Why did Oswald buy a Coke?
Peter Fokes
Was he just thirsty?
A fleeing assassin with an impulse for a cool refreshing Coke to
quench his thirst?
Or did he hear Baker and Truly coming and quickly fish a coin out of
his pocket and buy a Coke to leave the impression he was in no rush?
Or perhaps you believe he purchased the Coke after his encounter with
Baker and Truly. Do you?
Pray tell then, what was his motivation?
To congratulate himself on fooling a cop?
Or, simply because he was thirsty?
Or perhaps to appear calm and ordinary when he made his escape?
Why did he buy this Coke?
If you think he was terribly thirsty, then why was the Coke still full
when he strode through the office?
Odd thing to do?
Perhaps you can explain his motivation.
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
bigdog
> Wasn't he in a rush?
>
> Was he just thirsty?
>
> A fleeing assassin with an impulse for a cool refreshing Coke to
> quench his thirst?
>
> Or did he hear Baker and Truly coming and quickly fish a coin out of
> his pocket and buy a Coke to leave the impression he was in no rush?
>
> Or perhaps you believe he purchased the Coke after his encounter with
> Baker and Truly. Do you?
Almost certainly. The lunchroom had a vestibule and both an inner and an
outter door. The outter door, the one nearest the stairway, had a small
window in it and Baker spotted Oswald through this window as he was
entering the lunchroom. If Oswald had been through both doors when Baker
and Truly went by, it is doubtful Baker would have spotted him. He did not
have a Coke in his hand when Baker confronted him and Baker made a point
of correcting that in the prepared statement that was given to him to
sign. At no time did Baker go on the record as saying Oswald had a Coke
when confronted.
> Pray tell then, what was his motivation?
>
> To congratulate himself on fooling a cop?
>
> Or, simply because he was thirsty?
>
> Or perhaps to appear calm and ordinary when he made his escape?
>
> Why did he buy this Coke?
>
> If you think he was terribly thirsty, then why was the Coke still full
> when he strode through the office?
>
> Odd thing to do?
>
> Perhaps you can explain his motivation.
>
> Regards,
> Peter Fokes,
> Toronto
Why do you think anyone on earth could possibly know these things?
Peter Fokes
Now, where is the Sherlock Holmes side of you?
Since Baker and Truly sidetracked him from the stairs, he thought it
best to buy a Coke in case they asked him later why the hell he didn't
buy a Coke after all!
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Sean Murphy
> Now, where is the Sherlock Holmes side of you?
>
> Since Baker and Truly sidetracked him from the stairs, he thought it
> best to buy a Coke in case they asked him later why the hell he didn't
> buy a Coke after all!
>
Nicely put, Peter.
Why did Oswald buy a Coca-Cola? According to the joint Bookhout-Hosty
interrogation report of 11/22, Oswald's own answer was simple: he
bought a Coca-Cola "for his lunch".
Now when does one usually buy a drink *for* one's lunch? Before,
during or after eating?
Sean
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
He didn't have the Coke during the encounter. He bought it afterwards.
Whatever Oswald was thinking when he bought the Coke, you are simply
guessing.
Peter Fokes
I didn't say he had the Coke during the encounter.
You are simple assuming I said something that I did not say.
> He bought it afterwards.
> Whatever Oswald was thinking when he bought the Coke, you are simply
> guessing.
Of course I am. But my guess makes perfect sense.
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
yeuhd
> Why did Oswald buy a Coca-Cola? According to the joint Bookhout-Hosty
> interrogation report of 11/22, Oswald's own answer was simple: he
> bought a Coca-Cola "for his lunch".
>
> Now when does one usually buy a drink *for* one's lunch? Before,
> during or after eating?
We're supposed to take Oswald's statement at face value? Oswald also
said he didn't take any long package to work that morning, and that he
never said anything to Frazier about curtain rods. And that he didn't
own a rifle. And that he never lived on Neely Street.
Here's what else Oswald told James Bookhout on Nov. 22: "OSWALD stated
that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and
had lunch in the employees lunchroom. He thereafter went outside and
stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman BILL TRULY, and
thereafter went home."
yeuhd
and ducked into the hallway between the stairway and the 2nd floor
lunchroom when he heard Truly and Baker coming upstairs. When he heard
Baker stop on the 2nd floor (Baker said he was scanning the stairway
area), he feared that Baker was about to walk through that stairway
door and find Oswald just standing there. So, believing he was about
to be found anyway, Oswald chose the lesser of two bad situations, and
walked into the lunchroom and headed toward the Coke machine to
provide himself an alibi for being on the 2nd floor.
Then the encounter with Baker occurred inside the lunchroom, and
Baker's departure, leaving Oswald in the lunchroom.
Having been seen in the process of his lunchroom alibi, Oswald thought
he should complete the pretense and buy the Coke, in case he was seen
moments later by Baker or Truly outside the lunchroom without it.
I'd like to ask those who are determined to place a bottle of soda in
Oswald's hand during his encounter with Baker and Truly, despite all
evidence to the contrary: What is your point? By asserting that Oswald
had a soda in his hand in the lunchroom, you're acknowledging that
Baker and Truly did encounter Oswald in the lunchroom. Pretty much a
given, as Baker, Truly, and Oswald all agreed that it happened.
So what precipitated that encounter in the lunchroom? Baker said it
was because he saw the back of Oswald's head moving away from the
stairway door window. Absurd, some say — why would Oswald be seen
walking into the lunchroom when he already had a soda in his hand
(which is begging the question — it hasn't been proven that he had a
soda in his hand — but never mind). OK, if that's not why Baker
stopped and followed Oswald, what precipitated the lunchroom
encounter?
And if you're still determined to put a soda in Oswald's hand: Given
that timed reconstructions of Oswald's route showed it could occur in
as little as 46 seconds, and at a fast walking pace in 1 minute 14
seconds, why would it be impossible for Oswald to make it to the 2nd
floor lunchroom and buy a Coke?
So, again, in summary:
(1) What do YOU think precipitated the lunchroom encounter? Show your
evidence.
(2) Just how does Oswald having a soda in his hand make him being the
6th floor shooter impossible? Show your numbers.
jbarge
(Gary Oldham as Lee Harvey Oswald)
Opening shot from right side showing LHO from chest up squinting into
a rifle scope.
LHO pulls trigger.
LHO pulls back from scope and looks out window.
(Music begins)
LHO nods thoughtfully.
MUSIC: “Things go better with coca cola, things go better with coke”
LHO stands up.
(tracking shot showing front of LHO)
LHO holding rifle begins walking away from window.
LHO moves shoulders, hips and takes small steps in a part-dance part-
walk motion.
MUSIC: “Life is best when you’re refreshed”)
LHO tosses rifle towards stack of boxes.
Using trick reverse photography rifle inserts itself deep within
stacked boxes.
MUSIC: “and Coke refreshes you the best.”
Close up LHO smiling with “twinkle” on left eyetooth.
(John Goodman as Motorcycle police officer Baker) Cut to policeman
dismounting motorcycle.
Policeman dashes up front steps.
(Rip Torn as building supervisor Roy Truly. Music volume drops.)
TRULY: I’m the building supervisor. Follow me.
Both men dash into building.
(Music swells)
Cut to LHO gazing at pop machine buttons.
Baker and Truly dash to doorway.
BAKER: Hold it right there!
(Music stops. Silence: one second. All three men look at each other.)
LHO hold tosses coke bottle to Baker, who though startled catches it.
TRULY: Well, how ‘bout me?
LHO tosses coke bottle to Truly, who catches it and takes big drink.
(Music returns in half-time, played in big Broadway-style finish, a la
Sinatra’s version of “Chicago”. "THINGS GO BETTER WITH COCA COLA,
THINGS GO BETTER WITH COKE!")
Three men form a line, arms around the shoulders, kicking left then
kicking right.
One at timed joined by Jackie in pillbox hat, JFK with bandaged head,
Connolly with sling on arm, Jack Ruby in porkpie hat, police officers,
Castro, all dancing in line, arms on shoulders, kicking left then
right.
Crowd spills out onto grassy knoll, Secret Service agents dashing
around.
Camera rises six stories high to birds eye view.
END
Ms.Burb
>
> - Show quoted text -
I know if I'd killed the Leader of the Free World, I'd be thirsty...
Sean Murphy
> On Mar 24, 10:41 am, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why did Oswald buy a Coca-Cola? According to the joint Bookhout-Hosty
> > interrogation report of 11/22, Oswald's own answer was simple: he
> > bought a Coca-Cola "for his lunch".
>
> > Now when does one usually buy a drink *for* one's lunch? Before,
> > during or after eating?
>
>>>We're supposed to take Oswald's statement at face value?<<<
No, we're supposed to try and establish what the man actually said.
***
>>>Here's what else Oswald told James Bookhout on Nov. 22: "OSWALD stated
that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and
had lunch in the employees lunchroom. He thereafter went outside and
stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman BILL TRULY, and
thereafter went home."<<<
"Oswald told Bookhout"?? "BILL TRULY"???
Bookhout sat in on Oswald's first interrogation session along with James
Hosty. Both Agents put their name to an interrogation report. That *first*
report contains none of this nonsense, which is patently designed to
distort what Oswald actually said - namely:
I broke for lunch around noon; I went to the second-floor lunchroom where
I bought a Coke for my lunch; I took this Coke down to the first floor and
stood around for several minutes having lunch in the domino room; I was
still on the first floor when the motorcade passed.
Was Oswald lying about a pre-assassination visit to the second-floor
lunchroom? It seemed so, until Carolyn Arnold set the record straight in
1978.
Sean
Sean Murphy
> As I speculated earlier, my guess is that Oswald was coming downstairs
> and ducked into the hallway between the stairway and the 2nd floor
> lunchroom when he heard Truly and Baker coming upstairs. When he heard
> Baker stop on the 2nd floor (Baker said he was scanning the stairway
> area), he feared that Baker was about to walk through that stairway
> door and find Oswald just standing there.
i.e. Oswald was at this point hiding behind the hallway door
***
>So, believing he was about
> to be found anyway,
i.e. Oswald was still hiding behind the hallway door
***
>Oswald chose the lesser of two bad situations, and
> walked into the lunchroom and headed toward the Coke machine to
> provide himself an alibi for being on the 2nd floor.
> Then the encounter with Baker occurred inside the lunchroom, and
> Baker's departure, leaving Oswald in the lunchroom.<
You skipped over the crucial bit: Baker's first glimpse of Oswald through
the door window. Without that, Baker doesn't go anywhere near the
lunchroom.
But Oswald has been hiding behind the hallway door, right? It's easy as
pie for him to make his way to the lunchroom while still making sure to
stay hidden. The angles are all on his side. Yet he somehow contrives to
let Baker see him. Why?
I'm sorry, you can't have Oswald slyly hiding one moment, and then
suddenly and stupidly advertising his presence the next.
***
>
> Having been seen in the process of his lunchroom alibi, Oswald thought
> he should complete the pretense and buy the Coke, in case he was seen
> moments later by Baker or Truly outside the lunchroom without it.
Plausible.
***
>...Baker, Truly, and Oswald all agreed that it happened.
Not true.
Baker and Truly did go on the record about this - Truly late on 11/22;
Baker long afterwards.
Oswald, however, never went on the record about it.
***
>why would it be impossible for Oswald to make it to the 2nd
> floor lunchroom and buy a Coke?
Before being spotted by Baker, you mean? It would involve Oswald buying a
coke, exiting the lunchroom, then re-entering the lunchroom and making his
way towards the vending machine all over again. As you yourself have
rightly noted, that scenario "makes no sense".
Sean
jbarge
> On Mar 24, 10:41 am, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why did Oswald buy a Coca-Cola? According to the joint Bookhout-Hosty
> > interrogation report of 11/22, Oswald's own answer was simple: he
> > bought a Coca-Cola "for his lunch".
>
> > Now when does one usually buy a drink *for* one's lunch? Before,
> > during or after eating?
>
> We're supposed to take Oswald's statement at face value? Oswald also
> said he didn't take any long package to work that morning
Not quite. He (allegedly) told Fritz in response to a question about the
size he didn't know how big the bag was for his lunch and said something
along the lines, "You don't always find a bag that fits your sandwhich."
Ritchie Linton
"Peter Fokes" <borea...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8a85cc9d-883b-4a56...@e2g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> Wasn't he in a rush?
> Was he just thirsty?
&&Yes.Why does anybody get a drink?
RJ
pjfk
> On Mar 24, 10:41 am, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why did Oswald buy a Coca-Cola? According to the joint Bookhout-Hosty
> > interrogation report of 11/22, Oswald's own answer was simple: he
> > bought a Coca-Cola "for his lunch".
>
> > Now when does one usually buy a drink *for* one's lunch? Before,
> > during or after eating?
>
> We're supposed to take Oswald's statement at face value? Oswald also
> said he didn't take any long package to work that morning, and that he
> never said anything to Frazier about curtain rods. And that he didn't
> own a rifle.
The fact is nobody saw LHO with the M/C after his return to Dallas.
LHO went to MC from NOLA. Marina and Ruth unpacked the car.
tomnln
"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46d1687d-29dc-4d77...@a12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
You do NOT know WHAT Oswald said.
None of his Interrogations were recorded, Remember?
Remember they said they did NOT have any tape recorders?
Knowing that there was a "Recording Room" directly across the hall from
Fritz'a office makes them Liars.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Marsh
It depends on the region. Down south they usually have the soda AFTER
the meal. Up north we start the soda before the meal and drink
continuously through the meal.
> Sean
>
tomnln
"speculated/guess"
"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:503f999a-fac0-4a72...@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
Grizzlie Antagonist
news:2a4ac325-5ad8-4d85...@b6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
And this was in the 60's.
In the 60's, whenever anyone was enjoying the nice crisp clean refreshing
taste of Coca Cola, they were inevitably engaging in some wholesome
American pasttime, and the Limeliters were always singing approvingly in
the background.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bN5dDE-9qn0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttxy-bFwqVs
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xrlca_coca-cola-1964_ads
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1or3o_coca-cola-1965_ads
Food, fun, and people all needed the spirited taste of Coke to be really
refreshed. A TV commercial which showed LHO kicking back and enjoying the
taste of an ice cold Coke on 11/22/63 -- with the spirited musical
accompaniment of the Limeliters -- after a busy session on the sixth floor
would have been worth its weight in gold.
Things go better with Coca Cola! Things go better with Coke!
--
"Aetas parentum pejor avis tulit nos nequiores, mox daturos progenium
vitiosiorem" ("Our parents, viler than our grandparents, begot us who are
even viler, and we shall bring forth a progeny more degenerate still") -
Horace, Odes, III, 6
yeuhd
>
> You do NOT know WHAT Oswald said.
> None of his Interrogations were recorded, Remember?
Well, that's odd. Because that passage from the Bookhout report was
used virtually word for word in the FBI report. And elsewhere you
quoted that part of the FBI report as reliable evidence!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/41d8e737bcf9ae09
Here's where you are relying on the FBI/Bookhout report as accurate:
Since Day 1 there was a coke in Oswald's hand.
ALL the way up to Sept. 23, 1964.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
Even the FBI Report said it.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/FBI.htm
Obviously, the interrogation reports are accurate and reliable when
they suit your purposes.
yeuhd
> On Mar 24, 3:52 pm, yeuhd <NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We're supposed to take Oswald's statement at face value? Oswald also
> > said he didn't take any long package to work that morning, and that he
> > never said anything to Frazier about curtain rods. And that he didn't
> > own a rifle.
>
> The fact is nobody saw LHO with the M/C after his return to Dallas.
> LHO went to MC from NOLA. Marina and Ruth unpacked the car.
Oswald didn't say, "I bought a rifle earlier this year, but I haven't
seen it since we moved back to Dallas." Oswald said he did not own a
rifle. When he was asked if he *ever* owned a rifle, he said he did
many years ago, but that he hadn't owned one for a long time.
As for whether Oswald brought the rifle back to Dallas in September
1963:
Mrs. OSWALD. Lee was loading everything on because I was pregnant at
the time. But I know that Lee loaded the rifle on.
Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle carried in some kind of a case when you went
back with Mrs. Paine?
Mrs. OSWALD. After we arrived, I tried to put the bed, the child's
crib together, the metallic parts, and I looked for a certain part,
and I came upon something wrapped in a blanket. I thought that was
part of the bed, but it turned out to be the rifle.
You can bet your bottom dollar that Oswald did not let Marina or Ruth
Paine load or unload that particular item.
Sean Murphy
> It depends on the region. Down south they usually have the soda AFTER
> the meal.
That doesn't seem to have been the habit of Oswald's co-workers in the
TSBD.
Sean
Steve
It seems rather clear to me that Oswald was frantically trying to
establish some sort of half-assed alibi on the fly. Similar to O.J.
Simpson breaking the hotel glass in the sink in his Chicago room after he
relaizes his hand is cut and he needs to be able to explain away his
injury after he murdered his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. Oswald thinks if he
buys a Coke and looks nonchalant he won't be a suspect as he leaves the
building--after all it WAS lunch time wasn't it? This has always been a
problem for the Oswald defenders hasn't it because they always claim
Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunchroom at the time of the assassination,
yet Oswald himself told police he was in the 1st floor lunchroom. What a
dilemma it is trying to force evidence of guilt into evidence of
innocence. Additionally, conspiracy nuts always think since Oswald LOOKED
innocent he must BE innocent. What a childish way of looking at crime
solving. What do the Conpsiracy theorists expect Oswald to have done
after the assassination, run from the building screaming at the top of his
lungs, "Get out of my way. I just shot the President and I must flee to
safety!! Don't tell anyone I don't want to get caught!!" Nearly EVERYONE
that commits a heinous act in a relatively public place attempts to look
innocent to avoid detection and arrest. If the police only arrested
suspects that LOOKED guilty they would raraly arrest anyone.
So, Oswald shoots Kennedy, stashes the MC between the stacks of books,
possibly banging the sight in the process and damaging its alignment (we
will never this point) and then easily runs down the stairs within 90
seconds [as was duplicated countless times] hoping to flee the building
prior to the police entering it. He hears Baker and Truely coming up the
first flight of stairs and he ducks into the breakroom hoping to avoid
detection. This makes perfect sense since Oswald KNEW the shots had been
fired from the 6th floor he would naturally assume that hiding on the 2nd
floor would help him appear innocent of the crime. He then encounters
Baker and much to his relief gets a clean slate and a virtual pass to
leave the building. He breathes a sigh of relief thinking he may have
dodged a bullet and then thinks of buying a Coke to look even more
innocent as he leaves the front of the building. I'm not a criminal
mastermind nor a Mensa member but even I would think of doing that under
the circumstances. And let's not forget...it worked. Oswald DOES leave
the building within two minutes and then mysteriously walks several blocks
to catch the very bus scheduled to make its regular stop across the street
from the TSBD. Then he hails a cab when the bus stalls in traffic and
tells the cab driver to drive PAST his North Beckley residence for some
reason (obviously to see if the police were there yet) and then he walks
four blocks BACK to his residence. Not exactly the actions of an innocent
man are they? Then he changes his work clothes to another pair of
work-quality clothing for some reason. Along with the Coke he purchased
this helps Oswald appear to NOT be the person the authorities are looking
for.
But then Officer Tippit enters the picture and everything changes...
tomnln
On Mar 24, 11:03 pm, pjfk <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 3:52 pm, yeuhd <NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We're supposed to take Oswald's statement at face value? Oswald also
> > said he didn't take any long package to work that morning, and that he
> > never said anything to Frazier about curtain rods. And that he didn't
> > own a rifle.
>
> The fact is nobody saw LHO with the M/C after his return to Dallas.
> LHO went to MC from NOLA. Marina and Ruth unpacked the car.
yeuhd wrote;
Oswald didn't say, "I bought a rifle earlier this year, but I haven't seen
it since we moved back to Dallas." Oswald said he did not own a rifle.
When he was asked if he *ever* owned a rifle, he said he did many years
ago, but that he hadn't owned one for a long time.
I write;
NOBODY (incl. YOU) Knows what Oswald said during Interrogations.
Don't you Remember the authorities said they were NOT tape recorded
because they did NOT have Tape Recorders?
They LIED.......There's a "Recording Room" directly across the hall from
Fritz's office.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------
As for whether Oswald brought the rifle back to Dallas in September
1963:
Mrs. OSWALD. Lee was loading everything on because I was pregnant at
the time. But I know that Lee loaded the rifle on.
Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle carried in some kind of a case when you went
back with Mrs. Paine?
Mrs. OSWALD. After we arrived, I tried to put the bed, the child's
crib together, the metallic parts, and I looked for a certain part,
and I came upon something wrapped in a blanket. I thought that was
part of the bed, but it turned out to be the rifle.
You can bet your bottom dollar that Oswald did not let Marina or Ruth
Paine load or unload that particular item.
When Ruth/Marina went to Dallas, Oswald was at Sylvia Odio's ORRRRR, Mexico
City.
Ruth, Marina or, Michael Paine HAD to unload the station wagon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeuhd
> On Mar 24, 8:53 pm, yeuhd <NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As I speculated earlier, my guess is that Oswald was coming downstairs
> > and ducked into the hallway between the stairway and the 2nd floor
> > lunchroom when he heard Truly and Baker coming upstairs. When he heard
> > Baker stop on the 2nd floor (Baker said he was scanning the stairway
> > area), he feared that Baker was about to walk through that stairway
> > door and find Oswald just standing there.
>
> i.e. Oswald was at this point hiding behind the hallway door
>
> ***
>
> >So, believing he was about
> > to be found anyway,
>
> i.e. Oswald was still hiding behind the hallway door
>
> ***
>
> >Oswald chose the lesser of two bad situations, and
> > walked into the lunchroom and headed toward the Coke machine to
> > provide himself an alibi for being on the 2nd floor.
> > Then the encounter with Baker occurred inside the lunchroom, and
> > Baker's departure, leaving Oswald in the lunchroom.<
>
> You skipped over the crucial bit: Baker's first glimpse of Oswald through
> the door window. Without that, Baker doesn't go anywhere near the
> lunchroom.
I skipped it because we've gone over that whole part to death.
> But Oswald has been hiding behind the hallway door, right? It's easy as
> pie for him to make his way to the lunchroom while still making sure to
> stay hidden. The angles are all on his side.
You're assuming a knowledge of viewing angles to a precise degree,
Oswald's knowing exactly where Baker was standing, all sort of things that
you can't assume. The fact is that Baker saw the back of Oswald's head
moving away from him through the window. If Oswald wanted to establish an
alibi for himself by going into the lunchroom, why does he care if anyone
sees the back of his head through the window of the stairway door? That's
sort of the *point*. He believes he is going to be seen whether he stands
still or whether he walks into the lunchroom.
> >...Baker, Truly, and Oswald all agreed that it happened.
>
> Not true.
Yes, they did all agree that it happened.
> >why would it be impossible for Oswald to make it to the 2nd
> > floor lunchroom and buy a Coke?
>
> Before being spotted by Baker, you mean? It would involve Oswald buying a
> coke, exiting the lunchroom, then re-entering the lunchroom and making his
> way towards the vending machine all over again. As you yourself have
> rightly noted, that scenario "makes no sense".
Well, no it would not necessarily involve buying a Coke, would it? He
could have picked up a soda bottle off a table as he walked in. We've
talked about this before. As I pointed out, from the way the stairway door
opens, Baker would have to temporarily remove himself from any line of
sight into the lunchroom. It takes about two seconds to swipe a bottle off
a table.
But why do people keep trying to put a Coke in Oswald's hand during the
encounter? If they do that, the other side of the seesaw goes flying up
— if Baker did *not* see Oswald walking into the lunchroom, then what
precipitated the lunchroom encounter? I've asked this twice now, and no
one has answered.
Let me state this once more:
(1) If Baker saw Oswald moving away from the window of the stairway door
toward the lunchroom, that is evidence that suggests Oswald did *not* yet
have a Coke in his hand.
