JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Bill Brown on April 17, 2026, 10:35:05 PM
-
Oswald made a special trip to Irving on Thursday after work. He told Buell Frazier that this special trip was so that he could retrieve some curtain rods for his room on Beckley.
After the assassination, Oswald leaves work and makes his way to the rooming house on Beckley. He does not have any curtain rods with him.
If Oswald simply left the Depository because he was told there would be no more work that day and therefore decided to go to his room, why didn't he take the curtain rods with him as he traveled from the Depository to his room on Beckley?
-
Oswald made a special trip to Irving on Thursday after work. He told Buell Frazier that this special trip was so that he could retrieve some curtain rods for his room on Beckley.
After the assassination, Oswald leaves work and makes his way to the rooming house on Beckley. He does not have any curtain rods with him.
If Oswald simply left the Depository because he was told there would be no more work that day and therefore decided to go to his room, why didn't he take the curtain rods with him as he traveled from the Depository to his room on Beckley?
Why would Oswald have thought it was necessary to make a special trip to Irving to get the curtain rods. Why not just get them on his normal weekend trip to Irving. I think he needed to go to Irving on Thursday to get something that he needed before the weekend. Gee, I wonder what that could have been.
-
Oswald made a special trip to Irving on Thursday after work. He told Buell Frazier that this special trip was so that he could retrieve some curtain rods for his room on Beckley.
After the assassination, Oswald leaves work and makes his way to the rooming house on Beckley. He does not have any curtain rods with him.
If Oswald simply left the Depository because he was told there would be no more work that day and therefore decided to go to his room, why didn't he take the curtain rods with him as he traveled from the Depository to his room on Beckley?
I don't believe for a second that Oswald went to Irving to get curtain rods. I believe it was a white lie to avoid having to tell a 19 years old co-worker that he was really going to try to save his marriage. He had not seen his kids during the previous weekend and Marina was angry with him. It would be a valid question to ask why he did not wait until the upcoming weekend, but when matters of the heart come in to play, people are frequently not rational. Frazier said he loved kids. Not only his own, but all sorts of kids in Inving that he would play with. The human side of Oswald is very often ignored or simple dismissed. We don't know what happened between Marina and Lee from Monday to Thursday, but perhaps Oswald simply figured he couldn't wait any longer.
Nobody knows what was in the bag Oswald carried on Friday morning, so it could easily have been a mere prop to satisfy Frazier's possible curiosity that he got rid of as soon as he entered the TSBD. Was that the case? I honestly don't know and nobody does. It's just a possibility which LNs will instantly dismiss. Some things will never change.
The problem is this case is there are so many assumptions and so few verifiable dots to connect that you can make up any kind of narrative you like and that's exactly what happened. Does the narrative have any relation with reality? I seriously doubt it.
-
Oswald made a special trip to Irving on Thursday after work. He told Buell Frazier that this special trip was so that he could retrieve some curtain rods for his room on Beckley.
After the assassination, Oswald leaves work and makes his way to the rooming house on Beckley. He does not have any curtain rods with him.
If Oswald simply left the Depository because he was told there would be no more work that day and therefore decided to go to his room, why didn't he take the curtain rods with him as he traveled from the Depository to his room on Beckley?
I reckon Oswald was frustrated that his marriage was disintegrating and he was living in a shoebox sized room which BTW had curtain rods, so with this in mind he obviously had two reasons to make a mid week journey to Irving, first of all as a last ditch effort he wanted to fix his marriage and when that went south he put plan B into effect, and that'll show her, that'll show everyone that a complete nobody can change history.
JohnM
-
I reckon Oswald was frustrated that his marriage was disintegrating and he was living in a shoebox sized room which BTW had curtain rods, so with this in mind he obviously had two reasons to make a mid week journey to Irving, first of all as a last ditch effort he wanted to fix his marriage and when that went south he put plan B into effect, and that'll show her, that'll show everyone that a complete nobody can change history.
JohnM
Don't just love speculation?
Now all we have to do is wait until you start claiming it's actually a fact.
-
I don't believe for a second that Oswald went to Irving to get curtain rods. I believe it was a white lie to avoid having to tell a 19 years old co-worker that he was really going to try and save his marriage.
I guess he couldn't have waited one more day to save his marriage.
