Hill Climb Racing 2 Industrial Deals Beauty Little FIres Everywhere STEM nav_sap_hiltonhonors_launch Learn more about Amazon Music Unlimited PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Tote Bags Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon Transparent Transparent Transparent  Introducing Echo Show Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Oasis, unlike any Kindle you've ever held Wonder Woman now available on Blu-ray, 3D, and 4K Tailgating PSFF17_gno
Customer Discussions > History forum

The Evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald brought a rifle to work with him on November 22, 1963

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 326 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 27, 2012, 1:25:08 PM PST
Within the conspiracy cult it is an article of faith that Oswald NEVER brought the murder weapon to work with him on November 22, 1963. To admit sucyh is to open the door to his involvement in the assassination which they so vehemently deny. But what does the actual evidence and testimony say of the claim that Oswald brought the rifle to work with him? This might be interesting to some readers.

1. On the morning of the assassination Linnie Mae Randal, the sister to the man Oswald rode to work with each day--Wesley Frazier--saw Lee Oswald walk across her front lawn holding a long brown package in his hand en route to Wesley's vehicle for his ride into Dallas. This package was not the size of a lunch sack but rather nearly 30 inches long and perhaps four inches high.
2. Wesley Frazier saw this same package lying on the back seat of his car as he prepared to make the drive into Dallas for work that morning. He estimated the length to be less than the length of the disassembled Mannlicher-Carcano but he readily admitted (then and now) that he only glanced at it and had no reason to pay any particular attention to the dimensions of the package.
3. Frazier asked Oswald what was in the package and Oswald told reminded him that he had come out to Irving (Texas) the previous night to pick up some curtain rods he needed for his apartment in Dallas. The package contained those curtain rods.
4. As Oswald and Frazier walked to the TSBD (a distance of a couple hundreds yards from the car park to the north entrance) Oswald broke tradition and walked AHEAD of Frazier rather than side-by-side as he had ALWAYS done in the past. His speed increasing, by the time he reached the TSBD he was more than fifty feet ahead of Frazier.
5. Frazier stated that it was his impression that Oswald had one end of the long package cupped in his right hand and the top end tucked beneath his armpit. If true, this would mean that the package was SHORTER than the required length of the broken-down Mannlicher-Carcano (meaning the distance from Oswald's cupped hand to his armpit was less than the longest section of the disassembled Mannlicher-Carcano.) However, again, Frazier admitted then and now that he only surmised this was how Oswald was carrying it. When asked during his Warren Commission testimony he admitted that IF the rifle extended in FRONT of the armpit and continued higher on Oswald's body than his armpit, he would have been unable to see it based on his vantage point behind Oswald. Additionally, Frazier again admitted that he paid no special attention to the package (why would he) as he had his mind on other things and not on a package of curtain rods being carried by a coworker into the job site that morning.
6. An identical package was found only a few feet from the window from which five witnesses saw a gunman firing at the president's motorcade later that afternoon. When examined for fingerprints only one person's prints were found on the paper--Lee Oswald's. His left index finger left a clear print as did his right palm (EXACTLY where one WOULD EXPECT such a print to be located based on Frazier's testimony of how Oswald carried the package into work that day.)
7. Ignoring all of the other evidence, conspiracy cultists point out that there was no gun oil located on the paper bag, thus supporting their contention that it did not contain a rifle. But they fail to point out that unless a rifle had been literally dipped in oil it would not generally have oil on the surface at all. A well-oiled rifle does not ooze oil from the seams or points where metal meets metal. So the absence of oil is moot and ledns no support to either claim. But the creases of the paper bag WERE exactly where creases would be if used to conceal Oswald's disassembled rifle.
