The REAL reason why Oswald went to Irving on 11.21.63

[Gil Jesus]

And it wasn't for his rifle.

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

Edited June 16, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Michael Griffith]

Can you give us the Cliffs Notes version?

[Greg Doudna]

Well-reasoned article.

From my point of view Oswald's not taking the rifle in on the morning of Nov 22 does not conflict with the rifle coming from the Ruth Paine garage, based on argument that Oswald himself removed the rifle from the garage on Nov 11 and prepared it that morning for a conveyance, and there is no evidence that the rifle was returned to or present in the Ruth Paine garage after Nov 11. That allows for an unknown number of possible means and trajectories by which the rifle could have ended up in the TSBD 6th floor eleven days later (https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1485).

Edited June 15, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Can you give us the Cliffs Notes version?

 

Ditto.

In a nutshell, what does the evidence/testimony tell you?

 

[Mark Ulrik]

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 for Oswald to bring a rifle to work that Friday without even knowing that JFK would be driving through Dealey Plaza (citing Jarman). Gil doesn't rule out that Oswald brought a package to work that morning, but doubt that it actually made it into the building (citing Dougherty). Maybe it was just a throwaway prop intended to satisfy nosy kid Buell? 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.

Edited June 15, 2023 by Mark Ulrik

[Ron Ege]

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?

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Mark Ulrik said:

 

 

1 hour ago, Ron Ege 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.

 

[Gil Jesus]

1 hour ago, Ron Ege said:

Gil, thanks; your usual thoroughness!

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?

 

 

 

 

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.

Edited June 15, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Ron Ege]

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?

[David Von Pein]

http://DVP's JFK Archives / 2010/06 / Curtain Rods

 

Edited June 15, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Mark Ulrik]

59 minutes ago, Ron Ege said:

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?

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

[Ron Ege]

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. 

 

 

   

 

 

[Ron Ege]

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?

[Mark Ulrik]

4 minutes ago, Ron Ege said:

Mark, thanks.

Understood.

Would you want to share your views?

It's good of you to ask, but they're not that interesting 🤠

[Ron Ege]

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.