were fibers from oswalds shirt found on the rifle ?

[fobrien1]

now anyone familiar with the official version of events will be aware that OFFICIALLY fibers from the DARK BROWN shirt that oswald wore when arrested in theater were found attached to the carcano rifle . in essence oswald was in the window wearing the brown shirt and holding the rifle , and that fibers from his shirt attached them selves to the rifle .

is this true ? . well lets take a look at that shirt first .



Five of the six witnesses who saw a man on the sixth floor of the TSBD were able to describe his clothing. All of them said that he was wearing light�"coloured clothes:

    Howard Brennan: “He had on light colored clothing”; “Light colored clothes, more of a khaki color”.
    Arnold Rowland: “He had on a light shirt, a very light�"colored shirt, white or a light blue or a color such as that. This was open at the collar. I think it was unbuttoned about halfway, and then he had a regular T�"shirt, a polo shirt under this”.
    Carolyn Walther: “a white shirt”.
    Ronald Fischer: “light in color; probably white … it was open�"neck and light in color”.
    Robert Edwards: “light colored shirt, short sleeve and open neck”.


so we can see so far 5 people not saying WE SAW A MAN IN A DARK BROWN SHIRT , but saying they saw a man with a light colored shirt .

the last person in the building that we know of that said they saw oswald was mrs reid , she passed oswald in the offices .

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what clothes he had on when you saw him?
Mrs. REID. What he was wearing, he had on a white T-shirt and some kind of wash trousers. What color I couldn't tell you

now if the official version of events actually relied on the above witnesses they would have had to concede that if oswald was the shooter that he wasnt wearing his dark brown shirt at the time of the shooting . but they didnt rely on the witnesses above because they didnt say what the commission wanted to hear . for example carolyn walther and arnold rowland saw two men on the 6th floor when the commission said oswald was alone .

if we accept what mrs reid said oswald was only wearing a tee shirt when she saw him . that means oswald didnt have on the dark brown shirt in the minutes shortly after the shooting . if oswald was in the window as the official version of events state and if the man the witnesses saw was oswald that again means that oswald wasnt wearing the brown shirt in the time leading up to and during the shooting . so how then could oswald possibly have fired the rifle and snagged fibers from his shirt on it ? .

our lone nut advocate friends of course will say pretty much anything that helps their argument . they assert that he was wearing the brown shirt , thus all the witnesses especially the ones who saw two men can be dismissed as wrong or lying , this is of course nonsense logic . they also say oswald TOOK OFF his dark brown shirt and used it to wipe the rifle of prints , this is their explanation as to how witnesses saw a man in a light or white shirt in the window and how fibers could be accounted for on the rifle . well that is an obvious nonsense . why ? . ok lets say for a second oswald had his shirt off and by his side , he shoots jfk , grabs his brown shirt and wipes the rifle clean with it , then makes his way downstairs . well this presents a few problems . one being that the rifle as LNs tell us had prints near the trigger guard , one would think that would be one of the main areas that one would wipe . the other being the stock , yet these are the very two areas where LNs tell us prints were easily found .

another problem is mrs reid said oswald was wearing a white tee shirt , she saw no brown shirt on him and she noted that all he carried was a coke . WHERE IS THE DARK BROWN SHIRT ? . our LN friends will tell us she was wrong or lying . that is pretty much standard LN logic for any witness they dont like . of course officer baker helps them out by saying oswald wore the dark brown shirt when he encountered him . but then baker had multiple differing versions of events , information which LNs wont volunteer . including one that has oswald drinking a coke AS MRS REID SAID , yet our LN friends while accepting bakers changing versions of events refuse to accept the coke . why ? because if oswald had a coke its more time that he had to be in the lunchroom and less time to get him down stairs , and that time is already limited .

now i would be quite willing to accept based on mutiples of witness statements that a man wearing a light or white shirt was in the window , and that the last witness who saw oswald in the building saw him in a white shirt , which means that oswald fits the descriptions given . but our lone nut friends say NO all those witnesses are wrong , baker is right . this is fool logic . LNs could make a fair case based on my above concession that oswald was in the window , BUT THEY DONT OFFER THE EVIDENCE I JUST DID . why is that ? . well its the age old LN logic THEY HAVE TO MAKE THE EVIDENCE FIT THE FACTS , instead of the facts fitting the evidence . such as the BACK wound being too LOW , so they had to move it up several inches to the neck to make their trajectory work , the same was done with the head wound entry . normal , honest and unbiased people will all have a problem with the above and see the problem , not LNs , ive yet to speak with any LN who has any problem at all with the above . which speaks volumes .

