Ron Ege

Christian, all good now; thank you.

Ron, thanks. I believe that your theoretical scenario is/was quite feasible. Any group that planned well enough to assassinate the POTUS was certainly intelligent enough to plan their successful getaway. As the TSBD was not secured immediately after the shots, the perpetrator(s) certainly had ample time to exit; either out the back door as some have allegedly witnessed, i.e., a person or persons unknown seemed to have scurried out within a very short time after the shots. Alternatively, what do you think of the possibility perpetrator(s) being incognito, e.g., dressed as uniformed DPD officers and/or civilian clothed DPD detectives or some other seemingly possible other identify (with fake IDs), which by just appearance and demeanor alone would have been satisfactory for the real authorities to assume their presence was justified given the commotion at the time? Might they have had enough time to just casually walk out of the building, back or front, anytime before the building was secured?

Christian, Thank you for all of your efforts, thus far. Regrettably, your link did not work for me, either. Please retry.

I "don't have any dog in this fight" - just curiosity. Some examples of Tippit's reported alleged DOA time at Methodist Hospital. - 1:15 p.m. Tippit_Murder (harveyandlee.net) - 1: 25 p.m. From Wikipedia (link would not copy/paste) - 1:30:30 p.m. J.D. TIPPIT / November 22, 1963 - The Evidence - Timetable of Events (jdtippit.com) - 1:15 p.m. - [Autopsy Report on Officer J. D. Tippit, by Earl F. Rose #1] - Page 7 of 28 - The Portal to Texas History (unt.edu) Lastly (maybe someone has another link/source/reference?), we have the Dallas PD timestamp, heretofore mentioned. It would seem that Dr. Earl F. Rose would use Officer Tippit's DOA time that was allegedly noted by Dr. Richard A. Liguori, the on-duty Methodist Emergency Room (ER) doctor. Would the ER doctor just approximate the DOA time or maybe the ER clock and/or the doctor's watch was off? Who to believe?

Maybe, "Any port in a storm" ?

Denny, good one! Probably just me, as a plain ole citizen firearms owner and casually interested in them, whenever I look at/handle any firearm that is not mine, after ensuing the firearm is clear, the very first thing I do is to naturally look at any nomenclature engraved thereon - you know - the manufacturer, the caliber - that sort of thing. I'm kind of thinking, that a little later that very same day if someone should ask me what kind of gun I looked at - well, "Gee whillikers, Batman" - I do rightly believe that I'd rightly remember, even if i should "confuse my memory" by say, writing a report on what I saw and/or just happened to sign an affidavit, there about. 'Course, I cannot comment on what my actions would be if at one time, I had just happened to manage or own a gun store. Do ya think that maybe all that familiarity with firearms might confuse me? Almost forgot, gosh. I guess maybe if I were Dallas, TX, law enforcement officer examining a firearm that could've been used to kill the POTUS, I'd probably be so discombobulated that I'd just report any ole manufacturer/caliber that came to mind. Whatcha think? 🤪

Gerry, thanks. I cannot speak for Oswald, but my skills with either would not necessarily be affected by shooting one of them more than the other.

