JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

The only Radiologist involved in Xrays was a Dr Ebersole. He could not explain some of the metal fragment discrepancies from 1963 compared to 1968. It brought up the question of whether the xrays could be easily double exposed and there are xrays using scissors and other objects used to show how easy it was to do. The fragments in question were in the back of the skull. ( Not a magic bullet)

Do you even understand the Single Bullet Theory? It went through JFK's neck, not his skull.

Nothing like what you describe appears in Dr Ebersole's statement to the HSCA.

[Fiver]

There is also a discrepancy in the 4 bullet shells found by Tippit. From a revolver that did not eject the cartridge.

There is no discrepancy.

Mr. BELIN. When you went back, what did you do? First of all, was there anything up to that time that you saw there or that you did that you haven't related here that you can think of right now?
Mr. BENAVIDES. Well, I started--I seen him throw the shells and I started to stop and pick them up, and I thought I'd better not so when I came back, after I had gotten back, I picked up the shells.
Mr. BELIN. All right. Now, you said you saw the man with the gun throw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Well, did you see the man empty his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES. That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it.

Mrs. DAVIS. Well, first off she went to screaming before I had paid too much attention to him, and pointing at him, and he was, what I thought, was emptying the gun.
Mr. BALL. He had a gun in his hand?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And he was emptying it?
Mrs. DAVIS. It was open and he had his hands cocked like he was emptying it.

Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.

[FISHY1118]

Repeating nonsense achieves nothing. Except boredom.

Oh Good, your ignoring ''ACTUAL EVIDENCE'' , thats always a good sign.

[FISHY1118]

I’m signing out for the night. It’s like being on Fantasy Island.

Thats probably because your reading a fantasy novel called the the WARREN COMMISSION REPORT.

[FISHY1118]

You have yet to provide any evidence that the autopsy was fake, let alone a motive for doing it.

The Army, the Navy, the Secret Service, and JFK's personal physician all attended the autopsy. You haven't provided a credible motive for any of them to want to kill JFK, let alone for all of them to work together.

Well see right theres your problem fiver , i have provided mulitple expert medical opinion and eyewitness accounts of the fist size hole in the back of Jfks head .

Tell me, how many of those Army , Navy Secret Service agents, were in Trauma room 1 on the day of the assassination ?. Which one of them on that day contradicted all of the Parkland Drs , Clint Hills ond countless others observations that there was large hole in the back of jfks head ?

[Fiver]

One thing I looked at was Zapruder Frames 245. The first hit and frame 313 the head shot. At 18.3 frames per second there was a 4.5 second spread. An expert could have pulled that off but with angles and car movement who really knows if Oswald had that capability.

Why are you looking at Frame 245? JFK has clearly already started reaching for his throat by Frame 225. That gives minimum of 4.8 seconds between the two bullets..

Pen and Teller managed 3 in 3.45 seconds. HSC testing showed 3 shots could have been fired as fast as 3.3 seconds.

[GBinOz]

So we’ve descended to this again George. Fine. It’s up to you. All that I’ve done is made a comment that is entirely true. The thread is for discussion and not just wholesale cutting and pasting of long articles. But that’s what it’s descended to. Unsurprisingly, because I’ve said it, you have to have a dig.

Hardly a surprise.

Are you suggesting that I am descending to quoting your posts? If you are making a comment that you claim is true, support it with one witness that testified that the parcel they saw in the possession of Oswald was of sufficient size to contain a rifle. I don't see that I was cutting and pasting long articles - just a few pictures and short quotes presenting the facts. You suggest I am having a dig because I ask you to comply with the standard you impose on others? Your objection is noted. If debate is to be attained, dismissal without evidence needs to be restrained.

[Fiver]

Warren Commission Report Chapter 3 Page 81:
The minimum length broken down is 34.8 inches, the length of the wooden stock.

The only two people who saw the package testified that it was too short to contain a rifle.

Let's look at actual testimony.

Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.
Mr. BALL - What did the package look like?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I would just, it is right as you get out of the grocery store, just more or less out of a package, you have seen some of these brown paper sacks you can obtain from any, most of the stores, some varieties, but it was a package just roughly about two feet long.
Mr. BALL - It was, what part of the back seat was it in?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was in his side over on his side in the far back.
Mr. BALL - How much of that back seat, how much space did it take up?
Mr. FRAZIER - I would say roughly around 2 feet of the seat.
Mr. BALL - From the side of the seat over to the center, is that the way you would measure it?
Mr. FRAZIER - If, if you were going to measure it that way from the end of the seat over toward the center, right. But I say like I said I just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give and take a few inches.
Mr. BALL - How wide was the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I would say the package was about that wide.
Mr. BALL - How wide would you say that would be?
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, say, around 5 inches, something like that. 5, 6 inches or there. I don't--

RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile.