He had not seen his kids during the previous weekend and Marina was angry with him. It would be a valid question to ask why he did not wait until the upcoming weekend, but when matters of the heart come in to play, people are frequently not rational.
Throwing your life away by killing the POTUS is not exactly rational either.
Frazier said he loved kids. Not only his own, but all sorts of kids in Inving that he would play with. The human side of Oswald is very often ignored or simple dismissed. We don't know what happened between Marina and Lee from Monday to Thursday, but perhaps Oswald simply figured he couldn't wait any longer.
He couldn't wait any longer to kill the POTUS. That's the one thing that couldn't wait for the weekend.
Nobody knows what was in the bag Oswald carried on Friday morning,
Just because you don't know doesn't mean others haven't figure it out.
so it could easily have been a mere prop to satisfy Frazier's possible curiosity that he got rid of as soon as he entered the TSBD.
<chuckle> After 62 years, that's the best you could come up with.
Was that the case? I honestly don't know and nobody does.
I know exactly what was in the bag and why it was in the bag. I'm amazed it has you stumped.
It's just a possibility which LNs will instantly dismiss. Some things will never change.
Like CTs being unable to figure out an open and shut double murder case that the DPD had solved in the first 12 hours.
The problem is this case is there are so many assumptions and so few verifiable dots to connect that you can make up any kind of narrative you like and that's exactly what happened. Does the narrative have any relation with reality? I seriously doubt it.
There are no problems in figuring out what happened. That's why Wade formally charged Oswald for both murders in the first 12 hours. He had a slam dunk case.
-
I guess he couldn't have waited one more day to save his marriage.
Throwing your life away by killing the POTUS is not exactly rational either.
He couldn't wait any longer to kill the POTUS. That's the one thing that couldn't wait for the weekend.Just because you don't know doesn't mean others haven't figure it out.
I know exactly what was in the bag and why it was in the bag. I'm amazed it has you stumped.
Like CTs being unable to figure out an open and shut double murder case that the DPD had solved in the first 12 hours.
There are no problems in figuring out what happened. That's why Wade formally charged Oswald for both murders in the first 12 hours. He had a slam dunk case.
This is what a post by a pathetic fanatic looks like.
-
Don't just love speculation?
Now all we have to do is wait until you start claiming it's actually a fact.
At least my speculation is based on the facts of this case whereas you speculate and make up an alternative narrative based on your paranoid delusions!
I don't believe for a second that Oswald went to Irving to get curtain rods.
JohnM
-
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.
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'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.
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).
My layman's view of the Z-film is the Gov. JBC is shot ~Z-295.
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.
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 "¡Viva 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.
-
At least my speculation is based on the facts of this case whereas you speculate and make up an alternative narrative based on your paranoid delusions!
JohnM
At least my speculation is based on the facts of this case
Hahahaha... keep telling yourself that and maybe one day you will actually believe it.
whereas you speculate and make up an alternative narrative based on your paranoid delusions!
What would be the point to speculate about an alternative narrative when the narrative you defend is nothing more than a fairitale.
-
I believe it was a white lie to avoid having to tell a 19 years old co-worker that he was really going to try and save his marriage.
Sure it's common knowledge that he was trying to save his marriage, but why Thursday?
If he stuck to his standard procedure he could have gone on Friday, taken his dirty clothes and made his slave Marina do his washing, he'd have a whole two days to spend with his kids and he'd have a whole two days to spend with Marina because when you're in love you want to spend as much time with your loved one as possible.
But Thursday gave him no chance to have his clothes washed, hardly any time with his kids and only a few hours to try and fix his marriage.
So it's clear, as every informed Scholar has said since day 1, Oswald's second plan after his failure to reconnect with Marina, was to get his rifle and there's no getting around that and long after we are all gone, this truth which was proved by the WC and then HSCA will be forever enshrined in the history of the World!! Get use to it!
JohnM
-
Sure it's common knowledge that he was trying to save his marriage, but why Thursday?
If he stuck to his standard procedure he could have gone on Friday, taken his dirty clothes and made his slave Marina do his washing, he'd have a whole two days to spend with his kids and he'd have a whole two days to spend with Marina because when you're in love you want to spend as much time with your loved one as possible.
But Thursday gave him no chance to have his clothes washed, hardly any time with his kids and only a few hours to try and fix his marriage.
