Saturday, January 31, 2015

The idea that Lee Harvey Oswald was, at the same time,

a) a CIA agent working to develop a poison to cause cancer in Castro and smuggle it into Cuba via Mexico


b) the designated patsy in the JFK assassination, set up up to be the lone gunman

is quite preposterous because it is inconceivable that they would use him in both ways. 

First, note that these two missions were not of equal importance. The assassination of Kennedy was infinitely more important because it was effectively a coup d'etat - an overthrow of the existing government of the United States of America. 

And making it work (Oswald as fall guy) was of crucial importance because if it failed- if they couldn't implicate Oswald for one reason or another- then the exposure of the true nature of the crime would have been instantly transparent.  Who was going to believe that the man or men who killed Kennedy got clean away like a fart in a high wind? 

So, considering everything that was at stake in killing Kennedy and blaming Oswald, WHY would they, at the same time, also involve him in a motley crew, Manny Moe and Jack kind of scheme to kill Castro where they were mixing up poisons in somebody's bathtub and trying them out on mental patients? Come on. The CIA could do better than that. And frankly, they didn't need Oswald for that. What did he know about it? What did he have to contribute to it? What aspect of his training qualified him to be involved in it?

Remember, Oswald had just spent three years in Russia where he worked at a radio factory. And since returning 10 months before, he held several odd jobs in Dallas, none of which worked out. So what qualified him for such an operation? Why would they choose him for that? Wasn't just about ANYBODY ELSE just as good or better than Oswald for that? 

And remember: they weren't setting him up to be the CIA agent who killed Kennedy. They were setting him up as the disgruntled, resentful, Castro-loving, socialist, communist, Marxist who killed Kennedy. So, why would they involve him in another CIA operation to kill Castro which, if exposed, would destroy everything they were doing with him in regard to JFK? It was a risk that was not only not worth taking, but which offered no rewards. Whatever practical value Oswald had to the other operation could surely have been provided by: ANY OTHER PERSON ON EARTH. So, why use Oswald for that? 

No, on the contrary, once Oswald was chosen to be the Dallas patsy, then everything they did in relation to him, including all the things they did to steer him, were done in light of the Dallas plot. Nothing else. Was it that big? YES! Of course, it was that big. They don't call it the "crime of the century" for nothing. It was the overthrow of the elected government of the United States, followed by a reversal in the direction of US foreign policy, including an escalation of the Vietnam War.  Some plot to poison Castro with a cancer-causing agent was NOTHING in comparison. How many plots and schemes were there to kill Castro? You couldn't count them all. They weren't going to risk anything in the JFK assassination just to get Oswald's services for the other. They didn't need his services for that. I'm sure they didn't want his services for that.  

The whole story of Oswald being involved in the other plot needs to be categorically rejected. To the CIA, Oswald was their patsy; that's all. It's all he EVER was. Even when they sent him to Russia, he was their patsy in Russia. He was never anything but their dupe. 

In his Warren Commission testimony, Nick McDonald said nothing about wedging his hand in front of the moving hammer of the gun. 

Mr. McDONALD. . . . [J]ust as I got to the row where the suspect was sitting, I stopped abruptly, and turned in and told him to get on his feet. He rose immediately, bringing up both hands. He got this hand about shoulder high, his left hand shoulder high, and he got his right hand about breast high. He said, "Well, it is all over now."
As he said this, I put my left hand on his waist and then his hand went to the waist. And this hand struck me between the eyes on the bridge of the nose.
Mr. BALL. Did he cock his fist?
Mr. McDONALD. Yes, sir; knocking my cap off.
Mr. BALL. Which fist did he hit you with?
Mr. McDONALD. His left fist.
Mr. BALL. What happened then?
Mr. McDONALD. Well, whenever he knocked my hat off, any normal reaction was for me to go at him with this hand.
Mr. BALL. Right hand?
Mr. McDONALD. Yes. I went at him with this hand, and I believe I struck him on the face, but I don't know where. And with my hand, that was on his hand over the pistol.
Mr. BALL. Did you feel the pistol?
Mr. McDONALD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Which hand was -- was his right hand or his left hand on the pistol?
Mr. McDONALD. His right hand was on the pistol.
Mr. BALL. And which of your hands?
Mr. McDONALD. My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL. And had he withdrawn the pistol.
Mr. McDONALD. He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL. From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What happened then?
Mr. McDONALD. Well, whenever I hit him, we both fell into the seats. While we were struggling around there, with this hand on the gun --
Mr. BALL. Your left hand?
Mr. McDONALD. Yes, sir. Somehow I managed to get this hand in the action also.
Mr. BALL. Your right hand?
Mr. McDONALD. Yes, sir. Now, as we fell into the seats, I called out, "I have got him," and Officer T. A. Hutson, he came to the row behind us and grabbed Oswald around the neck. And then Officer C. T. Walker came into the row that we were in and grabbed his left arm. And Officer Ray Hawkins came to the row in front of us and grabbed him from the front.
By the time all three of these officers had got there, I had gotten my right hand on the butt of the pistol and jerked it free.
Mr. BALL. Had you felt any movement of the hammer?
Mr. McDONALD. Yes, sir. When this hand -- we went down into the seats.
Mr. BALL. When your left hand went into the seats, what happened?
Mr. McDONALD. It felt like something had grazed across my hand. I felt movement there. And that was the only movement I felt. And I heard a snap. I didn't know what it was at the time.
Mr. BALL. Was the pistol out of his waist at that time?
Mr. McDONALD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Do you know any way it was pointed?
Mr. McDONALD. Well, I believe the muzzle was toward me, because the sensation came across this way. To make a movement like that, it would have to be the cylinder or the hammer.
Mr. BALL. Across your left palm?
Mr. McDONALD. Yes, sir. And my hand was directly over the pistol in this manner. More or less the butt. But not on the butt.
Mr. BALL. What happened when you jerked the pistol free?
Mr. McDONALD. When I jerked it free, I was down in the seats with him, with my head, some reason or other, I don't know why, and when I brought the pistol out, it grazed me across the cheek here, and I put it all the way out to the aisle, holding it by the butt. I gave the pistol to Detective Bob Carroll at that point. . 
Not wanting to damage the web of my hand, I used the slick pages of a magazine as a proxy for it. And as you can see, the hammer of my Smith and Wesson 38 had no trouble cutting through 10 pages of the magazine. Imagine if that had been Nick McDonald's hand, as he claimed. So, did he really get the web of his hand in front of the hammer of Oswald's gun before Oswald committed the insane act of shooting at him? 