And Randle and Frazier are not the only ones who saw Oswald with a large package.

Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald carry any sort of large package?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't, but some of the fellows said they did.
Mr. BALL - Who said that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, Bill Shelley, he told me that he thought he saw him carrying a fairly good-sized package.
Mr. BALL - When did Shelley tell you that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, it was--the day after it happened.

[GBinOz]

There is no discrepancy.

Mr. BELIN. When you went back, what did you do? First of all, was there anything up to that time that you saw there or that you did that you haven't related here that you can think of right now?
Mr. BENAVIDES. Well, I started--I seen him throw the shells and I started to stop and pick them up, and I thought I'd better not so when I came back, after I had gotten back, I picked up the shells.
Mr. BELIN. All right. Now, you said you saw the man with the gun throw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Well, did you see the man empty his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES. That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it.

Mrs. DAVIS. Well, first off she went to screaming before I had paid too much attention to him, and pointing at him, and he was, what I thought, was emptying the gun.
Mr. BALL. He had a gun in his hand?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And he was emptying it?
Mrs. DAVIS. It was open and he had his hands cocked like he was emptying it.

Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.

So the proposal is that the perpetrator deliberately emptied the shells from a revolver and threw them on the ground for the police to use as evidence. But the first report was that the handgun involved was a 38 Auto, as were the shell casings, which would have been ejected and would have had to be picked up to avoid them being used as evidence. A 38ACP (auto) cannot be chambered in a 38 special revolver, and vice-versa.

[GBinOz]

Let's look at actual testimony.

Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.
Mr. BALL - What did the package look like?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I would just, it is right as you get out of the grocery store, just more or less out of a package, you have seen some of these brown paper sacks you can obtain from any, most of the stores, some varieties, but it was a package just roughly about two feet long.
Mr. BALL - It was, what part of the back seat was it in?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was in his side over on his side in the far back.
Mr. BALL - How much of that back seat, how much space did it take up?
Mr. FRAZIER - I would say roughly around 2 feet of the seat.
Mr. BALL - From the side of the seat over to the center, is that the way you would measure it?
Mr. FRAZIER - If, if you were going to measure it that way from the end of the seat over toward the center, right. But I say like I said I just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give and take a few inches.
Mr. BALL - How wide was the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I would say the package was about that wide.
Mr. BALL - How wide would you say that would be?
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, say, around 5 inches, something like that. 5, 6 inches or there. I don't--

RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile.

And Randle and Frazier are not the only ones who saw Oswald with a large package.

Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald carry any sort of large package?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't, but some of the fellows said they did.
Mr. BALL - Who said that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, Bill Shelley, he told me that he thought he saw him carrying a fairly good-sized package.
Mr. BALL - When did Shelley tell you that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, it was--the day after it happened.

WC Report Chapter 4 Page 133:
Frazier and Mrs. Randle testified that the bag which Oswald was carrying was approximately 27 or 28 inches long, whereas the wooden stock of the rifle, which is its largest component, measured 34.8 inches.

Frazier stated that Oswald held the package by cupping it in his hand and that it fitted comfortably under his armpit. I previously asked that this be tested by posters and a report made, but so far no answer is the stern reply.

Hasn't Mr Dougherty been regularly included on Herlock's "idiot" list? What is the definition of the hearsay of "a fairly good-sized package" that Dougherty himself completely failed to notice?

[FISHY1118]

More ' ''ACTUAL EVIDENCE''




Mr. BALL. Didn't he ( Oswald ) say that he had seen a rifle at the building ?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes sir; he told me that he had seen a rifle at the building 2 or 3 days before that Mr. Truly and some men were looking at. ( 4 H 214 )

The Warren Commission concluded that two Dallas Sheriff's Deputies and a Deputy Constable who identified the rifle found on the sixth floor were mistaken in their identification of it as a 7.65 Mauser.

The "misidentifcation" was blamed on Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman who was first to identify it. The Commission said:

"Weitzman did not handle the rifle and did not examine it at close range... thought it was a Mauser ... [and eventually] police laboratory technicians subsequently arrived and correctly identified the weapon as a 6.5 Italian rifle." ( Report 645-646 )

The Commission never considered that more than one rifle had been found in the building. They, as well as researchers over the decades, have considered the identification of the rifle found on the sixth floor as a Mauser just a simple error.
But other evidence indicates that might not be the case.

