Basic facts that seem like conspiracy-killers to me

[Mark Ulrik]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

If we're gonna go down that road, Mark, we have to accept the possibility that 1) Brennan lied about seeing Oswald out of fear the real killer would hunt him down if he didn't, 2) Jack Ruby lied about his reasons for killing Oswald out of fear the plotters in JFK's death would gun him down, and 3) the FBI and DPD crime lab people all lied out of fear of getting in trouble should they not properly pin the tale on the Oswald.

It's a slippery slope. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you're gonna say Frazier lied to save his butt you have to accept that LBJ and Warren ran a whitewash to save their own butts. 

The problem is, of course, that Frazier has more credibility than those other upstanding citizens. 

I'm not suggesting that Frazier was directly lying about the length of the bag. That would have required a higher level of certainty on his part than was likely the case. But the thought of having had the murder weapon in your car wouldn't have made most people feel all warm and fuzzy inside, so there could be all kinds of psychological reasons for "underestimating" the length.

The problem with Brennan is that there's no real way of knowing if he was being deceptive when he refused to ID Oswald, or later when he explained his reasons. I tend to think that he really wasn't too happy about being the key witness and feared that Oswald had confederates still at large that might come after him and his family. (Ironically, the world's first CT doesn't seem to get much sympathy from other CTs.)

[Greg Doudna]

53 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Then why did Lee tell this lie to Fritz? ....

"I asked him [Lee Oswald] if he had told Buell Wesley Frazier why he had gone home a different night, and if he had told him anything about bringing back some curtain rods. He denied it." -- Captain Will Fritz' written report [WCR; pg. 604]

So, you're going to try to convince people that LHO really did have curtain rods in that package on 11/22, but he then deliberately LIES to the police after he's arrested concerning that very thing---whether he did or did not bring curtain rods into the building?!

Come on! Let's not all common sense go down the drain here!

Or do you think Fritz was the li@r in the above quote from his report? That must be what you actually think, right Greg?

Its a good question David. I do not have a good answer to it. I do not know why Lee denied in interrogation what he told Frazier. No, I don't think Fritz lied about the denial of the curtain rods in interrogation. I accept Lee denied. I don't know why. It is a weak point in the counternarrative I outlined. I could speculate one or two things but they would be justly criticized by you and others as without evidence. You know how the LN explanations account for a lot of evidence but there are always loose ends. Well, this is a loose end in the counternarrative.

Did Lee know he was being suspected of having brought the rifle in that morning when he was asked the question? It is easy to assume that but is that known?   

You know the questions about the Dallas map that Ruth Paine had given him and Oswald had made marks on it? Police thought he had the parade route and even Dealey Plaza shooting locations marked on it. Lots of investigation of that map, but in the end I believe the Warren Commission accepted that it really was innocuous job application locations, bus stops etc. markings, nothing to do with Oswald planning to assassinate with that map. What if the curtain rods is a parallel example, of something police hone in on as suspicious.

Just suppose--as a thought experiment David!--that Lee was in the role of framed patsy and realizes it. He sees every move he's made interpreted in terms of his guilt (and he has a few things vulnerable himself he's covering up but not killing JFK). Suppose he does figure out, whether or not he is told, that his curtain rods are now suspected as being the means of transmission of the rifle into the TSBD that he had sold Nov 12. Rather than admit the curtain rod package he just denies, because he can see where they are going with that. I don't know. An innocent person is always better off sticking to the truth in police interrogation, is the conventional wisdom. But do innocent people who are egregiously falsely accused and believe they are being railroaded follow policies of sticking to the truth in such situations, in real life? I don't know. Are there studies addressing this answerable question? Did Jews or leftists arrested by the Gestapo who were innocent of, say, a charge of terrorism always stick rigorously to the truth when answering questions which would look bad if they told the truth?

[Michael Griffith]

21 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

I agree. He's not. At the '86 mock trial, Buell admits that the bag could have been "protruding" out in front of LHO's body, but in other interviews he insists that the package HAD to be under Lee's armpit AND cupped in his right hand.

