Greg Doudna

Chris who is that woman next to the two police officers supposed to be? Do you know?

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

I can figure out how some extra details can be seen better in a good-quality copy of a Darnell frame in some of the doorway occupants, however, I cannot see how  a smudge-like Prayer Man's neck can be seen as a smooth line by just increasing the resolution. Frazier's head can be seen in blue-ray version and it can maybe seen even better in the red-arrow version. However, information in Prayer Man's head and neck is highly distorted in blue-ray version, and there is no chance to arrive from a smudge of this sort to a smooth neckline without manipulating the picture. 

To show some more examples how aggressively was the red-arrow picture handled, I have extracted three examples.

First, the ceiling lamp behind the glass door is intact in blue-ray version but broken in the red-arrow version. This is a new shape of the lamp, not just an enhancement of contrasts or a similar adjustment.

Second, the young man standing in front of the east pillar of the doorway has smooth hairline in blue-ray version but the sampe hair gets horns in red-arrow version. Again, this is a new shape of an object which cannot be seen in the original image.

 

The lady in the foreground provides an insight into what happened to the red-arrowed image. The lady has intact hair in the blue-ray version of this still, however, it lacks the back of her head and receives a masculine looking face in the red-arrowed version. The two black spots look disturbing in the red-arrowed version of the still.

Thus, the red-arrow version of Darnell still is a problematic image. I would advise caution when drawing any conclusions on identity of Prayer Man using this image.

Very interesting Andrej. From your second and third examples, it looks like the creation of the "red arrow" version involved increasing contrast which can "create" illusory black spots not representing real items or profiles. Since the only basis for the eye "seeing" what looks like a white border on a woman's dress's scoop neckline in that photo ... is specifically caused by the creation of a black blotch in Prayer Man's throat area in that photograph, there may go the bright white scoop-neckline border on the alleged woman's dress. What is left, then, is the profile of the neckline itself but that is ambiguous between a woman's neckline or a neckline which Oswald could have at present resolution of photographs, since TSBD laboring men such as Oswald and Lovelady wore their shirts with the top unbuttoned and wide open over a white T-shirt underneath, with roughly similar outline or appearance to a woman's dress scoop neckline.

The frame that Hackerott saw, which may or may not be the source for the "red arrow" enhanced and somewhat degraded copy of a photograph of it, probably does not have the full black splotch that the "red arrow" one does. Corroboration of that may be this: Hackerott in all three of his three sittings sketched seeing not a black splotch but a vertical line. The enhancing or processing done in the "red arrow" photo has created phantom black areas (or expanded upon some smaller shading that might have existed), in this case in the area of Prayer Man's upper chest/throat area, illusorily.

But the vertical line itself that Hackerott saw (or thought he saw), what was that? Is it possible it was nothing actually?

I am unable for technical reasons to show the common photos of Oswald at the Dallas Police station after his arrest, wearing a white T-shirt, but please check those images and verify this (e.g. such as this Associated Press photo of Oswald, Nov 23, 1963: https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/oswald-and-the-jfk-assassination/; or this Getty Image here: https://nypost.com/2017/11/04/latest-jfk-files-say-no-evidence-of-cia-links-to-oswald/amp/, or this, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369886/original/file-20201117-19-155n0v5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip). Look at Oswald's throat from his Adam's apple down. See how a black-and-white video or still camera not in good focus could pick that up as a darker shaded vertical area. 

Therefore here is a proposed interpretation of the "red arrow" image of Prayer Man: the scoop neckline appearance would be the way Oswald wore his shirt, his faded-maroon-colored dress shirt, CE 150. The "red arrow" photo has artificially had the contrast heightened, making brighter whites and creating illusory dark areas or expanding the size of real ones in the photo. The white above and all around the neckline in that photo could be Oswald's white t-shirt. The vertical "line" Hackerott saw, or the exaggerated and artificially expanded in size black splotch in the "red arrow" image, is actually really the slightly darker appearance of Oswald's throat seen in b & w photos of Oswald wearing his T-shirt at the Dallas Police station.

In other words, the vertical black line seen by Hackerott is not a bolo tie, not a pendant on a choke chain, and it is not Hackerott misinterpreting seeing an actual huge black blotch on the "red arrow" photo. It is none of those. It is nothing other than a slightly darker appearance of Oswald's throat in normal b & w photos, artificially made blacker and expanded in size by the processing done on the "red arrow" photo.

For all we know processing could have been done on what became the "red arrow" photo until, out of a spectrum of processings available to choose, that one was chosen for leaking to the JFK assassination research community which made it most look like a woman's scoop neckline of a dress with a bright white hem or border. It isn't that, but that is the kind of illusion that can happen with heightened-contrast creating or expanding the size of a darker area on a b & w photo.

Again, the sketches of Hackerott who saw a superior quality image to that of the red-arrow photo, fail to confirm the black splotch of the size on the "red arrow" photo, although Hackerott did see, or thought he saw, something vertical. But what Hackerott saw was thinner and perhaps not as emphatic or dark as in the large blotch in that area in "red arrow". The suggestion is that what Hackerott saw is superior to and prior in importance to the processed "red arrow" photo, and what Hackerott saw--without benefit of zoom--could be simply the normal darker shade of Oswald's throat as it would be expected to appear on a b & w film, on analogy with known Oswald b & w photos.

56 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

The proper name:

Corrected.

Some comments on the “red arrow” photo of Prayer Man

On the photo under discussion, the “red arrow” photo, is that a woman's dress scoop neckline, or is it the way Oswald as one of the TSBD laborers commonly wore his shirt with the top two or three buttons unbuttoned over a white T-shirt, with a vertical splotch on the photo creating an optical illusion? 

First some primary data: three sketches drawn by the only known reported person to have seen and studied the first-generation copy of the Darnell film--better quality than any posted on the internet--at the Sixth Floor Museum, James Hackerott. On Dec 30, 2019 James Hackerott posted three sketches he drew from what he saw in better photos than any of us have seen on the internet. This is primary, please see here:  

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=2359.0 

From reading Hackerott's descriptions and notes it is clear to me Hackerott strove for accuracy to the best of his ability without attempting to support or bolster any theory. He attempted to document data for the record and for the benefit of others as accurately as he could. He not only sketched but told of notes and comments on his sketches.  

Then there is the "red arrow" photo of uncertain provenance and origins, which shows the appearance of a woman's scoop neckline. On the provenance issue, the following was commented in Sept 2022 (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28136-prayerperson/)

"... thanks for posting the Darnell picture. It is obvious that the photograph submitted by Alan Ford has been heavily worked out, this is not the original Darnell still. It is a great risk to use photographs of uncertain origin (we know Alan retrieved it but where from?), and it even opens the possibility that someone squeezes in a tampered version of the photograph. I would only use Prayer Man related pictures from jfkassassinationgallery.org or from prayer-man.com. If there are other sources of validated photographs, we should be able to review the history of these pictures."

"Could it be that the picture provided by Alan Ford was photographed in the Sixth Floor Museum as displayed by the viewing system the Museum offers for viewing Darnell film? …" 

"… Based on the link provided by Chris earlier in this thread, it seems that Mr Hackerott from jfkassassinationforum.org had seen this particular picture when viewing Darnell in SFM."

Let us proceed on two assumptions: that the Darnell improved photo of mystery origin is not tampered with (as distinguished from possible processing) and that it is one of the frames Hackerott saw at the Sixth Floor Museum, per Stancak's suggestion that it could even have been someone's photograph of one of those Darnell first-generation-copy frames at the Sixth Floor Museum. That would account for its better quality than the other internet images. 

From Hackerott’s description it seems he was able to view the film frame by frame but reported that he was unable or had no knowledge of how to zoom. Apparently his sketches were done at three separate sittings, each time looking at a still frame or frames through a viewer without the benefit of zooming. (He later reported he had learned it was possible to zoom with that software but at the time he was in the Sixth Floor Museum he had not known how.) Hackerott reported difficulty in easily going backward to a previous frame, and experienced the software repeatedly crashing when he tried to examine individual frames, such as moving from frame to frame. These were either software or user issues of the viewer program used at the Sixth Floor Museum, technical details discussed by Hackerott and others. Hackerott reported he was unable to make any enhancements on the frames with the software. 

Therefore it seems Hackerott's sketches were from freezing one frame, without zoom or enhancement, and sketching as accurately as he could what he saw of Prayer Man, benefitting from looking at adjacent frames too.