8. Conspiracy cultists are also quick to point out that the bag was never photographed in its original location--leading them to somehow conclude that the bag was fabricated by the Dallas Police Department in order to frame Oswald. But this fanciful fails to explain HOW the Dallas Police Department would know to plant a paper bag at this early stage of the investigation when Wesley Frazier had as yet not spoken to ANYONE about him seeing a paper bag earlier that day in Oswald's possession. Additionally, if the bag were planted, how did the Dallas Police Department get Oswald's fingerprint and palm print on the bag? And lastly, using one of the conspiracy cult's own arguments. If the bag had been planted why wouldn't the conspirators make a special point to leave behind oil residue from Oswald's rifle to insure that a match could be made between the oil and Oswald's weapon?
9. After his arrest, Oswald was questioned extensively. Much of what Oswald told police was true UNTIL questions about the rifle were brought up. Then Oswald began lying time and time and time again. For instance. Oswald denied ever purchasing a rifle (even though FBI handwriting experts matched the handwriting on the Klein's Sporting Goods order form to both Oswald's PRINTING and his CURSIVE writing and the rifle was sent to a P.O. Box rented by Lee Oarvey Oswald.) Oswald lied about bringing the package into work with him, claiming instead that he only brought (yet earlier in the day Oswald told Frazier that he DIDN'T bring his lunch to work but planned on buying from the lunch wagon that parked outside the TSBD each day.) Oswald was asked to fill out a residence history in which he was asked to list ALL of his places of residence for the past two years. This list included ALL of his places of residency EXCEPT the Neely Street address (since Oswald KNEW the backyard photographs were taken there and the backyard photographs showed him holding both the Mannlicher-Carcano used in the murder of the president and a revolver holstered on his side.)
10. Conspiracy cultists often make the humorous claim that Oswald's rifle was stolen from Ruth Paine's garage (where Lee's wife, Marina, was living at the time) and then whisked to an undisclosed location where a bullet was fired from the rifle (later to be planted on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital) and then the rifle was somehow smuggled ino the TSBD some tome before the assassination in order to frame Oswald.
Needless to say, such a scenerio leaves many questions unanswered:
a. If this were true then Oswald would have readily admitted that he owned a rifle (why would he deny it if he had no reason to connect his rifle with the assassination?) Or if he knew it was missing why wouldn't he simply tell police that someone broke into the garage where I had it stored and they stole it a few days (or weeks) ago.)
b. How did this rifle get smuggled into the TSBD unseen by anyone on whatever day it was supposed to be smuggled in the building.
c. Since we know that Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano WAS the murder weapon (based on recovered bullet and fragments matching test bullets fired from Oswald's rifle) then WHO did the shooting at the president and why didn't Oswald say something about this gunman? How did this gunman get INTO and OUT OF the TSBD on the day of the assassination? No witnesses saw any strangers entering or leaving the building, therefore are we to conclude that this invisible assassin simply materialized inside the building and then after the shooting vanished into thin air, never to be seen by anyone?
d. If it wasn't a rifle Oswald brought into work then what DID he bring? There were no curtain rods found anywhere in the building (and Oswald's bedroom did NOT need curtain rods anyway as police learned when they arrived there on the afternoon of the assassination where they saw curtains held up by curtain rods already.) Additionally, shen Oswald left the building all he was seen holding was a bottle of Coca-Cola. So we KNOW that he entered the building with a long, package wrapped in brown paper. That paper was found near the sniper's nest with Oswald's prints on it. A rifle belonging to Lee Oswald was also found on that same floor and also contained Oswald's prints on the barrel and the trigger guard. No curtain rods were ever found and Oswald only left with a coke.

