The Fiber Evidence

[Jean Ceulemans]

49 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Keep in mind that this is supposedly the same bag... (It's hard for me to visualize this folded up and tucked inside a shirt.)

 

Well, I have been wondering for some time about 3 wide krinkels (semi-oval) visible on the left side of the bag in pics 3 and 4 from the left, looks like where they were partially tugged in one´s pants 😀 (backside).  Have made something here and that way it could actually work if he carried a jacket over it as well.  But I´m not done yet, have to find the correct paper first. The folds however match great (for now...).

Edited June 18 by Jean Ceulemans
Typo

[Jean Ceulemans]

@Pat Speer no big deal but just to be sure, do you have measurements / sizes of the bag that perhaps have more details vs. what in most of the documents. Like when folded fully open, closed at the ends, things like that.  Often I find the usual statement "the bag is ... inch x ... inch" without being very specific on some details. 

If not, no problem, I´m suddenly a little short on time now (family health matters) and will pick it up later on anyway.

Edited June 18 by Jean Ceulemans

[Pat Speer]

22 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

@Pat Speer no big deal but just to be sure, do you have measurements / sizes of the bag that perhaps have more details vs. what in most of the documents. Like when folded fully open, closed at the ends, things like that.  Often I find the usual statement "the bag is ... inch x ... inch" without being very specific on some details. 

If not, no problem, I´m suddenly a little short on time now (family health matters) and will pick it up later on anyway.

They were deliberately secretive about the bag and never discussed its proportions when unfolded. But from what I could gather the roll was 24 in wide and the paper was folded almost in third, so it was roughly 9 in wide as taped together, and 38 1/2 in long, with maybe a 4 in taped up flap at the bottom. 

So in my estimation the original piece of wrapping paper was roughly 24 x 42 in. I looked and looked for anything indicating the dimensions of the paper but they never provided any. I also looked for anything in which they stated the paper was trimmed after being torn from the roll, but was unable to find anything about that either. (If they'd claimed it had been trimmed, well, that would mean there was a long piece of scrap paper somewhere. No such paper was found at the Paine's. And Oswald's doing such a thing at the TSBD would have taken a few extra minutes--a few extra minutes in which he was not noticed while messing around at another person's work station.

All this fed into my belief the bag was made by the police and not Oswald. 

[Gil Jesus]

On 6/18/2024 at 5:29 PM, Pat Speer said:

All this fed into my belief the bag was made by the police and not Oswald. 

I agree with you wholeheartedly that the bag was made by police. If Oswald had made the bag, it would have been over 40 inches long. He would have measured the rifle and made the bag to fit it. The police, however, never measured the C2766 rifle. They thought they had a 36 inch rifle because that's what they were told was ordered. So they never measured it. They didn't know that Klein's had sent a 40 inch rifle in its stead. So they made the 38 inch bag to fit the assembled 36 inch rifle.

The police never considered that the rifle was more than 36 inches. Even Chief Curry told the press that, "the package was large enough for the rifle to be intact". 

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/rifle-was-intact.mp4

He told the press that, because that's what they thought they had: a 36 inch rifle and a 38 inch bag. If you and I are correct and police made the bag, it means that police knew on the afternoon of 11/22 that a 36" rifle had been ordered, well before Oswald's "ownership" was established. 

That rifle was never disassembled because if it were, it would have left scratch markings inside the bag, which it didn't. There's no evidence that the rifle was ever inside the bag and thus it's not possible for the rifle to have been the "mechanism" to transfer the fibers from the blanket into the bag.

And because Stombaugh found so few fibers in the bag, we must consider the possibility that the fibers were manually and intentionally plucked from the blanket and placed into the bag by authorities. 

Edited June 27 by Gil Jesus

[Mark Ulrik]

I like the way you think. Oswald, who had every reason to believe that the rifle was 36" long, would surely have measured it, while the police, with an unidentified weapon in their hands, couldn't be bothered to.

[Mark Ulrik]

On 6/10/2024 at 12:35 PM, Gil Jesus said:

While the Report was quick to note that the fibers in the bag matched some of the fibers taken from the blanket, it suppressed the conclusion of its fiber expert, FBI agent Paul M. Stombaugh, that because he found too few fibers in the bag, he could not positively identify them as having come from the blanket.

I know it's part of your job to discredit the WC, but they didn't actually "suppress" Stombaugh's non-identification of the fibers in the bag.

"Despite these matches, however, Stombaugh was unable to render an opinion that the fibers which he found in the bag had probably come from the blanket, because other types of fibers present in the blanket were not found in the bag" (WCR 137)

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

I know it's part of your job to discredit the WC, but they didn't actually "suppress" Stombaugh's non-identification of the fibers in the bag.

"Despite these matches, however, Stombaugh was unable to render an opinion that the fibers which he found in the bag had probably come from the blanket, because other types of fibers present in the blanket were not found in the bag" (WCR 137)

Well, we can agree on something. I think you are correct in that no one planted a blanket fiber in the bag. They didn't find enough fibers to make a conclusion. And the few fibers they did find could have come from contamination. 

But the rest of Gil's post I pretty much agree with. IF Oswald had made the bag, and realized the only way to get the rifle into work would be to take it apart, he would have found a way to make the bag larger, IMO. As a Marine he would have known that taking a rifle apart and putting it back together would have seriously affected its accuracy. That it takes a few shots to "settle in" 

And then, of course, there's also the problem of how he put it together...assuming he did. No small screwdriver was found in the sniper's nest or on his person. None was reported missing from the Paine house. Well, this led the FBI to claim he'd put it together with a dime. 

Now Griggs found this extremely difficult and uncomfortable. So it would seem unlikely, at best. 