Gerry, Excellent question. Anecdotally, I will weigh in - simply, as a 29 plus years USAF veteran ('61-'90), having had much inter-service interaction with other services' members over those years, with discussions relative to differences in their respective basic training courses to include such topics as initial rifle qualification, as well as annual rifle requalification, thereafter. I believe Larry's assumption to be correct. As far as I am aware, each service's initial rifle qualification course is more extensive than the annual qualification course. Thus, it is not surprising that Oswald's initial qualification score would be better than his subsequent annual score because of the initial qualification training's overall intensity. Annual qualification training is of the "refresher" type - given the fact that one has previously experienced a "baseline; no need to "begin from scratch". Over the years, I found it not unusual that not only USAF but also other services' members, experienced their best score on their initial rifle qualification. The exception to the rule might have been a service member assigned "combat arms" designation, e.g., one sometimes respectfully referred to as a "grunt" or "ground-pounder", i.e., a MOS certified "job" - specifically, as a rifleman, thereby being granted more training/practice than those who are not. If memory serves, Oswald was a radar operator - having no need undergo specialized rifle training/practice. Personally, in '61, at 18 years of age, with the M-1 Carbine, never having fired a rifle or pistol before, I scored one point below expert. Subsequent years proved to be less successful - scoring low in the sharpshooter range. Before leaving for Vietnam in '66, I had to go through the initial qualification with the USAF'S newly adopted M-16. I reached one point above expert. Thereafter, never again - scoring only in the low to mid-range sharpshooter range. Fortuitously, in June '61 whilst in basic training at Lackland AFB, TX, on an "extra duty day", I was assigned to the office of the official USAF Rifle Team whose members competed with other services. The non-coms there were "extra kind" and treated me as if I were human!. My duties were light, and I was able to spend most of the day in casual conversation with them, regarding their duties. For them, along as their other sundry duties were completed, they could pretty much - "practice as much as they wanted". So, unless Oswald was an official USMC Rifle Team member (I've not aware, if he was), it is much more that highly doubtful that he would have had carte blanche - when it came to range time. His normal and additional duties time would've precluded extensive practice, not withstanding the fact that budgetary manpower/equipment/ammunition considerations would have also precluded "practicing as much as he wanted". Even so, let's allow that Oswald clandestinely was somehow able to "practice as much as he wanted" with the M1 Rifle. How beneficial would that have been, considering the his alleged dastardly deed was done with the MC? Did some unknown person procure a MC rifle for him to practice? Not that anyone knows of. Those with even a rudimentary knowledge of rifle shooting absolutely know that there a huge difference between operating a bolt action rifle versus a semi-automatic. The experience is not precisely linear nor exactly transferable between the two rifle types. Oswald's alleged shooting prowess has been much discussed, here and elsewhere. Personally, I am unaware of anyone, in the "recreations" of the alleged 11/22/63 assassination scenario, equaling Oswald's feat. Those world's expert riflemen were allowed practice shots before the recreation. Additionally, the alleged MC's condition, as found on 11/22/63's had been markedly "improved) and the exact shooting scenario (height/distance) at a moving target no less, was also "improved". Do I believe that Oswald could still have "dun it". I suppose so - as long as someone can show me a study, where, without artificial means, ""pigs can fly". I only share the above with the thought that it may help to generate some interest/comments in your post. Further, it is my hope is that one of the members here is a USMC veteran of the late '50s/early '60s era or perhaps knows someone who was and can relay their thoughts/comments, furthering our understanding of USMC rifle qualification' specifics, back in the day. Gerry, thanks; you contribute much here, and I enjoy your posts.

Thank you; I am much inclined to agree.

Sandy, thank you for the reminder. I reread your post and I agree. Please refresh my memory. If Baker was not running directly into the TSBD, then would it not be your stance that the "official" timeline for his alleged confrontation with Oswald had to be later than that which has been "officially" established, and therefore seriously put in question the WC's determinations of the subsequent actions of Baker/Truly and other TSBD employees, when trying to identify Oswald's exact location just before/during/after the shots- if the confrontation (with Oswald, that is) happened at all? I have my doubts that it did. Thank you.

Gil, another outstanding presentation on your part; thank you! Me thinks we should prepare ourselves for naysayer responses - just misperceptions, faded memories, kook' affidavits/testimonies, WC photos/illustrations/verbiage tell a different story . . . . . . .

Just curious; assuming at least a young teenager in age, how many males in 1963 do you think would mistake a '61 Ford Falcon for a '62 Ford Thunderbird? 1961 Red Ford Falcons 1962 Red Ford Thunderbird How about mistaking a red '57 Plymouth for either the Thunderbird or the Falcon? 1957 Red (mostly) Plymouths Or a '57 Blue and White Plymouth for any of 'em? 1957 Blue and White Plymouths

