The All-Important Curtain Rods

[David Von Pein]

Question for Martin W.:

From your own personal point-of-view (i.e., as a person who has great doubts about the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald) .... do you think it's possible to come up with a "reasonable and sensible" scenario that explains every piece of evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases WITHOUT having to resort to any of the things I mentioned in my last post?

Those things being: Fantasy, wild speculation, and tons of planted evidence and coerced witnesses.

Good luck in your efforts. For I don't think it's even remotely possible to accomplish that task.

[Michael Capasse]

Question for Martin W.:

From your own personal point-of-view (i.e., as a person who has great doubts about the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald) .... do you think it's possible to come up with a "reasonable and sensible" scenario that explains every piece of evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases WITHOUT having to resort to any of the things I mentioned in my last post?

Those things being: Fantasy, wild speculation, and tons of planted evidence and coerced witnesses.

Good luck in your efforts. For I don't think it's even remotely possible to accomplish that task.

  Nutters fail everyday with an "irrefutable mountain of evidence" that "points to him."

[Martin Weidmann]

Question for Martin W.:

From your own personal point-of-view (i.e., as a person who has great doubts about the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald) .... do you think it's possible to come up with a "reasonable and sensible" scenario that explains every piece of evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases WITHOUT having to resort to any of the things I mentioned in my last post?

Those things being: Fantasy, wild speculation, and tons of planted evidence and coerced witnesses.

Good luck in your efforts. For I don't think it's even remotely possible to accomplish that task.

as a person who has great doubts about the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald

I have no definitive opinion about Oswald's guilt or innocence. In fact I couldn't care less either way. The man has been dead for 60+ years and nothing we do or say will bring him back to life. If you show me the evidence (not assumptions and speculations) that clearly shows his guilt, I will have no problem accepting that guilt, but so long that evidence is not presented he gets the benefit of the doubt.

do you think it's possible to come up with a "reasonable and sensible" scenario that explains every piece of evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases WITHOUT having to resort to any of the things I mentioned in my last post? 

If you have to use massive amounts of assumptions to connect the dots, it can never result in a "reasonable and sensible" scenario.

The thing is that I am not trying to come up with a scenario. On my side there is no wild speculation, tons of planted evidence and coerced witnesses.
I try to look at the evidence objectively and try to make sense of it.

Take the paper bag issue. Yes, there is a heavy duty paper bag with a partial print of Oswald on it. That bag must have been made at the TSBD but Troy Eugene West, who stated that he just about constantly (I'm paraphrazing) stayed where his work was (i.e. at the wrapping table), was absolutely clear about that fact that he had never seen Oswald anywhere near the wrapper machine area. Buell Frazier was asked it Oswald carried any package with him during the trip to Irving and his answer was: No.

Obviously Frazier could have been wrong and simply not have seen a folded up bag, and somebody must have made the heavy duty bag, but it would be a mere assumption that it was Oswald. There is no evidence that shows that the heavy duty bag ever left the TSBD and a bag made at the TSBD and found at the TSBD at a location where Oswald worked provides very little evidence of anything.

Then we turn to Frazier, who saw the package Oswald was carrying and describes it as a crickly brown paper sack. He also says that Oswald carried it in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. And while being given a polygraph he is shown the heavy duty bag, without more than likely being aware of or understanding it's significance, and he instantly denies it is the bag he saw. Lt Day clearly believes him, because he starts to theorize about the possibility that Oswald concealed the rifle in the heavy duty bag which he then concealed in the flimsy paper sack Frazier had described. After talking to Detective Lewis, FBI agent Vincent Drain concluded that he heavy paper bag was not a gun case.