The important point is that Hackerott described a “vertical line” down Prayer Man’s throat. That corresponds to what can be seen as a semi-vertical dark “blotch” on the red-arrow photo in the throat area of Prayer Man which has the effect of making the remaining area not covered by the dark blotch look like a white border of the neckline of a dress. But actually that could be some vertical dark “blotch” on top of white T-shirt underneath. The dark blotch makes it look like the white not covered by the blotch is a white or bright fringe or edge of the neckline, part of the same item of clothing, but that may be an optical illusion.

Although Hackerott’s vertical dark line corresponds to the vertical “dark blotch” in the red-arrow photo, there are discrepancies in the nature of that dark blotch or mark between the two. First, Hackerott saw only a narrow vertical line, which he said reminded him of a bolo tie, whereas the red-arrow photo has not a narrow line but a blotch (as I call it). 

And second, the first two of Hackerott’s sketches show his vertical dark line going down to and joining the top of the clothing's neckline, dividing the remaining white area on each side in two. Hackerott’s third sketch however is a bit ambiguous, with his vertical line not quite touching the neckline below (or above below the face), compared to the first two sketches.

In the red-arrow photo the “dark blotch” (corresponding to Hackerott’s vertical line) definitely does not go down to touch the clothing neckline, and this is what gives the appearance (illusion?) of a bright white border at the neckline of a woman’s dress. 

So there are at least three distinct interpretations of these data features. Note the first two below, in which the interpretation is of a woman, are very different in terms of identification of "the white" and "the dark blotch" features.

• Interpretation of the Hackerott sketches as showing a woman: an apparent woman’s neckline; the white is not clothing, is not part of the dress but is skin, the woman’s neck; and the woman is wearing something that falls down from her neck, something that Hackerott thought looked like it could be a bolo tie except bolo ties are only worn by men. Hackerott said his wife suggested it could be some sort of choker necklace with a pendant worn by a woman.
• Interpretation of the red-arrow photo as showing a woman: an apparent woman’s neckline with the white area being the border of the dress at the neckline; the “dark blotch” is skin, the woman’s neck.

To those two very different interpretations may be listed a third, in which Prayer Man is a man wearing a man's shirt similar to the way Lovelady standing next to him was wearing his shirt, and Oswald that afternoon when arrested was wearing his shirt: unbuttoned top buttons, with the top of the shirt wide open and loose, worn over a white T-shirt going up to the neckline.

• Interpretation of Prayer Man of the Hackerott sketches and red-arrow photo as one of the male manual laborers at the TSBD: the white is neither skin nor the border of a woman’s dress, but is a man’s white T-shirt. The scoop-neckline appearance is from the way TSBD laboring men such as Lovelady (in the same Darnell footage) and Oswald (as evidenced in photos that afternoon) wore their shirts routinely—top buttons unbuttoned, collar spread out and very loose on the shoulders, worn over a white T-shirt going up to the neck. The dark blotch or vertical mark is the remaining puzzle in this interpretation, but by this interpretation is neither skin nor a jewelry-accoutrement over skin or T-shirt, but an artifact of photo processing, or conceivably shadow (within the shadowed area), or from sweat, say, from a TSBD laborer working all morning who sweated into the front of a white T-shirt, with the dampness causing the “dark blotch” photographically.

For the record, I am interested in objective determination of the photo information, as I think is true of most following this issue. If it can be known not to be Oswald, so be it. If it is Oswald, so be it.

On the anomaly in the photo processing, one can note on the red-arrow photo what look to me like similar-appearing dark “blotches” on the concrete columns at the left on the same photo, which are clearly artifacts of the processing or the photo, not in the concrete. The idea, which I believe was suggested by Stancak, is that heightened contrast on photos in processing can create noise or static or illusory dark spots, etc. that are not actual information.

May others better than me in photo interpretation vet these comments!   

Gary Murr, please excuse the off-topic but as long as you are here, a question I have long wanted to ask you: a while ago there was notice that you had prepared an extensive study on the shooting of Governor Connally, three volumes. Despite my best efforts I cannot find access to any of the three volumes. Specifically there was notice that you had something original to say concerning the angle Connally was turned or facing when he was hit. Would it be possible to tell your argument on that--to explain what I have bolded below from you if that is still your position today? When in Zapruder do you see that anatomical position? Thanks! (I can open a new thread on this inviting your comments there if you wish me to do so.) 

On May 17, 2020 James Gordon wrote:

"I have felt for a while that it is time again to look at John Connally’s wounds. The expert in this area is Gary Murr and you ought to read the two volumes of his work on John Connally that he has publicly released. I am not aware part 3 has been published for forum members. I write these words having been outside Connally research for some time.
In my view the Connally wounding is the key to the SBT. In Gary’s fourth appearance at Lancer he described the path of the bullet through Connally’s Thorax. His description suggested - and it compliments what he says in chapter 1 of his book - that the bullet was very shallow through his muscles. I remember thinking - when watching the video - the path of the bullet must be close to skin depth. I contacted Gary and he was pleased I had noticed this.

"In our many email conversations Gary constantly reminded that that you cannot understand Connally’s wounds without first understanding his position in the car when he was wounded: it is Connally’s position that explains the wounds. In an email exchange Gary made the following point:
one factor that to my way of thinking most influenced the flight path of the striking missile that generated the thoracic wound site is the anatomical position of the Governor at impact. I feel that it is virtually certain that he was not sitting anatomically erect, nor for that matter, erect and anatomically turned to his right - but that is my opinion. I do feel that the preponderance of physical evidence leads me to believe that the Governor was turned to or virtually on his left side at the moment he was struck in the back - but again that is my opinion.  (2020 discussion, https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26538-connally-hit-by-two-bullets/ )

Thank you Mark U., Jean Paul C., and Joseph B. for explanation of the photo! 

The second photo in Cory's linked article of JFK, Jackie, and Connally on a parade route cannot be from Dallas Nov 22 because it looks like a different limousine, Connally is in a different position and Nellie Connally seems missing. Can anyone identify the location and date of that photograph of JFK, Jackie, and Connally? 

On the sidewalk of the spectators of that photograph, third figure from the top right of the photo, top row, there is a woman talking on a corded telephone, while standing on the sidewalk. Can anyone explain what that is about--someone holding a telephone receiver with a cord to her face, talking on a telephone while standing on the sidewalk watching the JFK parade go by? I assume it is a woman from the hair, possibly it could be a man. 

How many people in 1963 talked on corded landline phones while standing on sidewalks?  

Jim D from the FBI report quoted by Tom Gram and also from you I see I misspoke but I had no intent to slam you and apologize for my misunderstanding. I am deleting the comment. Yes, I see now there was a paper bag or wrapper. Is it excluded there had been a magazine inside that paper bag or wrapper? (If Holmes’ report of the mailer being only half opened at one end in the condition found is true, that would rule out a full-sized magazine inside which had been removed?) Or was it never more than the paper bag or wrapping alone which had been in the mailer, if so curious. The FBI report asks that that paper be analyzed, I wonder what happened with that. I am away from my books at this moment but will recheck yours tonight on this.

16 hours ago, David Andrews said:

What do we make of the bag addressed to the wrong Oswald location, held at the post office and discovered after his death?  Did someone really need to connect him with a rifle bag?  Could he have ordered it at a gun shop?

Some discussion of bags, rods, and the Frazier-Randle family in this video.  Brings up issues if not solving them to everyone's satisfaction:

Oswald: What I'm really lookin' for is something to carry this thing in, but I can't afford a case.

Gunsmith: Well, I'm all outta paper sacks.  Like me to mail you one?

Oswald: Sure.  Here's two bits and a fake address.

"The Man Who Drove Oswald to Work on Nov. 22, 1963"

[or, the size of the paper bag of Oswald the morning of Nov 22 according to the testimony on the record]

https://nypost.com/2008/11/23/the-man-who-drove-oswald-to-work-on-nov-22-1963/

"(. . .) [Buell Wesley] FRAZIER was questioned vigorously by police – accused of being involved in the plot to kill Kennedy – and even told falsely by police officers that Oswald had named him as a co-conspirator. 

"After 12 intense hours at the police department, he was allowed to take a polygraph test, passed it impressively and was released. 

"The fact that Frazier helped train Oswald at his new job and had driven him to Irving several times soon faded from most people’s memories. But another factor remained noteworthy. 

"Officials assumed that the package Oswald carried to work that morning was the Italian-made rifle he used to kill Kennedy. 

"Frazier still doesn’t believe it. 

"When Oswald got in his car that morning, Frazier hardly noticed the bundle he laid on the back seat. 

" 'He told me he was taking some curtain rods for his room,' Frazier said. 'I didn’t think much about it.' 