they have brown fibers , they say they match the shirt , the shirt was oswalds thus he is gulty , thats their logic all be it a very simple one . THEY FEEL THE FIBERS ARE INTEGRAL TO LINKING THE RIFLE TO OSWALD and thus that is proof that oswald owned and fired the rifle . and they will ignore or dismiss any number of witnesses or evidence that dispute that logic .if they admit that oswald was wearing a white tee shirt they feel they will loose the fibers and their link from oswald to the rifle . this is not how we research , investigate and evaluate evidence . and not how we determine as best as we can what the facts are .

[fobrien1]

so at this point was oswald wearing a dark brown shirt ? mrs reid says no , baker and truly said yes but we have multiple versions of events from them which is a problem . one version has baker on the 4th floor encountering a man in a tan/brown jacket by the stairs . we know this is an impossibility because dorothy garner was on the 4th floor near the stairs door , she saw adams and styles go down stairs , she saw baker and truly emerge from the stairs and on to the 4th floor landing , but she never saw anyone else . so the 4th floor story by baker is either bunkum or it happened on a different floor . this version differs greatly from the version where he arrives on the 2nd floor and sees oswald inside the lunchroom through a little window in the door . had oswald lived his defense attorney would have had fun with officer baker and his ever changing version of events . oswald was drinking a coke then he wasnt , oswald was on the 4th floor by the stairs (then he wasnt) , then he was on the 2nd floor in the lunchroom etc etc .

our LN friends will of course ask ARE YOU SAYING BAKER AND TRULY LIED ? , as tho its outrageous to assert that someone lied lol . well our LN friends think anyone that contradicts them is wrong , seeking fame , seeking fortune , LIARS . they even call oswalds elderly and ill landlady a liar because she failed to mention something for a few days that she had no reason to link to oswald . before we say anyone lied we have to look at the time (1963 ) and the situation the country had been in and was in . ww3 had only narrowly been averted in 62 , we know earl warren only sat on the commission and went along with it because lbj told him millions will die if he doesnt . oswald had defected to russia , he had a russian wife , oswald supposedly renounced his american citizenship (he never did ) and he supposedly gave the russians secret info . so to anyone looking at this case be that fbi or lbj (whether they thought oswald acted alone / didnt act at all or acted with others ) its clear to see that ww3 would have to be of the most serious concern whether a real one or not . so when the question is put to me why would a cop lie ? , why would the commission lie ? , why would a pathologist lie ? , my answer is this WOULD YOU GO ALONG WITH A LIE IF YOU THOUGHT IT WOULD AVERT WW3 (which had only been narrowly averted the year before ) ? . i think most if not all people if honest while not wanting to lie would see the bigger picture and go along with a lie . or would lie . day of the dallas police the man who said he found a palm print of oswalds would have by 1963 no doubt wrote and signed hundreds and maybe thousands of reports/statements  . STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE . yet when the commission sent an fbi agent to mr day with a statement requesting that he sign it (the wc had problems with that palm print , problems they didnt want because it placed serious doubt on the reliability of that print) and guess what happened ? , MR DAY DECLINED TO SIGN THE FBI STATEMENT . maybe mr day was willing to go only so far ? or perhaps the lie was sticking in his craw and he could stomach no more ? . but days testimony regarding the palm print on the rifle are in contradiction to the fbi testimony that no such print was present . when you add that knowledge to the knowledge that day declined to sign an fbi statement about this print its difficult for an honest and unbiased mind not to think that this stinks .

bakers multiple versions of events stink , as truly was along with him for the ride he also has to be viewed with suspicion . can i prove baker lied ? no not conclusively but his morphing statements are there for all to see . in any other regular case serious questions would be asked of baker , but not this case . but then when only one conclusion is sought and desired , such questions are not asked . for example charles givens (who also gave multiple differing statements) according to the fbi said he saw oswald in the lunchroom at 11.50am the morning of the assassination , this fits in perfectly with other witnesses who saw oswald on the 1st floor at that time . including bill shelly his supervisor . however after that givens stories also morphed . he was on the 1st floor and saw oswald in the lunch room reading the paper at 11.50 , he was on the 1st floor and left the building at 12.00 , then he was on the 1st floor and went up to the 6th flor at 11.55  and saw oswald up there . we know eddie piper saw oswald still on the 1st floor at midday so givens multiple versions are in serious doubt and likely lies . the commission spoke to givens about his statement that he saw oswald on the 1st floor at 11.50 reading the paper , he denied giving that statement to the fbi . but then given that he was now saying he saw oswald UPSTAIRS on the 6th floor he couldnt then admit he said he saw oswald on the 1st floor . now an honest commission would have said WHOA hang on there minute , this guy keeps changing his story , LETS GET THE FBI AGENT who took the statement in here and ask him if givens gave the statement . THAT NEVER HAPPENED , why ? because the commission needed oswald staying up on the 6th floor , having him coming down and eating lunch would be a problem . so the agent was never called and givens never questioned about his ever changing story .