So, let's look at the bag it self. It was allegedly found folded up in the corner of the sniper's nest, but there is no in situ photograph to prove that. Even worse, several officers claim to have found the bag, but, as far as I know, it was never determined who actually found it. Yet another example of a piece of evidence that has no governance. Nevertheless, the officers speculated from the first moment that this must be the bag that was used to bring the rifle into the building. Never mind that the interior of the bag shows no scars or markings that one would expect to be there if a broken down rifle was concealed and transported in that bag. And it gets worse. They say a partial print of Oswald's cup of his right hand was found on the bag. If so, it is a bag that was made and found in the TSBD at a location where Oswald worked. What is missing from the bag are prints that would reasonably be expected to be left when the bag was folded up after the rifle allegedly was removed unfolded and when the bag was unfolded by some officer. Not to mention when the bag was lifted from the back seat of Frazier's car. No such prints were found. There was only a partial print of Oswald and perhaps one a finger, and that strikes nobody as at least strange? Especially John Corbett makes a big deal of fibers found in the bag that - according to him - matched the blanket that the rifle was stored in. There are a multitude of problems with that claim. First of all, when Montgomery carried the bag out of the TSBD he did so holding the opening of the bag at the bottom, which makes it possible or perhaps even likely that whatever was in the bag (if anything) would have fallen out. Secondly, there are at least three evidence photos showing the blanket and the bag lying next to each other allowing for a strong possibility of cross contamination, destroying any probative value the fiber evidence could have had.

That's what the evidence actually tells us, so in comes the WC and the LNs. The WC deals with it by simply ignoring it and concluding, without a shred of evidence, that Frazier was mistaken and Oswald did carry the heavy duty bag found at the TSBD. The LNs go even further. They claim that Frazier was wrong about they way Oswald carried the bag and the description of the bag. They say that the flimsy paper sack was never found, but they can't even prove that there was ever a search for it. Apart from that, Oswald brought the bag into the TSBD at 8:00 AM and Kennedy was shot at 12:30 PM. That gave him 4,5 hours to dispose of the bag, if that's what he did.

I personally believe, but I can't prove it (words you seldom see a LN write), that the bag was noting more than a prop. So, it's absolutely possible that Oswald at some point quickly left the TSBD and dumped the package in a dumpster. Alternative, it could be that the package contained something that he had agreed to bring with him for some unknown third party to whom he gave the package to. The latter scenario obviously implies the involvement of at least one other person, but as I said, there is no evidence for it.

Nowhere in what I have written there is "fantasy, tons of planted evidence and coerced witnesses" and where there is speculation I call it exactly that. 

I'm not a great believer in planted evidence theories, but manipulated and misrepresented evidence is Henry Wade's days can most certainly not be ruled out.

Having said that, here's my question for you, David. Based on all the factual information given above, how do you get to concluding that the heavy duty bag was nevertheless the bag Oswald carried?

[John Corbett]

BB-

Yes, LHO's curtain rods explanation appears fabricated.

LHO carried a peculiar package into the TSBD on 11.22. Of course, security at the TSBD was lax; LHO could have secreted the M-C rifle, or parts of it, into the TSBD almost any night, or previous days.

What Oswald needed was transportation and he relied on Frazier for that. Yes, he could have made the trip any night that week but he chose Thursday.

LHO remains the best suspect as the TSBD6 shooter. LHO was invisible when shots rang out, and a slender light-skinned male was seen in the TSBD6 sniper window while shots rang out. LHO was inside the TSBD when JFK and JBC were shot, and a bullet struck a curb near Tague.

LHO is the only suspect as the TSBD shooter which makes him the only suspect in Dealey Plaza.

LHO's rifle was found on TSBD6, and three shells found at the sniper window, and three loud shots heard deep inside the TSBD (Geneva Hine testimony).

Sure looks like LHO took three shots in the direction of the JFK limo on 11.22, from TSBD6.

However, all of that does not preclude others participating in the JFKA.

If only there was credible evidence of others participating in the JFKA. In 62 years, no one has found any despite armies of amateur investigators looking for such evidence.