So it's clear, as every informed Scholar has said since day 1, Oswald's second plan after his failure to reconnect with Marina, was to get his rifle and there's no getting around that and long after we are all gone, this truth which was proved by the WC and then HSCA will be forever enshrined in the history of the World!! Get use to it!
JohnM
This is a prime example how enough assumptions can make any person guilty of anything.
-
This is what a post by a pathetic fanatic looks like.
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 (https://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com) 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.
-
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 (https://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com) 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.
Isn't it remarkable that even the biggest fool considers himself to be a reasonable and sensible person.
Corbett is making a big issue of the fact that Oswald went to Irving on Thursday instead of Friday, but he hasn't got a clue what was going through Oswald's mind.
He hasn't got a shred of evidence to show there was a rifle stored in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63. He merely assumes there was.
He has a heavy duty bag with a partial print on it, made and found at the TSBD but he can not prove that bag ever left the TSBD or was carried by Oswald holding a rifle. He merely assumes it was.
He ignores the fact that the best witness who saw the bag passed a polygraph while dismissing the heavy duty bag as the one he saw. What he did see was a flimpsy bag that Oswald carried in the cup of his hand and under his armpit.
So, without a shred of evidence he jumps to conclusions while dismissing the testimony of a witness that contradicts him.
And then you have the audacity to claim he is "properly and sensibly assessing and evaluating the evidence". Pathetic!
-
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.
-
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.
:D Nutters fail everyday with an "irrefutable mountain of evidence" that "points to him."
-
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 the fact that he had never seen Oswald anywhere near the wrapping 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?
-
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 "¡Viva 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]
-
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 (https://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com) 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.
-
:D 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.
-
My point, re: the OP...
If the curtain rods were important enough to require a special Thursday trip, then they would have been important enough to grab before leaving the Depository building to head home (since work was cancelled for the day).
-
My point, re: the OP...
If the curtain rods were important enough to require a special Thursday trip, then they would have been important enough to grab before leaving the Depository building to head home (since work was cancelled for the day).
If I follow your logic, it only shows that the curtain rods story is likely of no importance, beyond possibly the fact that Oswald used it to justify his Thursday trip to Irving to Frazier in order to avoid having to tell him the real reason for the trip.
-
If I follow your logic, it only shows that the curtain rods story is likely of no importance, beyond possibly the fact that Oswald used it to justify his Thursday trip to Irving to Frazier in order to avoid having to tell him the real reason for the trip.
It's fascinating to me that you speculate like this in one breath (which is perfectly fine) and then in the next breath you criticize another member for speculating.
-
It's fascinating to me that you speculate like this in one breath (which is perfectly fine) and then in the next breath you criticize another member for speculating.
Stating an obvious fact isn't criticizing. Only a person who feels he is right when he is actually speculating considers it criticizing. Tell me you are speculating and you have no problem with me.
Both sides are speculating. Which is exactly why nobody can say with any kind of certainty what actually happened, yet you and others do exactly that all the time. Go figure.
-
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.
You might be correct when taking ALL "CTers" into account (beyond just the people who populate the Internet), but in my experience in dealing with many CTers at Internet forums, I would say that the vast majority of conspiracy theorists I have encountered believe that Oswald didn't shoot anybody on 11/22.
Based on my interactions with online CTers, the "Oswald Didn't Shoot Anyone" club certainly isn't merely a "small cult". And based on all the ridiculous "LHO Shot No One" comments that I get nearly every day at my JFK YouTube Channel, it seems to me that almost 100% of those people think that Oswald never fired a shot.
-
While you might be correct when taking ALL "CTers" into account. But in my experience in dealing with many CTers at Internet forums, I would say that the vast majority of conspiracy theorists I have encountered believe that Oswald didn't shoot anybody on 11/22.
Based on my interactions with online CTers, the "Oswald Didn't Shoot Anyone" club certainly isn't merely a "small cult". And based on all the ridiculous "LHO Shot No One" comments that I get nearly every day at my JFK YouTube Channel, it seems to me that almost 100% of the people who write comments think that Oswald never fired a shot.
David, earlier in this thread I have replied to your question and asked you a follow up question. Are you now going to ignore my post and not answer?
-
No, I'm not ignoring you, Martin. I'm putting together my answer to you as we speak. Give me a few more minutes.... :)
-
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?
Because it fits together perfectly with several other pieces of evidence and witness testimony connected with the JFK case.
Such as:
.... The location where the bag was found, which was a location very near the window from which the President was shot. (And despite the fact that no pictures exist of the bag before it was picked up, multiple police officers did nevertheless testify they did see the bag folded up in the corner, near the Sniper's Nest.)
.... The two finger and palm prints belonging to Lee Oswald that were found on the CE142 paper bag, which prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Oswald was in possession of that particular paper bag at some point in time.
.... The fibers found inside the otherwise empty bag, which were consistent with fibers also present in the blanket that Oswald's rifle was known to have been wrapped in during the time the rifle was being stored in Ruth Paine's garage in Irving.
.... Oswald lies to the police about carrying any large-ish bag to work on 11/22. I can think of no good reason for Oswald to want to lie to the cops about taking a paper bag into the TSBD unless that bag in question contained the Kennedy murder weapon. After all, curtain rods can't very well be considered a deadly weapon, can they?
And when we combine all of the above things with the critical fact that Oswald's own rifle (found on that same 6th floor of the TSBD on Nov. 22) was a weapon that positively was used by someone on that day to fire shots at President Kennedy, it's not too difficult to connect the dots.
And I'll again ask this question, which I've asked previously in forum posts but never have received a reasonable answer (or any answer, for that matter):
On any given day of the year (whether it be 11/22/63 or some other day), who is more likely to use Lee Harvey Oswald's very own Carcano rifle .... Lee Oswald himself or some unknown person?
-
Because it fits together perfectly with several other pieces of evidence and witness testimony connected with the JFK case.
Such as:
.... The location where the bag was found, which was a location very near the window from which the President was shot. (And despite the fact that no pictures exist of the bag before it was picked up, multiple police officers did nevertheless testify they did see the bag folded up in the corner, near the Sniper's Nest.)
.... The two finger and palm prints belonging to Lee Oswald that were found on the CE142 paper bag, which prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Oswald was in possession of that particular paper bag at some point in time.
.... The fibers found inside the otherwise empty bag, which were consistent with fibers also present in the blanket that Oswald's rifle was known to have been wrapped in during the time the rifle was being stored in Ruth Paine's garage in Irving.
.... Oswald lies to the police about carrying any large-ish bag to work on 11/22. I can think of no good reason for Oswald to want to lie to the cops about taking a paper bag into the TSBD unless that bag in question contained the Kennedy murder weapon. After all, curtain rods can't very well be considered a deadly weapon, can they?
And when we combine all of the above things with the critical fact that Oswald's own rifle (found on that same 6th floor of the TSBD on Nov. 22) was a weapon that positively was used by someone on that day to fire shots at President Kennedy, it's not too difficult to connect the dots.
And I'll again ask this question, which I've asked previously in forum posts but never have received a reasonable answer (or any answer, for that matter):
On any given day of the year (whether it be 11/22/63 or some other day), who is more likely to use Lee Harvey Oswald's very own Carcano rifle .... Lee Oswald himself or some unknown person?
.... The location where the bag was found, which was a location very near the window from which the President was shot. (And despite the fact that no pictures exist of the bag before it was picked up, multiple police officers did nevertheless testify they did see the bag folded up in the corner, near the Sniper's Nest.)
You are speculating, where you demanded that others should argue based on fact. None of this provides evidence of Oswald ever carrying that bag or that it ever left the TSBD. All it does is showning that Oswald touched a bag made out of TSBD materials, found at the TSBD on the floor where he worked.
.... The two finger and palm prints belonging to Lee Oswald that were found on the CE142 paper bag, which prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Oswald was in possession of that particular paper bag at some point in time.
No it doesn't prove that Oswald ever had that bag in possession. All it shows is that he touched it.
.... The fibers found inside the otherwise empty bag, which were consistent with fibers also present in the blanket that Oswald's rifle was known to have been wrapped in during the time the rifle was being stored in Ruth Paine's garage in Irving.
This is not even evidence at all. There are at least three evidence photos showing the bag and blanket lying on a table next to eachother. In the real world that means that the possibility of contamination destroys whatever evidentary value you think these fibers might have had.