"Frazier parked his car behind the depository building and revved his engine for a few moments, charging his low battery, and watched Oswald walk about 200 yards into the building with the package under his arm. 

"In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Frazier said the brown paper package Oswald carried that morning was too short to contain a rifle. Oswald cupped the package in his hand, he said, and it fit under his armpit. 

"In Washington, Frazier said, he was 'pressured' to change his recollection. In the days afterward, he was badgered by the media, harassed by people who didn’t understand his relationship with Oswald and even became fearful for his life. 

"His testimony was important because investigators had proven that Oswald bought the rifle used in the JFK slaying and they had found a matching palm print on the blunt end of the rifle, but they had no proof that he had it with him that day. 

"Randle, who was also a leading witness, said recently that when she and Frazier testified before the Warren Commission, 'they tried to get us to say that package was much longer than we recalled, but that wasn’t true.' 

"The commission kept pushing, Frazier said. 

“ 'I know what I saw,' he said, 'and I’ve never changed one bit.' 

"Hundreds of conspiracy theories have spawned thousands of books and articles since the tragedy, but the official investigation concluded that Oswald shot Kennedy and acted alone. 

"The Warren Commission cited eyewitnesses to the shooting, and the later assault of Officer J.D. Tippit and the fact that Oswald had bought the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle for $12.95 from a Chicago mail-order house. 

"A brown paper sack with an Oswald palm and fingerprint on it was found close to the sixth-floor window where Oswald sat in wait that day. 

"No curtain rods were ever found in the depository, and Oswald’s room in Oak Cliff already had curtains. 

"In a book he’s writing, Frazier describes how he and his sister assembled packages with wrapping paper for hours, trying to show Warren Commission lawyers the size of the package Oswald carried that day. 

"In its report, released in the fall of 1964, the commission said, 'The Warren Commission has weighed the visual recollection of Frazier and Mrs. Randle against the evidence here presented . . . and has concluded that Frazier and Randle are mistaken as to the length of the bag.' 

"The FBI lab reported that the disassembled rifle stock measured just under 35 inches long, and the homemade bag measured 38 inches. 

“ 'I wasn’t surprised,' Frazier said. 'They seemed to have a prearranged agenda when they questioned Linnie and me. Our refusal to agree with their agenda simply caused them to state that we were mistaken.' " 

I agree with Bill Brown here, "It's threads like this one which diminish the quality of this forum.".

Here a thread has been put up with a title and heading, forever after to be picked up by online search engines, suggesting there is some suspicion that Buell Frazier was part of the assassination, even though the poster simultaneously says in the fine print below the headline which only 1 out of 100 readers of search engines will read,

 "Although there's scant evidence to suggest that Wesley Buell Frazier had any conspiratorial role in JFK's assassination..."

But then closes with the ringing words (nice-sounding but which say nothing):

"the layers of his life, particularly his military background, paint a multifaceted portrait of the man. As is true with many historical events, a deeper dive into the lives of those involved can elucidate a more nuanced understanding of the broader scenario and the intricate dynamics at play."

And what specifics of Buell Frazier's life in the present case are suggested to "elucidate a more nuanced understanding of the broader scenario and the intricate dynamics at play"?

It is that Buell Frazier later served in the Army! 

"The specifics and broader implications of his military service have not been widely discussed, but this newfound knowledge enriches Frazier's profile, prompting inquiries into how his Army tenure influenced his beliefs and possibly his interactions in the year 1963."

A profound question indeed: how were Buell's "beliefs and possibly his interactions in the year 1963" influenced by his later Army enlistment, in one of the most common employments found by nonwealthy young men in America? The poster offers no suggestion of an answer to that question, simply puts that question out into the air for others to run with. 

The objectionable thing about this post is the smearing of an innocent person in the way the headline is phrased, on the basis of nothing substantial. If there is nothing substantial, why post this kind of wording of a headline about someone at all. 

Buell Frazier in my opinion has been one of the most sympathetic figures. At 19 years old, he showed courage in standing up to the force of Fritz attempting to (a) pressure him into signing something putting him in complicity with the assassination, and (b) many attempts to get him to change his length estimate of the paper bag he saw Oswald bring to work the morning of the assassination. Fritz terrorized the kid. But Buell stuck to what he knew was the truth. And from all accounts, has been a decent and good man the rest of his life.  

That supposed early-stage hunchback or forward neck of Lovelady, I think may be an optical illusion caused by looking at a still frame of the Martin film clip. It looks to me like Lovelady was leaning forward to look at something, not standing naturally with his neck that far forward. In his police profile photo Lovelady does not show a forward neck posture that I can see, and in the clip of the Martin film it is clear he is bending forward intentionally, not standing still with his neck in that posture. The optical illusion would be from viewing his posture in a still frame as part of an intentional movement, as if that was his normal posture.  

More on Craford and Ruby seen by Jarnagin

My basis thesis is to see identity and continuity between Odell Estes' "Lee" with Ruby (July-Aug 1963, Carousel Club), Jarnagin's "Lee" meeting with Ruby (Oct 4, 1963, Carousel Club), the killer of Tippit (Nov 22, 1963), and the source of the ditched/tossed paper-bag revolver and hitchhiking to Michigan the next morning of Curtis Craford (Nov 23, 1963).

All four of those I believe are well argued to be Curtis Craford. It is possible to omit the third (killer of Tippit) without affecting the argument that the first and second are the same person and both of those persons were Curtis Craford. 

With thanks to Bart Kamp posting documents from the National Archives comes this amazing find of typed notes which substantially support the Curtis Craford identification of the Jarnagin story. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nFZXRIdQ_zaCdVk6YCWOWKyEH0i-LToy/view (posted by Bart Kamp at ROKC where other interesting document finds are posted (at 18 Sept 2023): https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1023-larry-crafard#43129. 

The author is a Mrs. Jackie Dolan (unfamiliar to me), date unknown but some time prior to a JFK Records Act release of 1997.

A caveat: pages 16-17 are practically "picture perfect" on the case for Curtis Craford as the man Jarnagin overheard the night of Oct 4, 1963 discussing a contract killing with Jack Ruby at the Carousel Club. But pages 18-19 which go to the author's conjectures after that foundation are (my opinion) not right. Just forget that part of it. But pages 16-17 on the analysis of the Craford identification itself ... is gold.     

More on Craford in Dallas in 1963

The earlier pages of this same document have further interesting material, including a discussion of discrepancies and details in Craford's employment timeline 1960-1963. 

After working through some of the anomalies in Craford's Warren Commission testimony, on page 4 the author asks:

"Query: Is it possible Larry Crafard never left Dallas in June 1963?"

The author asked that question with no hint of awareness that Craford may show up in the Odell Estes story making appearances in the Carousel Club in Dallas in July-Aug 1963. 

Even in Odell Estes' story, Estes has his "Lee" taking a flight out of Dallas's Love Field for a few days to somewhere unspecified and returning. Craford's actual movements around the country seem to be somewhat fluid in his telling, poorly corroborated apart from his account which is only semi-reliable. 

I have been thinking there were only three options for what was in Oswald's bag of length ca. 26" or 27" length that morning:

• the 34" broken-down rifle in twelve pieces, then assembled by Oswald somewhere in the building with ability to accurately fire the same morning without sighting-in (which disagrees with and arguably is excluded on the strength of Buell Frazier's credibility on the measurement), or
• 27" curtain rods (pro: length matches. pro: is what Oswald claimed was in the bag according to Buell Frazier. con: makes no sense. con: he did not ask Ruth Paine for permission to take any curtain rods belonging to her), or
• his lunch (pro: he normally carried a lunch to work in a paper sack. con: he told Buell Frazier it was not his lunch but curtain rods)

In the interest of consideration of all alternatives, without prejudicing which one is preferred, I think a fourth possibility should be added to the list:

• something else in the 26 or 27" bag either with or without curtain rods. 

No, I have no idea what that could be. But I am perceiving that if the rifle is excluded, it is not then a matter of either lunch or curtain rods, those two possibilities only. There are four theoretical possibilities on the table, not just three.

On 10/17/2023 at 1:47 PM, David Von Pein said:

In any event, your entire "November 11" theory is nothing but 100% guesswork and speculation on your part, and you've got a HUGE hurdle to climb if you really expect anyone here to believe that Lee Oswald REALLY had his "lunch" in that large-ish paper sack on 11/22. Because if that was the case, then we've got no choice but to paint Buell Frazier as a major story-teller (l-i-a-r) with regard to TWO key aspects of his post-assassination story and testimony ---

1. The part about Lee telling Buell that the package contained curtain rods (a very silly thing for Oswald to say, of course, if the bag really had a sandwich and an apple in it).

