Lee Goes Plunger Shopping. The actual solution to the Gerty Hunter Conundrum

Greg Doudna has constructed one of his mouse trap solutions for the evidence that Lee and family went searching for a plunger in the Whitforth Furniture Mart. Greg's mouse traps have 1267 moving parts. They are wonders to behold.

Somehow the plunger was transforned into a rifle part and then specifically into a firing pin.

This shopping expedition, which Marina denied as having occurred, was placed as happening sometime in early November by the 2 witnesses.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let the record show that Mrs. Whitworth and Mrs. Hunter have come into the room [reporter's note: 11:10 a.m.], and let the record further show that they have both previously testified that sometime in early November 1963, they saw Marina and the two children and Lee Oswald in a furniture store located on East Irving Boulevard in Irving, Tex.

When Lee entered the shop, it was claimed he was carrying a longish, thin object wrapped in brown paper. Liebeler then TELLS the witness what she knew about it - ie that it was most definitely a part of a gun. She obviously had x-ray vision.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, Mrs. Whitworth, you testified that when this man came in the store he did have an object with him about 15 inches long wrapped in brown paper; isn't that right?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you also testified that this man asked about a part for a gun; isn't that right?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you know he had some part of the gun wrapped in this package; didn't he?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. a. And you also testified that this man asked about a part for a gun; isn't that right?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you thought that he had some part of the gun wrapped in this package; isn't that right?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.
----
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you say he brought this package into the store?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. McKenzie, do you wish to inquire as to this package?
Mr. McKENZIE. Mrs. Whitworth, when this man whom you have identified as Lee Harvey Oswald, whom you know now was Lee Harvey Oswald, from his pictures in the paper, came into your store, you stated that he had a package in his hand about 15 to 18 inches long; is that correct?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; I saw him.
Mr. McKENZIE. I say, you had seen that and stated that he had such a package?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. I saw him; yes.
Mr. McKENZIE. How was the package wrapped?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. Loosely in brown paper and you know, it didn't have any strings on it, as far as I remember--it was loosely tied.
Mr. McKENZIE. Well, was it a package in a bag?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; he held it with one hand.
Mr. McKENZIE. He held it with one hand?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.
Mr. McKENZIE. Did it look like a piece of pipe or did it look like a gun stock, or did it look like a piece of wood or what did it look like that was in the package?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. I didn't see it.
Mr. McKENZIE. How big around was the package?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. It wasn't large I'd say it might have been this big [indicating].
Mr. McKENZIE. You are making a sign with your hands there, with both hands--
Mrs. WHITWORTH. What is that about 2 or 3 inches in diameter?
Mr. McKENZIE. All right.
Mrs. WHITWORTH. And then it was some 15 or 18 inches long.
Mr. McKENZIE. So, the package that he had was 2 or 3 inches in diameter and approximately 18 inches long; is that right?
Mr. LIEBELER. Fifteen to 18 inches long.
Mrs. WHITWORTH. That's right.

Though he carried it into the shop, he apparently quickly took it back out and put it in the car.

Mrs. WHITWORTH. He turns and walks out the door that he came in and took whatever he had in his hand back in the car and that's when Mrs. Oswald followed him back in and he got back in the store before she did.

Let's reiterate here that this was a furniture store, not a gunsmiths. And it had never been a gunsmith's. Mrs Whitworth testified that she had leased a small part  of her store to a gunsmith at some unspecified point in the past. How Oswald was supposed to know this, is anyone's guess, but we already have Mrs Whitworth with x-ray vision, so why not Oswald with clairvoyance? 

Mr. McKENZIE. Now, Mrs. Whitworth, there had been a gun shop in that particular location before you moved in with your furniture store?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; I leased one corner of my store to a gunsmith.
Mr. McKENZIE. And what was his name?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. His name was Warren Graves.
Mr. LIEBELER. Does he still operate a gun shop?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; he doesn't.

In fact, Lee informed Mrs Whitworth that he would need some furniture in about 2 weeks times.

Mr. McKENZIE. Now, he said he was going to need some furniture in approximately 2 weeks?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. Yes.

As stated at the top, Lee was apparently in the store looking for a "plunger" - which somehow in the minds of the witnesses - perhaps encouraged by authorities, was transformed into a "rifle part".

It wasn't. It was a part for the baby crib.

Let's see how all of this fits with other little hidden treasures?

This happened in early November. So let's say Saturday, Nov 2, 1963.

On Nov 15, Lee is in Oak Cliff checking out apartments with someone who matches the description of Ruth Paine. On that same day, a female phoned an electrical appliance store to inquire about renting a washing machine for a Mrs Oswald. The person who took the call remembered the name of the caller as being "Ruby".  But we'll call her "Ruth" instead because that is undoubtedly the name that was given.

In fact, Ruth testified that Lee was planning on moving his family out to their own own apartment. 

Mrs. PAINE - No. As close as we came to such discussion was saying that when they had enough money and perhaps after Christmas they would get an apartment again, and I judged, felt that he was saving money towards renting a furnished apartment for his family.

"Perhaps after Christmas", is just another way of saying "perhaps before Christmas". Say on the weekend starting November 22.

And as for her "a furnished apartment" -- as she says, that is her "judgement" and not anything she was actually told. 

Let's now look at a piece of Marina's testimony, first discussed here by  @Ed.Ledoux.

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 paper packages are magically being transformed into rifles or rifle parts all over the place! No wonder there are so many in the US!

Ed surmised that this ceib part was a long metal rod that would lift vertically to unlock the side of crib and allow it to slide down. Ed further pointed out a photo taken after the assassination showed the crib assembled.  Which means that the part was found - and most likely found exactly where Marina thought it was - inside the blanket. 

So a timeline looks something like this

Last week of September - Marina goes to the blanket and retrieves a metal rod for the crib

First week of October - Oswald arrives at the Paine home

November 2 - Lee and family are in the furniture mart looking for a plunger latch for the crib. He tells the shopkeeper that he will need furniture in about 2 weeks.

November 15 - Officially, Oswald does not go the Paine house on this Friday - allegedly because of one of the Paine children having a birthday party that weekend. But as shown in a previous link, very reputable witnesses place Lee and a  female who matches Ruth's description, in Oak Cliff looking at an apartment. That same day, a female phones a store about renting a washing machine for a Mrs Oswald. Note that this is the 2nd weekend after the visit to the furniture store.  It appears that for whatever reason, the move into an apartment is put off until the following weekend.  One might suggest that in fact, the plan was sabotaged by Ruth Paine. 

November 22 - Lee had told Frazier the [revioous day that he would be grabbing some curtain rods from Mrs Paine for a new apartment. He had these wrapped in the same blanket that formerly held the crib rod. When he goes to retrieve the rods, they are not there. Ruth hhas hidden them on an upper sheld. He goes to work without them, rather than disturb Ruth. Frazier does not give him a ride that day anyway. Instead he is dropped off by Bill Randle, per Mrs Roberts observations, as Beull is running late.  Randle is on his way to a job in Austin.

After the assassinaton, Linnie Mae attempts to shield her husband from any suspicion and heads the cops off at the pass telling them that Lee was driven to work by her brother and that he had a long package with him. She gives a deliberately false location for him to buy time so she can get to him and give him the story she wants him to give.  

Lee's plan for the day had been to meet Ruth and Marina in Oak Cliff, buy shoes for Marina and check out more apartments. After being let out early, he phones Ruth to see if they can get there now instead of later. She defers and suggests he watch a movie and then meet at the orignally planned time. He agrees.

After the movie starts, Ruth phones and reports the JFK suspect is hiding out in the Texas Theatre. To add to the drama and the confusion, the ticket seller, Mrs Postal also phones the cops to report some teens sneaking up to the balcony.

Two sets of cops respond. Ones through the front door are from the Postal call. They go immediately to the balcony. The ones through the backdoor are from Ruth's call. They know precicely who they are looking for. There was no one there pointing him out. 

Any mutherfuckin mutherfucker who thinks Lee was part of some conspiracy, or indeed, carried out the deed solo, needs rooting up the arse by Brian. Cruel but fair punishment.

I am fed up with the crap. Oswald was manipulated all of the way and if that isn't obvious by now, then it never will be.  Wilful ignorance is a tougher stain to remove than the skidmarks on Sly Fart's Reg Grundies. Think what his imaginary wife Mrs. Fart, must go though dealing with that every day.

greg_parker wrote:Greg Doudna has constructed one of his mouse trap solutions for the evidence that Lee and family went searching for a plunger in the Whitforth Furniture Mart. Greg's mouse traps have 1267 moving parts. They are wonders to behold.

Somehow the plunger was transforned into a rifle part and then specifically into a firing pin.

I think there may be some misunderstanding. I never said Lee and family went looking for a plunger in the Furniture Mart, didn't say anything at all about a plunger or firing pin. Did you read my paper? https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1450. 

My paper was about establishing the date, the automobile used, and the identity of the persons of that incident, all of which, all three counts, depart from both the Warren Commission and most prior research from all sides. On my proposed solution to the date and the identity of the automobile, two of the three items, my solution is original, not previously proposed, therefore if correct advances knowledge and understanding. Do you have cause to think or know the date and automobile identity of my solution is incorrect? Can you be specific why?

On your reconstruction of the Furniture Mart as Lee looking for a part for a baby's crib called a plunger, can you cite evidence or example that a part for a crib is known or called a plunger? (This is not necessarily a disagreement, but an honest question.) 

Both Mrs. Whitworth and Mrs. Hunter from the beginning, to reporters, and then to the FBI and testimony to the Warren Commission, said Lee came in the store first asking for a gunsmith based on an obsolete sign outside the store, and that Mrs. Whitworth referred him to a sports shop down the street for that. You accept Lee and Marina were in the Furniture Mart but deny Lee asked for a gunsmith. Do you have a good explanation why Mrs. Whitworth would say that from the beginning and testify to it? Why suppose that at all?

I agree with you that Ruth Paine called the Garland Furniture store inquiring about rental of a washing machine in keeping with an intent of Lee and Marina to get an apartment in the imminent future. I don't buy that the 10th Street Oak Cliff alleged sighting of Oswald at the same building where Tippit killing witness Jimmy Burt lived and next door to witness Frank Wright, one block away from where Tippit was killed, was really Oswald, nor that Marina or Ruth Paine were at that building either. The same source who said they saw Oswald living there also claimed to see Jack Ruby visiting there too. Mistaken identifications. Single dicey witness without credible corroboration. Jimmy Burt never said anything about Oswald being his neighbor in the same building, Frank Wright never noticed Oswald living next door to him, etc.

I think there may be some misunderstanding. 

Yes, there is. But it is at your end, even if caused by my lack of clarity.

When I said 

Somehow the plunger was transforned into a rifle part and then specifically into a firing pin.

This shopping expedition, which Marina denied as having occurred, was placed as happening sometime in early November by the 2 witnesses.

I was summarising a portion of Mrs Whitworth's testimony. I also never said I was responding directly to your paper. I wasn't. I was offering my own solution, which you compelled me to find with your ed forum thread in which you did make it clear that you believe Oswald was trying to buy a rifle part. 

My paper was about establishing the date,

The timeframe we have to work with is early November. November 11 is much closer to mid November than early November. If they had said "mid November" or "the first half of November", the 11th is as good a guess as any. But they did not say either of those things. We agree that Ruth phoned an electrical goods store on the 15th about hiring a washing machine for Marina. Where do you think Marina was going to use it? You might buy one and keep it in storage until you get your own place, but you don't HIRE one and then put it in storage until you get your own place. You hire one if you have a place already to be moved into, or you are supremely confident you will have a place very soon. 

So with that date of the 15th in mind. we go back to the testimony of Mrs Whitworth who recalled Oswald as saying he would need furniture in about 2 weeks. Go back two weekends and you land on Novemeber 2 as the likely date he was in there.

the automobile used

Well, we agree it was him, and that he was seen driving. Not fussed about the origins of the car which I am certain has an innocent explanation.

the identity of the persons of that incident,

Oswald, Marina, the two kids. 

On your reconstruction of the Furniture Mart as Lee looking for a part for a baby's crib called a plunger, can you cite evidence or example that a part for a crib is known or called a plunger? (This is not necessarily a disagreement, but an honest question.) 

Not only can, but already did in the first post. Here it is again.

It wasn't. It was a part for the baby crib. (note that there is a link embedded).

Both Mrs. Whitworth and Mrs. Hunter from the beginning, to reporters, and then to the FBI and testimony to the Warren Commission, said Lee came in the store first asking for a gunsmith based on an obsolete sign outside the store, and that Mrs. Whitworth referred him to a sports shop down the street for that. You accept Lee and Marina were in the Furniture Mart but deny Lee asked for a gunsmith. Do you have a good explanation why Mrs. Whitworth would say that from the beginning and testify to it? Why suppose that at all?