Secondly, we know no such thing that it was "Oswald's rifle" (whatever that means) that was ever wrapped in that blanket or was stored in Ruth Paine's garage. All we really know is that Marina looked in the blanket about a week after returning from New Orleans and she saw the wooden stock of a rifle, which later morphed into "she saw a rifle". After late September 1963 nobody saw a rifle wrapped in that blanket, which means it could have been removed between late September and 11/21/63. Claiming that that rifle, or even "Oswald's rifle" was stored in Ruth Paine's garage until 11/21/63 is assuming "facts" that are not in evidence. As to the "Oswald's rifle" claim, Marina was shown the rifle found on the 6th floor on Friday after the assassination and she couldn't identify it. I thought you were all about dealing with facts instead of speculating?
One more thing; of course we all know that the official narrative makes all sorts of claims that are really not supported by the evidence but put together tells a circumstantial story regardless if it is true or not. If you want to honestly deal with evidence you can not let yourself be guided by a narrative that (IMO) simply isn't credible.
.... Oswald lies to the police about carrying any large-ish bag to work on 11/22. I can think of no good reason for Oswald to want to lie to the cops about taking a paper bag into the TSBD unless that bag in question contained the Kennedy murder weapon. After all, curtain rods can't very well be considered a deadly weapon, can they?
Who said Oswald lied? Were you there when he was asked or do we now simply rely on the words of his interrogators, despite the fact that they contradict eachother on several points. Can you please define "large-ish bag"? When Oswald is asked if he brought a large bag to the TSBD when in fact he only carried a small bag and thus say "No" is is he lying? Now, things might have been different if he was actually shown the TSBD bag, but that never happened. One can only wonder why!
The fact that you can't figure out why he would lie about bringing a bag into the TSBD, is utterly meaningless. There are a great many things in life I don't understand but that doesn't mean I can just attach some sort of speculative conclusion to that! Of course, your claim that "the bag in question contained the Kennedy murder weapon" is nothing but speculation for which you can not provide a shred of evidence. It was you who was complaining about "wild speculation" right? Go figure.
And when we combine all of the above things with the critical fact that Oswald's own rifle (found on that same 6th floor of the TSBD on Nov. 22) was a weapon that positively was used by someone on that day to fire shots at President Kennedy, it's not too difficult to connect the dots.
When you combine all the above things you end up with a contrived conclusion that in reality doesn't connect any dots at all. You can throw it the "Oswald's rifle" bit in it, but all you are doing there is trying to give more credibility to your speculation and assumption by stating something as fact that you can't even conclusively prove!
And I'll again ask this question, which I've asked previously in forum posts but never have received a reasonable answer (or any answer, for that matter):
On any given day of the year (whether it be 11/22/63 or some other day), who is more likely to use Lee Harvey Oswald's very own Carcano rifle .... Lee Oswald himself or some unknown person?
Which assumes that the Carcano was in fact "Oswald's very own rifle", when all you have is questionable evidence that Oswald ordered it for himself, you have no evidence he ever received the weapon and you have Oswald being photographed apparently with a rifle that is not the one he allegedly ordered. And all that happened in March 1963. What happened to the rifle in the photos is anybody's guess.
Your reply is disappointing, David
-
Your reply is disappointing, David.
But your reply to my reply is even more disappointing, Martin. Especially this part (which is just downright laughable):
"No it doesn't prove that Oswald ever had that bag in [his] possession. All it shows is that he touched it."
(Oh brother!)
-------------------------------
Also see these related links:
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuVDz_i2V9EuiRGaWpJSwSWEVd8rM9lLAfXSohOc6mjgdnkX30lNkUPRMK3o7cWRpGirToaanFZVimzxfyoZ2HDqDjl2Vb0NrkxZ4XojX5LDR3XH18dwb99EIUMQ-DVC_Gw6ugxCOeJxEKq5UxGqiRNgtCD3mi17Jc60QxGFOZJvATBMdFZn51fWzrJKU/s550/Frazier-Randle-And-The-Paper-Bag-Logo.png) (https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/frazier-randle-and-paper-bag.html)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-48WL55CDfUg/VcOke8kKgGI/AAAAAAABG3s/qPahA0oXQVs/s550/The-Oswald-Never-Ordered-The-Rifle-Myth-Logo.png) (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html)
-
.... The location where the bag was found, which was a location very near the window from which the President was shot. (And despite the fact that no pictures exist of the bag before it was picked up, multiple police officers did nevertheless testify they did see the bag folded up in the corner, near the Sniper's Nest.)
