that if I had to endure that kind of pain and loss of work, social and even intimacy life functionality for years - that this might drive me to seriously giving some thought to ending my life. That's what serious long term back injuries can do to a normal person. In my 65 years, I have heard similar horror stories and seen people break down from this kind of pain due to back injuries alone. Now, multiply Roger Craig's more serious back injuries ( and surgeries which often never heal right and cause even more pain! ) and time of suffering X10 versus my back injury episode. Of course Craig occasionally contemplated ending his life! It wasn't his bad, weak, cowardly or irresponsible character that was the problem. And when someone loses their ability to work and make enough funds to support himself and maybe even a family to something better than month to month...that's just another weight to bear for someone already stressed and depressed. And I see Roger Craig's leaving perhaps a neglected ( maybe even abusive ) childhood (at what ... 12 years old ?) AND SURVIVING ??? ... by wandering to other people's ranches or farms and finding work as simply remarkable. And as far as Craig trying to join the military by lying about his age - so did tens of thousands of others! So, this so-called Bi-Polar kid serves in the Army? With no disciplinary actions against him. He got along with hundreds of other soldiers? He was discharged early that is true. But are the reasons for that from serious emotional problems? This I don't know. Then after the military he goes to Dallas and is humble enough to take on the job of dishwasher until he could find something better? I too had to wash dishes in my later teens. 2 years worth! I didn't have the funds to go back to school ( yet I had to pay the rent and feed myself ) and I didn't have any connections to higher paying work through friends or family or a good job market in this small town area or maybe even just a lucky break. I too wasn't too proud to do this honest work until I could finally find something better. To me it was a sign of character to keep doing this kind of work when so many made fun of it. And when I view Mark Lane's "Two Men In Dallas" documentary and Roger Craig's interview, I see a calm and thoughtful and perceptive Roger Craig. Bi-Polar people are usually manic in their speaking. Craig seems the opposite. And when Ms. Palmer disparages Craig and his knowledge of rifles ( regarding whether the 6th floor rifle found was a Mauser versus an Italian MC ) ...you are struck by Ms. Palmer's ignorance of Constable Seymour Weitzman's ( a former sporting goods store manager and gun buff ) incredible on-site statement - with her father right next to Weitzman when he said this ... that "the rife was a Mauser." Let alone the fact of the entire national media reporting this found rifle as a Mauser also for the first day or two. And even if Roger Craig cheated on his wife and wasn't a good provider after being attacked and injured and followed and harassed ( for years!) I believe that if anyone had to go through "half" of what Roger Craig went through they themselves could very easily also lose their sense of self and maybe even their moral compass from time to time and to different degrees. Judging Craig's over-all character in this regard is ridiculous. And whether Craig confronted someone on the steps of the TXSBD or above the grassy knoll who stated they were Secret Service, there is corroboration by other people, including DPD Officer Smith, who said they also confronted men in this area who stated they were Secret Service (even producing such I.D.! ) which the Secret Service themselves denied having there. Sorry, Roger Craig cannot be downplayed as simply some Bi-Polar loser who was only after the easy money way out and to satisfy some extreme need for importance, attention and pity. His end of life woes make all the sense in the world relative to his years of 24 hour-a-day physical pain and emotional and work ending stress.

I just viewed 2/3rds of the 4th video. I am really wondering about some aspects of this. When the subject of the RFK - girl in the polka dot dress came up, I just had to stop and consider the validity of keeping an open mind. I'm not getting the point about Vicki and her extraordinary connection to the story. Of how she apparently knew things beyond what some would consider normal. Was she brought into some kind of mind-control program starting with strange phone calls to her from people she did not know? I won't judge however. I've read so many other strange tales regarding the assassination with seemingly improbable aspects yet still containing enough elements of truth ( as I perceive them) that I couldn't dismiss them as totally untrue. I am about the same age ( slightly younger ) as Mr. Johnson. And I will say this about memories of actions and conversations from 50 years previous. For some reason I can still recall "word for word" a few conversations ( if brief enough ) I had with people who made an impression on me from that long ago. Yes, I can recall specific conversations with a girl or two whom I had my biggest crushes on. That kind of girl-to-boy interaction at that age is a very,very powerful emotion thing. I can also still recall the exact words a fellow Junior High school student ( I even remember his name - John Nor---) yelled while we were out playing basketball on November 22nd, 1963. John ran out to the football field and basketball courts and yelled to us all..."the president's been shot!" He ran back to the school and our PE teachers got together for a brief second or two and marched us all back to the gym to shower and dress and report to our home rooms. There our tearful home room teacher told us what they were hearing about JFK and said we could all go home at the end of that class. I think at least half of all people can definitely recall specific conversations ( with specific words ) even 50 years previous if they are about very emotionally powerful events, especially the JFK/Ruby/Oswald one Just reflecting on the point that I do think we can sometimes remember certain events (and specific words said during these) even 50 years after they happen.

