It was a PR executive for Pepsi.
(just kidding!)
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
The WC attributes this to Mrs. Reid who said she saw Oswald in the second
floor clerical office with a full bottle of Coke. There has been a claim
that Baker and Truly saw Oswald with a Coke when he was encountered. This
is probably due to the fact that after interviewing Baker, they prepared a
statement for him to sign. He read it and noticed the passage about the
Coke and he told them he did not see Oswald with a Coke. They asked him to
cross out that passage and intitial the correction. Apparently somebody
got their notes mixed up when they interviewed Reid and Baker.
It was written in Baker's first written statement and then later crossed
out. I know the documentation is available but I don't have it at hand.
But a large deal was made of him "changeing his testimony" after the fact.
LOL!
What's one more conspiracy, at this point? <g>
Jean
Many claim it was Baker's first written statement, but it
was actually dated September 23, 1964, well after his WC testimony,
and it's not in Baker's handwriting. The initials on the corrections
are his, but the rest was written by FBI agent Richard J Burnett.
Check the capital letters in the names:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11921&relPageId=3
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11921&relPageId=4
Jean
Thanks, bigdog (John).
I agree that someone may've mistakenly attributed Reid's
account to Baker. I'm trying to track down the first appearance of
this statement in the local or national press shortly after the
assassination. I'd like to find the original newspaper story, if
possible. I'm sure I've seen this cited somewhere....
Jean
I'm trying to understand your question.........I hope I have the right take
on it.
Oswald himself said this to Fritz. I suppose that would be the "first?"
John F.
"Jean Davison" <jjdavison...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:49b16ee7$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Cover-up mentality.
The capital B is the same.
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11921&relPageId=3
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11921&relPageId=4
>
> Jean
>
>
Thanks, Jean, that's wonderful. But this is from September 1964. So,
what's your point? How could the whole coke business have become a
controversy if you claim that Baker never mentioned it until September
1964?
Loftus tells us that it is often important to look at the earliest
statements from witnesses. Especially before the government has time to
change them.
* While giving his final sworn statement, Patrolman Baker initially said
that when he spotted Oswald, Oswald was standing in the lunchroom with a
Coke in his hand. Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry told reporters on
11/23/63 that when Oswald was seen in the lunchroom, he had a Coke in his
hand. As late as ten days after the shooting, major press releases were
still mentioning the detail that Oswald was holding a Coke when first
spotted in the lunchroom. Oswald himself told the police that he was
standing by the soda machine in the lunchroom holding a Coke when Baker
confronted him. The importance of this detail can't be overemphasized, for
it constitutes further evidence that Oswald was not on the sixth floor
during the shooting. The WC had a hard enough time in its reenactments
just trying to get the Oswald stand-in down to the lunchroom in time to be
spotted by Baker without factoring in the Coke-buying. That is, the
Commission had to assume that Oswald bought the Coke after he was seen by
Baker.
Yes it appears he was coached because at the time the timing problem
was well known.
Good question!
>
> Loftus tells us that it is often important to look at the earliest
> statements from witnesses. Especially before the government has time to
> change them.
>
As you know, neither Baker nor Truly mentioned a Coke in their
initial written statements.
>
> * While giving his final sworn statement, Patrolman Baker initially said
> that when he spotted Oswald, Oswald was standing in the lunchroom with a
> Coke in his hand. Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry told reporters on
> 11/23/63 that when Oswald was seen in the lunchroom, he had a Coke in his
> hand. As late as ten days after the shooting, major press releases were
> still mentioning the detail that Oswald was holding a Coke when first
> spotted in the lunchroom. Oswald himself told the police that he was
> standing by the soda machine in the lunchroom holding a Coke when Baker
> confronted him. The importance of this detail can't be overemphasized, for
> it constitutes further evidence that Oswald was not on the sixth floor
> during the shooting. The WC had a hard enough time in its reenactments
> just trying to get the Oswald stand-in down to the lunchroom in time to be
> spotted by Baker without factoring in the Coke-buying. That is, the
> Commission had to assume that Oswald bought the Coke after he was seen by
> Baker.
Quoting Mike Griffith, Tony? Thanks, but I'm looking for a
direct quote from Curry with a cite to a newspaper article, or something
similar. But if no one has it, thanks, anyway.
Jean
Excuse me, aren't you the person who keeps telling us, again and
again, not to rely on witnesses?
"So what? Do not rely on witnesses."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/4e3cd5cbe712796c?hl=en
"Do not rely on witnesses."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/6536d24851e392bd?hl=en
"Again, do not rely on witnesses to prove a fact."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/a91d620a25cebf90?hl=en
I guess it's OK to rely on witnesses if you think they support your
case.
Thanks, bigdog (John).
Jean
Awful lotta "Speculation" there Jean. (outta Neccessity)
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11921&relPageId=3
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11921&relPageId=4
Jean
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STILL written before anyone Knew Oswald didn't have time to get there within
90 seconds from the 6th floor ! ! ! !
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Baker didn't say it why did the FBI write it down except to have
him deny it?
No, my advise stays the same.
Ok, so show us right here right now Baker's initial written statement.
Then how did Curry and the press hear about the Coke bottle?
>>
>> * While giving his final sworn statement, Patrolman Baker initially said
>> that when he spotted Oswald, Oswald was standing in the lunchroom with a
>> Coke in his hand. Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry told reporters on
>> 11/23/63 that when Oswald was seen in the lunchroom, he had a Coke in his
>> hand. As late as ten days after the shooting, major press releases were
>> still mentioning the detail that Oswald was holding a Coke when first
>> spotted in the lunchroom. Oswald himself told the police that he was
>> standing by the soda machine in the lunchroom holding a Coke when Baker
>> confronted him. The importance of this detail can't be overemphasized,
>> for
>> it constitutes further evidence that Oswald was not on the sixth floor
>> during the shooting. The WC had a hard enough time in its reenactments
>> just trying to get the Oswald stand-in down to the lunchroom in time
>> to be
>> spotted by Baker without factoring in the Coke-buying. That is, the
>> Commission had to assume that Oswald bought the Coke after he was seen by
>> Baker.
>
> Quoting Mike Griffith, Tony? Thanks, but I'm looking for a
> direct quote from Curry with a cite to a newspaper article, or something
> similar. But if no one has it, thanks, anyway.
>
I believe Mike said The Washington Post.
> Jean
>
>
Warren Commission Report, p. 152-153:
A test was also conducted to determine the time required to walk from the
southeast corner of the sixth floor to the second-floor lunchroom by
stairway. Special Agent John Howlett of the Secret Service carried a rifle
from the southeast corner of the sixth floor along the east aisle to the
northeast corner. He placed the rifle on the floor near the site where
Oswald's rifle was actually found after the shooting. Then Howlett walked
down the stairway to the second-floor landing and entered the lunchroom.
The first test, run at normal walking pace, required 1 minute, 18 seconds;
the second test, at a "fast walk" took 1 minute, 14 seconds. The second
test. followed immediately after the first. The only interval was the time
necessary to ride in the elevator from the second to the sixth floor and
walk back to the southeast corner. Howlett was not short winded at the end
of either test run.
Jean, when did they know the Baker-Oswald timing was a problem that
had to be dealt with. I have to speculate it was way before sept. 16,
1964
I should add that in a similar test the HSCA conducted, running from
the sixth floor window to the lunchroom, the time was just forty-six
seconds.
Jean is smart enough to realize that the place to start is where it
first appeared in print. Where would you start, Tony? Mike Griffith
said?
> >> * While giving his final sworn statement, Patrolman Baker initially said
> >> that when he spotted Oswald, Oswald was standing in the lunchroom with a
> >> Coke in his hand. Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry told reporters on
> >> 11/23/63 that when Oswald was seen in the lunchroom, he had a Coke in his
> >> hand. As late as ten days after the shooting, major press releases were
> >> still mentioning the detail that Oswald was holding a Coke when first
> >> spotted in the lunchroom. Oswald himself told the police that he was
> >> standing by the soda machine in the lunchroom holding a Coke when Baker
> >> confronted him. The importance of this detail can't be overemphasized,
> >> for
> >> it constitutes further evidence that Oswald was not on the sixth floor
> >> during the shooting. The WC had a hard enough time in its reenactments
> >> just trying to get the Oswald stand-in down to the lunchroom in time
> >> to be
> >> spotted by Baker without factoring in the Coke-buying. That is, the
> >> Commission had to assume that Oswald bought the Coke after he was seen by
> >> Baker.