(2) If Baker did *not* see Oswald moving away from the window of the
stairway door — because Oswald was already in the lunchroom innocently
enjoying his Coke — then what precipitated the lunchroom encounter?
(3) And why would either scenario be evidence that Oswald was not the 6th
floor sniper? Both scenarios could be accomplished by Oswald in less than
90 seconds.
Sean Murphy
>This has always been a
> problem for the Oswald defenders hasn't it because they always claim
> Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunchroom at the time of the assassination,
Er, they don't.
***
>He hears Baker and Truely coming up the
> first flight of stairs and he ducks into the breakroom hoping to avoid
> detection. This makes perfect sense since Oswald KNEW the shots had been
> fired from the 6th floor he would naturally assume that hiding on the 2nd
> floor would help him appear innocent of the crime. He then encounters
> Baker
How are you getting from Oswald "hiding" to Oswald "encountering"
Baker and "Truely"? Kindly explain.
***
>And let's not forget...it worked.
Ah, the wonders of circular reasoning.
***
>Oswald DOES leave
> the building within two minutes
Really?
***
>Then he changes his work clothes to another pair of
> work-quality clothing for some reason.
So Mary Bledsoe was lying about the shirt she saw on the bus?
Anthony Marsh
A full Coke bottle? You love to speculate, don't you? Then why don't you
claim that Oswald had the Coke bottle on the sixth floor and ran down
the four flights with it, preparing his alibi in advance? Why is the
Coke bottle an alibi for anything?
> talked about this before. As I pointed out, from the way the stairway door
> opens, Baker would have to temporarily remove himself from any line of
> sight into the lunchroom. It takes about two seconds to swipe a bottle off
> a table.
>
Someone left a full bottle of Coke on the table? You have a vivid
imagination.
> But why do people keep trying to put a Coke in Oswald's hand during the
> encounter? If they do that, the other side of the seesaw goes flying up
> — if Baker did *not* see Oswald walking into the lunchroom, then what
> precipitated the lunchroom encounter? I've asked this twice now, and no
> one has answered.
>
Maybe seeing the door swinging gave Baker a clue. He was pretty smart.
> Let me state this once more:
>
> (1) If Baker saw Oswald moving away from the window of the stairway door
> toward the lunchroom, that is evidence that suggests Oswald did *not* yet
> have a Coke in his hand.
>
> (2) If Baker did *not* see Oswald moving away from the window of the
> stairway door — because Oswald was already in the lunchroom innocently
> enjoying his Coke — then what precipitated the lunchroom encounter?
>
Baker did not know exactly where the shooter was. He was looking for an
assassin.
Sean Murphy
> On Mar 24, 10:52 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > But Oswald has been hiding behind the hallway door, right? It's easy as
> > pie for him to make his way to the lunchroom while still making sure to
> > stay hidden. The angles are all on his side.
>
> You're assuming a knowledge of viewing angles to a precise degree,
> Oswald's knowing exactly where Baker was standing, all sort of things that
> you can't assume. The fact is that Baker saw the back of Oswald's head
> moving away from him through the window. If Oswald wanted to establish an
> alibi for himself by going into the lunchroom, why does he care if anyone
> sees the back of his head through the window of the stairway door? That's
> sort of the *point*. He believes he is going to be seen whether he stands
> still or whether he walks into the lunchroom.
Finally, an answer! Oswald went from hiding his presence to
advertising it. He popped his head up to look through the window,
turned 180 degrees and started walking towards the lunchroom.
Thank you.
***
>
> > >...Baker, Truly, and Oswald all agreed that it happened.
>
> > Not true.
>
> Yes, they did all agree that it happened.
No they didn't.
Truly went on the record on 11/22.
Baker went on the record long afterwards.
Oswald never had a chance to go on the record.
***
> > > >why would it be impossible for Oswald to make it to the 2nd
> > > floor lunchroom and buy a Coke?
>
> > Before being spotted by Baker, you mean? It would involve Oswald buying a
> > coke, exiting the lunchroom, then re-entering the lunchroom and making his
> > way towards the vending machine all over again. As you yourself have
> > rightly noted, that scenario "makes no sense".
>
> Well, no it would not necessarily involve buying a Coke, would it? He
> could have picked up a soda bottle off a table as he walked in. We've
> talked about this before. As I pointed out, from the way the stairway door
> opens, Baker would have to temporarily
As I pointed out several times already, Baker was running. So we're
talking about a very few seconds here. Certainly not enough time for
Oswald to do what you're suggesting.
Unless, that is, he had already left a pre-purchased Coke ready in the
entrance of the lunchroom as a prop.
Fair enough. But it would mean that the whole premise of your theory -
Oswald was en route down the stairs when he was diverted by the sound
of Truly and/or Baker - goes up in smoke.
***
>remove himself from any line of
> sight into the lunchroom. It takes about two seconds to swipe a bottle off
> a table.
If you're standing at the table, that is. But Oswald wasn't. No, the
clock starts ticking from the moment Baker first spots him through the
door. And, not to labour the point, Baker is running. Look again at
the photo taken from landing to door to see just how quickly he would
have traversed the gap.
Perhaps, at some quantum level where time stops being linear, Oswald
could have done what you're suggesting. But common sense tells us it's
beyond ridiculous on every other level.
***
> But why do people keep trying to put a Coke in Oswald's hand during the
> encounter?
I don't.
***
>If they do that, the other side of the seesaw goes flying up
> — if Baker did *not* see Oswald walking into the lunchroom, then what
> precipitated the lunchroom encounter? I've asked this twice now, and no
> one has answered.
That's because there *is* no plausible answer.
***
>
> Let me state this once more:
>
> (1) If Baker saw Oswald moving away from the window of the stairway door
> toward the lunchroom, that is evidence that suggests Oswald did *not* yet
> have a Coke in his hand.
Precisely my point: it's ludicrous to suggest that a guilty Oswald
could have bought a Coke just *before* being spotted by Baker. Either
he bought it before the assassination or after the Baker encounter.
***
>
> (2) If Baker did *not* see Oswald moving away from the window of the
> stairway door — because Oswald was already in the lunchroom innocently
> enjoying his Coke — then what precipitated the lunchroom encounter?
Very good question.
To which we must add the following:
a) Why does Baker's September 23 statement contain the sentence "I saw
a man standing in the lunch room drinking a coke", with the last three
words crossed out?
b) Why did the Washington Post of 1/12/63 say that the officer saw
Oswald "sipping a coke" by the vending machine?
c) How is it that Oswald's reported claim in custody - "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" - just
happens to match the mistakes cited in a) and b) with uncanny
exactitude?
***
> (3) And why would either scenario be evidence that Oswald was not the 6th
> floor sniper?
Because one of them is ludicrous - it "makes no sense".
Sean
Sean Murphy
>Both scenarios could be accomplished by Oswald in less than
> 90 seconds.
Forgot to ask in my previous post: where are you getting 90 seconds
from?
Sean
yeuhd
> NOBODY (incl. YOU) Knows what Oswald said during Interrogations.
>
Yes, we do know, because we have reports from several different people
who were present at the interrogations.
And you know what's odd? You quote from those interrogation reports
when they suit your purposes. Guess when you do it, the reports are
accurate and reliable.
yeuhd
> City.
>
> Ruth, Marina or, Michael Paine HAD to unload the station wagon.
Ruth Paine said that among the items they unloaded from New Orleans,
Oswald had two or three suitcases and a garment bag.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0236a.htm
Mr. JENNER. Now, how many pieces of luggage in addition to the two
duffelbags?
Mrs. PAINE. Quite a few. There were probably three suitcases.
Mr. JENNER. Three suitcases?
Mrs. PAINE. Or more. A small radio bought in Russia.
Mr. JENNER. I want to stick with the luggage.
Mrs. PAINE. All right.
Mr. JENNER. Three suitcases?
Mrs. PAINE. I think so, two or three, and a large softsided suitcase,
I don't know what to call it.
. . . . .
Mr. JENNER. Would you describe each of the three suitcases now, with
particular reference to the staff being interested in whether they
were rectangular, whether they were hard boarded types of things, or
whether they were canvas or soft?
Mrs. PAINE. I don't remember how many there were. I recall they had a
hard composition kind of suitcase such as you don't buy here, and I
judge they were bought in the Soviet Union. I think there may have
been two of those.
The photos of the possessions of Lee Oswald removed from Ruth Paine's
garage on Nov. 23 show one of those suitcases:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/b/b5/Photo_wcd102_049.jpg
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/1/1e/Photo_wcd102_055.jpg
Oswald probably took the other one or two suitcases to carry his
belongings to his rooming house in Dallas.
yeuhd
> On Mar 26, 4:25 am, yeuhd <NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 24, 10:52 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > But Oswald has been hiding behind the hallway door, right? It's easy as
> > > pie for him to make his way to the lunchroom while still making sure to
> > > stay hidden. The angles are all on his side.
>
> > You're assuming a knowledge of viewing angles to a precise degree,
> > Oswald's knowing exactly where Baker was standing, all sort of things that
> > you can't assume. The fact is that Baker saw the back of Oswald's head
> > moving away from him through the window. If Oswald wanted to establish an
> > alibi for himself by going into the lunchroom, why does he care if anyone
> > sees the back of his head through the window of the stairway door? That's
> > sort of the *point*. He believes he is going to be seen whether he stands
> > still or whether he walks into the lunchroom.
>
> Finally, an answer! Oswald went from hiding his presence to
> advertising it. He popped his head up to look through the window,
> turned 180 degrees and started walking towards the lunchroom.
> Thank you.
Why even look through the stairway door window? Just walk into the
lunchroom.
> > > >...Baker, Truly, and Oswald all agreed that it happened.
>
> > > Not true.
>
> > Yes, they did all agree that it happened.
>
> No they didn't.
> Truly went on the record on 11/22.
> Baker went on the record long afterwards.
> Oswald never had a chance to go on the record.
See the reports by several witnesses to Oswald's interrogations.
>
> ***
>
> > > > >why would it be impossible for Oswald to make it to the 2nd
> > > > floor lunchroom and buy a Coke?
>
> > > Before being spotted by Baker, you mean? It would involve Oswald buying a
> > > coke, exiting the lunchroom, then re-entering the lunchroom and making his
> > > way towards the vending machine all over again. As you yourself have
> > > rightly noted, that scenario "makes no sense".
>
> > Well, no it would not necessarily involve buying a Coke, would it? He
> > could have picked up a soda bottle off a table as he walked in. We've
> > talked about this before. As I pointed out, from the way the stairway door
> > opens, Baker would have to temporarily
>
> As I pointed out several times already, Baker was running. So we're
> talking about a very few seconds here. Certainly not enough time for
> Oswald to do what you're suggesting.
It takes all of two seconds to swipe a bottle off a table.
> Unless, that is, he had already left a pre-purchased Coke ready in the
> entrance of the lunchroom as a prop.
Not if he just picked up a bottle someone left on the table.
> If you're standing at the table, that is. But Oswald wasn't. No, the
> clock starts ticking from the moment Baker first spots him through the
> door. And, not to labour the point, Baker is running. Look again at
> the photo taken from landing to door to see just how quickly he would
> have traversed the gap.
> Perhaps, at some quantum level where time stops being linear, Oswald
> could have done what you're suggesting.
Baker had to temporarily remove himself from any line of view into the
lunchroom. During that time, Oswald was able to walk about 20 feet
before Baker saw him again. Walk 20 feet and time yourself.
> a) Why does Baker's September 23 statement contain the sentence "I saw
> a man standing in the lunch room drinking a coke", with the last three
> words crossed out?
You'd have to ask Baker. But cross them out he did.
> b) Why did the Washington Post of 1/12/63 say that the officer saw
> Oswald "sipping a coke" by the vending machine?
1/12/63? What a scoop!
Is there any evidence in the article that the reporter interviewed
Baker or Truly, such as a direct quotation? If not, the reporter is
relying on second or third hand information, and may be conflating
Mrs. Reid's encounter with Baker's and Truly's. The reporting on the
assassination for weeks afterward was riddled with errors.
> c) How is it that Oswald's reported claim in custody - "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" - just
> happens to match the mistakes cited in a) and b) with uncanny
> exactitude?
But I thought you said above that Oswald is not on record about the
encounter. So we can't believe the interrogation reports when *I* use
them (see above), but we can believe the interrogation reports when
*you* use them (see above). Got it.
yeuhd
> Why is the
> Coke bottle an alibi for anything?
The Coke bottle was a prop, improvised on the spot after Oswald's
encounter with Baker, to validate an alibi that he was on the second
floor to get a soda. He had just been seen walking into the lunchroom,
now he needed a reason why he went in there, in case he encountered
Baker and Truly again a few seconds later.
tomnln
"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9cf94955-0271-4747...@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
geovu...@gmail.com
Well, now you have some reasonable questions. There are two ways to go
about this. You can continue to draw speculative conclusions based on
bias like most conspiracy theorists or you can do some actual research,
which may even involve leaving your computer and talking to people. One
way will actually advance research. Can you guess which one that is?
Sean Murphy
> On Mar 26, 1:09 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Finally, an answer! Oswald went from hiding his presence to
> > advertising it. He popped his head up to look through the window,
> > turned 180 degrees and started walking towards the lunchroom.
> > Thank you.
>
> Why even look through the stairway door window? Just walk into the
> lunchroom.
You seem to be serious when you write this, but you cannot possibly
be.
If Oswald goes from hiding behind the door to walking into the
lunchroom *without* looking through the hallway door window, then he
will at no point come into Baker's line of sight.
If you *still* haven't grasped this elementary fact, then you simply
haven't studied the layout of the TSBD second floor.
Let me explain for - what? - the fourth time:
-this photo taken from the landing shows a stack of cardboard boxes to
our right: http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/ab/Photo_wcd81-1_0145.jpg
-look at the box on top with the open flaps
-now look at the *same* box as it shows up in this photo taken from
the back of the lunchroom: http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/9/93/Photo_wcd81-1_0149.jpg
-the box gives us a reference point between the two photos, yes?
-it indicates how far south one would need to go off the stairs in
order to see into the lunchroom, yes?
-but the lunchroom photo is taken from a location both deeper and to
the south of Oswald's actual route;
-thus, in order to see Oswald walking from his hiding place behind the
hallway door to his destination in the lunchroom, one would have to go
even farther south off the stairs.
This includes Oswald initial move from hallway door to lunchroom door.
Your theory has Oswald hiding behind the hallway door.
Look again at the lunchroom photo: http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/9/93/Photo_wcd81-1_0149.jpg
If Oswald is hiding just to the right of the hallway door, which is
the side of the door he has just come through, then he is by
definition invisible to someone standing the landing.
If Oswald moves from this spot towards the lunchroom, then he becomes
visible - but only to someone who is some 10+ feet south of the
stairs.
Only someone who knows in advance what lies behind that door would
conceivably swing so far south.
Baker didn't. His own testimony puts him at most a foot or two south
of the stairs. Remember, he was following Truly, who had just done a
sharp 180 off the stairs in order to hit the next flight. Baker
certainly didn't swing way, way off behind the stack of boxes.
If you doubt the size of the problem this presents, take a look at
3:42-3:44 of this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88ylruCJqK0.
It's the SS reconstruction film. Our box with the open flaps is
visible in the background. Kindly note the distance from the Down
stairs to the zone behind the stack of boxes. *This* is how far Baker
would have need to go in order to gain a line of sight on the Oswald
of your scenario.
Upshot: The *only* way your scenario can even begin to make sense is
if Oswald looked through the hallway door window, thereby knowingly
giving Baker a fleeting visual.
***
> > No they didn't.
> > Truly went on the record on 11/22.
> > Baker went on the record long afterwards.
> > Oswald never had a chance to go on the record.
>
> See the reports by several witnesses to Oswald's interrogations.
You make the point for me. Those witnesses went on the record. Oswald
didn't.
***
> Baker had to temporarily remove himself from any line of view into the
> lunchroom. During that time, Oswald was able to walk about 20 feet
> before Baker saw him again. Walk 20 feet and time yourself.
It took me longer than 2 seconds. Who'd have thunk it?
Now how about you time yourself *running* 20 feet, which is the
distance from Baker's position on the landing to the hallway door?
***
> > a) Why does Baker's September 23 statement contain the sentence "I saw
> > a man standing in the lunch room drinking a coke", with the last three
> > words crossed out?
>
> You'd have to ask Baker. But cross them out he did.
Having spoken them. Perhaps he was momentarily possessed by Oswald's
demonic spirit. Given the praeternatural events you've been outlining
above, nothing would surprise me at this stage.
***
>
> > b) Why did the Washington Post of 1/12/63 say that the officer saw
> > Oswald "sipping a coke" by the vending machine?
>
> 1/12/63? What a scoop!
>
> Is there any evidence in the article that the reporter interviewed
> Baker or Truly, such as a direct quotation?
No. Nor is there any evidence the reporter plucked the detail out of
thin air. How, for instance, did he know that Oswald was seen by the
vending machine?
By the way, Truly had been telling people that Baker had seen Oswald
"sitting at one of the tables" in the lunchroom.
***
>If not, the reporter is
> relying on second or third hand information, and may be conflating
> Mrs. Reid's encounter with Baker's and Truly's.
And somehow managing to harmonise his error with Oswald's reported
account of the incident - and to anticipate Baker's Freudian slip of
ten months hence. Spooky, that.
***
> But I thought you said above that Oswald is not on record about the
> encounter.
Correct
>So we can't believe the interrogation reports when *I* use
> them
Correct
(see above), but we can believe the interrogation reports when
> *you* use them (see above).
Incorrent. We can't believe them there either. Got it?
Sean
Sean Murphy
> On Mar 26, 1:05 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Why is the
> > Coke bottle an alibi for anything?
>
> The Coke bottle was a prop, improvised on the spot after Oswald's
> encounter with Baker
So now Oswald *didn't* grab it off one of the tables just *before* the
encounter with Baker?
yeuhd
I've stated repeatedly that the great weight of the evidence is that
Oswald bought the Coke after his encounter. I even listed each official
report of the encounter, with links.
For those who keep trying to put a Coke in Oswald's hand, I present an
"even if" scenario: EVEN IF Oswald had a Coke in his hands, he could have
swiped it off one of the tables during the 20 feet he walked unseen by
Baker. It takes about 2 seconds to grab a bottle.
But once again, I'll state it loud and clear: the great weight of evidence
is that Oswald bought the Coke AFTER the encounter.
yeuhd
> >So we can't believe the interrogation reports when *I* use
> > them
>
> Correct
>
> (see above), but we can believe the interrogation reports when
>
> > *you* use them (see above).
>
> Incorrent. We can't believe them there either. Got it?
>
But you quote one report of what Oswald said during his interrogations, as
Sean Murphy
> But you quote one report of what Oswald said during his interrogations, as
> evidence in support of your argument. Here is what you wrote:
>
> How is it that Oswald's reported claim in custody -
Reported claim. Not claim.
Sean Murphy
>It takes about 2 seconds to grab a bottle.
(Sigh.)
Anthony Marsh
You mean like some of the research you have done? Please upload us some
examples of your extensive research.
Caeruleo
<8a85cc9d-883b-4a56...@e2g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
Peter Fokes <borea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wasn't he in a rush?
>
> Was he just thirsty?
>
> A fleeing assassin with an impulse for a cool refreshing Coke to
> quench his thirst?
>
> Or did he hear Baker and Truly coming and quickly fish a coin out of
> his pocket and buy a Coke to leave the impression he was in no rush?
Myth. He was first seen with a soda bottle in his hand *after* the
Baker/Truly encounter. Baker & Truly never initially said Oswald had
anything at all in his hands when they saw him shortly after the shooting.
Truly never even later said such a thing. Baker "said" it only once, the
following September, when he crossed out the words "holding a Coke."
Baker is never documented to have said any such thing prior to that.
> Or perhaps you believe he purchased the Coke after his encounter with
> Baker and Truly. Do you?
One person (at this moment I forget her name) said, in a much shorter time
after the assassination than September of the following year, that he was
holding a soda bottle when she saw him, but she was clear that she didn't
see him in the same room in which Baker & Truly saw him. The only other
origination of this myth of him having the bottle in his hand earlier is
Oswald himself, as I recall, supposedly saying to Fritz (I think) that he
was downstairs having a Coke, or some such thing, during the shooting.
> Pray tell then, what was his motivation?
>
> To congratulate himself on fooling a cop?
>
> Or, simply because he was thirsty?
>
> Or perhaps to appear calm and ordinary when he made his escape?
Or to appear innocent when actually guilty? That's hardly an uncommon
motivation for truly guilty murderers.
> Why did he buy this Coke?
>
> If you think he was terribly thirsty, then why was the Coke still full
> when he strode through the office?
>
> Odd thing to do?
Ah, indeed. If it's still full, that might be more evidence of his
guilt than of his innocence.
> Perhaps you can explain his motivation.
I think I just did explain an entirely plausible motivation: murderers,
throughout history, have been well known to do all sorts of things, almost
an infinite variety of things, to make themselves appear innocent, at
least temporarily.
But if we're to get into why he had a mostly "full" soda bottle in his
hands, why did he tell Frazier that curtain rods were in the bag, but told
the DPD that Frazier was lying, & that instead he only brought his lunch,
even though another witness, Frazier's sister, corroborated that the
package was much to long & narrow to even remotely resemble a lunchbag?
Why did Oswald tell the DPD that he didn't order that rifle when he so
obviously did?
Why did he tell the DPD that the backyard photos of him were forgeries,
when I myself duplicated not only the "fake" rifle shadow but also the
"fake" nose shadow in that same backyard in 2003, & when plenty of bona
fide photographic experts have pronounced no credible evidence of forgery?
Why did Oswald lie to V.T. Lee & say that there were multiple members of
his FPCC chapter when in fact he was the only "member"?
Oswald lied, & lied, & lied, about all sorts of things, beyond reasonable
doubt. It's a miniscule stretch of logic to believe that he might have
quickly bought a soda when no one was looking to make him "seem" to be
innocent of the shooting. Remember that Baker & Truly quickly left the
lunchroom after they encountered him, & he only had to be alone for far
less than 60 seconds after the encounter to buy a soda & walk through the
office with it. My experience with soda machines, dating to the 1960s,
was that even the ones I used back then would give me a soda less than
*10* seconds after I deposited the coin(s) & pushed the button.
Oswald could easily, easily buy a soda *after* the Baker/Truly encounter
but *before* he was seen holding it in another room. Gee, it works even
if he's *innocent*.
Caeruleo
<22dfe32b-f447-46ad...@o11g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
Sean Murphy <seanmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 8:53?pm, yeuhd <NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >...Baker, Truly, and Oswald all agreed that it happened.
>
> Not true.
> Baker and Truly did go on the record about this - Truly late on 11/22;
> Baker long afterwards.
No, that's not true. Baker described an encounter with a man, while he
was with Truly, whom Baker said was "walking away from the stairway. I
called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The
manager said, 'I know that man, he works here.' I then turned the man
loose and went up to the top floor." These were words Baker wrote on the
day of the assassination, not "long afterwards." Now it's true that in
this same statement Baker said it occurred on the "third or fourth floor,"
& made no mention of a "lunchroom," but in all other details the statement
does not conflict directly with any later statement of his, including his
WC testimony. In all of Baker's statements, including this one, Baker is
with Truly, he sees this man walking away, calls to him, the man comes
back, & Truly says that the man works here, & Baker instantly dismisses
the man as a suspect & continues up the stairs.
The only claim Baker made "long afterwards" was the "Coke" business, which
he crossed out before submitting the document. Why he wrote it in the
first place, & why he crossed it out, are matters of speculation, but the
fact remains, not once before September 1964 is he documented as saying
that Oswald was holding anything at all during the encounter, & Truly
never said such a thing at any time. But Baker did indeed describe the
encounter itself on 11-22-63.