It should be clear from these points and the evidence and testimony cited that on the morning of the assassination, one and only one person brought a package into the TSBD--Lee Harvey Oswald. Later a rifle, belonging to Oswald and covered with his prints and matching the recovered bullets was found in the building only a few feet from a window where an eyewitness saw a person roughly matching Oswald's description firing a bolt-action rifle.

To believe that someone ELSE brought the rifle into the building and to further believe that Oswald was innocent, is to depart from the trail of evidence and begin a fanciful trapise along the pathways of simple imagination.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012, 1:27:41 PM PST
uh huh

Posted on Nov 27, 2012, 2:09:56 PM PST
DarthRad says:
As of a July 2012 Pew Research poll, 17% of registered American voters thought Obama was a Muslim (with 30% of Republicans thinking Obama was a Muslim), and these people seem to be the ones frequenting the Amazon forums the most.

So, SVA, you've got your work cut out for you. Truth and facts matter little to people these days.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012, 2:12:18 PM PST
D. Axelson says:
horse -

Here's how these discussions work. Somebody posts evidence, facts, and logical argument supporting a point of view. Anyone who wishes to do so can present a contrary or opposing point of view, but in order to be taken seriously, the second person must present facts, evidence, and/or logical argument that demonstrates that the original position is incorrect.

"uh huh" does not meet the standard of "facts, evidence, or logical argument". If you disagree with Mr. Anderson's position, you should be able to do better than inarticulate grunting.

Regards --


In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012, 5:34:45 PM PST
Debunker says:
Actually that was one of Horse's better posts. Sad to say.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2012, 9:28:10 PM PST
DarthRad wrote: "As of a July 2012 Pew Research poll, 17% of registered American voters thought Obama was a Muslim (with 30% of Republicans thinking Obama was a Muslim), and these people seem to be the ones frequenting the Amazon forums the most."

SVA: Oh...trust me...I know. I've dealt with the conspiracy cultists for thirty-five years and nothing has changed. I have posted examinations of their methodologies and methods, I have posted list after list after list of evidence proving, not beyond a reasonable doubt, but (in my opinion) beyond ALL doubt that ALL evidence points to Lee Harvey Oswald to the exclusion of all other individuals as the assassin of President Kennedy. But it is like sweeping back the ocean with a straw broom. There is an old truism that goes, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Conspiracy cultists WANT there to be a conspiracy...not because there is any evidence proving one but believing in a non-existing conspiracy is simply the desire of their hearts. Not unlike individuals that have been duped into believing that wearing a copper bracelet relieves their arthritic pain, consuming pulverized rhino horn improves their sexual potency, or hanging crystals in the apartment helps multiple cat owning, single women, to realign their biorhythmns and center their cosmic powers. People believe silly things for a wide range of reasons but one thing is beyond dispute--they WANT to believe the nonsense they choose to believe and all the evidence, logic, rational discussion, or reasoned rebuttals will never change their firmly-entrenched superstitions.

Posted on Nov 28, 2012, 4:06:43 AM PST
Debunker says:

There are some people who just HAVE to believe in conspiracies. I'm not sure what the motivation is. You can present all the solid evidence you want, but there will always be crackpots who ignore it and instead focus on out-of-context quotes or outright lies to build the most absurd theories. And then insist it's the "truth".

Posted on Nov 29, 2012, 7:53:32 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Jan 14, 2013, 12:04:47 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012, 8:03:05 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 29, 2012, 8:23:55 AM PST
Debunker says:
I think a lot of the kooks have migrated over to the 9/11 "inside job" nonsense.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012, 8:21:21 AM PST
John M. Lane says:
Not all "Reds" disliked the idea of "one of their own being a presidential assassin...." Colonel Stanislav Lunev of the Red Army's elite espionage unit, the GRU, bragged about their assassination teams operating in the US during the Cold War. So did NKVD General Pavel Sudoplatov, although neither mentioned the Kennedy assassination specifically.

Posted on Nov 29, 2012, 8:42:14 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Jan 14, 2013, 12:05:13 PM PST]

Posted on Nov 29, 2012, 9:37:25 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 29, 2012, 10:11:23 AM PST
"Oswald's 'letter' to E. Howard Hunt..."

I agree that it was a KGB forgery (as revealed in the Mitrokin Archives, I believe).

I disgree that it was to E.Howard Hunt. That's the usual presumption, but it is addressed to "Mr. Hunt" only, with no first name given. In fact, carefully read, there's actually nothing in the letter that indicates it concerns a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. That is simply another presumption by the conspiracy crowd.

The full contents of the note reads:
-- quote --
Nov 8, 1963:
Dear Mr. Hunt:
I would like information concerding my position. I am asking only for information. I am suggesting that we discuss the matter fully before any steps are taken by me or anyone else.
Thank you.
Lee Harvy Oswald.
-- unquote --

I believe the Soviets were pushing the ''Big Oil Interests" aspect of the supposed conspiracy for a long time, and I always felt that it was supposed to indicate oil tycoon H.L.Hunt, although, of course, that is just a presumption on my part. The fact that it surfaced after the Watergate scandal broke and E.Howard Hunt's name became synonymous with Watergate led some to presume that it was EHH who it was addressed to. But it could be an anonymous 'Fred Hunt' for all we know, and Oswald (assuming for the moment that it was genuine, which of course it is not) could be talking about buying a pack of baseball cards. The non-specificity of the note renders it quite meaningless, of course, but that didn't stop conspiracy theorists from jumping all over it.

