Ron Ege

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?

Gil, thanks. Just a thought, but what you've written is, and this is just me, pretty much seems a non sequitur - re the WR official scenario. And, making the alleged shots even more unlikely, as everyone is aware,the MC was bolt action, not the semiautomatic rifle that Oswald used whilst in the USMC. Adding to that, if I am remembering correctly, the MC that Oswald alleged owned had a bolt that was particularly difficult to operate, as testified to by the government experts who fired it. And, was not the rifle somewhat "reconditioned" before the tests of it? Not to mention, a bolt action rifle is harder to reattain the target, subsequent to operating the bolt, compared to semiautomatic rifle. Also, if recall correctly, in 1956, USMC rifle qualification did not include shooting at moving targets. Even those here (or elsewhere) with rudimentary knowledge of and/or experience in rifle shooting, I believe, would agree that shooting at a stationary target, versus one moving down and away from the shooter, makes for a bit of an extra task to score a hit. Not to mention that when one is shooting at a stationary target, one has time to perfect one's aim, before firing. Has it not been pretty much established that Oswald did not have that kind of time? The two times in evidence that Oswald did fire a rifle, it was semiautomatic, during his USMC enlistment. Then he was at a rifle range, under direct supervision to ensure ideal conditions to maximize his probability of qualifying - and after multiple opportunities prior to live fire, to dry fire his rifle in order to perfect his technique. So, on his first qualification, he scored as a sharpshooter. The second time, as a marksman. Not that impressive, considering the training advantages afforded to him by The Corps. Then we have the fact that the MC was equipped with a scope and iron sights. So, which did he use? Using the scope sure seems like a non-starter, for the reason discussed here, before. So why leave it on the rifle, in the first place? Now we consider that on 11/22/63, Oswald was shooting to kill the POTUS. Again, just me, unless he were a trained, cold-blooded, professional assassin (have not seen that evidence), one would surmise that he'd be a tad nervous about his self-imposed mission- which, arguably, just might have interfered with him be as successful as he is alleged to have been. We all are aware about what Chief Curry said about Oswald "being in that window". Apparently, that is still a major point of contention here, but unless, only IMO, one invokes some sort of Quasi Monkey Theorem (with the accompanying proof thereof) I cannot buy (in totality) the WR conclusion. There, in the window, shooting at least one shot (or more) or perhaps just a decoy - conceivable - but even that, on the face of it, appears to lean on the side of "not very likely".

Mart, thanks. Your first paragraph. Bingo. According to the WR (and others),it's all cut and dried. "Lone Nut", no USG intel connections, just a "Joe Everyday Loser". So, why all the secrecy and alleged "national security" concerns by certain government agencies. Poor Ole Lee was just/very simply, a nobody, a mediocre marksman at the very best and at worst, a poor one, considering no evidence of any practice with his antiquated rifle, who for whatever reason, took few shots at a POTUS that day and got lucky, scoring shots that the finest marksman in the world, even with the rifle (and scope) "put right" - were never able to exactly duplicate. If it's that simple, the picture should be crystal clear. No complications, discussion, or dissension - GP sells 100's of millions. Certainly, all the 60 years of controversy is not because some of CTers decided they have nothing better to do than purposely complicate the "deal that's already done" - just for drill - many devoting their lives and their own "coin" to hopefully, help put history right. Your second paragraph. "Unluckiest man in history"; One of the greatest understatements of our time. How is it possible that Lee, just a lower socio-economic "Joe Blow", one among millions upon millions, could, in about seven years, from his enlistment in the USMC until the moment of his death, end up having to suffer the arrows of so much "evidence" piled up against him, pointing to his guilt? Boggles the mind. So many, many pieces - and by golly, they sure seemed to fit at first glance. Ah, but as we've come to learn through time and effort, too doggone many of those pieces just don't appear to fit, nearly as well as we initially believed. And then, ". . . super master plan, appear to be a patsy, and murdered like a patsy. . ." Well done, mate! Tongue in cheek noted. Yes sir, that's exactly the way a "Lone Nut" (psychopath) would script it out. Your last paragraph. Yes, Oswald did respectfully ask for legal assistance, instead of what one expect from a "Mr. Average Joe", as you aptly pointed out - who would, beyond a very long stretch - be boisterously indignant having been falsely charged - not portraying Ozzie's "Mr. Cool" demeanor, almost worthy of that of Sean Connery, at his finest. Ya think maybe LHO was perhaps just practicing his skills to maybe supplant Mr. Connery in the next 007 flick? Me thinks, that sort of behavior is not easily summoned from within one's self, unless one knows that the "cavalry" will eventually arrive, if one is just patient. Your hammer struck the nail on center: ". . . expecting his intelligence handlers to bail him out and/or has been briefed to maintain cover." Hm-m. Just makes a feller wonder, if that might be it. Oh, nearly forgot. "We know Oswald had intelligence connections. Everywhere you look with him, there are fingerprints of intelligence." - Senator Richard Schweiker, 1975. Sorry, GP.

More on Brewer's "friends": http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/rokc forum/www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13316841-brewer-s-ibm-friends.html Any validity to them being Igor Vaganov and/or Richard Radalat/Radelet? Dunno. Anyone?

Steve, thanks. Maybe here?: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16235#relPageId=9&search=two_men+from+IBM+JCB See Page 5, last column, about half-way down. Johnny Brewer: " . . . "There two other men in there (the shoe store where Johnny Brewer worked). They were from IBM - they were in the neighborhood. I had known them ever since I came there." And Ian Griggs: "Customers?" Johnny Brewer: "No, they weren't customers. They just come in and kill time and lounge around . . ."

Joe, thanks. Of course; seemingly by comment(s), others do not.🤗

I don't really view him as scared at all. Consistent with his demeanor during interrogation, he's remarkably composed and in control. I wouldn't go so far as to say he's enjoying himself, but I do have the sense this is all theater and, at least in his mind, he's the scriptwriter and director. As I said previously, I think at this point he saw the endgame as a dramatic trial at which he and John Abt would make the Marxist case. Lance, thanks. Or, could it not mean -the break in his voice - which agree, seems somewhat incongruent with his previous demeanor (composed, considering) that Oswald is thinking, if he was - or maybe, even if he was not, participatory in any way, shape, or fashion in the alleged crime, just then realized, "Aw-oh, maybe I overlooked a 'chink in my armor'" - relative to all of his life's "events", prior to his arrest - long term or relatively short term - which could eventually lead to a direction, not necessarily beneficial to him.

Lance, thanks. Don't necessarily disagree, but could not Oswald, aware of the then Dallas' political climate, perhaps have been thinking, "Geez, folks around here (especially the DPD) don't necessarily cotton to perceived commies so I became a convenient target, and now they're trying to lay the killing of the policeman on me - hence, the "pasty" statement.

🤗