> Oswald, however, never went on the record about it.
Well, depends on what you mean by "on the record." I'm not sure that
Oswald was ever quoted verbatim as saying that he had had an encounter in
the lunchroom shortly after the shooting with Truly & a police officer.
But there's this from Fritz's testimony:
**********
Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr.
Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he
told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on
the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a
lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun
on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer
let him go. Mr. BALL. Did you question Oswald about that? Mr. FRITZ. Yes,
sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the officer stopped him all
right.
**********
"...he knew that the officer stopped him all right."
That appears to be confirmation that Oswald admitted to Fritz that he
was stopped by a police officer inside the TSBD.
I seem to recall that there were other witnesses to Oswald's
interrogations who claimed to have also heard him admit to the encounter
with the police officer inside the TSBD, at least in some form.
Maybe it's not exactly Oswald "on the record" admitting such a thing,
though.
But then again, Oswald was "on the record" about almost nothing regarding
the assassination, since he lived barely 48 hours after it, & had few
opportunities to go "on the record" about much of anything, so I'm not
sure why the lack of such a "record" is particularly significant.
> >why would it be impossible for Oswald to make it to the 2nd
> > floor lunchroom and buy a Coke?
>
> Before being spotted by Baker, you mean? It would involve Oswald buying a
> coke, exiting the lunchroom, then re-entering the lunchroom and making his
> way towards the vending machine all over again.
Why does it have to involve that? Baker & Truly never said he had
anything in his hands during that encounter, until Baker said it, then
crossed it out, 10 months after the assassination, "long afterwards."
The majority of evidence suggests that if he was at any time holding any
soda bottle, full or empty, in the TSBD shortly after the shooting, he was
not first seen holding it until after the Baker/Truly encounter.
> As you yourself have
> rightly noted, that scenario "makes no sense".
Of course it doesn't. If he bought a soda at all, it was more likely
than not *after* the Baker/Truly encounter.
Sean Murphy
> Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Baker and Truly did go on the record about this - Truly late on 11/22;
> > Baker long afterwards.
>
> No, that's not true. Baker described an encounter with a man, while he
> was with Truly, whom Baker said was "walking away from the stairway. I
> called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The
> manager said, 'I know that man, he works here.' I then turned the man
> loose and went up to the top floor." These were words Baker wrote on the
> day of the assassination, not "long afterwards." Now it's true that in
> this same statement Baker said it occurred on the "third or fourth floor,"
> & made no mention of a "lunchroom,"
To your credit, you don't skip over these awkward facts: Baker
remembered an incident several floors up involving a man "walking away
from the stairway". No mention of a closed door, a 'vestibule' or a
room - or of Baker running some 20 feet before calling after the man.
The man in Baker's affidavit was wearing a "light brown jacket" and
wieghed approximately 165 pounds.
Lee Harvey Oswald was brought into the Homicide Bureau *while Baker
was giving his affidavit*. Yet nowhere in that affidavit does Baker
bother to note the all-important fact: that the man on the third or
fourth floor is 'the suspect now in custody'.
Now why might that be?
***
>but in all other details
All other details apart from location of incident & identity of man!
***
>the statement
> does not conflict directly with any later statement of his, including his
> WC testimony. In all of Baker's statements, including this one, Baker is
> with Truly, he sees this man walking away,
Not so.
In Baker's WC testimony, he sees a vague "movement" some twenty feet
away behind a closed door. By no stretch of the imagination can this
be equated with someone "walking away from the stairway". We need to
use commonsense here.
In Baker's September 23rd 1964 statement, he sees "a man standing in
the lunch room [drinking a coke]" (with those last words crossed out).
***
>calls to him, the man comes
> back,
No. Baker's 11/22 affidavit has Baker seeing the man walking away from
the rear stairway; Baker calling after the man from his own location
just off the stairway; and the man turning round and coming back to
Baker's location just off the stairway.
***
>& Truly says that the man works here, & Baker instantly dismisses
> the man as a suspect & continues up the stairs.
Yes, and this actual incident on the "third or fourth floor" by the
rear stairway appears to have been relocated down to the second-floor
lunchroom.
Who was the man stopped by Baker several floors up by the rear
stairway?
It's possible he was Oswald, and the incident was brought down to the
second-floor lunchroom in order to spare the blushes of the DPD. After
all, who wants to bear responsibility for a disastrous judgment call
that let an obviously fleeing assassin exit the TSBD and go free to
kill Tippit?
But Baker's failure to identify Oswald at the Homicide Bureau, along
with an array of other considerations, makes it rather more likely
that this man was not Oswald.
In which case he was either Jack Dougherty or someone fleeing the
sixth floor.
***
>
> The only claim Baker made "long afterwards" was the "Coke" business, which
> he crossed out before submitting the document. Why he wrote it
He didn't write it. He said it, and it was taken down.
***
> Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr.
> Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he
> told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on
> the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a
> lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun
> on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer
> let him go. Mr. BALL. Did you question Oswald about that? Mr. FRITZ. Yes,
> sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the officer stopped him all
> right.
Fritz cannot possibly be remembering aright here.
Over a month after the assassination, he was still putting the Baker-
Oswald incident by the rear stairway on the third or fourth floor: see
item 6 at http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=29121&relPageId=2
If Oswald had really confirmed the second-floor lunchroom story in the
way Fritz is claiming to the WC, and if Fritz had really established
that this incident had been confirmed with Truly & Baker, there is no
way Fritz would still have been working off Baker's original 11/22
story on December 23rd.
What did Oswald actually tell Fritz? Postal Inspector Harry Holmes let
the cat out of the bag: Oswald claimed he was stopped by a police
officer in the front lobby of the TSBD. Immediately after this, a man
flashing credentials came running in asking for a telephone. Oswald
pointed him towards the telephone which was located a few feet away
from the domino room.
Understandably enough, Fritz didn't believe Oswald. After all, one of
his own officers was telling everyone about an incident by the rear
stairway on the third or fourth floor.
It was not until early 1964 that Fritz stopped working off Baker's
version of events, and came to understand that Oswald had 'actually'
been seen in a second-floor lunchroom.
***
> I seem to recall that there were other witnesses to Oswald's
> interrogations who claimed to have also heard him admit to the encounter
> with the police officer inside the TSBD, at least in some form.
Operative words: "at least in some form".
Harry Holmes testified that Oswald spoke of an encounter with a police
officer in the front lobby on the first floor.
And that's what the DPD were telling the press on the evening of the
assassination.
Another one of those bothersome coincidences.
***
> Maybe it's not exactly Oswald "on the record" admitting such a thing,
> though.
No, it certainly is not.
***
> But then again, Oswald was "on the record" about almost nothing regarding
> the assassination, since he lived barely 48 hours after it, & had few
> opportunities to go "on the record" about much of anything, so I'm not
> sure why the lack of such a "record" is particularly significant.
Because it means that words could be - and almost certainly were - put
in his mouth at will.
***
> > >why would it be impossible for Oswald to make it to the 2nd
> > > floor lunchroom and buy a Coke?
>
> > Before being spotted by Baker, you mean? It would involve Oswald buying a
> > coke, exiting the lunchroom, then re-entering the lunchroom and making his
> > way towards the vending machine all over again.
>
> Why does it have to involve that? Baker & Truly never said he had
> anything in his hands during that encounter,
Actually Baker did say it, at least once.
But I was speaking very specifically to the theory (which I dispute)
that a guilty Oswald could have purchased a coke just before being
spotted by Baker.
Sean
yeuhd
> On Mar 29, 5:13 am, Caeruleo <caerul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Baker and Truly did go on the record about this - Truly late on 11/22;
> > > Baker long afterwards.
>
> > No, that's not true. Baker described an encounter with a man, while he
> > was with Truly, whom Baker said was "walking away from the stairway. I
> > called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The
> > manager said, 'I know that man, he works here.' I then turned the man
> > loose and went up to the top floor." These were words Baker wrote on the
> > day of the assassination, not "long afterwards." Now it's true that in
> > this same statement Baker said it occurred on the "third or fourth floor,"
> > & made no mention of a "lunchroom,"
>
> To your credit, you don't skip over these awkward facts: Baker
> remembered an incident several floors up involving a man "walking away
> from the stairway". No mention of a closed door, a 'vestibule' or a
> room - or of Baker running some 20 feet before calling after the man.
> The man in Baker's affidavit was wearing a "light brown jacket" and
> wieghed approximately 165 pounds.
> Lee Harvey Oswald was brought into the Homicide Bureau *while Baker
> was giving his affidavit*. Yet nowhere in that affidavit does Baker
> bother to note the all-important fact: that the man on the third or
> fourth floor is 'the suspect now in custody'.
> Now why might that be?
What are you implying?
> >the statement
> > does not conflict directly with any later statement of his, including his
> > WC testimony. In all of Baker's statements, including this one, Baker is
> > with Truly, he sees this man walking away,
>
> Not so.
> In Baker's WC testimony, he sees a vague "movement" some twenty feet
> away behind a closed door. By no stretch of the imagination can this
> be equated with someone "walking away from the stairway".
Speak for yourself. It absolutely can be equated with someone walking
away from the stairway.
That Baker, writing a very brief summary (16 sentences) of his
activities before, during, and after the assassination, doesn't go
into the detail that he does in his WC testimony (about 10,000 words)
really seems to bother you.
> No. Baker's 11/22 affidavit has Baker seeing the man walking away from
> the rear stairway; Baker calling after the man from his own location
> just off the stairway; and the man turning round and coming back to
> Baker's location just off the stairway.
Baker's omission of non-essential details. His whole account is a
paragraph long.
If you're implying that Baker (and Truly) decided to frame Oswald, can
you explain how moving Oswald from the stairway area of one of the
upper floors (3rd or 4th floor, Baker wrote in his first affidavit),
i.e., closer to the 6th floor and closer to the route of escape, to
the area outside the 2nd floor lunchroom helps their cause?
> It's possible he was Oswald, and the incident was brought down to the
>second-floor lunchroom in order to spare the blushes of the DPD. After
> all, who wants to bear responsibility for a disastrous judgment call
> that let an obviously fleeing assassin exit the TSBD and go free to
> kill Tippit?
How was it a "disastrous" judgement call circa 12:32 p.m. on Friday,
Nov. 22? You're applying retrospect. Truly identified the man as a
building employee, the man had no weapon in his hands, wasn't doing
anything suspicious, and wasn't on the floor where the shots appeared
to have come from.
> But Baker's failure to identify Oswald at the Homicide Bureau, along
> with an array of other considerations, makes it rather more likely
> that this man was not Oswald.
> In which case he was either Jack Dougherty or someone fleeing the
> sixth floor.
And did Jack Dougherty say any such encounter with a police officer
occurred? No, not in his affidavit of Nov. 22, 1963, and not in his WC
testimony.
Does Roy Truly say anything in his affidavit of Nov. 22 or his WC
testimony that he identified for Officer Baker any other person than
Oswald? No, he does not.
> What did Oswald actually tell Fritz? Postal Inspector Harry Holmes let
> the cat out of the bag: Oswald claimed he was stopped by a police
> officer in the front lobby of the TSBD. Immediately after this, a man
> flashing credentials came running in asking for a telephone. Oswald
> pointed him towards the telephone which was located a few feet away
> from the domino room.
> Understandably enough, Fritz didn't believe Oswald. After all, one of
> his own officers was telling everyone about an incident by the rear
> stairway on the third or fourth floor.
> It was not until early 1964 that Fritz stopped working off Baker's
> version of events, and came to understand that Oswald had 'actually'
> been seen in a second-floor lunchroom.
James Bookhout was present at the same interrogation on Nov. 22. His
report dictated on Nov. 24:
"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.
MR. TRULY was present and verified that he was an employee and the
police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the
building."
H.D. Holmes interrogated Oswald on Nov. 24. His report of Dec. 17:
"Before he [Oswald] could finish what he was doing, he stated, the
commotion surrounding the assassination took place and when he went
down stairs, a policeman questioned him as to his identification and
his boss stated that 'he is one of our employees' whereupon the
policeman had him step aside momentarily. Following this, he simply
walked out the front door of the building."
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0330b.htm
> What did Oswald actually tell Fritz? Postal Inspector Harry Holmes let
>the cat out of the bag: Oswald claimed he was stopped by a police
> officer in the front lobby of the TSBD. Immediately after this, a man
> flashing credentials came running in asking for a telephone. Oswald
> pointed him towards the telephone which was located a few feet away
> from the domino room.
See the quotation from Holmes' report, above. Are you claiming that
Roy Truly and Officer Baker encountered Oswald at the front door of
the building? If not, then Oswald's encounter with the man asking for
a telephone at the front door is irrelevant. Truly, who knew the
building better than Baker, and knew Oswald, said in his affidavit of
Nov. 23 that the encounter with Oswald occurred in the 2nd floor
lunchroom.
Bud
>
> > Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Baker and Truly did go on the record about this - Truly late on 11/22;
> > > Baker long afterwards.
>
> > No, that's not true. Baker described an encounter with a man, while he
> > was with Truly, whom Baker said was "walking away from the stairway. I
> > called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The
> > manager said, 'I know that man, he works here.' I then turned the man
> > loose and went up to the top floor." These were words Baker wrote on the
> > day of the assassination, not "long afterwards." Now it's true that in
> > this same statement Baker said it occurred on the "third or fourth floor,"
> > & made no mention of a "lunchroom,"
>
> To your credit, you don't skip over these awkward facts: Baker
> remembered an incident several floors up involving a man "walking away
> from the stairway". No mention of a closed door, a 'vestibule' or a
> room - or of Baker running some 20 feet before calling after the man.
> The man in Baker's affidavit was wearing a "light brown jacket" and
> wieghed approximately 165 pounds.
> Lee Harvey Oswald was brought into the Homicide Bureau *while Baker
> was giving his affidavit*.
That could how the brown jacket got incorporated into the account of
Baker`s encounter with Oswald. Oswald had the brown shirt on when he was
brought in.
>Yet nowhere in that affidavit does Baker
> bother to note the all-important fact: that the man on the third or
> fourth floor is 'the suspect now in custody'.
> Now why might that be?
He might not have been comfortable making an ID, because he didn`t
really take note of the features of the person in this brief encounter
(although I believe other cops did write that Baker make an ID of Oswald
when he saw him).
> ***
>
> >but in all other details
>
> All other details apart from location of incident & identity of man!
>
> ***
>
> >the statement
> > does not conflict directly with any later statement of his, including his
> > WC testimony. In all of Baker's statements, including this one, Baker is
> > with Truly, he sees this man walking away,
>
> Not so.
> In Baker's WC testimony, he sees a vague "movement" some twenty feet
> away behind a closed door. By no stretch of the imagination can this
> be equated with someone "walking away from the stairway". We need to
> use commonsense here.
Why wouldn`t Baker use the stairway he was on as a point of
reference?
> In Baker's September 23rd 1964 statement, he sees "a man standing in
> the lunch room [drinking a coke]" (with those last words crossed out).
>
> ***
>
> >calls to him, the man comes
> > back,
>
> No. Baker's 11/22 affidavit has Baker seeing the man walking away from
> the rear stairway; Baker calling after the man from his own location
> just off the stairway; and the man turning round and coming back to
> Baker's location just off the stairway.
So, Baker`s affidavit omits some door opening and such. So what?
> ***
>
> >& Truly says that the man works here, & Baker instantly dismisses
> > the man as a suspect & continues up the stairs.
>
> Yes, and this actual incident on the "third or fourth floor" by the
> rear stairway appears to have been relocated down to the second-floor
> lunchroom.
Or the lunchroom where he encountered Oswald was mislocated by
Baker. Trust Truly, it was his building.
> Who was the man stopped by Baker several floors up by the rear
> stairway?
Did Truly or Baker say there were two separate encounters? In the course
of going to the roof, Baker would go up a flight of steps, turn on a
landing, go up a flight of steps, turn on a landing, go up a flight of
steps, turn on a landing, ect about 14 times (twice per floor). Why must
he remember accurately where during this ordeal the encounter took place?
> It's possible he was Oswald, and the incident was brought down to the
> second-floor lunchroom in order to spare the blushes of the DPD. After
> all, who wants to bear responsibility for a disastrous judgment call
> that let an obviously fleeing assassin exit the TSBD and go free to
> kill Tippit?
Why are CTers so eager to abandon the most common cause of problems
and discrepancies in the evidence, human error? They seem prone to go
for the rarity, the sinister explanation.
> But Baker's failure to identify Oswald at the Homicide Bureau, along
> with an array of other considerations, makes it rather more likely
> that this man was not Oswald.
> In which case he was either Jack Dougherty or someone fleeing the
> sixth floor.
What about Truly saying it was Oswald?
> ***
>
>
>
> > The only claim Baker made "long afterwards" was the "Coke" business, which
> > he crossed out before submitting the document. Why he wrote it
>
> He didn't write it. He said it, and it was taken down.
Possible that on reflection, he realized that that wasn`t an actual
observation of his, but something that he heard from a different source
(Reid or Fritz).
> ***
>
> > Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr.
> > Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he
> > told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on
> > the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a
> > lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun
> > on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer
> > let him go. Mr. BALL. Did you question Oswald about that? Mr. FRITZ. Yes,
> > sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the officer stopped him all
> > right.
>
> Fritz cannot possibly be remembering aright here.
> Over a month after the assassination, he was still putting the Baker-
> Oswald incident by the rear stairway on the third or fourth floor: see
> item 6 athttp://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=291...
> If Oswald had really confirmed the second-floor lunchroom story in the
> way Fritz is claiming to the WC, and if Fritz had really established
> that this incident had been confirmed with Truly & Baker, there is no
> way Fritz would still have been working off Baker's original 11/22
> story on December 23rd.
> What did Oswald actually tell Fritz? Postal Inspector Harry Holmes let
> the cat out of the bag:
That Oswald said he came downstairs after the shots?
>Oswald claimed he was stopped by a police
> officer in the front lobby of the TSBD.
Why would Baker point a gun at Oswald in the lobby? Possible Oswald
was stopped by another cop there also.
Yah, if you want to attribute statements to a suspect, what you do
is get members of the Sheriff` s Department, FBI, Secret Service, Post
Office and DPD in the room to hear what says.
Sean Murphy
> On Mar 29, 12:55 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Speak for yourself. It absolutely can be equated with someone walking
> away from the stairway.
Put yourself in Baker's subject position just off the stairway:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/ab/Photo_wcd81-1_0145.jpg.
You see a movement behind the window of this door and call it "a man
walking away from the stairway"?
Be serious.
***
>
> That Baker, writing a very brief summary (16 sentences) of his
> activities before, during, and after the assassination, doesn't go
> into the detail that he does in his WC testimony (about 10,000 words)
> really seems to bother you.
That he got all the details that matter wrong seems to bother you.
***
>a disastrous judgment call
> > that let an obviously fleeing assassin exit the TSBD and go free to
> > kill Tippit?
>
> How was it a "disastrous" judgement call circa 12:32 p.m. on Friday,
> Nov. 22?
Because Baker believed that the President of the United States had
just been shot from the top of that building. He runs into a man by
the rear stairway several floors up and lets him go.
It's immaterial whether or not you consider it a disastrous judgment
call. Baker's colleagues did (c.f. Stavis Ellis's recollections for
Sneed) - and, had they known about it, the press would have had a
field day.
Personally, I think Baker was the most heroic cop in Dallas that day.
***
> And did Jack Dougherty say any such encounter with a police officer
> occurred? No, not in his affidavit of Nov. 22, 1963, and not in his WC
> testimony.
You're right. Jack Dougherty's testimony places him ten feet west of
the west elevator on the fifth floor - right in Oswald's alleged
escape path.
***
>
> Does Roy Truly say anything in his affidavit of Nov. 22
There's no such thing.
***
>or his WC
> testimony that he identified for Officer Baker any other person than
> Oswald? No, he does not.
Correct.
***
> James Bookhout was present at the same interrogation on Nov. 22. His
> report dictated on Nov. 24:
>...
>
> H.D. Holmes interrogated Oswald on Nov. 24. His report of Dec. 17:
>...
You need to read Holmes's WC testimony. And the *first* FBI
interrogation report, which was co-written by Bookhout & Hosty. The
latter never signed off on the claim that Oswald talked about an
incident in the second-floor lunchroom. Oswald merely told Fritz he
went to the second floor lunchroom for a coke "for his lunch". He took
the coke downstairs, which is where he was when the assassination
happened. Bookhout's solo report takes these details and distorts them
out of recognition.
***
>Are you claiming that
> Roy Truly and Officer Baker encountered Oswald at the front door of
> the building?
No.
***
>If not, then Oswald's encounter with the man asking for
> a telephone at the front door is irrelevant.
On the contrary. Holmes's recollection is that Oswald talked about two
incidents in the front lobby: a policeman stopping him and a man
rushing in looking for a telephone. Most researchers agree that the
second happened (it was probably Pierce Allman flashing his press
credentials). This adds cogency to Holmes's firm recollection that
Oswald placed the first incident in the same location: front lobby.
***
>Truly, who knew the
> building better than Baker, and knew Oswald, said in his affidavit of
> Nov. 23 that the encounter with Oswald occurred in the 2nd floor
> lunchroom.
Having told people the day before that they spotted Oswald in a
storage room on the first floor (Dallas Morning News, 11/23/63 -
byline: Kent Biffle, the journalist who got closer to Truly & co. in
those first hours than anyone else).
Sean
Sean Murphy
>That could how the brown jacket got incorporated into the account of
> Baker`s encounter with Oswald. Oswald had the brown shirt on when he was
> brought in.
Light brown jacket = Dark brown shirt.
Right...
You seem to be suggesting that Baker took the trouble to (mis)
incorporate a clothing detail, yet did not bother mentioning the
single most important fact: that the man who had just been brought in
was the Depository man.
***
> He might not have been comfortable making an ID, because he didn`t
> really take note of the features of the person in this brief encounter
> (although I believe other cops did write that Baker make an ID of Oswald
> when he saw him).
Yes, that's the most sensible explanation: Baker couldn't positively
ID Oswald as the man. The Howard Brennan problem.
Baker may have made a very tentative verbal ID for Marvin Johnson, but
he certainly wasn't prepared to go on the record.
I suspect he was genuinely confused when he saw Oswald being brought
in.
***
> Why wouldn`t Baker use the stairway he was on as a point of
> reference?
He's not merely using the stairway as a point of reference. He's
describing a man who is *walking away* from it - i.e. was evidently by
it a moment ago but is now distancing himself from it.
A man walking on the far side of a door some twenty feet away, with
boxes interposed between the stairway and the door, simply does not
fit that description: http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/ab/Photo_wcd81-1_0145.jpg
***
> So, Baker`s affidavit omits some door opening and such. So what?
Not only does he get the floor 'wrong' - and we're not talking "fifth
or sixth" versus "fourth" here, we're talking "one floor up" versus
"several floors up", a quite remarkable 'error'.
He also gives us nothing whatsoever to tie this incident to the second
floor. No door. No window in door. No hallway. No opening of door. No
room. No nothing.
Baker does however *add* a couple of things: extra weight + a tan
jacket.
And don't tell me the weight discrepancy is due to the fleeting nature
of the TSBD encounter. Baker has the gaunt Oswald in front of his eyes
in the Homicide Office. Yet he sticks with 165 pounds.
These are precisely the kinds of problems you LNers would be rightly
jumping all over were this a conspiracy-leaning witness.
***
> Or the lunchroom where he encountered Oswald was mislocated by
> Baker. Trust Truly, it was his building.
I do trust Truly. He said storage room on the first floor. Until he
stopped saying that.
***
> Did Truly or Baker say there were two separate encounters?
On 11/22, Baker was talking about encountering a man by the rear
stairway on the third or fourth floor, while Truly was talking about a
sighting of Lee Harvey Oswald in a storage room on the first floor.