Here is what Mrs Whitworth said in testimony.

But I'll just preface it first by saying no shop owner in their right mind ever leaves outdated signs in their window, You get people coming in looking for goods or services you don't have and it pisses them off. Most will never come back. The sign thing is bullshit. But it was needed to help convince he was in there about a rifle.

My comments interspersed.

Mr. McKENZIE. Did he tell you that he was looking for a part for a gun?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, it was for a gun, because he asked for it, you know, that part. He came in because I had a gunsmith sign on the street and there had been one there.

YES HE ASKED FOR A PART - A PLUNGER FOR A CRIB

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you that?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; he didn't tell me that.

SO THERE IT IS. SHE ADMITS HE NEVER SAID HE NEEDED A GUNSMITH OR A PART FOR A GUN.

Mr. LIEBELER. How did you know that he came in because you had a gunsmith sign on the door?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, I presume that because he asked for a gun part.

SHE THEN ADMITS IT WAS ALL HER ASSUMPTION BECAUSE A PLUNGER IS ALSO AN OBSCURE NAME FOR A FIRING PIN

Mr. LIEBELER. And what part did he ask for?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. I don't know.

SHE CLAIMS NOT TO REMEMBER THAT IT WAS A PLUNGER

Mr. LIEBELER. How did you know it was a part for a gun?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, I just knew it was--whatever he asked for was, you know, pertaining to a gun, but as far as what it was, I don't know. I didn't pay that much attention to it because I had people coming in every day asking for something for a gun.

HERE AGAIN, SHE REINFORCES SHE MADE AN ASSUMPTION BASED ON THE NAME OF THE PART. BUT THE PART WAS FOR A CRIB THAT MARINA HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO PUT BACK TOGETHER AFTER TRANSPORTING IT DISASSEMBLED FROM NEW ORLEANS.

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.

This is what she was describing


It unlocks the side of the crib to allow it to slid down so that it is easy change diapers etc Obviously it also locks it back in place.

But you also need a plunger latch which is what I linked to earlier, but here is a photo as well.



Marina lied in testimony. She knew damn well that the crib rod was in that blanket. On November 2, they finally got around to shopping for the plungers to get it set up. 

As a bonus, here is Michael Paine trying to describe what he thought might be in the blanket.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you ever think there were tent poles in the package?
Mr. PAINE - Yes; I supposed they were tent poles, I first thought it was tent poles and then I thought there are not enough poles here, enough to make a tent. I didn't think very elaborately about it but just kind of in the back of my mind before I got on to the next thing I visualized a pipe or possibly two, and with something coming off, that must come off kind of abruptly a few inches at 45 degree angle.  

Presumably Mike means tent pegs - not tent poles


Compare the tent pegs to the crib rod.Practically the same shape.

I don't buy that the 10th Street Oak Cliff alleged sighting of Oswald at the same building where Tippit killing witness Jimmy Burt lived and next door to witness Frank Wright, one block away from where Tippit was killed, was really Oswald, nor that Marina or Ruth Paine were at that building either. The same source who said they saw Oswald living there also claimed to see Jack Ruby visiting there too. Mistaken identifications. Single dicey witness without credible corroboration. Jimmy Burt never said anything about Oswald being his neighbor in the same building, Frank Wright never noticed Oswald living next door to him, etc.

The witnesses were not "dicey". They were professional people. She had seen Oswald a week prior to the sighting with Ruth and had presumed he had an apartment nearby.  She was not certain on that point. 

Here is the description of the person she thought was Marina.

 Jet black hair, very plain clothing, on one occasion a light blouse and plaid skirt, and on another occasion, a dark blouse and the same plaid skirt.

Here is a photo of Ruth matching that description - taken the weekend of the assassination - a mere week after the sighting


Jet black hair, plaid skirt, dark blouse. 

She was "helping" Lee find an apartment and trying to organize a washing machine for it. 

But she made sure it never happened before November 22.

Greg P I see the long rod you show of the crib and I see you calling that a plunger, but I don’t see evidence in any of your links that anyone else calls them plungers. Where are you getting that the item you show is or has been called or known as a “plunger”?

Greg_Doudna wrote:Greg P I see the long rod you show of the crib and I see you calling that a plunger, but I don’t see evidence in any of your links that anyone else calls them plungers. Where are you getting that the item you show is or has been called or known as a “plunger”?

We are having some serious communication proplems. I originally posted links. You missed seeing them. I then tried copying and pasting the images. and you are still confused.

I NEVER called the long rod a "plunger" It called it -- a ROD. Which is exactly what it is called in sales material.

I have now taken screenshots to upload which include the original sales captions.  Hopefully you can match the captions to the items and you will "get" it this time.



The above was what was wrapped in the blanket. 

What I called "plungers" are in fact "plungers".  These are what Lee was trying to buy at the furniture store. The originals seem to have got lost in transit from New Orleans. They are needed (I think?) to lock the above rod in place.


You and Lance and everyone else who claim there was a rifle in the blanket are flat out wrong. 

My previous post giving a timeline of events is what DID happen.

Greg P -- I am slow at times but I get it now, thanks. The sales caption and illustration answers my question, establishes that, much appreciated. (I see I checked a different link, to another ROKC discussion, and missed the one you meant.)

So this does raise the question: is it possible Lee asked Mrs. Whitworth, since she was in the furniture business, if she had a "plunger" for a crib? That might be the second question after his first question: where is your gunsmith? Mrs. Hunter hears, and assumes the plunger is connected to the gunsmith. Mrs. Whitworth never did say she remembered a request for a "plunger", only that Lee requested something which she assumed was a rifle part since he asked for the gunsmith. Is it possible Mrs. Whitworth and Mrs. Hunter misunderstood? The firearms "plunger" meaning always has had a difficulty in that the two Oswald-associated weapons showed no report of a plunger problem or issue: nothing on the rifle was reported wrong with its "plunger", and the revolver, the FBI lab found that in excellent working order without problem. Given that neither of those two weapons had a plunger issue would that support the crib meaning? Could be.

I cannot agree however that there was no request for a gunsmith. Both witnesses said there was, and Mrs. Whitworth said there was an obsolete gunsmith sign. Both witnesses said Mrs. Whitworth directed Oswald to where he could find a gunsmith, to a "sports shop" down the street, obviously a reference to the Irving Sports Shop 1-1/2 blocks away on the same street, where a job ticket for some customer the FBI struggled mightily to identify without success named "Oswald" who had had a scope installed there (earliest time estimate to FBI) "about two weeks ago" (before Nov 25) according to Dial Ryder who authenticated the job ticket as his handwriting and said he had done the job. Just after Oswald asked for a gunsmith and was directed to the Irving Sports Shop by Mrs. Whitworth, and was last seen appearing to be driving headed there. 

Greg Parker wrote:But I'll just preface it first by saying no shop owner in their right mind ever leaves outdated signs in their window, You get people coming in looking for goods or services you don't have and it pisses them off. Most will never come back. The sign thing is bullshit. But it was needed to help convince he was in there about a rifle.

This appears to be the only argument offered for rejecting Mrs. Whitworth's testimony that Lee was looking for a gunsmith due to a sign outside saying one was there: you say no such sign existed, because no such sign could have existed (retailers do not allow such). I have cleaned windows for retailers for decades and have known thousands of retailers (somehow I had the idea you used to be one yourself, maybe not). I have seen many instances of obsolete signs, above buildings, on the sides of buildings, etc. some up for extended periods of time. It was not in Mrs. Whitworth's window (that's not how I read it). It simply is not accurate that no gunsmith sign could have existed therefore it wasn't there therefore Mrs. Whitworth was a liar. The conclusion is not valid because the premise is an invalid assumption. I realize assessments of witnesses are subjective, but I don't see Mrs. Whitworth as lying. You have no reason for saying so other than the invalid premise. Why would Mrs. Whitworth lie about that? Are you supposing she was bribed or threatened? If not, why would she? Makes no sense.


Then there is the evidence from the Irving Sports Shop which supports Mrs. Whitworth's account, the job ticket and Dial Ryder. Even though Dial Ryder (influenced by owner Greener who was on vacation when Oswald came into his shop) quickly distanced from the Oswald Mannlicher-Carcano, insisted that even though a scope had been put on a rifle for a customer named "Oswald" (who could that possibly be? hmm. the FBI could not figure that out!), Dial Ryder (and owner Greener) insisted it definitely was not a Mannlicher-Carcano. But that later narrative belies what Dial Ryder told in his earliest law enforcement interview when surprised on Mon Nov 25 to find FBI agent Horton knocking on the door of where he lived and then interviewing him. I believe this earliest interview report of Dial Ryder is the least distorted and most accurate memory of Ryder of his customer of the job ticket for "Oswald":


“Mr. Ryder viewed a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald, taken August 9, 1963, after which he stated that he cannot be positive that Oswald has been a customer in the Irving Sports Shop but is quite sure that he has seen and/or talked to Oswald probably in the store. He stated he associated Oswald’s picture with that of an individual who brought in an Argentine made rifle about two weeks ago and he, Ryder, attached a scope on that gun. He pointed out that an Argentine rifle of the type he has in mind has a different bolt assembly than does the gun used to assassinate President Kennedy; therefore, he cannot be definitely sure that the person he has in mind is identical with Lee Harvey Oswald.” (CE 1333, FBI document of April 2, 1964 telling of FBI interview of Dial Ryder Nov 25, 1963)


There it is. "Argentine made" means Mauser, the identical mistake in identification made on the identical rifle on Nov 22 by four law enforcement officers on the sixth floor of the TSBD. Dial Ryder made the same mistake. It was Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano, and Dial Ryder two weeks later thinks it was a Mauser. The only difference with TSBD Nov 22 is there was no Tom Alyea of WFAA-TV filming the so-called "Mauser" rifle showing that what those officers at first thought was a Mauser was really a Mannlicher-Carcano. Other than that, its the same thing, the same mistake repeated. It was Oswald who walked into the Irving Sports Shop on Nov 11, Veterans Day, after driving there from the Furniture Mart, and with Marina and the children waiting in the car, Oswald went inside. Dial Ryder was working the front counter himself that day instead of the usual woman because she was off for the holiday. Oswald said he wanted a scope reinstalled and could not do it himself because the threads were stripped--he had the scope and base mount in hand--asked if it could be done while he waited and how much. Dial Ryder looked at the base mount, saw three screw holes, and quoted the price for three drill-and-taps. 


It turned out the Mannlicher-Carcano only uses two screws so only two drill-and-taps were actually done, but that was after Dial Ryder wrote up the work order priced for three because that is the number of screw holes the TSBD Klein's Mannlicher-Carcano base mount that came with it had. Dial Ryder did the job while Oswald waited, and Marina with the children in the car waited, maybe 20-30 minutes or so, boresighted it, and either collected the full $6.00 on the job ticket that had been quoted to Oswald, or lowered the amount collected by $1.50 due to only two not three actual drill-and-taps actually needed and done. Dial Ryder then put that cash (= about $60 or $45 in today's money) into his pocket as a cash job enhancing his normal pay for that day without running it through the cash register as was supposed to be done. This is why Dial Ryder did not give the customer the ticket stub (because it was done on the spot) and why no customer contact information was on the writeup of the ticket. This is why Greener never produced a cash register identification of the charge--Dial Ryder skipped that part of the store's procedure.


Oswald at the Furniture Mart asking for the gunsmith, being directed by Mrs. Whitworth to "a sports shop" which was the Irving Sports Shop, and a job ticket for someone named "Oswald" who had a scope installed (actually reinstalled) on a "Mauser", mistake for Mannlicher-Carcano, is what happened there.


And this explains what was in Oswald's hand of size 15-18" x 2-3" when he walked into the Furniture Mart according to Mrs. Whitworth, never identified. That is far larger than the crib plunger looks, again arguing that what Oswald had in hand--likely firearms related because that was why he walked into the Furniture Mart in the first place--that wrapped item was not a baby crib plunger, nor a rifle plunger either (nothing wrong with the Mannlicher-Carcano's plunger). It was the size of what Oswald did have done on the rifle when he did get to the real gunsmith (Ryder): a reinstallation of the original scope on the rifle which Oswald had earlier removed on his own because it was a piece of crap, but now wanted put back on, except the threads were stripped so he could not do it himself with a screwdriver. 