I found something interesting in Buell Frazier's testimony. He said that Oswald came up to him on the Thursday and said:

"Could I ride home with you this afternoon?"

That makes sense because Oswald knew that Frazier was driving home. 

And Frazier said, "You can go home with me anytime you want to, anytime you want to see your wife..."

Now, that's a little bit confusing because Oswald wouldn't be going to his home. But, Frazier was going home, so it made sense in the context of "home with me" where Frazier was going to his home.
Even though it was his sister's home, Frazier didn't have any other home; it was where he was living.

Then Frazier asks him: "Why are you going home today?"

Now, that doesn't make any sense at all because it is a clear reference to Oswald, and Oswald wasn't going home; he was going to the home of Mrs. Paine, which was not his home. 

So, that was an incorrect statement made by Frazier- a misstatement. But, it's conceivable that he could make it.  Then, according to Frazier, Oswald said:

"I am going home to get some curtain rods. You know, put in an apartment."

Now, that isn't conceivable at all- for Oswald to refer to Ruth Paine's home as his home.  And it is compounded by his reference to "an" apartment. Wouldn't Oswald have said "my" apartment?

That house was owned by Michael and Ruth Paine, who were a separated couple, and it was in no way, shape, or form Oswald's home. When he was there, he was there as a guest. It's true that his wife and children lived there, but he did not. That is clear as a bell, and I find it inconceivable that Oswald would refer to Ruth Paine's home as his home. 

So, what I make of it is that Buell Frazier got it wrong; that he remembered it wrong; that that was his phrasing, not Oswald's. 

And Frazier repeats referring to Ruth Paine's home as Oswald's. And he also implied that his sister, Linnie Mae Randle, referred to Oswald "coming home".

"Yes, sir. I believe she (LMR) said why did he come home now and I said, well, he says he was going to get some curtain rods."

So, that's Frazier, Oswald, and Linnie Mae Randle all referring to Ruth Paine's home as Oswald's home, as if he lived there. What are the chances of that? 

But, "he went home to get curtain rods" rolls off the tongue a lot easier than "he went to Mrs. Paine's house to get curtain rods" and if he was being coached to say it, I could see how the former statement might be used and drilled in his head.  

For me, the curtain rod story is very troubling because nobody ever suggested that Oswald had any curtain rods at Ruth Paine's house. SHE had curtain rods there, stored in the garage, but not him. Wouldn't Oswald have known that Frazier would tell his sister about the curtain rods and that Linnie Mae could mention it to Ruth, and then Ruth would say, " Curtain rods? What curtain rods? Not my curtain rods." I get it that the idea is that Oswald had to say something to account for the bag containing the rifle. But here is a picture of Ruth Paine's curtain rods, which are typical curtain rods.

And here is a picture of Oswald's disassembled rifle.

Doesn't it seem ludicrous for someone to refer to a bag containing the rifle as curtain rods? And doesn't it seem ludicrous for someone else to believe that it's curtain rods?  

Friday, January 30, 2015

It's a shame that it would hurt so much to have the web of your hand slammed by a hammer snapping back because otherwise we could test Officer McDonald's claim. We could try to reenact the altercation with punches being thrown, the ongoing struggle, then the one man drawing out his gun from his belt, and the other man, with no visual help to see what he's doing, getting the web of his hand into that small space right as the other guy was squeezing the trigger.

And you can't tell me that McDonald had such a thought in his mind to wedge his hand there. No, no, no, if anything, he was just trying to grab the gun, to take it away from Oswald. I'll never believe in a million years that he- or anyone- had such a thought to do what he claims he did. 

To wedge your hand in the space of the hammer? No way. You would just try to get control of the gun, control where it's pointing, and then you would rip it out of the man's hand.  

And how could McDonald have done what he claims and not report it at the time? He said nothing about it at the time. Why did he say immediately afterwards that Oswald's gun misfired? Why did he later change his story to the web wedging bull shit? 

Oswald hadn't done anything. He didn't shoot Kennedy. He didn't shoot Tippit. He never even shot at Walker. He left work early that day without permission, and it was probably against the rules of the TSBD, but that wasn't a crime. There were no legal issues involved with that. 

Was it illegal for him to take a loaded revolver into a theater in 1963? I do not know the answer to that question, and I have been trying to find out. Does anyone know? But, let's say it was illegal. How big a crime could it have been? It was probably just a misdemeanor- if anything. What could the punishment have been? Jail time? I doubt it. Not if it involved no act of violence and no intention of an act of violence or threat of violence.  Surely, there was a long span of American history in which you could take a loaded gun with you anywhere. 

So, what reason did Oswald have to shoot McDonald? That would have been an act of personal self-destruction. I think Oswald would have had to be insane to do such a thing. It makes no sense at all in light of the fact that Oswald hadn't done anything. But, even if he had, he was surrounded by cops, and even if he had succeeded at killing McDonald, there was no chance he was going to escape. It would have done him no good, only harm. So, why do it? Revenge? Hatred? But, Oswald didn't even know McDonald. I'm telling you, Oswald would have had to be stark raving out of his mind to shoot at McDonald, and I mean batshit crazy. And there is no evidence that Oswald was batshit crazy. 

This is a followup to my post about Nick McDonald. First, he said that Oswald had the gun tucked in his belt. That's the word he used: belt. It so happens that I own a Smith and Wesson snub-nose 38 revolver, like Oswald's. 

I have to think that although McDonald said "belt" but that Oswald had the gun tucked in his pants. I've tried it both ways, and it is much more secure being tucked into the pants than the belt. I also observe that it's much more common for it to be tucked into the pants than the belt. 

Second, as told in the video, McDonald said that they were grappling over the gun and then Oswald punched him in the nose with his left hand, but in other accounts that he gave, McDonald said that the punch came first.

Third, McDonald's claim of wedging the web of his hand between the hammer and the primer to prevent it from firing I now categorically reject. I say: no way, no how. And it's because I tried it. 

Note that it's impossible until you start pulling the hammer back because there's no space there; there's no opening.  It is inconceivable to me that McDonald would have, in the midst of all the chaos and the speed of it, the presence of mind to wedge his hand in there. He wouldn't even have had time to think that fast. Furthermore, he couldn't see what he was doing. You're talking about a very small space, and the idea that he could wedge the web of his hand into it without looking is preposterous. All that's left is to assume that it happened spontaneously and accidentally, but that too seems pretty far-fetched and awfully lucky.  