>
> > Quoting Mike Griffith, Tony? Thanks, but I'm looking for a
> > direct quote from Curry with a cite to a newspaper article, or something
> > similar. But if no one has it, thanks, anyway.
>
> I believe Mike said The Washington Post.
This 2001 article by Griffith uses David Lifton as the source. "The
original news reports..." said Oswald had a soda, according to Lifton.
http://www.geocities.com/mtgriffith1/faulty.htm
> > Jean
The WC saw no "timing problem," so far as I know.
Jean
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0426-001.gif
> Then how did Curry and the press hear about the Coke bottle?
That's what I'm trying to find out.
>
>>>
>>> * While giving his final sworn statement, Patrolman Baker initially said
>>> that when he spotted Oswald, Oswald was standing in the lunchroom with a
>>> Coke in his hand. Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry told reporters on
>>> 11/23/63 that when Oswald was seen in the lunchroom, he had a Coke in
>>> his
>>> hand. As late as ten days after the shooting, major press releases were
>>> still mentioning the detail that Oswald was holding a Coke when first
>>> spotted in the lunchroom. Oswald himself told the police that he was
>>> standing by the soda machine in the lunchroom holding a Coke when Baker
>>> confronted him. The importance of this detail can't be overemphasized,
>>> for
>>> it constitutes further evidence that Oswald was not on the sixth floor
>>> during the shooting. The WC had a hard enough time in its reenactments
>>> just trying to get the Oswald stand-in down to the lunchroom in time
>>> to be
>>> spotted by Baker without factoring in the Coke-buying. That is, the
>>> Commission had to assume that Oswald bought the Coke after he was seen
>>> by
>>> Baker.
>>
>> Quoting Mike Griffith, Tony? Thanks, but I'm looking for a
>> direct quote from Curry with a cite to a newspaper article, or something
>> similar. But if no one has it, thanks, anyway.
>>
>
> I believe Mike said The Washington Post.
"Ok, so show us right here right now" his cite from the Post. :-)
Jean
yeuhd doesn't know the difference between the Warren Report & the 26
Volumes.
1. The Warren Report consists of onlt 2 items.
a. The charges against Oswald.
b. The Warren Commission's "Conclusions".
The Problem arises when they claimed that they're "conclusions" were based
on 26 Volumes of evidence/testimony.
2. The evidence/testimony contained in the 26 Volumes Probve that elements
of Gov't/National Medis Repeatedly Lied & Destroyed evidence.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
Did they ever find the coke bottle? Did it exist in the first place?
Is it in the National Archives or did it coveniently "disappear".
This thread is making me thirsty.
You keep neglecting those Citations don't you yeuhd?
Baker was a LIAR>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
I didn't offer it or claim it. All I did was mention that Griffith cited it.
The Washington Post Dec 1 1963 describes Oswald as "sipping from a
Coke bottle". Jesse Curry, however, is not mentioned as the source for
this detail.
See: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=104398&relPageId=443
This, to my knowledge, is the first such reference in the press.
When Léo Sauvage asked Roy Truly about the Coke in January 1964, Truly
told him: “From where I stood, I couldn’t see if Oswald held something
in his hand.” (The Oswald Affair, 1996, p.30).
Sean
Jeez, are you psychic or something? How did you know about the Coke
bottle on the grassy knoll?
http://www.chilling-tales.com/cokeman.jpg
I think you are onto something. Why don't you develop a conspiracy
theory that it was a conspiracy by Coca-Cola addicts?
Can we just call this the MCBT (magic coke bottle theory)?
Jean
Did they include various sipping times/quantities in the tests they
ran? And was Marina ever quizzed about Oswald's typical soda drinking
technique? Was he a sipper or a guzzler? This could be key. I can't
find any reference to this in the WC testimony and I'd like to know
why not. I plan to write a book on this subject.
Damn coke bottles were all over the place!
No problem, Jean.
Sean
It appears that LN's wanna stay away from the issue of Oswald drinking a
coke.
I was trying to avoid this, but I am sure I ran across something in
the literature about Dr. Pepper being Oswald's favorite drink, and
that specifically he was drinking a Dr. Pepper (is that the one
bottled in Waco, Texas?) in the TSBD.
Typically they said he was drinking a soda, and that morphed into a
coke, like a tissue becomes a Kleenex.
Which, if true, proves that the coke bottle on the Grassy Knoll was a
second drinker and thus proof of a soda pop conspiracy, whereupon the
first shot must have entered only Nehi (*insert groan here).
John F.
"RichardT" <rthu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8242ce57-5c03-4759...@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
These are all interesting questions that were simply glossed over by
the WC. The plot was so dastardly and comprehensive. How could we
possibly get to the bottom of things when they are putting lines
through words so that we can only read the truth by the advanced
method of reading the document. It's certainly a top notch cover-up.
We can consider ourselves fortunate that this same evil technique of
crossing things out was not used more.
Jeez, you are not trying hard enough. You need to postulate that Oswald
already had the coke bottle and was drinking it while running downstairs.
> Did they include various sipping times/quantities in the tests they
> ran? And was Marina ever quizzed about Oswald's typical soda drinking
> technique? Was he a sipper or a guzzler? This could be key. I can't
> find any reference to this in the WC testimony and I'd like to know
> why not. I plan to write a book on this subject.
>
Here's a clue for for your book. Oswald's normal favorite drink was Dr.
Pepper. But since he couldn't get a Dr. Pepper on 11/22/63 that infuriated
him so much that he decided on the spot to shoot the President, whom he
saw as part of a conspiracy to suppress Dr. Pepper. Are you a Pepper too?
Once again you are proven wrong by the evidence. Griffith said The
Washington Post and there is the article. Now what's your excuse? Not
early enough for you? You want something before December 1, 1963? Exactly
when do you think they realized there was a timing problem if Oswald was
sipping a Coke? Did they time how long it takes to buy one and open it?
You may be right about Baker not being able to see Oswald if Oswald was
right next to the Coke machine. Maybe this is a little clue that there is
something fishy about Baker's account.
It's NOT a "Factoid" when it was Repeated for several days until they
figured out it was Impossible for Oswald to get to the
lunchrom & get the coke within 90 seconds.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
If Oswald was where he claimed, when he claimed, he could have gotten his
"Dr. Pepper" (his usual drink of choice on the first floor)
Why would he even need to go UP to the 2nd floor? It certainly wasn't to
ask for change was it?
Baker & Truly made no mention of Oswald sipping on anything, nor did they
see anything in his hand.
John F.
<geovu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d59239b1-5ba7-459a...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
John F.
"jbarge" <anjb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:05c3b309-0c07-415e...@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Methinks thou doth protest too much.
The point of reading through to the original text is to see what was
originally said and try to figure out why they wanted to cover it up. I
personally don't care if Oswald was sipping a Coke or not. It is
ridiculous for one side to argue that if he was sipping a Coke that proves
he is innocent or the other side to argue that Oswald was not sipping a
Coke therefore he is guilty. There is nothing inherent in the Coke which
proves anything. It is just interesting to see what they covered up and
why.
Are you calling Baker a liar? This pegs you as a WC defender. What the
Hell difference does it make?
I don't think anyone said it was a Dr. Pepper he was drinking. I think
they found a Dr. Pepper on another floor along with some chicken bones in
a bag from someone's lunch.
We have beaten this horse to death millions of times. Yes, it was typical
in that area to call a soda a Coke. I was shocked when I moved up here and
heard people call it a tonic.
> Typically they said he was drinking a soda, and that morphed into a
> coke, like a tissue becomes a Kleenex.
I don't think anyone originally called it a soda. I think the word
everyone used was Coke. But of course the age old argument is that when
they say Coke they mean generically any soda.
> Which, if true, proves that the coke bottle on the Grassy Knoll was a
> second drinker and thus proof of a soda pop conspiracy, whereupon the
> first shot must have entered only Nehi (*insert groan here).
>
Nah, again you are not trying hard enough, you lazy man. It proves that
Oswald used teleportation to fire three shots from the sniper's nest and
then teleport to the grassy knoll to take the fatal shot from behind the
fence. And he left behind his Coke. ']>
What position has Jean taken in this thread that is contradicted by
the article Sean produced?