And so, because Oswald was in the Irving Sports Shop as well as the Furniture Mart that same day, Nov 11 Veterans Day, and had a scope (re)installed on what Dial Ryder mistakenly thought was a Mauser, this means he had a rifle, "the" rifle, and the obvious place it would have come from that morning would be the garage of Ruth Paine's house where Oswald's stuff was. OK, it both supports the blanket story of Marina but also does not support the Warren Commission version of that story, for it is evidence Oswald moved the rifle out of the garage 11 days before the assassination, not 1 day before as the WC said--and there is no evidence the rifle, sighted-in with scope newly reinstalled, was put back into the Ruth Paine garage in some concealed form after it was at the Irving Sports Shop.


It both confirms the Marina story from minute one of police contact (i.e. prior to any "handling" or coercement of a made-up story put into her lips) that the rifle had been in the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage but at the same time opens up heretofore-unexplored questions and unknowns concerning where--and in whose possession-- that rifle was for the eleven days preceding the assassination when its whereabouts are unknown. 


This is what I am seeing. A different direction than others have gone with this.


Some other comments very quickly:


-- Ruth Paine's call to the furniture store in Garland on Fri Nov 15 re inquiry for Marina renting a washing machine was an inquiry call only. Nothing happened beyond the inquiry, it did not go anywhere. (No washing machine was actually rented from that store.) It indicates something going on with planning or anticipation of a move but is not clear on when any move happened. 


-- I cannot see your identifications at the Tenth Street Oak Cliff of Oswald and Ruth Paine based on the testimony you draw from Mrs. Loomis who lived next door. First, there were no multiple witnesses of that, only Mrs. Loomis, who sounds to me like an older lady with an active imagination. It is true that Pulte I think in some letter I remember seeing also tells some hearsay of someone seeing Oswald at that house at 10th Street but there is no name for the source given and it could be another version of the Mrs. Loomis story. If it indeed is some unknown, never-revealed second witness to an "Oswald" living there, it would be simply one of the many post-assassination Oswald mistaken identifications with which the Mary Ferrell site documents are filled. Mrs. Loomis did not claim a photo recognition of Oswald when asked by the FBI and did not stick to her identification. Mrs. Loomis never did put Ruth Paine there. You say Mrs. Loomis's "Marina" was really Ruth Paine because of jet black hair and wearing a plaid skirt. But Ruth Paine did not have black hair! Her hair was brown, not black! You can see that in the color photos of Ruth Paine at the time, such as the Bugliosi vs. Spence mock trial clips of Ruth Paine on Utube. In color, her hair is brown. You show a black-and-white photograph and of course her hair looks black in that photo because it is b and w. With no match in hair color that leaves only the plaid skirt. I do not see that as sufficiently strong to claim a woman in a different city of different hair color was on 10th Street in Oak Cliff because both wore a plaid skirt. In other words, the whole Nov 15 10th street of Oswald and Ruth Paine is way insubstantial, just not worthy of confidence to build an argument upon. Incidentally, is it possible Mrs. Loomis's "Oswald" young man next door might be Jimmy Burt himself (he lived at that address)? Maybe not, but whoever it was it wasn't Oswald. And Ruth Paine was in Irving taking care of her two toddlers with Marina there no doubt preparing for the birthday celebration for one of them that weekend, not on 10th Street in Oak Cliff! 


-- on the date of Oswald and Marina at the Furniture Mart (= date of Oswald in the Irving Sports Shop and the scope reinstallation) as Mon Nov 11 (my date), you comment:

Greg Parker wrote:The time frame we have to work with is early November. November 11 is much closer to mid November than early November. If they had said "mid November" or "the first half of November", the 11th is as good a guess as any. But they did not say either of those things.

Actually Mrs. Hunter said the date was either Nov 8, 9, 15, or 16. That is closer to mid-November. Mrs. Whitworth explicitly said she did not remember when it was. I believe all of Mrs. Whitworth's time sense estimates were reconstructions from two influences: Mrs. Hunter; and a memory that Oswald had said his baby girl was "two weeks old" calculated from the known date of birth, Oct 20. (I discussed that in my paper arguing that that is not an objection to a Nov 11 true date.) Your proposed date of Nov 2 (or thereabouts) seems based on Oswald saying he was going to need furniture in two or three weeks which you put at Nov 15 with Mrs. Loomis's "Oswald" on 10th Street Oak Cliff. But would Oswald know on Nov 2 that he and Marina would be getting an apartment on Nov 15? Something that major sure does not appear--no hint of it--in any of the testimonies of Marina, Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, or Buell Wesley Frazier. How about this for an alternative? There was no move on Nov 15. It was Marina in Irving with Ruth Paine, and Lee on Beckley Street where housekeeper Earlene identified him Nov 22 and police found his stuff, in keeping with all the witness testimony of Marina, Paine, Paine, and Frazier. Why suppose coordinated lying (if so) of all these witnesses knowingly testifying falsely under oath orchestrated by who? and why? when there is no evidence of it in the testimony and no reason for it. 


Incidentally, speaking of Nov 2, I think you nailed it (got it right) on the Downtown Lincoln Mercury in that really having been Oswald, in your chapter in your Cold War book. The one detail I can add to that is I have smoking-gun evidence of the date of that, as Sat Nov 2, and not possible any other weekend. It is the account of two of the Lincoln Mercury witnesses that the driving of Oswald was dangerous that particular day because the roads were slippery from a light rain. That has puzzled me because there was light rain on Fri Nov 1 and Sun Nov 3 but none on Sat Nov 2, and no rain the weekends of Nov 9 or 16 at all. But then I found discussions of how a first light rain after a period of no rain (true on Nov 1) makes roads slippery after the fact (after the rain has stopped), because of raising oils or grease to the surface causing slippery or slick roads. If the rain is a heavy rain the slick roads does not happen because it is washed away, but the combination of first rain and it only being light rain causes this known hazardous phenomenon. With light rain on Fri Nov 1 that works perfectly to account for what the witnesses told of the slick roads on Nov 2 even though there was no rain recorded at Love Field for Sat Nov 2. And the Nov 2 date is when Oswald came out to Irving sometime on Saturday instead of Fri eve as normal, and Nov 2 is in agreement with the certainty of one of the salesmen, Eugene Wilson, that the date was unequivocally Sat Nov 2 from his knowledge ([url=http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/W Disk/Wilson Eugene/Item 01.pdf]http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%20Disk/Wilson%20Eugene/Item%2001.pdf[/url]). OK, that was Oswald, your analysis is right on that, and its the morning of Sat Nov 2. That's where Lee was Nov 2. He borrowed Michael Paine's '55 Olds to drive Marina and the children and himself to the Furniture Mart and Sports Shop on Mon Nov 11. It all works, all in agreement with testimony and evidence.

Greg P -- I am slow at times but I get it now, thanks.

I am not immune to slow moments, so I have tried to be patient. Not that I do "patience" very well.

So this does raise the question: is it possible Lee asked Mrs. Whitworth, since she was in the furniture business, if she had a "plunger" for a crib? That might be the second question after his first question: where is your gunsmith? 

It was the first question. The second question was about apartment furniture.

He never asked for a gunsmith according to Mrs Whitworth - which is shownd in my first reply to you via her testimony. Here it is again.

Mr. McKENZIE. Did he tell you that he was looking for a part for a gun?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, it was for a gun, because he asked for it, you know, that part. He came in because I had a gunsmith sign on the street and there had been one there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you that?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; he didn't tell me that.

Mr. LIEBELER. How did you know that he came in because you had a gunsmith sign on the door?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. Well, I presume that because he asked for a gun part.

This is all predicated on the assumption that he asked for a gun part. But he never. He asked for a plunger. Mrs Whitworth admitted she knew nothing about guns, so Mrs Hunter explained to her that a plunger was a gun part. It probably never occured to Oswaldf to specify it was for a crib - because he was, after all, ina  furniture store and dealing with an older lady who hen himself probably assumed knew all about cribs and their bits and pieces.

Mr. LIEBELER. Let me ask a question, if I may. Mrs. Whitworth, isn't it a fact that you told a newspaper reporter that came by your store shortly after this happened what that part was that he was looking for; a Miss Campbell or Mrs. Campbell?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; I didn't. Mrs. Hunter and I discussed it afterwards, and I think that she might know more about guns and she said it was a plunger, but I'm not sure I might have told them that I thought it was a plunger, but I don't remember.

There are also these exchanges

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you it was a part for a gun?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. I knew that it was at that time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you that it was?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. That it was?
Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.
Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; he didn't tell me.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he mention guns?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. We didn't talk about it. 

Not even the bit about leasing part of her shop to a gunsmith was true.

FBI report dated May 18, 1964 on interview with Whitworth states "She explained that Warren Graves PREVIOUSLY operated a gunshop in the space occupied by the Furniture Mart, but Graves sold out to Fullbright in early 1963 and then continured to work for Fullbright at Ed's Pawnshop."
 
So the real story is that Warren Graves leased the whole store as a gunsmith prior to the Furniture Mart moving in. He sold the business to a Mr Fullbright in February according to Fullbright) and then commenced working for Fullbright out of Ed's Pawnshop.

Try and let it sink in, Greg. He never asked for a gunsmith.

He never asked for a gun part.

There never was a gunsmith working in adim corner of the Furniture Mart.

The alleged sign that had been left was allegedly on the door. If it existed at all, it would have been easy to remover if cardboard, wood or metal, or painted over if the sign itself was painted on. 

Their was never a rifle wrapped in the blanket. Marina testifierd that she thought a part for the crib was in it. Mike Paine described in testimony what he felt inside the blanket. He said it was a long metal rod or pipe with a 45 degree bend at the end. That is a perfect description of a crib rod rod. Marina lied when she said sheeked inside the blanket and saw a rifle. It was the part she was looking for.

That crib rod however was useless without the plunger clasps to lock it. They had probably got lost in transit from New Orleans.

In early November, the family went to the Furniture Mart to rfeplace those plungers. They did end up getting them somewhere because there is a photo showing the crib the background taken the weekend of the assassination. It appears to be fully assembled at that time.

The date: I say November 2 and you seem to underrsand why. You say November 11. Both dates are plausible due to Oswald not being at work on either date. However, Mrs Whitworth told the FBI that is was on Nov 6, 7, or 8. That's a Wednesday, Thursday or a Friday. Mrs Hunter was adamant that she only went in the shop on Wednesdays and Thursdays. If it was any of those days, it had to be at a later time than they claimed because he was at work on all of those days.

Irving Shopkeeper, Len Hutchison also claims he had am Oswald family visit. The best he could recall was that it was late evening sometime between mid-October and Nov 1. But then later seems to suggest it could be any time up to November 13. 

He said he was only in the shop during the evenings on a Monday, Wednesday or Saturday (later amended to Friday by Jenner and not cortrected by Hutchison). But for reasons not specified, he seemed to think it was on a Wenesday. If so, that matches Mrs Hunter's Wednesday or Thursday. 

I'm sticking with Saturday November 2 - but I think there are possibilities it was on the evening of Friday Novemeber 1 or the evening of Wednesday November 6. While your November 11 is not impossible, I'm not keen on it.  I do think it was very likely that they visited both shops. I have approached this as if it was during the same shopping trip, but maybe it was two separate trips. Hutchison insists there was a short older lady with them. I suspect that is why Mrs Whitworth was asked if there was anyone else waiting in the car. 

The apartment hunting
That you stick stoically to your defense of Ruth Paine re her visit to Oak Cliff with Lee is hardly surprising given your history of attempting to rebutt everything that is, or might be, a negative reflection upon her. 

This time you are willing to slur the witnesses - a doctor and his wife in order to defend her.

Your claim that there are no other witnesses is wrong-headed. You do not know there were no other witnesses because the authorities made no investigation of the claim. I am pretty certain had this been in Australia, the cops and/or federal agents would have conducted inquiries in the neighborhood actively looking for other witnesses. They most certainly would have interviewed the owner of 507 E 10 St to see who lived there, or to find out if it has been advertized as a rental in recent times. 

You also neglect to address the fact that Mrs Loomis nailed the anti-Glam look preferred by Mrs Paine. Let me remind you - plaid skirt, dark blouse. Had jet black hair. Yes, it could be any number of Dallasites. But of the females associated with Oswald, it can only be Ruth, no ifs no buts.

I do take your comments about the phone call re a washing machine ojn board. Yes, it may have been just a preliminary inquiry in anticipation of needing it soon. But that adds to the overall picture of Ruth actively assisting Lee look for an apartment.

It is troubling that she could not bring herself to admit it, but that admission explodes the myth that Oswald committed the assassination after being rejected by Marina. 

I would rather not get sidetracked right now by the bullshit out Dial Ryder's mouth. A new thread for that later maybe.

