Alistair Briggs

For clarity, it is, and has never been, my aim to 'destroy' the theory... In terms of 'bulking' up, yeah I can agree that Marine training and time will do that... ... in terms of the height, I'm not convinced. Sure records may show him as being 5ft 11 but that may not mean he is necessarily that height, did he just orally report he was that tall? Was it an actual measurement? How can we be sure? I've seen a photo measuring him at 5ft 9 'before' and one measuring him at 5ft 9 'after', in between times there is a record listing him as 5ft 11 - either he grew and shrunk or there is another explanation... If Marine training is enough to 'bulk' up I would imagine that after the 'training' is finished there would be a certain revertion to type... Barely 4ft 10? From looking at that photo and looking at the measurements beside it the '4ft 6' lines up with underneath his nose, so for him to be 'barely 4ft 10' then the rest of his head must measure no more than 4 inches... then again his head is tilted slightly and that would surely make a difference, if his head was straight that could add an inch or so to his height... and for all we know his neck isn't sitting proud and that can make a difference too... and of course it has to be noted that his legs are apart and that will always make someone look shorter than they actually are... all things considered I can see how the person in that photo could actually be a fair bit taller in real life than they may appear to be in the photo... ... as for not looking 115lbs - I will take your word for that. Of course, Mr Pic did say, on being shown that photo; "Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald.". What he doesn't say is that the photo is not of Lee Harvey Oswald! Merely that he could not recognize it as LHO from that picture... slight difference. Any theory can be refined over time, and if some things are shown to be, not in error per se, but that can't be used as part of the theory then that doesn't 'rebutt' the theory as a whole... ... for example, like the claim that the 'no entry to Hungary' on his passport was to stop him from returning home, well that was shown to be on a few other passports too and clearly not for that reason... But yeah, as you said, a couple of rebuttal does not a theory destroy. Regards P.S. A lyric from a Paul Weller song just sprung to my mind and it seems apt for how I think about this whole topic: "All I see, the more I know, the more I know, the less I understand." lol

This is what I don't get then with all this talk about which one was taller than the other one... it seems from your answer, David, that Lee was 5ft 11 and Harvey was 5ft 9... yet photo #20 shows the height of being 5ft 9 and #66 shows a height of 5ft 9 as well (well actually that photo itself doesn't, but there is the 'fuller' image of his New Orleans arrest that does show him to be 5ft 9)... *The previous discussion between W Tracy Parnell and Sandy Larsen in regards to the 'big head' (photo #20) reveals that either the 5ft 9 is the exact height of the Oswald in it, or that he is shorter than that... Anyway, as something of an 'observer' in the whole 'Harvey & Lee' thing (inasmuch as I have no particular 'vested' interest either way) I do have to ask why I am looking at two different photos showing someone being measured as 5ft 9 and yet being told that one is actually 5ft 11. lol Regards

From reading around I keep coming across mentions that it would have been 'impossible' for someone like Oswald to learn Russian to such a proficient level in such a short time; personally I see no problem with it at all - if he was motivated enough, indulged enough, was diligent enough in his studies etc etc. It seems we agree on this point... I would presume that from being immersed in the language in Russia that Oswald would no doubt have picked up an accent... also I presume an American in Russia would have been quite rare and thus, the time that Marina first met Oswald she would have heard him speak Russian with an accent and would have had no expectation that he was an American at all so it should come as little surprise that she thought he was Russian... At least he wasn't speaking English with a faux Russian accent... Regards

Yeah it's Lee... ... that would be the Lee that is apparently 5ft 11 as oppossed to the Harvey that is 5ft 9. Or something like that. idk...