2. And the part of Buell's story where he says he specifically ASKED Oswald about his lunch that morning (Nov. 22), with Oswald telling Frazier that he was going to buy his lunch that day.

David, what is this business about saying I am painting Buell Frazier as a l-i-a-r on those two points. I clearly did not and do not, I said clearly in my opening of this thread that I judge Buell Frazier to be honest and credible, including on those two points. 

Whereas I believe Buell Frazier is credible, It is you who must find Buell Frazier to be not credible in order to make the 26-27" paper bag that Buell Frazier credibly insisted was its length, into the 38" paper bag also associated with Oswald found on the 6th floor. You have no witness for identification of those two bags as the same. You have no forensic evidence for identification of those two bags as the same. You have a story, a theory, a possibility (that Buell Frazier and Linnie Frazier both seriously and persistently insisted on a shorter length by mistake, or conspired to mutually deceive on the point, in exact agreement with each other, whichever it was that you suppose). I am not disputing that you have a theory, a narrative. But you do not have proof that those two paper bags were the same, in terms of either witness or material evidence. 

If you respond, please do so to me, who accepts and stipulates that both the 38" paper bag, and the rifle, were or had been Oswald's, not at issue with me. (I don't want you attacking what others say in your response to me.) 

On 10/17/2023 at 5:29 PM, David Von Pein said:

Greg D.,

Can you confirm for a fact that the Irving Sports Shop was even open for business on Monday, November 11, 1963?

It was, after all, a federal holiday (Veterans Day).

https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Irving-Sport-Shop-109-pdf.pdf (!)

On 10/17/2023 at 1:47 PM, David Von Pein said:

That latter part about Oswald using Michael Paine's car is, in my opinion, a preposterous story. (For one thing, why would Lee want to drag his wife and two tiny children with him to the Irving Sports Shop? For what purpose would they be needed on such a journey?)

https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Irving-Sport-Shop-109-pdf.pdf

On 10/16/2023 at 7:24 PM, David Von Pein said:

No.

Do you consider all who argued for the innocence of Captain Alfred Dreyfus, in the infamous Dreyfus Affair, conspiracy theorists?

What do you see as the difference in principle?

On 10/17/2023 at 3:34 PM, Miles Massicotte said:

There is another reason that Oswald would have denied handing off the rifle, if he did indeed hand it off, rather than say something like "hey I didn't have possession of the rifle!". He had no choice. Oswald under interrogation denied ever owning a rifle at all, which is perfectly understandable because he (or someone else posing as him) ordered the rifle in the first place under the Hidell pseudonym. To admit owning or handing off the rifle or handling it at any time implies an association with the rifle Oswald was trying to avoid at all costs. 

Good comment Miles. Four thoughts come to mind.

Further thoughts on Oswald, mail-order firearms, and the post-assassination interrogations

(1) Oswald did not deny he owned the revolver; why then does he dissemble over how he got it? What was the secret Oswald wanted to keep about having bought it mail order? Maybe there is something to the idea that Oswald was carrying out operative work related to the Dodd Committee investigation on mail-order gun purchases, not in the sense of direct contact with the Committee, but Oswald in contact with someone, say ATTU of the Treasury Department (ATTU later became known as ATF) carrying out investigative work for that Committee on regulation of firearms. Perhaps some activity of this nature may be an unseen background to some of Oswald's responses to questions under interrogation.

(2) When deputy sheriff Roger Craig told of seeing a man running from the front of the TSBD get in a Rambler station wagon, Craig misidentified the man he saw running as Oswald (it wasn't), and (later) misidentified the vehicle as Ruth Paine's station wagon (it wasn't) ... nevertheless, I believe Craig's account of seeing Oswald and Fritz in Fritz's office happened, only Craig's interpretation of it was flawed. As told by Craig, he identified Oswald to Fritz as the man he saw get into the Rambler wagon. Fritz told Oswald, Oswald said "I told you I left" (apparently referring to leaving the TSBD), and then a puzzling, "That's Ruth Paine's car. Don't bring her into this!"

The station wagon Roger Craig saw wasn't Ruth Paine's station wagon, that is just plain fact, Ruth Paine's station wagon was parked in front of Ruth Paine's house, with Ruth and Marina inside, in Irving.

But on the assumption that some form of the words themselves occurred that Craig heard, maybe there is another possibility. Building a step further from my Feb 2023 paper linked earlier, "The Oswald rifle scope installation at the Irving Sport Shop...", the one time Oswald had driven a Ruth Paine car (actually the car technically was owned by Michael Paine, but it was parked permanently in front of Ruth Paine's house)--not Ruth's two-tone green Chevy wagon that she personally drove but rather an unused 1955 two-tone blue and white Oldsmobile four-door sedan--was on the morning of Mon Nov 11, 1963, to get the rifle scope reinstalled that day. Roger Craig's account may be some version of Oswald having misunderstood Fritz's question or meaning. Oswald somehow thought Fritz was telling him he had been seen with Ruth Paine's car. Oswald may then have connected Fritz's question to Nov 11. Oswald then sought to exonerate Ruth Paine, an innocent party, from Oswald's actions driving that car with Marina and the children when Ruth was gone on Nov 11, 1963 (of which Ruth Paine was unaware [and I believe still unaware to the present day]).

In other words, Oswald's strange response, "that was Ruth Paine's car--leave Ruth Paine out of this", may reflect a misunderstanding of a question and a response to what Oswald thought was an accusation that a witness had sighted him driving Ruth Paine's car, which Oswald related to the time when he did, Nov 11, the day of the rifle scope repair. Then, according to Craig, Oswald said in a dejected voice, "Now everyone will know who I am", which Craig did not interpret as celebrity from having killed a president, but rather someone whose cover was being blown. 

(3) Of all of the reported interrogation interviews of Oswald that weekend, one questioning from one agency who visited Oswald never was reported: Frank Ellsworth, ATF (in 1963 the Alcohol Tobacco Tax Unit, predecessor of ATF, the ATF acronym is used here anachronistically). No written report, no document, is known of that Fri Nov 22 ATF visit and interaction with Oswald. The existence of it comes from Frank Ellsworth telling of it in the 1970s such as this: https://ia801304.us.archive.org/20/items/nsia-OswaldLeeHarveyFalse/nsia-OswaldLeeHarveyFalse/Oswald Lee H False 105.pdf ("Immediately after the assassination, when Ellsworth was called to a police interrogation room to question Oswald about the rifle found in his supposed assassin's nest..."). That may have been at around the same time Fri afternoon, Nov 22, or a little before or a little after, Roger Craig showed up in that same office of Fritz where Oswald was. Yet nothing is known of that Ellsworth-Oswald interaction other than Ellsworth telling of it.  

Practically no JFK assassination-related records of that agency could be found at all from the early 1960s, and, it follows, none relating to Oswald ("ATF located only a handful of records ... IRS was unable to locate any ATF assassination records within its files", https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=3611#relPageId=175).

"Though Ellsworth did not testify or provide an affidavit for the Warren Commission, he was interviewed by Commission attorney Burt Griffin on 4/16/64 in Dallas" (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=203985#relPageId=2).

(4) It has seemed odd that in all of the reports of the Oswald interrogations, there is no record Oswald was asked whether he had any history of working for a US intelligence agency.

I think it is possible Oswald may have told Fritz privately someone to call who would vouch for him, and ATF may have received that call and sent someone over. ATF did send someone over--the one sent over has told of that visit--but there was no record of it.

ATF dealt with firearms, exactly the nature of activity of Oswald's mail-order purchases.

Wonder why there was no record of ATF's visit to Oswald and what was said between ATF and Oswald, on Fri Nov 22.

Could that have had anything to do with Oswald's answers to his other interrogators concerning the rifle?   

~ ~ ~

From George Evica, https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/11544-evica-on-dodd-and-the-rifle/

Just four months before the JFK assassination, [Connecticut] Senator [Thomas] Dodd had presided over a Senate Internal Security subcommittee investigation of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (to which, of course, Oswald belonged), calling it "...the chief public relations instrument of the Castro network in the United States."

(. . .)

While Lee Harvey Oswald was in the custody of the Dallas police and still alive on November 23rd, 1963, news reports on the FPCC stated that it had been "...the subject of a series of investigations by Congressional committees [including those of Senator Thomas Dodd] and the Justice Department over the last three years [1961-1963]."

