So it can be that Charles Rogers is NOT one of the three tramps in the 7 pictures and that it was Montoya instead, like Holt said?
No, two people that knew Rogers well, Chuck Rolland and a girl he dated, picked him out immediately when they saw the tramp photos.
Also: I believe Holt once said he saw Montoya years later somewhere.
Charles Rogers is supposed to be dissapeared? Or maybe even dead?
He is probably dead now or 86, he dissapeared, probably with a new identity from the CIA. Holt saw him a few years later in California in the company of CIA agent Art Negrete. .http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v3n2/v3n2holt.pdf
The magic bullshit theory
-
Jim Thompson
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Obvious Mismatch!
dankbaar wrote:So it can be that Charles Rogers is NOT one of the three tramps in the 7 pictures and that it was Montoya instead, like Holt said?No, two people that knew Rogers well, Chuck Rolland and a girl he dated, picked him out immediately when they saw the tramp photos. Also: I believe Holt once said he saw Montoya years later somewhere.Charles Rogers is supposed to be dissapeared? Or maybe even dead?He is probably dead now or 86, he dissapeared, probably with a new identity from the CIA. Holt saw him a few years later in California in the company of CIA agent Art Negrete. .http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v3 ... pdfQuoting Chancey Holt re: Montoya [ http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v3n2/v3n2holt.pdf ]:Whether he (Montoya) was really Charles Rogers I would not hazard a guess, despitestatements made by others that I positively identified him as one of the menphotographed in New Orleans in August of 1963.
This means that Holt, who had seen the three tramps photos & photos of Rogers, was NOT prepared to identify Frenchy as Rogers. Note: Holt, therefore, did not see a resemblance; otherwise, Holt would have have hazarded a guess.
Chuck Rolland recognized Frenchy as someone he had seen in his rink, but he did not assert that that person was Rogers.
Christine Anderson's ID of Frenchy as Rogers is suspect as she had seen Rogers only once a few months before Rogers killed his parents. She had not seen him otherwise for many years. Was she mistaken? Persuaded?
Lois Gibson does NOT absolutely ID Frenchy with Rogers.
The devastatingly convincing, the overwhelming proof that Frenchy is NOT Rogers is simply the gross & obvious dissimilarity between the photos of Rogers & the photos of Frenchy (or Montoya).
This means that Holt, who had seen the three tramps photos & photos of Rogers, was NOT prepared to identify Frenchy as Rogers. Note: Holt, therefore, did not see a resemblance; otherwise, Holt would have have hazarded a guess.
Chuck Rolland recognized Frenchy as someone he had seen in his rink, but he did not assert that that person was Rogers.
Christine Anderson's ID of Frenchy as Rogers is suspect as she had seen Rogers only once a few months before Rogers killed his parents. She had not seen him otherwise for many years. Was she mistaken? Persuaded?
Lois Gibson does NOT absolutely ID Frenchy with Rogers.
The devastatingly convincing, the overwhelming proof that Frenchy is NOT Rogers is simply the gross & obvious dissimilarity between the photos of Rogers & the photos of Frenchy (or Montoya).
Lois Gisbosn is 100% sure of her ID of Rogers. She "bets the farm on it".
That includes the Shell foto.
It's the same man, only his hair is shorter cut on the shell foto, which is why the hariline looks more receded.
Every single facial feature and dimension is consistent.
We know that Rolland meant Rogers , because he identified the man as the one who often used the payphone at the ice rink. That was Rogers.
I can show you pictures of Harrelson at different ages, you would think it's not the same man. But you' re not trained in recognizing facial features.
You're simply wrong, more info later. There's a third witness too. Have you read "the man on the grassy knoll? "
Wim
[/img]
That includes the Shell foto.
It's the same man, only his hair is shorter cut on the shell foto, which is why the hariline looks more receded.
Every single facial feature and dimension is consistent.
We know that Rolland meant Rogers , because he identified the man as the one who often used the payphone at the ice rink. That was Rogers.
I can show you pictures of Harrelson at different ages, you would think it's not the same man. But you' re not trained in recognizing facial features.