another instance was helen markham telling agent odum in statement that tippits killer was about 18 with dark/black hair , clearly not oswald . did the commission again say WHOA THERE we need to see if mrs markham did indeed give that description and LETS GET AGENT ODUM IN HERE to confirm if she did or not ? NOT ON YOUR NELLY . you see odum has shown over the years that if nothing else he honest . so if he was called in and asked did markham give you that description ? he would have testified YES , im sure you can see the problem here. that would then mean either oswald didnt shoot tippit or he was there with a second younger man . so THEY NEVER CALLED ODUM to contradict markham .

but we can see that a lot of witnesses said the shooter wore light clothing not a dark brown shirt , even LN star witness brennan said that . so there is no way for anyone based on the witnesses to say the shooter was wearing the dark brown shirt in evidence .

"The Warren Commission concluded that shortly after the assassination, Oswald boarded a bus, but when the bus got caught in a traffic jam, he disembarked and took a taxicab to his rooming house. The Commission also found that Oswald changed clothes at the rooming house and walked about nine-tenths of a mile away from it before he encountered Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit." (HSCA Report, p. 59)

the above is from the hsca report , ANYONE SEE THE RELEVANT PART ? .

"The Commission also found that Oswald changed clothes at the roominghouse"

so both hsca and warren commission according to the hsca agreed that OSWALD WENT HOME AT 1PM OR SO AND CHANGED HIS CLOTHES . is there more evidence supporting this ? yes most certainly .


CE2003 �" Fritz notes of interrogation.
during this conversation, he told me he reached his home by cab
and changed both his shirt and trousers before going to the show.


Bookout report of 11/24 on Fritz's interrogation of Oswald

He stated that
after arriving at his apartment, he changed his shirt and
trousers because they were dirty . He described his dirty
clothes as being a reddish colored, long sleeved, shirt
with a button-down collar and gray colored trousers . He
indicated that he had placed these articles of clothing
in the lower drawer of his dresser .

The 11-23-63 notes of Dallas Police Captain Will Fritz, who was leading the interrogation of Oswald, reflect that Oswald “Says 11-22-63 rode bus/got trans same out of pocket…Changed shirts + tr. Put in dirty clothes�"long sleeve red sh + gray tr.” Fritz’s typed-up report on this interrogation states more clearly that “During this conversation he told me he reached his home by cab and changed both his shirt and trousers before going to the show” (24H267). This account is confirmed by a report on this interrogation by Secret Service Inspector Thomas Kelley (CD87 p375). Kelley writes “He said he went home, changed his trousers and shirt, put his shirt in a drawer. This was a red shirt, and he put it in his dirty clothes. He described the shirt as having a button down collar and of reddish color. The trousers were grey colored.” The FBI report on this interrogation confirms this as well, with Agent Bookhout relating that Oswald "stated that after arriving at his apartment he changed his shirt and trousers, because they were dirty. He described his dirty clothes as being a reddish colored, long sleeved shirt with a button-down collar and gray colored trousers" (CD5 p100)

Inventory of items given to FBI on the 26th
1 Man’s brown sport shirt "Taken from Lee Harvey Oswald" (actually taken on 11/22)

above is one part of an inventory of items removed from oswalds room at the rooming house . found in a drawer (as per oswalds interrogation notes ) were a dirty red button down collared shirt and slacks , where oswald said he put his dirty clothes that afternoon .