You are speculating, where you demanded that others should argue based on fact. None of this provides evidence of Oswald ever carrying that bag or that it ever left the TSBD. All it does is showning that Oswald touched a bag made out of TSBD materials, found at the TSBD on the floor where he worked.
You're just being obstinate. You refuse to accept any evidence that Oswald was double murderer. You will find any excuse to dismiss any and all evidence of his guilt. Your statement that "None of this provides evidence of Oswald ever carrying that bag" might be the lamest excuse you have ever made, which is saying something. Oswald's palm print at the bottom of the bag is proof positive he carried that bag. That palm print is exactly where it should be if he carried the bag cupped in his right had as Frazier described. You excuses keep getting more and more pathetic.
.... The two finger and palm prints belonging to Lee Oswald that were found on the CE142 paper bag, which prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Oswald was in possession of that particular paper bag at some point in time.
No it doesn't prove that Oswald ever had that bag in possession. All it shows is that he touched it.
Unbelievable!!!
.... The fibers found inside the otherwise empty bag, which were consistent with fibers also present in the blanket that Oswald's rifle was known to have been wrapped in during the time the rifle was being stored in Ruth Paine's garage in Irving.
This is not even evidence at all. There are at least three evidence photos showing the bag and blanket lying on a table next to eachother. In the real world that means that the possibility of contamination destroys whatever evidentary value you think these fibers might have had.
A person interested in the truth would weigh that likelihood against the likelihood that Oswald's rifle transmitted the fibers to the bag. But you have no interest in the truth. You want your silly beliefs to be true. It's not working.
Secondly, we know no such thing that it was "Oswald's rifle" (whatever that means) that was ever wrapped in that blanket or was stored in Ruth Paine's garage. All we really know is that Marina looked in the blanket about a week after returning from New Orleans and she saw the wooden stock of a rifle, which later morphed into "she saw a rifle". After late September 1963 nobody saw a rifle wrapped in that blanket, which means it could have been removed between late September and 11/21/63. Claiming that that rifle, or even "Oswald's rifle" was stored in Ruth Paine's garage until 11/21/63 is assuming "facts" that are not in evidence. As to the "Oswald's rifle" claim, Marina was shown the rifle found on the 6th floor on Friday after the assassination and she couldn't identify it. I thought you were all about dealing with facts instead of speculating?
The intelligent people who are aware of the evidence know Oswald rifle was in that blanket and later transferred to Oswald's makeshift bag. I guess that leaves you out.
One more thing; of course we all know that the official narrative makes all sorts of claims that are really not supported by the evidence but put together tells a circumstantial story regardless if it is true or not. If you want to honestly deal with evidence you can not let yourself be guided by a narrative that (IMO) simply isn't credible.
Irony alert!
.... Oswald lies to the police about carrying any large-ish bag to work on 11/22. I can think of no good reason for Oswald to want to lie to the cops about taking a paper bag into the TSBD unless that bag in question contained the Kennedy murder weapon. After all, curtain rods can't very well be considered a deadly weapon, can they?
Who said Oswald lied? Were you there when he was asked or do we now simply rely on the words of his interrogators, despite the fact that they contradict eachother on several points. Can you please define "large-ish bag"? When Oswald is asked if he brought a large bag to the TSBD when in fact he only carried a small bag and thus say "No" is is he lying? Now, things might have been different if he was actually shown the TSBD bag, but that never happened. One can only wonder why!
Sherlock Holmes you ain't. Columbo you ain't. Your powers of reasoning are more like Inspector Clouseau's.
The fact that you can't figure out why he would lie about bringing a bag into the TSBD, is utterly meaningless. There are a great many things in life I don't understand but that doesn't mean I can just attach some sort of speculative conclusion to that! Of course, your claim that "the bag in question contained the Kennedy murder weapon" is nothing but speculation for which you can not provide a shred of evidence. It was you who was complaining about "wild speculation" right? Go figure.
