Curtains?

[John Dolva]

A mystery, yes. Insoluble? perhaps.

Speculations

I'm almost convinced that the wrapping of the contents of this envelope is what became known as the 'paper sack'.

Then it's obvious that the prints on it came from Oswald handling it. Also, as a parcel of fabric it accounts for the fibers found.

If Oswald had this wrapper on Friday morning, perhaps he also had the envelope at home. This envelope could then present a problem for those who needed the sack to be a 'gun sack' in order to explain how the MC got into the TSBD. So to make it withdraw from view, yet be safely stored, it is altered so there is a reason for it to be in 'dead letters', where access is limited.

Perthaps it's insurance for Harry? By ending up in the hands of the government it is safely lodged, but it's a sufficient mystery of an arguably irrelevant puzzle to which only the person who 'knew' could supply a key to, thus proving conspiracy.

thesis: Therefore it is proof of a conspiracy to frame Oswald.

[John Dolva]

John Woods has kindly provided a contact sheet of relevant photos. The ones dealing with the room and curtains are here:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/yan...tainhanging.jpg

Look at the sequence. Look at the box contents and orientation. Look at the shadow on the roof. Look at the curtain end on the bed. Consider the brightness/darkness of the room. Are curtains being hung, swapped or removed?

[Jack White]

John Woods has kindly provided a contact sheet of relevant photos. The ones dealing with the room and curtains are here:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/yan...tainhanging.jpg

Look at the sequence. Look at the box contents and orientation. Look at the shadow on the roof. Look at the curtain end on the bed. Consider the brightness/darkness of the room. Are curtains being hung, swapped or removed?

I always like to ask WHY? What was the purpose of photographing someone

hanging curtains in the room of the accused assassin? Was it to help prove

the curtain rod story? Why was this newsworthy? Whose idea?

Such photos raise more questions than they answer.

Jack

[Lee Forman]

Hi John - my assumption was that Dallas had been crossed off, and then the 'Irving, Texas' address had been added - however, the postmark has it being received by the Irving post office - which then wouldn't make much sense.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...H25_CE_2444.pdf

Is there a photograph of exhibit q266 someplace? Is q266 what was contained in q265?

- lee

[Guest John Woods]

a

Edited April 8, 2007 by John Woods

[John Dolva]

Lee, I agree. Also it's Irving Texas, and only the Dallas has been crossed out on the label, so why add Texas? The label has been torn and lifted up so someone knows the answer. Ditto Q266. It's somewhere.

___________

John, that's what I see too. An investgative effort.

I took the contact sheet to a photographer who graciously put up with my questions and it appears that the contact sheet is from two separate 'bulk rolls'. The films were taken in a sequence from left to right and I think the lower one here is the second sequence with the last frame the last on that strip.

The top strip were (thanks Gary) taken surreptitiously through a window.

The two bed frames in the second sequence look like they were taken with permisson. The four frames before the two bed frames in the second sequence are from inside the underpass looking towards the TSBD. Then after are three frames in the DPD seeming to focus on a person with crutches.

I'm not sure if the second strip is actually running form left to right. the numbers are from left to right 37, 38,........44, 1, 2.

should it be 2, 1, 44,...,37 ?

or

Edited November 9, 2006 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

Jack, I wonder if you could explain these numbers, please?

Does the 2, 1, 44... etc sequence mean with the arrow shape they're in mean that the frame numbered two is the first in that roll? And the 2, 1, 44, 43, etc is a countdown to the last frame?

[Jack White]

Jack, I wonder if you could explain these numbers, please?

Does the 2, 1, 44... etc sequence mean with the arrow shape they're in mean that the frame numbered two is the first in that roll? And the 2, 1, 44, 43, etc is a countdown to the last frame?

I do not have enough facts about this to comment. I am not familiar with "bulk rolls"

of 35mm film. I have no information about WHO took the photos and WHY. I have

never seen Kodak film numbered higher than 40. Were these DPD photos, FBI

photos, media photos, or what? Who decided that "hanging curtains" in LHO's

tiny room was newsworthy, and how did they know it was happening? Or was the

whole event set up by someone with an agenda? Did someone call the DMN* and

say "We are going to hang curtains in Oswald's room...do you want to send a

photographer to cover it?" Not likely. More likely is propaganda with a purpose.