The smoke-and-bang show on the GK, and the heavy, telltale scent of gunsmoke in the GK area in the immediate aftermath of the shooting indicates gunfire in the GK area (the wind was blowing towards the TSBD from the Third Street overpass, thus ruling out TSBD6 as the source of that gunsmoke).

It indicates no such thing.

My layman's view of the Z-film is the Gov. JBC is shot ~Z-295.

Your layman's view is FUBAR.

Connally: I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)

Again as a layman, I lean against JBC holding onto his Stetson hat in his right hand, after being shot through the right-hand wrist (Z-272). JBC turning around to check on JFK, after being shot through the chest, also fails the believability test.

What you believe isn't a litmus test for what actually happened.

So, I suspect two gunsels behind the JFK limo. 

My other suspicion is that the JFKAC was very small, probably three individuals including LHO, nationalists, zealots or ideologues, acting without any oversight. Perhaps the other two were murdered when G2 figured out what they had done.

---30---

BTW, small nationalist/ideological conspiracies were in the air during 1940-60s.

"On March 1, 1954, four Puerto Rican nationalists—Lolita Lebrón, Rafael Cancel Miranda, Irvin Flores Rodríguez, and Andrés Figueroa Cordero—opened fire from the House of Representatives visitor's gallery in Washington, D.C., to protest U.S. colonial rule. The attack wounded five Congressmen.

Key Details of the 1954 Attack:
The Attack: The group traveled from New York, entered the Capitol, and fired roughly 15 to 30 shots. They shouted "ˇViva Puerto Rico libre!" and waved the Puerto Rican flag."

Then we have--

"On November 1, 1950, Puerto Rican nationalists Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola attempted to assassinate President Harry S. Truman at Blair House in Washington, D.C., seeking to highlight the independence movement. The attack failed, resulting in the death of Torresola and White House Police officer Leslie Coffelt, with Collazo wounded and imprisoned."

---30---

I think the CT'ers have allowed their left-wing ideologies to overrule the obvious facts on the ground---LHO was a Marxist and took shots at JFK. There was a conspiracy, and LHO was a part of it.

The LN'ers, with much less ideological fervor, have also tried to force a narrative on the facts---the WC narrative, that followed President LBJ's instructions that nothing be found that would trigger a nuke war with Russia.

But hey, just IMHO.

Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
[/quote]

[John Corbett]

No, it's what a post looks like that was written by someone (John Corbett) who actually knows how to properly and sensibly assess and evaluate the evidence in the JFK case.

Incredibly, though, many conspiracy theorists seem to think that ALL OF THIS WEALTH OF EVIDENCE can actually exist in the JFK and Tippit murder cases and yet still end up with Lee Oswald being innocent of shooting anyone on 11/22/63.

But reasonable and sensible people who live here in the World of Reality just can't stretch their imaginations nearly that far. Because people like John Corbett and I prefer to remain in this universe of reality instead of wandering into the CT world of fantasy, wild speculation, and tons of planted evidence and coerced witnesses.

It should be pointed out that while the CTs remain in the majority, few of them doubt that Oswald was at least one of the shooters in DP that day. It's a small cult that believe Oswald was actually innocent.

I've credited you in the past but I'll say it again. You're website is the best examination of the Z-film at the moment of the single bullet that I have ever come across. It even surpasses Dale Myers 3D simulation for the critical frames from Z222-235. It cleaned up a lot of loose ends for me as it shows that JFK's right arm was still moving down when he reappeared at Z225 and that one frame later, both he and JBC suddenly flipped their arms upward. A near simultaneous  reaction to a near simultaneous strike. I say near because the bullet struck the two men about 2 milliseconds apart, something that would be indistinguishable in the Z-film which covers about 54 milliseconds for each frame.

[John Corbett]

Nutters fail everyday with an "irrefutable mountain of evidence" that "points to him."

The failure is not in the "nutters" ability to present overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt but in the Oswald defenders' inability to grasp the obvious.