But, I don't buy it because I tried it, and it is too painful. I was holding the hammer back with my thumb, but as soon as I started releasing it, and I don't mean very much but rather in a controlled and limited way, IT HURT. It hurt a lot. 

But supposedly, Oswald wasn't doing that; he just pulled the trigger, which would have meant that the full force of the hammer would have slammed into McDonald's delicate thin skin. THAT WOULD HAVE HURT LIKE HELL. He would have reacted. He would have screamed. He definitely would have had an audible and startled reaction. But, he didn't say anything about that, and neither did anyone else, even though at that point in time, other cops were right there.  

So, this "wedging of the web" of his hand story is a lie. I'm sure of that. He didn't get his hand between the hammer and the primer. That wouldn't have stopped Oswald from squeezing the trigger, and that hammer would have slammed into his skin with excruciating pain, which obviously didn't happen.

And remember that the original story was that the gun misfired. But then the testimony of FBI firearms expert Courtland Cunningham straightened that out.

Mr. Eisenberg
Mr. Cunningham, returning to Exhibit 145, do either of the two cartridges in Exhibit 145 bear any signs of having suffered an impact from the firing pin in the revolver, Exhibit 143?

Mr. Cunningham
An examination of these two cartridges, the primers of these two cartridges, reveals no marks that could be associated with the firing pin in Commission Exhibit 143, or any other weapon.

Mr. Eisenberg
Are there any nicks on either of those cartridges?

Mr. Cunningham
Yes. There is a small nick, an indentation, up near the edge of the primer in the Remington-Peters .38 Special cartridge.

Mr. Eisenberg
Could this nick have been caused by the firing pin?

Mr. Cunningham
There was no indication, from an examination, that that nick had been so caused by a firing pin. First of all, it is in the wrong position, it is not in the centre of the primer. And, also, a microscopic examination of that nick gave no indication that it was made by a firing pin.

So despite the DPD’s assertion that the hammer of “Oswald’s” revolver had struck the firing pin and misfired, Cunningham could find no evidence that this was the cause of the nick on the cartridge in question. So if the firing pin didn’t cause the nick, then what did? In my opinion, the DPD deliberately added the nick to the cartridge, to make it look as if Oswald had tried to shoot McDonald. Unless of course, we are to believe it was just a coincidence that the aforementioned witnesses heard what they believed to be the snap of the hammer, and there also just happened to be a nick in one of the cartridges. If you ask me, I think that notion is completely absurd.  
So, the bottom line is that the wedging of the web of the hand story is a lie, and the claim that the gun misfired is a lie, and it means that Oswald never tried to shoot Officer McDonald. I know that several people claimed to hear such a thing, which was usually described as a "snap." But, whatever they heard, it was something else relating to the scuffle. It was not Oswald's gun being fired.  

Watch this short video of Officer Nick McDonald describing what happened when he went to arrest Oswald because there are some things that don't make sense to me.

First, McDonald said that Oswald had his pistol tucked in his belt. HIS BELT. Not his pants but his belt. And then McDonald must have thought about the fact that if it were only tucked in his belt that it would be exposed, so he added that he had his shirt out. 

I find that odd. I would think that Oswald would have tucked it in his pants- if he was going to tuck it at all. Then, McDonald said that he walked up to Oswald and told him to stand up. 

Well, if the cop was approaching Oswald, and Oswald had any mind to shoot him, wouldn't Oswald have had the gun out? 

So, McDonald orders Oswald to stand, and he does. Then, McDonald says that Oswald raised his hands, both of them: his right hand to chest level, and his left higher- to eye level.

If Oswald had a mind to shoot him, wouldn't he have gone for his gun by this time? If you imagine the picture above with the man on the right having a pistol tucked in his belt and his shirt out over it and his hand raised just as you see, how would he expect to reach the gun in any kind of timely manner? 

Note that McDonald said that Oswald had the gun tucked on his RIGHT side. That would certainly suggest that Oswald was right-handed. Wouldn't you automatically place the gun on the side of your dominant hand? Anyone would. Everyone would. There are no exceptions to that. 

Then, McDonald said that he reached for Oswald's pistol. He didn't say that, but he demonstrated it, saying that he was reaching "this way." But, he MUST have known about the pistol and been reaching for it because normally, you would expect him to perhaps reach for Oswald's wrist to immobilize him.  But, according to McDonald, Oswald's hand was in the air at chest level. So, wouldn't McDonald be reaching there? The only thing he could have been reaching for below was the pistol. But, at that point, how did McDonald know about the pistol? -because he said that Oswald's shirt was out. But, we'll assume that he got a peak at Oswald's pistol. We have to assume that because there is nothing else that would have prompted him to go to that area. 

But, according to McDonald, Oswald beat him to the pistol, that as McDonald was reaching for the pistol, Oswald lowered his right hand from chest level, got past his shirt to the pistol, and took the pistol out, and was able to point it at McDonald and engage the trigger. But, McDonald got his hand over the pistol. 

Then, according to McDonald, Oswald threw a punch with his left hand- the one that was at eye level- at McDonald's nose. And, he and the reporter must have rehearsed it because if you watch it closely, you'll see that the reporter initiates the punch before McDonald tells him to. Then, McDonald responds by hitting Oswald in the left eye with his right hand, and they both go crashing down into the seat. Then, reportedly, as Oswald was squeezing the trigger to shoot McDonald, as he pulled the hammer back, McDonald got the web of his hand, the fleshy part between the thumb and the index finger, in-between the hammer and the primer, and that's what prevented the gun from going off and saved McDonald's life.   

But, how credible is that to you? McDonald could not have been looking there. He was fighting and wrestling with Oswald, and his sight was nowhere near that spot. So, did he do it by feel? Was he consciously trying to do it? Or was it a lucky accident?

But, this differs from McDonald's original account. This is what he told WFAA on the day of the assassination:

 As it [the revolver] was coming out, he [Oswald] snapped the trigger on the pistol, and it misfired luckily”

That was also what he put in his police report. But, above with the reporter, he denied any misfiring and said it was his hand-wedging that kept the gun from going off. 

In his Warren Commission testimony, McDonald said nothing about the hand-wedging:

Yes, sir. Now, as we fell into the seats, I called out, "I have got him," and Officer T. A. Hutson, he came to the row behind us and grabbed Oswald around the neck. And then Officer C. T. Walker came into the row that we were in and grabbed his left arm. And Officer Ray Hawkins came to the row in front of us and grabbed him from the front. By the time all three of these officers had got there, I had gotten my right hand on the butt of the pistol and jerked it free. 