>Griffith said The
> Washington Post and there is the article.
What prevented you from producing it?
> Now what's your excuse?
It doesn`t jump out at you what that article lacks? What is your
excuse for not noticing that there are no sources provided?
> Not
> early enough for you?
She clearly asked for the earliest source. The English words she
used not small enough for you?
> You want something before December 1, 1963?
What part of "first reported" is giving you problems?
> Exactly
> when do you think they realized there was a timing problem if Oswald was
> sipping a Coke?
The timing problem was that they failed to determine what the fastest
time Oswald could take to reach the lunchroom. Without that time being
established, all this talk about Oswald not having time to be seen with a
soda is meaningless.
> Did they time how long it takes to buy one and open it?
How could they determine whether Oswald bought the soda and opened it?
> You may be right about Baker not being able to see Oswald if Oswald was
> right next to the Coke machine. Maybe this is a little clue that there is
> something fishy about Baker's account.
Yah, Baker must have been that Kennedy was to be killed, and Baker was
to look in the lunchroom for the patsy to this crime (but then, let him
go). I mean, what else could it be, right CTers?
>>> "I am sure I ran across something in the literature about Dr. Pepper being Oswald's favorite drink, and that specifically he was drinking a Dr. Pepper...in the TSBD." <<<
And if that were the case, Oswald didn't need to go UP to the 2nd
floor to get a Dr. Pepper, because the Dr.P. machine was on the first
floor. And I doubt very much that the 2nd-Floor machine even had Dr.
Pepper available in it (which means author Jim Moore has some serious
egg on his face regarding a pet theory of his after Vince Bugliosi
confirmed in 2004 via a phone call to Buell Frazier and a look at
Photo #7 in CD496 (below) that there was, indeed, a Dr. Pepper machine
located on the first floor of the Depository, right next to the back
staircase in the northwest corner of the building:
www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10896&relPageId=12
"Indeed there was a Coca-Cola machine in the [second-floor
lunch] room. But to my knowledge, there is no direct reference in the
assassination literature to a SECOND soft drink machine in the Book
Depository Building. ....
"Neither [Bonnie Ray] Williams nor [Wesley] Frazier expressly
said what floor this [second soda] machine was on. .... Through a few
phone calls I was able to reach Wesley Frazier, whom I hadn't talked
to since 1986, when he testified for me at the London trial. Still
living in Dallas, he told me that "there was a Dr. Pepper machine on
the first floor." Where, specifically, was it? [Frazier:] "It was
located by the double freight elevator near the back of the
building." ....
"And indeed, I subsequently found proof of the existence of the
machine, with the words "Dr. Pepper" near the top front of it, in an
FBI photo taken for the Warren Commission of the northwest corner of
the first floor, and it is located right next to the
refrigerator. ....
"So we see that apart from all the conclusive evidence that
Oswald shot Kennedy from the sniper's nest, and therefore HAD to have
descended from there to the second floor, his story about going UP to
the second floor to get a Coke doesn't even make sense.
"Why go up to the second floor to get a drink for your lunch
when there's a soft drink machine on the first floor, the floor you
say you are already on, particularly when the apparent drink of your
choice [Dr. Pepper by all accounts] is on this first floor, not the
second floor? ....
"There is yet another reason why Oswald's statement that he was
on the first floor eating lunch at the time of the shooting makes no
sense at all. If he had been, once he heard the shots and the
screaming and all the commotion outside, if he were innocent, what is
the likelihood that he would have proceeded to go, as he claims, up to
the second floor to get himself a Coke? How could any sensible person
believe a story like that?" -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 957-958 of
"RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F.
KENNEDY" (c.2007)
========================================
LOTS MORE DR. PEPPER TALK:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/61f644cfaeee6415
========================================
It`s interesting to watch CTers make all these unsubstantiated
claims of cover-up.
But that's precisely what James Jarman and Billy Lovelady did.
"...
Mr. BALL - What did you do when you quit for lunch?
Mr. JARMAN - Went in the rest room and washed up.
Mr. BALL. Then what did you
Mr. JARMAN - Went and got my sandwich and *went up in the lounge and
got me a soda pop.*
Mr. BALL - Where is the lounge?
Mr. JARMAN - On the second floor.
Mr. BALL - On the second floor?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes.
Mr. BALL. Then where did you go after you got your soda pop?
Mr. JARMAN - Came back and went down to the window.
..."
"...
Mr. BALL - What did you do after you went down and washed up; what did
you do?
Mr. LOVELADY - Well, I went over and got my lunch and *went upstairs
and got a coke and come on back down.*
Mr. BALL - Upstairs on what floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - That's on the second floor
..."
Thanks. Nice picture. Now, can you prove that it normally had Dr. Pepper
in it and that the Dr. Pepper was not sold out? I can't see enough details
to see how many choices of beverages it dispenses, but usually machines
like that would have at least 4 and I doubt that all 4 selections were Dr.
Pepper. But naturally one brand would not have an enemy brand in their
machines. So, who distributed Dr. Pepper in 1963? Was that Pepsi to offset
the Coke machine? Cola Wars?
Hyperbole. Maybe the Dr. Pepper machine was out of Dr. Pepper. BTW, who
was allowed to use the refrigerator next to the Dr. Pepper machine?
But you see cover-up in something that is far from a cover-up. It
isn't a cover-up if what you are hiding is left unhidden. If it is a
cover-up, it's the most foolish cover-up of all time.
>
> - Show quoted text -
She suggested there were no early news stories.
>> Griffith said The
>> Washington Post and there is the article.
>
> What prevented you from producing it?
>
What prevented you from producing it?
It is not my job to do your homework for you and spoonfeed you.
>> Now what's your excuse?
>
> It doesn`t jump out at you what that article lacks? What is your
> excuse for not noticing that there are no sources provided?
>
Because you know nothing about reporting. You don't expect to see
sources listed in that type of story based on background.
>> Not
>> early enough for you?
>
> She clearly asked for the earliest source. The English words she
> used not small enough for you?
>
Again, so damned what? What if there is a source before December 1, 1963.
What if she were to watch the outtake network footage from 11/23/63 and
hear for herself Curry talking about it? That would mean nothing to her.
She'd then ask to see it reported in a newspaper on 11/22/63.
>> You want something before December 1, 1963?
>
> What part of "first reported" is giving you problems?
>
Why not "first mentioned on live TV"?
>> Exactly
>> when do you think they realized there was a timing problem if Oswald was
>> sipping a Coke?
>
> The timing problem was that they failed to determine what the fastest
> time Oswald could take to reach the lunchroom. Without that time being
> established, all this talk about Oswald not having time to be seen with a
> soda is meaningless.
>
Just like their timing problem which invented the SBT then shot
themselves in the foot.
>> Did they time how long it takes to buy one and open it?
>
> How could they determine whether Oswald bought the soda and opened it?
>
That's not the question I asked. Why did the WC fear that Oswald did not
have enough time to buy and open a soda?
>> You may be right about Baker not being able to see Oswald if Oswald was
>> right next to the Coke machine. Maybe this is a little clue that there is
>> something fishy about Baker's account.
>
> Yah, Baker must have been that Kennedy was to be killed, and Baker was
> to look in the lunchroom for the patsy to this crime (but then, let him
> go). I mean, what else could it be, right CTers?
>
Well, your thinking is too limited. You could come up with a theory that
Baker's job was to shoot the assassin who would be drinking a Dr. Pepper
in the lunchroom, but at the last second Oswald changed his mind and
instead of having his favorite Dr. Pepper he bought a Coke. So Baker knew
it wasn't the right guy.
You do know how spies use recognition objects, don't you?
>
You omitted the rest of that sentence: "particularly when the apparent
Interesting that when Jarman finished his soda...
"...I took the pop bottle and put it in the case over by the Dr
Pepper machine."
It seems he is saying he put his empty in the case for empties by
the Dr Pepper machine on the first floor.
So, why go to the second floor if there is a soda machine on the
first?
Change seems to be available on the second. Maybe colder soda or a
better variety from the second floor machine. Or it could be the one
on the first floor was out of the way, or was less reliable when it
came came to delivering beverages.
Yes, I omitted that because it's based on a flawed premise and just
confuses the issue. Oswald frequently visited the second-floor lunchroom
as well as the first-floor domino room. Oswald liked Coke (see "Marina and
Lee") as well as Dr. Pepper. No big deal.