now think about this . if oswald was the shooter (and he wasnt the loser / nut that history has falsely made him out to be ) and he wasnt stupid (far from it) he would know that evidence could be on the shirt , gun oil or nitrates etc . its also logical to think that if he was in the window that some of the large crowd saw him and his shirt . wouldnt it be in the interest of a GUILTY MAN to not tell the police he changed his shirt ? , would he not simply leave the police and fbi waste their time testing a the shirt he had on that wasnt worn during the shooting ?. let the police show the witnesses THE WRONG SHIRT ? . so why would he volunteer the information that HEY GUYS THEY SHIRT YOU WANT WITH ALL THE EVIDENCE IS IN MY DRAWER AT HOME ? . we know from the interogations and his press interviews that he denied any crime and that he volunteered little , after all he was waiting on his lawyer mr abt  . in my humble opinion oswald IF GUILTY would have volunteered nothing and sat there with a wry smile thinkinh HA HA THEY ARE TESTING THE WRONG SHIRT .


so what does all this mean ? . well its simple while in custody oswald was asked what he did that afternoon . the interrogation notes say he told them that he arrived home at 1pm or a tad shortly there after and that he changed his slacks and shirt . now anyone that has worked in a busy and large warehouse filling orders especially when one has to handle boxes and packages with ink on them all day every day will know that your hands and clothes get filthy . plus even being december it was staill a warm day as evidenced by people wearing shirts such as billy lovelady outside the building . so is it not reasonable that a man would spend a few minutes changing out of those dirty sweaty clothes ? of course it is .

that of course poses another question . if you just killed jfk, and you came home in a hurry to grab a gun and jacket to go on the run WOULD YOU BE SPENDING 3 OR 4 MINUTES CHANGING YOUR CLOTHES AND THEN STANDING OUTSIDE AT THE BUS STOP ? .

our LN friends deny or ignore that oswald did this for atleast two reasons . one being that they need oswald to leave his rooming house pronto as he has to travel a mile to 10th and patton , that already has serious problems as i have pointed out in another thread . so adding 3 or 4 or more minutes atleast to that simply makes it virtually impossible . the other being that mrs roberts oswalds landlady actually said he was in his room 3 or 4 minutes and that she later went to the window and saw him STILL outside at the bus stop . LNs simply cant have this , because to accept this means that either oswald didnt kill tippit or someone drove him into that area , there really is no other way of looking at it . and lol naturally they cant say their LONE NUT was driven anywhere . so they opt to ignore this evidence and they simply assert he came home at 1pm and immediately left with coat and pistol , something that is completely untrue .

there is a third reason tho which should by now becoming clear . IF MR OSWALD CHANGED HIS SLACKS AND SHIRT AT 1PM how could fresh fibers from a shirt he only put on at 1pm be on the rifle left at the depository at 12.30pm ? . the answer is ITS IMPOSSIBLE . so as far as LNs are concerned oswald NEVER changed any clothing , he entered the rooming house at 1pm and left seconds later . this must be the case for LNs or else they lose the fibers . they lose the fibers they lose the link to the rifle . this also begs the question that if fibers from oswalds shirt only put on at 1pm were on the rifle HOW DID THEY GET ON IT ? . there are only two possibilities here , one that the shirt accidentally contacted the rifle , this is possible as evidence photos shows differing items of evidence together . and two if not accidental they were PLACED there on purpose .

the following is from pat speers site

"When asked his conclusions, Stombaugh declared: “it was my opinion that these fibers could easily have come from the shirt…Mainly because the fibers or the shirt is composed of point one, cotton, and point two, three basic colors. I found all three colors on the gun. Now if the shirt had been composed of 10 or 15 different colors and types of fibers and I only had found 3 of them, then I would feel that I had not found enough, but I found fibers on the gun which I could match with the fibers composing the shirt, so I feel the fibers could easily have come from the shirt.” 

Could Stombaugh really have stated that a rust brown shirt was made up entirely of dark blue, grayish-black, and orange-ish yellow fibers?  I must admit I'm skeptical. Since when is there no brown in brown? His assurance that the fibers found on the rifle "could easily" have come from Oswald's shirt is also questionable, and notable for its lack of precision." pat speer

so we are now being told that a dark brown shirt did not contain any brown fibers ? . we can also see that the fiber evidence is far from proven conclusive , in fact with fibers this is not really possible after all fibers are not hairs or prints . they dont contain dna etc , with fibers all one can do is they they are the same or similar composition . so there is by no means a positive identification of these fibers as coming from the dark brown shirt . but then if he didnt put on that shirt untill 30 minutes plus after the shooting how could fibers match ?.

the next thing here is the brown shirt itself . the commission decided to use a very unreliable witness (mrs beldsoe ) , not for the first time either . it says it all that even bugliosi had a problem with mrs bledsoe , and he was as staunch and biased a warren commission apologist as they come .