So yes, two separate encounters.
***
>In the course
> of going to the roof, Baker would go up a flight of steps, turn on a
> landing, go up a flight of steps, turn on a landing, go up a flight of
> steps, turn on a landing, ect about 14 times (twice per floor).
I suggest you re-read his & Truly's WC testimony.
***
>Why must
> he remember accurately where during this ordeal the encounter took place?
Because it supposedly happened at the very start of the 'ordeal' -
just one little storey up.
***
> Why are CTers so eager to abandon the most common cause of problems
> and discrepancies in the evidence, human error?
Why are LNers so frightened of first-day evidence?
***
> What about Truly saying it was Oswald?
What about it? Truly said it was Oswald on the first floor. Then he
switched to saying it was Oswald on the second floor.
***
> > >>>>The only claim Baker made "long afterwards" was the "Coke" business, which
> >>>>> he crossed out before submitting the document. Why he wrote it
> >He didn't write it. He said it, and it was taken down.
>Possible that on reflection, he realized that that wasn`t an actual
> observation of his, but something that he heard from a different source.
You don't know how right you are there, Bud.
***
> > What did Oswald actually tell Fritz? Postal Inspector Harry Holmes let
> > the cat out of the bag:
>
> That Oswald said he came downstairs after the shots?
Holmes is surely telescoping time here, leaping from Oswald's account
of asking his 'Negro' co-worker to close the elevator around 12:00 to
Oswald's account of running 'down' from the rear of the first floor to
the front entrance after hearing/seeing the 'commotion' caused by the
assassination.
Did Oswald go from telling Fritz on Friday that he was on the first
floor when the President passed the building to telling him on Sunday
that he was actually on one of the upper floors at the time? i.e. did
Oswald practically confess? Highly, highly unlikely. Had he done so,
we would have heard all about it after his death.
***
> Why would Baker point a gun at Oswald in the lobby? Possible Oswald
> was stopped by another cop there also.
Another cop, yes.
***
> > Because it means that words could be - and almost certainly were - put
> > in his mouth at will.
>
> Yah, if you want to attribute statements to a suspect, what you do
> is get members of the Sheriff` s Department, FBI, Secret Service, Post
> Office and DPD in the room to hear what says.
All of whom have been told to cinch the case against Oswald as the
lone nut assassin.
Sean
tomnln
"Sean Murphy" <seanmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ee02d7a-2b1d-4d45...@v19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
yeuhd
> On Mar 30, 4:29 am, yeuhd <NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 29, 12:55 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Speak for yourself. It absolutely can be equated with someone walking
> > away from the stairway.
>
> Put yourself in Baker's subject position just off the stairway:http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/ab/Photo_wcd81-1_0145.jpg.
> You see a movement behind the window of this door and call it "a man
> walking away from the stairway"?
Look at a diagram of the second floor:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=349601
If Oswald was standing against the diagonal wall to the left of that
number "23", his walk from there toward the lunchroom would absolutely be
visible through the window of the door to someone in the stairway.
Remember, Baker doesn't have to see into the lunchroom from his first
position; he only has to see the back of Oswald's head moving toward the
lunchroom. Draw a line or put a straight edge from the letters "DN" (down)
through the center of the stairway door, where the window was. The line
will go through the point where the "23" and "24" circles overlap. It
would have been impossible for Oswald to move from the diagonal wall to
the open side of the lunchroom door and *not* be seen.
tomnln
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=349601
CE-1118 Proves you WRONG>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
7th photo down from the top.
It's Official & You're STUCK with it !
Sean Murphy
> Look at a diagram of the second floor:
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...
>
> If Oswald was standing against the diagonal wall to the left of that
> number "23",
You seem to have finally grasped the fact that Oswald would indeed be
out of Baker's LOS at all times if he were to hide behind the natural
side of the door - the side through which he has just slipped (on the
right in this photo: http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/9/93/Photo_wcd81-1_0149.jpg).
Good, good.
But why would Oswald be standing against the diagonal wall just
*south* of the door?
***
>his walk from there toward the lunchroom would absolutely be
> visible through the window of the door to someone in the stairway.
> Remember, Baker doesn't have to see into the lunchroom from his first
> position; he only has to see the back of Oswald's head moving toward the
> lunchroom.
But he *won't* see the back of Oswald's head. The best he will get is
a sidelong view - unless Oswald is walking into the wall opposite the
door: http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/ab/Photo_wcd81-1_0145.jpg
So Baker sees a man walking *across* the pane of glass. How does this
become "a man walking away from the stairway"?
***
>Draw a line or put a straight edge from the letters "DN" (down)
> through the center of the stairway door, where the window was. The line
> will go through the point where the "23" and "24" circles overlap. It
> would have been impossible for Oswald to move from the diagonal wall to
> the open side of the lunchroom door and *not* be seen.
Impossible? What are you talking about? Oswald simply has to duck
under the window. You're talking as if the whole door were made of
glass.
There are only three ways Oswald could have given Baker a visual:
i) He deliberately drew attention to his presence.
ii) He went in the twinkling of an eye from a devious ducker to a
complete moron.
iii) He was oblivious to Baker's presence on the landing.
If I were you, I'd ditch i) and ii) at the earliest convenience.
Sean
yeuhd
> "yeuhd" <NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5215fa08-8771-4ddc...@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 30, 6:24 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 4:29 am, yeuhd <NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 12:55 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Speak for yourself. It absolutely can be equated with someone walking
> > > away from the stairway.
>
> > Put yourself in Baker's subject position just off the
> > stairway:http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/ab/Photo_wcd81-1_0145.jpg.
> > You see a movement behind the window of this door and call it "a man
> > walking away from the stairway"?
>
> Look at a diagram of the second floor:
>
>
> If Oswald was standing against the diagonal wall to the left of that
> number "23", his walk from there toward the lunchroom would absolutely be
> visible through the window of the door to someone in the stairway.
> Remember, Baker doesn't have to see into the lunchroom from his first
> position; he only has to see the back of Oswald's head moving toward the
> lunchroom. Draw a line or put a straight edge from the letters "DN" (down)
> through the center of the stairway door, where the window was. The line
> will go through the point where the "23" and "24" circles overlap. It
> would have been impossible for Oswald to move from the diagonal wall to
> the open side of the lunchroom door and *not* be seen.
>
> CE-1118 Proves you WRONG>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
>
> 7th photo down from the top.
>
> It's Official & You're STUCK with it !
How in the world does CE 1118 prove me wrong? It does nothing of the
sort.
And remember, you're the one who accepts "official records" as holy
writ. I'm the one who doesn't.
yeuhd
> But why would Oswald be standing against the diagonal wall just
> *south* of the door?
>
Because you weren't there to tell Oswald what he should do.
> But he *won't* see the back of Oswald's head. The best he will get is
> a sidelong view - unless Oswald is walking into the wall opposite the
> door:http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/ab/Photo_wcd81-1_0145.jpg
You're quibbling. Baker would see mostly the back of Oswald's head. If
you want to quibble further into whether it was a rear view or a
quarter view, find someone who cares.
> Impossible? What are you talking about? Oswald simply has to duck
> under the window. You're talking as if the whole door were made of
> glass.
Obviously, Oswald did not duck. See below.
> There are only three ways Oswald could have given Baker a visual:
> i) He deliberately drew attention to his presence.
> ii) He went in the twinkling of an eye from a devious ducker to a
> complete moron.
> iii) He was oblivious to Baker's presence on the landing.
As I have said several times now, once Baker stopped on the 2nd floor to
scan the area, Oswald probably feared that Baker was about to go through
the stairway door and find Oswald just standing there. Oswald decided to
take the lesser of two bad things, and establish an alibi by going into
the lunchroom. At the point, he didn't care whether Baker saw him — that
was sort of the *point*.
Bud
Sean Murphy wrote:
> On Mar 30, 4:30 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >That could how the brown jacket got incorporated into the account of
> > Baker`s encounter with Oswald. Oswald had the brown shirt on when he was
> > brought in.
>
> Light brown jacket = Dark brown shirt.
I`d call it more of an ugly brown shirt.
> Right...
>
> You seem to be suggesting that Baker took the trouble to (mis)
> incorporate a clothing detail,
Not intentionally. But he probably wasn`t looking at Oswald while he
wrote the report. Brown shirt became incorporated into his earlier
observation as a brown jacket. Makes more sense than Oswald wearing a
jacket indoors, and then taking it off when he went outside to catch the
bus Bledsoe saw him on without a jacket.
> yet did not bother mentioning the
> single most important fact: that the man who had just been brought in
> was the Depository man.
Baker`s identification appears in a report written by another Dallas
Police officer. So, which is more amazing, the idea that Baker neglected
to mention the identification, or that another officer noted an
identification that didn`t occur?
> ***
>
>
>
> > He might not have been comfortable making an ID, because he didn`t
> > really take note of the features of the person in this brief encounter
> > (although I believe other cops did write that Baker make an ID of Oswald
> > when he saw him).
>
>
> Yes, that's the most sensible explanation: Baker couldn't positively
> ID Oswald as the man. The Howard Brennan problem.
No, different. Brennan could, but chose not to.
> Baker may have made a very tentative verbal ID for Marvin Johnson, but
> he certainly wasn't prepared to go on the record.
> I suspect he was genuinely confused when he saw Oswald being brought
> in.
Luckily, Truly knew Oswald when he saw him.
> ***
>
> > Why wouldn`t Baker use the stairway he was on as a point of
> > reference?
>
>
> He's not merely using the stairway as a point of reference. He's
> describing a man who is *walking away* from it - i.e. was evidently by
> it a moment ago but is now distancing himself from it.
Your reading of what was written. Baker could have been using the stairs
he was on as a point of reference, and Oswald was moving away from that
point of reference when he saw him.
> A man walking on the far side of a door some twenty feet away, with
> boxes interposed between the stairway and the door, simply does not
> fit that description: http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/ab/Photo_wcd81-1_0145.jpg
>
> ***
>
> > So, Baker`s affidavit omits some door opening and such. So what?
>
> Not only does he get the floor 'wrong' - and we're not talking "fifth
> or sixth" versus "fourth" here, we're talking "one floor up" versus
> "several floors up", a quite remarkable 'error'.
Not really. The encounter itself did prove to be remarkable at the time.
Later, he had to place this event that occurred during his ascent. His
thinking might have went "It happened around the middle of my ascent, so
it must have been somewhere around the middle floors". So he guessed 3-4.
> He also gives us nothing whatsoever to tie this incident to the second
> floor. No door. No window in door. No hallway. No opening of door. No
> room. No nothing.
It`s a very abbreviated account.
> Baker does however *add* a couple of things: extra weight + a tan
> jacket.
> And don't tell me the weight discrepancy is due to the fleeting nature
> of the TSBD encounter. Baker has the gaunt Oswald in front of his eyes
> in the Homicide Office. Yet he sticks with 165 pounds.
Not that far off. This isn`t a "guess your weight" scale. Brennan
said 'slender" a few times, that doesn`t convince CTers it was Oswald
he saw.
> These are precisely the kinds of problems you LNers would be rightly
> jumping all over were this a conspiracy-leaning witness.
I like to think that we have something better than "He guessed his
weight wrong". I often wondered how well people do describe assailants of
crimes, that is, how accurate the descriptions are as far as weight,
height, ect are when the actual perpetrator of a crime is apprehended. It
would be useful in helping to gauge the weight of the descriptions given
in this case.
> ***
>
>
> > Or the lunchroom where he encountered Oswald was mislocated by
> > Baker. Trust Truly, it was his building.
>
>
> I do trust Truly. He said storage room on the first floor.
How is that possible?
> Until he
> stopped saying that.
>
>
> ***
>
>
> > Did Truly or Baker say there were two separate encounters?
>
>
> On 11/22, Baker was talking about encountering a man by the rear
> stairway on the third or fourth floor, while Truly was talking about a
> sighting of Lee Harvey Oswald in a storage room on the first floor.
> So yes, two separate encounters.
The two men are together, there are two encounters, and Baker describes
one, and only one, and truly describes one, and only one?
And the account Oswald gave Fritz about being confronted by a policeman
who pointed a gun at him?
And Mrs Reid seeing him with a soda on the second floor, how does that
fit in? Oswald see Truly on the first floor with an armed policeman, says,
"you know, that makes me thirsty"? Goes upstairs, seen by Reid with a
soda? But then, with a surefire alibi, Oswald keeps it to himself? Doesn`t
even shout out to reporters "I was on the first floor when Kennedy was
killed, ask my boss!"
> ***
>
>
> >In the course
> > of going to the roof, Baker would go up a flight of steps, turn on a
> > landing, go up a flight of steps, turn on a landing, go up a flight of
> > steps, turn on a landing, ect about 14 times (twice per floor).
>
>
> I suggest you re-read his & Truly's WC testimony.
>
> ***
>
>
> >Why must
> > he remember accurately where during this ordeal the encounter took place?
>
> Because it supposedly happened at the very start of the 'ordeal' -
> just one little storey up.
But he still needed to figure out where during the ordeal the
encounter took place. Must he do a good job of placing it?
> ***
>
> > Why are CTers so eager to abandon the most common cause of problems
> > and discrepancies in the evidence, human error?
>
> Why are LNers so frightened of first-day evidence?
Not afraid of, any information needs to make sense. When information
doesn`t make sense, human error is usually to blame. Information that
doesn`t make sense should be ignored, not tenatiously clung to for
decades, especially when it runs into conflict with other information that
makes sense. How many people needed to be working against poor Oswald to
make this information viable? Truly, Baker, Fritz, for just a start. Now,
to make the information viable, you need people risking their own freedom
to bear false witness against an innocent man. Do you have the
extraordinary support you need for this concept, or just some
descrepancies in the evidential record?
Also, here seems to be a lot of people on the first floor and coming into
the building early. How is it that only Truly sees Oswald?
> ***
>
> > What about Truly saying it was Oswald?
>
> What about it? Truly said it was Oswald on the first floor. Then he
> switched to saying it was Oswald on the second floor.
>
>
> ***
>
> > > >>>>The only claim Baker made "long afterwards" was the "Coke" business, which
> > >>>>> he crossed out before submitting the document. Why he wrote it
>
> > >He didn't write it. He said it, and it was taken down.
>
> >Possible that on reflection, he realized that that wasn`t an actual
> > observation of his, but something that he heard from a different source.
>
> You don't know how right you are there, Bud.
>
>
> ***
>
>
> > > What did Oswald actually tell Fritz? Postal Inspector Harry Holmes let
> > > the cat out of the bag:
> >
> > That Oswald said he came downstairs after the shots?
>
> Holmes is surely telescoping time here, leaping from Oswald's account
> of asking his 'Negro' co-worker to close the elevator around 12:00 to
> Oswald's account of running 'down' from the rear of the first floor to
> the front entrance after hearing/seeing the 'commotion' caused by the
> assassination.
> Did Oswald go from telling Fritz on Friday that he was on the first
> floor when the President passed the building
How would he know if he was in the Domino room?
> to telling him on Sunday
> that he was actually on one of the upper floors at the time? i.e. did
> Oswald practically confess? Highly, highly unlikely. Had he done so,
> we would have heard all about it after his death.
>
>
> ***
>
> > Why would Baker point a gun at Oswald in the lobby? Possible Oswald
> > was stopped by another cop there also.
>
> Another cop, yes.
Nobody saw this?
> ***
>
>
> > > Because it means that words could be - and almost certainly were - put
> > > in his mouth at will.
> >
> > Yah, if you want to attribute statements to a suspect, what you do
> > is get members of the Sheriff` s Department, FBI, Secret Service, Post
> > Office and DPD in the room to hear what says.
>
>
> All of whom have been told to cinch the case against Oswald as the
> lone nut assassin.
But they all write separate reports. But this is what CT conjecture
requires, different people from different walks of life and agencies
risking their lives and livelihoods working in concert against the poor
patsy. Fritz, for instance, a successful cop who worked his whole life to
rise to the rank of captain in a major city just so he could have the
chance to risk it all to frame some commie punk. Either that, or Oswald
was just guilty. Tough call.
>
> Sean
tomnln
On Mar 31, 12:37 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> "yeuhd" <NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5215fa08-8771-4ddc...@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 30, 6:24 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 4:29 am, yeuhd <NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 12:55 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Speak for yourself. It absolutely can be equated with someone walking
> > > away from the stairway.
>
> > Put yourself in Baker's subject position just off the
> > stairway:http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/ab/Photo_wcd81-1_0145.jpg.
> > You see a movement behind the window of this door and call it "a man
> > walking away from the stairway"?
>
> Look at a diagram of the second floor:
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...
>
> If Oswald was standing against the diagonal wall to the left of that
> number "23", his walk from there toward the lunchroom would absolutely be
> visible through the window of the door to someone in the stairway.
> Remember, Baker doesn't have to see into the lunchroom from his first
> position; he only has to see the back of Oswald's head moving toward the
> lunchroom. Draw a line or put a straight edge from the letters "DN" (down)
> through the center of the stairway door, where the window was. The line
> will go through the point where the "23" and "24" circles overlap. It
> would have been impossible for Oswald to move from the diagonal wall to
> the open side of the lunchroom door and *not* be seen.
>
>
> 7th photo down from the top.
>
> It's Official & You're STUCK with it !
yeuhd wrote;
How in the world does CE 1118 prove me wrong? It does nothing of the
sort.
And remember, you're the one who accepts "official records" as holy
writ. I'm the one who doesn't.
I write;
CE-1118 shows Baker standing AT the door while showing Oswald AT the coke
machine.
IMPOSSIBLE due to ther angles.
CONFLICTING with Baker's OTHER accounts of the lunchroom encounter.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
I can SEE why you don't accept the testimony as holy writ ! ! !
Baker later said Baker was on top step.
Baker said earlier Oswald was walking away from stairs.
Baker is a LIAR.
tomnln
"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2b3d4f3b-6c17-4bbf...@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
yeuhd does NOT know that Baker saw Oswald "walking away from the stairs".
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
I LOVE it when yeuhd "IMPEACHES" his own witnesses.
SEE yeuhd's RESUME'>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/yuehd.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Murphy
> You're quibbling. Baker would see mostly the back of Oswald's head. If
> you want to quibble further into whether it was a rear view or a
> quarter view, find someone who cares.
This seems to be your way of conceding that it can only have been a
quarter view - and of disowning your earlier loose talk of Baker seeing
"the back of Oswald's head moving toward the lunchroom". Good move: it's
clear that Oswald could only have shown Baker the back of his head by
walking into the wall opposite your diagonal wall.
So now you join all those other researchers who long ago realised that
Baker's first glimpse of Oswald could only have been sidelong - i.e. a
view of a man walking right-to-left across the door window.
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/ab/Photo_wcd81-1_0145.jpg I
invite you now to look at the photo, imagine glimpsing a man walking
right-to-left behind the door window and say the words "a man walking away
from the stairway" under your breath. This should bring home to you the
absurdity of the thing. (Hint: the stairway is behind *you*.)
yeuhd
> CE-1118 shows Baker standing AT the door while showing Oswald AT the coke
> machine.
>
> IMPOSSIBLE due to ther angles.
>
Baker said he "ran over there and opened that door". Baker did NOT say
he saw Oswald at the Coke machine. From his testimony (3 H 255):
Mr. BELIN. All right. I see a coke machine off on the left. When you
saw Oswald after you got to this doorway inside the lunchroom, had he
gone as far as the coke machine?
Mr. BAKER. I didn't notice the coke machine or any item in the room
there. All I was looking at was the man, and he seemed to be
approximately 20 feet down there from me.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0132a.htm
CE 1118 is NOT the document that Baker marked, no matter how you try
to pretend that it is Baker's work. It is the work of others, and
there is no indication that Baker was even shown CE 1118 before it was
published, much less that Baker vouched for its accuracy. It is an
interpretation, based on the testimonies of Baker, Truly, and Reid. It
may be accurate, it may be inaccurate. But it is not the work of
Baker, Truly, or Reid. It is an interpretation by others.
CE 497 is Baker's work:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_497.pdf
Show me in CE 497 where Baker marked Oswald as standing in front of
the Coke machine.
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
>
> I can SEE why you don't accept the testimony as holy writ ! ! !
>
> Baker later said Baker was on top step.
> Baker said earlier Oswald was walking away from stairs.
Baker testified that he was standing in the stairway when he saw the
back of Oswald's heading walking away from him through the window of
the stairway door. Thus, Oswald was indeed walking away from the
stairway. You seem to want very badly to misinterpret the statement
from Baker's affidavit, "I saw a man walking away from the stairway"
to mean "I saw a man who was IN THE STAIRWAY and walking away from the
STAIRS". But that is not Baker wrote in his affidavit, is it?
Baker testified that he saw Oswald *twice* within moments. The first
was when Baker had reached the stairway area on the 2nd floor, and was
scanning the area. He saw Oswald walking away from him through the
window of the stairway door. Baker went to the stairway door, opened
it, and saw Oswald again, this time about twenty feet from him, inside
the lunchroom.
yeuhd
> On Apr 1, 2:08 am, yeuhd <NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You're quibbling. Baker would see mostly the back of Oswald's head. If
> > you want to quibble further into whether it was a rear view or a
> > quarter view, find someone who cares.
>
> This seems to be your way of conceding that it can only have been a
> quarter view - and of disowning your earlier loose talk of Baker seeing
> "the back of Oswald's head moving toward the lunchroom". Good move: it's
> clear that Oswald could only have shown Baker the back of his head by
> walking into the wall opposite your diagonal wall.
>
> So now you join all those other researchers who long ago realised that
> Baker's first glimpse of Oswald could only have been sidelong - i.e. a
> view of a man walking right-to-left across the door
No, that is not the only way. It all depends on factors and a precision
that we just do not know. We do not know exactly where Baker was standing.
We do not know exactly where Oswald was standing. We do not know how
Oswald positioned his head as he walked. We do not know the angle Oswald
walked. Hence, your "could only have been" just doesn't wash.
And the photo you link to doesn't support your theory either. The window
of the lunchroom door is framed neatly within the window of the stairway
door. If Oswald was standing just south of the stairway door window, and
walked right-to-left in profile (from Baker's viewpoint), he would have
walked into the wall north of the lunchroom door. The lunchroom door
opened on its right side. If Oswald was standing just south of the
stairway door, his angle to Baker as he walked to the lunchroom door would
have been more oblique than you're claiming. How oblique, you're free to
quibble about.
But instead of quibbling about angles, let's look at the bigger picture.
I'll ask again: If Baker didn't see Oswald walking away from the stairway,
then what precipitated him to stop his ascent and find Oswald in the
lunchroom? Your previous answer depended on Roy Truly not knowing Oswald
or where he was in his own building. One moment you have Truly
encountering Oswald on the 3rd or 4th floor, another moment you have Truly
encountering Oswald in a 1st floor storage room, and then you have Truly
conspiring with the DPD to lie about what he saw. Your theories are
neither consistent nor plausible.
Sean Murphy
> I`d call it more of an ugly brown shirt.
>[Baker] probably wasn`t looking at Oswald while he
> wrote the report.
Here's what you wrote on March 30th: "That could [be] how the brown jacket
got incorporated into the account of Baker`s encounter with Oswald. Oswald
had the brown shirt on when he was brought in."
Here's what you now write on April 1st: "[Baker] probably wasn't looking
at Oswald while he wrote the report." What will you write on Friday??
***
>Brown shirt became incorporated into his earlier
> observation as a brown jacket.
So Baker says to himself: Well I remember it as a light brown jacket, but
now I have a proper look I can see it was actually a dark brown shirt, so
I'll tell the man taking the affidavit that it was - a light brown jacket.
***
> Baker`s identification appears in a report written by another Dallas
> Police officer.
If Baker had made a positive verbal ID, it most certainly would have
been noted in the affidavit. It wasn't.
