Ron Ege

Ron, thanks. I agree with you; based on the entirety of the "rifle story" as we know it be now, no rifle in the garage. Would your idea of Oswald perhaps 'knowing something and going to Mexico" maybe part of his possible involvement in a "false flag" op? I dunno. I've always thought Oswald's behavior that Friday was very normal for him, up until a little after 12:30 p.m., when he seems, as you proffer - ma-a-ybe, to have just then, "figured it out". But then again, Oswald goes to a movie theatre, the classic place for meeting a "contact", for further instructions. Or was he just a frequent movie goer, having nothing else to do and tired of reading books to wile away his time? Then we have the reports of Oswald going from person to person, sitting next to them for a few moments, before moving on. Subsequent to the shots, does anyone here know if Oswald had a minute to get a TSBD telephone and arrange a quick meet-up with a "contact"? On the face of the scenario we are aware of, if there was a planned meet in the TT, would seem to have been prearranged, before the shots.

Sandy, thanks. I wholeheartedly agree, with altering and hiding evidence and intimidating witnesses. I remember vividly the Shelly/Lovelady vs Victoria Adams story. The WW3 threat was real and supporting the country, the right thing to do. And, if for any of the witnesses and investigators who were attached to the government and had security clearances, all that had to be said for them to toe the line was, "This is about NATIONAL SECURITY." That always did the trick! And we have the compartmentalization aspect, too. 100s if not 1000s of agents, investigators, etc., gathering little bits of info, some data here - never seeing the full picture - so their little "piece" did not seem suspicious at the time. We, 60 years later with the benefit of hindsight and a far clearer view of the "big picture" are not as naive/trusting/uninformed/uneducated as to the JFK facts. Excellent speculation on Buell and Linnie. If Oswald did use some sort of, maybe, medium size grocery sack (hard for me to swallow the usually frugal Oswald springing for the very small lunch sacks popular at the time) for his lunch, they could've been convinced to stretch their imagination about the size thereof - but of course, they both balked at increasing it to almost 35 inches, leaving it to the government to fairly easily explain away a seven-eight inches difference. Then that would leave only Dougherty misremembering that Oswald, "had nothing in his hands" - upon entering the TSBD. 'Course if Oswald did happen have just a small lunch sack, he could've stuffed that in one of his jacket pockets. Still and all, the entirety of the curtain rod story, for me, remains troubling; too many machinations involved - for it not to be.

Mark, thanks. Understood. Would you want to share your views?

Gil, thanks. I have read your The Curtain Rods Debacle (TCRD) article, a couple of times; probably should've shared that earlier. Anyway that, yet another one done in your usual inimitable manner! Ah, the loading dock. Good speculation. Maybe there was no curtain rod in the package; just a piece of cardboard to give the package shape. However, that seems to be subterfuge beyond what the situation warranted. This thread together with your TCRD article, to me, argues most strongly that the package did contain a curtain rod. But exactly, whose? I'd think perhaps that: It could've been Oswald's, but does he supplying it gratis, for his rented room, seem out of character for "Frugal Ozzie"? I do understand; a rod of that ilk was very cheap so just maybe an understandable anomaly in his usual behavior? It also could've belonged to Ruth Paine and Oswald "borrowed" the rod, intending to reimburse her, later? I've never seen any evidence he was a petty thief. In either case, I'd think he'd already know the garage contained curtain rods available to him, whether he intended to actually use one of them in his room or it was just subterfuge to conceal the real reason for that Thursday's visit. Seems too convenient that credible evidence showing Oswald took a package to work containing a curtain rod is "torpedoed", and the official story is that the package contained the MC rifle - because - "Why, his room already has curtain rods. Land O' Goshen folks, a curtain rod package; what a silly notion, that is!" And then, surprise! The rod in Oswald's room is discovered to actually require replacement, along with photographs as proof. Hm-m, imagine that. So, the official story has to shake out, the curtain rod package becomes the MC package; case solved - Ozzie did it! More likely. 1. Oswald, for whatever reason, took a curtain rod to work. For retrieval after work, he could've temporarily stashed it somewhere on the loading dock or if just a subterfuge tactic, just tossed it into a outside trash bin. 2. When the president was shot, for Oswald, retrieving his curtain rod had zero priority. As others have opined, he realized that "he'd been had" - and suddenly, "he had bigger fish to fry" - curtain rod be damned. 3. If Oswald tossed the curtain in a trash bin - no rod to ever be found. 4. If Oswald did stash the rod on the dock for later and then had to abandon it for good reason, anyone could've found it that day or any day, and simply availed themself of a "five-fingered discount". At it's most expensive in '63, that rod would've been less 99 cents, IMO. Not a catastrophic loss, even for Ozzie, and the "discoverer" of it - adopting the "finders-keepers" policy. 5. WC and FBI directives to search the TSBD for a rod - all too familiar MO on both their parts. Not to mention Mr. Truly being in charge of the "search" - he, as we are now acutely aware, not necessarily, having the sterling reputation of being the paragon of truth. I could see Truly actually discovering a gross of curtain rods in the TSBD and reporting, "Nope, no rod found here." 6. Last, but not least, we have Jarman's testimony, buttressing the fact that Oswald did not even know that JFK was passing by the TSBD that day. Unless, of course, one believes that was more genius chicanery on Oswald's part - he planning on it becoming part of his what he hoped would be quite a believable alibi, if he, indeed, happened to surface as a suspect. Conclusion: Yes, much speculation here on this thread. That said, makes a whole lot more sense that the official story. Yes, I'm sure that others disagree. Thanks again, Gil.