Greg P -- some productive discussion. I want to press here on the matter of the gunsmith sign which Mrs. Whitworth said was outside her store which you say wasn't. Mrs. Whitworth either owned or leased that entire building and as a used furniture store selling big-ticket items foot traffic is everything--getting people into the store to look around, see something they like, talk to Mrs. Whitworth about it, can develop into a sale. Mrs. Whitworth was a veteran retailer, I know the type, the long-term successful ones in communities who are easygoing and low-key and conversational with customers, not high-pressure or pushy. A quick google search on the subjects of furniture stores and how to increase foot traffic will show what is going on. Experts advise retailers to increase foot traffic by such things as holding special events inside the store, promotions, catchy signage--the idea to get new walkins, more foot traffic.

That is why Mrs. Whitworth leased a corner of her store to the gunsmith in the first place--it wasn't only about collecting a bit of rent from him. It was value-added to her furniture store business. A good gunsmith is going to bring in the gunsmith business crowd, and while they are in the furniture store visiting the gunsmith, a certain percentage of them will see some furniture of interest. All potential customers. All a numbers game--for every x amount of foot traffic in the store, a certain percentage take an interest in looking at the furniture, and a certain percentage of those end up buying. The gunsmith in the corner of the shop is a business-builder for the furniture store. Same principle as lots of bookstores have sit-down coffee seating--bring in more foot traffic and increase browsing and purchasing of the books from people who may walk in originally only for the coffee. 

Mrs. Whitworth advertised the gunsmith's presence in a sign. The gunsmith when he was there was happy having a sign tell his presence and Mrs. Whitworth was happy because of the increased walkins. When the gunsmith left earlier in 1963, you say you cannot imagine why Mrs. Whitworth would not immediately take down such a sign. I can. Because it was continuing to bring in foot traffic. Practically every day, according to Mrs. Whitworth, gunsmith-seekers, potential furniture customers every one who would not otherwise have walked into her store. It was gold to Mrs. Whitworth. 

The gunsmith sign was not "on her door". Mrs. Whitworth never said that. The gunsmith sign may have been part of a Furniture Mart sign above the store windows installed either at the top front of the building or on top of the building, some attached fixture visible to and large enough to be readable by cars driving by--or maybe it was painted on the building requiring repainting to remove it? Mrs. Whitworth's description was the gunsmith sign (like no doubt her own Furniture Mart sign of which the gunsmith notice may have been a part) was "on the street" and her answer yes to "on the front of the building". To replace it would mean taking it down and putting up a new Furniture Mart sign without the gunsmith reference (or, if the gunsmith sign was a separate fixture visible to cars driving by, taking it down, or if it was painted on, repainting over it). Sure Mrs. Whitworth could do that any time, and if asked would probably have said she had been meaning to do so but just hadn't got around to it yet (or some other excuse for the "delay"). But there was a method in what you see as that madness. It was bringing in foot traffic that otherwise would never have been in her store. New potential customers inside her store and noticing furniture that might interest them. Like Oswald when he came into the store looking for the gunsmith, but then seeing furniture that looked interesting. Other gunsmith-seeking walkins, same thing. Nearly every day according to Mrs. Whitworth. Why be in a rush to take down the obsolete gunsmith sign? It was working--bringing in the all-important foot traffic that otherwise would not come into the store.

Here are a couple of online articles giving advice to retailers on ways to increase the all-important foot traffic to show this context: https://www.getdor.com/blog/2019/10/14/how-to-increase-retail-foot-traffic-sales/; https://koronapos.com/blog/foot-traffic-retail-store/. 

The objection that gunsmith customers who might also be potential furniture buyers would be ticked off at finding there was no gunsmith in the store and resolve never to buy furniture from that store is just not accurate. The average motivated gunsmith customer might be disappointed that the gunsmith was not there but not angry at or blame the retailer telling them that, given that it used to be true and was "just a mistake" (that the sign is still up). And for any 1 in 100 gunsmith-seekers who might be irritated with the retailer over that and resolve never to do business with that retailer, chances are they were not a furniture-customer anyway and maybe another 15 will be newly interested furniture potential buyers noticing Mrs. Whitworth's furniture for Mrs. Whitworth to engage in conversation and make a good impression with her wares and her store.

The gunsmith, Warren Graves, who had subrented a space in one corner of Mrs. Whitworth's store never had leased the entire floor space for his gunsmithing work or controlled the whole of the building. It never was other than a subrent from Mrs. Whitworth who did control the building the entire time Graves was subrenting. When Warren Graves's gunsmithing business was bought out by "Fullbright" who owned Ed's Pawnshop in Feb 1963, followed by Warren Graves' physical move to Ed's Pawnshop after selling his business to Fullbright, that had nothing to do with a sale or conveyance of the Furniture Mart building, which never was other than occupied by and under the control of Mrs. Whitworth and her furniture store, during the time Graves was there.

You don't have any evidence Mrs. Whitworth's testimony concerning the gunsmith sign's existence should be rejected. You don't give any reason or motive why Mrs. Whitworth would swear that under oath if it were untrue.

On the location of the sign and circumstances of the previous subrental of space to Graves, the gunsmith, the following is from the two times of Mrs. Whitworth's testimony to the Warren Commission.

Mrs. Whitworth. ... we didn't have the gunshop in there then [the day the Oswalds came in]. It had gone out of business and I told him... Well, I had a sign--I mean, I had had a gun shop in there, a man had leased part of my store and he had a gunshop in there, one part of it, but he had been moved for quite a while, but the sign hadn't been taken down.
Mr. Liebeler. So, there was still a sign on the front of the building saying that there was a gunshop there?
Mrs. Whitworth. Yes.

Mrs. Whitworth. I had a gunsmith sign on the street and there had been one there 

Mr. Liebeler. How did you know that he came in because you had a gunsmith sign on the door?
Mrs. Whitworth. Well, I presume because he asked for a gun part.

Comment: It is only Liebeler who says the sign was "on the door"; Mrs. Whitworth never said the sign was "on the door". Mrs. Whitworth assumed (accurately) that Oswald came in because of the gun sign, and Oswald may have asked for a "plunger" (Mrs. Hunter's uncorroborated hearing from a distance is the basis for that) which may have been misunderstood by Mrs. Whitworth but probably was not the 15-18" x 2-3" unidentified object (Mrs. Whitworth's memory of the object's dimensions) Oswald had in his hand (that was the dimensions of the scope Oswald had installed at his next stop at the Irving Sports Shop probably because the object Mrs. Whitworth saw in his hand was that scope).

Mrs. Whitworth. ... I had people coming in every day asking for something for a gun.

(Pure gold for a retailer--fresh, new people walking into one's store, every one a potential furniture-buyer if something catches their eye that they happen to like. That obsolete gunsmith sign was a moneymaker for Mrs. Whitworth, no wonder she was in no rush to get it taken down.)

Mrs. Whitworth. Well, he asked in such a way that I knew he was seeking the gun shop and not the furniture store.

(Comment: this memory of Mrs. Whitworth as to Oswald's original purpose walking into her store is supported by Oswald next going to the Irving Sports Shop to find a gunsmith based on that is where Mrs. Whitworth told him to go. Also by the dimensions of the unidentified object Mrs. Whitworth saw in Oswald's hand that match the dimensions of what Oswald did get worked on at the Irving Sports Shop--the scope.)

Mr. McKenzie. Now, Mrs. Whitworth, there had been a gun shop in that particular location before you moved in with your furniture store?
Mrs. Whitworth. No; I leased one corner of my store to a gunsmith.
Mr. McKenzie. And what was his name?
Mrs. Whitworth. His name was Warren Graves.

Mr. McKenzie. Had you had any previous experience with guns?
Mrs. Whitworth. Other than just seeing guns in that little corner of the building, it seems like, and you know, hearing conversations on guns, but I knew nothing about guns.

Mrs. Whitworth. As well as I can remember, I told him we didn't have a gunsmith and he asked for this part and I don't remember really just what he asked for, but whatever it was, it led me to know that he wanted a gunsmith, which we didn't have.

Greg Parker wrote:Let's reiterate here that this was a furniture store, not a gunsmiths. And it had never been a gunsmith's. Mrs Whitworth testified that she had leased a small part  of her store to a gunsmith at some unspecified point in the past. How Oswald was supposed to know this, is anyone's guess, 

Greg Parker wrote:no shop owner in their right mind ever leaves outdated signs in their window, You get people coming in looking for goods or services you don't have and it pisses them off. Most will never come back. The sign thing is bullshit.

Greg Parker wrote:Not even the bit about leasing part of her shop to a gunsmith was true.

FBI report dated May 18, 1964 on interview with Whitworth states "She explained that Warren Graves PREVIOUSLY operated a gunshop in the space occupied by the Furniture Mart, but Graves sold out to Fullbright in early 1963 and then continured to work for Fullbright at Ed's Pawnshop."
 
So the real story is that Warren Graves leased the whole store as a gunsmith prior to the Furniture Mart moving in. He sold the business to a Mr Fullbright in February according to Fullbright) and then commenced working for Fullbright out of Ed's Pawnshop.

Try and let it sink in, Greg. He never asked for a gunsmith. 

He never asked for a gun part.

There never was a gunsmith working in adim corner of the Furniture Mart.

The alleged sign that had been left was allegedly on the door. If it existed at all, it would have been easy to remover if cardboard, wood or metal, or painted over if the sign itself was painted on. 

You're replying to points made in the past - points from which I had moved on.

For example, I also pointed out that Jenner said "door" and she said "on the street".

I concede he may have operated inside the Furniture Mart. The FBI reports are confusing in that in interviewing Whitworth, it says Graves "previously operated a gun shop in the space occupied by the Furniture Mart".  That to me, reads like the whole shop had previously been a gunshop. 

That is reinforced in the interview with Fullbright. It states "Mr Fullbright stated he bought out WA Graves in January 1963 at which time Graves was operating a small gun shop in the space operated by the Furniture Mart."

The insertion of the word "small" may be an indicator that it did not occupy the WHOLE space. But otherwise anyone reading that word conclude it occupied the whole shop. 

The whole thing is sketchy. Fullbright buys him out, then hires him to run his gunsmith business out of the pawnshop - which least is a better "fit" than a furniture shop. But the FBI document on Fullbright also states that that he terminated Graves employment after 4 weeks with the date of effect, February 16.  WHat great business people this mob are. I mean, you claim leaving the sign for a gunsmith up at the Furniture Mart was a marketing masterstroke. Great. Then you might need to explain why she was no longer in business by May 1964 when interviewed by the FBI.  And in November 1963, she was still blithely unaware that Graves had not operated as a gunsmith at the pawnshop or anywhere else since February and was still referring poeple there who made the mistake of believing the signage "on the street" and wandered in to her furniture store looking for weapons of mass dstruction. 

But in this instance, the sign, even if it was there, is immaterial. 

Once again.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you it was a part for a gun?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. I knew that it was at that time.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you that it was?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. That it was?
Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.
Mrs. WHITWORTH. No; he didn't tell me.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he mention guns?
Mrs. WHITWORTH. We didn't talk about it. 

Q: DID HE TELL YOU IT WAS A PART FOR A GUN?

to which she eventually answers

A: NO, HE DIDN'T TELL ME

Q: DID HE MENTION GUNS?
A: WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT IT


No mention of guns - no mention of gun parts = no mention of gunsmiths and referral to gunsmiths. Mrs Hunter overheard him ask for a plunger. Mrs Whitforth had no idea what he was talking about. Mrs Hunter tells her then or later, that it is a gun part. Which it apparently is, but it is not a common name for the part, as shown by the fact that the WC had to confirm it was a gun part with Hoover. It is however, not just a gun part - it is a part for a baby crib, and Marina's testimony shows she was missing bits and pieces of the crib to assemble it. 

There was NEVER A RIFLE in the blanket. What is so hard to understand about that? MIke Paine moved the blanket a couple of times. What he felt, he described as feeling like a tent peg which have curved ends at 45 degrees. That is exactly what a crib rod looks like. Mike was a veteran of Korea. If it had been a rifle, even disassembled, he would have recognized it as such. He certainly would not mistake a rifle, disassembled or otherwise, as tent pegs. But he could easily mistake the feel of a crib rod as being a tent peg.

Deal with that core issue because before anything else you say has any hope of being true, that rifle has to be in that blanket. Clearly it was not.

greg_parker wrote:There was NEVER A RIFLE in the blanket. What is so hard to understand about that? MIke Paine moved the blanket a couple of times. What he felt, he described as feeling like a tent peg which have curved ends at 45 degrees. That is exactly what a crib rod looks like. Mike was a veteran of Korea. If it had been a rifle, even disassembled, he would have recognized it as such. He certainly would not mistake a rifle, disassembled or otherwise, as tent pegs. But he could easily mistake the feel of a crib rod as being a tent peg.