The timing of Oswald's visit, however: very big deal. And here Bugliosi
makes a point that merits serious attention.
> It seems he is saying he put his empty in the case for empties by
> the Dr Pepper machine on the first floor.
Yes, exactly. Empty Coca-Cola bottles could be left beside the
Dr.Pepper machine.
> So, why go to the second floor if there is a soda machine on the
> first?
> Change seems to be available on the second. Maybe colder soda or a
> better variety from the second floor machine. Or it could be the one
> on the first floor was out of the way, or was less reliable when it
> came came to delivering beverages.
Indeed, there are several possibilities. The most likely explanation,
though, would still seem to be simple choice: Jarman & Lovelady, unlike
say Bonnie Ray Williams, seem to have opted for Coke over Dr Pepper that
day.
Sean
>>> "Maybe the Dr. Pepper machine was out of Dr. Pepper." <<<
Nope. Bonnie Ray purchased a Dr.P. from that machine for his lunch at
noontime. And, remember, his Dr. Pepper bottle was found on the Floor
Of Death by the police.
Do you now want to think that Williams got the last one?
Don't you remember this same discussion in May 2007, just before VB's
book came out? Here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/61f644cfaeee6415
Quote her taking that position.
> >> Griffith said The
> >> Washington Post and there is the article.
>
> > What prevented you from producing it?
>
> What prevented you from producing it?
I didn`t have it. Why would you answer if you didn`t have the
specific information she was requesting?
> It is not my job to do your homework for you and spoonfeed you.
It`s not your job to vaguely allude to information, but you did
that.
> >> Now what's your excuse?
>
> > It doesn`t jump out at you what that article lacks? What is your
> > excuse for not noticing that there are no sources provided?
>
> Because you know nothing about reporting.
I know that the newspapers written around the time of the assassination
are rife with factual errors, and that the source is need to check the
validity of any information contained in them. "I read it in a newspaper"
might be good enough for your average CTer, but Jean is not a conspiracy
monger.
> You don't expect to see
> sources listed in that type of story based on background.
And you don`t expect a careful reaearcher like Jean to accept what is
contained in such stories at face value without checking the information
with the original source.
> >> Not
> >> early enough for you?
>
> > She clearly asked for the earliest source. The English words she
> > used not small enough for you?
>
> Again, so damned what?
Don`t be alarmed, Tony, it`s just research.
>What if there is a source before December 1, 1963.
> What if she were to watch the outtake network footage from 11/23/63 and
> hear for herself Curry talking about it? That would mean nothing to her.
> She'd then ask to see it reported in a newspaper on 11/22/63.
What part of "first reported" is still giving you trouble?
> >> You want something before December 1, 1963?
>
> > What part of "first reported" is giving you problems?
>
> Why not "first mentioned on live TV"?
Likely because she wasn`t limiting her search to just TV.
> >> Exactly
> >> when do you think they realized there was a timing problem if Oswald was
> >> sipping a Coke?
>
> > The timing problem was that they failed to determine what the fastest
> > time Oswald could take to reach the lunchroom. Without that time being
> > established, all this talk about Oswald not having time to be seen with a
> > soda is meaningless.
>
> Just like their timing problem which invented the SBT then shot
> themselves in the foot.
Reread what I wrote, and try a comment pertaining to the issue being
discussed.
> >> Did they time how long it takes to buy one and open it?
>
> > How could they determine whether Oswald bought the soda and opened it?
>
> That's not the question I asked.
Why would the WC time how long it took to buy a soda and open it if
they could not determine whether Oswald performed those actions?
> Why did the WC fear that Oswald did not
> have enough time to buy and open a soda?
Why do conspiracy mongers fear the fact that Oswald may not have
had a soda when Baker confronted him?
> >> You may be right about Baker not being able to see Oswald if Oswald was
> >> right next to the Coke machine. Maybe this is a little clue that there is
> >> something fishy about Baker's account.
>
> > Yah, Baker must have been that Kennedy was to be killed, and Baker was
> > to look in the lunchroom for the patsy to this crime (but then, let him
> > go). I mean, what else could it be, right CTers?
>
> Well, your thinking is too limited.
Certainly for CTer conjecture. I can never get outlandish enough.
Yes, great idea. This is fun.
> Don't you remember this same discussion in May 2007, just before VB's
> book came out? Here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/61f644cfaeee6415
>
Different group. But we have beaten this horse to death several times.
Although I can't find this particular quote here's a similar one
from Dulles: "... And then you would have two volumes, -- the report, and a
volume of appendices. But I quite agree with the Chief Justice. Make this
available so nobody can say you have not tried to make the whole thing
secret. But to print all the testimony you have taken -- some of it has
been terribly detailed. If historians later want to read it over and work
on it, well and good, but I don't think anybody would pay attention to it to
begin with...."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1331&relPageId=24
And really, wasn't he right? How many people then or now have read
the 26 WC volumes?
Jean
You are good at this. It's like you've been making up goofy joke
theories about the assassination without evidence for years.
Not so fast. It seems that Jarman`s soda was Dr Pepper.
Jarman: "I had a sandwich in one hand and pep in the other."
> Sean
I'm just trying to help you out.
No, "pep" is a typo. Jarman's "pop" that day was a Coca-Cola,
purchased on the second floor.
You are probably right, although I don`t see how you can be so
sure.
In any case, I was looking at the photos of the second floor lunchroom,
and I saw something interesting in this one...
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/8/8d/Photo_wcd81-1_0135.jpg
Seems there are a few lunch remains left out on the tables, and one
appears to have a soda bottle with soda in it. Other photos of the
lunchroom show the clock, and it reads around four o`clock. If they are
taken the day of the assassination, it would appear that some employees
left debris and remains of their lunch on the tables, including partially
filled soda bottles, possibly in haste of getting to some vantage to watch
the President go by.
Here: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=39&relPageId=209
Here's a question: why didn't Lee Harvey Oswald just walk out the
door?
I mean, it is kind of bizarre - he blows out JFK's brains, cocks the
bolt one more (4th round in the chamber - I believe Brennan is quoted
as saying "He wasn't in a hurry," in a newspaper), stashed the rifle,
strolls downstairs, gets a pop ("Hmmmm, Dr. Pepper today - no, wait, a
Coke!") and takes a refreshing sip.
Why didn't he just keep going out the door?
Other than the cop coming up the steps?
> Other than the cop coming up the steps?-
He didn't run into the cop coming up the steps.
The cop had run into the lunch room with Truly, I believe, and saw
LHO, holding a pop.
So before he fished the change out of the pockets, punched the button,
and opened the bottle cap.
Man, that is one cool customer.
My understanding is that he did all of that before the cop poked the
gun in his belly.
Feel free to correct if I'm wrong about that.
Otherwise, he could have come down the stairs, walked straight to the
exit and kept going, maybe meeting the cop on the steps.
Don't forget the 2 minutes somebody spent rearranging the boxes in the
sniper nest window.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm Photo number 4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right. Because he went into the lunchroom. You asked why Oswald didn`t
continue down the steps and out. The answer was that Oswald suspected the
cop would prevent this course of action, so he opted to duck into the
lunchroom.
> The cop had run into the lunch room with Truly, I believe, and saw
> LHO, holding a pop.
Quote anyone saying Oswald was holding a soda when Baker confronted
him.
> So before he fished the change out of the pockets, punched the button,
> and opened the bottle cap.
You are assuming actions there is no real evidence to support. It`s
possible he grabbed a soda that was sitting open in the room left by some
other employee. It`s possible he had no soda at all at the time Baker
detained him. It`s possible Oswald had plenty of time to buy a soda before
his encounter with Baker, as the shortest amount of time or Oswald to
reach the lunchroom has never been determined.
> Man, that is one cool customer.
> My understanding is that he did all of that before the cop poked the
> gun in his belly.
It`s unknown.
> Feel free to correct if I'm wrong about that.
There isn`t anything positive. There are several possibilities.
> Otherwise, he could have come down the stairs, walked straight to the
> exit and kept going, maybe meeting the cop on the steps.
Baker coming up the steps likely forced Oswald to duck into that
lunchroom.
Bud thinks Oswald was the ONLY person in the building with EARS ! ! !
Bud doesn't know that someone moved the boxes in the snipers window within
2 minutes of the shooting ! ! !
