The REAL reason why Oswald went to Irving on 11.21.63

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Ron Ege said:

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.

 

Ron,

Thank you for your comments.

 

[Ron Bulman]

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?

[Gil Jesus]

10 hours ago, Ron Ege said:

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.

 

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.

 

Edited June 16, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Sandy Larsen]

It's obvious then that the bag was too small to fit the rifle in, even if broken down. Maybe curtain rods had been in the bag at some point, but the rifle never had been.

As I said in my prior post, Oswald denied in his interrogation that he had anything to do with curtain rods. Now why would he lie about that given that the curtain rods had nothing to do with the crime?

Clearly the answer is that Oswald didn't lie. He truly had nothing to do with curtain rods.

Given the premise I gave in my fist sentence:

This proves that the FBI fabricated the curtain rod story. And if Frazier or Linnie Mae said that Oswald mentioned the curtain rods to them, they were lying.

 

[Ron Ege]

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.

 

 

 

[Ron Ege]

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. 

[Joe Bauer]

On 6/16/2023 at 9:20 AM, Ron Ege said:

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. 

I couldn't recall whether a co-worker was carrying something into work, even just days after such, unless it was the size of a wine barrel, a strangled unplucked chicken or maybe a long rifle.

And none of those workers were close to this quiet, nondescript new hire at all, with Buell Frazier being the exception.

And if the wrapping paper found on the 6th floor was used by Oswald, did it have any tape on it? Oswald "threw" his package onto Wesley Frazier's car back seat. If it wasn't taped, it could have easily opened up.

If Oswald wrapped his broken down rifle in Ruth Paine's garage and used tape and scissors, was any tape ever found there? Or scissors too?

The paper found was not a "bag" was it?

I do sense that Oswald felt he had lost Marina by the time of his last visit with her at Ruth Paine's.

And losing Marina was going to mean she would take June and baby Rachel as well.

The only thing that mattered to Lee Oswald in the area of affection, intimacy and fatherly love was his circle of Marina and his kids.

Oswald was an extremely ( pathologically ) closed individual otherwise. No social connections beyond his little family.

I can't totally rule out Lee Oswald saying "F*** It All" when he realized there was no chance to save his marriage and family. 

Didn't Oswald change seats several times after entering the Texas Theater?

That's weird. 

Maybe he really was looking for someone?

 

Edited June 17, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Bill Fite]

Ever wonder - IF the bag in question - was used to transport the rifle:

How & when did LHO get the bag to the Paine house?

Was Frazier questioned about this?    Did you see Oswald take a bag from work to the Paine's when you gave him the ride home?

What about the vigilant Mrs Paine - was she asked if she ever saw a bag like the one in question in her house or garage?

[Joe Bauer]

1 hour ago, Bill Fite said:

Ever wonder - IF the bag in question - was used to transport the rifle:

How & when did LHO get the bag to the Paine house?

Was Frazier questioned about this?    Did you see Oswald take a bag from work to the Paine's when you gave him the ride home?

What about the vigilant Mrs Paine - was she asked if she ever saw a bag like the one in question in her house or garage?

Even if it was a bag...it had to be taped...right?

[Sandy Larsen]

Why did Oswald deny the curtain rods in his interrogation?

Either it means he was hiding the fact that he transported a rifle in it, or it means he had nothing to do with curtain rods.

Why is everybody ignoring this?

 

[Gil Jesus]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Why did Oswald deny the curtain rods in his interrogation?

Either it means he was hiding the fact that he transported a rifle in it, or it means he had nothing to do with curtain rods.

Why is everybody ignoring this?

 

One other possibility:

That Oswald DIDN'T deny the curtain rod story, that the Dallas cops lied by saying he did and that he told them EXACTLY where they could find them.

Because the evidence indicates that the Dallas Police dusted TWO sets of curtain rods, one that was released on 3-24-64 and the other that was released on 3-26-64.

The release part of the 3-26 form is not a copy of the 3-24 form and the obvious visual differences ( date, "750 a" and "JC Day" signature ) indicates that they were filled out at different times.

I believe that this shows that they dusted two different sets of curtain rods, one they received on 3-15 and which was never released to anyone but rather destroyed on 3-26 and a second set they received from the Paine residence via SS agent John Joe Howlett on 3-23 and released back to him on 3-24-63.