So, you're right, he's not a good (or reliable) witness to that part of the day's events. He has, in effect, admitted that he really has no idea just how Oswald was carrying the package as he walked toward the TSBD on 11/22.

Rather than rely on what Frazier said in 1986, how about if we consider what he said when the events were still fresh in his mind in late 1963 and 1964.

Frazier told the Warren Commission that the bag he saw Oswald carrying was about two feet long, and that it was the kind "you get out of the grocery store." Weeks earlier, on December 1, 1963, FBI agents asked Frazier to mark the spot on the back seat of his car where the bag reached when it was placed there with one end up against the door. The agents reported that the distance between that spot and the door was 27 inches.

Frazier's sister, Linnie Randle, who also saw the bag, likewise said it was 27 inches long.  

There's no way that a disassembled Carcano could have fit into that bag, much less an assembled one. 

Edited January 25, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Its a good question David. I do not have a good answer to it. I do not know why Lee denied in interrogation what he told Frazier. No, I don't think Fritz lied about the denial of the curtain rods in interrogation. I accept Lee denied. I don't know why. It is a weak point in the counternarrative I outlined. I could speculate one or two things but they would be justly criticized by you and others as without evidence. You know how the LN explanations account for a lot of evidence but there are always loose ends. Well, this is a loose end in the counternarrative.

Did Lee know he was being suspected of having brought the rifle in that morning when he was asked the question? It is easy to assume that but is that known?   

You know the questions about the Dallas map that Ruth Paine had given him and Oswald had made marks on it? Police thought he had the parade route and even Dealey Plaza shooting locations marked on it. Lots of investigation of that map, but in the end I believe the Warren Commission accepted that it really was innocuous job application locations, bus stops etc. markings, nothing to do with Oswald planning to assassinate with that map. What if the curtain rods is a parallel example, of something police hone in on as suspicious.

Just suppose--as a thought experiment David!--that Lee was in the role of framed patsy and realizes it. He sees every move he's made interpreted in terms of his guilt (and he has a few things vulnerable himself he's covering up but not killing JFK). Suppose he does figure out, whether or not he is told, that his curtain rods are now suspected as being the means of transmission of the rifle into the TSBD that he had sold Nov 12. Rather than admit the curtain rod package he just denies, because he can see where they are going with that. I don't know. An innocent person is always better off sticking to the truth in police interrogation, is the conventional wisdom. But do innocent people who are egregiously falsely accused and believe they are being railroaded follow policies of sticking to the truth in such situations, in real life? I don't know. Are there studies addressing this answerable question? Did Jews or leftists arrested by the Gestapo who were innocent of, say, a charge of terrorism always stick rigorously to the truth when answering questions which would look bad if they told the truth?

Thanks for your post above, Greg. It's refreshing to hear a conspiracy believer utter the words "I do not have a good answer to it" when talking about a particular sub-topic associated with JFK's assassination. Thank you for admitting that.

In putting myself in the shoes of the CTers who believe in Oswald's innocence, I've been straining my brain today trying to come up with some kind of at least halfway logical and semi-sensible reason for why an innocent Lee Harvey Oswald, if he really had brought some curtain rods with him to work on Nov. 22 (instead of bringing his Carcano rifle to work with him that morning), would have had any desire at all to want to tell the police after his arrest that he hadn't brought any curtain rods into the TSBD Building on that day.

And I'm coming up blank. Because I can't understand why Oswald (via the scenario in which he really did take curtain rods to work instead of his rifle) would have thought it was actually better for him to tell a lie to the cops about the curtain rods instead of simply telling Fritz & Company the truth about the rods (and the associated reason for why Oswald decided to not take those rods with him when he left the building at approximately 12:33 PM on 11/22, which seems to me would be another sticky problem for conspiracists to reconcile in a scenario which has Oswald totally innocent of shooting the President).