That eliminates Oswald or, he could NOT have reached the 2nd floor
lunchroom within 90 seconds.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bud --- Oswald cannot have opted to duck into the lunchroom in
response to Baker's footsteps on the stairs - Truly was ahead of Baker
and would have seen Oswald on the landing.
Perhaps then it was in response to *Truly's* footsteps? The problem
with that is that Oswald would have been well out of Baker's line-of-
sight by the time Baker himself reached the landing - not least
because the door through which Oswald is supposed to have just passed
a couple of seconds earlier had an hydraulic self-closing mechanism.
(The 11/27/63 reconstruction which KRLD-TV personnel filmed for and
with the U.S. Secret Service - my thanks to Gary Mack for this
information - shows just how quickly that door closed.)
This circumstance has led some researchers - including more thoughtful
supporters of Oswald's sole guilt like Jean Davison and Dale Myers -
to conclude that Baker must have spotted Oswald going right to left.
Where these researchers differ, of course, is on *why* Oswald might at
that moment have been coming from the direction of the second-floor
office space.
Let's be clear on one thing however: the only way Baker could have
seen Oswald "walking away from the stairway" (as per his 11/22/63
affidavit) is if Oswald was walking into a wall.
***
>>>>>>Quote anyone saying Oswald was holding a soda when Baker confronted him.<<<<<<
Oswald: "Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the
search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police
officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just
purchased a Coca-cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a
police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if
he worked there." (Bookhout's interrogation report dated 11/22/63,
dictated 11/24/63.)
Now let's assume for a moment that Oswald actually did say this in
custody. And then let's assume that he was lying.
The problem is simple: this lie was to find uncanny resonance in a
national newspaper report just days after the assassination: "the
policeman saw Oswald standing beside a soft drink machine, sipping
from a Coke bottle." (Washington Post 12/1).
While you and Jean are perfectly right to press the point about this
being an unattributed detail in that Washington Post article, the
match with Oswald's claim should at the very least give us pause.
Was the journalist privy to Oswald's interrogation? Hardly. And even
if he had been, would he have passed on Oswald's claim as gospel
truth? No.
Yet here we have the now dead Oswald's version of events, in
independent circulation in the public sphere.
Add to this Baker's distinctly odd "drinking a coke" cross-out in his
September 64 statement, and we have to ask the question: how could
Oswald have known his lie would be so perfectly matched by other
people's goof-ups?
Sean
Yup.
> There's no chance LHO knows a cop is running up the stairs outside.
There are no stairs outside.
> The cop runs into the building, with Truly, runs up to the second
> floor, and sees Oswald, who is puttering around the second floor lunch
> room.
They stop at the elevators. They yell up for the elevators to be
released.
> I don't get how Oswald knows about this cop to duck into the
> lunchroom.
Oswald didn`t say. Likely he heard the men coming up.
> He can't see the front steps.
> He's just....standing in the lunch room, presumably after shooting
> JFK, calm as can be....sipping a coke.
Yah, he was standing in the lunchroom, after shooting JFK, appearing
calm to Baker, possibly sipping a coke. Not to be confused with an alibi.
> > The cop had run into the lunch room with Truly, I believe, and saw
> > > LHO, holding a pop.
>
> > Quote anyone saying Oswald was holding a soda when Baker confronted
> > him.
>
> From a previous page:
> "The WC attributes this to Mrs. Reid who said she saw Oswald in the
> second
> floor clerical office with a full bottle of Coke."
That wasn`t during his encounter with Baker.
> I believe there's some question about this - a definitive answer would
> be nice.> > So before he fished the change out of the pockets, punched the button,
> > > and opened the bottle cap.
>
> > You are assuming actions there is no real evidence to support. It`s
> > possible he grabbed a soda that was sitting open in the room left by some
> > other employee.
>
> Man, he's not just a great shot - he's quick enough to grab an open
> bottle of soda for an alibi?!
Just pointing out that your "fishing for change and pressing buttons"
scenario doesn`t need to be satisfied for Oswald to have a soda in his
hand.
> "What, who me? Mmmm mmmm, just drinking this half empty luke warm coke
> here...."
> He's like the most diabolical assassin ever.
You should see the alternatives CTers routinely entertain to
disregard Oswald`s obvious guilt.
> It`s possible he had no soda at all at the time Baker> detained him.
>
> The more I think about it, the more unlikely Mrs. Reid would mis-
> remember a detail like that.
> It's almost too minor.
> Who knows, eh?
If you look at the soda machine in the lunchroom, it has a hand holding
a bottle of coke on the front of it. Is it impossible for that image to
get introduced into a person`s impressions and recollections?
> It`s possible Oswald had plenty of time to buy a soda before> his encounter with Baker, as the shortest amount of time or Oswald to
> > reach the lunchroom has never been determined.
>
> 45 seconds down the stairs, 45 seconds until Baker.
Where do you get this amount of time from?
> It's the thought process that gets to me.
> Shoot JFK, stash the rifle, dash down the stairs, stroll over to the
> pop machine.> Baker coming up the steps likely forced Oswald to duck into that
> > lunchroom.
>
> Again, my understanding is that Baker saw him first - it wasn't like
> he met LHO on the stairs, it was through an open door or a window or
> something - can't quite remember.
Baker saw something from the corner of his eye in the window of the
door leading to the lunchroom.
> I will have to read the testimony, obviously, but there's no hint that
> Oswald was exiting when Baker saw him.
Baker would have been between Oswald and the exit.
> If it took him 45 seconds to get to the second floor, he has another
> 45 seconds to walk 2 flights of stairs out the door.
> Besides why would he be any safer where he was then running into Baker
> anywhere else?
Presumably the hope was that Baker would miss him and continue up
without spotting him.
> It appears.....that LHO shot, stashed, strolled to the second floor
> and stopped before running into Baker for some undetermined amount of
> time - allegedly to get a soda pop.
It appears Oswald shot Kennedy, hurried down the steps, heard Baker and
Truly (or saw Truly rounding the landing), forcing Oswald to duck into the
lunchroom, possibly grab a soda off the table as a prop, where Baker
confronted him.
Truly said that he and Baker stood outside the elevator on the first
floor. Truly pushed the elevator button, shouted up the shaft to release
the elevator, then decided they should use the stairs.[1] The elevator
shaft was open on each floor, with only a wood gate blocking its entrance.
My theory is that Oswald was going down the stairs from 3rd to 2nd, or
many have been on 2nd, when he heard Baker and Truly decide to use those
same stairs. He ducked through the door between the stairway and the
hallway by the lunchroom,[2] pulling it closed (it had an air- cushioned
closer), and waited for them to pass. When Oswald heard one of them stop
(Baker said he visually scanned the area on each floor as he went up),[3]
he decided not to be caught just standing in the hallway, and headed to
the door of the lunchroom, when Baker saw him through the window of the
door to the stairway.[2]
Both Baker and Truly said in their WC testimony that they saw nothing in
Oswald's hands, but if they were mistaken and he did have a soda bottle in
his hands, he could have picked up a bottle that was sitting on one the
tables in the lunchroom as he walked in. FBI photos of the lunchroom taken
on a December afternoon show two soda bottles and lunch debris on the
tables.[4]
[1]
Mr. TRULY. I pressed the button and the elevator didn't move.
I called upstairs , "Turn loose the elevator."
Mr. BELIN. When you say call up, in what kind of a voice did you
call?
Mr. TRULY. Real loud. I suppose in an excited voice. But loud enough
that anyone could have heard me if they had not been over stacking or
making a little noise. But I rang the bell and pushed this button.
Mr. BELIN. What did you call?
Mr. TRULY. I said, "Turn loose the elevator." Those boys understand
that language.
Mr. BELIN. What does that mean?
Mr. TRULY. That means if they have the gates up, they go pull the
gates down, and when you press the button, you can pull it down.
Mr. BELIN. And how many times did you yell that?
Mr. TRULY. Two times.
[2]
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/ab/Photo_wcd81-1_0145.jpg
[3]
Mr. BAKER. As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly was
ahead of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the
rooms, and I caught a glimpse of this man walking away from this — I
happened to see him through this window in this door.
. . . . .
SENATOR COOPER. Anyway, as you walked up the stairs could you see into
each floor space as you passed from floor to floor?
Mr. BAKER. Partly. Now, this building has got pillars in it, you know,
and then it has got books, cases of books stacked all in it. And the
best that I could, you know, I would look through there and see if I
could see anybody.
[4]
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/8/8d/Photo_wcd81-1_0135.jpg
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/9/93/Photo_wcd81-1_0149.jpg
I need a diagram of the layout of the TSBD then to take all of this
in.
> Both Baker and Truly said in their WC testimony that they saw nothing in
> Oswald's hands, but if they were mistaken and he did have a soda bottle in
> his hands, he could have picked up a bottle that was sitting on one the
> tables in the lunchroom as he walked in. FBI photos of the lunchroom taken
> on a December afternoon show two soda bottles and lunch debris on the
> tables.[4]
But he worked there.
Why would he be a suspect?
Just sit down at a table.
Man, grabbing that pop bottle at the last second.....that's
diabolical.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6bebaab0-d927-4fb6...@v39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
[2]
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/ab/Photo_wcd81-1_0145.jpg
.. . . . .
The best evidence is that Lee Harvey Oswald had NO SOFT DRINK in his hands
at all when he was confronted by Roy Truly and Officer Marrion Baker on
11/22/63.
VIA WARREN COMMISSION VOLUME #3, PAGE 239:
ALLEN DULLES -- "When you and the officer saw Oswald in the luncheon room,
did any words pass between you?"
ROY S. TRULY -- "No. The officer said something to the boy."
MR. DULLES -- "I mean between you and Oswald."
MR. TRULY -- "No, sir. Oswald never said a word. Not to me."
MR. DULLES -- "What was he doing?"
MR. TRULY -- "He was just standing there."
MR. DULLES -- "Did he have a Coke?"
MR. TRULY -- "No, sir."
MR. DULLES -- "No drink?"
MR. TRULY -- "No drink at all. Just standing there."
3 H 239:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0124a.htm
==========================================
COKE ADDENDUM:
"It's pretty well proven that Oswald must have bought a beverage
(Reid sees a full Coke in his hands as he comes from the lunchroom area).
"It's reasonable to assume, therefore, that Oswald probably didn't
just HAPPEN across a discarded full Coke bottle, or that he broke into the
vending machine by force and stole the soda without paying (although, yes,
he was a cheapskate to rival Jack Benny).
"The 'when' question is slightly in doubt....but not much. Truly saw
nothing in Oz's hands. And neither did Baker. But, grain of salt required
there...because it's possible they just didn't notice anything in his
hands in that 10-second encounter.
"Doesn't really matter TOO much. Oz still had time to get his Coke
before the Baker meeting. Not much time, true. But it was doable...esp.
since we have no idea how fast Oz was hoofing it down those stairs at
12:31." -- DVP; April 3rd, 2007
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9250a9804f536c7f
==========================================
RELATED "DRINK" LINKS:
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/6cbffbc61bb4c9a9
==========================================
> > Where do you get this amount of time from?
>
> I thought I read it in this thread.
> I was mistaken.
> Here's the quote:
> "The first test, run at normal walking pace, required 1 minute, 18
> seconds;
> the second test, at a "fast walk" took 1 minute, 14 seconds."
HSCA investigators reconstructed the same route, this time running, in
46 seconds.
> From the diagram I saw there's a hallway that surrounds the office
> space that Truly and Baker ran through.
> If correct, then no.
> But obviously I'm a newbie at this.
Truly and Baker crossed the first floor, not the second (with the hallway
that surrounds the office area). After considering using one of the
elevators at the back of the first floor, they took the back stairs up to
the second floor.
Diagram of the first floor of the TSBD building:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0491b.htm
Front entrance of the building is at the upper left, elevators and
back stairs are at the bottom right.
Diagram of the second floor of the TSBD building:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0119b.htm
Mr. TRULY. [After the shooting] I saw a young motorcycle policeman run
up to the [TSBD] building, up the steps to the entrance of our
building. He ran right by me. And he was pushing people out of the
way. He pushed a number of people out of the way before he got to me.
I saw him coming through, I believe. As he ran up the stairway — I
mean up the steps, I was almost to the steps, I ran up and caught up
with him. I believe I caught up with him inside the lobby of the
building, or possibly the front steps. I don't remember that close.
But I remember it occurred to me that this man wants on top of the
building. He doesn't know the plan of the floor. And — that is — that
just pepped in my mind, and I ran in with him. As we got in the lobby,
almost on the inside of the first floor, this policeman asked me where
the stairway is. And I said, "This way". And I ran diagonally across
to the northwest corner of the building.
Mr. BAKER. As I entered this building, there was, it seems to me like
there was outside doors and then there is a little lobby.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. BAKER. And then there are some inner doors and another door you
have to go through, a swinging door type.
As I entered this lobby there were people going in as I entered. And I
asked, I just spoke out and asked where the stairs or elevator was,
and this man, Mr. Truly, spoke up and says, it seems to me like he
says, "I am a building manager. Follow me, officer, and I will show
you." So we immediately went out through the second set of doors, and
we ran into the swinging door.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Now, during the course of running into the swinging door, did you bump
into the back of Mr. Truly?
Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. BELIN. Then what happened?
Mr. BAKER. We finally backed up and got through that little swinging
door there and we kind of all ran, not real fast but, you know, a good
trot, to the back of the Building, I was following him.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Then what did you do?
Mr. BAKER. We went to the northwest corner, we was kind of on the, I
would say, the southeast corner of the Building there where we entered
it, and we went across it to the northwest corner which is in the
rear, back there.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. BAKER. And he was trying to get that service elevator down there.
I'm still waiting for you to show where in Baker's testimony, or where
in Baker's marking of the diagram of the 2nd floor (CE 497), does
Baker indicate that Oswald was inside the lunchroom when Baker *first*
saw him. You keep claiming Baker said that.
In his testimony, Baker said that he saw Oswald twice within a matter
of seconds. The FIRST time, after Baker reached the top of the stairs
from the first floor, he saw, through a door window, the back of
Oswald's head moving away from him.
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/ab/Photo_wcd81-1_0145.jpg
The SECOND time, after Baker walked to that door, opened it, and stood
in the doorway, he saw Oswald inside the lunchroom, walking about 20
feet away from him.
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/6/6d/Photo_wcd496_0030.jpg
Note, by the way, that CE 1118 (a diagram drawn by WC staff), comports
with Baker's testimony about the second time he saw Oswald, showing
Baker standing in the doorway between the stairway and the hallway
outside the lunchroom — "Location of Patrolman Baker when he observed
Oswald in lunchroom."
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0087b.htm
So — where is this testimony or diagram where Baker said he FIRST saw
Oswald INSIDE the lunchroom? I've asked you this many times.
No!
***
>Well, it isn't impossible that the reporter got it from Bookhout, I suppose.
In which (highly unlikely) case the story would have been: Oswald
Claimed To Be Drinking Coke When Stopped By Officer - not: Oswald Was
Drinking Coke, etc.
***
> Why would someone add "drinking a coke" to Bakers testimony if he didn't say it?
Exactly. It's clear that Baker said it - for whatever reason - and the
Agent wrote it down.
Sean
You knew about that official report didn't you yeuhd???
"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:51ffaf34-a15f-440a...@o36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
OK - in which case Oswald's decision to duck behind the door was made
*before* Baker hit the stairs.
***
>>>>>>He ducked through the door between the stairway and the hallway by the lunchroom, pulling it closed (it had an air- cushioned closer), and waited for them to pass.<<<<<<
OK
***
>>>>>>When Oswald heard one of them stop (Baker said he visually scanned the area on each floor as he went up), he decided not to be caught just standing in the hallway, and headed to the door of the lunchroom,<<<<<<
OK - Oswald *heard* one of them stop
***
>>>>>>when Baker saw him through the window of the door to the stairway.<<<<<<
Ah. So Oswald suddenly stopped trying to remain hidden? The cool
operator who just moments before had had the presence of mind to come
off the landing and duck behind the door suddenly turned into a moron
who was happy to advertise his presence to the cop by giving him a
visual?
It doesn't add up.
If, as you suggest, Oswald was listening from behind the door, trying
to stay out of view, he would by definition have been invisible to
Baker. If Oswald had then started walking from his position behind the
door to the door of the lunchroom, he would have *remained invisible*
to Baker.
Why?
The angle.