Of course, long-before the truth was revealed about this note, most reasonable people believed it to be a forgery, as it was mailed anonymously to a JFK conspiracy theorist, and was only photocopy of the original, not the original document (the original is generally necessary to validate the handwriting as authentic). The name 'Harvey' in the signature was also mis-spelled as 'Harvy'.



Posted on Nov 29, 2012, 1:36:47 PM PST
John M. Lane says:
Although I'm forced to concede that no evidence has come to light involving the Soviets in Lee Harvey Oswald's assassination of President John F. Kennedy, there are simply too many coincidences for me to disregard that possibility. This was at height of the Cold War and I simply cannot believe that the massive Soviet intelligence apparatus allowed Lee to woo and wed the daughter of an MVD Colonel, hang out in a "secret city" and then jet back to the USA with his blushing bride where he murdered the charismatic, young American President who'd angered Nikita Krushchev in Vienna. And then Oswald was shot and killed before he could be put on trial.

The "Evil Empire" that had the espionage resources to steal our atomic secrets certainly had the resources to kill Kennedy. At least that's my speculation on the matter.

Posted on Nov 29, 2012, 1:59:03 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Jan 14, 2013, 12:06:06 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012, 2:09:12 PM PST
John M. Lane says:
There you go, cluttering up a perfectly good conspiracy theory with a lot of questions, Greg Goebel.

Motive is a good point. The only answer I could conjure up would be Kruschev's temper. He had a reputation for being impulsive.

I haven't developed a theory about Ruby yet, but am impressed by his shooting of Oswald.

It could all be coincidence. I thought Minsk was "secret" during the Cold War? I also thought Oswald traveled beyond Minsk at times. If you're going to cheat and do actual research, however, I may have to re-assess my position.

Posted on Nov 29, 2012, 2:17:48 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Feb 5, 2013, 8:53:46 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012, 2:21:43 PM PST
John M. Lane says:
You're probably correct, Greg Goebel, but you're being a real buzz kill. I always enjoyed speculating about the Commies and Oswald. In fact, it amused me to think of Marina as his "control" despite her public image of being a "lost soul."

You're just not a fun guy.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012, 2:24:16 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Feb 5, 2013, 8:54:24 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012, 2:28:04 PM PST
John M. Lane says:
Now you're talking! :)

Posted on Nov 29, 2012, 2:30:10 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Jan 14, 2013, 12:06:14 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012, 2:38:59 PM PST
John M. Lane says:
Rules, Schmools!

I'm being silly, but you're being kind of wet blanket with all those facts.

Just when I get a little momentum up, you dump a bunch of history on me and leave me in the puddle.

Oh well, at least you walked into a bar with a mushroom! LOL!!!

Posted on Nov 29, 2012, 2:45:59 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Jan 14, 2013, 12:06:24 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 30, 2012, 10:18:13 AM PST
John M. Lane says:
My speculation is that you're being silly now.

Besides, who says Baron Wulfenbach is such a bad guy?

Posted on Nov 30, 2012, 10:21:56 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Jan 14, 2013, 12:06:30 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 30, 2012, 10:32:40 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 30, 2012, 10:33:25 AM PST
John M. Lane says:
I thought all Wulfenbachs were White Anglo Saxon Protestants. It has kind of a Teutonic ring to it. He might even be kin?

All women seem to have "the command voice", especially the pretty ones. It's well known that we men have enough blood in our bodies to operate both our brains and our man-parts, just not at the same time, hence our vulnerability. It's impossible to make good decisions at critical times without any blood in our brains.

I'm surprised the Foglios haven't mentioned that. It also explains how Frans achieves lift off, even though he's a dragon.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 14 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the History forum


This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  23
Total posts:  326
Initial post:  Nov 27, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 24, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers