Oswald in New Orleans is a very murky part of the JFK assassination saga because of all the bogus Oswald sightings. And then there is the woman who claims to have been his friend, lover and cohort in a plot to build a bioweapon to kill Castro. But, it is completely untenable because the CIA was already setting up Oswald as the patsy in the JFK assassination, so they would not have also used him for the other too. What for? The only thing that is documented is that JVB and Oswald both worked at the Reily Coffee Company that "Summer of Love." But, she worked as a secretary, and he worked as a machine-greaser, so they hardly would have met from that. And she never claimed they met from that. She claimed that they met at the post office when he overheard her say something in Russian. But, that isn't tenable either. Why would she say something in Russian?
So, that they both worked at Reily at the same time is the only claim of hers that is substantiated, which is to say, documented. All the rest is just lip-flapping.
But, putting all that aside, what's left of Oswald in New Orleans? What's left are the basics: that he went down there in late April 1963 after losing his job at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall photo lab; that upon finding the job at Reily and renting an apartment, he sent for his pregnant wife and daughter, who were driven down there by Ruth Paine. He spent the summer there, and according to Marina, spent all his free time with her. How involved was he with Guy Bannister, David Ferrie and that bunch? Who knows, but probably less than what is claimed. We do have the video of him handing out pro-Castro leaflets in front of the Trade Mart on August 9. The address on the leaflet was Guy Bannister's office, but then it got changed to Oswald's apartment on Magazine Street. And there is his arrest photo at the N.O.P.D. in which he was obviously heavier than he later was in Dallas. And I accept that because in New Orleans, he had a wife who was cooking for him. Then, he had his radio debate against Carlos Bringuier on August 19. Then, in late September, Ruth Paine came back down to take Marina back to Dallas. Then, Oswald supposedly made his trip to Mexico City, which he definitely did not do, and we don't know where he was and what he was doing during that time And then on October 3, he arrived in Dallas by bus.
And that's it. That is the totality of what I consider bankable about Oswald's time in New Orleans. All other claims and sightings are either false or unproven.
But, what I mostly have are questions, starting with: HOW DID OSWALD GET HIS RIFLE FROM DALLAS TO NEW ORLEANS? And, it is a rhetorical question because I know very well that Oswald did not own a rifle. When first asked by Dallas Police if Oswald owned a rifle, Marina said that he used to own one with which he went hunting. BUT, THAT WAS BACK IN RUSSIA! So, why would she refer to that if he currently owned a rifle? She wouldn't. She couldn't. She didn't. The rifle story- in every detail- is bull shit. There was NO rifle.
John McAdams claims that Ruth Paine drove Oswald to the bus station in Irving to travel to New Orleans. McAdams doesn't mention the rifle, but we have to assume that, presumably, Oswald took his rifle with him on the bus. But, it's not very tenable, and for multiple reasons. There is no evidence Oswald used his rifle in New Orleans. And you can't assume that Marina brought it down for him when she came with Ruth weeks later. If that were true, she would have said so. And the whole story is freaking weird because supposedly Marina knew that Oswald had tried to kill a man shortly before (General Walker), and had wanted to kill another man after that (Richard Nixon), and yet, despite all that, she followed him down to New Orleans to live with him? And she brought him his rifle?
So, the whole idea that Oswald would have traveled on the bus with a rifle is untenable. But then again, the whole rifle story is untenable. Every single bit of it is fabricated. Oswald ordered and owned no rifle. The rifle story- in every detail- is bogus.
So, I am discussing this, all the while knowing full well that the entire story is bull shit. Nevertheless, I am trying to understand it within the context of the story that they are telling. It is their story; their fabricated story; their carefully woven lie.
So, according to them, Oswald traveled by bus from Dallas to New Orleans presumably carrying a change of clothes and a rifle. But, WHY DID HE GO TO NEW ORLEANS? The official story has it that he thought the job situation was better there. But, why would he think that? Dallas/Fort Worth was many times bigger than New Orleans. And it's not like he went to N.O. with a job prospect. He didn't have any. So, why assume that, and why do it? It makes no sense. So, I have to assume that somebody put him up to it. Somebody urged him to go. It certainly wasn't a friend. Was it a handler? But, who would that have been? I don't know.
It started with him getting fired from Jaggars/Chiles/Stovall supposedly for being rude, belligerent, not working well with others, etc. all the usual Oswaldian anti-social stuff. But, there is no good reason to believe it. It's far more likely he was fired to get him to go to New Orleans.
And we need to talk about the return of the rifle to Dallas. Supposedly, Oswald wrapped the rifle in a blanket and snuck it into Ruth Paine's car with the hope that when it was moved into the garage for storage, that no one would notice that it had the size and shape and feel of a rifle. He supposedly did it without saying anything to Ruth or Marina. Read:
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether or not the rifle was carried in the station wagon?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you have anything to do with loading it in there?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. Lee was loading everything on because I was pregnant at the time. But I know that Lee loaded the rifle on.
Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle carried in some kind of a case when you went back with Mrs. Paine?
Mrs. OSWALD. After we arrived, I tried to put the bed, the child's crib together, the metallic parts, and I looked for a certain part, and I came upon something wrapped in a blanket. I thought that was part of the bed, but it turned out to be the rifle.
So, we are supposed to believe that Oswald just wrapped his rifle in a blanket and put it in the station wagon and just hoped it would get stored somewhere? But, it makes no sense. First, he wouldn't know where it was stored. Second, how do you keep a rifle wrapped in a blanket? There was nothing securing it. Every time you moved it, it would start to unravel, and it was moved a lot.
But, my question is: WHY DIDN'T OSWALD KEEP THE RIFLE WITH HIM? If he could travel by bus from Dallas to New Orleans with a rifle, why couldn't he travel by bus from New Orleans to Dallas with a rifle?
This is just storytelling. It is script-writing. And I know about script-writing. I have written two scripts, and I am working on a third. I know the mental processes involved, where you are trying to take the story from A to B, and you have to come up with a contrivance to make it happen. In this case, they knew they had to get Oswald to Mexico City, and they didn't want the rifle burdening that act of the story. So, why didn't they have him stash it somewhere in New Orleans and come back for it? In the Walker shooting tale, they had him hide the rifle. McAdams:
April 10, 1963: LHO fires a single shot at General Walker.
April 14, 1963: LHO retrieves the rifle which he had hidden near the shooting site.
That isn't very credible either, but at least there is less to pick apart.
Do you realize how preposterous the rifle story is? From the stashing of it in the station wagon to Michael Paine finding it and moving it around the garage repeatedly, each time thinking it was something else: tent poles, camping equipment, a military shovel? It never occurred to him that it was a rifle?
This is awfully bad script-writing. And it doesn't end there. You can't tell me that Oswald wrapped loose rifle parts in a blanket. NOBODY would do that. But, on Thursday, November 21, he supposedly dismantled the rifle in Ruth Paine's garage, at night, just to shorten the length of it, and not by much because most of the length was in the stock. He did it without even a bench or a table, and this was the condition of Ruth Paine's garage:
You know the lighting had to be poor, with probably just a single overhead light. Have you ever tried to work in your garage at night? You need more lighting than just a ceiling light. And some of the rifle parts are very small and very easy to lose. SO, WHY WOULD HE GO TO THE TROUBLE? WHY NOT JUST BRING THE RIFLE INTACT AND TAKE HIS CHANCES? He was taking a ton of chances anyway. Plus, he was a guest in someone's home. How long can you fiddle in someone's garage before she notices that you're missing? So, why disassemble it? He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't.
Again, it's very bad script writing; atrocious script writing. And yet, it's woven into the New Orleans story in a janky, awkward way all the way until the end. The official story of the JFK assassination is bizarre, and you have to be insane to believe it. And I am not saying that rhetorically. There is a form of insanity, "group think", in which people decide to believe something even though it defies all logic and rationality. They derive strength from each other, and the belief becomes like a religion to them. They may be perfectly rational in other aspects of their lives, but about this one thing, they are insane. They are collectively insane. But, I don't think it applies to everybody who defends the official story. Some are smart enough to know better, but they defend it anyway because it's their job. They work for the State, and it is their job to defend the official JFK story, as ridiculous as it is.