Deal with that core issue because before anything else you say has any hope of being true, that rifle has to be in that blanket. Clearly it was not.

There is nothing hard to understand about your statement and I will deal with it now. What I see is you have given a different interpretation of what was in the blanket, Marina's testimony to the side for the moment: crib rods. 

You consider Michael's testimony the positive evidence for that or indicating it. As you say: Mike was a veteran of Korea. If it had been a rifle, even disassembled, he would have recognized it as such. He certainly would not mistake a rifle, disassembled or otherwise, as tent pegs. But he could easily mistake the feel of a crib rod as being a tent peg. A first response could be, maybe he did consider it might be a broken-down rifle, considered it none of his business, etc. and his testimony is not completely truthful that it never crossed his mind that it could be a rifle. I judge on balance Michael more likely to have been truthful on his blanket testimony but who knows for sure. On the other hand, your saying that an Army veteran could not fail to recognize a broken-down rifle in a blanket as being a rifle instead of something different (such as camping equipment)--this is the crux of your argument--well, I consider that a bit more ambiguous than you. I'm just not as certain as you on that at first reaction. Its a question that could possibly be studied and answered if there was the will to go to the work of designing studies of Army veterans encountering blankets with things in them and having them guess what is inside. As it stands you make a claim that could be right but I do not know that it is, and in the absence of data I just am not willing to take your word or judge certainty is established. I do find it believable from all I read of Michael Paine's testimony that he would have considered it none of his business and have been uninterested in finding out what it was, whatever it was. Nor is it necessarily obvious to me that a possibility that it could be a broken-down rifle would have been a big deal to Michael personally even if he had considered it, compared to Ruth, given how common hunting rifles seem to have been in households in Texas. Michael's coworker I believe testified that Michael's behavior was respect for other people's privacy. Both Michael and Ruth said in their testimony that they never feared or considered Lee a threat of physical violence to them personally when he was in their home.   

Marina said it was a rifle in the blanket, however Marina is the only witness on that, no other witness saw a rifle in the garage or in the blanket. Michael never said that, Ruth said she knew of no rifle, and Marina is a flawed witness. She has a track record of self-serving and/or Oswald-defending lies at the outset, and later there are suspicions, though none to my knowledge proven, that she could have been lying in the opposite direction, to Oswald-incriminating. From my own study on the Furniture Mart, I am convinced not all of Marina's prevarications (early lying) have come to light or been corrected by Marina to the present day; I am convinced Marina was in that Furniture Mart despite her denials to the present day. I furthermore believe that is the best explanation for something else that really makes no sense--why Marina to the present day has never engaged with Ruth in any meaningful way, just cut her off cold at the time (that could be understandable in light of the stress then) but never since got together to really talk with Ruth since (that is not so understandable). Ruth never did anything to her. Marina never claimed she did. Marina also does not come across to me as a vicious or revengeful person in nature or character as a generalization--just a person with more than average flair in life caught up in some things trying to survive and cope. Yet what she did to Ruth in the cutoff without explanation, never to be explained for now sixty years, when Ruth obviously cared for her and had done a lot for her, was clearly hurtful. It was not physically cruel but it was cruel emotionally, the kind of scars which last on people, to be cut off cold without explanation--psychologists say that is the kind of breakup (speaking on analogy with romantic relationships) that has been proven to have the longest recovery time, the slowest-healing--when there is no explanation or knowledge of why, and the other party refuses to speak or explain. Long story short: if Marina was already fully clean of past deceptions the expected thing would be for Marina at some point to reach out to Ruth, some form of apology, ask her forgiveness, Ruth would do so with some tears on both sides ... that is what should have happened among normal people in similar situations. I don't buy that there is some hypothetical dark secret terrible crime Ruth did to Marina that both know and both have covered up. There is no evidence for that plus if that was the explanation I think it would have leaked by now. The explanation I think (admittedly a surmise) is that: Marina has not come clean on everything such that it is all in the past. She knows that she could not pretend to reconcile with Ruth if it involved lying to Ruth some more (not up to or willing to put herself through that). Yet Marina also cannot explain that is the reason to Ruth either because that very attempt at explanation could become public. Under those circumstances, on the assumption that there are still matters upon which Marina has not come clean, there would be no other alternative in her world than to continue noncommunication with Ruth, which is what she has done. With Ruth never really knowing why it went that way.   

OK back to the rifle and the blanket. Here is what I see as the argument that the rifle was not in the blanket (meaning here: never was in the blanket):

• Oswald denied he had a rifle to his interrogators
  
• lack of positive evidence that the rifle was in the blanket (per argument)
  
• plausible alternative explanation of what was in the blanket (per argument)
  
• Michael Paine, Army veteran, testified to non-recognition of a broken-down rifle inside the blanket which is inconsistent with a proposition that there was a broken-down rifle inside
  

But if you look closely at those four points, none actually establish certainty that there was no rifle in the blanket. They go to reasonable doubt and could go to acquittal at trial on that grounds (though there could be other reasons for acquittal at trial rendering the rifle and blanket question irrelevant to the assassination-guilt question), but verdict at trial is not my question. My question is the historian's question: what actually happened?

Here are the points I see that weigh in favor of the rifle having been in the blanket--the argument going the other way:

• Klein's paperwork that a rifle was shipped to Oswald's PO box and Oswald's alias, with authenticated handwriting of Oswald
  
• The Backyard Photos show the same rifle with Oswald that is the 6th floor TSBD rifle (HSCA panel finding), and in agreement with the rifle Kleins shipped. The HSCA panel found no evidence of forgery (which admittedly does not exclude perfect forgery, but does exclude imperfect forgery which is most though not all forgeries and excludes all CT claims of evidence of forgery). The HSCA panel found the BYP were taken from a particular camera to the exclusion of all others which was authenticated by Robert Oswald as being Lee's camera bought prior to going to the USSR; family photos of Lee and Marina et al were taken by that same camera. And there was a witnessed destruction of BYP evidence by Marina on Sat Nov 23, confessed by Marina and witnessed by Marguerite, said in Marina's HSCA testimony to be multiple, not one, photos. (I realize you say that could be some photo from the USSR not a BYP, which I suppose is theoretically possible, though if the BYPs existed, as they did, the BYP themselves make perfect sense as what Marina was destroying.) Marina to the present day has insisted--to one and all including to CT researchers with whom she is otherwise sympathetic and Marina says Lee is innocent--that her story of taking the BYP is true. I believe one of the communist newspapers in the BYP, their people said they got a BYP in the mail from Oswald at the time.
  
• DeMohrenschildt in his "I'm a Patsy" manuscript which is sympathetic to Oswald, says his wife saw Oswald's rifle, and that Marina complained to him and his wife about Lee buying the rifle, in April 1963. 
  
• Marina's telling the police on Nov 22 upon police arrival that Lee had a rifle in the garage, in the blanket, prior to the supposition that Marina was threatened or coerced under FBI interrogation which only began days later. That Marina said that is the testimony unanimously of those there: Marina herself, Ruth Paine, officer Gus Rose. That Marina did not say that: . If there is an argument that Marina was lying at Minute One of her encounters with law enforcement, why would she lie to incriminate Lee there, when her motive for the Sat night destruction of BYP/(or other photo) evidence was so as to keep Lee from being incriminated? A more reasonable explanation is Marina kept the secret of the rifle until the day of the assassination and when police arrived she disclosed it because it was pointless to try to lie about that. (Marina those first few days picking and choosing lies in the interests of herself and Lee based on calculation of what would work.) That is, it is not good enough to say, "Marina was forced to lie about the rifle in the blanket". By who? Who forced her? How did that work? Was Marina prepped in advance to lie about that prior to the assassination itself? When was she first told (if so), "we want you to LIE and say Lee had a rifle in the blanket... you MUST...or else!"--when did that happen? I don't think it is reasonable that anything like that happened. The least problematic way of accounting for Marina's rifle-blanket disclosure at Minute One of police arrival is because it was true (or rather had been true up to Nov 11 anyway). 
  
• I consider the genuineness of Oswald and Marina visiting not only the Furniture Mart but the Irving Sports Shop the same day, Nov 11, to have the status of facts established. I consider the Oswald job ticket at the Irving Sports Shop authenticated by Dial Ryder as his handwriting and a real customer and real rifle, to have been Oswald getting the original scope put back on the rifle that had been shipped from Kleins with the same scope and base mount Oswald was now having reinstalled, apparently for the purpose of preparation for a sale or conveyance. These I regard as facts now established. That in turn requires Oswald, who left the morning of Nov 11 from Ruth Paine's house, to have had the rifle from the garage there. So that supports the rifle in the blanket.
  
• On the assumption that Oswald was innocent of the assassination and was a patsy, the mechanism for having him made a patsy makes more sense to frame him by means of a rifle that was or had been actually his, rather than fabricate 100% of the evidence and witnesses for that too. 
  
• On Michael Paine and what he felt in the wrapped blanket, my best guess is Michael did not know and did not care.
  

Another quarter heard from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANwP7kS-_wY
Idiot refers to the Tippet murder as "allegedly" happening. Afraid he'll get sued by Tippet?

Jake_Sykes wrote:Another quarter heard from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANwP7kS-_wY
Idiot refers to the Tippet murder as "allegedly" happening. Afraid he'll get sued by Tippet?

Yes, that's right Jake. Tippit was never murdered. After playing the role of Badgeman in the Dealey Plaza Theatre Company presentation of Shitspeare's Harveyoh and Sarahette, his 13 year old son Allan had arranged his fake murder so he could get some peace and quiet from all the Bolleywood scouts. He went into witness protection after claiming to know where "all the bodies are buried", and used the name Albert Doyle. He passed away in screaming agony a few years back when Allan's half brother Brian ("Albert"'s sole carer), accidentally left Albert in his wheelchair at the top of the stairs, wheels unlocked and with a dozen dogs and cats gleefully chewing on some bones next to him. Brian you see, could hear screaming coming from the basement (again). He never should have let a painter do the sound-proofing. 

It's all in one of Shy Fart's youtube blockbusters. I am shocked that you are so far behind in latest reasearch developments.

You consider Michael's testimony the positive evidence for that or indicating it. As you say: Mike was a veteran of Korea. If it had been a rifle, even disassembled, he would have recognized it as such. He certainly would not mistake a rifle, disassembled or otherwise, as tent pegs. But he could easily mistake the feel of a crib rod as being a tent peg. A first response could be, maybe he did consider it might be a broken-down rifle, considered it none of his business, etc. and his testimony is not completely truthful that it never crossed his mind that it could be a rifle. 

I see. You're quite happy to throw Mike under the bus, but never NEVER Ruth.

This is pure unadulterated speculation that has zero foundation under it - except the need to keep the conspiracy angle alive that a rifle was indeed in the blanket.

I do thank you for bringing up my post here at the EF - though I'm not sure a partial presentation isn't the same as a false presentation. In any case, the lack of response underpins why this case is such a mess.

A real life, real world, well supported logical explanation of why Oswald AND family were in a FURNITURE store, is ignored by conspiracy nutjobs because it ruins their all-encompassing conspiracy fantasies. It is also ignored by the Nutters because ( a ) they have too much fun going after the conspiracy nutjobs and 
( b ) it also spoils their own particular fantasies of the Lone Nut variety. In short, it pleases no one. 

I will address one more thing: The alleged package he took out to the car. I have checked all of the initial interviews including FBI interviews of the reporters who broke the Furniture Mart storey 5 days after the assassination. In NONE of those interviews was it ever mentioned Oswald was carrying a package or took a package back to the car. That has been added at some stage to bolster the bullshit about this being all about a gun part.

I also note that BOTH women told the reporters in separate interviews that they were certain that the Oswald's came in on Wednesday Nov 6 or Thursday Nov 7  with Mrs Whitworth inially saying that it was in the FIRST WEEK of November. Mrs Hunter used both a bus trip by her husband and the reason for going to the shop being to arrange a trip to a highs chool football match, as helping pinpoint those dates. The problem is that both women clain it happened in the afternoon - at a time when Oswald was still at work. ON the other hand, these early reports also indicate that Hoover had ordered his agents to check all Dallas and Irving births for October 20 and to interview all parents about whether they were the ones at the Furniture Mart. Have not found the results yet, but since Mrs Hunter and Mrs Whitworth were both requested to be interviewed by the WC with Marina, it would be apparent that they ruled all of those other new parents out. 

We can rule the 6th and the 7th out on the basis that it was too early in the day to have been Oswald. We can rule any day out after the 7th as Mrs Whitworth was adamament it was during that first week. I therefore am landing back on November 2 - a Saturday as the likely date.

Here are some other highlights from those early interviews.