The apparently contradictory political acts of Lee Harvey Oswald, therefore, make logical sense measured against these Dodd/Internal Security/FBI materials. Oswald had, in fact, contacted

1. the Fair Play for Cuba Committee;

2. the (anti- Communist) Socialist Workers Party, and

3. the (anti-Socialist Workers) Communist Party.

Oswald could not have set up a more consistent pattern had he been working (whether directly or indirectly) for Dodd's Senate Internal Security subcommittee.

Why was Lee Harvey Oswald, dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Marines as a known defector to the Soviet Union, reading rifle magazines at Alba's Garage in New Orleans? And why was he collecting coupons for mail-order weapons?

The Dodd connection was the answer.

Senator Thomas Dodd commanded the Senate's Juvenile Delinquency subcommittee and its interest in "gun control," specifically mail-order weapons control. Beginning in January, 1963, Dodd held committee hearings on the unrestricted delivery of weapons through the U.S. mails. One of the companies Dodd was interested in was Klein's of Chicago, and one of the weapons about whose unregulated traffic the Senate in 1963 was agitated was the Italian Mannlicher Carcano. "Hidell," of course, allegedly ordered a Mannlicher Carcano from Klein's of Chicago, reportedly found in the Texas School Book Depository on November 22nd, 1963, becoming a major part of the FBI/Warren Commission lone-assassin theory in the JFK killing.

Seaport Traders of California was still another mail-order weapons' distributor the Dodd Committee was examining, the very company from which "Hidell" ordered the revolver reported to have been used in the Tippet murder on November 22nd, 1963.

(. . .)

A "Communist," pro-Castro, Fair Play for Cuba Committee member with ties to both the Communist and Social Workers parties had been able to order at least two lethal weapons (both of great concern to the U.S. Congress) apparently under a fake name ("Hidell") through the United States mail.

(. . .)

Beyond speculation, however, I have learned that according to two unimpeachable sources, Senator Thomas Dodd indeed caused at least one Mannlicher Carcano to be ordered in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald (or in the name of "Alek Hidell") sometime in 1963.

(. . .)

Paul Hoch anticipated some of the analysis in the present study: "...Oswald [might have] thought he was placing the gun orders as part of [the Dodd]...effort, on the instructions of whoever he was working for." Echoes of Conspiracy, 11/30/77, page 3.  

12 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

If Oswald had actually given his rifle to somebody else between Nov. 11 and 22, then Oswald would have certainly told the police that very important fact after he was arrested and charged with committing a murder that he (under those conditions) very likely never committed.

Would Oswald have had every reason under the sun to admit to the cops that he had given his rifle to another person prior to Nov. 22 if such a rifle transaction was actually the truth? Yes, of course he would. (Especially after being shown the backyard photo on Nov. 23.)

But did Oswald say anything to the authorities about some other person coming into possession of his Carcano rifle? No, he didn't.

You make a point. Under interrogation, from the reports available, Oswald denied altogether he had a rifle at any time in the US. There is no record he told of removing the rifle from his belongings in Ruth Paine's garage on the morning of Nov 11, had the rifle's scope reinstalled on that date and the rifle sighted-in, eleven days before the assassination, or why he did so if so, following which he either did or did not convey the rifle to someone unknown.

You are correct. There is no record Oswald told of such activity in his interrogation. 

If I understand you correctly, you are citing that as an argument that an Oswald conveyance of the rifle following such Nov 11 activity on the part of Oswald would not have happened, for surely no accused assassin of a president would fail to disclose a conveyance of a possible murder weapon to the assassins a few days before the assassination, if it had happened.

("No I was not the shooter! I was only an accomplice, can't you see? Now after having confessed that, may I now please have a lawyer??")

But let's back up, Mr. David. First things first. Be clear and to the point--this is a third request for a straight answer from you on a prior issue of fact: either Oswald did or did not, on the morning of Nov 11, 1963, remove the rifle from the garage and got the original scope reinstalled on it at the Irving Sport Shop on that date.

That either did or did not happen on that date. It is an up or down, yes or no factual issue, amenable to evidence, falsification, and judgments thereof.

A Feb 2023 study by me set forth original argument and analysis why that did occur, reasons for establishment of that as a fact, and that the Warren Commission erred on that point in denying it. "The Oswald rifle scope installation at the Irving Sport Shop of Monday, November 11, 1963" (https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Irving-Sport-Shop-109-pdf.pdf).

(And related to that, a prior study by me of Jan 2023 showing that an Oswald family visit to the Furniture Mart occurred immediately prior to going to the Irving Sport Shop for that rifle scope reinstallation on that date: "The mystery of the Furniture Mart sighting of Lee and Marina Oswald and their children and its solution", https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/JFK-Furniture-Mart-mystery-105-pdf2.pdf.) 

Are you prepared to say straight up that you are certain a removal of the rifle from the Ruth Paine garage and an Irving Sport Shop scope reinstallation by Oswald on Nov 11, 1963, did not occur, and that you know that to be a fact? 

In the interests of full disclosure when giving your answer, does your conclusion on that, if so, involve reading and comprehension of the Feb 2023 Irving Sport Shop study? Thanks--

David v. P., could you give a specific response to my point #1? 

The response you gave is not specific to #1 and is just boilerplate: speak third person as if I am not in the room, call all the points lumped together (not just the first) “weak” without specifics, throw in the obligatory mantra “like all conspiracy theorists” followed by stock list of all-purpose putdowns, reassert party line conclusion. 

Generic response. Can be applied to anything sight unseen. Saves time—no reading or thinking required. 

On your mantra “like all CT theorists”, I am curious: do you consider every defense attorney opposing a prosecutor’s case a CT? Do you consider Innocence Project cases CT activity? Serious question, please answer and please say why.

Do you regard any argument making a case for reasonable doubt of Oswald’s guilt, by definition, to be CT and their authors by definition CTs? Why?

Can you conceive of a possible argument for innocence or reasonable doubt of Oswald in the cases of Walker, Tippit, or JFK which you would not consider justly labeled CT?

I am asking you to address my point #1 citing my paper on the Irving Sport Shop Oswald scope reinstallation on the basis of specifics and without Pavlovian-response-invoking namecallings such as “like all CT’s” and other objectionable rhetorical devices. 

On your final question on who I think brought the rifle into the TSBD if not Oswald, I do not know. As a general statement I am skeptical the TSBD building was as non-porous to access to outsiders or strangers in the days or weeks prior to Nov. 22 as sometimes supposed. This was not a situation of sign-in sheets, security officer checking people in and out, etc. I do not assume there must have been a confederate employee inside TSBD in order to suppose an infiltration of rifle and shooter, speaking hypothetically. If there was a confederate inside employee I would assume it necessarily would be a recent hire. 

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

And I wonder what the odds are of

1. Both Frazier and his sister being wrong about the size of the bag, and saying it was the size of a bag of curtain rods.

2. The Paines' thinking there had been a package of curtain rods in their garage, and finding only loose rods later. 

3. Some curtain rods being tested by the DPD before any were retrieved from Mrs. Paine's garage.

4. Someone changing the dates on the paperwork for these rods, as if to conceal the actual timing of their discovery. 

5. The curtain rods being damaged at Oswald's room when first inspected by the DPD. 

6. No follow-up being performed by the WC once this last fact came to light. 

Pat, for some time I have pondered over some of the interesting things you bring out in your discussion of the curtain rods issue on your website, and separately the 38" paper bag. I appreciate the massive amount of original work you have done and posted on your website.

I recently restudied your analyses of the 38" paper bag, the lack of photos and anomalies in the witness testimonies thereof, but in the end I came to think that was not created on Nov 22 for some other purpose, then repurposed (one of the explanations proposed), but rather actually was somewhere on the floor or on the boxes of that 6th floor originally mistaken for trash paper with an incompetence explanation for the lack of an in situ photograph. (This was discussed by you in your 4c, https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4c-shining-a-light-on-day.) I also have no problem with fingerprints of Oswald on either the rifle or the 38" paper bag since I believe both were Oswald's on the weekend of Nov 11, 1963, but that both rifle and paper bag may have been conveyed into the hands of someone else by Oswald at some point after the morning of Mon Nov 11. 

Incidentally, can you answer, if you know, one minor question (just for interest's sake): is there evidence or corroboration that Oswald ever was informed or told that his rifle had been found on the 6th floor? We have all assumed so since everyone else in the world knew that, but is it verified that Oswald knew that? 

