Ron Ege

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?

Pat and Charles - thanks. Is it possible that Connally's reaction, circa 224 (the wince?) is just part of hearing the first shot, recognizing it as a rifle shot, and thinking, "This is not good" - causing that initial "reaction" as a part of him just beginning to attempt to digest the scenario, while at the same time unconsciously wincing and maybe just thinking of "ducking" his head and crouching a wee bit, deciding his next move, which was what, turning around to look at JFK? After Viet Nam, I readily wince and do a "wee duck" as a reflex action - immediately after my brain registers an unexpected and loud noise (bang! of any sort), especially what I think or know to be a gunshot; and I maintain that for a second or two before deciding, "All good." And wasn't Connally's best judgement that he was hit at 234? Not ever having been hit in the back by rifle bullet, I cannot say definitely that I would be yelling out at that instant. 'Twould seem the shock would prevent that for a second or two assuming one remained conscious.

Michael, thanks. Dunno if these might be helpful. Gainesville man recalls JFK autopsy (ocala.com) Paul O'Conner -Specifically: "The casket he was put in in Dallas was not the same one he came to Bethesda in," he said. "And I understand from talking with people at the emergency room in Dallas that he was not placed in a body bag. When he got to us he was in a body bag." When Kennedy's body arrived on O'Connor's table, it was in a body bag. Unzipped, the bag revealed a gruesome sight. "I looked at it and said, 'My Lord in heaven.' It looked like a bomb went off inside his head," he said. "My primary role was to get the body in and log it in, which I did, and then I was going to remove the brain. But there was no brain. Most of it was blown out." And: ARRIVAL AT BETHESDA (whokilledjfk.net) Sibert and O'Neill: " . . .This author estimates that Sibert and O'Neill, along with Greer and the ambulance, arrived at the morgue entrance just prior to 7:17 PM. Sibert told the ARRB that he and O'Neill assisted Greer and Kellerman in taking the ornamental bronze casket into the anteroom of the morgue at about 7:17 PM [15, p. 45; p. 50]. In their interview with Specter, both agents said that "preparations for the autopsy" occurred at approximately 7:17 PM [12, p. 2]. . ." And: The Kennedy Casket Conspiracy – The Future of Freedom Foundation (fff.org) Dennis David - specifically: " . . . What did the casket look like? David stated that it was a simple, gray shipping casket similar to the ones commonly used in the Vietnam War. . . " And: ARRB MD 64 - O'Connor-Purdy HSCA Interview (8/29/77) (maryferrell.org) Paul O'Connor - again - specifically: . . . . O'Connor said the casket was a pink shipping casket and it arrived at approximately at eight o'clock. He said the body was wrapped in a body bag, and the head was wrapped in a sheet . . . "

And: Connallys John B Jr and Nellie (archive.org) Specifically: Governor Connally believes, as nearly as he can judge it, that the bullet struck him in the 234th frame. This is at least nine frames and one half second later than the Commission says he was hit. He might. Connally admits, possibly have been hit a frame or two earlier but no more. “Having looked at frames 233 to 235,“ he said to LIFE, “I can begin to sec myself slump in 234. The slump is very pronounced in 235. I am hunched. It looks as if my coat is pulled away from my shirt. My mouth is elongated. I don’t think there is any question that my reaction to the shot begins in this time sequence."

And: What Caused Connally's Lapel Flap? : The JFK Assassination (22november1963.org.uk) Specifically: Conclusion: Identifying the Culprit Wecht and Milam conclude that the lapel flap was almost certainly caused by the most obvious candidate, a gust of wind: Records at Love Field airport, close to downtown Dallas, show the steady wind speed to have been around 13 knots, or 15 miles per hour, with gusts (HSCA Report, appendix vol.8, pp.173–182). Films and photographs of the motorcade show the flags on the presidential limousine flapping, and several of the occupants holding onto their hair and hats from time to time. In conclusion, the experimental evidence refutes rather than supports the notion that President Kennedy and Governor Connally were wounded almost simultaneously at frame 224 of the Zapruder film. The single–bullet theory remains just as implausible as ever.