Mr. Johnson, could you share more of your thoughts on the shared aspects of your recollections of the Phillips, Oswald, Veciana meeting with Veciana's recollection of this same meeting? Part of my sense of credibility regards your story relies on the very similar points ( to your specifics recollections ) that Veciana makes such as he and Phillips going to a coffee shop shortly after first meeting. Did Veciana state in public this specific aspect of the meeting before ever meeting or conversing with you? And did you state this coffee shop aspect of the recollection before ever hearing Veciana share this in any public domain way? I guess what I am looking for is something that links your recollections and Veciana's in a way that could not be explained by either one of you hearing such from the other before you came out with your story. At this initial point of hearing your Phillips, Veciana,Oswald meeting story my life experience gut instincts tell me you what you are relating is the truth as you know it.

Thank you Mr. S.

I guess it's just another one of those inconvenient "coincidences" that of the Chief Curry stated small number of Dallas police personnel "that even knew" Jack Ruby ( what was the number Curry stated - "50 out of 700?" ) that so many of those 50 just happened to be "right there" next to Ruby when he walked into the Dallas Police Department basement and got within feet of Oswald. Ruby stated in his Warren Commission testimony that he recognized Sam Pierce ( Ruby calls him by his first name "Sam" ) at the ramp opening. Standing "right next" to Ruby when Ruby leaped into wide open Oswald's path was long time Ruby acquaintance ( 12 years ) Dallas officer William "Blackie" Harrison and across from Harrison was another officer who personally knew Ruby. Officer Patrick Dean ( in charge of basement security that morning ) knew Jack Ruby as did Oswald body guard escort Jim Leavelle ( who hated Oswald much more for his belief he killed one of his fellow officers than whether Oswald killed JFK ) and who knows how many others of that "small group of 50 men" Curry mentioned just happened to be in the Oswald transfer area? All "right there" close to Ruby in his brief DPD basement appearance? Hmmm. You might also want to see the You Tube video titled "Chief Curry Lies About His Men Recognizing Ruby " where Chief Curry states that "we have not been able to find any of our men who recognized Jack Ruby during the time of the transfer."

Who gained more by JFK's death? Castro and the Russians? Or LBJ, Hoover ( whom JFK was replacing after a 2nd term win) the CIA and it's long time hierarchy which Kennedy vowed to scatter to the winds, the Mafia which Hoover protected, Texas oil ( world's richest men at the time ) those who viciously hated blacks ( including Secret Service ) and saw JFK as their protector and promoter, old guard military leadership who considered JFK to be an upstart who dared talked down to them, cold war MIC which had a total bag man in LBJ, extreme right wing nuts ( also racist ) like Walker-Banister, Eastern establishment wealth who felt JFK'S foreign and even domestic policy sympathies ( think Federal Reserve ) might truly threaten their interests and influence, JFK hating and blaming anti-Castro Cubans ... and on and on and on. The wealthiest oil families celebrated JFK's brutal slaughter ( Murcheson maid May Newman - "The champagne and caviar flowed like for a week" ) as did hundreds of thousands if not millions of black hating southerners ( so many poor ) including school children who cheered in their classrooms at the news! JFK was viciously hated by millions in his own country and society much more than anyone outside of it. To a murder celebrating degree! JFK's slaughter should have much more awakened us all to the true reality of how sick with hatred and arrogantly corrupted our country and society had become in JFK's time. And include the unprecedented corruption of our constitutional democracy 3 tiered balance government by non-elected groups whose power and influence was superseding those three and had even compromised our truth seeking fourth estate.