On the curtain rods (your 4h, https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4h-the-curtain-rod-story), your chapter made me wonder if Oswald might indeed have lifted two curtain rods from the Ruth Paine garage lying loose above Michael Paine's workbench. That would then agree with both the ca. 26-27" length of the paper bag (that length being a fact whatever that bag contained) and also what Lee told Buell. However my main problem with that is (a) it does not explain Lee's denial to interrogators that he carried curtain rods; (b) it makes no sense in rational terms why Oswald would need curtain rods of that size; and even if equivocally (c) the matter of no curtain rods reported found at TSBD.

I do not think the multiple interrogators' reports conspired to fabricate Oswald's denial on that, and although there is a damaged super-long curtain rod in that photo of Lee's room the day after the assassination, the size isn't right for two lifted curtain rods from Ruth Paine's garage to solve. If you had some better explanation of the first two points (a and b) I could see it, but I doubt any good explanation of the first two points exists. Therefore the "white lie" explanation that Lee, not wishing to tell of his personal marital issues with Marina (she angry and not speaking to him by phone), told Buell that even though it wasn't true, becomes the default plausible innocent explanation. As someone else has noted (I cannot recall where I read it or who said it), Oswald could even have purposely after having told Buell that on Thursday, picked out any old thing to put in a 27" paper bag the next day to support his white lie story to Buell.

If, however, there was something to an Oswald lifting of two curtain rods from the Ruth Paine garage idea (in which she originally had 4 curtain rods as Michael Paine said, 2 or 4, instead of 2 as the normally-accurate but still fallible Ruth Paine might mistakenly have remembered), and Lee lifted 2 of them leaving 2 in the garage to be found there by the Warren Commission ... since an actual need for curtain rods by Lee seems a stretch, and since Lee was not otherwise a thief of items from Ruth Paine's garage ... I suppose another line of speculation could be that either Lee did not think 2 loose curtain rods mattered (yet he still did not ask Ruth Paine if they mattered or if he could have them!), or better, intended to return them? (Borrowed for the purpose of consistency with his white-lie explanation to Buell as to the reason for the trip to Irving? Denied to his interrogators due to the complications of explaining why he stole from Ruth Paine? [not necessarily because of an accusation that he had carried a rifle in that paper bag, which Oswald may not have been aware was the suspicion or the reason for the question?].)

The whole assumption that a 26" or 27" x 7" store lightweight paper bag was unusual for carrying a lunch--which is what David von Pein goes on about--just seems insubstantial, given that the only witnesses who saw it unanimously said it was not the size or identified with the 38" paper bag, and that size lightweight paper bag was not unusual, as Frazier said, it was like in any grocery store, and therefore would be within the range of and mundane for use in carrying a lunch. As Oswald was reported to have said when asked why he picked that size, he said one does not always use an exact size but what is available, in terms of paper bags, and that is reasonable.

The owner of Hutch's Mart about 0.8 (?) miles south of Ruth Paine's house claimed that a walking Oswald came in to his store several times in mornings just after 7 am to buy milk and bread and rolls there. Although there are some problems with Leonard Hutchison's testimony and especially the dates he estimated, it could be Hutchison was referring to Oswald shopping there, walking there on certain Saturday or weekday mornings not later than Nov 11, 1963. (The logistics and timing and witness testimonies will not however allow such an excursion of Oswald to have occurred the morning of Nov 22--the timing is too tight that morning for that.) 

But the point there is that Hutchison said Oswald bought bread, and the ca. 26 x 7 paper bag size could agree with a French or Italian bread purchase of Oswald, say early on a Saturday morning if he walked there from Ruth's house and back. It is a possible source of that size paper bag which Oswald could have reused for carrying to work Nov 22, although Ruth herself may also have had a small number of paper bags of varying sizes from shopping excursions available for Lee to use to pack his lunch. 

Long story short, I came to the conclusion that actual curtain rods in the paper bag Nov 22 seemed like a rabbit hole that was insubstantial, and that the "curtain rods" and the ca. 26" length of the paper bag that morning could have been an actual coincidence that was made into something that it wasn't, starting from Linnie Mae Randle's telling police in Irving her suspicion that maybe that "long" paper bag Oswald was carrying that morning might have held a rifle. Even though from all of Buell Frazier's evidence, which evidently held up under polygraph examination, it didn't.

I concluded this could be one instance of how, when someone is under heavy police suspicion, mundane everyday accidents and coincidences (e.g. Oswald picking up a longer paper bag that morning at Ruth Paine's house for his lunch) become escalated into narrative storytellings in which innocent as well as guilty people can be broad-brush suspected. The same genre of mistake and damage that CT's have made on innumerable innocent persons who have come under the crosshairs of suspicion, even though actually innocent.

I love this capsule summary from Postal Inspector Harry Holmes in Sneed, No More Silence, of police logic as carried out by Captain Fritz:

"[Fritz] was crude and had farmerish ways and mannerisms, but as far as I was concerned he was really an outstanding criminal investigator. Fritz abhorred publicity, wanted to get the job done, send the guy to the penitentiary and go on to the next one ..."

(Not, find out if the guy was innocent. The logic seemed to be, wring the suspect for a confession by any means possible which Fritz had a reputation for being very good at obtaining, on the assumption that if the suspect was actually innocent he would resist the best efforts of the Dallas Police's finest in getting that confession...)

David von Pein, please respond to my starting point or fact #1, the evidence I cited Oswald's rifle was removed from the Ruth Paine garage on the morning of Mon Nov 11, 1963, with no evidence the rifle was in the garage again or in Oswald's physical custody after Nov 11, but may have been conveyed to a different person in that time frame.

I am saying both the rifle and the 38" paper bag were Oswald's, that the 38" paper bag had been made by Oswald from TSBD paper, ca. Fri Nov 8, for the purpose of holding what Oswald thought was his 36" (but which actually was 40" length) Mannlicher-Carcano for use when he intended to remove it from the garage on Mon Nov 11.

I am not sure you read or understood my argument from the first point forward, even though I wrote it as clearly as I knew how. I am saying Oswald took his rifle out of his belongings stored in Ruth's garage on Nov 11 to get the scope reinstalled for purpose of a conveyance. I wrote a detailed paper establishing that fundamental fact referred to in my point one, which is critical to all that follows.

The 38" paper bag was with the rifle on Nov 11, and the 38" paper bag stayed with the rifle from Nov 11 forward, but they did not necessarily stay with Oswald. The 38" paper bag, with the rifle, ended up on the 6th floor of the TSBD on Nov 22. Who put those there and when become the questions, and there are more possibilities than just Oswald, given that Oswald may not have been the final possessor of rifle and 38" paper bag prior to the assassination.   

If Oswald's intended conveyance of his rifle with the associated 38" paper bag he made to carry it, happened at any point between Nov 11 and Nov 22, then Oswald becomes the next to last, but not last, possessor of the rifle and 38" paper bag, and may not have been the possessor of either the rifle or the 38" paper bag by the time of the assassination.

Please address what I have written, or if you are going to go off firing away at high volume against what others (but not I) have written in this thread, please make clear you are addressing others and not responding to what I have said.

Your separate point of claiming vanishingly small odds that a single person could make a large paper bag out of TSBD wrapping paper to hold a rifle, and the very same person bring his lunch to work in a smaller paper bag of a different size, is rejected. Of course one person can have more than one paper bag for different purposes. The burden of proof in this case is to show differently, but neither witness nor forensic testimony established an identification of the 38" paper bag (to hold the rifle) with the 26" x 7" bread-bag-like paper bag in which Oswald may have brought his lunch, and the only witnesses who saw Oswald's 26" paper bag that morning negatively refuted that it was the 38" rifle-paper-bag on the basis of credible testimony as to its size. Therefore it is by no means as cut-and-dried as you represent. 

You did not respond to the explanation suggested for why Oswald might have falsely told Frazier in response to his inquiry that his purpose for his trip to Irving was about curtain rods (i.e. a white lie told to avoid discussion with Buell of his personal marital affairs). That was suggested by Jeremy Bojczuk at http://www.22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-curtain-rods.

If you intend to substantively discuss what I wrote, I ask that you read it first.

What did Oswald take to work on the morning of Nov 22, 1963?

A first fact is that Oswald removed his rifle from the Ruth Paine garage on the morning of Nov 11, 1963 when Ruth was gone that morning, borrowed Michael Paine's blue-and-white Olds parked in front of Ruth's house, and Lee drove himself and Marina with their two children to a gunsmith to have the scope, which had come with the rifle and then had been removed by Oswald, reinstalled on it. The gunsmith trip was necessary because the threads were stripped requiring retapping, best done by a gunsmith. The reason for the scope installation was not for his personal use but because he was preparing the rifle for a conveyance. See the argument and evidence for this at https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Irving-Sport-Shop-109-pdf.pdf. 