***
> No, different. Brennan could, but chose not to.
Having just a few hours earlier ended his affidavit with the confident
statement: "I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him
again."
According to you, he did see him again. Yet he didn't identify him.
***
> Luckily, Truly knew Oswald when he saw him.
Yes, and initially told people he had seen him on the first floor.
***
> > He's not merely using the stairway as a point of reference. He's
> > describing a man who is *walking away* from it - i.e. was evidently by
> > it a moment ago but is now distancing himself from it.
>
> Your reading of what was written. Baker could have been using the stairs
> he was on as a point of reference
Of course he took the stairs as a point of reference, and said the man was
walking away from them. You play Jacques Derrida games with the phrase
"walking away from the stairway" till the cows come home, it still won't
make it mean what you dearly wish it to mean.
***
>His
> thinking might have went "It happened around the middle of my ascent, so
> it must have been somewhere around the middle floors". So he guessed 3-4.
If his thinking went "It happened around the middle of my ascent",
then it didn't happen just one floor up.
***
> It`s a very abbreviated account.
No, it's a very discrepant account.
***
> I like to think that we have something better than "He guessed his
> weight wrong". I often wondered how well people do describe assailants of
> crimes, that is, how accurate the descriptions are as far as weight,
> height, ect are when the actual perpetrator of a crime is apprehended. It
> would be useful in helping to gauge the weight of the descriptions given
> in this case.
Baker was a trained officer. He sees Oswald in the TSBD and retains a
fleeting impression. Realistic. He sees Oswald again in the homicide
office and doesn't improve upon his original fleeting impression?
Unrealistic.
***
> > I do trust Truly. He said storage room on the first floor.
>
> How is that possible?
It's possible if he saw Oswald on the first floor.
***
> The two men are together, there are two encounters, and Baker describes
> one, and only one, and truly describes one, and only one?
Baker describes an incident. Truly describes a sighting.
***
> And the account Oswald gave Fritz about being confronted by a policeman
> who pointed a gun at him?
As of December 23rd 1963, Fritz knew nothing of a second-floor
lunchroom encounter. Why not? Because Oswald hadn't said anything
about it in custody. All Fritz had heard of was a third/fourth floor
encounter by the rear stairs.
***
> And Mrs Reid seeing him with a soda on the second floor, how does that
> fit in?
Read Geneva Hine's WC testimony.
***
>Oswald see Truly on the first floor with an armed policeman, says,
> "you know, that makes me thirsty"? Goes upstairs,
No, Oswald buys the coke before the assassination and brings it down
to the first floor. That's where he is when the President passes the
building.
***
>with a surefire alibi, Oswald keeps it to himself? Doesn`t
> even shout out to reporters "I was on the first floor when Kennedy was
> killed, ask my boss!"
You're assuming that Oswald knows where the shots were fired from. If
he's innocent, how does he even know that being on the first floor
*was* an alibi?
***
> But he still needed to figure out where during the ordeal the
> encounter took place. Must he do a good job of placing it?
If it was just one floor up? Yes.
***
> any information needs to make sense.
Sounds good, except that your definition of Something That Makes Sense
is invariably: Something That Supports The Official Narrative. A
closed system of thought.
***
> Also, here seems to be a lot of people on the first floor and coming into
> the building early. How is it that only Truly sees Oswald?
Baker saw him too, and even mentioned it in his WC testimony.
***
> How would he know if he was in the Domino room?
That's a tough one. He heard shots? Shouting/screaming?
***
> > > Why would Baker point a gun at Oswald in the lobby? Possible Oswald
> > > was stopped by another cop there also.
>
> > Another cop, yes.
>
> Nobody saw this?
According to the Warren Report, nobody saw Oswald leave the front
entrance. That means he didn't?
Besides, the cop did see it and told fellow officers. The DPD were
telling people about it that evening.
***
> But they all write separate reports.
Yes, and very different reports they are.
Bookhout-Hosty (joint) doesn't mention a lunchroom incident.
Bookhout (solo 'supplement') does.
Harry Holmes doesn't.
Kelley doesn't.
Fritz doesn't know about it until January 64.
Sean
Sean Murphy
> Baker testified that he was standing in the stairway when he saw the
> back of Oswald's heading walking away from him through the window of
> the stairway door. Thus, Oswald was indeed walking away from the
> stairway. You seem to want very badly to misinterpret the statement
> from Baker's affidavit, "I saw a man walking away from the stairway"
> to mean "I saw a man who was IN THE STAIRWAY and walking away from the
> STAIRS". But that is not Baker wrote in his affidavit, is it?
So now Baker is using the word 'stairway' to mean not 'stairs' but
'landing'?!
Let's run that theory by Baker's WC testimony, shall we?
Number of times Baker uses the word 'stairway': 7.
Number of times he uses it to mean 'stairs': 7.
Number of times he uses it to mean 'landing': 0.
Thus, for example:
"Mr. BAKER - At the upper portion of this *stairway* leading to the
second floor, I was just stepping out on to the second floor when I
caught this glimpse of this man through this doorway."
Let's not be in denial: when Baker talked 11/22 about a man "walking
away from the stairway", he meant a man "walking away from the
stairs".
Marks for ingenuity, yeuhd, if not for logic.
Sean
tomnln
with ALL of them.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ce1fb88a-d4f9-43c4...@u8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
yeuhd
> Let's not be in denial: when Baker talked 11/22 about a man "walking
> away from the stairway", he meant a man "walking away from the
> stairs".
A person seen walking away from the window of the stairway door is
moving away from both the stairs AND the stairway.
tomnln
HAHAHAHA
Show us a door on the stairway???
Take another look at Baker's Lies>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
tomnln
Proof that yeuhd is NOT Familiar with Baker's Different accounts of seeing
Oswald.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
Sean Murphy
> On Apr 1, 1:10 am, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So now you join all those other researchers who long ago realised that
> > Baker's first glimpse of Oswald could only have been sidelong - i.e. a
> > view of a man walking right-to-left across the door
>
> No, that is not the only way. It all depends on factors and a precision
> that we just do not know. We do not know exactly where Baker was standing.
We do. He was standing just off the stairway.
***
> We do not know exactly where Oswald was standing.
We do. He was standing against the diagonal wall south of the hallway
door.
***
>We do not know how
> Oswald positioned his head as he walked.
We do. But you don't like the consequence.
Baker's 11/22 affidavit gives us a man "walking away from the
stairway".
Your theory gives us Oswald walking left-to-right across the window -
in a direction opposite to that which someone who has just come off
the landing would be walking.
Clearly, that is not "away from the stairway".
So you now you seem to be visualising Oswald's *body* walking towards
the lunchroom but his *head* turned at a right angle to the wall.
Perhaps he wanted to trick Baker by making him think he was a soldier
on military drill?
***
>We do not know the angle Oswald
> walked.
We do. He walked from the diagonal wall to the lunchroom door. That
gives Baker a view not of a man walking away from the stairway, but of
a man walking right-to-left behind a closed door in a hallway some
twenty feet away from the point where the DOWN stairway becomes the
landing.
i.e. *not* a man walking away from a stairway - whether the DOWN
stairway or the UP stairway.
***
> And the photo you link to doesn't support your theory either. The window
> of the lunchroom door is framed neatly within the window of the stairway
> door.
You mean this photo http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/ab/Photo_wcd81-1_0145.jpg
??
"Stairway door"? There is no "stairway door"! Presumably you mean the
landing or hallway door.
"The window of the lunchroom door"? There is no lunchroom door window!
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/9/93/Photo_wcd81-1_0149.jpg
"The window of the lunchroom door is framed neatly within the window
of the stairway door"? You think the photo is showing us a *second*
window through the landing door window? That's the wall, yeuhd, the
wall. What you are seeing as a neatly framed window is merely a
reflection - possibly of the white pillar on the landing - off the
glass.
No wonder you're lost.
***
> But instead of quibbling about angles, let's look at the bigger picture.
Yes, let's stop reality-testing your theory.
***
> I'll ask again: If Baker didn't see Oswald walking away from the stairway,
> then what precipitated him to stop his ascent and find Oswald in the
> lunchroom?
Nothing.
***
>Your previous answer depended on Roy Truly not knowing Oswald
> or where he was in his own building. One moment you have Truly
> encountering Oswald on the 3rd or 4th floor, another moment you have Truly
> encountering Oswald in a 1st floor storage room, and then you have Truly
> conspiring with the DPD to lie about what he saw.
By the afternoon of 11/22/63 we have:
Officer Baker telling people about challenging a man found walking
away from the rear stairway on the third or fourth floor.
Roy Truly telling people about seeing Lee Oswald in a storage room on
the first floor.
Lee Oswald telling people about being on the first floor at the time
of the assassination.
As of late 11/22, the only mention ANYWHERE of the second-floor
lunchroom seems to be coming from Oswald: I bought a coke from the
machine for my lunch, came downstairs to the domino room and was still
on the first floor when the President passed this building.
Sean
Sean Murphy
The stairs AND the stairway?
You talk as if they are two different things. They're not.
You obviously snipped the information before reading it:
Number of times Baker uses the word 'stairway' in his WC testimony: 7.
Number of times he uses it to mean 'stairs': 7.
Number of times he uses it to mean 'landing': 0.
Thus, for example:
"Mr. BAKER - At the upper portion of this *stairway* leading to the
second floor, I was just stepping out on to the second floor when I
caught this glimpse of this man through this doorway."
That's what Baker said.
Here's what you think he said:
"Mr. BAKER - At the upper portion of *these stairs* leading to the
second-floor *stairway*, I was just stepping out on to the second
floor when I
caught this glimpse of this man through this doorway."
Sorry, yeuhd, STAIRWAY = STAIRS.
Sean
Bud
> On Apr 1, 6:00 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > I`d call it more of an ugly brown shirt.
> >[Baker] probably wasn`t looking at Oswald while he
> > wrote the report.
>
> Here's what you wrote on March 30th: "That could [be] how the brown jacket
> got incorporated into the account of Baker`s encounter with Oswald. Oswald
> had the brown shirt on when he was brought in."
>
> Here's what you now write on April 1st: "[Baker] probably wasn't looking
> at Oswald while he wrote the report." What will you write on Friday??
On Thursday, I`ll explain to you that seeing Oswald being brought in
(or seeing him at any time while he was in custody), and having him in
the same room as him when Baker wrote his report are two different
things.
Another thing, when you take a single sentence out of context to
respond to it, some of the original intent is lost.
> ***
>
> >Brown shirt became incorporated into his earlier
> > observation as a brown jacket.
>
> So Baker says to himself: Well I remember it as a light brown jacket, but
> now I have a proper look I can see it was actually a dark brown shirt, so
> I'll tell the man taking the affidavit that it was - a light brown jacket.
As I explained, the concept of a brown upper garment was put into
his mind seeing him at the station, and was incorporated into his
account of the earlier encounter.
> ***
>
> > Baker`s identification appears in a report written by another Dallas
> > Police officer.
>
> If Baker had made a positive verbal ID, it most certainly would have
> been noted in the affidavit. It wasn't.
Showing to be false your claim that it would be included. Feel free
to *say* that it is a fact that if Baker recognized Oswald, he would
have included it in his report, though. Where would CTers be without
these absolute statements to work from. Oh, thats right, a guilty
Oswald. Thats no good.
> ***
>
> > No, different. Brennan could, but chose not to.
>
> Having just a few hours earlier ended his affidavit with the confident
> statement: "I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him
> again."
"could" and "will" being two different things. He later said he
could have if he had wanted to.
> According to you, he did see him again. Yet he didn't identify him.
For reasons he gave.
> ***
>
> > Luckily, Truly knew Oswald when he saw him.
>
> Yes, and initially told people he had seen him on the first floor.
Where can I find this? Is this from Truly mouth, or an attributed
statement?
> ***
>
> > > He's not merely using the stairway as a point of reference. He's
> > > describing a man who is *walking away* from it - i.e. was evidently by
> > > it a moment ago but is now distancing himself from it.
>
> > Your reading of what was written. Baker could have been using the stairs
> > he was on as a point of reference
>
> Of course he took the stairs as a point of reference, and said the man was
> walking away from them. You play Jacques Derrida games with the phrase
> "walking away from the stairway" till the cows come home, it still won't
> make it mean what you dearly wish it to mean.
Not being Baker, your absolute claim to know precisely what concept
Baker was trying to convey with the words he choose to use are as
subjective as anyone`s.
> ***
>
> >His
> > thinking might have went "It happened around the middle of my ascent, so
> > it must have been somewhere around the middle floors". So he guessed 3-4.
>
> If his thinking went "It happened around the middle of my ascent",
> then it didn't happen just one floor up.
Only if you assume he must place the encounter correctly in the
ascent.
> ***
>
> > It`s a very abbreviated account.
>
> No, it's a very discrepant account.
I`m thinking the affidavits are for investigative purposes, to hit
the highlights so that other investigators can determine what of note
he saw without tracking him down to ask him directly. The CTers seem
to think it is a tool to coordinate all the activity.
> ***
>
> > I like to think that we have something better than "He guessed his
> > weight wrong". I often wondered how well people do describe assailants of
> > crimes, that is, how accurate the descriptions are as far as weight,
> > height, ect are when the actual perpetrator of a crime is apprehended. It
> > would be useful in helping to gauge the weight of the descriptions given
> > in this case.
>
> Baker was a trained officer.
Still a human being, despite his profession. He let a civilian lead
the way to where he thought an armed assailant was. He had the
murderer in his grasp, and let him go.
Hmmm... thats great incentive to lie about running into Oz in the
TSBD, he gets to be responsible for Tippit`s death by letting him go.
>He sees Oswald in the TSBD and retains a
> fleeting impression. Realistic. He sees Oswald again in the homicide
> office and doesn't improve upon his original fleeting impression?
> Unrealistic.
Then you would say that all the information that Linnie Mae Randle
and Wesley Buell Frazier gave after they saw the bag found in the TSBD
(or it`s replica) is tainted?
> ***
>
> > > I do trust Truly. He said storage room on the first floor.
>
> > How is that possible?
>
> It's possible if he saw Oswald on the first floor.
Where is Oswald? The lobby? The domino room?
> ***
>
> > The two men are together, there are two encounters, and Baker describes
> > one, and only one, and Truly describes one, and only one?
>
> Baker describes an incident. Truly describes a sighting.
> ***
>
> > And the account Oswald gave Fritz about being confronted by a policeman
> > who pointed a gun at him?
>
> As of December 23rd 1963, Fritz knew nothing of a second-floor
> lunchroom encounter. Why not? Because Oswald hadn't said anything
> about it in custody.
You will make absolute statements. You want to claim that Fritz
hearing about this encounter from Oswald and what he said or wrote on
December 23rd cannot coexist. The problem is, that isn`t true. Fritz
had a lot on his mind, all sorts of evidence from multiple locations,
all kinds of information coming in from all directions. Once you can
rule out human error, you can proceed with these absolute claims, not
before.
> All Fritz had heard of was a third/fourth floor
> encounter by the rear stairs.
>
> ***
>
> > And Mrs Reid seeing him with a soda on the second floor, how does that
> > fit in?
>
> Read Geneva Hine's WC testimony.
Did Reid say she was there also?
> ***
>
> >Oswald see Truly on the first floor with an armed policeman, says,
> > "you know, that makes me thirsty"? Goes upstairs,
>
> No, Oswald buys the coke before the assassination and brings it down
> to the first floor. That's where he is when the President passes the
> building.
And three people lied about seeing Oz on the second floor after the
assassination? Everyone is out to get the poor patsy.
> ***
>
> >with a surefire alibi, Oswald keeps it to himself? Doesn`t
> > even shout out to reporters "I was on the first floor when Kennedy was
> > killed, ask my boss!"
>
> You're assuming that Oswald knows where the shots were fired from. If
> he's innocent, how does he even know that being on the first floor
> *was* an alibi?
Lets see, Oswald is downstairs where no one sees him during the
shooting (unless you count Brennan), while his rifle is upstairs being
used to kill people. The person upstairs doing the killing knew that
Oswald wasn`t going to out on the front steps next to Billy Lovelady,
because he knew Oswald would have no interest in a political figure
going by, having no interest in politics whatsoever. Hears shots and
screaming decides to go elsewhere, where other ordinary people are
waiting to lie about him murdering people. If I didn`t know better,
I`d say you are just playing a game where you try to steer Oswald
through what is known, and somehow he isn`t guilty, it`s just that
everyone is out to get him.
> ***
>
> > But he still needed to figure out where during the ordeal the
> > encounter took place. Must he do a good job of placing it?
>
> If it was just one floor up? Yes.
Theres one of those absolute, unsupportable claims I know and love.
"Because he just would!, I know it"
> ***
>
> > any information needs to make sense.
>
> Sounds good, except that your definition of Something That Makes Sense
> is invariably: Something That Supports The Official Narrative. A
> closed system of thought.
After you use up all your fingers and toes counting the people that
need to be lying to make Oz look guilty, you might want to give the
official version another look.
> ***
>
> > Also, here seems to be a lot of people on the first floor and coming into
> > the building early. How is it that only Truly sees Oswald?
>
> Baker saw him too, and even mentioned it in his WC testimony.
He said he saw Oswald on the first and second floor?
> ***
>
> > How would he know if he was in the Domino room?
>
> That's a tough one. He heard shots? Shouting/screaming?
If he heard the shots, he would know he was far from the source. He
never tried to convey that concept to anyone?
> ***
>
> > > > Why would Baker point a gun at Oswald in the lobby? Possible Oswald
> > > > was stopped by another cop there also.
>
> > > Another cop, yes.
>
> > Nobody saw this?
>
> According to the Warren Report, nobody saw Oswald leave the front
> entrance. That means he didn't?
> Besides, the cop did see it and told fellow officers.
Do you have a name?
> The DPD were
> telling people about it that evening.
They weren`t talking about Baker`s encounter?
> ***
>
> > But they all write separate reports.
>
> Yes, and very different reports they are.
As to be expected.
> Bookhout-Hosty (joint) doesn't mention a lunchroom incident.
> Bookhout (solo 'supplement') does.
> Harry Holmes doesn't.
> Kelley doesn't.
> Fritz doesn't know about it until January 64.
You have them all working in cahoots for the common cause of
railroading Oswald, right? Why aren`t they all the same?
And how does that work? Do they say to these guys "We are going to
kill the President, we need you to do this and this", or do they
approach them shortly after and say "We just killed the President, we
need you to do this and this"?
> Sean
Sean Murphy
> On Thursday, I`ll explain to you that seeing Oswald being brought in
> (or seeing him at any time while he was in custody), and having him in
> the same room as him when Baker wrote his report are two different
> things.
Oswald was in view of Baker for several minutes.
***
> Another thing, when you take a single sentence out of context to
> respond to it, some of the original intent is lost.
I hear you. It's never my intention to take your text out of context,
but my apologies for anytime it's happened.
***
> As I explained, the concept of a brown upper garment was put into
> his mind seeing him at the station, and was incorporated into his
> account of the earlier encounter.
Oswald was in view of Baker as he was giving his affidavit. Given this
circumstance, how can he possibly have confused light brown jacket and
'ugly' brown shirt? It simply won't wash (no pun intended).
***
> > If Baker had made a positive verbal ID, it most certainly would have
> > been noted in the affidavit. It wasn't.
>
> Showing to be false your claim that it would be included.
Huh? Keyword: POSITIVE verbal ID. At best Baker can only have made a
very tentative ID: by definition not enough to go on the record with.
I think Baker was sincerely confused when he saw Oswald brought in. He
looked familiar, but was he Mr. Third or Fourth Floor...?
***
> > > No, different. Brennan could, but chose not to.
>
> > Having just a few hours earlier ended his affidavit with the confident
> > statement: "I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him
> > again."
>
> "could" and "will" being two different things. He later said he
> could have if he had wanted to.
He expressed a fear that the images he had seen of Oswald on TV that
afternoon had supplanted beyond recovery the original memory of the
man in the SN window. He was probably right.
***
>
> > > Luckily, Truly knew Oswald when he saw him.
>
> > Yes, and initially told people he had seen him on the first floor.
>
> Where can I find this? Is this from Truly mouth, or an attributed
> statement?
It's in a 11/23/63 Dallas Morning News report written by Kent Biffle,
who got closer to the immediate post-assassination action in the TSBD
than any other journalist.
The source is given as TSBD veep Ochus Campbell:
"Friday Oswald was seen by R. S. Truly and a Dallas policeman in the
book firm building just after a barrage of shots from the sixth floor
struck President John Kennedy and Gov. John Connally.
"O.V. Campbell, vice-president of the firm, said he and Truly, a
superintendent of the firm, were standing in front of the building at
411 Elm when the shooting started.
"Campbell said he ran toward a grassy knoll west of the building where
he thought the sniper had hidden. He said Truly and an officer ran
into the building.
"In a storage room on the first floor, the officer, gun drawn, spotted
Oswald. 'Does this man work here?' the officer reportedly asked Truly.
"Truly, who said he had interviewed and hired Oswald a "couple of
months earlier," reportedly told the policeman that Oswald was a
worker.
"The policeman and Truly continued their search."
***
> > Of course he took the stairs as a point of reference, and said the man was
> > walking away from them. You play Jacques Derrida games with the phrase
> > "walking away from the stairway" till the cows come home, it still won't
> > make it mean what you dearly wish it to mean.
>
> Not being Baker, your absolute claim to know precisely what concept
> Baker was trying to convey with the words he choose to use are as
> subjective as anyone`s.
He wasn't Humpty Dumpty, Bud. He used words in their normal sense.
'A man walking away from the stairway' isn't some poetic phrase. It's
just a man walking away from the stairway.
The fact that you have to twist it every which way to make it fit
Baker's WC testimony should alert you that something is wrong.
***
> > > It`s a very abbreviated account.
>
> > No, it's a very discrepant account.
>
> I`m thinking the affidavits are for investigative purposes, to hit
> the highlights so that other investigators can determine what of note
> he saw without tracking him down to ask him directly. The CTers seem
> to think it is a tool to coordinate all the activity.
The man *about whom the affidavit is supposedly being given* has just
walked into the room in handcuffs. If that isn't "of note", then what
in the name of Elvis is?
***
> > > > I do trust Truly. He said storage room on the first floor.
>
> > > How is that possible?
>
> > It's possible if he saw Oswald on the first floor.
>
> Where is Oswald? The lobby? The domino room?
I wasn't there, so I don't know.
It may have been the domino room, where warehouse employees stored
personal belongings. It may have been the small storage room right
beside the domino room. It may have been the little enclosure by the
rear stairs where the Dr. Pepper machine was and where employees left
empty Dr. Pepper & Coca-Cola bottles. Or it may simply have been the
general shipping department - you can, for instance, find people
referring to the entire sixth floor as a "storage room".
Wherever it was, it would have been near the rear of the first floor.
***
> > As of December 23rd 1963, Fritz knew nothing of a second-floor
> > lunchroom encounter. Why not? Because Oswald hadn't said anything
> > about it in custody.
>
> You will make absolute statements. You want to claim that Fritz
> hearing about this encounter from Oswald and what he said or wrote on
> December 23rd cannot coexist. The problem is, that isn`t true. Fritz
> had a lot on his mind, all sorts of evidence from multiple locations,
> all kinds of information coming in from all directions. Once you can
> rule out human error, you can proceed with these absolute claims, not
> before.
I love it. Anytime a conspiracy-leaning witness shows the slightest
inconsistency, you and your friends go berserk. Yet here you are
sprinkling the milk of human kindness over Baker, Truly and Fritz and
pronouncing the magic words "Human Error". The switch from hardboiled
cynic to dewy-eyed naif is just priceless.
***
> > > And Mrs Reid seeing him with a soda on the second floor, how does that
> > > fit in?
>
> > Read Geneva Hine's WC testimony.
>
> Did Reid say she was there also?