DALLAS, Nov. 24, 1963 (UPI) - Dr. Malcolm O. Perry said today that accused presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was "lethally injured" by the time he arrived at Parkland Hospital's emergency room. -- "I could tell he was lethally injured when he came in," Perry said. Dr. Tom Shires, chief of surgery at Parkland, said however that Oswald had an outside chance. Shires made this formal statement: "We first saw Mr. Oswald in the Parkland emergency room No. 2 around 11:30 a.m. (CST) Sunday, Nov. 24. At that time, he was unconscious, had no blood pressure, but made agonal respiratory efforts (dying gasps). "The endotracheal tube was placed (in his throat to aid breathing) by Dr. M.T. Jenkins, chief of anesthesia. Intravenous fluids and blood were started (in the veins). "There was a gunshot wound entrance over the left lower lateral (lower left rids) chest wall and the bullet could be felt in the subcutaneous tissue (beneath the skin) on the opposite side of the body, over the right lower lateral chest cage. "It was probable, from his condition, that the bullet had injured the major blood vessels, aorta (main artery from the heart) and vena cava below the diaphragm. Consequently, he was taken immediately to the operating room and through a mid-line abdominal incision, the abdomen was exposed. "Several liters (a liter is 1.057 quarts) of blood were immediately encountered. Exploration revealed that the bullet had gone from the left to right, injuring the spleen, pancreas, aorta, vena cava, right kidney and right lobe of the liver. The bullet then came to rest in the right chest wall. "The major bleeding points were then identified and controlled. At this time, there was a low but measurable blood pressure. "Massive transfusions were being given in multiple sites. At this time cardiac arrest occurred (his heart stopped). The left chest was opened and the heart was found in standstill. "Cardiac massage was started and a pulse obtained with massage. Cardiac fibrillation (rapid and weak heart flutter) ensued and in spite of intercardiac (injected directly into the heart) drugs, and the fibrillation, no effective heart beat was ever established. When the signs of death were absolute, he was pronounced dead at 1:07 p.m. "The patient never regained consciousness and died of massive injury from a close range gunshot wound." After the formal statement, Shires said that the type of "shock" suffered by Oswald was "the most effective type" to kill people. He explained there are about six quarts of blood overall in the body. "Two thirds of it had emptied into the abdominal cavity," he said. He said that while on the operating table, Oswald "groaned a time or two," but otherwise made no sounds. Shires said that some people have been known to recover from the type of wound that killed Oswald. "It all depends on the massive amount of blood lost, and how quick you can arrest the blood flow," he said. "You just don't know about this type of wound." He said that while Oswald was on the operating table, he received nearly 15 pints of blood (nearly two gallons, or more than a complete replacement of all the blood in Oswald's body). "I suppose he was conscious for a few minutes after he was shot, but when he got to the emergency room the pupils of his eyes were beginning to dilate in the method of dying persons," the doctor said. He explained that a dying person goes through this pupil dilation from lack of blood in the brain. He said that President Kennedy's eyes were already dilated when he was brought into the emergency room. In other words, Kennedy died faster than his accused assassin. Kennedy's wound was directly in the brain which kills quicker than a wound in the abdomen, the doctor said. Sounds like there was little that the third year med student could do. Almost nothing really. What a loss to the world as far as being able to determine the who, why and how of JFK's death when Oswald's personal safety was left in the hands of the DPD.

I am in 100% agreement with Donald Jeffries's assessment.

Marina wants all the documentation released? How about Lee's tax records? "If it's true" that Marina has the legal right and power to authorize the public release of these, then this would be a huge addition to the documentation record. I state this without knowing whether this legal situation is true or that Lee's tax records would be altered or even destroyed even if she authorized their release. Marina states in the latter part of her letter that she has no money to leave her grand children? I didn't know that her financial asset situation in her older age was such. I always assumed ( guess I was wrong ) that life with this Porter fellow was at least somewhat more secure than the average persons on fixed retirement incomes. And did Marina spend the money given to her as donations and that $100,000+ book ( or film? ) advance she received back in 1964? $100,000+ ( plus thousands more in sympathy donations ) back in 1964 would be close to $750,000 in today's money. Value of $100,000 in 1964. Inflation Calculator for Today's Dollars www.saving.org/inflation/inflation.php?amount=100,000&year=1964 Year, Value. 1964, $100,000.00. 1965, $100,970.87. 1966, $102,912.62 ... 2014, $754,203.88. 2015, $759,909.39. 2016, $765,453.07. 2017, $NaN.00 ...

Yes Michael, totally agree.

I don't believe that so many attempts to injure and even kill someone like Roger Craig could take place without it being initiated by his actions and words threatening someone greatly. Someone of power. I sure wish I had known about Roger Craig's financial and work struggles on top of his years of horrible pain injuries which all together would break any man eventually. I was just a teenager and in my early twenties when he was alive. I almost can't believe that thousands of people like me wouldn't have gladly sent what funds they could to Craig and his family for many years to help him survive after all he sacrificed for the truth. Garrison got many, many tens of thousands of donated dollars in his investigation effort. Tippit's wife got what? ...the equivalent of a million dollars from sympathetic folks? And Marina Oswald did very well in that department also. But it sounds as if there was a relatively small amount of financial help for this unsung hero. What a shame.

Roger Craig cleary mentiones Weitzman in Mark Lane's Doc. "Two Men In Dallas." And Boone.

Yes, I would like to know more about Weitzman's daughter's statement. And yes, Weitzman doesn't even mention Roger Craig as if he wasn't there. Same thing with Eugene Boone in the "Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald." Maybe Boone wasn't asked the right question, but Craig's recounting where he was on the 6th floor and as close to Boone and Weitzman as mere feet. you would think Boone would have done so. Why would they both not mention Craig's close proximity to them in those most important minutes of discovery?

Interesting. I didn't know anything about Weitzman's mental breakdown and incarceration in an institution. I will immediately dig into what info I can find on this. His nervous public confession about making a mistake on the identification of the 6th floor rifle always seemed unsettling to my gut feeling instincts.

She was a stalwart that I respected, appreciated and even liked as a person, just by reading her years worth of postings and feeling her energy from them. What a sad loss.

Thank you for the time taken to respond. Liebeler asked Michael Paine this one sentence, easy to understand question: "Did you make any remark to the effect that you knew who was responsible?" No dates mentioned. Paine responds " ... no, I did not." Liebeler "You are positive in your recollection that you did not?" Again no call date mentioned. Paine " Yes." Paine obviously used Liebeler's previous specific time date reference of 11,23,1963 ( versus 11,22,1963 ) as a convenient escape from having to answer a broader and more inclusive truth seeking question of "Did you AT ANY TIME AND DURING ANY OF YOUR CALLS TO YOUR WIFE RUTH during this entire weekend time period say you knew who was responsible?" One must wonder what Michael Paine's answer would have been to this broader and more thorough time frame question, which any competent and seriously seeking the truth attorney would have asked. Paul, if you totally believe Ruth Paine's comment to you that the "who's responsible" discussion did indeed take place in at least one of the calls between her and Michael Paine that weekend, then you have to accept that Michael Paine did not answer Liebeler's question with the "whole truth" , the broader time frame truth. Of course one can clearly understand the motivation behind Michael Paine's stating his "who's responsible" denial answer, that he felt he could say without committing perjury because the question from Liebeler was framed only in the 11,23,1963 time period context. And that would logically be self-preservation from the super charged investigative suspicion onslaught he knew would befall him if he ever admitted saying the reported ominous intrigue quote to his wife Ruth during any of their calls between each other that entire weekend. And it makes perfect sense that Ruth's phone would be tapped by the FBI considering their knowledge of and interest in Lee Harvey Oswald and his Russian born wife. At that time agent Hosty was active in his monitoring of them both.

Paul I would like to share and debate opinions and views with you on this subject. Whatever different takes you have on this one and so many others, you are decently civil in debating your views in my opinion and I respect that. In regards to your point of Liebeler perhaps just " bungling his notes" when he states to Michael Paine a different day for the "who's responsible call" I disagree. Whatever date Liebeler uses for the reported call, he clearly states to Michael Paine that the report cites a call between the numbers of Ruth Paine's "home phone" and Michael Paine's "office phone." Paine knew this part of the reported call "between his wife's number and his office number" was the important crux of the report because it places the call on the afternoon of the assassination and not on Saturday. I feel this is so, based on the assumption that Michael Paine didn't go into his workplace office on the next day 11,23,1963. I may be wrong about that so if anyone knows differently, please correct me. And Paine then says in regards to his 11,23,1963 time frame activities location "I was in the police station again, and I think I called her from there." Paine uses Liebeler's stated next day date as a reference point to place himself in a phone call making location other than his office. Which to me is Paine's way of suggesting and promoting the reported call record as wrong and/or not legitimate. So right at this point, Liebeler has to decide whether the reported call record ( stating this was between Ruth's home phone number and Paine's office number ) is correct and legitimate and Michael Paine is lying, or the call record is incorrect and illegitimate and Michael Paine is telling the truth. And so do we. And Paine adds... Instead of Paine just answering a simple and firm "yes" or "no" to Liebeler's first question; "did you make any remark to the effect that you knew who was responsible?" he instead feels a need to answer with a qualifier ... "And I don't know who the assassin is or was: no, so I did not." ? Sounds like Oswald's kind of round-about response to a reporter's question "did you kill the President?" in the Dallas Police building Friday night. "No, I have not been charged with that, the first I had heard this was when a reporter in the hall axed me that question." And then when Liebeler asks " You are positive in your recollection that you made no such remark? Paine then replies with a simple "Yes." But it's all about the date of this reported call between Michael Paine and Ruth Paine and whether the call numbers were Ruth's home phone and Michael Paine's office phone. Not to mention the discrepancy of Ruth Paine admitting ( according to you Paul ) that the "who's responsible" discussion did indeed take place in the call versus Michael Paine saying it didn't. Who's telling the truth here..Ruth Paine?...or Michael Paine? I have been scouring Paine's WC testimony. Again I must admit I am not as informed as I should be. Paine did indeed know of and see some of Oswald's received mailings such as the magazine the Worker. He even discussed this with Oswald. Therefore my comments regarding Michael Paine instantly knowing what Buddy Walther's pulled out of one of Oswald's file boxes as a point of suspicion, are not as valid as I suggested they were.

Mr. LIEBELER - Now, there has been a report that on November 23, 1963, there was a telephone call between a man and a woman, between the numbers of your residence and the number of your office, in which the man was reported to have said in words or substance, "We both know who is responsible for the assassination." Have you been asked about this before? Mr. PAINE - I had heard that--I didn't know it was associated with our numbers. I had heard a report that some telephone operator had listened in on a conversation somewhere, I don't know where it was. I thought it was some other part of the country. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you talk to your wife on the telephone at any time during Saturday, November 23, on the telephone? Mr. PAINE - I was in the police station again, and I think I called her from there. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you make any remark to the effect that you knew who was responsible? Mr. PAINE - And I don't know who the assassin is or was; no, so I did not. Mr. LIEBELER - You are positive in your recollection that you made no such remark? Mr. PAINE - Yes. According to Paul Trejo, Ruth Paine stated clearly that the call and it's "we both know who's responsible" conversation did happen. If this is the truth, then Michael Paine is doing a lot of purposeful obfuscating if not lying in his answers here to Liebeler about his knowledge of the call, what was said in it and when it occurred. Liebeler says to Michael Paine that the report cites " a call between a man and a woman, between the numbers of your residence and the number of your office" and recounts the "who's responsible" conversation in it. Paine responds that "I had heard that--I didn't know it was associated with our numbers." " I don't know where it was. I thought it was some other part of the country." ??? That sure sounds like a weak diversion response. If this reported call with it's heavy suspicion arousing conversation didn't happen and Paine clearly knew this ... why not just flat out say this without adding some meaningless meandering " I don't know where it was. I thought it was some other part of the country." ? When Leibeler then asks Paine about whether he talked to his wife Ruth on "specifically" the 23rd of November versus the 22nd, he allows Paine to evade and dissipate the "home residence number to his office number " call record question and to claim a different time and location alibi that he was at the police station and not in his office ( Paine wouldn't be in his office on a Saturday, especially that Saturday ) when "I think I called her from there." This Saturday versus Friday call question by Liebeler and answer from Paine seems to me illogically contrived in their different time frame context and therefore highly suspicious in their implications.