A second fact is that the rifle on the sixth floor of the TSBD on Nov 22, 1963 had been Oswald's, and Oswald was the next-to-last party in possession of that rifle prior to the assassination. (Oswald will not have been the last party in possession of the rifle before the assassination if his intention on Nov 11 to prepare the rifle for a conveyance was accomplished.)

A third fact is that the rifle went from Oswald's scope reinstallation on Nov 11 and the rifle's removal from the garage on that date, to being on the 6th floor of the TSBD implicated in the assassination of JFK, by Nov 22, possibly by means of the party to whom Oswald conveyed the rifle. 

A fourth fact is that Oswald routinely took paper bags with him to work whenever Buell Frazier drove him from Irving. He did so to carry his lunch. Therefore that he did so on Fri Nov 22 is not in itself unusual. What was different was the paper bag's length, but not his carrying a paper bag to work.

A fifth fact is Oswald's paper bag on Nov 22 was longer than normal for carrying his lunch. This is established from the testimonies of Buell and Linnie Mae Frazier. They told what they saw--Oswald carrying a paper bag of a certain length. 

A sixth fact is that unanimous testimony of those who saw the bag that Oswald carried rules out that that paper bag could have carried the rifle, which is 34" even if disassembled. This point on the length of the bag has been underestimated but is strong. There are the estimates of Buell and Linnie Mae as to lengths; the manner Linnie Mae saw Oswald carrying it holding it at the top and the bottom not hitting the ground; the way Buell saw him carry it cupped in his right hand with the top under his right shoulder; the FBI measurement of how far on Frazier's car's back seat Frazier marked its length when seeing it laying there (FBI measurement by the rear car seat method: 27"); the DPD both having Buell and Linnie Mae estimate with their hands, and also by making physical paper replicas, reconstructions of the bag's length, over and over and over the DPD had them do this (according to Buell) ... ca. 25-27", not 38". 

A seventh fact is that Buell Frazier's testimony in particular is so firm and so steadfast that it is either correct or he has been dishonest, but it is not reasonable that he was mistaken by that magnitude of error (of mistaking a 38" bag for a 25-27" length which Frazier has said from day one is accurate to within about an inch on his estimate).

In other words, in addition to no non-circular positive evidence for identifying the paper bag Oswald carried to work that morning with the 38" paper bag of TSBD paper found in the TSBD--and unanimous opposing witness testimony as to its length and rejection of such an identification--if one holds to an identification of the two paper bags it also is difficult to avoid the necessity to assume Buell Frazier actually lied at the outset, and was not simply mistaken, to insist and describe a 38" length was only 25-27" as he did. (The simpler solution is they simply are not the same paper bags, and Frazier was not lying but truthful.)  

An eighth fact is that there was a large paper bag, 38" long, made from TSBD wrapping paper, noticed and found near the shell hulls at the 6th floor of the TSBD, which was associated with the rifle (by apparent fibers association with the blanket of Oswald in Ruth Paine's garage in which the rifle had been stored), and associated with Oswald (by a palm print and a fingerprint). So the FBI lab.

But a ninth fact is there is no evidence whatsoever that identifies the smaller bag of ca. 25-27" length (Buell Frazier), or ca. 27" length (Linnie Mae Randle), with the larger 38" TSBD-wrapping paper bag. The lengths were significantly different from testimony of every witness who saw the paper bag Oswald carried that morning, with no witness and no forensic evidence testifying to an identification of those two bags. And Buell Frazier repeatedly said the paper bag Oswald brought with him in the car that morning looked like a lightweight retail store bag, not the 38" handmade one from heavier-duty TSBD wrapping paper.

(To emphasize this ninth point: there has been some controversy over the find circumstances and chain of custody of the large, 38", TSBD-wrapping paper bag believed associated with the rifle. That entire set of issues is bypassed here, because no relevance is established in terms of grounds for identifying that 38" bag as the paper bag Oswald brought to work that morning, which is the subject under discussion. The testimonies of both witnesses who saw the bag Oswald brought to work that morning are opposed to such an identification, and no witness or forensic evidence identifies them. It is not an argument that the identification is necessary to account for how the rifle got into the TSBD building, since there were 11 days and a possible if not likely further party intervening between Oswald's removal of the rifle on Nov 11 from Ruth Paine's garage, to prepare it for a conveyance, and the date of the assassination. If Oswald remains a possibility for the means of entrance of that rifle into the TSBD, given that he was the next-to-last in possession and worked in the TSBD, the Nov 11 date for Oswald's preparation of the rifle for conveyance means neither Oswald nor Nov 22 are the only possibilities for how the rifle got there. The rifle could have been brought in any of those eleven days, by a possessor of that rifle after Oswald.)

And a tenth fact is that in all likelihood it can be excluded that Oswald's paper bag on Nov 22 contained curtain rods either, no matter what he may have told Buell Frazier. Oswald himself under interrogation denied that it contained curtain rods. He said that bag contained his lunch. The only reason for curtain rods entering the Oswald paper bag discussion at all is solely Buell Frazier who said that is what Oswald told him the bag contained (and he may have told that to Linnie Mae the night of Thu Nov 21), plus the plausibility that a ca. 27" paper bag is about the right length to carry curtain rods. 

Note that the sole evidence that Oswald claimed curtain rods is the same witness whose testimony LNers resolutely reject concerning the length of that paper bag, Buell Frazier. On the basis of no witness or forensic testimony, some insist Frazier was mistaken on the length, but right (not mistaken) in claiming Oswald said it was curtain rods. 

The evidence weighing against curtain rods in Oswald's paper bag from Irving that morning is: Oswald's room on N. Beckley had no need for curtain rods of a length that could be carried in a 25-27" paper bag (there was a bent super-long single curtain rod in Oswald's room photographed a day later, but that was a much longer length); Oswald never mentioned anything about curtain rods to Ruth Paine (Oswald is not known to have stolen property from Ruth otherwise); no curtain rods are known to have turned up at the TSBD; there is no corroboration that Oswald was carrying curtain rods; and if Oswald had carried curtain rods it makes sense that he would say so to his interrogators instead of denying it. And last but not least, an assumption of curtain rods is not necessary to account for the 25-27" length of the paper bag, or indicated from that length.

Synthesis

These ten points deliver a conclusion that what was in Oswald's paper bag from Irving that morning was, as he said to his interrogators, his lunch, full stop. Oswald denied it was curtain rods to his interrogators when asked. The only reason there is no record he directly denied it was a disassembled rifle in the paper bag is because there is no record he was asked that question.

(Side point: Is it even clear that Oswald ever was told that any rifle, let alone his own, had been found on the 6th floor of his workplace? Marina was shown the rifle on Fri evening, and the entire world other than Oswald knew through news reporting about the rifle found in the TSBD and then reports that it had been traced to Oswald. But did Oswald know that during the two days before he was killed? He was not shown the rifle, and is there record in any interrogators' notes or news footage that Oswald was told that a rifle had been found on the 6th floor and traced to him? Oswald was asked if he had ever owned a rifle and he said he had neither owned nor possessed one since returning from the Soviet Union. He denied any mail-order purchase even in the case of the revolver which he did not deny owning. In the case of the revolver, he gave a different story that he had obtained it from a retail store in Fort Worth in the spring of 1963. That particular prevarication is of interest because it was not for the motive of denying he had the handgun, but only of where he had obtained it. Why conceal that? Was a role as a government informant or sting operation, perhaps related to the Dodd Subcommittee investigation of mail-order firearms purchases, in the background and Oswald was preserving cover of that? If Oswald's case had gone to trial would he through an attorney have argued that he did not consider that rifle personally his, but a government agency's? And that he had dissembled about ordering it by mail on similar grounds as the government dissembling about involvement in plans to invade Cuba--to protect an undercover operation? Did Oswald even expect his case to come to trial, or did he anticipate release prior to trial from intervention which did not happen in time for him? Some things may never be known due to his untimely death.)