Compare the photo you linked - http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/ab/Photo_wcd81-1_0145.jpg
- with this photo, taken from inside the lunchroom -
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/9/93/Photo_wcd81-1_0149.jpg
The cardboard box with the open flaps gives us our point of reference
in both photos. For Baker to have seen Oswald walking from just behind
the door in the direction of the lunchroom, he (Baker) would have
needed to swing way, way over to the area behind the stack of boxes
before making his visual scan.
That certainly never happened. Baker's own testimony places him just a
step or two off the landing, putting Oswald well out of his line of
sight.
***
>>>>>> Both Baker and Truly said in their WC testimony that they saw nothing in Oswald's hands,<<<<<<
Indeed so. And yet we have this strange synchronicity between
a) Oswald's reported claim in custody (I was drinking a coke)
and
b) the Washington Post article (he was drinking a coke) + Baker's Sep
23rd 1964 slip (he was drinking a coke)
Incidentally, Baker's Sep 23rd statement says that he "saw a man
standing in the lunch room". Standing, not walking away. Restore
Baker's original utterance and we have "a man standing in the lunch
room drinking a coke" - a perfect replica of the Washington Post
description. Smelly, to say the least.
***
>>>>>>but if they were mistaken<<<<<<
Puzzled by press references to Oswald's sipping a coke, Léo Sauvage
asked Roy Truly about it in January 1964. Here's what Truly told him:
“From where I stood, I couldn’t see if Oswald held something in his
hand.” (The Oswald Affair, 1966, p.30).
By time of his WC testimony, Truly has somehow become "almost sure"
that he had seen both of Oswald's hands. Did Oswald have a coke? "Mr.
TRULY: No drink at all. Just standing there."
***
>>>>>>and [if] he did have a soda bottle in his hands, he could have picked up a bottle that was sitting on one the tables in the lunchroom as he walked in. FBI photos of the lunchroom taken on a December afternoon show two soda bottles and lunch debris on the tables.<<<<<<
Oswald simply wouldn't have had enough time for such an improvisation.
On your scenario, he was *walking* into the lunchroom while Baker was
*running* for the door. Baker told the WC that when he saw him in the
lunchroom, Oswald was about 20 feet into the lunchroom and still
walking.
The picture Bud linked in an earlier post -
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/8/8d/Photo_wcd81-1_0135.jpg -
shows the difficulty. Had Oswald gone off course and made a grab for a
Coke at one of the tables, Baker would have seen him there - off to
the right, at one of the tables.
He didn't.
Sean
I`d suggest you insert some spaces above and below your comments,
so they don`t get mixed in with other responses.
In any case, my confusion was on your use of 'outside", which for
some reason I took to mean outside the building. Your assumption is
that Oswald was inside the lunchroom the whole time, with no knowledge
of the activity outside the lunchroom. I don`t make that assumption.
> > The cop runs into the building, with Truly, runs up to the second
> > > floor
>
> Stairs? Or steps?
> , and sees Oswald, who is puttering around the second floor lunch> > room.
>
> > They stop at the elevators. They yell up for the elevators to be
> > released.
>
> Okay.
> So is my scenario:
> "> > The cop runs into the building, with Truly, runs up to the second> > floor, and sees Oswald, who is puttering around the second floor lunch
> > > room."
> correct?
> > > I don't get how Oswald knows about this cop to duck into the
> > > lunchroom.
>
> > Oswald didn`t say. Likely he heard the men coming up.
>
> According to the map or diagram I saw the 2 men are crossing an office
> space, or are they coming up stairs.
I see "yeuhd" has provided these for you.
> I grant you I need to get my hands on a correct diagram.> > He can't see the front steps.
> > > He's just....standing in the lunch room, presumably after shooting
> > > JFK, calm as can be....sipping a coke.
>
> > Yah, he was standing in the lunchroom, after shooting JFK, appearing
> > calm to Baker, possibly sipping a coke. Not to be confused with an alibi.
>
> The Orwellian tint where evidence of innocence becomes implication of
> guilt always bothered me with this aspect.
> Surely he has enough evidence of guilt without denying him his
> refreshing beverage break.
> According to agent Bookout, LHO stated he was drinking a coke (see
> above).
He also said he hadn`t killed anyone, and we know this to be a lie.
He needed a reason to be in that room, and he gave one. That doesn`t
establish the reason he gave as truthful.
> So it appears we can at least grant him the soda.> > From a previous page:
> > > "The WC attributes this to Mrs. Reid who said she saw Oswald in the
> > > second
> > > floor clerical office with a full bottle of Coke."
>
> > That wasn`t during his encounter with Baker.
>
> No we have LHO's statement to Bookout - case closed, to quote
> someone.
The clumsy lies Oswald told the interrogators did him much more harm
than good.
> > Just pointing out that your "fishing for change and pressing buttons"
> > scenario doesn`t need to be satisfied for Oswald to have a soda in his
> > hand.
>
> So he grabbed a half empty coke that was lying around?
Maybe.
> It appears we can go with the Bookout report - he fished around for
> change, punched a button and popped the top.
> I'll let you defend the idea that he grabbed an already opened half
> filled coke that someone else left behind.
I`ll let you defend the uncorroborated claimed actions of a known
liar.
> I must tell you - that resembles a comedy scene.
> The diabolical assassin bolting down the stairs, seeing the cops,
> thinking quickly and grabbing an old soda to act nonchalant.
> Maybe Gene Wilder?
If it happened as I suggest, it worked, so who can argue against
success?
> > You should see the alternatives CTers routinely entertain to
> > disregard Oswald`s obvious guilt.
>
> I've learned long ago to speak for myself and let others defend and
> argue their own beliefs.> > It`s possible he had no soda at all at the time Baker> detained him.
>
> > If you look at the soda machine in the lunchroom, it has a hand holding
> > a bottle of coke on the front of it. Is it impossible for that image to
> > get introduced into a person`s impressions and recollections?
>
> It appears the weight of the evidence is now that he got the coke.
Depends on how much weight you give to Oswald`s claims.
> > It`s possible Oswald had plenty of time to buy a soda before> his encounter with Baker, as the shortest amount of time or Oswald to
> > > > reach the lunchroom has never been determined.
>
> > > 45 seconds down the stairs, 45 seconds until Baker.
>
> > Where do you get this amount of time from?
>
> I thought I read it in this thread.
> I was mistaken.
> Here's the quote:
> "The first test, run at normal walking pace, required 1 minute, 18
> seconds;
> the second test, at a "fast walk" took 1 minute, 14 seconds."
Yah, they only shaved 4 seconds off by hurrying? What they should
have done was get a fairly fit 24 year old go down as fast as they
could. They needed the fastest time possible in order to determine
what could or could not be done in the time available.
> I believe it is pretty set that Baker took 90 seconds, leaving 16
> seconds to get that coke.
There are no "set" times. You can bet that the actual time it took
Baker to park his motorcycle and run to the door and the
reconstruction differed, the time he spent talking to the people in
the doorway and the reconstruction differed, the time it took to cross
the first floor to the elevators and the reconstruction differed, and
the time spent at the elevators differed from the reconstruction. A
guess and a guess and a guess and a guess are supposed to add up to
some reliable figure?
> Unless he grabbed a half opened one lying on a table somewhere.
> "Who, me? Why, I'm just drinking a...a...(sneaks a peek at the label)
> A COKE, yes, that's it! Is there anything I can do to help officer?"
Apparentlly, Oswald said nothing, didn`t even ask what was going on.
> > Baker would have been between Oswald and the exit.
>
> From the diagram I saw there's a hallway that surrounds the office
> space that Truly and Baker ran through.
> If correct, then no.
> But obviously I'm a newbie at this.
>
> > Presumably the hope was that Baker would miss him and continue up
> > without spotting him.
>
> I don't get how LHO knew that Baker was there before Baker saw him.
They hollered up.
> But I'm into carefully studying this issue.> > It appears.....that LHO shot, stashed, strolled to the second floor
> > > and stopped before running into Baker for some undetermined amount of
> > > time - allegedly to get a soda pop.
>
> > It appears Oswald shot Kennedy, hurried down the steps, heard Baker and
> > Truly (or saw Truly rounding the landing), forcing Oswald to duck into the
> > lunchroom, possibly grab a soda off the table as a prop, where Baker
> > confronted him.
>
> Man, you are killing me with that 'grab the soda' bit. But to each his
> own.
Again, can you establish that the only way that Oswald could have a
soda in his hand is by getting one from the machine. He ducks into a
room, he needs a reason to be in that room, a prop.