The chronology of Captain Fritz' interrogations of Oswald, per Fritz' written report, indicates that the "curtain rod" subject (and Oswald's denial of all knowledge of that topic) occurred during the interrogation session on Saturday (November 23) at 10:25 AM. And by that time on Saturday, of course, Oswald had already been officially charged with JFK's murder and Officer Tippit's slaying.

So when Oswald denied all knowledge of the curtain rods, he certainly knew the full reasons for why he was being held in custody by the DPD, which makes any "curtain rods" denial coming from an innocent Lee Oswald all the more perplexing. For Lee certainly didn't think that possession of an innocuous and harmless item like curtain rods on the day of the President's visit to Dallas would (or could) be looked upon as something suspicious that he would want to hide from the authorities. Right? Right. So what would be his incentive for denying any knowledge of the curtain rods story?

The answer to my last question is, in my opinion, very simple and very logical (after weighing the sum total of evidence in the JFK case). But the answer comes from my perspective as a "Lone Assassin" advocate, instead of coming from an "Oswald Didn't Shoot Anybody" point-of-view:

Oswald's incentive for denying that he said anything to Wesley Frazier about "curtain rods" was:

Mr. Oswald was (quite obviously, IMO) attempting to distance himself from that large paper package as much as he could because he knew that that package contained the rifle that he used to shoot President Kennedy.
 

Edited January 25, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Michael Griffith]

14 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Thanks for your post above, Greg. It's refreshing to hear a conspiracy believer utter the words "I do not have a good answer to it" when talking about a particular sub-topic associated with JFK's assassination. Thank you for admitting that.

In putting myself in the shoes of the CTers who believe in Oswald's innocence, I've been straining my brain today trying to come up with some kind of at least halfway logical and semi-sensible reason for why an innocent Lee Harvey Oswald, if he really had brought some curtain rods with him to work on Nov. 22 (instead of bringing his Carcano rifle to work with him that morning), would have had any desire at all to want to tell the police after his arrest that he hadn't brought any curtain rods into the TSBD Building on that day.

And I'm coming up blank. Because I can't understand why Oswald (via the scenario in which he really did take curtain rods to work instead of his rifle) would have thought it was actually better for him to tell a lie to the cops about the curtain rods instead of simply telling Fritz & Company the truth about the rods (and the associated reason for why Oswald decided to not take those rods with him when he left the building at approximately 12:33 PM on 11/22, which seems to me would be another sticky problem for conspiracists to reconcile in a scenario which has Oswald totally innocent of shooting the President).

The chronology of Captain Fritz' interrogations of Oswald, per Fritz' written report, indicates that the "curtain rod" subject (and Oswald's denial of all knowledge of that topic) occurred during the interrogation session on Saturday (November 23) at 10:25 AM. And by that time on Saturday, of course, Oswald had already been officially charged with JFK's murder and Officer Tippit's slaying.

So when Oswald denied all knowledge of the curtain rods, he certainly knew the full reasons for why he was being held in custody by the DPD, which makes any "curtain rods" denial coming from an innocent Lee Oswald all the more perplexing. For Lee certainly didn't think that possession of an innocuous and harmless item like curtain rods on the day of the President's visit to Dallas would (or could) be looked upon as something suspicious that he would want to hide from the authorities. Right? Right. So what would be his incentive for denying any knowledge of the curtain rods story?

The answer to my last question is, in my opinion, very simple and very logical (after weighing the sum total of evidence in the JFK case). But the answer comes from my perspective as a "Lone Assassin" advocate, instead of coming from an "Oswald Didn't Shoot Anybody" point-of-view:

Oswald's incentive for denying that he said anything to Wesley Frazier about "curtain rods" was:

Mr. Oswald was (quite obviously, IMO) attempting to distance himself from that large paper package as much as he could because he knew that that package contained the rifle that he used to shoot President Kennedy.

I'm guessing you summarily, automatically rule out the possibility that the DPD misrepresented some of Oswald's answers, right? 

However, I can think of an entirely logical, innocent reason that Oswald would have falsely denied bringing curtain rods to work that day: He knew it would look bad if he admitted to carrying a sizable package into work that day, even if the package had merely contained curtain rods, since it was already obvious to him that the police were using phony evidence to falsely blame him for JFK's death. Recall that Oswald told his brother not to believe "the so-called evidence" against him.

And, are you ever going to explain how the well-oiled rifle could have failed to leave a single trace of oil on the paper bag or on the blanket, given the claim that the bag supposedly carried the disassembled rifle, and given the claim that the rifle was allegedly stored in the blanket for many weeks? 

[Jake Hammond]

21 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Thanks for your post above, Greg. It's refreshing to hear a conspiracy believer utter the words "I do not have a good answer to it" when talking about a particular sub-topic associated with JFK's assassination. Thank you for admitting that.

In putting myself in the shoes of the CTers who believe in Oswald's innocence, I've been straining my brain today trying to come up with some kind of at least halfway logical and semi-sensible reason for why an innocent Lee Harvey Oswald, if he really had brought some curtain rods with him to work on Nov. 22 (instead of bringing his Carcano rifle to work with him that morning), would have had any desire at all to want to tell the police after his arrest that he hadn't brought any curtain rods into the TSBD Building on that day.

And I'm coming up blank. Because I can't understand why Oswald (via the scenario in which he really did take curtain rods to work instead of his rifle) would have thought it was actually better for him to tell a lie to the cops about the curtain rods instead of simply telling Fritz & Company the truth about the rods (and the associated reason for why Oswald decided to not take those rods with him when he left the building at approximately 12:33 PM on 11/22, which seems to me would be another sticky problem for conspiracists to reconcile in a scenario which has Oswald totally innocent of shooting the President).

The chronology of Captain Fritz' interrogations of Oswald, per Fritz' written report, indicates that the "curtain rod" subject (and Oswald's denial of all knowledge of that topic) occurred during the interrogation session on Saturday (November 23) at 10:25 AM. And by that time on Saturday, of course, Oswald had already been officially charged with JFK's murder and Officer Tippit's slaying.

So when Oswald denied all knowledge of the curtain rods, he certainly knew the full reasons for why he was being held in custody by the DPD, which makes any "curtain rods" denial coming from an innocent Lee Oswald all the more perplexing. For Lee certainly didn't think that possession of an innocuous and harmless item like curtain rods on the day of the President's visit to Dallas would (or could) be looked upon as something suspicious that he would want to hide from the authorities. Right? Right. So what would be his incentive for denying any knowledge of the curtain rods story?

The answer to my last question is, in my opinion, very simple and very logical (after weighing the sum total of evidence in the JFK case). But the answer comes from my perspective as a "Lone Assassin" advocate, instead of coming from an "Oswald Didn't Shoot Anybody" point-of-view:

Oswald's incentive for denying that he said anything to Wesley Frazier about "curtain rods" was:

Mr. Oswald was (quite obviously, IMO) attempting to distance himself from that large paper package as much as he could because he knew that that package contained the rifle that he used to shoot President Kennedy.
 

I'm sure this has been said a million times but Oswald being at least part of a conspiracy i.e not quite the lone assassin we are supposed to believe and ' Oswald took a gun into the TSBD' are not mutually exclusive. Him being a ' Lone assassin' is conflated , IMO, way too readily with specific events of he day. His association with the FBI and very suspicious records show that at the very least he wasn't a knuckle dragging disgruntled loner. I do however urge CTers to really look at his actions, mental state and situation leading up to the assassination. They really do paint a guilty picture. 

[Charles Blackmon]

44 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

 I do however urge CTers to really look at his actions, mental state and situation leading up to the assassination. They really do paint a guilty picture. 

I assume you mean guilty of something just not the shooting? Is that what you mean?

Not sure what you think you see in his pre-assassination mental state. Was he acting like a psycho and I missed that?

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

I can think of an entirely logical, innocent reason that Oswald would have falsely denied bringing curtain rods to work that day: He knew it would look bad if he admitted to carrying a sizable package into work that day, even if the package had merely contained curtain rods, since it was already obvious to him that the police were using phony evidence to falsely blame him for JFK's death. Recall that Oswald told his brother not to believe "the so-called evidence" against him.

Yeah, typical conspiracy-slanted views. Always blame the evil cops. Never blame the guy who told all the lies and owned the assassination murder weapon and killed a cop in flight.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

And, are you ever going to explain how the well-oiled rifle could have failed to leave a single trace of oil on the paper bag or on the blanket, given the claim that the bag supposedly carried the disassembled rifle, and given the claim that the rifle was allegedly stored in the blanket for many weeks? 

Why on Earth CTers still cling to this worn-out canard is another mystery. A "well-oiled" gun indicates that the INTERNAL PARTS are "well-oiled". Why would you think the OUTSIDE of the gun would necessarily have to be dripping with oil?

 

Edited January 25, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Its a good question David. I do not have a good answer to it. I do not know why Lee denied in interrogation what he told Frazier. No, I don't think Fritz lied about the denial of the curtain rods in interrogation. I accept Lee denied. I don't know why. It is a weak point in the counternarrative I outlined. I could speculate one or two things but they would be justly criticized by you and others as without evidence. You know how the LN explanations account for a lot of evidence but there are always loose ends. Well, this is a loose end in the counternarrative.

Did Lee know he was being suspected of having brought the rifle in that morning when he was asked the question? It is easy to assume that but is that known?   

You know the questions about the Dallas map that Ruth Paine had given him and Oswald had made marks on it? Police thought he had the parade route and even Dealey Plaza shooting locations marked on it. Lots of investigation of that map, but in the end I believe the Warren Commission accepted that it really was innocuous job application locations, bus stops etc. markings, nothing to do with Oswald planning to assassinate with that map. What if the curtain rods is a parallel example, of something police hone in on as suspicious.

Just suppose--as a thought experiment David!--that Lee was in the role of framed patsy and realizes it. He sees every move he's made interpreted in terms of his guilt (and he has a few things vulnerable himself he's covering up but not killing JFK). Suppose he does figure out, whether or not he is told, that his curtain rods are now suspected as being the means of transmission of the rifle into the TSBD that he had sold Nov 12. Rather than admit the curtain rod package he just denies, because he can see where they are going with that. I don't know. An innocent person is always better off sticking to the truth in police interrogation, is the conventional wisdom. But do innocent people who are egregiously falsely accused and believe they are being railroaded follow policies of sticking to the truth in such situations, in real life? I don't know. Are there studies addressing this answerable question? Did Jews or leftists arrested by the Gestapo who were innocent of, say, a charge of terrorism always stick rigorously to the truth when answering questions which would look bad if they told the truth?

For all we know he "took them" from Ruth's garage, without asking Ruth..., plausible imo, not ?

Also, he changed his testimony on other parts, like first saying he took the bus to his place, later changing it to bus + taxi. 

I don't know how it feels like being questioned for hours and hours by different persons, asking the same questions over and over... but I can imagine at some points having enough of it, and clam up (at least for some time). 

Anyway, we shouldn't be talking about this if they had done a good search of the building.  The WC obviously realised this (!) and decided to at least ask Truly...

Edited January 25, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Steve Roe]

16 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Yeah, typical conspiracy-slanted views. Always blame the evil cops. Never blame the guy who told all the lies and owned the assassination murder weapon and killed a cop in flight.

 

Why on Earth CTers still cling to this worn-out canard is another mystery. A "well-oiled" gun indicates that the INTERNAL PARTS are "well-oiled". Why would you think the OUTSIDE of the gun would necessarily have to be dripping with oil?

 

David, the attached link addresses the well-oiled issue. Internal surfaces of the bolt and firing pin.