"But this is not the most problematic element of Stombaugh's testimony. Stombaugh testified that the elbow in CE 150 was "worn through." This supported that the hole in the elbow preceded 11-22-63, and this in turn supported Mrs. Bledsoe's identification of CE 150 as the shirt Oswald had been wearing on the bus. "pat speer

so pat is telling us that mrs bledsoe said she saw oswald on the bus at about 12.40pm and that she saw his shirt ripped and torn , buttons ripped off and holes in the elbows . stombaugh is in effect agreeing that bledsoe saw holes in the shirts elbow . firstly yes the dark brown shirt had some damage to it , HOWEVER this damage was done at about 1.45pm AN HOUR AFTER bledsoe said she saw oswald . so either mrs bledsoe is psychic and saw damage to the shirt one hour before it actually happened or she lied , the reader can decide which of the two is the most likely . but LNs cling to the unreliable bledsoe , WHY ? because she said oswald wore that brown shirt .

but we need to look at photos of the shirt as provided by pat speer , because they show something very interesting



the problem with the photos above may not be immediately apparent and obvious but let me point out what is wrong . there are two small close up pictures at the top , there are 3 photos below that of oswald marked c , d and e .

PLEASE NOT THAT ON 22/11/63 IN PHOTO D (the original and middle photo ) THAT THERE IS NO HOLE IN THE RIGHT ELBOW . so how come photos from that same time that is photo c and e show a hole in the elbow when photo d clearly shows no hole ? . are we seeing the problem now ? .

so we have a very suspect witness (bledsoe) . we have 5 witnesses saying the shooter wore light or white clothing . we have oswald wearing a RED shirt and going home changing those dirty clothes (placing them in a drawer where the fbi found them) and putting on clean slacks and the dark brown shirt , even the hsca and wc agree on this as seen in post 1 .

we have fibers that are far from a match to the brown shirt , in fact the FBI admitted they couldnt conclusively match any fiber the could ONLY say they were similar . but if they are considered a match well then we have fibers from a brown shirt ONLY PUT ON AT 1PM OR SO being found on the rifle left at the depository at 12.30 , which is an impossibility . we have a shirt that has no hole in the elbow and then some how manages to later have a hole in it as is seen in the photo above .

this rather reminds me of an incident in the  OJ case (no im not saying oj didnt do it ) . i cant recall the exact times (so i will just use a similar time scale ) but this is the jist .  at some point in the morning after the murders police took photos of the entire outer area of OJ s house , that is the drive way , all gates etc etc EVERYWHERE . at some point later on , i think afternoon a different guy came along and tok a second set of photos of exactly the same areas .when the forensics expert was called to testify he was shown the morning photos . in particular one of a side gate , he was asked to look at a specific area of the gate near the handle . he did . now he was shown the same gate from the afternoon photos . and he was asked if he could see a problem . here is the problem , the afternoon photos showed a spot of blood on that gate near the handle THE MORNING PHOTOS HAD NO BLOOD ON THE GATE . naturally the forensics guy had a great difficulty in explaining that . only one scenario exists EVIDENCE WAS PLANTED . this is one reason the jury acquitted because they had a problem trusting the evidence , and with very good reason . lets face it its probably not the only time the police had a guilty man but felt a little more ADDITIONAL proof wouldnt hurt in getting a conviction .

only the most dishonest or most biased person could look at all this and not see the serious problems with it . can you imagine mr stombaugh (had oswald lived and gone to trial ) in court presented with his photos SHOWING A HOLE IN THE ELBOW and then presented with THE ORIGINAL photo showing pretty much the exact same scene at the exact same time BUT NO HOLE . and asked to explain it ? .

NONE OF THESE PEOPLE EVER EXPECTED THAT 54 YEARS LATER INTELLIGENT AND KNOWLEDGEABLE PEOPLE WOULD EXAMINE THIS STUFF AND SEE THE LIES . the warren commission files sealed for 75 years minimal , the hsca for 50 years minimal . the only reason files from these commissions have been released thus far is because of the outcry from the movie jfk that asked people TO READ , TO RESEARCH , TO QUESTION , AND TO DEMAND ACCESS TO THE FILES THAT THEY OWN . 54 years later and files about a supposed lone nut with no friends are still sealed FOR NATIONAL SECURITY REASONS . i dare say once george bush senior pops his clogs a few more files will be released .