No. Their testimonies simply don't mesh.
***
> Lets see, Oswald is downstairs where no one sees him during the
> shooting (unless you count Brennan), while his rifle is upstairs being
> used to kill people. The person upstairs doing the killing knew that
> Oswald wasn`t going to out on the front steps next to Billy Lovelady,
> because he knew Oswald would have no interest in a political figure
> going by, having no interest in politics whatsoever.
If Oswald was being set up, it would have been no great task to ensure
that he was kept indoors. He could have been told to wait for a phone
call at 12:30, for instance. As it happens, the phone for general use
was located within a few metres of the domino room.
***
> > > Also, here seems to be a lot of people on the first floor and coming into
> > > the building early. How is it that only Truly sees Oswald?
>
> > Baker saw him too, and even mentioned it in his WC testimony.
>
> He said he saw Oswald on the first and second floor?
Don't be silly. Just first floor:
Mr. BAKER - On the first floor there were two men. As we came through
the main doorway to the elevators, I remember as we tried to get on
the elevators I remember two men, one was sitting on this side and
*another one between 20 or 30 feet away from us looking at us*.
Mr. DULLES - Were they white men?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
Belin immediately changes the subject.
I believe the man referred to in the phrase bracketed by asterisks was
Lee Harvey Oswald.
Who do you think he was?
***
> > > > > Why would Baker point a gun at Oswald in the lobby? Possible Oswald
> > > > > was stopped by another cop there also.
>
> > > > Another cop, yes.
>
> > > Nobody saw this?
>
> > According to the Warren Report, nobody saw Oswald leave the front
> > entrance. That means he didn't?
> > Besides, the cop did see it and told fellow officers.
>
> Do you have a name?
Of the officer? No. But I suspect it was Bill Shelley who told the
officer that Oswald was alright.
***
> > The DPD were
> > telling people about it that evening.
>
> They weren`t talking about Baker`s encounter?
Not in public.
The only incident they were talking about was Oswald being stopped at
the front entrance and telling the officer he wanted to go out and see
what all the 'excitement' was about. A fellow employee (Shelley, IMO)
vouched for him.
***
> > Bookhout-Hosty (joint) doesn't mention a lunchroom incident.
> > Bookhout (solo 'supplement') does.
> > Harry Holmes doesn't.
> > Kelley doesn't.
> > Fritz doesn't know about it until January 64.
>
>>>You have them all working in cahoots for the common cause of
>>>railroading Oswald, right? Why aren`t they all the same?
Apart from Harry Holmes's unscripted moment before the Warren
Commission, they all suppress Oswald's alibi.
***
>>>And how does that work? Do they say to these guys "We are going to
>>>kill the President, we need you to do this and this", or do they
>>>approach them shortly after and say "We just killed the President, we
>>>need you to do this and this"?
Of course not!
Sean
tomnln
***
***
***
***
***
***
Nothing.
***
Sean
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Baker Proved the old adage;
"when you tell a lie, you must tell 2 more lies to cover it up".
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bud
Sean Murphy wrote:
> On Apr 2, 9:46 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, I`ll explain to you that seeing Oswald being brought in
> > (or seeing him at any time while he was in custody), and having him in
> > the same room as him when Baker wrote his report are two different
> > things.
>
>
> Oswald was in view of Baker for several minutes.
That is when I am suggesting he could have gotten the impression of
the brown upper garment.
> ***
>
> > Another thing, when you take a single sentence out of context to
> > respond to it, some of the original intent is lost.
>
>
> I hear you. It's never my intention to take your text out of context,
> but my apologies for anytime it's happened.
Why not just insert your replies under what I wrote? That way my
content is left intact.
> ***
>
>
>
> > As I explained, the concept of a brown upper garment was put into
> > his mind seeing him at the station, and was incorporated into his
> > account of the earlier encounter.
>
>
> Oswald was in view of Baker as he was giving his affidavit.
How do you know this?
> Given this
> circumstance, how can he possibly have confused light brown jacket and
> 'ugly' brown shirt? It simply won't wash (no pun intended).
He can`t confuse the brown shirt for a brown jacket?
> ***
>
>
> > > If Baker had made a positive verbal ID, it most certainly would have
> > > been noted in the affidavit. It wasn't.
> >
> > Showing to be false your claim that it would be included.
>
>
> Huh? Keyword: POSITIVE verbal ID. At best Baker can only have made a
> very tentative ID: by definition not enough to go on the record with.
> I think Baker was sincerely confused when he saw Oswald brought in. He
> looked familiar, but was he Mr. Third or Fourth Floor...?
Again, you are saying "must", but aren`t showing that no
alternatives are possible.
> ***
>
>
> > > > No, different. Brennan could, but chose not to.
> >
> > > Having just a few hours earlier ended his affidavit with the confident
> > > statement: "I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him
> > > again."
> >
> > "could" and "will" being two different things. He later said he
> > could have if he had wanted to.
>
>
> He expressed a fear that the images he had seen of Oswald on TV that
> afternoon had supplanted beyond recovery the original memory of the
> man in the SN window.
Quote him saying this.
I`ve seen it where he says he is positive it was Oswald he saw.
First, thanks for providing this.
but, Not only doesn`t this make sense, it doesn`t support the version
of events you are trying to pedal. Why would Baker go into a building
looking for rooftop shooter, get there in around 25 seconds (according to
you), and suspect someone standing by the door to be a possible suspect?
Baker`s affidavit says there were several people standing around, why
point a gun at only one? And again, you have two people together, but you
have them describing two different encounters, and neither one is
mentioning the one the other person is mentioning. Of course, the solution
is as simple, and requires no framing, no lying, just some human error.
Campbell misunderstood the location Truly told him the encounter took
place. Truly gave the actual accurate account to the WC.
> ***
>
>
> > > Of course he took the stairs as a point of reference, and said the man was
> > > walking away from them. You play Jacques Derrida games with the phrase
> > > "walking away from the stairway" till the cows come home, it still won't
> > > make it mean what you dearly wish it to mean.
> >
> > Not being Baker, your absolute claim to know precisely what concept
> > Baker was trying to convey with the words he choose to use are as
> > subjective as anyone`s.
>
>
> He wasn't Humpty Dumpty, Bud. He used words in their normal sense.
> 'A man walking away from the stairway' isn't some poetic phrase. It's
> just a man walking away from the stairway.
> The fact that you have to twist it every which way to make it fit
> Baker's WC testimony should alert you that something is wrong.
Whats wrong is you are trying to use the weakest pretense to support the
idea that Baker lied under oath to frame a innocent man. That after
decades of intense effort this is all you can muster should alert you that
something is wrong.
> ***
>
> > > > It`s a very abbreviated account.
> >
> > > No, it's a very discrepant account.
> >
> > I`m thinking the affidavits are for investigative purposes, to hit
> > the highlights so that other investigators can determine what of note
> > he saw without tracking him down to ask him directly. The CTers seem
> > to think it is a tool to coordinate all the activity.
>
>
> The man *about whom the affidavit is supposedly being given* has just
> walked into the room in handcuffs. If that isn't "of note", then what
> in the name of Elvis is?
The information was noted and recorded. The information was available
to investigators. I`m not aware of any "if Baker doesn`t write it down it
doesn`t count" rules in effect. And I`m curious about the certainty you
are expressing in the timing of these events in the stationhouse.
> ***
>
>
> > > > > I do trust Truly. He said storage room on the first floor.
> >
> > > > How is that possible?
> >
> > > It's possible if he saw Oswald on the first floor.
> >
> > Where is Oswald? The lobby? The domino room?
>
>
> I wasn't there, so I don't know.
I wasn`t there, but I do. 6th floor, with his rifle.
> It may have been the domino room, where warehouse employees stored
> personal belongings. It may have been the small storage room right
> beside the domino room. It may have been the little enclosure by the
> rear stairs where the Dr. Pepper machine was and where employees left
> empty Dr. Pepper & Coca-Cola bottles. Or it may simply have been the
> general shipping department - you can, for instance, find people
> referring to the entire sixth floor as a "storage room".
> Wherever it was, it would have been near the rear of the first floor.
>
>
> ***
>
>
> > > As of December 23rd 1963, Fritz knew nothing of a second-floor
> > > lunchroom encounter. Why not? Because Oswald hadn't said anything
> > > about it in custody.
> >
> > You will make absolute statements. You want to claim that Fritz
> > hearing about this encounter from Oswald and what he said or wrote on
> > December 23rd cannot coexist. The problem is, that isn`t true. Fritz
> > had a lot on his mind, all sorts of evidence from multiple locations,
> > all kinds of information coming in from all directions. Once you can
> > rule out human error, you can proceed with these absolute claims, not
> > before.
>
>
> I love it. Anytime a conspiracy-leaning witness shows the slightest
> inconsistency, you and your friends go berserk.
Like who, Jean Hill?
> Yet here you are
> sprinkling the milk of human kindness over Baker, Truly and Fritz and
> pronouncing the magic words "Human Error". The switch from hardboiled
> cynic to dewy-eyed naif is just priceless.
Human error always prevents CTers from making the absolute "this
must mean this" statements they crave.
And since you didn`t offer any rebuttal, I suppose you had none. You are
offering a few discrepancies and difficulties to support the weight of
extraordinary charges. You want to say that if the witness said "A" here,
and "B" here, that such-and-such must be the reason. But to do so, you
have to create this mythical world in which human error can be ignored as
a possibilty, leaving only the sinister explanations you desire.
Who can you name that gave flawless, difficulty and discrepancy- free
reporting in all their accounts, especially if you are going so far as to
include attributed newspaper accounts?
> ***
>
>
> > > > And Mrs Reid seeing him with a soda on the second floor, how does that
> > > > fit in?
> >
> > > Read Geneva Hine's WC testimony.
> >
> > Did Reid say she was there also?
>
> No. Their testimonies simply don't mesh.
Who`s does?
> ***
>
>
>
> > Lets see, Oswald is downstairs where no one sees him during the
> > shooting (unless you count Brennan), while his rifle is upstairs being
> > used to kill people. The person upstairs doing the killing knew that
> > Oswald wasn`t going to out on the front steps next to Billy Lovelady,
> > because he knew Oswald would have no interest in a political figure
> > going by, having no interest in politics whatsoever.
>
>
> If Oswald was being set up, it would have been no great task to ensure
> that he was kept indoors. He could have been told to wait for a phone
> call at 12:30, for instance. As it happens, the phone for general use
> was located within a few metres of the domino room.
Thats where you want your patsy to wait out of sight, the most
commonly used room at lunchtime.
> ***
>
>
> > > > Also, here seems to be a lot of people on the first floor and coming into
> > > > the building early. How is it that only Truly sees Oswald?
> >
> > > Baker saw him too, and even mentioned it in his WC testimony.
> >
> > He said he saw Oswald on the first and second floor?
>
> Don't be silly. Just first floor:
>
> Mr. BAKER - On the first floor there were two men. As we came through
> the main doorway to the elevators, I remember as we tried to get on
> the elevators I remember two men, one was sitting on this side and
> *another one between 20 or 30 feet away from us looking at us*.
> Mr. DULLES - Were they white men?
> Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
>
> Belin immediately changes the subject.
>
> I believe the man referred to in the phrase bracketed by asterisks was
> Lee Harvey Oswald.
> Who do you think he was?
Somebody other than LHO. Baker specifically mentions meeting Oswald
on the second floor in his testimony.
> ***
>
>
> > > > > > Why would Baker point a gun at Oswald in the lobby? Possible Oswald
> > > > > > was stopped by another cop there also.
> >
> > > > > Another cop, yes.
> >
> > > > Nobody saw this?
> >
> > > According to the Warren Report, nobody saw Oswald leave the front
> > > entrance. That means he didn't?
> > > Besides, the cop did see it and told fellow officers.
> >
> > Do you have a name?
>
> Of the officer? No. But I suspect it was Bill Shelley who told the
> officer that Oswald was alright.
So, it could just be another garbled version of the Baker
encounter.
> ***
>
>
> > > The DPD were
> > > telling people about it that evening.
> >
> > They weren`t talking about Baker`s encounter?
>
>
> Not in public.
> The only incident they were talking about was Oswald being stopped at
> the front entrance and telling the officer he wanted to go out and see
> what all the 'excitement' was about. A fellow employee (Shelley, IMO)
> vouched for him.
So, it`s different, garbled versions of the same Baker/Oswald encounter.
Look at all the places the shots were said to be fired from in the TSBD
early on, look at all the different type rifles named in print. Sometimes
it`s better to wait for the dust to settle to get the reliable
information, but CTers think they see more clearly looking at the dust.
>
> ***
>
> > > Bookhout-Hosty (joint) doesn't mention a lunchroom incident.
> > > Bookhout (solo 'supplement') does.
> > > Harry Holmes doesn't.
> > > Kelley doesn't.
> > > Fritz doesn't know about it until January 64.
> >
>
> >>>You have them all working in cahoots for the common cause of
> >>>railroading Oswald, right? Why aren`t they all the same?
>
> Apart from Harry Holmes's unscripted moment before the Warren
> Commission, they all suppress Oswald's alibi.
Will I ever see the kind of support needed for such an amazing
claim?
> ***
>
> >>>And how does that work? Do they say to these guys "We are going to
> >>>kill the President, we need you to do this and this", or do they
> >>>approach them shortly after and say "We just killed the President, we
> >>>need you to do this and this"?
>
>
> Of course not!
Well, you have all these men being told to "cinch the case against
Oswald as the lone nut assassin", so I guess they needed to be contacted
and told their roles.
In any case, I`ve always felt that it was CTers projecting their own
willingness to do whatever they are told onto these people, I don`t think
you find people in general being this compliant. It`s conceivable (but
unlikely) you could get some people to go along, but not everyone, some
would get indignant, raise a stink balk, refuse, ect. Some might get a
conscious, tell all later. All sorts of possibilities, with hearing
nothing but crickets being the least likely.
>
> Sean
Sean Murphy
> Sean Murphy wrote:
> > Mr. BAKER - On the first floor there were two men. As we came through
> > the main doorway to the elevators, I remember as we tried to get on
> > the elevators I remember two men, one was sitting on this side and
> > *another one between 20 or 30 feet away from us looking at us*.
> > Mr. DULLES - Were they white men?
> > Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
>
> > Belin immediately changes the subject.
>
> > I believe the man referred to in the phrase bracketed by asterisks was
> > Lee Harvey Oswald.
> > Who do you think he was?
>
> Somebody other than LHO.
Such as?
Bud
You need an example of a person other than Oswald?
Sean Murphy
Yep, thanks.
Bud
Sean, I looked a little bit into who would have been on the first floor
when Baker and Truly crossed the big storage room to get to the elevators.
Seems Eddie Piper (a black man), and Troy West (probably a black man) said
they were in this room at the time. How did they go unnoticed by Baker?
Also, it seems Doughtery came down shortly after the shot he heard. He
would have had to take the steps for him to be down when Baker came in
because of the lack of elevators.
In any case, I saw in one account given by Piper where he says he worked
10-7, and in another he says 10-8. Since it is impossible for him not to
know what hours he worked, and mistakes are not an option, what purpose do
you see for the conspiracy to make Piper change his hours?
I also saw where Doughtery said that Shelley told him the day after the
assassination that he saw Oswald carrying a fairly large package the day
of the assassination. This potentially important piece of information
doesn`t appear in Shelley`s account, what forces do you see at work
getting witnesses to omit potentially harmful information against Oswald?
One last random note, there has been a lot of talk lately about the
discrepancies in Truly/Baker accounts, which got me to wondering what
accounts of two people together describing the same event do match? Do
Jean Hill and Mary Moorman`s account match? Norman/Jarman? Rowland (the
one that saw a gunman on the 6th floor), and his wife? The two Davis girls
who heard shots at 10th and Patton? The point is, if it is the norm for
accounts not to match, why is it held up as a cause for suspicion in the
case of Truly/Baker?
Sean Murphy
> On Apr 3, 9:23 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 3, 12:34 am, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 3, 4:35 am,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Sean Murphy wrote:
> > > > > Mr. BAKER - On the first floor there were two men. As we came through
> > > > > the main doorway to the elevators, I remember as we tried to get on
> > > > > the elevators I remember two men, one was sitting on this side and
> > > > > *another one between 20 or 30 feet away from us looking at us*.
> > > > > Mr. DULLES - Were they white men?
> > > > > Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
>
> > > > > Belin immediately changes the subject.
>
> > > > > I believe the man referred to in the phrase bracketed by asterisks was
> > > > > Lee Harvey Oswald.
> > > > > Who do you think he was?
>
> > > > Somebody other than LHO.
>
> > > Such as?
>
> > You need an example of a person other than Oswald?
>
> Sean, I looked a little bit into who would have been on the first floor
> when Baker and Truly crossed the big storage room to get to the elevators.
> Seems Eddie Piper (a black man), and Troy West (probably a black man) said
> they were in this room at the time. How did they go unnoticed by Baker?
You may as well ask why Eddie Piper and Troy West didn't notice each
other, Bud!
But it's immaterial. We're talking about the two *white* men seen by
Baker near the rear of the first floor.
Who can they have been? Can you even give me one name?
***
>
> Also, it seems Doughtery came down shortly after the shot he heard. He
> would have had to take the steps for him to be down when Baker came in
> because of the lack of elevators.
But Jack Dougherty didn't take the west elevator down from five until
Baker & Truly were coming up the rear stairs, right?
***
Bud
Were they asked?
> But it's immaterial.
Maybe it is, and maybe it isn`t. Two employees said they were in
that room that baker crossed at the time of the assassination.
> We're talking about the two *white* men seen by
> Baker near the rear of the first floor.
Only if you assume Baker, who had no reason to pay a lot of
attention to these bystanders, must get their races correct.
> Who can they have been? Can you even give me one name?
I gave you the names of two men it could be, two employees who said they
were in that room. You may think that because Baker remembered the men as
white, that it rules the two men I mentioned out, but you can`t establish
that thought as fact.
Sean Murphy
Ah, silly me.
Third or Fourth Floor = Second Floor
First Floor = Second Floor
Storage Room = Lunchroom
Landing = Lunchroom
The Light Brown Jacket I Recall = The Dark Brown Shirt I Am Now
Looking At
A Still Unidentified Man = A Handcuffed Man Now Sitting In Front Of My
Eyes
White X 2 = Black X 2
Two White Men In Different Locations = Two Black Men In The Same
Location
How elegantly your research methodology simplifies things, Bud. Simply
translate Anything We Don't Like into Something We Do, and - hey
presto - the problem is solved. Beautiful.
Now what is all this reminding me of? Oh yes...
"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,'
it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
"'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so
many different things.'
"'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -
that's all.'"
Sean
yeuhd
Baker, who were searching for a 6th floor sniper, actually encountered Lee
Oswald in a first floor storeroom, not on the second floor, because we
should believe a particular newspaper account, which does *not* quote
Truly directly, does *not* indicate the reporter interviewed Truly
himself, that is *not* corroborated by anyone else who was on the first
floor at that time, and that was published the day after the event, over
Roy Truly's own signed affidavit, given the day after the event.
What is also odd is that when discussing the time it took Officer Baker to
get up to the 2nd floor, you have him trotting directly from the front
entrance of the TSBD to the rear elevators. But when you're talking about
where Baker and Truly encountered Oswald, you have Baker take time to poke
around in a 1st floor storeroom first.
Or are you claiming that Baker and Truly encountered Oswald in the 1st
floor storeroom about 12:40–12:45 p.m., *after* Baker had investigated
the roof and the 7th floor of the building, stopped briefly on one of the
middle floors to speak to Inspector Sawyer, and returned to the 1st floor?
Yet Oswald was still able to board a bus seven blocks away about 12:40
p.m.
Bud
Of course. You are rejecting what the person who knew the building
and knew the personnel employed there. What did Truly himself say on
the 23rd?
> Third or Fourth Floor = Second Floor
Obviously.
> First Floor = Second Floor
Dunno what this is referring to.
> Storage Room = Lunchroom
Do you think you can trump the person who was there with someone who
wasn`t?
> Landing = Lunchroom
Landing is where Baker was when he saw movement in the lunchroom.
> The Light Brown Jacket I Recall = The Dark Brown Shirt
Three witness said they saw Oswald shortly after the assassination. They
all describe different clothing. Bledsoe seems corroborated by the tear in
the shirt and the missing buttons on the brown shirt. She couldn`t see the
tear if Oz was wearing a jacket, so it reasonable to consider this as
solid information, corroborated by the physical evidence. So, is it
reasonable to believe that Oswald was wearing a jacket when Baker saw him,
but took it off when he went outside a short time later?
>I Am Now
> Looking At
> A Still Unidentified Man = A Handcuffed Man Now Sitting In Front Of My
> Eyes
I haven`t seen you establish that Oswald was in the room with Baker
when he gave his affidavit.
> White X 2 = Black X 2
We have in evidence that there were two men in the room Baker crossed,
both black. I don`t know that Baker would have been a reliable source of
information regarding any of the bystanders he passed running through the
crowds, up the steps, or in the rooms he went through.
And just who are the people asked for the location of the stairs when he
came in?
> Two White Men In Different Locations = Two Black Men In The Same
> Location
>
> How elegantly your research methodology simplifies things, Bud.
It is simple, you view information in context, and you determine the
most reasonable explanation. Truly knew the building and the employees.
That Truly lied to frame one of his employees is an extraordinary idea you
can`t begin to support. That Baker, with his adrenaline flowing, running
through crowds to get to the roof of the TSBD might misidentify some of
the people he passed along the way, or messed up the floors some things
occurred in along the way is not an extraordinary explanation. You can`t
realistically move on to the extraordinary until you have ruled out the
ordinary.
> Simply
> translate Anything We Don't Like into Something We Do, and - hey
> presto - the problem is solved. Beautiful.
You don`t think shots were fired from the fifth, fourth and sixth floor
of the TSBD, do you? You have to rectify the difficulties using the best
available information.
You have an "unknown", some unidentified people. Other than a great
desire to see Oswald as innocent, what makes you say that one of these
unidentified people was Oswald?
Sean Murphy
> Now, let me get this straight. You're claiming Roy Truly and Officer
> Baker, who were searching for a 6th floor sniper, actually encountered Lee
> Oswald in a first floor storeroom, not on the second floor,
Somewhere near the rear of the first floor, yes.
***
>because we
> should believe a particular newspaper account, which does *not* quote
> Truly directly, does *not* indicate the reporter interviewed Truly
> himself, that is *not* corroborated by anyone else who was on the first
> floor at that time, and that was published the day after the event, over
> Roy Truly's own signed affidavit, given the day after the event.
Not just any report, yeuhd.
The DMN, as you say, was not published until the Saturday. However we know
that the information was picked up on Friday afternoon, which is when Kent
Biffle was in the TSBD. So it bears an unimpeachable 11/22 timestamp. And
it was written by *the* print journalist who got closest to the Depository
action in the immediate aftermath. That's a pretty impressive pedigree.
It's not our only source. Compare the following from NY Herald Tribune
11/23/63:
'Mr. Campbell said, "Shortly after the shooting we raced back into the
building. We had been outside watching the parade. We saw him (Oswald) in
a small storage room on the ground floor. Then we noticed he was gone.”
Mr Campbell added: "Of course he and the others were on their lunch hour
but he did not have permission to leave the building and we haven't seen
him since.'"'
Campbell of course ran west immediately after the shooting (he was sure
the shots came from there).
He apparently didn't know Lee Oswald from Adam.
This leads me to believe that the source for the quote may actually have
been Truly himself, who *did* race into the building and who *did* know
Oswald and who *is* reported by Biffle as having seen Oswald in a first
floor storage room.
Either that or Campbell is using 'we' in a corporate sense - rather as
Jesse Curry might have said that "WE apprehended Oswald in the Texas
Theatre".
Now am I basing my theory on these two 'first-floor storage room'
reports alone?