Jack

* some press photographers had cameras which accommodated long rolls of

film, but this was not common, and I am not familiar with it.

Edited November 9, 2006 by Jack White

[John Dolva]

Jack, I wonder if you could explain these numbers, please?

Does the 2, 1, 44... etc sequence mean with the arrow shape they're in mean that the frame numbered two is the first in that roll? And the 2, 1, 44, 43, etc is a countdown to the last frame?

I do not have enough facts about this to comment. I am not familiar with "bulk rolls"

of 35mm film. I have no information about WHO took the photos and WHY. I have

never seen Kodak film numbered higher than 40. Were these DPD photos, FBI

photos, media photos, or what? Who decided that "hanging curtains" in LHO's

tiny room was newsworthy, and how did they know it was happening? Or was the

whole event set up by someone with an agenda? Did someone call the DMN* and

say "We are going to hang curtains in Oswald's room...do you want to send a

photographer to cover it?" Not likely. More likely is propaganda with a purpose.

Jack

* some press photographers had cameras which accommodated long rolls of

film, but this was not common, and I am not familiar with it.

Here's a question and answer regarding 'bulk roll' film numberings:

http://www.photographytalk.net/viewtopic-74472.html

Q - "I just got back a roll of Provia 100 that was given to me by the dude who

sold me the Nikon F4s· The film results are excellent‚ but I noticed

something odd: the frame numbers are all out of synch·

My frames begin at #27 and increase up until about #43‚ whereafter they

revert to #1 and increase up to #13 again·

Where do these numbers come from? Are they already on the film before

exposure‚ or are they printed onto the film during processing? If the

former is the case‚ I can understand the numbers not running from #1 to

whatever I ended on‚ but if not‚ how did they get messed up?"

A - "The numbers and film type information is printed onto the film during

manufacturing·  If‚ as your subject line suggests‚ this was a

bulk–loaded roll (spooled off a 100–foot roll into the cassette)‚ then

it's completely normal for the numbering to be wonky‚ starting at some

random place in the middle‚ running up to something like 42‚ and then

going back to zero and starting up again·  I've got hundreds of rolls

like that in my files·"

This explains the numbers but I'm still puzzled by the boxed arrow the numbers are in that point in one direction while the numbering seems opposite to this, so I'm still puzzled as to which frame was taken first.

Edited November 9, 2006 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

"John, The officer on crutches is Paul Bentley, who returned to the DPD on Saturday morning and spoke with reporters about the arrest of Oswald. He was one of the arresting officers and hurt his ankle in the process.

The photographer was Gene Daniels, and he wrote to author Howard Roffman in 1970 (published in his book Presumed Guilty):

I went to the rooming house the following morning and requested permission to make the photograph from the landlady. I'm not sure of her name but I don't think she was the owner. We went into the room and she told me she preferred not to have me take any pictures until she put "the curtains back up." She said that newsmen the evening before had disturbed the room and she didn't want anyone to see it messed up. I agreed and stood in the room as she and her husband stood on the bed and hammered the curtain rods back into position. While she did this, I photographed them or possibly just her I forget right now, up on the bed with the curtain rods etc.

So it wasn't shot through the window. Or was it? Or did another photographer shoot through the window? I don't know.

Gary Mack"

"preferred not to have me take any pictures until she put "the curtains back up." "

"newsmen the evening before had disturbed the room"

"hammered the curtain rods back into position. While she did this, I photographed them or possibly just her I forget right now, up on the bed with the curtain rods etc."

So the curtain rod came loose from its mount the evening before as a result of vitsit from Newsmen. Were they loose because Oswald was in the process of working on them and the Newsmen inadvertently disturbed his 'work in progress?

Did someone (Newsman, or posing as such? Who else posed as newsman re Oswald?) remove curtains the evening before? Why else make it so that the curtains needed 'hammering' back into position? Were the curtains and envelope removed at this time ensuring the wrappings use will not be questioned in its role as 'gun sack'.