You're simply wrong, more info later. There's a third witness too. Have you read "the man on the grassy knoll? "
Wim
[/img]
-
Jim Thompson
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
dankbaar wrote:Lois Gisbosn is 100% sure of her ID of Rogers. She "bets the farm on it". That includes the Shell foto. It's the same man, only his hair is shorter cut on the shell foto, which is why the hariline looks more receded. Every single facial feature and dimension is consistent. We know that Rolland meant Rogers , because he identified the man as the one who often used the payphone at the ice rink. That was Rogers. I can show you pictures of Harrelson at different ages, you would think it's not the same man. But you' re not trained in recognizing facial features. You're simply wrong, more info later. There's a third witness too. Have you read "the man on the grassy knoll? "WimLois Gisbosn is 100% sure of her ID of Rogers. Not so. Lois says: ''To me this definitely could be Charles Rogers." She does not say "this is Rogers"; she says "could be". That's not 100%. Every single facial feature and dimension is consistent.Not so. Nose, ears, eyebrows, lips, width of face, - all are different. Lois says:Unfortunately, I need to tell you that, because your nose consists of gristle, cartilage, cartilage material, also your ears, your ears and your nose grow your whole life. They do not stop growing. So the nose is bigger but I believe Charles is 13 on the left and then he is of course 41 on the right. So Lois notices a nose difference which she explains. But she evidently feels that it necessary to explain. The change of nose shape, the difference in nose shape, cannot be explained by growth when comparing the 1958 photo of Rogers with the 1963 photo of Montoya.We know that Rolland meant Rogers , because he identified the man as the one who often used the payphone at the ice rink. That was Rogers. Not so. Rolland did not say that the man he saw at the rink was Rogers. He only said that the short tramp was the man he had seen at the rink....more info later. There's a third witness too. Have you read "the man on the grassy knoll? "
I would surely like to see more info. Great! Third witness? Who? Yes, I have read The Man on the Grassy Knoll. But have you read The Icebox Murders?
By the way, I agree with Lois on her ID (Harrelson & Holt) for the other two tramps.
I would surely like to see more info. Great! Third witness? Who? Yes, I have read The Man on the Grassy Knoll. But have you read The Icebox Murders?
By the way, I agree with Lois on her ID (Harrelson & Holt) for the other two tramps.
Not so. Lois says: ''To me this definitely could be Charles Rogers." She does not say "this is Rogers"; she says "could be". That's not 100%.
That is based, not on a tramps photo, but on this photo:
Not so. Nose, ears, eyebrows, lips, width of face, - all are different.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but it disagrees with Lois, who is the expert. She only notes a difference in the size of the nose compared with a 13 year old Rogers. She explains that by pointing out that the nose grows in size with age.Wim[/img]
That is based, not on a tramps photo, but on this photo:
Not so. Nose, ears, eyebrows, lips, width of face, - all are different.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but it disagrees with Lois, who is the expert. She only notes a difference in the size of the nose compared with a 13 year old Rogers. She explains that by pointing out that the nose grows in size with age.Wim[/img]
-
Jim Thompson
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
dankbaar wrote:Not so. Lois says: ''To me this definitely could be Charles Rogers." She does not say "this is Rogers"; she says "could be". That's not 100%.That is based, not on a tramps photo, but on this photo:Not so. Nose, ears, eyebrows, lips, width of face, - all are different.Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but it disagrees with Lois, who is the expert. She only notes a difference in the size of the nose compared with a 13 year old Rogers. She explains that by pointing out that the nose grows in size with age.Wim
Yes, this pic is 1963. If you compare NG (nose growth) with the Shell 1958 (1956?) pic, you question Lois' NG theory. I believe Pinocchio had a NG issue, too. Well, anyway, I'll stick with my opinion... Say, the guy in the black leisure suit just behind LHO seems to be doing the Mambo! A Castro spy?
Yes, this pic is 1963. If you compare NG (nose growth) with the Shell 1958 (1956?) pic, you question Lois' NG theory. I believe Pinocchio had a NG issue, too. Well, anyway, I'll stick with my opinion... Say, the guy in the black leisure suit just behind LHO seems to be doing the Mambo! A Castro spy?
More on Rogers...