Mark, thanks. Perhaps you right about the package being Oswald's prop and then being discarded, when out of Frazier's sight and before Dougherty saw him entering the building. Maybe Gil or those more learned here can enlighten us on that possibility. And, the length estimates were accompanied by descriptions - re the manner of carry, confirming them. So, we have that. Could we allow for the possibility that Dougherty's memory of that day was conflated with his memories of other days that Oswald entered the building. And, therefore the "nothing in his (Oswald's) hands". I thought he brought his lunch that day. Where was that package (sack) - stuffed in a jacket pocket?

Gil, thanks; your usual thoroughness! So, Oswald tells Frazier the package contains curtain rods, and both Frazier and his sister give nearly identical estimations of the package length, stating that Oswald carried the package, holding it at the top, and it does not drag the ground as would a 34.8 " (MC rifle length, broken down) package. Then, arriving at the TSBD parking lot, whilst Oswald exits the car to walk to the TSBD, Frazier remains behind (watching RR car switching, charging the car, battery, whatever) and testifies that Oswald carried the package with the bottom cupped in his hand and the top tucked in his armpit. Next, the only person to witness Oswald enter the TSBD from the parking lot, Dougherty, states definitively that Oswald had nothing in his hands. A-a, "Houston, we have a problem", right? Are both Frazier and his sister making up the package story, Buell taking it a step further, testifying that he actually witnessed Oswald carrying it from the car as he walked to the building? What would be there collective motive? Pretty precarious move on either of their parts, lying to the authorities investigating a presidential assassination. How about Dougherty. Is he lying, also or just misremembering? I do remember him being pictured as allegedly being a "dolt" of sorts and don't believe it. Again, motive? I'm inclined to believe Frazier and his sister. So, after no longer being in Frazier's eyesight, was there anywhere Oswald could've temporarily left the package before entering the building, thereby explaining Dougherty's testimony? Even if there was, why would Oswald do that and just not take the package into the building? So many questions. Please, what are your thoughts?

Greg, thanks. I think you've pretty much "tied up any loose ends" - and more than once. 1. There is credible evidence that Oswald owned just the two known jackets. 2. No one has ever produced any photographs or credible evidence of his buying/wearing the "third jacket". 3. That jacket, from entirely noncredible provenance, is serendipitously "found" by corrupt/compromised authorities, they quickly and pretty much inexplicably - determining that it belonged to Oswald, he allegedly shedding it on his route from killing Tippit to the TT. 1 and 2 - am taking to the bank. 3 - don't think so.

Greg, the ticket, exactly. And thanks for the Information about Oswald able to wear an "M" size shirt. And maybe, he even had more than one. But maybe he bought the Enro shirt when he was heavier. And maybe the shirt was a gift. I dunno. At 5' 9'/145 lbs, my shirt size preference is "M" for fit/comfort. However, I have received "M" size shirts as gifts, and I have tried on "M" size shirts in stores, and in many of those instances over the years, for whatever reason, the shirts were undersized from the factory and fit me as would a "S" (small). I imagine, more telling, among all of Oswald known shirts and jackets is - what size was typical/usual for him. Based on your outstanding presentation (and others who've addressed the issue before), I'm just of the mind that the preponderance of everything we know about Oswald's known coats/jackets is - that the "third jacket" did not belong to him. Craford's? Unlikely, that we will ever know. The FBI could've expanded its search for the laundries/dry cleaners, too. Maybe, just maybe, it could've found which establishments were responsible for the "marks". Oh, that's right . . . . .