Note that at various times, McDonald changed the script of what Oswald said. Here, he said Oswald said "Well, it's all over now" but at other times he added "This is it" but no other policeman nor any witness confirmed that Oswald said those things. One policeman named Hawkins said that it was McDonald who said "This is it"- not Oswald. 

I'll have more to say about this, but watch the video with a critical eye and mind.

Interesting comment tonight from John Armstrong, sent to me personally. I pointed out that when Oswald told them that he brought his lunch- cheese sandwiches and an apple- in a bag- that that was what he carried in, they should have sought immediately to find that bag. John said: What makes you think they didn't? Maybe they found it and didn't like what they found.

Thursday, January 29, 2015

Ruth Paine. She must have been the one who set Oswald up for having brought the rifle to work.

Look: the conspirators knew that they had a problem. If Oswald had driven himself to work, they could have just said that he brought the rifle into the building, made his way to the 6th floor, hid it, and nobody saw a thing. Isn't that what they're saying anyway? 

But, with him driving to work with Frazier, there is no way Oswald could have had a rifle with him and Frazier not noticed it. 

So, they HAD to have Frazier seeing something that could at least be construed to be a rifle. As it was, the longest Frazier was willing to go for it was 24 inches, which was 11 inches shorter than the minimal length of the disassembled rifle. And I imagine they really browbeat him to get more. "No! It had to be longer! It was longer! Think harder!" But Frazier, meek and mild as he was, wouldn't budge. 24 inches is all he would concede.

But, at least it established that Oswald had something unusual with him, something that was beyond the realm of a lunch bag. 

But, they must have anticipated this ahead of time and set out to finagle 19 year old Buell Frazier.

So, the lunch came to Oswald courtesy of Mrs. Paine. It was her food, and it was certainly her bag.  I figure that it must have been bigger than the standard lunch bag, like these.

She must have made sure that all she had was a grocery bag, which is how Frazier described it. 

And, be aware that the Fritz Notes indicated that it wasn't a cheese sandwich but SANDWICHES. That's right, plural. So, there were sandwiches, an apple, and who knows? Maybe she put a whole bunch of napkins or paper towels. And, maybe there was other food as well. It may not have seemed important to Oswald to mention all that he had. 

But, the idea was for Mrs. Paine to make sure that Oswald presented with a bag that was large enough to suggest something other than lunch, something that could at least be construed to be a disassembled rifle. 

Now, if you don't like that idea, what's the alternative? The important thing was: what did Frazier see? And he had to see something that suggested an unusually large and unexpectedly out-of-place bag. If you don't think Mrs. Paine took steps to make sure that happened, then who do you think did? And if you think nobody did, then what you're saying is that the conspirators were prepared and entirely willing to accept a scenario in which Oswald brought a rifle to work, while riding in a small car with Buell Frazier, yet Frazier saw NOTHING. 

Can you imagine a situation in which you drove someone to work in your small car, and later were informed that this person had with him a disassembled scoped military rifle that you didn't see? How vigorously would you be saying, "No efffing way. If he had a rifle with him, I'd have seen it." 

And in this case, it wasn't so much a matter of convincing Frazier as it was convincing the world. 

So, if they had done nothing about this, and just let everything follow its natural course, what do you think would have happened?

I figure Oswald would have probably come out with nothing because it wasn't as though Ruth Paine owed him a lunch. He had to provide his own lunch most days, so why not this day? Just because he slept over there, was she going to provide him lunch? Seriously, why? Remember he wasn't 8 years old or even 16. He wasn't a boy; he was a man. The whole idea that she would/should provide him lunch for the day was treating him like a school boy. Oswald was a 24 year old man, and he was probably older than that. And he had money on him- plenty enough money to buy lunch. They had a sandwich truck that pulled up in front of the building every day, and he was known to buy his lunch from it sometimes.   

And whose idea do you think it was for him to take lunch? If it were you who stayed over at someone's house, and you were leaving at 7:00 AM, would you ask them to provide you a lunch? In fact, even if they offered it, wouldn't you be inclined to say, "Nah, that's alright, I can get something at work. You've done enough."

And I doubt that Marina would be presumptuous about it either. After all, she wasn't paying Ruth Paine anything for herself and her children to live there. So, her husband shows up, spends the night, no doubt partakes of a wonderful dinner the night before, and then Marina is going to expect lunch to be provided to him the next morning as well? It wasn't a Bed and Breakfast. And even at a Bed and Breakfast, they don't send you off with lunch. It ends with breakfast. 

So, I figure that Ruth Paine offered and encouraged Oswald to take a lunch. She provided the food. She provided the bag. And I suspect the bag was bigger than it had to be.

And remember what I said in my previous post: they never looked for Oswald's lunch bag. He told them that he brought a paper sack lunch and that's all he brought, and I should think that they would have wanted to see that sack. Because after all, they found a sack, that big long, tubular, pyramidal sack, but you know he didn't bring his lunch in that. So, why didn't they look for his lunch sack?

The bottom line is that the conspirators absolutely had to make sure that Frazier saw something that could at least be construed as a gun bag. The whole story would have fallen apart with that. And the only person who could have accomplished it was Ruth Paine. You know she was one of them, and they would not have ignored this or overlooked it or left it to chance. It was all planned out. 


Oswald took his lunch to work: a cheese sandwich and an apple "from Mrs. Paine's house". He said that, and his wife confirmed it. She told the Warren Commission that the only thing he took to work, that she knew of, was his lunch. 

But, Buell Frazier said that the bag that Oswald put on the back seat was bigger than a lunch bag- substantially bigger. However, he said that it was definitely NOT big enough to contain a disassembled rifle. He said that then, and he says it today. In fact, today he says it adamantly and with a great deal of passion, that Oswald did NOT have a rifle with him and is therefore innocent. 

But, let's stay on Oswald's lunch. If we presume- hypothetically- that Frazier is right that Oswald had a bag with him that was no more than 2 feet long (not long enough for the stock of the rifle) then where was the lunch bag? Would Oswald have put the bag with the cheese sandwich and the apple inside the other bag, the larger bag? I don't see him doing that. And it's because the food is fragile, and it would get banged up inside the bag with the gun parts. It's not as though Oswald had a hard metal lunch box to protect the food. Furthermore, rifle parts are dirty and oily, and a paper bag is flimsy. And paper absorbs oil; it doesn't keep the oil out. The correct word is: porous. So, would you really want to put your thin, porous paper bag with your food in it in with the greasy, drity gun parts? Why on Earth would anybody do that? 