Charles Rogers was born in 1921. He studied nuclear physics at the University of Houston and during the Second World War served with the Organization of Naval Intelligence. After the war he worked as a seismologist with Shell Oil. While a member of the Civil Air Patrol he became a close friend of David Ferrie. In 1956 Rogers joined the Central Intelligence Agency.
An associate of Carlos Marcello, Rogers was accused of being involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The forensic artist, Louis Gibson, claimed that Rogers was "Frenchy", one of the three tramps arrested in Dealey Plaza on 22nd November, 1963. After his release Rogers left the country in a CIA plane to South America.
And this...
Phillip A. Twombly was Executive Vice President of Coca Cola for their Caribbean operations. Later he owned a bank in Fullerton, California. According to Chauncey Holt this bank was used to distribute CIA funds for covert operations.
In 1963 Holt received instructions from Twombly to provide false ID documents for Lee Harvey Oswald. These documents (in the names of Lee Harvey Oswald and Alek Hiddell) were delivered by a man called George Reynolds. In August, 1963, Twombly asked Holt to travel to New Orleans, where he met Oswald and Carlos Bringuier.
Chauncey Holt later claimed he was went to Dallas in November, 1963, with Charlie Nicoletti, James Canty and Leo Moceri. In Dallas he passed on forged documents and guns (with silencers) to Charles Harrelson and Charles Rogers (Richard Montoya). Holt was told that "an incident was going to be created which could be laid at the door of pro-Castro Cubans. The word attempted assassination was never used. We assumed that from all this light loaded ammunition that maybe somebody was going to try to take a shot from somewhere, probably the Dal-Tex building, or one of the buildings around there. But at no time was it ever intimidated to us that an assassination or attempted assassination on Kennedy."
When the Kennedy motorcade reached the Dealey Plaza, Holt was in the parking lot behind the Grassy Knoll. After the shooting took place Holt went to hide in a railroad car. He was joined by Charles Harrelson and Charles Rogers. However, soon afterwards, Dallas police officers entered the railroad car and arrested all three men. The three men along with Jim Brading were interviewed by Gordon Shanklin of the FBI and then released.
Charles Rogers was born in 1921. He studied nuclear physics at the University of Houston and during the Second World War served with the Organization of Naval Intelligence. After the war he worked as a seismologist with Shell Oil. While a member of the Civil Air Patrol he became a close friend of David Ferrie. In 1956 Rogers joined the Central Intelligence Agency.
An associate of Carlos Marcello, Rogers was accused of being involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The forensic artist, Louis Gibson, claimed that Rogers was "Frenchy", one of the three tramps arrested in Dealey Plaza on 22nd November, 1963. After his release Rogers left the country in a CIA plane to South America.
And this...
Phillip A. Twombly was Executive Vice President of Coca Cola for their Caribbean operations. Later he owned a bank in Fullerton, California. According to Chauncey Holt this bank was used to distribute CIA funds for covert operations.
In 1963 Holt received instructions from Twombly to provide false ID documents for Lee Harvey Oswald. These documents (in the names of Lee Harvey Oswald and Alek Hiddell) were delivered by a man called George Reynolds. In August, 1963, Twombly asked Holt to travel to New Orleans, where he met Oswald and Carlos Bringuier.
Chauncey Holt later claimed he was went to Dallas in November, 1963, with Charlie Nicoletti, James Canty and Leo Moceri. In Dallas he passed on forged documents and guns (with silencers) to Charles Harrelson and Charles Rogers (Richard Montoya). Holt was told that "an incident was going to be created which could be laid at the door of pro-Castro Cubans. The word attempted assassination was never used. We assumed that from all this light loaded ammunition that maybe somebody was going to try to take a shot from somewhere, probably the Dal-Tex building, or one of the buildings around there. But at no time was it ever intimidated to us that an assassination or attempted assassination on Kennedy."
When the Kennedy motorcade reached the Dealey Plaza, Holt was in the parking lot behind the Grassy Knoll. After the shooting took place Holt went to hide in a railroad car. He was joined by Charles Harrelson and Charles Rogers. However, soon afterwards, Dallas police officers entered the railroad car and arrested all three men. The three men along with Jim Brading were interviewed by Gordon Shanklin of the FBI and then released.