The ability to reason and draw logical inferences from the evidence is not speculation. I wouldn't expect someone like you to be able to understand that.
And when we combine all of the above things with the critical fact that Oswald's own rifle (found on that same 6th floor of the TSBD on Nov. 22) was a weapon that positively was used by someone on that day to fire shots at President Kennedy, it's not too difficult to connect the dots.
When you combine all the above things you end up with a contrived conclusion that in reality doesn't connect any dots at all. You can throw it the "Oswald's rifle" bit in it, but all you are doing there is trying to give more credibility to your speculation and assumption by stating something as fact that you can't even conclusively prove!
Not to you, Clouseau.
And I'll again ask this question, which I've asked previously in forum posts but never have received a reasonable answer (or any answer, for that matter):
On any given day of the year (whether it be 11/22/63 or some other day), who is more likely to use Lee Harvey Oswald's very own Carcano rifle .... Lee Oswald himself or some unknown person?
Which assumes that the Carcano was in fact "Oswald's very own rifle", when all you have is questionable evidence that Oswald ordered it for himself, you have no evidence he ever received the weapon and you have Oswald being photographed apparently with a rifle that is not the one he allegedly ordered. And all that happened in March 1963. What happened to the rifle in the photos is anybody's guess.
[/quote}
This is getting comical. Just how dense are you if you are going to dispute that it's Oswald's rifle. There's a paper trail a mile long proving he ordered it. He had several photographs of himself taken with the rifle. His palm print was on the underside of the barrel. Fibers matching his shirt were on the butt plate. If that isn't enough to convince you it's Oswald's rifle. nothing ever could. You will continue to deny what is obvious to any reasonable person.
Your reply is disappointing, David
[/quote]
So is your inability to find the right answer for 2 + 2.
-
But your reply to my reply is even more disappointing, Martin. Especially this part (which is just downright laughable):
"No it doesn't prove that Oswald ever had that bag in [his] possession. All it shows is that he touched it."
(Oh brother!)
-------------------------------
Also see these related links:
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuVDz_i2V9EuiRGaWpJSwSWEVd8rM9lLAfXSohOc6mjgdnkX30lNkUPRMK3o7cWRpGirToaanFZVimzxfyoZ2HDqDjl2Vb0NrkxZ4XojX5LDR3XH18dwb99EIUMQ-DVC_Gw6ugxCOeJxEKq5UxGqiRNgtCD3mi17Jc60QxGFOZJvATBMdFZn51fWzrJKU/s550/Frazier-Randle-And-The-Paper-Bag-Logo.png) (https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/frazier-randle-and-paper-bag.html)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-48WL55CDfUg/VcOke8kKgGI/AAAAAAABG3s/qPahA0oXQVs/s550/The-Oswald-Never-Ordered-The-Rifle-Myth-Logo.png) (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html)
Does this mean you can not counter anything I have said with credible comments?
"No it doesn't prove that Oswald ever had that bag in [his] possession. All it shows is that he touched it."
Without speculating, prove to me that Oswald ever had the 6th floor bag in his possession. I bet you can't!
Oh btw, David, I don't do propaganda!
-
You're just being obstinate. You refuse to accept any evidence that Oswald was double murderer. You will find any excuse to dismiss any and all evidence of his guilt. Your statement that "None of this provides evidence of Oswald ever carrying that bag" might be the lamest excuse you have ever made, which is saying something. Oswald's palm print at the bottom of the bag is proof positive he carried that bag. That palm print is exactly where it should be if he carried the bag cupped in his right had as Frazier described. You excuses keep getting more and more pathetic.
Unbelievable!!!
A person interested in the truth would weight that likelihood against the likelihood that Oswald's rifle transmitted the fibers to the bag. But you have no interest in the truth. You want your silly beliefs to be true. It's not working.
The intelligent people who are aware of the evidence knows Oswald rifle was in that blanket and later transferred to Oswald's makeshift bag. I guess that leaves you out.
Irony alert!
Sherlock Holmes you ain't. Columbo you ain't. Your powers of reasoning are more like Inspector Clouseau's.
The ability to reason and draw logical inferences from the evidence is not speculation. I wouldn't expect someone like you to be able to understand that.
Not to you, Clouseau.
Your reply is disappointing, David
So is your inability to find the right answer for 2 + 2.