So, having brought his lunch, shouldn't Oswald have had two bags? One for the rifle (if you believe that) and one for the lunch? What's the alternative? That he had no lunch bag? That he just threw a sandwich and an apple in with dirty rifle parts, where they would have direct contact? He wouldn't do that, and nobody would. 

So, I don't see Oswald putting his paper lunch bag in with dirty, oily rifle parts. He would have kept his lunch bag separate, and it would have been visible- small but visible. He would have had to carry the larger bag with the rifle in one arm and the lunch bag in his other hand. Period. 

But, several times, Frazier described the one bag that he saw as a grocery bag. He used the word: grocery. Well, how could anyone describe this as a grocery bag?

Obviously, that is a lot longer than 2 feet, but look at the shape of it. It's wide at the base, narrow at the top (although it's inverted). That is obviously NOT a grocery bag. We've all been going to grocery stores our whole lives and looking at grocery bags, and we know what they look like. They haven't changed. They are rectangular, not pyramidal. That is nothing like a grocery bag.

Then there is this testimony of Jack Dougherty:

Mr. BALL - Did you see Oswald come to work that morning?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes---when he first come into the door.
Mr. BALL - When he came in the door?
Mr. BALL - Did you see him come in the door?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes.
Mr. BALL - Did he have anything in his hands or arms?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, not that I could see of.
Mr. BALL - About what time of day was that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That was 8 o'clock. 

David Von Peinhead likes to point out that before that Dougherty said that he only saw Oswald "through the corner of my eye."  But, let's consider that a small lunch bag containing a sandwich and an apple might go unnoticed, under that circumstance, but not a large bag with a rifle.

I know that Frazier said that he "slept late" and Oswald was ready to go before he was; so waiting for him. So, there is no reason to think that they got to work early. No, no, on the contrary, they got to work a little late. Plus, Frazier parked a long distance from the building, and they had to walk that distance. So, when Oswald reached the entrance of that building, he definitely was a little late. There were people there already. Plenty of them. There was activity going on. It was after 8:00, and it was reported that the floor-laying on the 6th floor started at 8:00. So, if Oswald is walking in the door after 8:00, we have to assume that there were already men on the 6th floor, either working or about ready to work. But either way: they were there. 

So, where did Oswald hide the rifle? He couldn't have hidden it on the 6th floor. Why assume that? There were men up there working. You can't claim that he waltzed onto the 6th floor with that rifle in a bag, and he hid it somewhere, and nobody noticed a thing? They didn't see him with the rifle nor him hiding the rifle? They saw nothing?  

So, did he go to some other floor and hide the rifle? Which one? But, weren't there people on all those floors? The problem with the official story (were it the only one) is that we have to assume two things: that people were in view of Oswald with a big bag- big enough to contain a disassembled rifle, the longest piece of which was almost 35 inches long, which is to say almost a yard long- but they didn't notice it. And that he went to hide it somewhere so that it would be completely out of sight- but they didn't notice that either, him doing that- that activity. Remember that while hiding the rifle, he, himself, also had to be hidden while hiding it.  

But, we'll assume that he got the rifle hidden somewhere/somehow, but what about his lunch? He didn't carry it around with him all morning, did he? Of course not. He must have put it in the domino room where he intended to eat and did eat. But, did he do that first or second? Did he go into the domino room with the rifle bag and the lunch bag and drop off the lunch bag? Or did he go hide the rifle and then go down to the domino room to drop off his lunch? 

I would think that he would drop his lunch off first. Why not? He's going by there. Why take the lunch up and down? Why not relieve yourself of having to carry two things as quickly as possible?

Oswald claimed to have only brought his lunch in a brown paper bag. So, he went to the domino room between noon and 12:15, and he got his lunch, and he took his food from the bag, and he started eating the food. What did he do with the bag? He must have thrown it away, right? What else was he going to do with it?  I suppose he could have just left it on the table, but most people clean up after themselves. They know that somebody else might want to use the table after them, so they clear it. It's common courtesy, right? Odds are great that Oswald put the paper bag in the trash can. 

And there must have been a trash can, right? It was a lunch room, and people always have scraps and wrappers and bags to throw away. So, there must have been one. 

It was in his very first interrogation that Oswald told Fritz and Bookhout and Hosty that that he ate lunch in the first floor lunch room.  This is from the Warren Report:

Now, I am no Columbo, but even I can see that considering its proximity in time to the assassination that they would want to confirm that. So, why didn't they go to the domino room and look for Oswald's lunch bag? Again, there had to be one. Whether you think it was the only bag or one of two bags, there had to be a lunch bag. Don't you think it was important to see that bag? Why didn't they go get it?  It had to still be there.

"Junior" was a reference to James Jarman, and the other whom he could not name but described as "a short negro" was undoubtedly Harold Norman.   

Now, they were both there. That is not in dispute. So, of the 75 TSBD employees, Oswald did name the two who were there. Neither admitted to seeing Oswald at the time, but let's remember something: IT WAS LETHAL TO THE OFFICIAL STORY FOR THEM TO HAVE SEEN OSWALD. This was like 12:15. How could Oswald be in the domino room at 12:15- and not just there, but settled in there, eating lunch and still have time to get upstairs, retrieve his rifle from wherever he hid it, and then go through the arduous process of assembling the rifle, and presumably using a dime as a screwdriver- because no screwdriver was found, and then set up the Sniper's Nest by moving the boxes of books around- and apparently he had to move quite a few boxes. How could he possibly do all that in that short amount of time? It's impossible. He couldn't! 

For Jarman and Norman to admit to seeing Oswald in the domino room at 12:15 was as lethal to the official story as for people in the doorway to admit to seeing Oswald in the doorway during the motorcade. So, when Jarman and Norman were interrogated about this, they must have realized that interrogators did not want to hear them say that they saw Oswald calmly eating his lunch there. That was tantamount to saying that he was innocent. 

Am I saying that there was some lying involved? That's right. Here's Harold Norman. 

Mr. BALL. Where were you when you ate your lunch?
Mr. NORMAN. In the domino room, as I recall.
Mr. BALL. Who was with you at that time?
Mr. NORMAN. I can't remember who ate in the lunchroom, I mean the domino room, with me.
Mr. BALL. Did some other employees eat there?
Mr. NORMAN. I think there was someone else in there...

He thinks there was someone else in there???? He thinks???? Either there was or there wasn't. It was a small room with no obstructions. If there was someone else in there, he had to see the person.

Out of all of the employees of the TSBD, Oswald was able to pick out two who were together as he claimed, on the same floor as he claimed, in the same room as he claimed and at the same time as he claimed. Oswald could not have told the FBI that Jarman and a short Negro employee (Norman) were together on the first floor unless he saw them there himself . 