I just had a quick scan through the first couple of pages of that thread to find out who 'altered' it - did I read it right that it was 'altered' by Jack White? Or by someone else? 'gigantic head' indeed compared to what the 'average' size of head is... lol Was it Lee or Harvey that was 2 inches taller than the other? Regards

The 3rd row #4 looks really weird indeed - especially the size of the nose. lol Anyway, specifically, is number 20 (2nd row, 9th from the left) and number 66 (6th row, 11th from left) both Lee, or both Harvey, or one and the other. Regards

Techincally, just because the testimony of Roger Craig and Captain Fritz doesn't go hand in hand doesn't mean that one is the 'truth' and the other a 'fib', there is a way to reconcile the both of them quite easily. What if the 'office' of Fritz had two rooms, that is, within his office there was also a smaller room with a door... Craig turns up in to the 'outer' office, Fritz comes out the smaller room (in which Oswald is sat behind a desk), Fritz chats with Craig for a minute in a position that Craig can see Oswald... after their brief con-fab Fritz returns to the room and Craig 'loiters' in the outer room (maybe chatting to other people in that 'outer' room) and 'overhears' what is being said inside (maybe the door isn't fully closed)... in such a way, Craig's claim of being a 'witness' to what Oswald said can techincally stand and Fritz's claim of Craig not being in the room with Oswald can also techincally stand... the two positions are not mutually exclusive... there's no real reason to presume that one of them is 'fibbing'... ... there is a way that both can be correct, to an extent anyway... the 'difference' can be explained away by 'perspective'... ... you mention that Fritz denied that the converstaion ever occurred! In his WC testimony he states that he did have a conversation with Roger Craig but not in the same room that Oswald was in... he also doesn't technically say that the conversation that Craig claims to have heard didn't happen, all Fritz 'denies' is that Oswald 'got up from his chair and slammed his hand on the table'... What caused Mr Ball to ask that exact question was probably due to what Craig had said to the WC, but have a look at what he actually said in his WC testimony... Craig makes no mention of 'Oswald got up from his chair and slammed his hand on the table'... Has history decided against Roger Craig on this, and for Captain Fritz? Yeah I suppose 'history' has done that! The thing is though, both have probably been truthful in their accounts as they see it, and the 'as they see it' is quite the qualifier... Personally, I'm not seeing how it would change the personality and character of LHO... If that was true, and it was indeed Oswald that got in to the car that Craig saw, and indeed the driver was an accomplice and was indeed a 'getaway driver'... it just doesn't make sense. lol Why arrange a 'getaway driver' to pick you up 10 minutes later in a position as open as that... To be honest, Roger Craig is starting to bore me now. lol But I will leave this topic with something he said that may inject a wee bit of humour in to this conversation... as we know, he claims to have seen someone running away from the TSBD and get in to a car, he had just explained that to the WC and also given his description of the man he saw when the following question and answer occurred; I might have a strange sense of humour because that line genuinely made me laugh... I mean, let's be honest, I would say that most people who are running look like they are in an awful hurry. lol Whoever it was that was in an 'awful hurry', no doubt he was 'rushing' down that hill... and I suppose that could be our lead back in to Oswald and his time in Russia... (rushing/russian... lol). What do you make about Oswald's skills in speaking Russian? Regards

For those wanting to be kept abreast of things, wouldn't it be nice if the above image implicitily stated which ones are which Oswald... ... is, say, number 19 & 20 meant to be the same one was number 66 & 67?

I suppose any discussion that involves Oswald comes under the umbrella of 'related matters'. Happy to web and weave around and prod and probe different aspects with regards to Oswald, whilst not getting too bogged down in areas that may lead to going round in circles... ... one thing that I must say about what Roger Craig claims that he heard Oswald say is that it very much (to me) sounds similar in 'tonality' to what Fritz claims that Oswald said to him - which may lend some kind of credence to it, imho of course. Regards

To me it looks as if, though both hands get raised, the right hand rises more than the left hand does... ... as an alternative as to what is being held, I offer up it being a cup and saucer... ... maybe there was a wee cheeky biscuit on the saucer too. lol

I can almost agree with you on it being suspect, but certainly not for the same reasons you have stated here about it being like a 'dream'. You seem to be saying that because Frazier did not recall an exact verbatim report of what was said between him and the woman, and because he didn't recall her name and because he didn't describe her face that it must have been a dream. Let's be fair it would be quite easy to forget a name and forget exactly what was said, and there would be no real need to 'remember' the face either... there is also the chance that whoever it was Frazier spoke to was someone that he didn't actually know! As for there not being a 'silent greeting', 'like a hand wave' - why would such a thing be expected anyway. All Frazier is saying is that he saw Oswald come up the road and cross it (he is not saying that Oswald came anywhere near him) and he is also saying that he didn't think much about it because he thought he was going for a sandwich... ... as I said, I can almost agree with you on it being suspect, but not because it was a 'dream'. Also, people can be truthful without being under oath! And I wouldn't define Gary Mack, Stephen Fagin and Dave Perry 'random reporters' btw! Anyway, getting back to the Roger Craig thing... The thing is though Paul, in Roger Craig's sworn WC testimony at no point does he say that he spoke with Oswald. He says he spoke to Fritz and that Fritz asked him if this (LHO) was the man he saw and Craig said yes it was... below is the relevant part of his WC testimony... NB the last bit is clearly in reference to what Craig said to Fritz... Also what should be of interest on this point is that in his manuscript 'When They Kill A President' again Craig makes no mention whatsoever of himself talking to Oswald. Also of interest is the difference in the order of what Craig claims was said between Fritz and Oswald at that time. The order may be very important... Do you see the difference in order and how that may be very important? Can you see how, arguably, it could put a whole different slant on it? I would say that one could NOT easily argue that the photograph was taken long after the alleged Oswald sighting, because if one reads through the WC testimony of Roger Craig and looks at what he did and in what order then the only way he could have been in that photo at that location at that time would be if it was at around the time of the alleged Oswald sighting... ... I would say it could be easily argued that it happened pretty much within the minute? Because; Regards P.S. I think in terms of Roger Craig we have both put forward our cases, and I wouldn't want to get bogged down in going too much back and forth on it, so perhaps it may be prudent to soon move forward to another point of relevant discussion.

Just throwing this out there... ... Oswald was 5ft 9... ... it has been stated on here often that Lovelady was 5ft 8... ... according to an interview from Buell Wesley Frazier he says that he thought Lovelady was shorter than that and puts him at the most at 5ft 4, he also describes them as a 'Mutt and Jeff team'... Anyway, Here is a screen shot of that,

The way memory works is intriguing. It's more about 'connecting the dots' than having 'total recall', plus conflation of memories can happen quite easily... On the assumption that it was LHO, regardless of whatever his 'role' in the assassination was or wasn't, yes, I posit that it makes no sense as an 'escape'... even if it wasn't LHO but still had relevancy to the assassination I would still say it makes no sense as an 'escape'... for reasons of location and timing... At the end of this response I will offer up an innocent explanation of what Roger Craig saw. I can assure you that I haven't 'overlooked' any of the points you raised. I won't respond to every single point for purposes of brevity (although may come back to them later) but will respond to a couple of things just now... I think we can fairly say that it was certainly more than 10 minutes after the JFK murder because of the following photo... ... it ties in very well with what Roger Craig said his 'timeline' was. He said that it was approx. 10-12 minutes after the shots that he 'handed over' the Rowlands, he then said he 'looked around a bit' then crossed the road, looked at the 'curb' and then heard the 'shrill' whistle, he put that as happening at 14-15 minutes after the shots... regardless of how much he was off with his actual timing, the photo shows him before crossing the road and thus some time before hearing the whistle and the photo shows the time as being 10 minutes after the shots. Thus, with a high degree of certainity we can say that his hearing of the 'shrill' whistle was certainly more than 10 minutes after the shots... ... that nobody at this time was looking for LHO is irrelevant... Wait, wait, wait... As you know, Frazier (somewhat recently) has made the claim that he saw Oswald walk up Houston Street (beside the TSBD) and then cross over to the other side of Houston and then crosses Elm street. Frazier posits that Oswald must have come from the rear of the building but that isn't necessarily the case, it would only appear that way to Frazier if, for example, Oswald left via the front turned left and then turned left at the corner of Houston and walked up that road looking for a bus (?) and then for some reason decided to 'double-back'... in terms of a 'timeline' all of that could be said to tie in with Oswald then boarding the bus (as claimed by the WC)... on the assumption that that didn't happen, how does that fit in with Roger Craig's claim? If Roger Craig is correct that it was Oswald he saw then Oswald must have, since last being seen by Frazier, walked about for a period of time and headed, not just back to the TSBD, but beyond it and behind it to thus be seen running down the 'grassy knoll' and in to the car... the being picked up by a car must have been something that was pre-arranged, if the timing and the location were indeed what was pre-arranged then how does that explain away Oswald's wee journey in a totally different direction as seen by Frazier. It doesn't make sense (to me, at least). Why not make the arrangement to be picked up on Houston Street or Elm Street or some other location where the car could be parked awaiting Oswald to turn up, or at least have Oswald walk to an 'innocous' position to be picked up by the car at a pre-determinded time... Regards P.S. I earlier said I would offer up an 'innocent' explanation of what Roger Craig saw... On the day of JFK's visit to Dallas two pals decide to go and see him, and decide to take the car. They park the car on a nearby street and walk to where they know the motorcade is travelling past. The assassination takes place. The one who drove decides that he is going to go and get the car and leave but the other says he wants to look about a bit, he stays whilst the other gets the car, telling him to pick him up on that street where he is looking around, he will keep an eye out for the car. Fine says the driver, should only take 5 minutes for me to be there. Ok. So the driver gets the car, drives down the street slowly, his friend still looking around sees the car and runs down to it and gets in and off home they go... ... it's a possibility as far as I'm concerned.

Being wrong about something does not a 'big fibber' make... if Roger Craig thought the person he saw in Fritz's office was the same person he saw get in to a car earlier then he is being honest, albeit he could be mistaken... ... it's actually very common for people to be wrong about things that they are sure they are correct about. Granted most of the times it may be on either frivolous things or just things that are relatively unimportant - for example, have you ever heard anyone quote any of these famous movie quotes; "If you build it, they will come" (Fields of Dreams) "Luke, I am your father" (Empire Strikes Back) "Play it again Sam" (Cassablanca) "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth?" (A Few Good Men) "Do you feel lucky, punk?" (Dirty Harry) Each of those are wrong - they are all misquotes - someone who repeats one of those does so erroneously but they aren't 'fibbing' about it (unless they know it's wrong ) Anyway, at the end of the day, the person that Roger Craig saw in Fritz's office was either the same person he saw get in to the car or it wasn't the same person - either way I don't think he was being a 'big fibber', I just think he was wrong... This is where it may get slightly more complicated. lol It's possible that Roger Craig is putting himself in to such a conversation through a 'false memory'... perhaps he overheard a conversation and latterly his memory played tricks and he became convinced he was in the room as an active participant... We kind of can have it both ways, inasmuch as it's possible that both Fritz and Craig are telling the truth (as they recall it) - the question is which one is wrong (I don't think either were being 'big fibbers') and from all I have read I would say that it is Craig that is wrong... ... not sure if you were aware of this, but I found it very interesting that two of the most esteemed 'conspiracy theorists' - Mary Ferrell and Harold Weisberg - both 'dismissed' Roger Craig. You asked, Looking at it from a different angle, the question is, was it actually Oswald that he saw get in to the car and if so what is the explanation. To me it makes no sense whatsoever as an 'escape' for Oswald. The time and the location just don't make sense to me... Regards

& I just so happened to be reading Jim Marrs Crossfire earlier on today, in which it mentions the choice of Bethesda and points in the direction of Dr George G Burkley mentioning that it was Jackie that 'chose' Bethesda. Just came across online an 'oral history interview with Burkley' that the following quote comes from...

It's the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald.

It could be a lot less time too, of course (I forgot to say that in my last comment. lol) - if it had left at 11pm on the 16th and arrived at 1am on the 19th then that would be 50 hours - full steam ahead captain indeed. lol Anyway, I did a quick calculation using your above distance of 1440 miles, and if it was a period of 84 hours that would equate to an average speed of 14.8 knots. According to this page here the 'normal steaming speed' of the USS Skagit was 15 knots. Taking the ocean current in to account would certainly 'slow' it down... Regards

Is it known what time it left on the 16th and what time it arrived on the 19th? I know you have done your great calculations on it being 72 hours, but it could have been longer than that (up to 96 hours) depending on the departure and arrival time. If it left at 8am on the 16th and arrived at 8pm on the 19th that would be 84 hours... probably won't make much difference to the end result though.