1. IT WAS NEVER STATED IN THE ORIGINAL STORY THAT MRS HUNTER TOLD HE WAS GOING THE WRONG WAY ON A ONE WAY STREET AND TOLD HIM TO TURN AROUND.  IT WAS ALSO NEVER SAID THAT HE EVER TIRNED AGAIN TO HEAD TO THE SPORTING STORE.



NO WEAPON WAS BROUGHT IN AND NOR ANY PACKAGE.



The original time frame given for the need for furniture was 3 or 4 weeks. If my Novemeber 2 is right for this incident, that means he was looking at having an apartment on the weekend of the assassination, or the following weekend.


And finally, the two reporters who broke the story, stopped at the store simply as a fishing expedition based on seeing that infamous "gunshop" sign. Apparently there was no sign at all saying "FURNITURE MART" and I am no longer in any doubt about why she quickly went out of business. 

But the main point here is that the 2 reporters claim that the place had previously been a gunshop - and then became a furniture store - which jives with the way some later FBI reports are worded.


.
As usual in this case, there are subtle and occasionally not so subtle changes in original stories when the witnesses came before the commission - with all changes adding to the Lone Nut case (and later ironically, also to the conspiracy nutjob scenarios).

I won't be entering into any further debate on this unless you can come up with more than just wishing thinking and defaming - as in your attempt here to get around Mike's testimony on what he felt in the package.

Marina wanted to put the crib together for June. She knew eaxctly where the crib rod and plungers were located (inside June's crib blanket), but when she checked, only the crib rod was there. In early November, Lee, Marina and kids went looking for replacement plungers.  It makes sense of her tesumony on looking for crib parts, it makes sense of Mike's testimony as to what he felt inside Junie's blanket, and it makes sense of the trip to the Furniture Mart. ALL ELSE IS UTTER BULLSHIT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE - AND THAT WILL REMAIN MY POSITIION UNTIL YOU HAVE SOMETHING CONCRETE THAT NEGATES IT. I won't be holding my breath.

Look, your argument on Michael Paine and what he thought might be inside a blanket, combined with Marina having a crib and looking there for crib parts, is an argument and sounds reasonable enough considered in isolation. Its the lack of explanation for why all the other witnesses say differently than your reconstruction that I don't understand. Why won't you give an explanation for what you say are all these many civilian witnesses knowingly lying? Do you suppose they are all suborned to perjury by conspirators? Did they get secret messages scripting them to how they are supposed to lie under oath? Its as if you can't be bothered to give an explanation.

Mrs. Whitworth said Oswald came in the store looking for a gunsmith. (She did, repeatedly, said that was what she understood.)
Mrs. Hunter said Oswald came in the store for a gunsmith. Testified she heard Oswald ask Mrs. Whitworth, first words out of his mouth, "Where is your gunsmith?"
You now correctly note that it is established that there was a gunsmith sign on the front of Mrs. Whitworth's building (because the foreign reporters saw it ca. Nov 28). Now you suggest there was no furniture sign at all (not completely sure you weren't joking there but sounded serious). And you cite that foreign reporter from Paris, his misunderstanding over the history of the gunsmith in that store as if that is the truth (how would that reporter from Paris know?), while you consider Mrs. Whitworth's own account of the gunsmith subrenting a corner spot from her is just wilful lying from Mrs. Whitworth for no known reason! 

You have Lee and Marina taking a car, Lee driving without a driver's license, loading up the kids, to go to that store whose only sign (you suggest) is for a gunsmith, in order to go inside for a non-gun 50-cent crib part (or whatever nominal price it was then)--at a store with a sign saying a gunsmith is inside.

You have Marina, whose actions Sat night Nov 23 are to try to shield Lee from incrimination (burning a photo with Lee and a rifle that Marina thinks may look bad for him), you assume without explaining any known reason, that Marina was lying through her teeth to officers on Fri Nov 22 only a couple hours after the assassination upon first arrival: "officers, he kept a rifle in the blanket in the garage"--supposing Marina lying that early in a way which incriminates Lee (in the sense of connecting Lee to the alleged murder weapon, that aspect of the case), opposite motive from her undisputed action trying to protect Lee on Sat Nov 23 by destruction of a photo.   

Why won't you give an explanation for how it is you suppose all these witnesses came to be knowingly lying? Are you suggesting they were all enlisted to play bit roles in a conspiracy to cover up for those who did the assassination? Why not turn some of the critique of Harvey-and-Lee thinking to what you are supposing of all these random civilian witnesses put up to lying on request? Did these witnesses know who was suborning them to perjury? Were they paid? Was Mrs. Whitworth threatened? Come on. How does large-scale successful witness subornation to perjury work exactly? Were Mrs. Whitworth and Mrs. Hunter offered secret legal indemnification guarantees of compensation in case they ended up being prosecuted for doing the perjury requested? To be clear, I don't assume you hold such explanations, these questions are rhetorical because there is a black hole of actual answer or information. The point: you can't just refuse to answer and have the reconstruction you argue be credible. This needs explanation.

The sign outside the front of the Furniture Mart store (you now agree) where Lee and Marina drove that day said "gunsmith". Two out of two, 100% of the witnesses, otherwise credible (not counting Marina who denies she was there, denies she was a witness even though she actually was), both say Lee entered the store looking for the gunsmith of the sign outside. Both witnesses, two out of two, 100%, say that Mrs. Whitworth referred Lee to where to go to find a gunsmith, the Irving Sports Shop, gave driving directions to get there. Oswald then did go to the Sports Shop, was there, had work done there, that store being a gunsmith, not crib supplies. Oswald went there, exactly where Mrs. Whitworth said she told him to go: to a gunsmith, what he was looking for from the sign and why he walked in to Mrs. Whitworth's store in the first place according to the witnesses. Not crib supplies or furniture shopping (until he got in the store and did express interest in furniture, as described by Mrs. Whitworth).

And here is the most powerful evidence Lee was looking for a gunsmith that morning with the car, in driving the car belonging to Michael Paine with the appearance of doing so surreptitiously, that morning which I think I have established as a fact to have been Mon Nov 11: Marina just denied, denied, denied that she was ever there. It was the rifle, stupid (not you Greg, figure of speech). Marina was not covering up a secret trip to look for a crib part! That's absurd. The rifle was the issue--nobody wanted to be near it with a ten-foot pole. Is why Greener and Dial Ryder claimed certainty (against the reality of the event) that the rifle Ryder worked on in their shop for customer Oswald, where Oswald went after Mrs. Whitworth's furniture store, was not "the" rifle. Its why Marina denied she went to the Furniture Mart with Lee, because it involved "the" rifle!

There's something else re the idea of a crib plunger being the purpose for the trip: it is questionable Marina with her limited English ability would even know the name of the crib part as "plunger". Maybe Lee would. (I'm literate, score high on verbal skills, and I never knew of a crib part known as a plunger until enlightened by you a day or two ago.) But the crib was needed Oct 22 for baby Rachel, not Nov 2 or 11. And Marina at least by her testimony says she was putting that crib together in early Oct in preparation for the birth, which is logical, not waiting until after the baby is there to start putting the crib together and discover a part missing. If a part was missing or not working on the crib, what would happen is Marina would tell Ruth Paine and Ruth Paine would have assisted in getting the part needed. No need for a complicated major family-conspiracy operation involving illegal driving and denial by Marina to go obtain a 50-cent part from a store with no outward sign that it had furniture supplies inside (per your suggestion). Its like you have this giant conspiracy of witnesses suborned to lie all arising over some unbelievably trivial item, a crib plunger. When all Marina had to do was ask Ruth Paine for the crib plunger part and the problem would have been solved without fuss or drama. 

I wonder if what is going on is the idea of Oswald's innocence is considered inconsistent with him having the rifle, which in some CT circles has become bedrock, when maybe there needs to be considered a different possibility, in which evidence showing there was a rifle is not denied, but Oswald was innocent of firing it or knowing it was to be fired on Nov 22, i.e. the possibility that he was framed by means of a rifle that had been his. Maybe there is a fear of a slippery slope argument: concede he ever had the rifle, and there goes the ballgame? But the solution is not magical thinking in which widespread fabrication of physical evidence and widespread orchestrated suborning of perjury is invoked to create a different landscape fully understood only by the initiated.  

I end my part on this here. Could I ask a favor which is to explain, just one or two simple declarative sentences could do it, how you suppose the suborning of these witnesses to witting perjury worked (in the cases of Mrs. Whitworth, Mrs. Hunter, and Marina on Nov 22)? So if someone asks me, "How does Greg P explain Mrs. Whitworth saying she directed Oswald to a gunsmith down the street, if he says Mrs. Whitworth never did that?" "How does Greg P think Mrs. Whitworth was induced to wilfully lie about that? Who did the inducing exactly?" Those questions. I won't argue back (in this thread). On the rest, happy to agree to disagree.

greg_parker wrote:

Jake_Sykes wrote:Another quarter heard from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANwP7kS-_wY
Idiot refers to the Tippet murder as "allegedly" happening. Afraid he'll get sued by Tippet?

Yes, that's right Jake. Tippit was never murdered. After playing the role of Badgeman in the Dealey Plaza Theatre Company presentation of Shitspeare's Harveyoh and Sarahette, his 13 year old son Allan had arranged his fake murder so he could get some peace and quiet from all the Bolleywood scouts. He went into witness protection after claiming to know where "all the bodies are buried", and used the name Albert Doyle. He passed away in screaming agony a few years back when Allan's half brother Brian ("Albert"'s sole carer), accidentally left Albert in his wheelchair at the top of the stairs, wheels unlocked and with a dozen dogs and cats gleefully chewing on some bones next to him. Brian you see, could hear screaming coming from the basement (again). He never should have let a painter do the sound-proofing. 

It's all in one of Shy Fart's youtube blockbusters. I am shocked that you are so far behind in latest reasearch developments.

I'll admit I'm not keeping up with the latest Greg. Apologies and thanks for this important update. I now look forward to learning the truth behind the alleged assassination of JFK.

Look, your argument on Michael Paine and what he thought might be inside a blanket, combined with Marina having a crib and looking there for crib parts, is an argument 

My argument certainly is an argument. Thank you. 

and sounds reasonable enough considered in isolation

Let's go back to basic facts.

Do you agree that if the rifle was not in the blanket, then all else said about said rifle is total BS?

Do you agree that you therefore absolutely need that rifle to be in the blanket in order to maintain the rest of your scenario? In fact, doesn't everyone who has the rifle as part of their personal theories from Nutters to extreme conspiracists, need that rifle in that blanket? 

Do you accept that the blanket was Junie's crib blanket in Russia but used to put on the floor in the US for her to play on? Do you accept that transporting Junie's crib parts inside it was therefore very logical?

"Dear Marina, Today we received a very nice present for June from the factory; I know you will like it. They bought: one summer blanket, 6 light diapers 4 warm diapers, 2 chemises, 3 very good warm chemises. You should tell Aunt Valya to buy a winter blanket. You are leaving soon, so we would need a blanket cover, too. How is June eating? I probably won't come tomorrow. All right? I love you, /s/ Aleck."

Mr. THORNE. Exhibit 140 apparently is a blanket.
Mr. RANKIN. Have you seen that before, Mrs. Oswald?
Mrs. OSWALD. This is still from Russia. June loved to play with that blanket.
Mr. RANKIN. Was that the blanket that your husband used to cover up the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. We didn't use this blanket as a cover. He used it for the rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. And it was the blanket that you saw and thought was covering the rifle in the garage at the Paine's, is it?
----
Mr. RANKIN. Did you say that June played with this blanket, Exhibit 140?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I would put that on the floor to make it softer--on a balcony, for example, when June was playing on it.

Do you agree that the most logical reason that Marina looked inside the blanket was for crib parts - which she knew or believed might be wrapped inside Junie's blanket?

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.

Do you agree that an army vet picking up a rifle wraped in a blanket, assessmbled or unassembled, would never mistake it for tent poles or pegs? 

Do you agree that on reflection, calling Mike a liar based on his description of what he felt, has no basis underpinning it? 

Here is Mike's complete description. For someone who valued the privacy of Oswald, he sure did a lot of thinking about this package.

Mr. PAINE - I had, my experience had been, my earliest camping equipment had been a tent of iron pipes. This somehow reminded me of that. I felt a pipe with my right hand and it was iron, that is to say it was not aluminum.

Mr. LIEBELER - How did you make that distinction?
Mr. PAINE - By the weight of it, and by the, I suppose the moment of inertia, you could have an aluminum tube with a total weight massed in the center somehow but that would not have had the inertia this way.