Could you please try to stay out the conversation when two grown ups are having a conversation.
-
Without speculating, prove to me that Oswald ever had the 6th floor bag in his possession. I bet you can't!
Oh btw, David, I don't do propaganda!
And I can see you don't do reasonable inferences or logical conclusions either.
Can you really not see how desperate you look when you say things like this?:
"No it doesn't prove that Oswald ever had that bag in [his] possession. All it shows is that he touched it."
-
And I can see you don't do reasonable inferences or logical conclusions either.
Can you really not see how desperate you look when you say things like this?:
"No it doesn't prove that Oswald ever had that bag in [his] possession. All it shows is that he touched it."
And I can see you don't do reasonable inferences or logical conclusions either.
With enough speculation and assumption you can create any "reality" you want. Doesn't mean it is reality!
Can you really not see how desperate you look when you say things like this?:
No, all I see is you expecting me to accept your speculation and assumptions as if they are fact.
Why are you not answering my question and show me the proof that Oswald ever had the 6th floor bag in his possession, instead of just touching it at some point?
Or is all you have is "reasonable inferences or logical conclusions"? You know, the kind you asked about;
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.
It seems you have proven your own point! Without speculation you can't get to a "reasonable and sensible" scenario.
-
Could you please try to stay out the conversation when two grown ups are having a conversation.
David Von Pein is one. Who's the other?
-
BEFORE the assassination....
"I'll make a special trip to Irving on Thursday after work to retrieve the curtain rods for my room."
AFTER the assassination....
"Work is suspended for the day. I think I'll head to my room and then off to the movies. Screw the curtain rods, can't find them right now. Not missing the beginning of "War Is Hell" is more important."
-
BEFORE the assassination....
"I'll make a special trip to Irving on Thursday after work to retrieve the curtain rods for my room."
AFTER the assassination....
"Work is suspended for the day. I think I'll head to my room and then off to the movies. Screw the curtain rods, can't find them right now. Not missing the beginning of "War Is Hell" is more important."
And the conclusion of this is that he killed the President and a police officer? Are you a comedian now?
-
And the conclusion of this is that he killed the President and a police officer? Are you a comedian now?
You should go outside. Talk to girls. Feel the grass on your bare feet. Smell the flowers.
-
This is what a post by a pathetic fanatic looks like.
Don't be so hard on yourself.
On second thought, go ahead.
-
You should go outside. Talk to girls. Feel the grass on your bare feet. Smell the flowers.
Thumb1:
-
Did not Oswald supposedly make the bag out of TSBD paper and tape from the dispenser roll by that station on the ground floor of TSBD?
That would be Thursday morning so that’s him planning something well BEFORE he had yet found out that Marina wanted a divorce.
For all Oswald knew, he was going home a day earlier this week because he hadn’t been able to see Marina the previous weekend because Ruth Paine was throwing a party and he had been told not to come.
So wouldn’t Oswald be optimistic? A guy looking forward to seeing his wife and kids , for a long 3 day weekend yet he is also planning a murder?
He must have really wanted to move up from his mule job in the mafia to being a made man?
-
Did not Oswald supposedly make the bag out of TSBD paper and tape from the dispenser roll by that station on the ground floor of TSBD?
That would be Thursday morning so that’s him planning something well BEFORE he had yet found out that Marina wanted a divorce.
For all Oswald knew, he was going home a day earlier this week because he hadn’t been able to see Marina the previous weekend because Ruth Paine was throwing a party and he had been told not to come.
That doesn't explain why he needed to come to Irving a day earlier than normal. That decision indicated a sense of urgency. Curtain rods wouldn't have created that urgency. A desire to see Marina wouldn't have created that urgency. Something else that was happening on Friday would have created that sense of urgency.
So wouldn’t Oswald be optimistic? A guy looking forward to seeing his wife and kids , for a long 3 day weekend yet he is also planning a murder?
Some have speculated that if Oswald had been successful in persuading Marina to reconcile with him, he would have abandoned his plan to assassinate JFK. There's no way we could ever know that. We are left to guess as to what his motive was for killing JFK and whether a reconciliation with Marina would have changed that.
He must have really wanted to move up from his mule job in the mafia to being a made man?
There is zero evidence Oswald was involved with organized crime. Or were you talking about Ruby?