[Gil Jesus]

The Commission's speculation that the rifle was the "mechanism" that transferred the fibers from the blanket into the bag was based on the fact that the bag and the blanket never had contact. This photograph found by researcher John Hunt in the National Archives shows that not to be true.

While the photograph shows contact between the bag and blanket, the contact is in the middle of the bag, not on the open end. While some researchers are convinced that this shows how the fibers got into the bag, I am not. What I see is a possibility that blanket fibers could have been found on the OUTSIDE of the bag.

This leaves only two possibilites in my mind: either the rifle transferred the fibers into the bag, ( which the Commission never proved ) or the fibers were intentionally plucked from the blanket and placed into the bag by authorities.

Edited Friday at 10:27 AM by Gil Jesus

[Greg Doudna]

Is this an answerable question: can it be confirmed Oswald ever knew the rifle that he ordered at 36”, was actually 40” in length?

(I doubt that is confirmed.)

If he ordered a 36”, it would be reasonable for him to assume it was a 36”, and the 40” length not realized, even though that is what it was? 

Given that the paper bag was made with TSBD paper and tape on location at the TSBD, and is difficult to reconstruct plausibly that it was made any time on Fri Nov 22, it could have been made after work hours on a preceding weeknight, for the purpose of holding the rifle, and that paper bag may never at any time have been outside the TSBD.

The rifle could have been infiltrated into the building intact (not broken down), on the same preceding weeknight that the paper bag was made inside the TSBD.

If Oswald (the possible and default likeliest source of information on the rifle’s length) believed the rifle was 36”, the bag was made 38” on the basis of Oswald’s information, without the rifle being present at the moments the paper bag was being constructed at the 1st floor paper station. The purpose of the bag under this scenario would be solely for the purpose of conveying the rifle inside the TSBD, such as from the 1st to the 6th floor, and for stashing the rifle, inside the building.

When it was realized for the first time that the intact 40” rifle could not be enclosed in the 38” paper bag, the rifle would simply be carried in the 38” bag inside the TSBD (on the hypothesized preceding weekday after-hours evening), with the top 2” of barrel sticking out. Then conveyed in that form to a hiding place prior to Fri Nov 22 retrieval and placement and/or use in the SE corner 6th floor. 

There was a reported witnessed conveyance of an intact rifle out of a car trunk to an alleged Oswald identified figure, in a parking lot adjoining the TSBD, on Tue night Nov 19 just after work hours, although FBI interviews of the witnesses—seamstresses across the street from the TSBD—claimed ambiguity and uncertainty on the ID.

I believe my two papers on the Irving Sport Shop and the Furniture Mart at www.scrollery.com establish—establish—that the rifle was removed from the Ruth Paine garage on Nov 11, by Lee and Marina, in damaged condition, and taken to be repaired in Irving.

The only meaningful argument AGAINST that having happened on Nov 11 is Marina claims it wasn’t her, even though two women who saw her on Nov 11 positively identified her in a face to face up close with conversation in a meeting after the fact arranged by the FBI.

There is no other reasonable argument against the Nov 11 rifle removal and repair by Lee and Marina, than that (PLEASE see my two papers before assuming there is).

And that sole objection of Marina’s claim or denial is not substantial compared to the weight of evidence it was Marina.

I am a little astonished that this Nov 11 fact developed in my two papers just named has not received more attention or fact-based rebuttal. Anyone who thinks there is any OTHER reasonable argument against the Nov 11 removal of the rifle from the garage (than Marina’s denial) needs to read my two papers first please, because there is no other substantial rebuttal argument.

It is a new fact on the table: the rifle was taken out of the garage Nov 11. Oswald paid money to have the damaged rifle scope base repaired on Nov 11. There is no sighting of or evidence that the rifle was in the garage after Nov 11.

Why Lee and Marina did this on Nov 11 is a distinct question and I am not aware of evidence stronger than speculation in explanation of the fact. 

One possibility is Oswald with Marina could have been preparing the rifle for a sale or conveyance which could have occurred that day before they returned.

Another is Oswald could have stashed the repaired re-scoped rifle in a storage locker at a bus station in Irving before driving he and Marina and June and the baby back to Ruth Paine’s house that morning.

In the latter case, a different person could have retrieved the rifle from the storage locker and driven it to the TSBD and then it was infiltrated into the building (making use of the 38” paper bag made for the purpose inside the building), some time between Nov 11 and Nov 21. 

Oswald had no rifle ammo, no cleaning supplies, and never target practiced in Oct or Nov 1963.

Yet Oswald had the rifle repaired at his expense, on Nov 11, ca ten days or so before LN theorists think Oswald first decided to kill JFK using that rifle.

The LN reconstruction does not make sense in light of Nov 11. 

[Mark Ulrik]

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

I know that it's part of YOUR JOB, all the way from Denmark, to support the AMERICAN government's investigation into the assassination of an AMERICAN president. Why is that ? Why does an Danish citizen so passionately support the American government ? Why is it that your name appears at the bottom of page 1 of this forum on some days, 12 hours a day ?

What is your interest in all of this ?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Geez, Gil, I didn't realize that pointing out your mistake constituted supporting the US government.

PS: If you really must know, I have a habit of opening too many tabs in my browser. Sometimes I return to them, sometimes not. Relax. You're not being monitored by agents operating on foreign soil (that I'm aware of).

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

I know that it's part of YOUR JOB, all the way from Denmark, to support the AMERICAN government's investigation into the assassination of an AMERICAN president. Why is that ? Why does an Danish citizen so passionately support the American government ? Why is it that your name appears at the bottom of page 1 of this forum on some days, 12 hours a day ?

What is your interest in all of this ?

Inquiring minds want to know.

What a disgraceful, xenophobic post, but not at all surprising, considering Gil Jesus' history of repulsive comments along these lines.