[John Dolva]

I sent an email to Kodak regarding the numbering and it appears it is a bulk roll with the lower numbers first and when it reaches 44 it flips over to 1, 2, ...etc. The arrow box pointing in the opposit direction still puzzles me though.

Kodak reply: "...a bulk-loaded film. Our bulk rolls have sequential frame numbers from 1-44 and then it flips back over to frame #1 and repeats. Depending on where (what frame) this individual roll was spooled off of the bulk roll, this will determine what frame number was first on that roll."

______________________

"John, Dale Myers' Tippit book includes photos of Owald's room taken the night of the assassination and you can see the curtain rods are bent or about to fall down. According to the Johnsons' testimony, the cops and/or FBI accidentally did that when they searched the room earlier in the day. This is one of those stories that has been blown all out of proportion over the years.

Gary"

As can be seen, the curtains are hanging to the floor. Concievably someone could step on the edge and tug on the curtains like that. Perhaps the rods would already need to be lose to cause them to dislodge.

Melvin Johnsons testimony about the 'bag' is to do with it in the TSBD. He calls it wrapper and that it was folded up into the small package. "it was folded once and then again." ie the gun was taken out of it and the wrapping was then refolded. Apart from that it was not considered important enough by the assassin to take with him/her, yet there was plenty of time to do something as unimportant as refolding it.

If it was refolded there should have been more finger prints on it.

This is a mess. I'm sure there is a logical explanation to it all.

There is an envelope in 'dead letters' apparently size and format same as the 'sack' folded up.

There is found, in the sniper perch corner, a folded wrapper that becomes called a 'paper sack'.

The envelope is addressed to a Lee Oswald, the address as usually transcribed is:

601 West Nassaus St.

The correct transcription shown by phot of the envelope is:

601 IWest Nassaus St.

By virtue of the added I the address contains the word ASSASSIN

Wade said that Lee carried curtains in the package he brought in to the TSBD fri morning.

Curtains mattered to Lee.

The curtains in his room were disturbed in various ways.

The FBI report on the envelope only mentions an (visual) examination of the material of the envelope and the paper/cardboard in it. The white label indicates that it was not examined for fingerprints, at least not after the label was affixed. The photo of the paper/cardboard that was in the envelope is not available nor is a description of what was under the label, nor on the other side of the envelope.

The revolver was sent in a cardboard box.

Lee tended to write LEE H. OswALD not Lee Oswald in running writing when giving his address. Nor do packers/despatchers tend to use running writing. There is something 'childish' or manufactured about the labels hand writing.

[John Dolva]

"The Undeliverable Package

by Gary Murr

What I am about to outline, briefly, is from notes regarding this issue that grew out of discussions between myself, Fred Newcomb and the late Perry Adams back in 1972.

This brown paper parcel that showed up at the "dead letter" section of the Irving, Texas Post Office, had been labeled, as described by Jerry, and it was handwritten. Originally the word Dallas had been on the ostensible address, but this had been scratched through with a pencil and Irving, Texas (gray box) was written beneath the original Dallas inscription.

(closeup image of the adress label.)

The FBI agent who examined this find indicated that when he was shown the parcel, it "...was partially opened at the time of discovery [Dec. 4, 1963]." (CD 205) As Jerry's writings indicated, this "parcel" contained a brown paper bag "...open at both ends." The address was non-existent and, importantly, the parcel lacked any postage. Commission Document # 735 indicates that the FBI thereafter launched an investigation to determine the contents of the now-empty parcel, but that is where the trail ended. As far as I know, the results of this FBI "investigation" have never come to light. Of course, none of this was mentioned in the Warren Report.

Fred Newcomb had the parcel, bag etc. photographed at the Archives, and when he received the enlarged detail of the handwritten address label, he and Perry Adams were of the opinion that the writing was that of Lee Harvey Oswald. This is one potential lead which would be nice to pursue, with handwriting experts.

Where does this all tie in? Fred and Perry came up with a hypothesis, the nuts and bolts of which I will herein present for everyone's edification.