Bill, thanks. Yes, I'm aware. However, Marina's veracity has been much called into question. I do understand you may disagree.

Greg, Thank you; as I surmised - but did not want to assume. IMO, you've done a masterful job of presenting your case - although others may still believe otherwise. Based on your paper and so much other information that I've read over the years, it seems more than reasonable that there are just two logical reasonable options for the "discovery" of the "third jacket. 1. Tippit's actual killer (not Oswald) discarded it so as to be less likely to eventually be identified as such. or 2. The jacket was a "plant" to incriminate Oswald. Of course, one could proffer a third option - totally illogical - that coincidentally, someone just arbitrarily discarded a perfectly serviceable jacket along the route from the Tippit shooting to the TT. because . . . Makes no sense. To me, the most telling issue about the "third jacket" is that no one has ever presented a decent explanation - as to how - relative to the size, manufacturer, cities/stores where sold, and the laundry/dry cleaning marks on it - just how it could've ever belonged to Oswald.

Bill and Greg, I'm confused; not unusual for me! Am I understanding (1) Oswald left the rooming house, wearing a "dark color" jacket, and then, (2) Had no jacket on, upon entering the theatre? So is the light tan jacket, alleged to have been shed by Tippit's killer, found under a vehicle, parked at a gas station, along the route from the the shooting to the TT, one of the Oswald's two jackets in question, be it blue or grey or a third jacket, of whatever provenance?

👍👏

Michael, thank you. Of course if a non-zero probability event sequence should occur, such as Oswald accomplishing the hits he's been credited with (which you rightly point out that no one else - ever - has equaled), then it could conceivably, be theorized that he somehow miraculously "lucked out" that day. Me thinks that anyone with a modicum of rifle shooting experience, semi-automatic vs bold action and stationary vs moving target would likely move the probability of Oswald's alleged feat to absolute zero - even given Oswald's alleged "shooting experiences", subsequent to his USMC days. We're to believe that that Nov. 22nd, Oswald would've been able to give, for example, say Carlos Hathcock - "a run for his money"? You're absolutely right. Let's please confirm that Oswald was even actually in the sixth floor depository window during the JFKA. Chief Curry; "No one has ever out him (Oswald) in the Texas School Book Depository with a rifle in his hand."

Gil, thank you for another outstanding presentation - authenticating the "Howard Brennan ID of Oswald As the Shooter Nail", in the coffin of WR's Lone Assassin myth, just as you've done with others before.

Paul, thank you; well said. As usual, seemingly, we may just be discussing yet another - "look over there" - as a distraction. Just my opinion.

Leslie, thanks for the reminder. My reaction is the same as the fist time that I read it. "Hm-m, curious that" - would not come anywhere close to describing it. The post further contributes to the reality that quite seemingly, for about the last seven years of his life, LHO was immersed in a near "bizzaro world" of scenarios, circumstances, happenstances, coincidences, etc., interacting knowingly or otherwise, with a plethora of people having an extremely large range of unusual and/or intriguing backgrounds. All of which fed into a nearly unimaginable and shocking climax - the depth and breadth of which is, almost after now almost six decades, still mesmerizing and so much nearly 100 percent improbable, that the odds of it occurring in the manner prescribed by the WR, beggars belief. To wit, that would be the JFK Assassination and then the murder of DPD Officer Tippit - by Oswald who, to believe the official government report, was nothing more than a very lucky LN. I cannot believe that as some have proffered - that the CTs and LNs are solely responsible for a near 60 years' controversy, with the end result destined to eventually being, "Nothing to see here folks; move along, now." I admire the research and contributions by everyone here and the energy with which they present same. It is a most pleasurable, informative, and captivating experience. Thank you.

Benjamin, thanks. I don't disagree that LHO may have a guy on the run without a plan. And a theatre would be a good place to "lay low", allowing time for him to figure out his next move. What puzzles me and only if the reports were true - that with hundreds of seats available and maybe 20 odd people in attendance, Oswald allegedly sat down right next to two or three patrons, moving one to the next - before finally sitting alone in the seat where he was arrested. Over the years, have those reports been discounted? Anyone?