I explain it on my website:

https://gil-jesus.com/the-curtain-rod-debacle/

There's a reason why police don't record or transcribe interrogation sessions: so they can make up whatever the suspect said. Anything the police said Oswald said has to be taken with a grain of salt.

They rigged the police lineups

They lied under oath

They intimidated witnesses

They denied Oswald an attorney at the Tippit arraignment

They even arraigned Oswald for the assassination without any proof.

The whole Dallas criminal justice system was corrupt, so much so, people were afraid to go to the police with evidence that they had.

 

[Bill Fite]

On 6/16/2023 at 10:14 PM, Joe Bauer said:

Even if it was a bag...it had to be taped...right?

Yes that's another good question that as far as I know wasn't asked of Frazier:

Was the bag Oswald had that morning taped?

Given that he said it was like a normal supermarket bag, it's easy to see why it wasn't asked.

[James DiEugenio]

Boy is that interesting Gil.  Thanks for that info which I was unaware of.

And recall, if one buys the WCR, the paper had to originate in the TSBD so yes it had to be taped.

But then the problem becomes Troy West and he is kind of insurmountable.

[Paul Cummings]

5 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

One other possibility:

That Oswald DIDN'T deny the curtain rod story, that the Dallas cops lied by saying he did and that he told them EXACTLY where they could find them.

Because the evidence indicates that the Dallas Police dusted TWO sets of curtain rods, one that was released on 3-24-64 and the other that was released on 3-26-64.

The release part of the 3-26 form is not a copy of the 3-24 form and the obvious visual differences ( date, "750 a" and "JC Day" signature ) indicates that they were filled out at different times.

I believe that this shows that they dusted two different sets of curtain rods, one they received on 3-15 and which was never released to anyone but rather destroyed on 3-26 and a second set they received from the Paine residence via SS agent John Joe Howlett on 3-23 and released back to him on 3-24-63.

I explain it on my website:

https://gil-jesus.com/the-curtain-rod-debacle/

There's a reason why police don't record or transcribe interrogation sessions: so they can make up whatever the suspect said. Anything the police said Oswald said has to be taken with a grain of salt.

They rigged the police lineups

They lied under oath

They intimidated witnesses

They denied Oswald an attorney at the Tippit arraignment

They even arraigned Oswald for the assassination without any proof.

The whole Dallas criminal justice system was corrupt, so much so, people were afraid to go to the police with evidence that they had.

 

Well...they gave him a quick press conference. 

[Mart Hall]

On 6/17/2023 at 5:45 PM, Gil Jesus said:

One other possibility:

That Oswald DIDN'T deny the curtain rod story, that the Dallas cops lied by saying he did and that he told them EXACTLY where they could find them.

Because the evidence indicates that the Dallas Police dusted TWO sets of curtain rods, one that was released on 3-24-64 and the other that was released on 3-26-64.

The release part of the 3-26 form is not a copy of the 3-24 form and the obvious visual differences ( date, "750 a" and "JC Day" signature ) indicates that they were filled out at different times.

I believe that this shows that they dusted two different sets of curtain rods, one they received on 3-15 and which was never released to anyone but rather destroyed on 3-26 and a second set they received from the Paine residence via SS agent John Joe Howlett on 3-23 and released back to him on 3-24-63.

I explain it on my website:

https://gil-jesus.com/the-curtain-rod-debacle/

There's a reason why police don't record or transcribe interrogation sessions: so they can make up whatever the suspect said. Anything the police said Oswald said has to be taken with a grain of salt.

They rigged the police lineups

They lied under oath

They intimidated witnesses

They denied Oswald an attorney at the Tippit arraignment

They even arraigned Oswald for the assassination without any proof.

The whole Dallas criminal justice system was corrupt, so much so, people were afraid to go to the police with evidence that they had.

 

Another big red light, as pointed out in the final sentence on your website, is why did the Dallas Police need to take prints from the curtain rods?

If some curtain rods had been discovered at the TSBD then it would make sense that they be dusted. But we are supposed to believe that no rods were found at the TSBD and the rods that had been dusted were located in the Paine's garage.  

As some rods had been dusted (and along with the other evidence) I'm inclined to believe that LHO did bring some rods to the TSBD and a cover up followed in order to sell the untruth that LHO brought a rifle in to work that day. 

Edited June 18, 2023 by Mart Hall
typo.