 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62372#relPageId=85&search=well_oiled

[Gil Jesus]

1 hour ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

For all we know he "took them" from Ruth's garage, without asking Ruth..., plausible imo, not ?

Also, he changed his testimony on other parts, like first saying he took the bus to his place, later changing it to bus + taxi. 

I don't know how it feels like being questioned for hours and hours by different persons, asking the same questions over and over... but I can imagine at some points having enough of it, and clam up (at least for some time). 

Anyway, we shouldn't be talking about this if they had done a good search of the building.  The WC obviously realised this (!) and decided to at least ask Truly...

The Commission asked the FBI to interview Roy Truly in order "to establish that no curtain rods were found in the Texas School Book Depository Building following the assassination." Not to establish IF any rods were found, but to establish THAT NO curtain rods were found.

To me, it sounds like the FBI went to the TSBD and told Roy Truly that no rods were found instead of asking.

 

Edited January 25, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Pat Speer]

2 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

The Commission asked the FBI to interview Roy Truly in order "to establish that no curtain rods were found in the Texas School Book Depository Building following the assassination." Not to establish IF any rods were found, but to establish THAT NO curtain rods were found.

To me, it sounds like the FBI went to the TSBD and told Roy Truly that no rods were found instead of asking.

 

As important as the wording is the date. This is September 1964, 10 months after the shooting and 9 months after the beginning of the WC's investigation. The Warren Report, including the section on the curtain rods, has already been written and approved by the commissioners. There was no way in hell that they were gonna go back to square one and ask around about the curtain rods. So, much as they did with the barrel print--where they asked Hoover to verify it had been on the rifle, but took no sworn testimony on this point--they asked the FBI to give them some cover on this and get Truly to say no curtains rods were recovered. This is transparent smoke. Sure, Truly was in charge of the depository, but there were a number of outside companies within the building. Why weren't the employees of these companies, which used the same lunch room as the TSBD workers, asked about the curtain rods? 

And why, for crying out loud, did someone change the dates on the DPD report on some curtain rods, to make it appear these rods were tested after they'd been recovered from Ruth Paine's garage, when the original report proves they were tested before being recovered from Ruth Paine--and were most probably a different set altogether? . 

[Bob Ness]

6 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I do not know why Lee denied in interrogation

@David Von PeinLet's listen to the recording or go over the transcript. Both! Let's do both of those things.

Edited January 25, 2023 by Bob Ness

[Jake Hammond]

4 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

I assume you mean guilty of something just not the shooting? Is that what you mean?

Not sure what you think you see in his pre-assassination mental state. Was he acting like a psycho and I missed that?

I think you may have missed it yes, I did for a long time, I know many of the Oswald and JFK shows are main stream slop but there are a couple I've watched and yes he really does seem to be at his wits end and really not functioning brilliantly. He seems like a man with nowhere to go in life and a lot of faults. I have certainly changed my view of possibilities over the years as regards his build u to the assassination. 

 INB4 " those shows are made by Lners at the CIA paid for by nefarious types " and "don't believe everything you see ON TV"

 I get it, 

[Charles Blackmon]

5 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

I think you may have missed it yes, I did for a long time, I know many of the Oswald and JFK shows are main stream slop but there are a couple I've watched and yes he really does seem to be at his wits end and really not functioning brilliantly. He seems like a man with nowhere to go in life and a lot of faults. I have certainly changed my view of possibilities over the years as regards his build u to the assassination. 

 INB4 " those shows are made by Lners at the CIA paid for by nefarious types " and "don't believe everything you see ON TV"

 I get it, 

Yes most of those shows are garbage. They make you think they are going to solve the JFK murder mystery with tales of Oswald meeting up with mysterious people in Mexico, but they end up going nowhere. This forum, for all the tedium you have to wade through, I think is better steeped in the truth of what happened.

I have yet to hear a motive for Oswald to gun down JFK that could explain his comments to the press in the aftermath. Doesn't work for me.