David, thanks for the reminder. Just reread your K & K piece for the third time. Relative to the term "patsy", I agree with your observations. That moment on live TV when Oswald said, "I'm just a patsy", gave me a puzzled pause. My immediate thought was that his choice of that specific term to describe himself in relation to being the accused JFK assassin, seemed strange, to say the least. To me, your connection of "patsy" and "aware of it" explains why Oswald, after being repeatedly questioned by reporters about killing JFK and denying it, would've eventually chosen that specific term to describe himself. If one is innocent, is not one immediately inclined to remain silent or after persistent questions about having committed a crime, perhaps just answer, "I'm innocent" or a paraphrase thereof? Oswald said just that, more than once. From link: A reporter asked, "Oswald, did you shoot the president?" Oswald answered, "I didn't shoot anybody, sir. I haven't been told what I'm here for." Again, a reporter asked, "Oswald, "Did you shoot the president?" He responded, "I didn't shoot anybody; no sir." Again, a reporter asked, "Did you kill the president?" Oswald responded, "No, I've not been charged with that. In fact, nobody has said that to me, yet." Finally, when asked again if he killed the president, Oswald said, "I'm just a patsy." My thought is that after being arrested for murdering Tippit, and then repeatedly being queried by reporters about killing the president, Oswald realized that someone had "connected the dots" from his bio to the two killings - making a look like he was "involved" - as part of a conspiracy or as THE lone assassin. I think it's possible that Oswald used the term "patsy" in a subtle attempt to provide a hint to the reporters, without revealing anything more about his background, how it was he could've come to be in his present predicament and further, he believed that future proper legal representation would establish, regardless of his alleged "bona fides", that he had been "set up". IMO, as you have indicated, there is a very high probability of Oswald being "aware of it"; most likely, we will never know how much of "it", he was.

Gerry, thanks. Given all we've learned over the past almost six decades, it would appear (to me) that both the bureau and the agency were - shall we say, "interested" in Oswald. Far be it from me to definitively determine which one's "job" it actually was. I'm sure the more learned here, can weigh in on that. If the CIA and the FBI were both independently investigating Oswald, could it have simply just fallen under the category of an intentional, interdepartmental "power struggle" action by either or both, ignoring its respective "chartered" investigatory responsibilities? Would be hard to believe that either one did not understand it's own "charter", no? Considering the FBI and CIA's histories, it seems that "fudging" of same should not surprise anyone; maybe each (or both) viewed their investigation as a sort of "it's better to apologize than ask for permission" scenario? Or given Oswald's biography, and allowing for that fact that both the agency and the bureau were definitely investigating him - did both "charters" allow for them to investigate him - just for different reasons? Seems like there has been a previous discussion here about the FBI vs CIA actions - relative to their "interest" in Oswald. Anyone?

Gil, thanks for the correction. I was going from memory (my bad). I thought that LHO originally requested a specific agent, thinking it was Fain and that the FBI sent Quigley. Again, thank you - but still curious - to request an FBI agent because one is in jail, arrested on a local charge. That, just perhaps, indicates a symbiotic relationship, no? It does seem, if one is a former defector to the USSR and upon return to the U. S. is then under FBI surveillance, one would want to minimize any interviews by the bureau, if for nothing else than to avoid those interruptions to one's daily life. Was Oswald thinking, "Well, even though the bureau asked me to, I've not yet - ever provided any info to the FBI, but maybe I'll request an agent and promise to begin providing same - and then the bureau will help to spring me."

Mark, understood and thanks. I wonder if anyone here could posit a reason why LHO arrested for the August, 09, 1962 New Orleans' "street brawl" with Carlos Bringuier, Oswald, from his cell, requested to speak to an FBI agent, which did send SA John Lester Quigley to speak with Oswald. Quigley allegedly later burned his notes from that meeting. And did LHO not specifically request SA John Fain? Curious that. Oh, OK. Maybe the reason Oswald specifically requested Fain was to apologize to him for not previously supplying any information, with the intent to promise (actual or feigned) to do so, if Fain helped effect LHO's release? Doggone those burned notes.

Pat, David, Michael, et al: Thank you for the discussion. I guess I'm still a wee bit bumfuzzled. It seems if one had been the chief of police in a major city when a POTUS was assassinated, and then one eventually developed unequivocal direct evidence, instead of circumstantial evidence that the accused assassin was guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, then one would've shouted it out "to highest yardarm". Imagine the notoriety, book contracts, etc. Instead - DPD Jesse Curry, 11/06/1969, Dallas Morning News: "I'm not sure about it. No one has ever been able to put him (Oswald) in the Texas School Book Depository with a rifle in his hand." JEH, from a 11/24/1963 memo: "They (DPD) did not really have a case against Oswald until we gave them our information. "We traced the weapon, we identified the handwriting, we identified the fingerprints on the brown bag." Hm-m. "Ole Edgar" was mighty helpful, wasn't he?

Gil, thanks. I wonder if any of the learned here, would comment if it is conceivable - that there is left, "any minute crack in the door" - reading this: Analysis of beveling in gunshot entrance wounds - ScienceDirect I am not disagreeing with your post.