By no means.
Oswald reportedly placed himself in or around the first-floor domino
room at the time of the assassination.
Baker recalled a white man just 20 or 30 feet away watching him and
Truly as they called the rear elevator.
Bud seems unable to find a single non-Oswaldian candidate for this
man. Can you do any better?
Apart from the two "first-floor storage room" reports discussed above,
the only other newspaper reports written on 11/22 I have ever read of
Oswald's being confronted by an officer relate to his exit at the
front entrance.
It is my belief that an incident DID happen there, but did NOT involve
Baker or Truly, who were already well up the building by that point
(confronting a man by the rear stairway on the third or fourth floor).
Now I challenge you to find me a SINGLE 11/23 newspaper reference -
i.e. one written on 11/22 - to a lunchroom incident, second-floor or
otherwise.
It is my contention - and I am sincerely open to correction if someone
can offer me a scintilla of evidence to the contrary - that the second-
floor lunchroom story did not come to life until very late on 11/22
(i.e. Roy Truly's FBI interview, in which some of Oswald's more
troubling claims in custody were put to the TSBD manager).
***
>
> What is also odd is that when discussing the time it took Officer Baker to
> get up to the 2nd floor, you have him trotting directly from the front
> entrance of the TSBD to the rear elevators.
I believe Baker and Truly RACED their way from the front lobby to the
rear elevator.
Only the March 20th 1964 WC reconstruction, which had them
encountering Oswald some 68 seconds after the last shot, involved a
'trot'.
Have I not several times made clear my belief that it is absurd to
imagine them trotting their way across the shipping department?
***
>But when you're talking about
> where Baker and Truly encountered Oswald, you have Baker take time to poke
> around in a 1st floor storeroom first.
When did I say that Baker did that?
I believe he merely *noticed* Oswald standing some 20-30 feet away. Baker
*may* have asked Truly whether 'that man' over there was alright, but I
doubt he actually confronted him at close range. So incidental would this
non-incident have been, that when Fritz asked Oswald about being stopped
by an officer, Oswald would have thought he meant the slightly later front
lobby incident, when he truly was *stopped* and challenged.
I believe Baker retained a vague memory of Oswald's face and HONESTLY came
to confuse him with the man on the third or fourth floor.
As I have stated before, Baker was for my money the most heroic cop in
Dallas that day. If he later fell in with the second-floor lunchroom
fiction, it wasn't because he thought he was framing an innocent man but
because he was given to understand that the honour of the force was at
stake.
Either that, or Truly's emphatic placing of the incident in the lunchroom
genuinely befuddled him.
***
>
> Or are you claiming that Baker and Truly encountered Oswald in the 1st
> floor storeroom about 12:40–12:45 p.m., *after* Baker had investigated
> the roof and the 7th floor of the building, stopped briefly on one of the
> middle floors to speak to Inspector Sawyer, and returned to the 1st floor?
> Yet Oswald was still able to board a bus seven blocks away about 12:40
> p.m.
Of course not!
Oswald left the TSBD very shortly after the assassination. Read Pierce
Allman on his and Terry Ford's entry into the building in search of a
phone, and you get a sense of just how quickly.
Sean
Sean Murphy
> Of course. You are rejecting what the person who knew the building
> and knew the personnel employed there. What did Truly himself say on
> the 23rd?
Something different to what he had evidently being saying on the
afternoon of the 22nd.
***
> > Third or Fourth Floor = Second Floor
>
> Obviously.
Do you realise how funny you are being when you write something like
this?
***
> > First Floor = Second Floor
>
> Dunno what this is referring to.
Yes you do: first-floor storage room.
***
> > Storage Room = Lunchroom
>
> Do you think you can trump the person who was there with someone who
> wasn`t?
Do you think the Vice President of the TSBD got BOTH details wrong?
Show me "first-floor lunchroom" or "second-floor storage room", and
you'll begin to have a point.
***
> > Landing = Lunchroom
>
> Landing is where Baker was when he saw movement in the lunchroom.
You think Baker saw movement in the lunchroom? Oh brother.
And you think Baker was describing himself when he spoke of "a man
walking away from the stairway"? Oh sister.
***
>So, is it
> reasonable to believe that Oswald was wearing a jacket when Baker saw him,
> but took it off when he went outside a short time later?
Perfectly reasonable.
Oswald was wearing the jacket over the shirt over the white t-shirt
when he met Baker.
He took off the jacket and shirt just before he met Mrs. Reid.
He then immediately put the shirt back on as he was going out the
front door.
You've cracked it!
***
> I haven`t seen you establish that Oswald was in the room with Baker
> when he gave his affidavit.
Try reading Baker's testimony.
***
> We have in evidence that there were two men in the room Baker crossed,
> both black.
We have evidence that there were two black men between the front and
the middle of the first floor - a long, long way from the rear
elevators.
By the time Baker & Truly were running across the shipping department,
Eddie Piper's testimony puts him beside Troy West.
We also have evidence that there were two white men near the rear of
the first floor. They were not together.
You like the first strand of evidence, so you accept it.
You dislike the second strand of evidence, so you disregard it.
That's not research, Bud, it's theology - and pretty shabby theology
at that.
***
>I don`t know that Baker would have been a reliable source of
> information regarding any of the bystanders he passed running through the
> crowds, up the steps, or in the rooms he went through.
But he suddenly becomes reliable as soon as he hits the second floor,
right?
***
> And just who are the people asked for the location of the stairs when he
> came in?
The people who have just been watching the motorcade from the steps.
The white man standing 20-30 feet away as Baker & Truly are trying to
call the elevator, on the other hand, is at the REAR of the building.
***
> It is simple, you view information in context, and you determine the
> most reasonable explanation.
The most reasonable explanation in each and every instance being that
which is congruent with the official narrative, right?
****
>Truly knew the building and the employees.
> That Truly lied to frame one of his employees is an extraordinary idea you
> can`t begin to support.
But I am supporting it. You just don't like what I'm saying.
Try introducing a little objectivity into your appraisal of the
evidence. It will go a long way.
***
>That Baker, with his adrenaline flowing, running
> through crowds to get to the roof of the TSBD might misidentify some of
> the people he passed along the way, or messed up the floors some things
> occurred in along the way is not an extraordinary explanation. You can`t
> realistically move on to the extraordinary until you have ruled out the
> ordinary.
All of which is simply your rationale for protecting your narrative.
When a witness you like says something you like, you say Respect The
Witness.
When a witness you like says something you don't like, you say Don't
Respect The Witness Too Much.
When a witness you don't like says something you don't like, you say
Fool.
When a witness you don't like says something you really don't like,
you say Liar.
***
> You don`t think shots were fired from the fifth, fourth and sixth floor
> of the TSBD, do you? You have to rectify the difficulties using the best
> available information.
True, but trivial and off-topic.
***
> You have an "unknown", some unidentified people. Other than a great
> desire to see Oswald as innocent, what makes you say that one of these
> unidentified people was Oswald?
I have no great desire to see Oswald as innocent. I just happen to
believe he was. Sorry if that offends you.
Now: Oswald reportedly places himself at the rear of the first floor
at the time of the assassination.
Baker recalls seeing a white man standing some 20-30 feet away from
him & Truly as they tried to call the rear elevator.
If it's not Oswald, who is it?
Your attempts to answer that question thus far have been risible.
Sean
Bud
<snicker> "When I use a word, it means exactlly what I intend it to
mean, neither more nor less."
> Either that or Campbell is using 'we' in a corporate sense -
Or maybe he thought he was the Queen, and was using the royal
"we" ("We are not amused").
Bud
> On Apr 7, 3:18 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > Of course. You are rejecting what the person who knew the building
> > and knew the personnel employed there. What did Truly himself say on
> > the 23rd?
>
> Something different to what he had evidently being saying on the
> afternoon of the 22nd.
>
> ***
>
> > > Third or Fourth Floor = Second Floor
>
> > Obviously.
>
> Do you realise how funny you are being when you write something like
> this?
Why wouldn`t I believe the person who was there and knew the
building over an excited person unfamiliar with the building?
> ***
>
> > > First Floor = Second Floor
>
> > Dunno what this is referring to.
>
> Yes you do: first-floor storage room.
OK. You can`t quote anyone who saw Oswald in the first floor storage
room.
> ***
>
> > > Storage Room = Lunchroom
>
> > Do you think you can trump the person who was there with someone who
> > wasn`t?
>
> Do you think the Vice President of the TSBD got BOTH details wrong?
Or Biffle. You ever see the "pass some information from person to person
around a room, and at the end the information changes" demonstration?
Also, I saw in a response to "yeuld" you just posted a newspaper account
from another newspaper where Campell says it was he who saw Oswald in the
first floor storage room.
Also, the newspapers are rife with inaccuracies and errors about this
event.
Also, it`s silly to try to trump the person who was there with an
account from someone who wasn`t there.
> Show me "first-floor lunchroom" or "second-floor storage room", and
> you'll begin to have a point.
Read Truly`s affidavit.
> ***
>
> > > Landing = Lunchroom
>
> > Landing is where Baker was when he saw movement in the lunchroom.
>
> You think Baker saw movement in the lunchroom?
Why else would he go in there?
> Oh brother.
> And you think Baker was describing himself when he spoke of "a man
> walking away from the stairway"?
No, I think he was talking about the stairway when he said
"stairway".
> Oh sister.
>
> ***
>
> >So, is it
> > reasonable to believe that Oswald was wearing a jacket when Baker saw him,
> > but took it off when he went outside a short time later?
>
> Perfectly reasonable.
> Oswald was wearing the jacket over the shirt over the white t-shirt
> when he met Baker.
> He took off the jacket and shirt just before he met Mrs. Reid.
> He then immediately put the shirt back on as he was going out the
> front door.
> You've cracked it!
I don`t think that people generally do well when they give clothing
descriptions. In this case three people give three different clothing
descriptions for Oswald, probably within 5 minutes. I deem Blesoe to be
the most reliable, because her account is corroborated by the physical
evidence. I think Reid is also corroborated by other witness evidence in
that she said Oswald had on a white shirt, and the people who saw Oswald
on the 6th floor said he was wearing a white shirt. So, one possibility is
that Oswald took off his brown shirt in the SN (either to appear different
from outside, or to cover the rifle in case someone stumbled into the SN),
Oswald put on the shirt as he descended, Baker saw the brown shirt and
mistook it for a brown jacket, Bledsoe saw the shirt and gave an accurate
description.
> ***
>
> > I haven`t seen you establish that Oswald was in the room with Baker
> > when he gave his affidavit.
>
> Try reading Baker's testimony.
I don`t see him saying he was looking at Oswald when he gave his
affidavit, only that Oswald was brought in when he was there to give his
affidavit.
> ***
>
> > We have in evidence that there were two men in the room Baker crossed,
> > both black.
>
> We have evidence that there were two black men between the front and
> the middle of the first floor - a long, long way from the rear
> elevators.
Same room. And people move around.
> By the time Baker & Truly were running across the shipping department,
> Eddie Piper's testimony puts him beside Troy West.
Such precision! Like we have moment by moment accounts to coordinate
these things.
> We also have evidence that there were two white men near the rear of
> the first floor. They were not together.
From a cop hurrying to catch a murderer on the upper floors or roof.
Why must he accurately relate details about the bystanders he passes?
> You like the first strand of evidence, so you accept it.
I know he crossed the room, it can be corroborated by other
information. In order to identify who anyone was that was along the
way, you`d need Truly`s input, he knew the personnel.
> You dislike the second strand of evidence, so you disregard it.
I view it in context. Who did he pass outside, do you think he could
accurately describe these people. Who was in the entry way that he
asked for the stairs?
> That's not research, Bud, it's theology - and pretty shabby theology
> at that.
I`ll stick to the best evidence, which is what Truly himself said.
Not what Biffle said what Campeil said what Truly said, but Truly
himself.
> ***
>
> >I don`t know that Baker would have been a reliable source of
> > information regarding any of the bystanders he passed running through the
> > crowds, up the steps, or in the rooms he went through.
>
> But he suddenly becomes reliable as soon as he hits the second floor,
> right?
What I`m I professsing he was reliable about? That he confronted an
employee that Truly vouched for as Oswald, an employee. Pretty much
that is all I`m getting from him.
> ***
>
> > And just who are the people asked for the location of the stairs when he
> > came in?
>
> The people who have just been watching the motorcade from the steps.
Who?
> The white man standing 20-30 feet away as Baker & Truly are trying to
> call the elevator, on the other hand, is at the REAR of the building.
What information puts Oswald there?
> ***
>
> > It is simple, you view information in context, and you determine the
> > most reasonable explanation.
>
> The most reasonable explanation in each and every instance being that
> which is congruent with the official narrative, right?
The most reasonable approach is not to use third-hand information
from a newspaper to trump the person who was actually there, and knew
the building and people in it.
> ****
>
> >Truly knew the building and the employees.
> > That Truly lied to frame one of his employees is an extraordinary idea you
> > can`t begin to support.
>
> But I am supporting it.
>You just don't like what I'm saying.
What you are claiming as support are discrepancies in what the witnesses
related, and erroneous newspaper accounts, both of which are commonplace.
You need extraordinary support for extraordinary ideas, not things that
can be expected to contain error, and can be shown to be rife with error.
> Try introducing a little objectivity into your appraisal of the
> evidence. It will go a long way.
Try applying a little reason in your appraisal of the evidence, and
you won`t need to go a long way.
> ***
>
> >That Baker, with his adrenaline flowing, running
> > through crowds to get to the roof of the TSBD might misidentify some of
> > the people he passed along the way, or messed up the floors some things
> > occurred in along the way is not an extraordinary explanation. You can`t
> > realistically move on to the extraordinary until you have ruled out the
> > ordinary.
>
> All of which is simply your rationale for protecting your narrative.
Information needs to be looked at in the proper context. If Truly took
Baker to a person, and introduced Baker to the person, I`d say it would be
highly unlikely that he would mistake the race of that person (but still
not impossible, if he was not paying attention, or the person`t race was
not very apparent). Compare that with hurrying through a room, intent on
reaching the upper floors of the building to catch an assailant. Does the
information Baker would supply in both instances carry equal weight?
> When a witness you like says something you like, you say Respect The
> Witness.
When a witness like Linnie Mae Randle says she sees Oswald carrying a
long paper covered object into work, I don`t think there is much chance
she could be mistaken about something like this. When she offers details
about the particulars of how it was held, how far off the ground it was,
ect, I view this information as more prone to error. It is not
inconsistant to do this.
> When a witness you like says something you don't like, you say Don't
> Respect The Witness Too Much.
Context. Not all information supplied by witnesses is equal.
> When a witness you don't like says something you don't like, you say
> Fool.
> When a witness you don't like says something you really don't like,
> you say Liar.
When of the following is true...
A) Witness accounts are always accurate and error free.
B) Witness accounts are not always accurate and error free.
Why proceed as if "A" were true, when it is provable fact that "B"
is true?
One you accept that the information the witnesses supply is wheat mixed
with chaff, you can go about identifying the wheat, the most reliable
information. In my estimation, CTers try to represent chaff as wheat, and
try to support extraordinary ideas using the most suspect information.
> ***
>
> > You don`t think shots were fired from the fifth, fourth and sixth floor
> > of the TSBD, do you? You have to rectify the difficulties using the best
> > available information.
>
> True, but trivial and off-topic.
I don`t see it as too far afield.
> ***
>
> > You have an "unknown", some unidentified people. Other than a great
> > desire to see Oswald as innocent, what makes you say that one of these
> > unidentified people was Oswald?
>
> I have no great desire to see Oswald as innocent. I just happen to
> believe he was. Sorry if that offends you.
>
> Now: Oswald reportedly places himself at the rear of the first floor
> at the time of the assassination.
This from a source you hold suspect in other matters.
> Baker recalls seeing a white man standing some 20-30 feet away from
> him & Truly as they tried to call the rear elevator.
What information places Oswald there?
> If it's not Oswald, who is it?
If one was Oswald, who was the other?
> Your attempts to answer that question thus far have been risible.
I offered two employees who said they were in that room.
> Sean
Sean Murphy
> <snicker> "When I use a word, it means exactlly what I intend it to
> mean, neither more nor less."
>
> > Either that or Campbell is using 'we' in a corporate sense -
>
> Or maybe he thought he was the Queen, and was using the royal
> "we" ("We are not amused").
This from the man who thinks black is white...
OK, Bud, what's *your* explanation for the direct quote attributed to
Ochus Campbell? Do you think the journalist freely invented it?
Sean
Sean Murphy
> OK. You can`t quote anyone who saw Oswald in the first floor storage
> room.
It's clear that Kent Biffle heard either Ochus Campbell or Roy Truly
talking about Oswald's having been seen in a first-floor storage room.
The NY Herald Tribune journalist quotes Ochus Campbell to precisely
the same effect.
Ignore this information if you will, but don't pretend you're being
remotely objective.
And don't forget to find me that press report from 11/22 that refers
to a second-floor lunchroom incident.
***
> > > > Storage Room = Lunchroom
>
> > > Do you think you can trump the person who was there with someone who
> > > wasn`t?
If Campbell was the source, where on earth do you think he got the
information from if not Truly himself?
And do you really think Campbell would have confused first-floor
storage room with second-floor lunchroom? He himself worked on the
second floor.
***
> > Do you think the Vice President of the TSBD got BOTH details wrong?
>
> Or Biffle. You ever see the "pass some information from person to person
> around a room, and at the end the information changes" demonstration?
Yes, but Chinese Whispers don't apply here. The NY Herald Tribune
report gives the same key details [first floor + storage room], yet
one is not a simple transcription of the other.
***
> Also, I saw in a response to "yeuld" you just posted a newspaper account
> from another newspaper where Campell says it was he who saw Oswald in the
> first floor storage room.
Did the journalist make the quote up out of whole cloth?
Hardly.
Did Campbell run into the TSBD immediately after the assassination?
Apparently not.
Did Campbell know Oswald?
Apparently not.
Therefore the logical conclusion is that
EITHER the quote has been mis-attributed to Campbell,
OR Campbell used 'we' in the corporate sense of 'one of our people'.
Let's not kid ourselves. Even if the source were given as Roy Truly,
you still wouldn't want to know. You'd be saying it's not an official
statement, it's a scribal error on the journalist's part, there's no
footage of Truly having said it, Truly was probably buzzed up on
adrenaline at the time, & cetera...
***
> > Show me "first-floor lunchroom" or "second-floor storage room", and
> > you'll begin to have a point.
>
> Read Truly`s affidavit.
You've found "first-floor lunchroom" / "second-floor storage room" in
Truly's affidavit??
***
> > You think Baker saw movement in the lunchroom?
>
> Why else would he go in there?
Not even the Warren Report agrees with you.
***
> > And you think Baker was describing himself when he spoke of "a man
> > walking away from the stairway"?
>
> No, I think he was talking about the stairway when he said
> "stairway".
Well, at least that's more than some folk around here have been
willing to concede.
***
> I don`t think that people generally do well when they give clothing
> descriptions.
!
***
>I deem Blesoe to be
> the most reliable, because her account is corroborated by the physical
> evidence. I think Reid is also corroborated by other witness evidence in
> that she said Oswald had on a white shirt,
No she didn't.
***
>and the people who saw Oswald
> on the 6th floor said he was wearing a white shirt. So, one possibility is
> that Oswald took off his brown shirt in the SN (either to appear different
> from outside, or to cover the rifle in case someone stumbled into the SN),
> Oswald put on the shirt as he descended, Baker saw the brown shirt and
> mistook it for a brown jacket,
And then saw the dark brown shirt later that afternoon in the homicide
bureau and *still* mistook it for a light brown jacket? Sure.
I'm amused by your habit of leaving out the words 'dark' and 'light'
btw:)
***
> I don`t see [Baker] saying he was looking at Oswald when he gave his
> affidavit, only that Oswald was brought in when he was there to give his
> affidavit.
Baker states that Oswald was brought in while he, Baker, was giving
his affidavit - and that Baker SAW him.
If so, then he was in a position to ID him in the affidavit, as well
as have his memory refreshed as to his physical appearance. He did
neither.
***
> > We have evidence that there were two black men between the front and
> > the middle of the first floor - a long, long way from the rear
> > elevators.
>
> Same room. And people move around.
Big room (100X100 feet)!
And only Eddie Piper moved around - from a front window to the coffee-
making area by the west wall - which, according to Troy West, was not
anywhere near the rear stairway (or, we can add, the rear elevators).
Troy West testified that he was already at the coffee area and did not
move.
***
> > By the time Baker & Truly were running across the shipping department,
> > Eddie Piper's testimony puts him beside Troy West.
>
> Such precision! Like we have moment by moment accounts to coordinate
> these things.
Actually we do have a moment to moment account from Piper. Just
because you can't make his testimony fit your need for a white man in
the locus Baker puts one...
***
> > We also have evidence that there were two white men near the rear of
> > the first floor. They were not together.
>
> From a cop hurrying to catch a murderer on the upper floors or roof.
> Why must he accurately relate details about the bystanders he passes?
He remembered them enough to make a mental note. And he remembered
that they were white. And Belin immediately changed the subject.
***
>I know he crossed the room, it can be corroborated by other
> information. In order to identify who anyone was that was along the
> way, you`d need Truly`s input, he knew the personnel.
I don't assume that Truly was honest.
Unlike you, I don't take it as axiomatic that only conspiracy-
supporting witnesses ever lie.
***
>Who did he pass outside, do you think he could
> accurately describe these people. Who was in the entry way that he
> asked for the stairs?
He was asked if he saw anyone else in the building. He obviously took
that to mean anyone further inside than the front entrance. And he
gave his answer: two white men near the rear of the first floor.
***
> > > And just who are the people asked for the location of the stairs when he
> > > came in?
>
> > The people who have just been watching the motorcade from the steps.
>
> Who?
Read CE1381.
***
> When of the following is true...
>
> A) Witness accounts are always accurate and error free.
>
> B) Witness accounts are not always accurate and error free.
>
> Why proceed as if "A" were true, when it is provable fact that "B"
> is true?
Of course B is true.
Human error can play a role in these things.
But it cannot be used as a get-out-of-jail card every time you find
yourself presented with inconvenient testimony.
***
> One you accept that the information the witnesses supply is wheat mixed
> with chaff, you can go about identifying the wheat, the most reliable
> information.
The problem is, you are approaching the 'information' with your
conclusion already worked out:
You 'know' (your word) that Oswald shot JFK.
Thus your bottom line is a circle.
***
> > Now: Oswald reportedly places himself at the rear of the first floor
> > at the time of the assassination.
>
> This from a source you hold suspect in other matters.
I said 'reportedly'.
However, the joint Bookhout-Hosty report trumps the peculiar Bookhout
solo 'supplement'.
It precedes it and is co-signed.
***
> If one was Oswald, who was the other?
I don't know, but I suspect it may have been Jack Dougherty (your own
first suggestion, ironically enough).
***
>
> > Your attempts to answer that question thus far have been risible.
>
> I offered two employees who said they were in that room.
Yes, but they were black and neither was anywhere near 20-30 feet of
the rear elevators!
Try again.
Sean
Bud
> On Apr 7, 10:33 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > OK. You can`t quote anyone who saw Oswald in the first floor storage
> > room.
>
> It's clear that Kent Biffle heard either Ochus Campbell or Roy Truly
> talking about Oswald's having been seen in a first-floor storage room.
No, it isn`t. It`s clear Biffle wrote an article where he uses
Campell as a source for an account attributed to Truly.
> The NY Herald Tribune journalist quotes Ochus Campbell to precisely
> the same effect.
No, in that article it says that he was the one that saw Oswald in
the storage room.
> Ignore this information if you will, but don't pretend you're being
> remotely objective.
You trying to trump what Truly himself said with conflicting
attributed newspaper accounts. You`re ignoring "straight from the
horses mouth" information, and embracing information from newspapers
rife with error and misinformation.