Mr. DULLES - You were just feeling this through the blanket though?
Mr. PAINE - I was also aware as I was moving his goods around, of his rights to privacy. So I did not feel--I had to move this object, I wasn't thinking very much about it but it happens that I did think a little bit about it or before I get on to the working with my tools I thought, an image came to mind.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you think there was more than one tent pole in the package or just one tent pole?
Mr. PAINE - As I say, I moved it several times, and I think I thought progressively each time. I moved it twice. It had three occasions. And the first one was an iron, thought of an iron pipe and then I have drawn, I drew yesterday, a picture of the thing I had in mind. Then in order to fill out the package I had to add another object to it and there I added again I was thinking of camping equipment, and I added a folding shovel such as I had seen in the Army, a little spade where the blade folds back over the handle. This has the trouble that this blade was too symmetrical I disposed to the handle and to fit the package the blade had to be off center, eccentric to the handle. Also, I had my vision of the pipe. It had an iron pipe about 30 inches long with a short section of pipe going off 45 degrees. No words here, it just happened that I did have this image in my mind of trying to fill up that package in the back burner of my mind.

Here is a crib rod again.

Mike says he added other objects. You will claim these were components of the rifle, but clearly they were other metal parts of the disassembled crib. 

Do you agree that the totality of the evidence shows that Oswald loved June very much, and that he therefore would never deprive her of the blanket that Marina said Junie loved playing with? 

Do you agree therefore that that Oswald's expectations had been to use her blanket as an obvious place for the crib parts and that when Marina got to Ruth's place, she would put the crib back together and Junie would have her favorite blanket back in no time? 

Its the lack of explanation for why all the other witnesses say differently than your reconstruction that I don't understand.

The basics about crib parts in the blanket is the factual starting point. All else flows from that and these types of threads are journeys to filling out the rest of the story. That means updating it as new info comes to light.

The signage: 
My point with the reporters was that either there was no Furniture Mart sign or that it was dwarfed by the gunshop sign , or was just difficult to see.

That they thought the place became a furniture store after being a gunshop is backed up by FBI reports which state that "She [Whitworth] explained that WARREN GRAVES previously operated a gun shop in the space occupied by the Furniture Mart"

It does not say "operated a gunshop in part of the space.... or in a corner of the furniture mart...

So how did Oswald know it was a furniture store now?  My best guess is either that the ever helpful Mrs Paine had mentioned it in all the discussions on moving, that it was there, or he had stuck his head in the door when previously visiting the shops in that area.

Mrs Whitford
From the outset, she said he never had a gun and never asked for a gunsmith. That all came from Mrs Hunter who I note, was claimed to be a bit of a fantasist by someone at the Ed Forum - though I have yet seen any source for that, nor have I looked for any. 

Package
No package was mentioned by either women to the reporters and certainly no mention of returning to the car to place anything in it.

Direction headed
He apparently was headed in the direction of the sports store, but was going in the wrong direction on a one way street and did a u-turn. Neither woman could confirm once he did that u-turn, that he did in fact turn again where appropriate, in the direction of the other store. 

He was an inexperienced driver. No more to it than that. It is more than possible that Mrs Hunter did point him in the direction of the sports store when he was leaving, in the belief that the plunger he had asked for was for a gun. 

None of this is of any major importance though, as any possible conspiratorial wind is taken from those sails once it is accepted - as it should be - that the rifle was never in Junie's blanket.

Greg_Doudna wrote:
You have Marina, whose actions Sat night Nov 23 are to try to shield Lee from incrimination (burning a photo with Lee and a rifle that Marina thinks may look bad for him), you assume without explaining any known reason, that Marina was lying through her teeth to officers on Fri Nov 22 only a couple hours after the assassination upon first arrival: "officers, he kept a rifle in the blanket in the garage"--supposing Marina lying that early in a way which incriminates Lee (in the sense of connecting Lee to the alleged murder weapon, that aspect of the case), opposite motive from her undisputed action trying to protect Lee on Sat Nov 23 by destruction of a photo.   

To be fair, Marina’s affidavit does not actually say that Lee kept a rifle in a blanket in the Paine garage. She said that she “knew there was a rifle in Mrs. Paine’s garage” and that she saw a rifle in a blanket in the garage “two weeks ago”, but her only statement connecting the rifle to Lee was that he “used to have a rifle to hunt with in Russia.”

Regarding the rifle she was shown by the DPD, she said: “This was like the rifle my husband had.” (in Russia) “It was a dark gun. But I don’t remember the sight on it. It could be the same rifle but I’m not sure.” (Oswald’s gun in Russia was a shotgun - with no scope). 

Basically, taken at face value, Marina’s statement implies that either the blanket rifle did not belong to Lee, or Lee owned a rifle she didn’t know about. Of course, Marina later claimed that she initially lied and she knew all about the rifle, and maybe she did - but her initial statement actually incriminates the Paines more than it does Lee.  

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338563/

JFK_FNG wrote:

Greg_Doudna wrote:
You have Marina, whose actions Sat night Nov 23 are to try to shield Lee from incrimination (burning a photo with Lee and a rifle that Marina thinks may look bad for him), you assume without explaining any known reason, that Marina was lying through her teeth to officers on Fri Nov 22 only a couple hours after the assassination upon first arrival: "officers, he kept a rifle in the blanket in the garage"--supposing Marina lying that early in a way which incriminates Lee (in the sense of connecting Lee to the alleged murder weapon, that aspect of the case), opposite motive from her undisputed action trying to protect Lee on Sat Nov 23 by destruction of a photo.   

To be fair, Marina’s affidavit does not actually say that Lee kept a rifle in a blanket in the Paine garage. She said that she “knew there was a rifle in Mrs. Paine’s garage” and that she saw a rifle in a blanket in the garage “two weeks ago”, but her only statement connecting the rifle to Lee was that he “used to have a rifle to hunt with in Russia.”

Regarding the rifle she was shown by the DPD, she said: “This was like the rifle my husband had.” (in Russia) “It was a dark gun. But I don’t remember the sight on it. It could be the same rifle but I’m not sure.” (Oswald’s gun in Russia was a shotgun - with no scope). 

Basically, taken at face value, Marina’s statement implies that either the blanket rifle did not belong to Lee, or Lee owned a rifle she didn’t know about. Of course, Marina later claimed that she initially lied and she knew all about the rifle, and maybe she did - but her initial statement actually incriminates the Paines more than it does Lee.  

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338563/

Hmmm.

New thoughts.

She claims in that initial statement that she looked inside the blanket (no reason specified, although there had to be one) "two weeks ago" and saw a rifle.

Two weeks back takes us to the 8th of Novemember. But maybe it was actually a bit over two weeks? 

Possibly when Marina first moved to Irving, Junie simply slept with Marina?

When Lee was back on the scene, the crib was put together enough for Junie to sleep in that. It would simply not have the side bit in place, nor be on legs. Then in that first week of November, they both go to get the other parts from the blanket to assemble it properly. When they do, they find the plungers missing and go on their shopping expedition. 

For the Warren Commission, this story has to have some changes, so we end up with her looking in it upon arriving from NO for those crib parts - obviously on her own. 

We do need to assume with Marina, however, that at all times, the translations are accurate. I certainly do not believe this was the case when the police arrived at the Paine house, nor possibly at other times. 

And not to change subjects, but I am convinced the cops knew that Marina spoke little English PRIOR to going out there because of the fact that they sent a cop who spoke "a little" Russian - Adamcik.  I would suspect he was sent to hear what was said between Ruth and Marina, without giving away that he understood what they were saying.

"Adamcik, who understands a little Russian, and with Mrs. Paine and Mr. J. A. Brourantus interpreting, took an affidavit from Mrs. Oswald."

The question is begged however, how they knew Marina only spoke Russian prior to going out there? As far as I know, that was not supposed to be known to them at that time.

The question is begged however, how they knew Marina only spoke Russian prior to going out there? As far as I know, that was not supposed to be known to them at that time.

 Perhaps from Hosty? Or even Ruth herself?

JFK_FNG wrote:To be fair, Marina’s affidavit does not actually say that Lee kept a rifle in a blanket in the Paine garage. She said that she “knew there was a rifle in Mrs. Paine’s garage” and that she saw a rifle in a blanket in the garage “two weeks ago”, but her only statement connecting the rifle to Lee was that he “used to have a rifle to hunt with in Russia.”

Regarding the rifle she was shown by the DPD, she said: “This was like the rifle my husband had.” (in Russia) “It was a dark gun. But I don’t remember the sight on it. It could be the same rifle but I’m not sure.” (Oswald’s gun in Russia was a shotgun - with no scope). 

Basically, taken at face value, Marina’s statement implies that either the blanket rifle did not belong to Lee, or Lee owned a rifle she didn’t know about. Of course, Marina later claimed that she initially lied and she knew all about the rifle, and maybe she did - but her initial statement actually incriminates the Paines more than it does Lee.  

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338563/

Roger, I looked up all of Gus Rose's testimonies about that, the officer who asked the question of Marina that day. Gus Rose said Fritz in a phone call specifically said ask Marina if her husband has a rifle. Rose asked, via Ruth translating, Marina says yes. Rose says where is it now. Marina says in the garage and takes him to it and points to the blanket now found empty. Adamcik testified that although he did not witness the pointing in the garage, he did testify that Rose coming out of the garage moments after Marina showed the blanket told him, Adamcik, that Marina had told of her husband's rifle. Ruth Paine told of it, Marina told of it, the Rose-Stovall-Adamcik original police statement told of it, and as the document you link, Marina's signature to the written statement tells of it. 

On Marina saying that a rifle in the blanket incriminates the Paines... no. (If the Paines did have a rifle that would not incriminate of anything since there was nothing illegal if Michael had a rifle. But I take what you mean as Marina is "pointing to the Paines as the owner of the rifle she is saying she knows is in the blanket".) The key point is Marina was being asked about her husband's rifle, knew that was the question being asked, and she is answered that question in Irving. That she fails to positively identify the Mannlicher-Carcano as Lee's Fri night when shown the rifle and says something about remembering Lee's rifle maybe not having a scope ... that is not Marina saying the rifle in the garage that she said was there was not Lee's, or was someone else's (the Paines). It is Marina not positively identifying the 6th floor rifle (being shown to her Fri night) as the rifle of her husband which she said he kept in the blanket.

Both Marina's allusions to "two weeks ago" reference and to a "no scope" issue, with reference to her failure to positively identify the Fritz Mannlicher-Carcano as what Marina said was her husband's rifle in the Ruth Paine garage, stunningly allude to Nov 11 when as my Furniture Mart paper has just showed, Marina went with Lee when Lee drove to the Furniture Mart and Sports Shop to have the scope reinstalled (indeed when the rifle was taken out of the blanket that morning of Nov 11 it did not have a scope on it, Marina was not making up that allusion Fri night). Marina held back on all that she knew that first Friday night but what she told was a piece of what she knew. Marina never did admit she was with Lee on Nov 11, knew all about the scope Lee had put back on on Nov 11. But Marina alludes to both the relevant detail of difference in appearance of the rifle Nov 11 (the scope) and to the day of the removal of the rifle from the blanket to take it for the scope installation itself ("two weeks ago", referring to the day that did happen, Nov 11).

Marina is refusing to positively identify (expressing uncertainty and hesitancy about, wants Lee to be innocent) the assassination rifle being shown her at the police station, with Lee's rifle that Lee kept in the blanket ... citing a scope issue! Marina suggests she did not remember a scope on the rifle when she looked in the blanket. That was true! The morning of Nov 11--"two weeks ago"--when Marina and Lee did take the rifle out of the blanket--it did not have a scope on it coming out of the blanket that morning. That was what Lee was taking the rifle to have done that day (with Marina with him), put the original scope back on it.

Marina on Fri night knows nothing of the Sports Shop job ticket that will become known to the FBI three days later on Mon Nov 25 authenticated by Dial Ryder as his handwriting, attesting that a "scope" had been installed for a customer named "Oswald", which Ryder told the FBI on Nov 25 he believed was a certain customer of his memory with whom he associated a photo of Oswald and who he remembered had brought in a Mauser ("Argentine") rifle "about two weeks ago". Same two weeks ago. Same scope. Same Mannlicher-Carcano of the 6th floor, even though neither Marina nor Dial Ryder themselves would make, and in fact for their own individual reasons sought to not make, those positive identifications. 