Michael, thanks for your post, and Bill, thank you for yours, which precipitated Michael's. I have room for thoughts on both sides. I have read about and researched the JFKA since 1966, but compared to those here, I'm way less than a neophyte in my knowledge thereof. What has always given me pause, is: In the beginning, I remember the scenario of the JFKA and the Tippit killing, being initially presented by the press and the authorities as being pretty much simplistically linear: That is - LHO, ex-marine turned Marxist, bought a mail order pistol and rifle, decided one day to use the rifle to assassinate JFK, escaped from the scene, went to his apartment where he retrieved the pistol, decided to walk to a movie theatre and was stopped by a police officer, killed the officer, continued his walk/trot to the theatre, acted suspiciously in front of a shop, was noticed by the worker who then watched him enter the theatre without paying, police were notified/arrived, and Oswald was quickly captured. A couple of days later, whilst being transferred from one jail to another, a Dallas citizen who had earlier decided to save JK from a trial, murdered LHO, was immediately captured, stood trial, was convicted, and died not long after, of cancer in his cell. Open and shut - done and over with. I'm always left wondering, instead of the alleged perpetrator having been LHO, should anyone here for example, at the tender age of 24, have been arrested for the crime and then two days later, himself/herself murdered in a jail - if - there would still be, almost sixty years later, the same, forever seemingly lingering doubt over his/her guilt, i.e., - the LN vs CT debate we experience here and elsewhere. It seems to me, in the case of someone here having been accused but then prevented from ever standing trial, that it would've been extremely improbable that the truth would not have "willed out" very soon, regardless of the absence of a legal conviction, - unless a party/parties decided that the "story" required some complication/confusion/obfuscation, etc., for whatever reason. Who here, would have anything close to LHO's alleged and/or proven bio - true or concocted? IOW, who is responsible for turning a seemingly straight forward scenario into a near 60 years' maelstrom of a controversy? Who has "so severely "muddied the waters?" Has it been the press (readership/money), certain government entities (incompetency/corruption/intentional actions to protect reputation/national security), book authors/movie and TV producers (fame/fortune), certain other NGOs with ambitions/causes. I'm sure the more learned here are able to add others. Seems its been in combination. On their own, LNs and CTs are not to blame for what we still see going on today, a very emphatic, very high spirited, if not a very often palpably heated, protracted debate - relative to the final solution to the who/why/how of the JFKA. Thoughts on the "culprit(s)" - mostly responsible?

David, thanks. I do understand your view. I am just wondering if you have ever left the door open, at all, for Oswald's actions - other than above. Most agree that he was not unintelligent. So, for whatever reason, Oswald decided to assassinate the president, using his MC, from the TSBD sixth-floor window. Witty enough to get his rifle into the building, dutifully assembled (at some point) and ready to go, he's all set - "sniper's lair" designed and assembled to keep away prying eyes. Oswald must have realized that subsequent to his shots, there would be scores of folks offering ear and eye evidence as to where the shots came from - and that he would have a limited amount of time to make his departure, undetected, from the building - his escape plan eventually taking him to, wherever. It just seems, based on the WR, that up to the moment the last shot is fired, Oswald had concocted a masterful plan to assassinate a POTUS, in broad daylight, with scores of witnesses in the immediate area. His plan was so good that, miraculously, a few minutes later, he somehow avoided capture, moseying out of the TSBD. Subsequent to that moment (after hiding the rifle, of course), his every action seems to the opposite. It's as if he's "making it up, on the run." OK, throw in the coke buying nonchalance. But . . . Seemingly, he would have taken into account that he might have to "shoot his way out" of TSBD and having only one rifle round left, would he not have brought his .38 to work that day (or someday before, hiding it until needed) for backup, just in case? Strange oversight, to say the least. Assuming Oswald hoped/planned to make it out of the TSBD unnoticed, why would he not just have gone to the nearest theater, to lay low until the hullabaloo died down a bit. Or better yet - just walked casually away, following whatever preplanned route he had that would take get him safely out of Dallas? I can't get by Oswald NOT taking his .38 to the assassination but yet then going to his apartment (if he thinks he will be implicated, would that not be the first place the police would check?) to pick up the gun. It just speaks of a guy who, ma-a-y-be, at that point, is grasping at straws, not sure of what has happened and/or how to react - but "better safe than sorry", he thinks. The shooting of Tippit could be an explanation of the alleged TT scenario, but isn't that the point? I'm sure it follows for some, but just not for me. Perhaps others, also?