I'm sure I have come across such photos but can't find them now... Anyway, In terms of what he saw on that day I too think he was telling the truth... as mentioned in Jim Marrs Crossfire: and, as you know, as mentioned in JFK and the Unspeakable, his story is also corroborated (to varying degrees) by Richard Randolph Carr, Helen Forrest, James Pennington and Roy Carr. Taking all that in to account then I think it does become clear that when Roger Craig said he saw someone run away from the TSBD and get in to a car he was indeed telling the truth... ... was it Oswald though (some people might think it was the Oswald, or maybe just an Oswald), as far as I'm concerned though it could just as easily be some random person. The question I ask myself is 'does it make sense' and I can't think of any reasonable reason for 'Oswald' to be making such an 'escape' at that time - if anyone can offer up an explanation at all that would be appreciated. Regards

You are correct that it wasn't the time he was talking about... it was (just) before it... and that is in agreement with the time that he put on hearing the whistle... Roger Craig said that he was on that side of the road and then crossed it to look at where a bullet may have hit the grass, and it was just after crossing the road that he heard the 'shrill whistle' - that photo, as can be seen by the 'Hertz' sign was taken at 12:40, so even if he crossed the road seconds after this photo then that would tie in with his time line (which gives credence to his story)... I don't doubt that he heard something that caught his attention... Considering the position of the car, and considering the position of other people who were on that side of the street, and considering that Roger Craig was on the other side of the street, and considering from what side the 'Oswald' figure is said to have ran from, if the whistle did indeed come from the driver (presumably as some kind of 'signal') then... well... it leads to a lot more questions... On the assumption it was Oswald... ... whether or not Oswald was being 'set-up' as the 'assassin', the incident Roger Craig mentions is, in his opinion, to all intents and purposes, Oswald's 'escape' and it must have been something that was put in to practice beforehand, that is to say that 'Oswald' must have known to expect to be picked up by car - if that was the case then he must also have been told at what time and where - does it make sense that the time would be 10 minutes later, does it make sense that the place would be pretty much exactly where the crime happened, and, indeed, does it make sense that a shrill whistle would be used as a signal in such a place... to me it doesn't make sense as an 'escape' for Oswald either way... I don't doubt that Roger Craig was an astute Deputy, and I don't doubt him seeing someone run down and get in to a car... it's just I can't see it being Oswald that he saw... ... was Oswald wearing blue trousers? People wouldn't have been in his line of sight - he was on the other side of the street from the car, the only thing that would be in his line of sight would be the 'heavy' traffic... on that point, I find that a bit strange also because he had just crossed the road easily enough and then seconds (as per what he says) later the traffic is so 'heavy' that he can't bolt across the road quick enough to 'speak' to the people in the car, and too heavy also for him to be able to read the plate... for such an 'astute' Deputy would reading the plate not be a priority... as for being not close enough... he wasn't that far away! Maybe it was just the angle, maybe the traffic was too heavy for him to get a look at it, no biggy really... We agree on the problem of timing that people have. With regards to Roger Craig's manuscript and his WC testimony, yes they match in the main points, in the main... there is one thing I noticed in his Clay Shaw trial testimony that jumped out to me that speaks of a certain 'embellishment' of what he knows... in both his Sherrif report and his WC testimony he mentions a 'luggage rack' and yet by the time of his Clay Shaw trial testimony he calls it a 'chrome luggage rack'! May not sound like a big difference, and really it's not, it's just something that stood out to me... another thing that stood out as a difference is that in his WC testimony he says Oswald leaned forward yet in his Clay Shaw trial testimony he says Oswald leaned back... I will get back to some of the other points you have raised Paul. Regards

