Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Man on the Grassy Knoll


Recommended Posts

I read the book 'the man on the grassy knoll' by john r craig and philip a rogers a few months ago and i just want to know what the actual facts are in this book as there seems to be a lot of speculation and the book is written in an unusual manner. for example there is a suggestion that lho charles harrelson both ate at a house neighboring charles rogers. Is there any factual basis to this and were the couple interviewed? if anybody has contact details for either mr.craig or mr. rogers would they be so kind as to email them to me at wereallgointaheavenlads@hotmail.com (its a long one)

i talked to wim about this before perhaps he knows more?

thanks

john

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi John,

Good book, not? Some great unknown nuggets are in there.

Why do you think they never caught Charles Rogers? Do you think he could vanish from the face of the earth without any outside help?

I talked to John Craig and he put a lot of research in it. I believe that the least known books have the most truth in it.

Wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi wim,

its written very strangely in that he tells the story as if he is in the room while it happens, it is unlike all the factual assassination books. He paints a good scenario but it was always at the back of my mind if these assumptions are based on fact and interviews he may have made, its an odd one alright. with rogers knowledge of spannish he could easily have been re-deployed in south america by the CIA alright, in referring to harrelson and rogers knowing eachother at a young age this seems interesting though unlikely, also harrelsons affiliation with oswald. they are very precise in saying that oswald and harrelson turned up at the gerharts looking for rogers on the 25th of september 1963 which would show that the gerharts had reported their visitors.

john

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main flaw I recall in that book is the identification of the tramp Frenchy as Charles Rogers. There is no resemblance between the two men. (That is also a flaw in Chauncey Holt's story.) And before Wim brings up Lois Gibson, she has no credibility, despite her credentials, when she says Rogers is Frenchy. She must have had her reasons for saying that. I don't know her and have no idea what they were, but they had nothing to do with the human form as seen by two human eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wim,

thanks for that.

i emailed lois gibson myself a few months ago just to make sure that she still sood by her findings and she said that it was indeed rogers, harrelson and holt.

The difficulty in identifying rogers is the lack of photographs of him at the time of the assassination, perhaps some more tests could be carried out by another expert to either prove or disprove the findings.

john

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

What is less known, but I guess you have read it in the book, is that two witnesses who knew Rogers, picked him out immediately from the tramps photographs. Chuck Rolland of the Ice Skating Rink and a girl that dated Rogers.

There is another later picture of Rogers from his Shell ID card, that I have not been able to find on the Net.

Wim

Edited by Wim Dankbaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I rest my case on the photo comparison posted by James. So there's an age difference. In the book there's a photo of a sculpture by Gibson of what Rogers would supposedly look like in 1992 at the age of 69. Even assuming that it's accurate, it still doesn't look like Frenchy.

I should still believe Gibson because she's the expert? As Richard Pryor once said, "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw a thing on Charles Rogers.

Whether or not he was in on Dallas,

The simple fact that the government had people

like him and William Morgan on the payroll and ran Programs with them

I mean that is sick, where was the government oversight,

These violent criminals given secret tasks and set out as semi-official

hit men, very disturbing.

Have you all read the 1953 CIA assassination handbook on

frank olson project website?

Its got all the terminology, chase, lost, special jargon for "exec. action"

Ron I know you would appreciate it in understanding skanks like Rogers.

shanet

"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

Answer: My eyes and the evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

The difficulty in identifying rogers is the lack of photographs of him at the time of the assassination, perhaps some more tests could be carried out by another expert to either prove or disprove the findings. (John Geraghty)

John,

Below is a photograph of Charles Rogers circa 1958. Not great quality unfortunately.

Interesting to note that a few months after Charles Rogers' parents were murdered, a man was arrested for disorderly conduct. He told the arresting officer at the scene that his name was Charles Frederick Rogers. By the time they got him back to the station, he claimed his name was William C. Hughes Jr.

Two people who knew Rogers were brought in and they claimed the prisoner was indeed Charles Rogers, son of the murdered couple. Police eventually compared fingerprints and said the man was not Rogers and he was released. However they didn't say who this man was or why Rogers' prints were on file.

FWIW.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...