And for Oswald to have observed this, he would have had to have been there on the first floor at 12:15- and beyond. There is no reason to think he fled at 12:15. It must have been as late as 12:20 that he was still there. It may have been later than that, but even that is TOO LATE for there to be any chance of him getting upstairs, retrieving his rifle, assembling his rifle, assembling the sniper's nest, in time to shoot President Kennedy. It completely exonerates him.

The official story of the JFK assassination is in total collapse. The only thing sustaining it is: official decree. That's it, and that can't last. 

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

So, David Von Pein, you think it's preposterous that the conspirators would plan to shoot at Kennedy from all directions and blame it all on a single lone gunman shooting from the rear? But, the fact is that the shooting didn't go well. The first shot did come from the rear, and they must have expected that it would have hit Kennedy in the head, and then it would have been all over, and the other shooters would have been called off. So, the killing of Kennedy did not go well for them. But, they probably thought ahead of time that they could always claim that an entrance wound was an exit wound- which is exactly what happened. 

But, while we are discussing implausible expectations, why would Oswald assume that he would have the 6th floor all to himself? He knew there were a lot of workers up there, so why couldn't one or more of them have stayed and eaten lunch there? Didn't Bonnie Ray Williams eat his fried chicken there? Weren't the bones found? That was shortly before the assassination but it could just as easily have been a little later. And by then, he could have decided to watch the festivities from there. Didn't he and several others watch the festivities from the 5th floor window directly below? Weren't Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles watching from the 4th floor window? Didn't Geneva Hine say that she watched from a window? So, according to you, this was Oswald's thought process:

"I think I'll shoot Kennedy from the 6th floor even though I have no way of knowing if it will be empty OR if it is empty whether it will stay empty or if someone will burst in on me. And even though a crew of men are working there and one or more might decide to stay and eat there, and even though one or more persons might decide to go there to watch the motorcade from the window, and even though there is absolutely nothing I can do to secure that space for my vile task, I am just going to dismiss all that and risk it. I'll just take a chance and hope for the best."

You haven't even established a motive for Oswald wanting to kill Kennedy, never mind going about it so wantonly and recklessly and stupidly. 

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

This report by John Armstrong covers all the events of November 22, 1963, and it is very substantial. If you haven't read it, you really should.

I've said repeatedly that it is John's strong conviction that Tippit is the one who drove Oswald (Harvey) to the Texas Theater, and I think it is based on both positive and negative evidence. By "negative evidence" I mean a process of elimination, a default situation.

Positive evidence is, for example, that Harvey's landlady Earlene Roberts said that a police car pulled up to the residence and hit its horn twice. She said the car number was 107, but there was no Dallas police car with that number. Tippit's car number was 10. Is it possible that she saw the 10 and then mistook something else, such as dirt or a scratch, for a 7? 

You must admit that it is quite a coincidence for it to be 10 and 10+, and you know how I feel about JFK coincidences: that I don't believe in them. 

And just this evening John reminded me that Earlene was blind in one eye and had lousy vision in the others. So, did she see a uniform hanging on a hanger and mistake it for another policeman? (She reported seeing two policemen in the car.)

And, if it wasn't Tippit, what's the alternative? That it was some other policeman and police car from the Dallas PD? The fact is that all the other Dallas police cars were in a known location and not there. Tippit's car alone was incommunicado and of unknown location- officially- at that time. 

So, what else does that leave? That the conspirators had a phony Dallas police car with phony Dallas policeman in uniform on the streets of Dallas? No. That is untenable. It would have been way too risky for them to do that. What if there had been an accident, a blow-out, a public disturbance, a call for help, an unrelated crime? I know they had a phony SS agents on foot in Dealey Plaza, but that was on foot. Putting the phony police officer in a moving car was way too risky, and we should not assume they did it.

Likewise, Oswald must have been driven to the Theater. He didn't reach his room until 1:00, and it took him several minutes to change his pants and do whatever else had to do. Presumably, he was out the door at 1:03. But, he was in the theater by 1:07, according to Butch Burroughs. Oswald could not possibly have walked there in that amount of time. And there is no sense in musing about another bus or another taxi- there is no practical basis to go there. So, that leaves a car. Since a police car did pull up and stop out in front and hit its horn, (an apparent signal) isn't it reasonable to assume that that was the car that conveyed Oswald to the theater? Why conjure up another car out of thin air? 

And frankly, for the very same reason, we should not assume that the conspirators would allow the Oswald patsy to leave Dealey Plaza in a private car. They were framing him as the lone gunman, the operative word being "lone". A lone gunman, by definition, cannot have a getaway driver. It would have looked extremely bad- fatally bad- for their lone gunman to be transported out of Dealey Plaza in a private car. Not only would it look bad, but imagine if something happened while they were driving, such as: an accident, a mechanical breakdown, being stopped by police for a traffic violation, or just being spotted. It would have completely destroyed the lone gunman hypothesis. Why would they take a chance like that when they didn't have to? What was wrong with letting Oswald go home by public transportation? Surely, they were tracking him every foot of the way. It's not as though they were going to lose him. And don't you think that Oswald typically went to and from work by bus? How else could he have done it? He had no car. It's not like he could take the subway. So, since he normally went home by bus, why couldn't he do it that way on 11/22?  

And remember also that Oswald had no friends in Dallas. No friends, no friends, no friends, no friends, no friends. He had handlers but no friends. So, he had no basis to arrange any such pickup himself. He was at the mercy of his handlers. And they had no reason to do it because of the needs of the lone gunman story. Therefore, it didn't happen. Those people, including Roger Craig, who thought they saw Oswald get into the Rambler actually saw the Oswald double, whom we refer to as "Lee".  He was not the Oswald of fame. So really, there is no chance that the Oswald we know got into the Nash Rambler. 

This collage of John's shows "Lee" on the left side. It is the last known photograph of him, and it's from 1958. Notice how husky he is. The Oswald of fame was NEVER that husky at any time in his short life. And frankly, if you look at this Oswald closely, you can plainly see that he is NOT the Oswald we know. They looked alike, but he's a different man. On the right is CE 162, which is the jacket found near the Texaco station after the Tippit slaying. Are they the same jacket? 

They certainly look like they could be the same jacket, but if so, it's Lee's, not Harvey's, not the jacket of the Oswald we know. You should read John Armstrong's important article.

I went to get water today, and as I was lugging the bottles around, I realized that I would spontaneously lean in the opposite direction to how the full bottle was weighing on me. 