As true as that may be, surely the real question becomes what was the whistle in the first place? Was it just a coincidental 'noise' that happened to catch Craig's ear? Or is the inference that the whistle was the person he saw 'hailing' their lift (like someone might hail a taxi)? As a slight aside, if Roger Craig was on such 'alert' that he could hear a 'shrill' whistle that no one else made mention of, can it not also be argued that he would have been on just as much of an 'alert' to note the 'registration plate' of the vehicle? He does mention in his WC testimony that the 'angle' was wrong to read it - fair enough I suppose... In this photo, the one identified as being Roger Craig, could it be that he is about to cross the road? To me it looks like he is looking up the street to see a gap in the traffic to cross. In terms of time it would fit with what he said... ... anyway, I don't doubt that Roger Craig saw someone run down and get in to a vehicle, but whether it was Oswald... I doubt very much. It does lead in to the 'encounter' Roger Craig had with Oswald... here is a passage from Roger Craig's manuscript... Does all of that tie in with what he said in his WC testimony though? There are a couple of differences - one is that he puts the time at more like 5:30pm, another is that he makes mention of actually already being in the room with Oswald when Fritz asks him if this was the man he saw, and also he mentions another person sitting in the room too... ... you mention; Well Fritz (who was quite busy that day) did remember Roger Craig being 'outside' his office, and indeed does remember talking to him for a minute, but he is quite adamant that Roger Craig did not talk to him in the presence of Oswald, and that's quite an important part... The interesting thing is that what Fritz says there in his WC testimony actually does tie in with what Craig said: "The door to Capt. Fritz‘ personal office was open and the blinds on the windows were closed, so that one had to look through the doorway in order to see into the room. I looked through the open door at the request of Capt. Fritz and identified the man who I saw running down the grassy knoll and enter the Rambler station wagon—and it WAS Lee Harvey Oswald." and it also ties in with Roger Craig's Sheriff Report on the 23rd of November! Is it possible that Roger Craig, for whatever reason, embellished the actual being in the room with Oswald and the conversation therein? Regards

This part (taken from his transcript of When They Kill A President); Is there any other witnesses who made mention of a 'shrill whislte'? But the main question I have to ask is how did Roger Craig get across the road? He had been on the grassy knoll talking to witnesses then he crossed the road to look at where a shell might have hit the curb and then heard the shrill whistle etc etc but by that time the traffic was too heavy to get back across the street. Within what, seconds, the traffic had become so heavy (and presumably quickly moving enough) for him not to get back across the road he had just crossed)... or am I missing something... thoughts? Regards

The book in question - The Mammoth Book Of Cover-Ups - is a compendium; a book that, by its very nature, can only give a very brief overview of each of the 100 'conspiracy theories' therein, thus the author becomes less of an author and more of a compiler, one that introduces each topic and gives a very brief run down of the salient 'facts', then, as something of a 'selling point', the author gives each conspiracy theory an 'Alert Level', rating its likely veracity (in his opinion of course) and then, for each one, comes a short list of 'further reading'... ... and what does Jon E Lewis say in the introduction about the 'Alert Level'? " ...this is only an indication: the reader must make up his or her own mind." *btw Jon E Lewis is a pen name used by the author/farmer John Lewis-Stempel . *I just had to go and have a nosey over at Amazon at that book and one of the 'reviews' from a Jack Harrison stood out (especially for the mention in it of another book; one which I'm sure you are a fan of )

Not to sound too cynical here, but I read that and see 'stories' and 'make a lot of money' and, well, can't help but think of made up stories to make money. lol Anyroads, on the subject of the DPD, I have recently been doing a fair bit of reading about Roger Craig and really wanted to gauge your opinions on him. Regards

Just a small point, they weren't 'survey results', they were just 'numbers' that the author, Jon E Lewis, gave to them... what he says in his introduction to his book on the subject is this: "Each conspiracy theory is assigned an 'Alert Level' rating indicating its likely veracity. But this is only an indication: the reader must make up his or her own mind." I think being sometimes more unpredictable than we like to believe is a human trait generally. We're only human... Reminds me of the song Human Being by Terrorvision that includes the following lyrics; What makes a man bruise his loving wife, What makes a man want to take his own life, And it's always on my mind... we're only human. What do you want, it's more than I can give, Man I'm just a human being. I wish I'd been to Woodstock, Or written Wild Thing, I wish I'd shot the pope dead, Or killed a foreign king, And it's always on my mind... we're only human. Anyway, thanks for being so candid, and in-depth, with your response. Regards