One of the items listed on the inventory of those articles seized during a search of the Paine residence on November 23, 1963, was the following:

1(one) notice of attempt to deliver mail, card dated November 20, 1963, to Mr. Lee Oswald, 2515 West 5th Street, Irving, Texas - a parcel to be picked up.(CE2003;24H348)

It is reasonably inferred from this entry that on November 20th, a postal official tried to deliver a "parcel" to Lee Oswald at the Paine residence. Finding no one home, he did not leave the parcel (On this date Ruth Paine, Marina Oswald and the children were at a dental clinic. CD 1546, pp 102-103). Why did the postal employee not leave the parcel? The Postal Inspection service determined that on November 25, 1963, a postage-due parcel for Oswald was in the Irving Post Office "...and was delivered about November 20 or 21."(CE1799, 23H420; also, CD296, pp 1-5)

From this information, we hypothesized that perhaps the parcel referred to by the DPD and by the Postal Inspection Service might have been the same one. As Fred Newcomb indicated to me, mailing a parcel to yourself can be useful in authenticating time and location of mail service; it is also a way to copyright and protect an idea or invention; and, it is also a way to keep important papers from unwanted hands/eyes for a short period of time.

The Dallas Postal Inspector indicated that, in his opinion, the now missing "parcel...had been determined to be a newspaper or magazine, other identity unknown."(CD 735, p. 256)However, Newcomb/Adams posited that the parcel was also the "appropriate size for a notebook or manuscript type material." It is a fact that Oswald kept, at time copious notes, notebooks and manuscripts on his past experiences.(See the testimony of Pauline Bates, 8H330-332; Bates Exhibit No. 1, 19H149) Newcomb and Adams advanced the hypothesis - and that is all it is - that perhaps Oswald, for reasons unknown, took precautionary steps to protect himself from pending events by mailing materials to himself to keep them from confiscation. The non-existent address was intentional. With the proper identification the individual to whom the parcel was addressed - "Lee Oswald" - could retrieve it from the Irving P.O. at a later date. Because the attempted delivery was on November 20, and the parcel lacked a postmark from another city, it is likely that who ever "dropped" this package into the mail system did so on or about November 19, 1963.

There may have been an unexpected twist, however, from Oswald's perspective - if he was the originator of the parcel. The Detroit Free Press reported that Ruth Paine indicated she phoned Oswald at his Beckley Street rooming house on the evening of November 20, 1963, and told him of the aborted parcel delivery.( Detroit Free Press, December 7, 1963. p.3) If it was Oswald who initiated this parcel drop in the first place, this would have been, at the very least, puzzling. Newcomb theorized that perhaps Oswald expected the parcel to end up in the dead letter section of the Terminal Annex building. After all, the parcel was originally addressed to a fictitious location in DALLAS, not Irving. Someone else changed the destination, and thus the package ended up in the dead letter section at the Irving depot. Perhaps Oswald was wary of the parcel being susceptible to delivery in Irving. Perhaps if this scenario is true it could have influenced Oswald's trip to Irving on Thursday. Who knows?

All of this is, of course, speculation, and should be rightly identified as such. There is some indication that Oswald's postal boxes were being monitored. I have always wondered why Harry Holmes was given such a prominent role in the various interrogation sessions which LHO was subjected to. Did he know more than he revealed? Was Oswald's mail being monitored? If we knew the answers to those questions, we might know the answer to the mysterious Irving parcel.

One possibility; perhaps a sharp-eyed postal clerk spotted the non-existent "Nassaus St." address and instead of immediately condemning the parcel to the dead letter section checked change-of-address forms. If that were the scenario, then he/she would have found a card dated September 24, 1963, which instructs that all mail for Oswald was to be sent to 2515 West Fifth Street, Irving. Someone stroked out the original "Dallas" designation and penciled in the "Irving, Texas" address. Did the parcel get re-routed to the Irving postal substation this way? Why was the entire Irving Street address not included? If true, is this indicative of federal knowledge of Oswald's current mailing whereabouts? It appears as though the parcel was delivered to the Paine address strictly on the strength of the name - "Lee Oswald" and the "Irving, Texas" designation."

http://www.jfkresearch.freehomepage.com/murr.htm