The lean is only slight there because I was standing still, but can you see that I am leaning slightly to my right, which is to our left? That's because there was 42 pounds of weight pulling down on me on my left side, so to offset that, to provide a counterbalance, I leaned the other way. It's only natural to do that; everybody does it.
Everybody, that is, except this woman. 

I'm not sure who is heavier, the girl or the bottle, but I'm pretty sure who is stronger between me and the woman, and it's me. Yet, she looks less put out holding that girl with one arm than I do holding the bottle. And she is certainly not leaning the least bit in the other direction to offset and counterbalance the weight of the child. And the same is true of this other woman from the Altgens photo.

That boy is no baby. Look at the size of his head. It's almost as big as hers. Yet, she is supposedly holding him with one arm? How? His body weight is just plopped on her right arm? She just has her arm out there, and he's on it? And she's OK with that? She can do it without the least bit of strain? Who is she? Superwoman? 

Let me tell you something: she is not holding that boy, so unless you can think of something that he is standing on, it is a bogus image. And the same is true of the first woman. 

They are both photographic flim-flam. What we're seeing in them can't be done. It couldn't be done then; it can't be done now; and it won't be possible 10,000 years from now, no matter who is famous at the time. 

A guy who goes by Chris on McAdams' forum claims to be an Oswald defender, but for some reason, he insists that Oswald did own the rifle and did bring it to work- but not to kill Kennedy, just to show it to somebody. What's it based on? Nothing in particular. 

But, here is something I pointed out to him:

Charles Givens saw Oswald on the 1st floor at 8:30 that morning, and Oswald didn't have any rifle with him. And then Givens said he went back up to the 6th floor to continue laying flooring. 

Mr. BELIN. All right. You saw him at 8:30 on the first floor? 
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
 Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do? 
Mr. GIVENS. Well, we went back upstairs and started to work. 
Mr. BELIN. You went back up to the sixth floor to continue laying the floor? 
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir. 

So, Chris, since you continue to insist that Oswald brought a rifle with him to work to show somebody (even though Oswald denied bringing a rifle to work or even owning a rifle) where did he stash the rifle? He could not have stashed it on the 6th floor because men were working up there- laying flooring. And he didn't have it with him when he started working- as Givens and others attested. So, what do you think happened to the rifle? Where do you think Oswald stashed it since he couldn't stash it on the 6th floor? Do you think he stashed it on the 5th floor? How about the 4th? And how likely is it that he could do that and get away with it? He's moving a rifle around the Depository and nobody notices it or him with it? He is carrying it around, here and there, in a weird paper bag, and nobody notices it? Not one person ever saw him with it?

And remember that the rifle was, supposedly, unassembled and had to be re-assembled by him. And since there are no reports of any screwdriver, many have assumed that he used a dime as a tool.

So, what is the latest he could have gotten to the 6th floor with the bag containing the rifle to begin the assembly process? And with that in mind, what is the latest he could have gotten to wherever he stashed the rifle since there were men working on the 6th floor?

It's widely recognized that Frazier and Oswald were not the first to show up that day, that they were a little on the late side. Lots of people were already there. So, it puts Oswald in a bind doesn't it as for hiding the rifle?   

Here's an idea: Oswald told the truth, that he owned no rifle and all he brought to work with him that day was his lunch. 
This is the link to John Armstrong's new article which lays out why he really thinks that Tippit drove Oswald to the theater, and why the "other Oswald" is the one who shot Tippit. It includes the new graphic that I made for him at his request.
Here is Vincent Bugliosi talking about Oswald's motive for killing Kennedy.

He starts by saying that, as a prosecutor, he doesn't need motive. If he has evidence a person committed murder, he can get them executed without establishing motive. But, he admitted that juries like to know the motive, so he always tries to establish a strong motive. But, he added something that is very telling: He admitted that:

"Absence of motive is circumstantial evidence of innocence."

Indeed, that is true. But, it carries even more weight in this case for the reason that Oswald is dead and there is not going to be a trial. The whole issue of what the legal system requires to convict is now moot. But to people, establishing motive is VERY important, which is why Bugliosi spoke of what juries like. 

So, this is Bugliosi's stab at establishing a motive for Oswald to kill Kennedy:

1) He said that Oswald had "delusions of grandeur." Oh really? Here's the definition:

Grandiose delusions (GD) or delusions of grandeur are principally a subtype of delusional disorder that occurs in patients suffering from a wide range of mental illnesses, including two-thirds of patients in manic state of bipolar disorder, half of those with schizophrenia and a substantial portion of those with substance abuse disorders. GDs are characterized by fantastical beliefs that one is famous, omnipotent, wealthy, or otherwise very powerful. The delusions are generally fantastic and typically have a supernatural, science-fictional, or religious theme.

What evidence is there that Oswald was manic or schizophrenic? He definitely did not have a substance abuse disorder. Grandiosity is a psychiatric diagnosis, but how can it be assigned to Oswald? Based on what? I want to know what the specific medical evidence is that Oswald had delusions of grandeur.

2) Bugliosi said that a squadmate of Oswald's said that he wanted to do something that people would be talking about 10,000 years in the future. He said that? Oswald did? 10,000 years? Ten millennia? Did a squadmate really say that Oswald gave that figure of 10,000 years in the future? Because, if there is any exaggeration in that then it throws it back to Bugliosi, and it becomes his delusion. So, this squadmate needs to be found and interrogated- if he's still alive. The 10,000 years claim needs to be put under a microscope, and if it turns out that there is no solid evidence for it, then Vincent Bugliosi, who keeps saying it over and over in every speech he gives, needs to be disbarred. 

3) He said that Marina said that Oswald compared himself to historical greats whom he read about in biographies. Really? Like who? George Washington? Karl Marx? Who did Oswald compare himself to? And how did he put it? "You know, Thomas Jefferson was great, but I'm just as great." There is this from Marina's testimony:

Mr. RANKIN. Was there anything else of that kind that caused you to think that he was different?
Mrs. OSWALD. I think that he compared himself to these people whose autobiographies he read.

It only says that she thinks he compared himself to the people he read about. And if you read the whole testimony, you can see that Rankin was leading her along, and she was following and trying hard to please, to deliver. Look: What are the chances that Oswald ever actually said to her, "You know, I'm as great as so and so." They are so slim that it makes this entire claim worthless.