Wednesday, November 20, 1963 : a Mauser in the building
But the evidence may say otherwise because two days before the assassination an employee in the building, Warren Caster, brought two rifles into the building, one a single shot .22 ( a Christmas gift for his son ) and the other, a 30.06 Mauser that had been sporterized.

Mr. BALL. Did you ever bring any guns into the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. CASTER. Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL. When?
Mr. CASTER. I believe it was on Wednesday, November 20, during the noon hour.
Mr. BALL. Whose guns were they?
Mr. CASTER. They were my guns.
Mr. BALL. And what kind of guns were they?
Mr. CASTER. One gun was a Remington, single-shot, .22 rifle, and the other was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser. ( 7 H 387 )

William Shelley handled the .22 rifle Caster brought into the building that Wednesday and described the 30.06 in testimony:

Mr. BALL. And was there another make of gun too---there was, wasn't there?
Mr. SHELLEY. Yes; I believe there was a .30-06 Mauser that had been converted. It was a foreign make converted to a .30-06. ( 7 H 390 )

November 22, 1963: An imported 30.06 in the window
Assassination witness Arnold Rowland was standing across the street from the TSBD and saw a man in the sixth floor window. He described the rifle he saw in the hands of the man:

Mr. SPECTER - Can you describe the rifle with any more particularity than you already have?
Mr. ROWLAND - No. In proportion to the scope it appeared to me to be a .30-odd size 6, a deer rifle with a fairly large or powerful scope.
Mr. SPECTER - When you say, .30-odd-6, exactly what did you mean by that?
Mr. ROWLAND - That is a rifle that is used quite frequently for deer hunting. It is an import. ( 2 H 170 )

An Argentine rifle
In a June 1964 interview with KSFO in San Francisco, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that he was told by another officer that the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD "was made in Argentina".




So this evidence indicates that Caster's deer rifle was a sporterized version of an foreign-made rifle converted to a 30.06 and the rifle found on the sixth floor was made in Argentina. A witness who saw the rifle in the hands of the man in the window described it as an imported 30.06 deer rifle.

The Argentine 7.65 Mauser
In those days, one of the most sought after rifles to convert to a 30.06 was the model 91 7.65 Argentine Mauser. The Model 91 was an exceptionally accurate weapon and in its sporterized version, it left 10 or 12 inches of barrel beyond the end of the wooden stock.





A sporterized rifle firing at the President is what witness James Worrell described. He was standing in front of the TSBD when the shooting started and at the sound of the first shot he said he looked up and saw "12 inches of a gun barrel sticking out of a window of the building".




The 12" barrel he described could not have been belonged to the Mannlicher-Carcano ( CE 139 ), whose barrel only extended a few inches beyond the stock.






Of course, this account of Worrell's never made it to the 26 volumes. By his March, 1964 testimony, the 12 inches of barrel had changed to 4 inches of barrel and 2 inches of wooden stock for a total of only 6 inches. ( 2 H 193 )


In light of all this evidence, we must reconsider the descriptions given by the Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman and Sheriff's Deputies Eugene Boone and Roger Craig of the rifle found on the sixth floor.
Warren Commission supporters have always relied on two things: 1.) that Seymour Weitzman was mistaken and 2.) that Roger Craig was a xxxx.

But there is no documentation by any of the deputies who were present when the rifle on the sixth floor was discovered that listed it as a Mannlicher-Carcano or being "6.5 cal." or "Made in Italy".

Deputy Boone is credited with finding the rifle, but his report submitted to the sheriff's department indicates that he found the rifle at 1:22 pm and it "appeared to be a 7.65 Mauser with a telescopic sight".


https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/upl...one_mauser.jpg

Police officers are trained to be precise when describing evidence in their reports. How Boone could be so precise with the time he found the rifle and be so wrong as to the type of rifle is puzzling.
Boone also testified that Capt. Will Fritz identified the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser, a fact that Fritz, in his testimony denied.




Then there is the question if the deputies didn't inspect the rifle, why did they choose the caliber of 7.65 ? Did they pick it out of thin air and if so, why ? Why not 7.63 ? Or 7.92 ? Or even the 6.5 that was supposedly on the rifle ? If they were describing the rifle by its action only, why didn't they just describe it as a Mauser ? Where did the 7.65 come from ?

Did Fritz lie about calling it a Mauser ? Was Boone just repeating what he heard Fritz say ?
The Commission never asked. They accepted Fritz's denial and concluded the deputies were mistaken.

Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman arrived at the time Fritz was examining the rifle. In his sworn affidavit, Weitzman described the rifle found on the sixth floor as a "7.65 Mauser bolt action."



But this is not a case of mistaken indentity. Deputy Roger Craig told Lincoln Carle in 1976 that not only did Weitzman identify the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser, he walked over to it and POINTED to the Mauser label on the rifle.



Weitzman suffered over the years for his honesty. He was hounded by the press and even researchers about his "mistake" until he finally gave in and "admitted" he was wrong about the rifle.

But one Deputy did not waver and maintained to his dying day that the rifle found on the sixth floor was a 7.65 Mauser.

That Deputy was Roger Craig.

In this 1976 documentary, Two Men in Dallas, Craig describes to Lincoln Carle the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the rifle.



The news outlets took the deputies' description of the rifle as being a Mauser and ran with it.




In fact, the "corrected" identifcation of the murder weapon as being a Mannlicher-Carcano didn't hit the airwaves until Saturday afternoon, after documents had been "found" connecting the Depository rifle to "A.Hidell."

[FISHY1118]

A large skull fragment can be seen exploding downward in the Z-film, and, sure enough, a large skull fragment was found on the floor of the limo. As it exploded forward, while still attached to the scalp, it could very well have torn the scalp in the direction it traveled. Unfortunately, they failed to take photos of this fragment.

But a number of witnesses viewing a large fragment claimed it had hair on it.



On 11-30-63, Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, who'd climbed onto the back of Kennedy's limo just after the fatal shot was fired, wrote a report that included an often-overlooked detail. He wrote: "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lieing in the seat."

And Hill wasn't the only one to see this hairy fragment. Motorcycle Officer Bobby Joe Dale arrived upon the scene just as the President's body was rushed into the emergency room. He failed to get a look at the President. He did, however, get a look at the back seat of the limo. Here's what he told Larry Sneed, as published in No More Silence (1998): "Blood and matter was everywhere inside the car including a bone fragment which was oblong shaped, probably an inch to an inch and a half long by three-quarters of an inch wide. As I turned it over and looked at it, I determined that it came from some part of the forehead because there was hair on it which appeared to be near the hairline."

And Dale wasn't the only motorcycle officer to make such a statement. When interviewed for the 2008 Discovery Channel program Inside the Target Car, H.B. McClain related: "When I raised her up (he means Mrs. Kennedy)...I could see it on the floor. That's pieces of skull with the hair on it."


Thanks Clint Hill , Bobby Joe Dale H.B. McClain. for proving the Autopsy photo id a fake .



MORE ''Actual Evidence ''.

[FISHY1118]

What did Oswald take to work on the morning of Nov 22, 1963?


CURTAIN RODS ANYONE ?


A first fact is that Oswald removed his rifle from the Ruth Paine garage on the morning of Nov 11, 1963 when Ruth was gone that morning, borrowed Michael Paine's blue-and-white Olds parked in front of Ruth's house, and Lee drove himself and Marina with their two children to a gunsmith to have the scope, which had come with the rifle and then had been removed by Oswald, reinstalled on it. The gunsmith trip was necessary because the threads were stripped requiring retapping, best done by a gunsmith. The reason for the scope installation was not for his personal use but because he was preparing the rifle for a conveyance. See the argument and evidence for this at https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content...op-109-pdf.pdf.

A second fact is that the rifle on the sixth floor of the TSBD on Nov 22, 1963 had been Oswald's, and Oswald was the next-to-last party in possession of that rifle prior to the assassination. (Oswald will not have been the last party in possession of the rifle before the assassination if his intention on Nov 11 to prepare the rifle for a conveyance was accomplished.)

A third fact is that the rifle went from Oswald's scope reinstallation on Nov 11 and the rifle's removal from the garage on that date, to being on the 6th floor of the TSBD implicated in the assassination of JFK, by Nov 22, possibly by means of the party to whom Oswald conveyed the rifle.

A fourth fact is that Oswald routinely took paper bags with him to work whenever Buell Frazier drove him from Irving. He did so to carry his lunch. Therefore that he did so on Fri Nov 22 is not in itself unusual. What was different was the paper bag's length, but not his carrying a paper bag to work.

A fifth fact is Oswald's paper bag on Nov 22 was longer than normal for carrying his lunch. This is established from the testimonies of Buell and Linnie Mae Frazier. They told what they saw--Oswald carrying a paper bag of a certain length.

A sixth fact is that unanimous testimony of those who saw the bag that Oswald carried rules out that that paper bag could have carried the rifle, which is 34" even if disassembled. This point on the length of the bag has been underestimated but is strong. There are the estimates of Buell and Linnie Mae as to lengths; the manner Linnie Mae saw Oswald carrying it holding it at the top and the bottom not hitting the ground; the way Buell saw him carry it cupped in his right hand with the top under his right shoulder; the FBI measurement of how far on Frazier's car's back seat Frazier marked its length when seeing it laying there (FBI measurement by the rear car seat method: 27"); the DPD both having Buell and Linnie Mae estimate with their hands, and also by making physical paper replicas, reconstructions of the bag's length, over and over and over the DPD had them do this (according to Buell) ... ca. 25-27", not 38".

A seventh fact is that Buell Frazier's testimony in particular is so firm and so steadfast that it is either correct or he has been dishonest, but it is not reasonable that he was mistaken by that magnitude of error (of mistaking a 38" bag for a 25-27" length which Frazier has said from day one is accurate to within about an inch on his estimate).

In other words, in addition to no non-circular positive evidence for identifying the paper bag Oswald carried to work that morning with the 38" paper bag of TSBD paper found in the TSBD--and unanimous opposing witness testimony as to its length and rejection of such an identification--if one holds to an identification of the two paper bags it also is difficult to avoid the necessity to assume Buell Frazier actually lied at the outset, and was not simply mistaken, to insist and describe a 38" length was only 25-27" as he did. (The simpler solution is they simply are not the same paper bags, and Frazier was not lying but truthful.)

An eighth fact is that there was a large paper bag, 38" long, made from TSBD wrapping paper, noticed and found near the shell hulls at the 6th floor of the TSBD, which was associated with the rifle (by apparent fibers association with the blanket of Oswald in Ruth Paine's garage in which the rifle had been stored), and associated with Oswald (by a palm print and a fingerprint). So the FBI lab.

But a ninth fact is there is no evidence whatsoever that identifies the smaller bag of ca. 25-27" length (Buell Frazier), or ca. 27" length (Linnie Mae Randle), with the larger 38" TSBD-wrapping paper bag. The lengths were significantly different from testimony of every witness who saw the paper bag Oswald carried that morning, with no witness and no forensic evidence testifying to an identification of those two bags. And Buell Frazier repeatedly said the paper bag Oswald brought with him in the car that morning looked like a lightweight retail store bag, not the 38" handmade one from heavier-duty TSBD wrapping paper.

(To emphasize this ninth point: there has been some controversy over the find circumstances and chain of custody of the large, 38", TSBD-wrapping paper bag believed associated with the rifle. That entire set of issues is bypassed here, because no relevance is established in terms of grounds for identifying that 38" bag as the paper bag Oswald brought to work that morning, which is the subject under discussion. The testimonies of both witnesses who saw the bag Oswald brought to work that morning are opposed to such an identification, and no witness or forensic evidence identifies them. It is not an argument that the identification is necessary to account for how the rifle got into the TSBD building, since there were 11 days and a possible if not likely further party intervening between Oswald's removal of the rifle on Nov 11 from Ruth Paine's garage, to prepare it for a conveyance, and the date of the assassination. If Oswald remains a possibility for the means of entrance of that rifle into the TSBD, given that he was the next-to-last in possession and worked in the TSBD, the Nov 11 date for Oswald's preparation of the rifle for conveyance means neither Oswald nor Nov 22 are the only possibilities for how the rifle got there. The rifle could have been brought in any of those eleven days, by a possessor of that rifle after Oswald.)

And a tenth fact is that in all likelihood it can be excluded that Oswald's paper bag on Nov 22 contained curtain rods either, no matter what he may have told Buell Frazier. Oswald himself under interrogation denied that it contained curtain rods. He said that bag contained his lunch. The only reason for curtain rods entering the Oswald paper bag discussion at all is solely Buell Frazier who said that is what Oswald told him the bag contained (and he may have told that to Linnie Mae the night of Thu Nov 21), plus the plausibility that a ca. 27" paper bag is about the right length to carry curtain rods.

Note that the sole evidence that Oswald claimed curtain rods is the same witness whose testimony LNers resolutely reject concerning the length of that paper bag, Buell Frazier. On the basis of no witness or forensic testimony, some insist Frazier was mistaken on the length, but right (not mistaken) in claiming Oswald said it was curtain rods.

The evidence weighing against curtain rods in Oswald's paper bag from Irving that morning is: Oswald's room on N. Beckley had no need for curtain rods of a length that could be carried in a 25-27" paper bag (there was a bent super-long single curtain rod in Oswald's room photographed a day later, but that was a much longer length); Oswald never mentioned anything about curtain rods to Ruth Paine (Oswald is not known to have stolen property from Ruth otherwise); no curtain rods are known to have turned up at the TSBD; there is no corroboration that Oswald was carrying curtain rods; and if Oswald had carried curtain rods it makes sense that he would say so to his interrogators instead of denying it. And last but not least, an assumption of curtain rods is not necessary to account for the 25-27" length of the paper bag, or indicated from that length.

Synthesis

These ten points deliver a conclusion that what was in Oswald's paper bag from Irving that morning was, as he said to his interrogators, his lunch, full stop. Oswald denied it was curtain rods to his interrogators when asked. The only reason there is no record he directly denied it was a disassembled rifle in the paper bag is because there is no record he was asked that question.

(Side point: Is it even clear that Oswald ever was told that any rifle, let alone his own, had been found on the 6th floor of his workplace? Marina was shown the rifle on Fri evening, and the entire world other than Oswald knew through news reporting about the rifle found in the TSBD and then reports that it had been traced to Oswald. But did Oswald know that during the two days before he was killed? He was not shown the rifle, and is there record in any interrogators' notes or news footage that Oswald was told that a rifle had been found on the 6th floor and traced to him? Oswald was asked if he had ever owned a rifle and he said he had neither owned nor possessed one since returning from the Soviet Union. He denied any mail-order purchase even in the case of the revolver which he did notdeny owning. In the case of the revolver, he gave a different story that he had obtained it from a retail store in Fort Worth in the spring of 1963. That particular prevarication is of interest because it was not for the motive of denying he had the handgun, but only of where he had obtained it. Why conceal that? Was a role as a government informant or sting operation, perhaps related to the Dodd Subcommittee investigation of mail-order firearms purchases, in the background and Oswald was preserving cover of that? If Oswald's case had gone to trial would he through an attorney have argued that he did not consider that rifle personally his, but a government agency's? And that he had dissembled about ordering it by mail on similar grounds as the government dissembling about involvement in plans to invade Cuba--to protect an undercover operation? Did Oswald even expect his case to come to trial, or did he anticipate release prior to trial from intervention which did not happen in time for him? Some things may never be known due to his untimely death.)

Neither rifle nor curtain rods: the lunch solution

The lunch explanation of the contents of his paper bag brought to work with him, which was Oswald's own answer to his interrogators, is plausible. Oswald never denied he had an over-size length paper bag for his lunch, but explained (reasonably) that bag sizes vary and one used what was available. Oswald said he had had a cheese sandwich, a banana and an apple for lunch. It would be unusual if Oswald had not brought his lunch with him. Never mind what Frazier said Oswald said, this is the reality: Oswald normally brought his lunch, said he did so that day, never told his interrogators otherwise, and the 25-27" x 6" (Buell) or x 8" (Linnie Mae) width paper bag is the size of paper bags for baguettes or certain kinds of bread such as Italian or French bread. Both the ways in which Linnie Mae and Buell saw him carrying it are consistent with how one would carry a lunch in such a bag--either holding it by the top and the bottom almost reaches the ground (what Linnie Mae saw in Irving), or, perhaps to avoid the bottom risking hitting the ground, carrying it with the right palm cupped under it and the upper part of the bag held by his upper arm against his upper body as he walked (what Buell saw in Dallas).

On whether Buell was truthful in telling of Oswald saying it was curtain rods, and that Oswald said curtain rods was the reason for his trip to Irving, that is a judgment call but I judge it is likely true. Buell asking Oswald the reason for the unexpected trip on a Thursday is a reasonable question of curiosity from a driver, and it is equally believable that Oswald might not wish to disclose his personal business so made up a reason: "curtain rods", perhaps drawing from some mention from an earlier time about curtains or curtain rods. (Note when Oswald was told Buell had said he said curtain rods, Oswald answered Buell must be confusing it with an earlier occasion, slightly different from a simple denial.) Buell on another occasion said the reason Oswald went out on Thursday night, not Friday, was because Oswald planned to take a driving test that weekend. Frazier would not have then known the real reason, in terms of innocent explanation unrelated to planning to kill JFK, was he had missed the previous weekend with his wife and children in Irving (due to Ruth Paine's girl's birthday party), and, separately, Marina was angry with him and apparently was not speaking to him over the phone. Oswald, described by Buell as not very talkative anyway, may have told Buell "curtain rods" rather than "Marina is angry with me and that is why I am going to try to work things out with her". There could even have been a further reason still: had Lee come into unexpected money? Marina in Irving had nearly $180, the equivalent of ca. $1800 in today's money, in cash in her room, from Lee, after the assassination. Had that $180 cash been saved over time, or given Marina the night before, or some combination of both?

Marina told of Lee having urged her to rent an apartment with him that weekend, promising to buy Marina a washing machine, etc.--things which involved immediate outlays of large sums of money--which would be consistent if Lee had come into money, and hoped to have his family reunited under one roof that weekend, to go out Thursday night, cash in hand, to arrange it with Marina.

In short, the timing of the trip to Irving, the reason for dissembling to Buell over the reason for the trip (the bogus "curtain rods" reason), and the variable size of the paper bag for his lunch, are all of those reasonably explained as coincidences and unrelated to the JFK assassination. It is not necessary to suppose Oswald was plotting to assassinate Kennedy in explanation of any of those three things which are amenable to mundane, everyday explanation.

The evasive leaving from the TSBD following the assassination, on the other hand, is not mundane, everyday behavior but is also not necessarily indicative of Oswald's guilt in the JFK assassination, as distinguished from an unusual reaction for other reason, such as, e.g. suspecting he had been set up or was in danger of being killed by the assassins of JFK (https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content...ackets-112.pdf).

Postscript on the 38" paper bag made from TSBD paper

On the 38" TSBD paper bag claimed to be associated with the rifle on the 6th floor, one possibility is that 38" paper bag was made by Oswald at an earlier time, perhaps toward the end of the week ending Fri Nov 8, and then taken to Irving with him on his person, for the purpose of holding what Oswald believed at that time was his 36" length Mannlicher-Carcano (not disassembled). Oswald had ordered a 36" Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, and is it possible he still had not noticed or realized that the one he had been shipped was actually 40", not 36"? Thinking it was 36" (the length he had ordered), he would make the bag 38" to fully enclose it. The FBI match of the paper of the 38" bag to the Nov 22 TSBD paper roll on the first floor TSBD (but not to TSBD paper sampled on Nov 26) can be accounted for if either the particular roll sampled on Nov 22 (there were four rolls in simultaneous use?) had also been in use Nov 8, or more than one roll was from the same batch of paper, across a time span of 14-15 or so days. There was a non-match of a sample of TSBD paper on Nov 26 to both the 38" bag and a sample of TSBD paper of Nov 22, but that does not necessarily mean a paper match was not possible from an earlier time over a duration longer than 4 days.

Oswald would have made the 38" bag at TSBD say around Thu or Frid Nov 7-8 in preparation for a planned removal of the rifle from the garage in Irving on Nov 11. He would have used TSBD wrapping paper and the 3" tape there since that was free and nothing else was easily available. He would have designed the paper bag to enclose the whole rifle, but he did not have the rifle in hand to check the size was right when making the bag. He would have discovered the 38" bag did not completely cover the 40" rifle only on Nov 11 in Irving. Since he was spending money for which he had worked hard for a reinstallation of a scope that he did not like or use, and since he never practiced shooting with the rifle after spending money to have the scope reinstalled and sighted, that is consistent with the purpose being a conveyance. How the logistics of such a conveyance might have worked is unknown--there is a black hole of information between Nov 11 and Nov 22 concerning whereabouts and custody of the rifle, after the rifle was removed from Oswald's belongings in Ruth Paine's garage on the morning of Nov 11. There is no knowledge the rifle was ever returned to Ruth Paine's garage after its removal from that garage on Nov 11.

In default of a better explanation (such as meeting someone for a handover that day), I assume after the scope reinstallation had been done and the rifle sighted-in by Dial Ryder at the Irving Sport Shop on Nov 11, that Oswald--who with Marina and their children was driving Michael Paine's second car (a blue-and-white Olds without either Michael's or Ruth Paine's knowledge)--drove to a bus station and put the rifle in a rented storage locker. The rifle would be in the 38" paper bag with the 40" rifle sticking out of the open top of the bag by 2".

The conveyance of the rifle could then occur by means of Oswald giving the key to the storage locker to someone.

Oswald could have told whoever was buying it from him, as an enhancement of value, that he had just had the rifle sighted in and told the person where, at the Irving Sport Shop. That could be the mechanism for the information that an anonymous caller called in to both the FBI and the press, the weekend of the assassination, with the anonymous tip that Oswald had had the rifle sighted-in at a gun shop in Irving (easily found by the FBI, and that tip is how Dial Ryder entered the story when the FBI made inquiries).

The rifle then went into the TSBD at some point prior to the morning of Nov 22, 1963, sighted-in and not disassembled, and the 38" paper bag entered with it, though not necessarily brought in by Oswald, but rather by the ones in last possession of the rifle, the one or ones to whom Oswald had sold it.

And naturally Oswald's fingerprints would be on the rifle since it had been his, and on the 38" paper bag under this reconstruction, even though Oswald may not have been responsible for either of those items going to the 6th floor of the TSBD.

For all we know the rifle sale or conveyance on the part of Oswald some time on or after Nov 11, 1963, could have been in continuation of informant or "sting" work being done by Oswald for an agency, that backfired in the assassination when Oswald found himself set up to be implicated by means of the rifle connection.

Again the key essential point, that which I regard as a fact established, is the scope reinstallation by Oswald on that rifle on the morning of Nov 11, 1963 (link again: https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content...op-109-pdf.pdf). In that article I wrote in the conclusion how Dial Ryder of the Irving Sport Shop was caught up in the saga by sheer accident.

But Dial Ryder is not the point, is beside the point. I should have brought out in that conclusion instead the point that actually matters: the rifle, the Mannlicher-Carcano, did not leave Ruth Paine's garage on Nov 22, but eleven days earlier on Nov 11. And Oswald was not the last possessor of that rifle prior to the assassination, but its next-to-last possessor.

It is possible the assassination was done by the last possessors of that rifle, not the next-to-last one.

That is the point that matters.

[OneRound]

HS,

I'm as guilty of amateur psychology as anyone else on here but I don't see that it offers a credible account of Oswald as lone gunman. I can fully understand why the WC wanted to depoliticise the crime but in the long term it has not served them well.

I read your account recently of Oswald's suspicious activities leading up to the assassination. From my CT standpoint I have to suspend disbelief at various points in the material evidence but allowing for that, I thought you set out a reasonable case. And if we leap forward to the Tippit murder and the subsequent arrest of Oswald in the Texas Theatre, that too hangs together for the most part.

However there are massive problems in between and afterwards. On shooting Kennedy, Oswald had two obvious options: hold his ground on the 6th floor and go down in a Cagneyesque blaze of glory with his Carcano; or get out of the building as fast as possible and head for Mexico en route to Cuba. (Rather than a hero's welcome I suspect a bullet in the back of his head would have been more likely in Havana but Oswald was perhaps young enough to believe differently.)

But he does neither of these. He walks (he did not 'flee') from the building, catches a bus and goes back to the very place he is known to live. Why? To collect his revolver possibly, but what good will that do when every police officer in the USA is literally gunning for him? If he wanted a shoot out he could have got that on the 6th floor. Why delay the martyrdom?

We are then told Oswald was walking (aimlessly it seems to me) around Oak Cliff and is apprehended by Tippit. So where was Oswald, now tooled up, going? No one seems to know. Was it really the Texas Theatre or was that a knee jerk response following the murder of Tippit? The psychological framework which was just about credible enough to place Oswald on the 6th floor with a Carcano in hand is now like wet tissue paper.

On arrest, Oswald had the greatest opportunity in history (given the development of live media) to announce his martyrdom, whether political, social or psychological. His words would ring through history. Instead, he says he is innocent despite his knowledge (according to later investigation) that there is a paper trail that tracks him and his palmprint to the gun used in the assassination.

So was Oswald on a suicide mission on 22 November? Did he strike lucky and then walk around bemused by his temporary good fortune? Did he have second thoughts and decide martyrdom was not his thing? Did he assassinate the POTUS because his marriage was failing and at the age of 24, with two young children, he saw no future? The psychological implications are inadequate in my view.

Hi cobalt and all,

In one of the early A6 threads, a poster of the time Victor commented that we will never know the full story as James Hanratty never explained his own starring role. I feel the same applies here to Lee Harvey Oswald.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

More pages of stuff cut and pasted from conspiracy theory websites which he classes as evidence and which George criticises me for mentioning.

Shall we all do this? Shall we see who can out-cut and out-paste each other?

In the lasting we have the ‘evidence’ of a bloke taking two rifles to work at the TSBD 2 days before the assassination. Clearly then he hid them on the sixth floor for an assassin to find them.