Gerry, Great question - as I believe there is "lots more to see" - re Vinson's story. Certainly, the C-54 could've easily been CIA, since the agency's "airline", Air America, was covertly owned and operated by it from 1950 to 1976. During my tour at Tan Son Nhut Air Base (TSNAB), South Vietnam, I served in a reconnaissance wing command post situated on the flight line. At the time TSNAB was said to be the world's busiest "airport". Just one example; one early morning, the pilot of one of the wing's RF-101s radioed in that his takeoff would be significantly delayed. When I queried, "Why?", he responded, "Be advised, I am number 47 in line to be cleared for take-off; nuff said. Anyway, Air America aircraft/flights were so numerous, we GIs referred to the conflict as, "The CIA's War." More than likely, the "clerk" who Vinson referred to was a dispatcher in the Andrews AFB, MD Base Operations. Having served in the capacity at Charleston AFB, SC, prior to my Vietnam tour, his story rings true. If the C-54 was on a routine flight, i.e., non-covert flight to Colorado, there would be no reason to deny a GI boarding so he could return to his Ent AFB, Colorado Springs unit. And it is true, that very typically (at least in the U. S. Air Force), the aircraft's crew chief and who also often doubled as the flight engineer would be on board. Anyone's guess as to why there was not one on that flight, is as good as any. I find it curious that the pilots did not say a word to Vinson; having flown as a passenger on a significant number of military aircraft, there is very typically, in the least, a "Welcome aboard, Sarge" from the pilots or some such. The alleged diversion to the Dallas, TX area after the assassination is also curious. One would think that if the two guys dressed in beige overalls, who boarded at the dirt strip were associated with the shooting, that there would've be a prearranged flight for them - not one that was diverted to them. Unless, something went awry with their original escape plan. The two's complete silence upon boarding and during the flight is also quite unusual; nary even a curt, "Hey, how's in going"?, to Vinson. I am wondering if the two could've come into play as part of Alan Ford's thread, "The Floor-Laying Crew"? Most inquisitive of Vinson's story is his recruitment into the CIA, he declining, and then being summarily assigned to the CIA in 1965, when he had only 18 months left on his enlistment before retiring. That was quite a departure from the way such "special assignments" (SAs) were processed, back in the day. Usually, candidates would be informed by the base personnel office that such a SA was available and that the person's records indicated that he/she was eligible. Then HE/SHE could apply and the "hiring agency" would review the application. There would be a three years minimum commitment should he/she be accepted. Me thinks that the way Vinson's SA was processed was to ensure his secrecy for perpetuity (which of course, was eventually waived). Complete access to Vinson's military personnel would be quite interesting - and maybe very revelatory.

From the link - credit John Simkin, Oct. 20, 2004: " . . . . According to a memo written by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to the Warren Commission after Lovelady had been interviewed and photographed in 1964 by FBI agents, Lovelady was reported to have been wearing a short-sleeved red and white, vertically striped shirt. The FBI claimed that he had been photographed in the clothes that he wore on the day of the assassination. The House Select Committee on Assassinations looked into this issue: A widely publicized photograph taken by Associated Press photographer James W. Altgens within a few seconds after President Kennedy was first shot shows a spectator who bears a strong physical resemblance to Lee Harvey Oswald standing at the west end of the Texas School Book Depository entranceway. Altgens has stated that he took the picture of the presidential limousine, with the Texas School Book Depository entranceway in the background, just after he heard a noise "which sounded like the popping of a firecracker." Warren Commission critics have charged that there was insufficient basis for this conclusion, and have faulted the Commission for presenting " no supporting visual evidence by which one can appraise the resemblance between Lovelady and the man in the doorway, or Lovelady and Oswald, although nothing less hangs on the accurate identification of the doorway man than Oswald's possible total innocence of the assassination". This issue has also persisted because of reported discrepancies in connection with the clothing worn by the Altgens figure and Billy Lovelady on November 22, 1963. In media prints of the Altgens photograph, the man appears to be wearing a long-sleeved shirt similar to the one in which Oswald was arrested. The HSCA went on to argue: Lovelady later explained that when he was interviewed and photographed by the FBI, he had not been told to wear the same shirt he had worn on the day of the assassination and that, in fact, he had been wearing a long-sleeved, plaid shirt when he was standing in the Texas School Book Depository doorway. Lovelady did not appear to be asked about the shirt he was wearing on the day of the assassination by the Warren Commission. According to Michael Benson, Lovelady said he was wearing a red and white stripped shirt. However, the HSCA claimed he was wearing a plaid shirt. Unfortunately, Lovelady was not able to confirm this as he died just before the publication of the HSCA report. He died of a heart-attack aged 42 in January, 1979." And wasn't there a thread which posited that BL's plaid shirt, in which he posed for the picture, was, perhaps, remade from the same material as the alleged original? Was that the genesis of the pocket-no pocket discussion?

Jonathan, thanks. Of course, SS cards in the era contained no photograph. So, Oswald "modified" his SS card or someone else did it for him. Was there not a least one thread here where the was a long debate whether or not those two photographs were of the same person - as well as many other photographs purported to be of Oswald with some here agreeing and some dissenting I am no photography expert or knowledgeable enough to discern if the facial structure/features in all, many, several, or few of all the photographs in question in the aforementioned thread are or are not of Oswald. FWIW, if memory serves the long-hair photograph (above) and the the one of Oswald with Marina, on the bridge in Minsk appear to be same person, no?