Neither rifle nor curtain rods: the lunch solution

The lunch explanation of the contents of his paper bag brought to work with him, which was Oswald's own answer to his interrogators, is plausible. Oswald never denied he had an over-size length paper bag for his lunch, but explained (reasonably) that bag sizes vary and one used what was available. Oswald said he had had a cheese sandwich, a banana and an apple for lunch. It would be unusual if Oswald had not brought his lunch with him. Never mind what Frazier said Oswald said, this is the reality: Oswald normally brought his lunch, said he did so that day, never told his interrogators otherwise, and the 25-27" x 6" (Buell) or x 8" (Linnie Mae) width paper bag is the size of paper bags for baguettes or certain kinds of bread such as Italian or French bread. Both the ways in which Linnie Mae and Buell saw him carrying it are consistent with how one would carry a lunch in such a bag--either holding it by the top and the bottom almost reaches the ground (what Linnie Mae saw in Irving), or, perhaps to avoid the bottom risking hitting the ground, carrying it with the right palm cupped under it and the upper part of the bag held by his upper arm against his upper body as he walked (what Buell saw in Dallas). 

On whether Buell was truthful in telling of Oswald saying it was curtain rods, and that Oswald said curtain rods was the reason for his trip to Irving, that is a judgment call but I judge it is likely true. Buell asking Oswald the reason for the unexpected trip on a Thursday is a reasonable question of curiosity from a driver, and it is equally believable that Oswald might not wish to disclose his personal business so made up a reason: "curtain rods", perhaps drawing from some mention from an earlier time about curtains or curtain rods. (Note when Oswald was told Buell had said he said curtain rods, Oswald answered Buell must be confusing it with an earlier occasion, slightly different from a simple denial.) Buell on another occasion said the reason Oswald went out on Thursday night, not Friday, was because Oswald planned to take a driving test that weekend. Frazier would not have then known the real reason, in terms of innocent explanation unrelated to planning to kill JFK, was he had missed the previous weekend with his wife and children in Irving (due to Ruth Paine's girl's birthday party), and, separately, Marina was angry with him and apparently was not speaking to him over the phone. Oswald, described by Buell as not very talkative anyway, may have told Buell "curtain rods" rather than "Marina is angry with me and that is why I am going to try to work things out with her". There could even have been a further reason still: had Lee come into unexpected money? Marina in Irving had nearly $180, the equivalent of ca. $1800 in today's money, in cash in her room, from Lee, after the assassination. Had that $180 cash been saved over time, or given Marina the night before, or some combination of both?

Marina told of Lee having urged her to rent an apartment with him that weekend, promising to buy Marina a washing machine, etc.--things which involved immediate outlays of large sums of money--which would be consistent if Lee had come into money, and hoped to have his family reunited under one roof that weekend, to go out Thursday night, cash in hand, to arrange it with Marina.

In short, the timing of the trip to Irving, the reason for dissembling to Buell over the reason for the trip (the bogus "curtain rods" reason), and the variable size of the paper bag for his lunch, are all of those reasonably explained as coincidences and unrelated to the JFK assassination. It is not necessary to suppose Oswald was plotting to assassinate Kennedy in explanation of any of those three things which are amenable to mundane, everyday explanation.

The evasive leaving from the TSBD following the assassination, on the other hand, is not mundane, everyday behavior but is also not necessarily indicative of Oswald's guilt in the JFK assassination, as distinguished from an unusual reaction for other reason, such as, e.g. suspecting he had been set up or was in danger of being killed by the assassins of JFK (https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/T-Jackets-112.pdf).

Postscript on the 38" paper bag made from TSBD paper

On the 38" TSBD paper bag claimed to be associated with the rifle on the 6th floor, one possibility is that 38" paper bag was made by Oswald at an earlier time, perhaps toward the end of the week ending Fri Nov 8, and then taken to Irving with him on his person, for the purpose of holding what Oswald believed at that time was his 36" length Mannlicher-Carcano (not disassembled). Oswald had ordered a 36" Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, and is it possible he still had not noticed or realized that the one he had been shipped was actually 40", not 36"? Thinking it was 36" (the length he had ordered), he would make the bag 38" to fully enclose it. The FBI match of the paper of the 38" bag to the Nov 22 TSBD paper roll on the first floor TSBD (but not to TSBD paper sampled on Nov 26) can be accounted for if either the particular roll sampled on Nov 22 (there were four rolls in simultaneous use?) had also been in use Nov 8, or more than one roll was from the same batch of paper, across a time span of 14-15 or so days. There was a non-match of a sample of TSBD paper on Nov 26 to both the 38" bag and a sample of TSBD paper of Nov 22, but that does not necessarily mean a paper match was not possible from an earlier time over a duration longer than 4 days. 

Oswald would have made the 38" bag at TSBD say around Thu or Frid Nov 7-8 in preparation for a planned removal of the rifle from the garage in Irving on Nov 11. He would have used TSBD wrapping paper and the 3" tape there since that was free and nothing else was easily available. He would have designed the paper bag to enclose the whole rifle, but he did not have the rifle in hand to check the size was right when making the bag. He would have discovered the 38" bag did not completely cover the 40" rifle only on Nov 11 in Irving. Since he was spending money for which he had worked hard for a reinstallation of a scope that he did not like or use, and since he never practiced shooting with the rifle after spending money to have the scope reinstalled and sighted, that is consistent with the purpose being a conveyance. How the logistics of such a conveyance might have worked is unknown--there is a black hole of information between Nov 11 and Nov 22 concerning whereabouts and custody of the rifle, after the rifle was removed from Oswald's belongings in Ruth Paine's garage on the morning of Nov 11. There is no knowledge the rifle was ever returned to Ruth Paine's garage after its removal from that garage on Nov 11.

In default of a better explanation (such as meeting someone for a handover that day), I assume after the scope reinstallation had been done and the rifle sighted-in by Dial Ryder at the Irving Sport Shop on Nov 11, that Oswald--who with Marina and their children was driving Michael Paine's second car (a blue-and-white Olds without either Michael's or Ruth Paine's knowledge)--drove to a bus station and put the rifle in a rented storage locker. The rifle would be in the 38" paper bag with the 40" rifle sticking out of the open top of the bag by 2".

The conveyance of the rifle could then occur by means of Oswald giving the key to the storage locker to someone.

Oswald could have told whoever was buying it from him, as an enhancement of value, that he had just had the rifle sighted in and told the person where, at the Irving Sport Shop. That could be the mechanism for the information that an anonymous caller called in to both the FBI and the press, the weekend of the assassination, with the anonymous tip that Oswald had had the rifle sighted-in at a gun shop in Irving (easily found by the FBI, and that tip is how Dial Ryder entered the story when the FBI made inquiries). 

The rifle then went into the TSBD at some point prior to the morning of Nov 22, 1963, sighted-in and not disassembled, and the 38" paper bag entered with it, though not necessarily brought in by Oswald, but rather by the ones in last possession of the rifle, the one or ones to whom Oswald had sold it.

And naturally Oswald's fingerprints would be on the rifle since it had been his, and on the 38" paper bag under this reconstruction, even though Oswald may not have been responsible for either of those items going to the 6th floor of the TSBD.

For all we know the rifle sale or conveyance on the part of Oswald some time on or after Nov 11, 1963, could have been in continuation of informant or "sting" work being done by Oswald for an agency, that backfired in the assassination when Oswald found himself set up to be implicated by means of the rifle connection. 

Again the key essential point, that which I regard as a fact established, is the scope reinstallation by Oswald on that rifle on the morning of Nov 11, 1963 (link again: https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Irving-Sport-Shop-109-pdf.pdf). In that article I wrote in the conclusion how Dial Ryder of the Irving Sport Shop was caught up in the saga by sheer accident.

But Dial Ryder is not the point, is beside the point. I should have brought out in that conclusion instead the point that actually matters: the rifle, the Mannlicher-Carcano, did not leave Ruth Paine's garage on Nov 22, but eleven days earlier on Nov 11. And Oswald was not the last possessor of that rifle prior to the assassination, but its next-to-last possessor. 

It is possible the assassination was done by the last possessors of that rifle, not the next-to-last one. 

That is the point that matters. 

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

They made a mistake in identifying a guy standing around the TSBD entrance after the police arrived. I don't know who the guy was. He was wearing a plaid shirt. They thought he was Lovelady, but that wasn't him. Lovelady wasn't wearing a plaid shirt that day.

Their narrative included Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady walking down that little road to the railroad yard, because that's what they saw in Wiegman/Darnell. They decided to use that to support their 2nd story encounter narrative. Problem is, that guy walking down the road in a plaid shirt wasn't Lovelady. Again, Lovelady did not wear a plaid shirt that day.

Why do you keep saying Lovelady was not wearing a plaid shirt on Nov 22? Does not the John Martin film of the front of the TSBD clearly show Lovelady standing on the sidewalk in front with a plaid shirt, the same shirt filmed a few minutes earlier in Darnell? (See at Bart Kamp’s Lovelady page at his site.)