4) Next Bugliosi compares Oswald to Charles Manson, which is groundless and reprehensible. But then, he quotes from Oswald's diary in which Oswald wrote that "Anyone who lives under capitalism or communism, as I have, must despise the representatives of both systems." First, I am having no success finding that quote in Oswald's diary. Here is Oswald's "Historic Diary" as per John McAdams, which is what Bugliosi referenced. See if you can find it:

But second, the verbs "despise" and "murder" are light years apart in meaning. They are so far apart that, again, it makes this entire claim completely, utterly worthless. 

5) Bugliosi said that Oswald didn't hate Kennedy and even liked certain aspects of Kennedy, but he had "a little jealousy" of him. Vince, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. How did Oswald have "a little jealousy" of Kennedy? What was he jealous about? Did Oswald want to be President? Did he ever express such a wish? Did he envy Kennedy's vast wealth? Did he envy Kennedy's vast harem of women with whom he had sex? What was Oswald a little jealous about? But regardless, Bugliosi's own words rule out hatred for Kennedy as being Oswald's motive. No, on the contrary, Bugliosi said that Kennedy was just a "representative" and not meaning an elected representative, but rather, just being representative, symbolic of, a proxy for: the United States of America. Bugliosi says that it was the USA that Oswald hated. "No question about it; he spoke about it all the time." That's what Bugliosi said. 

Well, in that case, let us see the evidence for that. What is the evidence that Oswald hated America? I want to see it.

According to Bugliosi, Oswald's decision to kill Kennedy was motivated by a combination of two things: a desire for infamy, so that he would be talked about 10,000 years in the future, plus a hatred for America- the whole system, the whole country, and the whole society.  

But, Bugliosi has never substantiated either of those claims, and what makes it worse is that there is no relation, no connection, no association between those two claims. 

First, lots of people hate. There's no shortage of that. But, it's relatively rare for hatred to drive people to kill, especially when it's something as vague as "hating America". Now, I know about the jihadists with their "Death to America" but is Bugliosi really comparing Oswald to them? Furthermore, how many of these jihadists also have the tandem desire to be famous in 10,000 years?

What's really going on here is that Bugliosi is grasping at straws. He doesn't have a case for either one. He doesn't have a case for Oswald wanting fame 10,000 years hence (which, by the way, is an inconceivable amount of time to everybody; not just about everybody, but every single body) and he doesn't have a case for Oswald being a jidhadist who hated America. But, he thinks that if he combines two failed hypotheses that he's building something. He's not. Two wrongs don't make a right, and two failed hypotheses don't make a right hypothesis. It doesn't advance his case in the least. On the contrary, it only weakens it. It only shows how desperate, helpless, and hopeless his case really is.      


Oswald only read the paper from the day before. DUH!!! So he found out one day later than everybody else that JFK was coming right past his work place. It was announced on Monday. It would have been in Tuesday's paper. Oswald would have read it on Wednesday at the latest.

Ralph Cinque:

I am going to have to make you famous for saying that, bigdog. That's because the whole idea that Oswald could suddenly decide to kill Kennedy WITHOUT ANY ANTECEDENTS, meaning without any resentments toward Kennedy, without ever having uttered a single negative word about Kennedy to anybody in his life, without having to boil the idea around in his head for a while before reaching the threshold of being able to go through with it, of overcoming and extinguishing all mental restraints and resistance, of mentally getting there to that twisted, deranged, unhinged state of mind THAT FAST is beyond unusual. It is beyond unexpected. It is even beyond bizarre. It's more like: unheard of in the annals of crime. Name me one murderer from the annals of crime whose pendulum swung that fast. It makes Lee Harvey Oswald the most insane criminal in the history of crime.  

And let's be clear: it is not only lightning-fast to make such a monstrous decision, but in Oswald's case, it was seemingly done without any motive whatsoever. You can't use Oswald's pro-Castro leanings- even if you think they were sincere. That's because, not being stupid, he would have known that killing Kennedy meant putting LBJ in power- which was no favor to Castro. You don't think the Fair Play for Cuba Committee celebrated Kennedy's death, do you?

And, the idea that Oswald did it because he was a failure in life and wanted infamy is insane because he adamantly and repeatedly denied doing it. What part of: "I adamantly deny these charges" do you not understand?

What you are left with is nothing. Zero. Zed. Nada - just the idea that Oswald was the most insane psychopathic killer in the history of insane psychopathic killers- and more inexplicable than any of them. 

As a metaphor: I enjoy watching Olympic ski jumping, and as I watch it, I try to understand how anyone could take off down that long hill to go flying off into space. How does anyone get the nerve to do that? The answer is: in baby steps. They start by just going over bumps in a downhill course where they have a short flight. But, imagine never having skied before at all and going down that hill. Bingo. That's Oswald killing Kennedy on November 22, 1963. 

Monday, January 26, 2015

John Armstrong asked me to create this graphic. It is his strong conviction that Tippit probably drove Oswald to the Texas Theater from his room. There is an alley behind the theater, and there used to be walking path from the alley to Jefferson. John believes that Tippit drove Oswald to the alley, then Oswald took the narrow walk path out to Jefferson, and then he turned right and had a 50 to 60 feet walk to the entrance of the theater, where he bought a ticket from Julia Postal. 

That whole white structure is the Texas Theater, and you can see the space between it and the next building on the far right. So, there's an alley behind the theater, the space between the buildings used to feature a walking path. So that, according to John, is how Oswald reached Jefferson, and then he had only a very short walk to the entrance of the theater. 

I think it's very plausible. Remember that they have never told us anything about what Oswald said about how he got to the theater, and it is one of the most glaring omissions in the official story. Yet, they must have asked him. How could they not? And he must told them. How could he not? So, the fact that it is completely absent from the official record is very troubling. 

Apparently, whatever he told them was too damaging to the official story to repeat. So, why didn't they make something up for him to have said? I think the reason is that you had interrogators from the Dallas Police, the FBI, and even a postal inspector, and they didn't know each other- at least not that well. The only way they could lie and say that Oswald said X is for them to collaborate and decide to lie together. If they were going to lie, they all had to tell the same lie. But, as I said, they didn't know each other that well, and I'm sure they didn't want to operate on a level of impropriety- let alone criminality. In other words, they interacted with each as though everything was on the up-and-up. There was never a point where someone said, "Alright, so how are we going to frame this guy? What shall we say he told us about how he got to the theater?" Nobody sunk to that level. It was all done with the decorum of propriety and legality. But, whatever Oswald told them about how he got to the theater, they all knew better than to repeat it in public. And fortunately for them, nobody put them on the spot about it, and asked, "What did Oswald say about how he got to the theater?"