Agreed
***
>>>>>>The 'when' question is slightly in doubt....but not much. Truly saw
nothing in Oz's hands.<<<<<<
As he told Leo Sauvage in January 1964: “From where I stood, I
couldn’t see if Oswald held something in his hand.”
***
>>>>>>And neither did Baker. But, grain of salt required
there...because it's possible they just didn't notice anything in his
hands in that 10-second encounter.<<<<<<
Fair enough.
***
>>>>>>Doesn't really matter TOO much. Oz still had time to get his Coke
before the Baker meeting.<<<<<<
Actually it matters rather a lot, David.
Baker didn't say Oswald was in the lunchroom when he first spotted
him. Oswald was merely walking towards the lunchroom from the hallway.
By the time Baker had sprinted to the door and opened it, Oswald was
still walking, apparently en route to the vending machine.
Baker's testimony has one simple consequence: Oswald cannot possibly
have bought a Coke in the tiny gap between Baker's first glimpse of
him and his second.
Therefore if Oswald did buy a Coke after the assassination but before
the encounter with Baker, it must have been before Baker's *first*
glimpse of him.
On this scenario, then, Oswald came down the stairs from 6 to 2;
exited the 2nd floor landing by going through the door; went into the
lunchroom; put the coins in the machine; opened the bottle; walked
back out of the lunchroom; saw Baker; and turned around to re-enter
the lunchroom.
Turned around to re-enter the lunchroom? Why on earth would Oswald
have done such a thing? The reason for going in there in the first
place had been to get his p(r)op. He now had it.
The intrinsic implausibility of this scenario, along with the timing
issue, was recognised early on. Which is why the notion that Oswald
had a Coke in his hand when confronted by Baker needed to be scotched.
Sean
Again, you fail to ask the critical question. Why in the Hell did Dulles
ask that leading question? Because he had an agenda. He could just as
easily asked if Oswald was smoking.
Why specifically a Coke? Because it was an issue by then and Dulles
wanted to help clear that up.
David check out the tables in this photo of the lunchroom...
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/8/8d/Photo_wcd81-1_0135.jpg
The other photos of the area in the series were take around 4
o`clock (you can see the clock in one), I assume on the day of the
assassination. On the table are a couple lunch remains with soda
bottles. I`m not saying Oswald had a bottle of soda at the time of his
encounter with Baker, but this seems to indicate that even if he did,
it might have only been a matter of snatching one from a table as a
prop.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
7th photo down from the top.
I notice you keep Snipping my Official Citation ! ! ! !
Are you THAT Afraid of your own evidence?
WHY haven't you commented on the testimony that Oswald Sold a rifle Before
the Assassination?
Oh Wait, Oswald was in the vestibule.
Oh Wait, Oswald was in the hallway walking away from the stairs.
Oh Wait, Oswald was down by the Front Door.
They are ALL in the official Records.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2cf27f30-b398-4a05...@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
The official records show Oswald in 4 different positions when spotted by
Baker
The official records show Baker in 3 different positions when spotting
Oswald.
In the event that you have a challenge reading English I suggest you have
someone else read it to you>>>
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
"Sean Murphy" <seanmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:926e4fd8-03ce-4950...@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
My guess is that Oswald had no choice. He heard Officer Baker stop his
ascent, and probably assumed that Baker had either seen him through the
door window, or was about to go through the door and find Oswald just
standing there. Since Baker was going to see him in either case, Oswald
chose the lesser of two bad situations, and walked into the lunchroom,
giving himself an excuse for where he was.
> It doesn't add up.
> If, as you suggest, Oswald was listening from behind the door, trying
> to stay out of view, he would by definition have been invisible to
> Baker. If Oswald had then started walking from his position behind the
> door to the door of the lunchroom, he would have *remained invisible*
> to Baker.
> Why?
> The angle.
> Compare the photo you linked -http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/ab/Photo_wcd81-1_0145.jpg
> - with this photo, taken from inside the lunchroom -http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/9/93/Photo_wcd81-1_0149.jpg
> The cardboard box with the open flaps gives us our point of reference
> in both photos. For Baker to have seen Oswald walking from just behind
> the door in the direction of the lunchroom, he (Baker) would have
> needed to swing way, way over to the area behind the stack of boxes
> before making his visual scan.
> That certainly never happened. Baker's own testimony places him just a
> step or two off the landing, putting Oswald well out of his line of
> sight.
All depends on where that step or two off the landing takes him, doesn't
it? The pillar blocks the view only if you're standing behind the pillar.
Obviously, Baker wasn't. He couldn't have gone to the door without having
seen the door first. As for the angle: Remember, Baker didn't initially
see Oswald inside the lunchroom. He saw, through the stairway door window,
the back of Oswald's head moving away from.
But for the sake or argument, then what *is* your explanation for why
Baker stopped on the 2nd floor and walked to the windowed door, opened it,
and saw Oswald in the lunchroom? Since Baker, Truly, and Oswald all said
the encounter in the lunchroom happened, what is your point?
> >>>>>>and [if] he did have a soda bottle in his hands, he could have picked up a bottle that was sitting on one the tables in the lunchroom as he walked in. FBI photos of the lunchroom taken on a December afternoon show two soda bottles and lunch debris on the tables.<<<<<<
>
> Oswald simply wouldn't have had enough time for such an improvisation.
> On your scenario, he was *walking* into the lunchroom while Baker was
> *running* for the door. Baker told the WC that when he saw him in the
> lunchroom, Oswald was about 20 feet into the lunchroom and still
> walking.
Oswald simply would. Since Baker didn't see Oswald again until Oswald
was twenty feet away from him, that sounds like twenty feet of
opportunity to me.
> The picture Bud linked in an earlier post -http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/8/8d/Photo_wcd81-1_0135.jpg-
> shows the difficulty. Had Oswald gone off course and made a grab for a
> Coke at one of the tables, Baker would have seen him there - off to
> the right, at one of the tables.
To walk to the stairway door and open it requires one to take himself
*away* from the line of sight into the lunchroom. Note the direction the
stairway door opened. That Oswald was twenty feet away from Baker before
Baker saw him again indicates to me twenty feet of opportunity.
Again, where does your argument go? Do you have some alternate explanation
of what happened, an explanation which somehow exonerates Oswald?
Are you claiming that Oswald was already in the lunchroom when he was
first seen, holding a Coke bottle in his hand? And that that would have
been impossible if Oswald had been on the 6th floor at the time of the
shooting?
Let's review the timing. Baker's reconstruction of his movements from the
time of the shooting to when he reached the 2nd floor took 90 seconds,
which Baker said "would be the minimum" and that his actual time was "a
little longer."
Timed reconstructions of Oswald's movements from the sniper's nest to the
2nd floor lunchroom:
Normal walking pace: 1 minute 18 seconds
Fast walking pace: 1 minute 14 seconds
Run: 46 seconds
Running or just walking fast, Oswald would still have about 15 to 30
seconds to buy a Coke and open it. It may suit some people's purposes to
exaggerate how long that takes, but that is enough time. I don't think
Oswald had any incentive to dawdle.
Oswald, being a recent murderer, had a reason to keep his location
unknown to the authorities. Baker and truly, not being murderer, had the
luxury of making all the racket they wanted to, even yelling up.
> Bud doesn't know that someone moved the boxes in the snipers window within
> 2 minutes of the shooting ! ! !
You`re damn right he doesn`t. Doesn`t care, either.
> That eliminates Oswald or, he could NOT have reached the 2nd floor
> lunchroom within 90 seconds.
No, Ruby eliminated Oswald.
> SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baker said he first saw Oswald through the stairway door window, walking
away from him. He said that Oswald had nothing in his hand when he saw him
in the lunchroom. That is the scenario that is consistent and makes sense.
It's YOUR alternate scenario that doesn't make sense: Oswald walking into
the lunchroom to get a soda when he already had a soda. No one else has
posited such a scenario. I think that's what they call a strawman
argument.
Baker's and Truly's on-the-record testimony in 1964 that Oswald had
nothing in his hands weighs more credibly to me than Léo Sauvage's
account, in 1966, of what he says Truly told him in 1964. Two vs. one,
direct vs. indirect, 1964 vs. 1966.
>>> "Why specifically a Coke? Because it was an issue by then and Dulles
wanted to help clear that up." <<<
And he did.