Note also the progression. In this original Fri evening police statement (written up by police based on statements Marina was giving) the language is Marina "opened the blanket and saw a rifle in it" two weeks earlier. That is exactly accurate, what did happen Nov 11. In Marina's later version of the same story to the Warren Commission, she has (a) moved the timing earlier, to a week after arrival from New Orleans which taken literally is almost before Lee returned to Dallas on Oct 3. That scale of time movement, to ca. Oct 3 from ca. Nov 11 (true date of the Sports Shop scope installation trip with the rifle), is distancing. (It is the same story of the rifle-in-the-blanket sighting by Marina, but moved away from Nov 11). (b) Marina adds that it was "only a peek", only saw the wood stock, did not see the full rifle, etc., more distancing and minimization. In the original Fri night police statement she sees the whole rifle, no minimization. (c) she adds to the Warren Commission that she opened the blanket to look for crib supplies (a fib alibi as to why she saw the rifle in the blanket, which incidentally does not explain why if so she would go to the work of wrapping up and tying an empty blanket again to look like it was before). The crib supplies is not in the original Fri night police statement. (The truth on Nov 11 was Lee and Marina went to the blanket to take the rifle out to go get a scope put on.) All of these three "secondary later developments" of her blanket-rifle sighting which stem from the real event of Nov 11 with the scope and the rifle removal of the blanket, make perfect sense as distancing/minimization when considered in light of "d", her denial (flatly untrue) that she was in the Furniture Mart or out driving with Lee that day of Nov 11 when the business with the rifle and the scope did happen.

Nobody before I do not think has noticed these coincidences which aren't coincidences: the two weeks (Nov 22 time estimate named by Marina for seeing Lee's rifle in the blanket which Marina suggests may differ from the 6th floor rifle because she says the real rifle of Lee she thought might not have had a scope!); and the first time estimate of "about two weeks ago" [before Nov 25] given by Dial Ryder to the FBI on Nov 25 of the customer he remembered who brought in a Mauser (sic) ("Argentine") (similar-looking, same mistake made at TSBD) to have a scope put on, corresponding to his job ticket for a customer of Nov 1-15 parameters who gave his name as "Oswald"). The two weeks ... the removal from the blanket ... the scope ... the "Oswald" scope installation job ticket ... my solid establishment nailing the date as Mon Nov 11 when Marina was on that driving trip with Lee to Furniture Mart and Sports Shop ... Marina's steadfast refusal to admit including to the present day that she was seen on that trip ... it is all of a piece, and these correspondences in detail have not been up to now recognized for what they are. 

In other words, Marina, caught by surprise, revealed by allusion certain glimpses of partial truths on Fri Nov 22, even if elliptically, from which she later embellished and distanced combined with in the case of the Furniture Mart denying she was ever there, successfully on that denial (the Warren Commission bought her denial, and so have practically all CT researchers. I believe my paper is the first time, here in the year 2023, to get the most basic starting point fact established, the date [https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1450]).

Greg P -- you make a case on the crib supplies in the blanket, true. Moving it from "could be true" to "was true" is the sticking point, and to do that assumes two premises, one, Michael Paine would not have failed to recognize what was inside the blanket as a rifle if it was a rifle, and, two, did not dissemble (despite motive to have done so, distancing) when testifying to the Warren Commission that a broken-down rifle did not occur to him as the blanket's content. 


The second premise is questionable in light of what may be a parallel instance of Michael Paine: his 1993 account of seeing a Backyard Photograph shown to him by Lee in April 1963. That is disputed, and people interpret that different ways, but those who talked to Michael Paine at length in his later years about that, such as David Lifton (and somebody else besides Lifton who told of this I can't recall who it was at the moment) say Michael was quite certain, and quite emotional, that it happened. What made zero sense and credibility was Michael's explanation of why he failed to mention it to the Warren Commission in his testimony, or otherwise to law enforcement at the time: he claimed he had forgotten the incident with Oswald showing him a BYP by Nov 1963 and at the time of his WC testimony, but then when shown a BYP in 1993 that reminded him and he now remembered it, i.e. a claim of "recovered memory"! Well that explanation is just not believable, but what could be believable is that he would make that up as the explanation.


As for the blanket and the camping equipment, crib materials, broken-down rifle, the what really was in the blanket question, Michael Paine had motive and opportunity to distance himself from having previously had possible awareness of encountering the rifle in the garage. He was being asked in his Warren Commission testimony not simply of his memory of what he felt of the blanket, but his memory of what he thought at the time. Lots of room for malleability in asking people what their inner thoughts were at the time of an event in the past. No verification, lots of room for malleability and construction of memory, internal narrative construction that one can even come to believe, lots of room for "I didn't notice nuthin unusual" scared crime witness response. There was no upside to Michael saying, "Yes I did think it could be a rifle but thought, so what, who cares" (Ruth cared, and by that time the whole world cared, he would never live it down).


Still, if it were the blanket considered in isolation, you make a case. It just does not have a foundation in certainty because of the uncertainty of the two required premises. Its the rest of the evidence that goes to saying it wasn't crib supplies but the rifle, in the incident Marina told of looking in the blanket which she said on Nov 22 was "two weeks ago" which as fact was Nov 11. Lee got a scope installed on a rifle that day and he and Marina left Ruth Paine's house that morning with the rifle, and Marina's blanket sighting of the rifle is an allusion drawn from that morning.  


Michael as either mistaken (truthful) or dissembling (distancing), one or the other, in recalling his state of mind at the time, is the simplest explanation when considering the rest, especially the Nov 11 information that I have been bringing out. I don't know for sure what was going on with Michael Paine's changing story (he also in an earlier period before 1993 was claiming he had been shown a BYP on Friday night by Fritz, which corresponds to no other known narrative, don't know what to make of that either). But from my point of view, it isn't necessary to know or explain why Michael Paine said what he did, only that he didn't see inside the blanket, but a rifle was inside the blanket (on other grounds). You see this differently, give your reasons, I understand that. You make the best case for a non-rifle interpretation of the blanket I've seen. 

Greg_Doudna wrote:Greg P -- you make a case on the crib supplies in the blanket, true. Moving it from "could be true" to "was true" is the sticking point, and to do that assumes two premises, one, Michael Paine would not have failed to recognize what was inside the blanket as a rifle if it was a rifle, and, two, did not dissemble (despite motive to have done so, distancing) when testifying to the Warren Commission that a broken-down rifle did not occur to him as the blanket's content. 

The second premise is questionable in light of what may be a parallel instance of Michael Paine: his 1993 account of seeing a Backyard Photograph shown to him by Lee in April 1963. That is disputed, and people interpret that different ways, but those who talked to Michael Paine at length in his later years about that, such as David Lifton (and somebody else besides Lifton who told of this I can't recall who it was at the moment) say Michael was quite certain, and quite emotional, that it happened. What made zero sense and credibility was Michael's explanation of why he failed to mention it to the Warren Commission in his testimony, or otherwise to law enforcement at the time: he claimed he had forgotten the incident with Oswald showing him a BYP by Nov 1963 and at the time of his WC testimony, but then when shown a BYP in 1993 that reminded him and he now remembered it, i.e. a claim of "recovered memory"! Well that explanation is just not believable, but what could be believable is that he would make that up as the explanation

Greg, you may be used to browbeating others on the interpretation of fairy tales about magicians in the sky, using 745,000 word salads/borderline polemics, but it holds no water with me.

For a start, I rely on far more than your "two premises". It is a well worn tactic to zero in on what are considered the weakest arguments. You will note that in all of my responses, I try and address every major point.  Your "two points" are really just the same point - the second just adding a reason to believe Mike was lying.

So let's see how weak your SINGLE premise really is.

In your continual attempts to throw Mike under the bus to salvage Ruth's tattered reputation, you claim he probably did know it was a rifle but lied to "distance" himself from it. You cite his admission in 1993 that he had seen a copy of the Backyard photos prior to the assassination as your furthur proof that he knew. You claim he made up the "recovered memory" story to avoid accusions that he deliberately misled the WC about any knowledge of the weapon.

According to Ruth, not only would neither she nor Mike allow a gun to be stored there, especially given the young kids in the house, she also testified that she would not even allow toy guns in the house.

 Mrs. PAINE - Yes. I said to her that I did not want to buy toy guns for my children.

Given how strongly Ruth in particular felt, you maintain that Mike knew and kept schtum anyway. I am beginning to think you suspect him him of setting Lee up.

Your accusation meanwhile, that he lied about a recovered memory needs special attention. As you know, Mike ended up a few years later, with a  diagnosis of denentia. 

Perhaps you're just not aware. but denentia can begin to manifest in various ways up to 18 years prior to a diagnosis.

A study of over 2,000 people has shown a test of memory and thinking can reveal differences in people who go on to develop Alzheimer's disease up to 18 years before diagnosis.

The fact that he allegedly got quite emotional over it with Lifton is a clear sign that this "memory" was an early sign of dementia, and whatever he said at the time, should be dismissed as unreliable and consistent with his later diagnosis.

The bottom line is that had there been a rifle in that blanket, Mike would have identified it as such by feel and taken immediate steps to have it removed from the premises. 

As for the blanket and the camping equipment, crib materials, broken-down rifle, the what really was in the blanket question, Michael Paine had motive and opportunity to distance himself from having previously had possible awareness of encountering the rifle in the garage. He was being asked in his Warren Commission testimony not simply of his memory of what he felt of the blanket, but his memory of what he thought at the time. Lots of room for malleability in asking people what their inner thoughts were at the time of an event in the past. No verification, lots of room for malleability and construction of memory, internal narrative construction that one can even come to believe, lots of room for "I didn't notice nuthin unusual" scared crime witness response. There was no upside to Michael saying, "Yes I did think it could be a rifle but thought, so what, who cares" (Ruth cared, and by that time the whole world cared, he would never live it down).

You are simply retrofitting a solution in order to cling to your pre-determined outcomes. I follow the evidence. I don't bend it or reinvent it to fit anything.

As for the blanket and the camping equipment, crib materials, broken-down rifle, the what really was in the blanket question, Michael Paine had motive and opportunity to distance himself from having previously had possible awareness of encountering the rifle in the garage. 

Look, I'm not saying I'm a great writer. I'm not, But sometimes reading what you write is excrutiating.

"Michael Paine had motive and opportunity to distance himself from having previously had POSSIBLE awareness of encountering the rifle in the garage."

Either he had awareness that he felt the rifle, or he didn't. There is no "possible" about it, unless you are claiming he was uncertain about what he was aware of. Maybe he had dementia back in 64 as well?

To summarize what I think is your position:

Mike felt, lifted and shifted the blanket multiple times. As he had seen a BYP, he knew Oswald had a rifle and, feeling this blanket, he would know that this was it.

He also knowd dat Ruth don't 'llow no guns in dat thar household - not even toy ones what shoot dem rubber darts. 

Yet despite knowing all of this, he says jackshit to anyone about it. And then commits perjury to cover up his knowledge. 

At this point, I have to wonder just how far you are willing to go to protect Ruth. 

Still, if it were the blanket considered in isolation, you loop make a case. It just does not have a foundation in certainty because of the uncertainty of the two required premises. Its the rest of the evidence that goes to saying it wasn't crib supplies but the rifle, in the incident Marina told of looking in the blanket which she said on Nov 22 was "two weeks ago" which as fact was Nov 11. Lee got a scope installed on a rifle that day and he and Marina left Ruth Paine's house that morning with the rifle, and Marina's blanket sighting of the rifle is an allusion drawn from that morning.  

What was in the blanket has to be considered on its own merits because everything else flows from it. This river does not run backwards and contrary to popular belief, toilets in Australia do not swirl "the wrong way". 

You start with claiming that Mrs Hunter's version about the furniture mart was accurate (except for the date, and ignoring the fact that she and Whitworth were both initially adamant it was the 6th or 7th and that Mrs Hunter pinpointed the date using a planned bus trip and a separate trip taken by her husband as time markers) - and claiming you got that right, must then dismiss all the evidence that no rifle was ever in the blanket.

That is not the way it works. 

Michael as either mistaken (truthful) or dissembling (distancing), one or the other, in recalling his state of mind at the time, is the simplest explanation when considering the rest, especially the Nov 11 information that I have been bringing out. I don't know for sure what was going on with Michael Paine's changing story (he also in an earlier period before 1993 was claiming he had been shown a BYP on Friday night by Fritz, which corresponds to no other known narrative, don't know what to make of that either). But from my point of view, it isn't necessary to know or explain why Michael Paine said what he did, only that he didn't see inside the blanket, but a rifle was inside the blanket (on other grounds). You see this differently, give your reasons, I understand that. You make the best case for a non-rifle interpretation of the blanket I've seen. 

Cut the condescension.

This starts and ends with the contents of the balnket. If that rifle is not in it, you can believe what you want about the furniture mart incident, but it will be a rock solid fact that he never asked for a gun part, nor asked for a gunsmith and never went to the Irving sports store.

It is no suprise to me that the totality of the evidence supports all of that - because it has to when no rifle was ever in his possession.