Ron Ege

15 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

Where did he say this?

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.

5 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

You don't know that Oswald carried the bag tucked under his armpit. You are taking Frazier's word for this and are rejecting Dougherty's clear, adamant recollection that Oswald had nothing in his hands when he entered the TSBD. 

And if the paper bag in evidence is the one Oswald carried, and if Oswald carried the disassembled Carcano in that bag, why was there not one speck of oil in/on the bag? 

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!  

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Thanks Ron. 

The interesting thing is Myers himself in With Malice is willing to consider that the Warren Commission erred in claiming Oswald wore his blue jacket (CE 163) to work the morning of Nov 22, and suggests that it "remains a possibility" that Oswald may have worn his gray jacket to work that morning, in agreement with the compelling testimony of Buell Wesley Frazier and others.

Of course Myers assumes that the gray jacket described by Frazier was the off-white light tan CE 162, even though CE 162 is nothing like Frazier's description of the gray jacket. Myers does not question that equation. But Myers is open to the possibility that Oswald was wearing his gray jacket--whatever jacket that was--instead of his blue 163 that morning.

In this alternative possibility suggested by Myers, at that critical last stage when Whaley said Oswald left his cab wearing a gray jacket, Oswald walks (unwitnessed) on Beckley, then Oswald enters the rooming house (now witnessed again) without a jacket--where either one of the witnesses is wrong or Oswald discarded his jacket en route--Myers suggests Earlene Robert could be wrong in his scenario, and that Oswald did enter the rooming house wearing his gray jacket (which, in that scenario, Oswald did not change unlike other of his clothes, and wore again which Myers holds to be CE 162 back out the same door). 

Whereas in my reconstruction I accept both the witness of Whaley and Earlene Roberts (finding both their Oswald jacket-wearing/non-wearing witness claims credible), and therefore conclude an abandoned jacket in between like the Tippit killer abandoned a jacket in between two witnessed points. 

So there are the three options:

• Whaley's claim was wrong (belief of Bill);
• Earlene Roberts' claim was wrong (suggested as a possibility by Myers);
• both witnesses were correct: Oswald left the cab with the gray jacket, and entered the rooming house without it (my judgment)

And the conclusion drawn from accepting both of those witnesses as credible concerning Oswald's gray jacket and lack thereof also explains what became of Oswald's gray jacket and why it is not in existence today. 

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?

6 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

To which you replied, without answering the question asked:

But you see Bill, Linnie Mae Randle did not positively identify the "gray" jacket she saw as 163 as you are claiming--the same gray jacket described by Buell who saw it more than she did. Linnie Mae said that the "gray" jacket she saw resembled 163. You conflate "resemble" as if that is a positive identification, instead of "resembled".

In other words, there is no need to suppose either Linnie Mae, on the basis of her brief memory of the jacket, or Buell, on the basis of his more familiar and multiple times of knowledge of Lee's gray jacket, were mistaken. Linnie Mae only makes a positive identification with 163 by you setting up a straw man claiming that her "resembles" 163 in color means positive identification it was 163. 

Mr. BALL. A gray jacket. I will show you some clothing here. First, I will show you a gray jacket. Does this look anything like the jacket he had on? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir. 
Mr. BALL. That morning? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Similar to that. I didn't pay an awful lot of attention to it. 
Mr. BALL. Was it similar in color? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; I think so. It had big sleeves. 
Mr. BALL. Take a look at these sleeves. Was it similar in color? 
Mrs. RANDLE. I believe so. 
Mr. BALL. What is the Commission Exhibit on this jacket? 
Mrs. RANDLE. It was gray, I am not sure of the shade. 
Mr. BALL. 163.  

But let's return to Buell Frazier's description of the gray jacket that both he and Linnie Mae saw, a gray jacket that they both DID positively dis-identify (denied without question an identification) was the near-white light tan CE 162. Both said Oswald's gray jacket which they saw that morning was not 162, because Oswald's gray jacket was not near-white like the light tan 162. Instead, Oswald's gray jacket was a non-near-white gray.

Now compare that gray jacket of Oswald that Buell and Linnie Mae kept saying was "gray" and which Buell said was "more or less flannel, wool-looking" with the jacket Oswald is wearing in Minsk in that photo of him with his coworkers in Minsk. That is a black-and-white photo, and because it is black-and-white you criticize the notion that it could be the gray jacket Buell Frazier described, and which Linnie Mae also saw, by suggesting Oswald's Minsk jacket in that photo could equally well be dark blue.

But here is why I don't think your suggestion is correct that that could be the blue jacket that Oswald had in Minsk according to Marina: because I accept that CE 163 was Oswald's blue jacket or coat. The jacket in the Minsk photo Oswald is wearing is certainly not CE 163, and one does not need a color photo of the Minsk photo to know that.

But the jacket Oswald is wearing in that Minsk photo looks like it could be Oswald's other jacket, the gray jacket Oswald had in Minsk... the one described by Buell Frazier. The one Buell said one would wear on a cool day outdoors when it was too cool to be comfortable in shirt sleeves alone. 

Linnie Mae when shown 163 said 163 resembled Oswald's gray jacket--the one described by Buell--in color.

So did Mr. Ball. Mr. Ball was calling 163 a "gray" jacket as he led Linnie Mae to agree to a color resemblance between 163 and the gray jacket of Oswald Linnie Mae recalled (see testimony above).

There was no positive identification from Linnie Mae of 163, which you should stop misrepresenting as such. Rather, Mr. Ball obtained from Linnie Mae agreement that what Mr. Ball called the "gray" 163 resembled, in color, what Linnie Mae and Buell were referring to, Oswald's gray jacket, which actually was gray.

The "gray" 163 (per Mr. Ball, which actually was blue) resembled the actually gray gray jacket Oswald was wearing, in terms of resemblance in shade, resemblance in tone, and that was true as far as it went, between Oswald's gray and blue jackets--the gray described by Buell and in the Minsk photo, and the blue being 163.   

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.

6 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

I don't have a problem with Oswald using a 27 inch paper bag for his lunch if that was the only size bag available from the Paine home. They went shopping. They had kids. They bought lots of groceries. Personally, I don't find anything extraordinary about them having large bags at the house.

In fact, Frazier described the bag he saw as a "large department store paper bag".

 

Large department store bags aren't put together with tape.

Certain facts remain:

That no witness ever saw him bring a 38 inch package to work that day.

That the FBI could not identify the three loose fibers they found in the "gunsack" as coming from the blanket in the Paine garage.

That the FBI could find no evidence that the rifle was ever in the "gunsack".

That's just a few.

Add to that the fact that Frazier told the FBI that he, "does not feel he is in a position to state that the original ( CE 142 ) is or is not the sack" that Oswald brought to work that morning. ( CE 2009, 24 H 410 )

As a result, Commission counsel never presented Frazier with CE 142 and asked him to identify it under oath.

Why not ?

Because Frazier was the witness who got the best look at the bag and he knew damned well that wasn't the bag. He knew the bag he saw didn't have tape on it.

It WAS shown to his sister during her testimony ( 2 H 249 ) and she was asked to identify it.

She never did positively identify it.

So here you have two witnesses whose estimations on the length of the bag are consistent with the length of curtain rods and who never positively identified CE142 as the bag they saw.

Not only that, their estimations are so precise they corroborate each other, leaving one to believe that either they coordinated the length between them or that they are telling the truth.

In other words, there's no way these witnesses could be wrong about the length of the package they claimed to see.

You're talking about almost a foot. IMO, there's no way they could be that far off.

And besides the evidence indicates that CE 142 was not the bag they saw on 11/22/63.

 

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. 

11 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

How about there never was a rifle in the Paine garage.  Lee went to see Marina and his girls knowing "something" might happen on Friday that could cause him to have to go to say Mexico, as he might have been told.  But then his connection at the TSBD didn't show up, or he figured it out before he did and saved himself temporarily, bus, taxi . . . Then the Texas Theater, his connection there not found either.  Might part of this stick to the wall?

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.

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

Thanks guys! For the summaries.

Here's my 2 cents.

I think that the coverup artists -- WC staff and the FBI -- tried the best they could to make their official narrative fit stories that really did happen. When they altered a real story to fit their narrative, they'd have to do something with the discrepancies the process created. They might have to hide evidence, say that a witness made a mistake, alter testimony, etc. We've seen examples of all these things,, and more, being done.

For example, when they got Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady to alter their testimonies in a way that brought them back into the TSBD through the west door at just the right time for Victoria Adams to supposedly see them. This was done to discredit Victoria Adams' claim of descending the stairway early. (And yet not seeing Truly and officer Baker ascending when the official narrative called for it.)

I believe that the way they got Shelley and Lovelady to lie was by telling them that their doing so would aid the WC in preventing WW3. They did it for their country.

Similarly, I think the coverup plotters got Frazier and his sister, Linnie Mae, to lie about two things. First, the thing about it being Linnie Mae's idea for Oswald to get a job at the TSBD. And second, the thing about Oswald's bag being long. It was really just a lunch bag.

I've discovered that if you want the truth about something, the person you can trust the most is Oswald himself. He denies anything about curtain rods in his interrogation. All he said he had was his lunch. That's the reason I don't believe there were any curtain rods. Or a long bag.

 

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.

1 hour ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Hi Ron. I was just trying to summarize Gil's post. I disagree with almost everything in it.

Mark, thanks.

Understood.

Would you want to share your views?

9 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

I can only speculate Ron. My guess is that Oswald left the package outside the building on the loading dock.

The Warren Commission ordered the FBI to go to the TSBD and ESTABLISH THAT no curtain rods had been found.

A curious choice of words. Not to "ascertain if", but to ESTABLISH THAT.

That message was passed on to the Dallas FBI.

In other words, "go to the TSBD and tell Roy Truly that nobody ever found any curtain rods".

In order to achieve that end, the FBI interviewed Roy Truly, who told them that no curtain rods had been found in the building and that it would "be customary for any discovery of curtain rods to immediately be called to his attention."

I never realized that the TSBD had customary rules regarding the finding of curtain rods.

But there it is.

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. 

1 hour ago, Mark Ulrik said:

According to Gil, the REAL reason Oswald went to Irving Thursday evening was to make up with Marina. I guess it just couldn't wait another day. Gil doesn't completely dismiss the curtain rod story, but suggests it was mainly a fib to conceal private matters from "nosy kid" Buell. According to Gil, it wouldn't even have made sense to bring a rifle to work Friday without even knowing that JFK would be coming through Dealey Plaza (citing Jarman). Gil doesn't rule out that Oswald did bring a package to work that morning, but doubt that it actually made it all the way into the building (citing Dougherty). Maybe it was just a prop intended to satisfy nosy kid Buell and discreetly discarded? In any case, Gil is convinced that the package couldn't have contained a rifle, due to the length estimates provided by Buell and his sister being "so precise" that they must have been accurate.

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?

6 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

And it wasn't for his rifle.

https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1637/real-oswald-went-irving-on

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?

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I agree. Apart from the Marina questionable identification, no one did.

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.

17 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

Thanks Ron Ege. Your analysis of the three options on the CE 162 pretty well summarizes it.

One detail needs to be corrected however: a claim that has long circulated that the "M" medium size is incompatible with Oswald; not so. That claim came about from Marina said she thought Oswald always wore "S", put together with no known clothes of Oswald reported as other than "S". However that is no longer the case. Oswald's maroon shirt CE 151 in the NARA color photo obtained by Pat Speer in 2016 and posted on his website can be seen showing a label in the collar reading "Briarloom Traditionals by Enro. An original design. All fine cotton. M 15-15 1/2." (See the closeup of the label in Pat’s color photo about halfway down—scroll lower than the color photos of the full shirt to below those for the closeup of the collar with label, at https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence.) No prior photo of CE 151 showed that with sufficient clarity to be read. So Oswald wore size "M" as well as size "S". 

But hundreds of dry cleaning establishments contacted in Dallas and New Orleans by the FBI, and not one could identify the dry cleaning ticket stapled on the inside of that Tippit killer's jacket as the kind of ticket used in their establishment. Either that stapled dry cleaning ticket still remained there years later after Oswald was in the military in California ... or it was someone else's jacket.

Some have noted that Curtis Craford, the mid-October recent hire by Oswald's killer Ruby, the one living at the Carousel Club paid off-the-books (i.e. not formally employed with taxes withheld)--who was mistaken in physical identification for Oswald by other witnesses; of similar build and height and weight (and who left Dallas precipitously with no advance notice within hours after the Tippit killing)—(the one who later said he had been a hitman for a California mobster before he came to Dallas and linked up with Oswald's killer)--was photographed by the FBI, after they tracked him down in Michigan six days later on Nov 28, in color photos wearing a jacket of similar appearance as CE 162 of exactly the same color. 

It is regrettable that the FBI did not find out how recently that jacket of Craford had been purchased and where, and then interviewed the seller of that jacket, as that might or might not have shed light on the true owner of CE 162 (i.e. was that the killer of Tippit buying a second similar jacket of identical color worn as an alibi?).  

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 . . . . .

17 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"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."

 

By "third jacket", you're referring to CE-162, the jacket found behind the Texaco station.

 

Marina was shown 162 and said it belonged to Lee.

 

Bill, thanks.

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

On 6/6/2023 at 7:28 PM, Greg Doudna said:

The Warren Commission said CE 162 the light tan near-white jacket, was one of Oswald's two jackets, his gray jacket. Bill defends the Warren Commission interpretation.  

My paper argues CE 162 was a separate, third jacket, was not one of Oswald's two, not Oswald's gray jacket. See pages 42-44 of my paper which summarize the two conflicting interpretations.

Your middle paragraph "Am I understanding..." is an accurate understanding of WC/Bill/David except they don't think Earlene's color "dark" was accurate. It is not accurate for me: I say Oswald did enter the theatre as a ticket-paying customer with the dark jacket Earlene saw him wearing, before the (jacketless) Tippit killer went past Brewer's store and into the balcony. 

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.

20 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"Oswald went to his room and was only there a very few minutes before coming out.  I noticed he had a jacket he was putting on.  I recall the jacket was a dark color and it was the type that zips up the front.  He was zipping the jacket up as he left." -- Earlene Roberts (12-5-63 affidavit)

 

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?

22 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

MG...you missed my take.

I was being absurd humor sarcastic in citing Oswald's rifle shooting practice.

Marina stating Lee shot at leaves in a public park?

Ridiculous. The cops would have been called in a minute seeing someone doing such.

Lee going to "Lopfield" ( Love Field) to shoot his rifle?

Same thing.

One shot at Walker...that missed!

Play aiming and shooting his rifle at home like some kid with a BB gun?

I cite the disparities of Oswald's "alleged" shooting feat at JFK that defied the abilities of the top marksmen in the country.

I mention the added elements of target movement, and life and death pressure stress that Oswald was most assuredly experiencing while shooting, especially during the last near bullseye shot into JFK's 8 inch wide skull.

My post point was the absurdity of Oswald being the lone shooter at JFK and how he could perform shooting skills beyond those of master marksmen shooting at targets with less movement and under non-life and death fearing conditions.

 

👍👏

8 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Yeah, as if firing at the most powerful man on Earth would have made it easier.

In the interest of time, I didn't even mention the firing times of the three Master-rated riflemen. Here they are:

Hendrix: 8.2 seconds and 7.0 seconds (two sets)

Staley: 6.75 seconds and 6.45 seconds (two sets)

Miller: 4.6 seconds, 6.15 seconds, and 4.45 seconds (three sets; he was the only one to fire three sets)

Yet, we're asked to believe that Oswald either (1) went two for two in 5.56 seconds after wildly missing his first, closest, and easiest shot at some point before Z166, or (2) went two for three in 5.56 seconds because he didn't start firing until JFK reemerged into view from beneath the oak tree at Z210. An even more unlikely scenario has him firing while his view of JFK was obscured by the oak tree between Z166 and Z209, and then going two for two in 5.56 seconds after Z209. Any way you slice it, he would have had to go two for two in 5.56 seconds or two for three in 5.56 seconds. None of the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test were able to duplicate any version of this alleged feat. 

I should add that the three riflemen were allowed to do dry-run practice with the rifle before the test. 

The targets were standard head-and-shoulders silhouettes and were about 2 square feet in size. And, again, the riflemen were firing from only 30 feet up and the targets were not moving.

As for Oswald's alleged target practice in the months before the assassination, WC staffer Wesley Liebeler shredded that myth in his internal memos to the Commission (LINK).

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.  

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

To interject here, the question of provenance, of Lafitte being project manager, has superseded any discussion of what Hank researched regarding Skorzeny and his connections. Same thing happened to Ganis with his source material purchased at auction. Coup in Dallas isn’t an easy read. I’m starting to plow through again, slowly. I know this thread is about the Walker shooting, so I’ll stop there and draw a small analogy. We almost never talk about Walker himself. That’s too bad in my opinion. Whether Oswald had a rifle that he buried, whether he was manipulated, whether Marina was truthful about what he said to her, all of that would matter greatly if Oswald was the, or an assassin. But if he wasn’t, then we are being unwittingly directed to examining in great detail something that isn’t even particularly consequential. 

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.

12 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

It's a puzzler.

I will say this: If LHO suspected he had been made the patsy...the last place he would go is somewhere he had been expected. As in a planned theater meeting. That would be a meeting with sure death. 

IMHO, after the JFKA, LHO was simply a man on the run without a plan, justifiably fearful he could gunned down at any moment. 

IMHO, the Dallas Police Department arrested LHO legitimately (as a suspect in the Tippit shooting, whether LHO did it or not), and frontline officers deserve credit for not killing LHO then and there. 

Just IMHO....

 

 

 

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?

37 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

This rifle Jake?  People seem to forget the journey that rifle must take to wind up in evidence starting at a PO Box in Dallas, to New Orleans, to Irving (with the following supporting its existence in that garage  ) and the testimony about what occurs the following morning...

https://www.kennedysandking.com/content/oswald-on-november-22-1963 assumes Oswald did do it in an attempt to see if any of the incriminating evidence makes any sense on the timeline of his actions.

Also did a number of presentations on the Rifle and how impossible it was for the FBI to find it with the info they had that weekend.

btw, as I see it - "aware of it" and "part of it" would look very similar despite having completely different meanings...  a PATSY is generally aware but usually not directly involved else they would have information to share after being arrested.  Establishing bone fides for his "infiltration" work would also make him look incredibly guilty by association.

 

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. 

3 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

From this it would appear the FBI wanted to know if any foreign networks inside the U.S. would try to make contact with LHO.

In a recent interview, Larry Hancock suggested it was somewhat more the CIAs role to see if LHO would make contact with any foreign network inside the U.S. See 37 to 40 minutes on the below video:

So was it both the FBI and CIA job to investigate to see if LHO was going to make contact with any foreign network inside the U.S.?

I mean if this was the FBIs job, then why would the CIA also be doing this? Surely the CIA should have left this job to the FBI and then the FBI liaison office would make contact with the CIA to inform them if LHO did make contact with any foreign network inside the U.S.

Why would the FBI and CIA independently of one another both be investigating to see if LHO would make contact with any foreign network inside the U.S. ?

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?

18 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

I believe Fain was in the Fort Worth Office. He wasn't to my knowledge in New Orleans.

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."