Gerry, thanks. Don't know if you find this helpful. The Testimony of John B. Connally (jfk-assassination.net) Specifically: Senator COOPER. That is when you heard the first rifleshot?Governor CONNALLY. This was after I heard the first rifleshot. There was no pain connected with it. There was no particular burning sensation. There was nothing more than that. I think you would feel almost the identical sensation I felt if someone came up behind you and just, with a short jab, hit you with a doubled-up fist just below the shoulder blade.Senator COOPER. That is all.Mr. SPECTER. I have just one other question, Governor. With respect to the films and the slides which you have viewed this morning, had you ever seen those pictures before this morning?Governor CONNALLY. I had seen what purported to be a copy of the film when I was in the hospital in Dallas. I had not seen the slides.Mr. SPECTER. And when do you think you were hit on those slides, Governor, or in what range of slides?Governor CONNALLY. We took--you are talking about the number of the slides?Mr. SPECTER. Yes.Governor CONNALLY. As we looked at them this morning, and as you related the numbers to me, it appeared to me that I was hit in the range between 130 or 131, I don't remember precisely, up to 134, in that bracket.Mr. SPECTER. May I suggest to you that it was 231?Governor CONNALLY. Well, 231 and 234, then.Mr. SPECTER. The series under our numbering system starts with a higher number when the car comes around the turn, so when you come out of the sign, which was----Governor CONNALLY. It was just after we came out of the sign, for whatever that sequence of numbers was, and if it was 200, I correct my testimony. It was 231 to about 234. It was within that range.

Michael, Bill, Gil, et al - thanks. Going with the supposition that Oswald did carry his lunch to work that morning in what has been described as the typical 27 inch department store bag/sack, could he not, for whatever reason, just cupped the bottom with his hand and tucked the top under his armpit - to have both hands available to zip up his jacket? I would think that even a 27 inch bag/sack with just a small lunch therein, would collapse easily so as to fit in the crook of his arm, whilst doing so. Just a thought. No, I don't reject Oswald "ditching" the bag or Dougherty misremembering. Oh, for a good TSBD CCTV system back then!

Greg, thanks; well written. Me thinks the preponderance of the evidence supports that Whaley was not wrong. That would leave us with your options 2 & 3. Whaley spent much more time in proximity to Oswald than did Roberts. Didn't she say that when Oswald came in the door that she was attending to the TV, getting updates on JFK?

Greg, thanks. There's some back and forth here, but I believe that you are on quite solid ground, making the case that there were three jackets, Oswald's two and the one "found" under a vehicle at the gas station. Others who have also addressed the issue, to me, have buttressed your position. I personally, do not recall ever, anyone plausibly refuting that there was a not a third jacket - and no credible evidence that the third "found" jacket could conceivably and rationally be construed to have been owned by Oswald. Not being omniscient, I cannot know if Oswald actually "ditched", what from the credible evidence we have, was the grey jacket, the one that quite credibly, he wore to work that morning. But in the light of anything else, it "went" somewhere - between leaving the TSBD, and if we choose to believe Roberts, Oswald entering her rooming house.

Gil, thanks. I don't disagree with anything you have written. Given Dougherty's recollection that Oswald upon entering the building that morning had "nothing in his hands", then does that leave us with either him temporarily "storing" his lunch bag somewhere on the the dock - or, maybe more likely, Dougherty misremembering? The latter seems the better choice, as Buell's and Linnie's testimony appear to much support that there WAS a lunch bag, just not one with a rifle. The bag just didn't disappear. If it were the 27" variety grocery bag, seems it would be fairly difficult to fold it up and stuff in a jacket pocket. And, Frazier testified that Oswald walked away from the car with the bottom cupped in his hand, with the top tucked in his underarm. Oswald could've stuffed into his zipped-up jacket, but why bother. In a couple of minutes, he'd been in the building, anyway.

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.