> And don't forget to find me that press report from 11/22 that refers
> to a second-floor lunchroom incident.
What do I need that for?
> ***
>
> > > > > Storage Room = Lunchroom
>
> > > > Do you think you can trump the person who was there with someone who
> > > > wasn`t?
>
> If Campbell was the source, where on earth do you think he got the
> information from if not Truly himself?
I think there is enough in his account to conclude he talked to
Truly. But somehow some of the information got garbled.
> And do you really think Campbell would have confused first-floor
> storage room with second-floor lunchroom? He himself worked on the
> second floor.
I wasn`t there when the information was conveyed, I don`t know how
it got garbled. Anyone can get a mistaken impression. What is clear is
that the information was garbled.
> ***
>
> > > Do you think the Vice President of the TSBD got BOTH details wrong?
>
> > Or Biffle. You ever see the "pass some information from person to person
> > around a room, and at the end the information changes" demonstration?
>
> Yes, but Chinese Whispers don't apply here.
Sure it does. If Campell wasn`t there, he is hearing information,
and then relating that information to someone else. How do you think
the errors are introduced in Chinese Whispers?
> The NY Herald Tribune
> report gives the same key details [first floor + storage room], yet
> one is not a simple transcription of the other.
Why don`t you produce Biffle`s full article, and the Tribune`s full
article so we can see all the details from both accounts?
> ***
>
> > Also, I saw in a response to "yeuld" you just posted a newspaper account
> > from another newspaper where Campell says it was he who saw Oswald in the
> > first floor storage room.
>
> Did the journalist make the quote up out of whole cloth?
> Hardly.
> Did Campbell run into the TSBD immediately after the assassination?
> Apparently not.
> Did Campbell know Oswald?
> Apparently not.
> Therefore the logical conclusion is that
> EITHER the quote has been mis-attributed to Campbell,
> OR Campbell used 'we' in the corporate sense of 'one of our people'.
Humpty Dumpty would be proud of you. But, what you say might be
possible, if we didn`t have the account straight from Truly trumping
all this information.
> Let's not kid ourselves. Even if the source were given as Roy Truly,
> you still wouldn't want to know.
Yes, any statements attributed to Truly in a newspaper would be
outweighed by statements from Truly himself. But you don`t even have
statements attributed to Truly.
> You'd be saying it's not an official
> statement, it's a scribal error on the journalist's part, there's no
> footage of Truly having said it, Truly was probably buzzed up on
> adrenaline at the time, & cetera...
There is a New Zealand newspaper available online (Christchurch). It
relied on the information being put out from Dallas, and it is rifle
with error. It has Tippit being killed in the Texas Theater, for
instance. I have actual Philadelphia newspapers, from the day of the
assassination, and the day Oswald was shot. Even two days later, when
Oswald was shot, the paper is still printing erroneous information
about the assassination. Newspapers printed tons of erroneous
information, and the information taken from them cannot be considered
reliable unless it can be corroborated with information outside of
newspapers.
> ***
>
> > > Show me "first-floor lunchroom" or "second-floor storage room", and
> > > you'll begin to have a point.
>
> > Read Truly`s affidavit.
>
> You've found "first-floor lunchroom" / "second-floor storage room" in
> Truly's affidavit??
No, it where you will find Truly himself placing these events.
> ***
>
> > > You think Baker saw movement in the lunchroom?
>
> > Why else would he go in there?
>
> Not even the Warren Report agrees with you.
Baker said movement caught his eye. I`d say that is a good
explanation for the scrutiny he exhibited.
> ***
>
> > > And you think Baker was describing himself when he spoke of "a man
> > > walking away from the stairway"?
>
> > No, I think he was talking about the stairway when he said
> > "stairway".
>
> Well, at least that's more than some folk around here have been
> willing to concede.
Baker thought Oswald was increasing the distance between himself and
the stairway when Baker saw him.
> ***
>
> > I don`t think that people generally do well when they give clothing
> > descriptions.
>
> !
You find this shocking? You think Oswald was constantly changing
clothes ll day. I don`t think two people describe him wearing the same
thing all day, out of maybe a dozen people who described what he was
wearing.
>
> ***
>
> >I deem Blesoe to be
> > the most reliable, because her account is corroborated by the physical
> > evidence. I think Reid is also corroborated by other witness evidence in
> > that she said Oswald had on a white shirt,
>
> No she didn't.
A t-shirt is still a shirt. I can walk into a "No shirt-No service"
establishment in a t-shirt and still be served.
> ***
>
> >and the people who saw Oswald
> > on the 6th floor said he was wearing a white shirt. So, one possibility is
> > that Oswald took off his brown shirt in the SN (either to appear different
> > from outside, or to cover the rifle in case someone stumbled into the SN),
> > Oswald put on the shirt as he descended, Baker saw the brown shirt and
> > mistook it for a brown jacket,
>
> And then saw the dark brown shirt later that afternoon in the homicide
> bureau and *still* mistook it for a light brown jacket? Sure.
> I'm amused by your habit of leaving out the words 'dark' and 'light'
> btw:)
Who are you quoting when you say "dark"? Bledsoe saw the shirt, she
didn`t call it dark.
> ***
>
> > I don`t see [Baker] saying he was looking at Oswald when he gave his
> > affidavit, only that Oswald was brought in when he was there to give his
> > affidavit.
>
> Baker states that Oswald was brought in while he, Baker, was giving
> his affidavit - and that Baker SAW him.
Yah, the reason Baker was there was to give an affidavit, and while
he was there, he saw Oswald. But you claim to know the chronology of
these events, and that they occurred in the same room. I was wondering
what you base these claims on.
> If so, then he was in a position to ID him in the affidavit, as well
> as have his memory refreshed as to his physical appearance. He did
> neither.
How do you know Baker hadn`t finished the affidavit when Oswald was
brought in? It is common English usage to say things like "I was down
taking my driving test when i ran into Bill". That is not to say that
I ran over Bill while taking the test, Bill was there the same time I
was, and the reason i was there was to take my driving test.
> ***
>
> > > We have evidence that there were two black men between the front and
> > > the middle of the first floor - a long, long way from the rear
> > > elevators.
>
> > Same room. And people move around.
>
> Big room (100X100 feet)!
> And only Eddie Piper moved around - from a front window to the coffee-
> making area by the west wall - which, according to Troy West, was not
> anywhere near the rear stairway (or, we can add, the rear elevators).
> Troy West testified that he was already at the coffee area and did not
> move.
You expect that weeks or months later, these people will give
accurate accounts of their movements within this room?
> ***
>
> > > By the time Baker & Truly were running across the shipping department,
> > > Eddie Piper's testimony puts him beside Troy West.
>
> > Such precision! Like we have moment by moment accounts to coordinate
> > these things.
>
> Actually we do have a moment to moment account from Piper.
There is also a moment by moment account given by Truly outside
before following Baker in. Is it accurate?
> Just
> because you can't make his testimony fit your need for a white man in
> the locus Baker puts one...
No, but I know of two people who were in the room, and have no way
of knowing whether Baker could have mistaken their race in his haste
to go apprehend an assailant.
> ***
>
> > > We also have evidence that there were two white men near the rear of
> > > the first floor. They were not together.
>
> > From a cop hurrying to catch a murderer on the upper floors or roof.
> > Why must he accurately relate details about the bystanders he passes?
>
> He remembered them enough to make a mental note. And he remembered
> that they were white. And Belin immediately changed the subject.
It was Belin that offered the information that they were white.
> ***
>
> >I know he crossed the room, it can be corroborated by other
> > information. In order to identify who anyone was that was along the
> > way, you`d need Truly`s input, he knew the personnel.
>
> I don't assume that Truly was honest.
Because a newspaper account differs from his own?
> Unlike you, I don't take it as axiomatic that only conspiracy-
> supporting witnesses ever lie.
I`m not sure I think any witnesses are outright lying, not Dealy
witnesses anyway (not even Roger Craig or Jean Hill). But
extraordinary information needs extraordinary support. That Truly lied
about the encounter occurring in the lunchroom is an extraordinary
idea I see you trying to support with the weakest information
imaginable, newspaper accounts.
> ***
>
> >Who did he pass outside, do you think he could
> > accurately describe these people. Who was in the entry way that he
> > asked for the stairs?
>
> He was asked if he saw anyone else in the building.
"As I entered the door, I saw people standing around." When do you
suppose Baker figured he was in the building, if not when he went in
the door?
> He obviously took
> that to mean anyone further inside than the front entrance. And he
> gave his answer: two white men near the rear of the first floor.
>
> ***
>
> > > > And just who are the people asked for the location of the stairs when he
> > > > came in?
>
> > > The people who have just been watching the motorcade from the steps.
>
> > Who?
>
> Read CE1381.
Do you have the names of the people Baker asked for the stairs?
> ***
>
> > Which of the following is true...
>
> > A) Witness accounts are always accurate and error free.
>
> > B) Witness accounts are not always accurate and error free.
>
> > Why proceed as if "A" were true, when it is provable fact that "B"
> > is true?
>
> Of course B is true.
> Human error can play a role in these things.
> But it cannot be used as a get-out-of-jail card every time you find
> yourself presented with inconvenient testimony.
No, the best information, the one containing as much verifiable
information as possible, the information from the most reliable
source, ect. Two people are known to have conducted a search of the
building shortly after the assassination. One of the two knew the
building, and the personnel. If there is a conflict about where
something occurred, or who it involved, he is the person to go to for
clarification. That he is purposely moving events where they didn`t
occur, or placing people where he knows they were not is an amazing
premise, one you can`t seem to muster anywhere near the kind of
support such an amazing premise requires.
> ***
>
> > One you accept that the information the witnesses supply is wheat mixed
> > with chaff, you can go about identifying the wheat, the most reliable
> > information.
>
> The problem is, you are approaching the 'information' with your
> conclusion already worked out:
No, what is reasonable to believe and what makes sense. That only
leaves one direction to follow (clearly marked with large blinking
signs), and one destination (the truth, that Oswald was guilty).
> You 'know' (your word) that Oswald shot JFK.
Of course. Just like I know the Titanic hit an iceberg and sunk.
> Thus your bottom line is a circle.
A straight line, event, information, conclusion. No wandering in the
desert for decades, no red herrings, no blind alleys, no clutching at
newspaper reports for decades in the desperate hope of contriving a
world in which Oswald is innocent.
> ***
>
> > > Now: Oswald reportedly places himself at the rear of the first floor
> > > at the time of the assassination.
>
> > This from a source you hold suspect in other matters.
>
> I said 'reportedly'.
> However, the joint Bookhout-Hosty report trumps the peculiar Bookhout
> solo 'supplement'.
> It precedes it and is co-signed.
And you like what it says better so you will hold your nose at the
source.
> ***
>
> > If one was Oswald, who was the other?
>
> I don't know, but I suspect it may have been Jack Dougherty (your own
> first suggestion, ironically enough).
OK, you accept Dougherty could have been there. Which raises the
possibility that Baker only misidentified the race of the person in
the background (either Piper or West).
> ***
>
>
>
> > > Your attempts to answer that question thus far have been risible.
>
> > I offered two employees who said they were in that room.
>
> Yes, but they were black and neither was anywhere near 20-30 feet of
> the rear elevators!
I don`t know that we have their exact placement when Baker and Truly
entered the room in evidence.
> Try again.
>
> Sean
David Von Pein
>>> "I have actual Philadelphia newspapers, from the day of the assassination, and the day Oswald was shot. Even two days later, when Oswald was shot, the paper is still printing erroneous information about the assassination. Newspapers printed tons of erroneous information." <<<
Indeed. And not just newspapers were still reporting erroneous information
as of the evening of Sunday, November 24th. For example, there's the press
conference that was conducted by Dallas D.A. Henry Wade on the night of
11/24/63 (shortly after Oswald was killed by Ruby).
In that press conference (which can be seen in the videos linked below),
Wade laid out the evidence that had been gathered against Oswald up to
that point in time on Nov. 24th, and several incorrect pieces of
information were stated by Wade.
Much of that erroneous information was minor, but (in hindsight) some
other pieces of false data that Wade was relaying to the public could be
deemed a bit more significant in nature....such as when Wade incorrectly
tells the press and the live television audience that Oswald's
roominghouse on Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff was located just "a block or
two" from the site of J.D. Tippit's murder. In truth, of course, the
distance was almost a mile (0.85 of a mile to be exact, per CE1119-A).
Another fairly-big error (in hindsight) in Wade's 11/24 conference was
when he said that Oswald was the man on Cecil McWatters' bus who told
McWatters and the bus passengers that JFK had just been shot and then
Oswald supposedly "laughed very loud" (per Wade). But it was later
determined that a young boy by the name of Milton Jones was really the
person who was laughing on McWatters' bus.
Another error was when Wade said that Oswald deliberately placed his
revolver up against Officer McDonald's head during the fight that ensued
between Oswald and police in the Texas Theater. That never happened, of
course. McDonald was cut across the left side of his face by Oswald's gun,
that's true enough. But there's no evidence that Oswald was deliberately
pointing the gun at McDonald's head.
And other mistake was when Wade said that Officer Tippit was shot "three
times". Oswald, of course, shot Tippit a total of four times.
However, even though the above-mentioned mistakes were made by Mr. Wade,
that doesn't take away from the many BASIC, CORE things that Wade and the
DPD got RIGHT with respect to the evidence against Lee Oswald (as of the
evening of November 24)....
E.g., conclusively tying Oswald to both the JFK and Tippit murders within
just a few hours of both crimes; tying the bullet shells found in the
Sniper's Nest to Oswald's rifle very quickly; positively identifying the
palmprint on one of the Sniper's-Nest boxes as being LHO's print; and also
tying the rifle to LHO via the Klein's records in less than 24 hours.
===============================
Henry Wade's 11/24/63 press conference:
www.YouTube.com/watch?v=edLZH1KJVx8
===============================
And here's a longer version:
http://media.myfoxdfw.com/JFKvideo/video/jfk030.html
yeuhd
> Sean, I looked a little bit into who would have been on the first floor
> when Baker and Truly crossed the big storage room to get to the elevators.
> Seems Eddie Piper (a black man), and Troy West (probably a black man) said
> they were in this room at the time.
Troy West was indeed a black man, per the U.S. Census.
Sean Murphy
These posts are getting inordinately long, so I hope you won't mind if
I break this up into two parts.
S.
On Apr 8, 11:53 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > It's clear that Kent Biffle heard either Ochus Campbell or Roy Truly
> > talking about Oswald's having been seen in a first-floor storage room.
>
> No, it isn`t. It`s clear Biffle wrote an article where he uses
> Campell as a source for an account attributed to Truly.
You've just paraphrased what I said.
***
> > The NY Herald Tribune journalist quotes Ochus Campbell to precisely
> > the same effect.
>
> No, in that article it says that he was the one that saw Oswald in
> the storage room.
Not necessarily.
Once again: Just as Jesse Curry could have said 'We apprehended Oswald
in the Texas Theatre', Campbell could have used 'we' to mean 'one of
our men'.
Or: the quote may come from Truly but be falsely attributed to
Campbell.
Or: Campbell may have said 'my colleague' or somesuch, with journalist
or sub-editor drawing a false inference.
Human error, as you like to say, cannot be ruled out.
However, it seems vanishingly unlikely that two journalists could have
heard 'second-floor lunchroom' and BOTH got BOTH details wrong ('first-
floor storage room').
So you're left with only one official-narrative scenario: Truly said
'second-floor lunchroom' and Ochus Campbell was the one who go BOTH
details wrong.
But how realistic is that when Campbell himself worked on the second
floor and would have known exactly what the words 'second-floor
lunchroom' referred to?
***
> You trying to trump what Truly himself said with conflicting
> attributed newspaper accounts. You`re ignoring "straight from the
> horses mouth" information, and embracing information from newspapers
> rife with error and misinformation.
I believe that Truly changed his story as the day progressed and as
the implications of Oswald's being seen on the first floor began to
sink in.
Remember, the priority immediately after Oswald's arrest would have
been to quell any doubts that he was IN THE BUILDING at the time of
the shooting.
Your only counter-argument seems to be that there can't possibly have
been a cover-up because that would have required people to, well,
cover things up
A closed circle of non-enquiry.
***
> > And don't forget to find me that press report from 11/22 that refers
> > to a second-floor lunchroom incident.
>
> What do I need that for?
To show me that this is indeed a case of several different reports
floating around, as per so many other aspects of this case.
If you can't, your analogy with all those early reports putting shots
being fired from, variously, 5th, 4th, 3rd as well as 6th floor breaks
down. Those early reports were COMPETING with one another - and
included what was later recognised as the correct information.
Show me that the same dynamic applies here.
***
> > If Campbell was the source, where on earth do you think he got the
> > information from if not Truly himself?
>
> I think there is enough in his account to conclude he talked to
> Truly. But somehow some of the information got garbled.
You're hiding behind the word 'somehow'.
Give me a scenario whereby the Vice-President of the TSBD, who himself
works on the second floor, gets to translate [Second-Floor +
Lunchroom] into [First-Floor + Storage Room].
And bear in mind that said Vice-President of the TSBD knows he is
hearing about the first post-shooting sighting of the possible
assassin of the President of the United States.
***
> > And do you really think Campbell would have confused first-floor
> > storage room with second-floor lunchroom? He himself worked on the
> > second floor.
>
> I wasn`t there when the information was conveyed, I don`t know how
> it got garbled. Anyone can get a mistaken impression. What is clear is
> that the information was garbled.
You know the information got garbled because you know it got garbled.
Thanks for that.
***
> > > > Do you think the Vice President of the TSBD got BOTH details wrong?
>
> > > Or Biffle. You ever see the "pass some information from person to person
> > > around a room, and at the end the information changes" demonstration?
>
> > Yes, but Chinese Whispers don't apply here.
>
> Sure it does. If Campell wasn`t there, he is hearing information,
> and then relating that information to someone else. How do you think
> the errors are introduced in Chinese Whispers?
Nice switcheroo. We were discussing your suggestion that it might have
been Biffle who got both details wrong.
***
>
> > The NY Herald Tribune
> > report gives the same key details [first floor + storage room], yet
> > one is not a simple transcription of the other.
>
> Why don`t you produce Biffle`s full article, and the Tribune`s full
> article so we can see all the details from both accounts?
I don't have a link to the DMN article, but I'd be happy to email you
the full text if you'd like?
Re. the Tribune report: although I have read the full text in the
past, alas I don't currently have it to hand.
Perhaps someone here can help us out? Don Willis maybe??
***
> > OR Campbell used 'we' in the corporate sense of 'one of our people'.
>
> Humpty Dumpty would be proud of you. But, what you say might be
> possible, if we didn`t have the account straight from Truly trumping
> all this information.
Less Humpty Dumpty than arguing that Campbell claimed to have run into
the Depository himself.
By the way, Truly doesn't 'trump all this information' if he himself
is the source, ultimate or immediate, for it.
If he changed his story later that evening, then he tried to trump
himself.
***
> > Let's not kid ourselves. Even if the source were given as Roy Truly,
> > you still wouldn't want to know.
>
> Yes, any statements attributed to Truly in a newspaper would be
> outweighed by statements from Truly himself. But you don`t even have
> statements attributed to Truly.
Ah! So you admit that all this focus on Truly not being named as the
source for the quote is so much hogwash.
Even if Truly himself *were* named as the source, you still wouldn't
be interested.
That's your cover-up ideology, right there.
***
> There is a New Zealand newspaper available online (Christchurch). It
> relied on the information being put out from Dallas, and it is rifle
> with error. It has Tippit being killed in the Texas Theater, for
> instance. I have actual Philadelphia newspapers, from the day of the
> assassination, and the day Oswald was shot. Even two days later, when
> Oswald was shot, the paper is still printing erroneous information
> about the assassination. Newspapers printed tons of erroneous
> information, and the information taken from them cannot be considered
> reliable unless it can be corroborated with information outside of
> newspapers.
Of course there were plenty of erroneous newspaper reports in
circulation.
But it doesn't follow that Kent Biffle, who got uniquely close to the
TSBD people immediately after the shooting and who didn't write
anything wild that weekend, somehow heard "second-floor lunchroom" and
wrote down "first-floor storage room" instead.
Why not "second-floor storage room" or "first-floor lunchroom"?
Sorry, the 'mistake' - which also occurs in the Tribune article
without that being a transcription of the DMN report - is just too
specific for your explanation to be credible.
As for the possibility that it was Ochus Campbell who got BOTH details
wrong?
You must at least accept that, in such a scenario, Kent Biffle can't
have heard a syllable to the contrary from Roy Truly or from anyone.
Why not? Because nobody - NOBODY - was talking about a second-floor
lunchroom incident in those hours.
Prove me wrong.
***
> > > > Show me "first-floor lunchroom" or "second-floor storage room", and
> > > > you'll begin to have a point.
>
> > > Read Truly`s affidavit.
>
> > You've found "first-floor lunchroom" / "second-floor storage room" in
> > Truly's affidavit??
>
> No, it where you will find Truly himself placing these events.
The evidence is that Truly himself told people that he had seen Oswald
in a first-floor storage room. Later that evening, in response to
claims being made by Oswald in custody, he switched to placing him in
a second-floor lunchroom. But the cat was out of the bag.
Now it seems that Oswald placed himself at the rear of the first floor
during the assassination.
So Oswald just got extremely lucky that the ONLY press reports (as far
as any of us have established to date) from 11/22 have him being seen
where he said he was: on the first floor.
You cannot show me a single press report from 11/22 to establish what
should be so, so easy to establish: that Roy Truly - OR ANYONE - was
talking about Oswald's having been seen in a second-floor lunchroom.
Or can you?
Another consideration: if a guilty Oswald had been seen in the second-
floor lunchroom, don't you think he would have told Fritz he had been
there the whole time? After all, what a stroke of luck to get yourself
spotted so far down the building so far from the stairway so soon
after the shooting.
Why on earth would Oswald go complicating matters by claiming to have
been on the FIRST floor during the shooting?
***
> Baker said movement caught his eye. I`d say that is a good
> explanation for the scrutiny he exhibited.
Not in the lunchroom.
Sean
Sean Murphy
> Baker thought Oswald was increasing the distance between himself and
> the stairway when Baker saw him.
"A man walking away from the stairway" does not mean a man increasing
the distance between himself and the stairway.
It means a man creating a distance between himself and the stairway.
***
>You think Oswald was constantly changing
> clothes ll day. I don`t think two people describe him wearing the same
> thing all day, out of maybe a dozen people who described what he was
> wearing.
There may be a reason for that.
***
I think Reid is also corroborated by other witness evidence in
> > > that she said Oswald had on a white shirt,
>
> > No she didn't.
>
> A t-shirt is still a shirt. I can walk into a "No shirt-No service"
> establishment in a t-shirt and still be served.
T-Shirt = Shirt.
The list gets longer...
By the way:
"Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether he had any shirt or jacket on over
his T-shirt?
Mrs. REID. He did not."
***
> > And then saw the dark brown shirt later that afternoon in the homicide
> > bureau and *still* mistook it for a light brown jacket? Sure.
> > I'm amused by your habit of leaving out the words 'dark' and 'light'
> > btw:)
>
> Who are you quoting when you say "dark"? Bledsoe saw the shirt, she
> didn`t call it dark.
I'm going by the photos, is all.
Would you describe the Oswald shirt in evidence as 'light brown'?
You seem to be forgetting one thing in all this:
Baker himself told Belin that Oswald "looked like he didn't have the
same thing on" in the TSBD as in the Homicide Bureau.
You still want to claim that Baker didn't get a good look at Oswald in
that office?
***
> Yah, the reason Baker was there was to give an affidavit, and while
> he was there, he saw Oswald. But you claim to know the chronology of
> these events, and that they occurred in the same room. I was wondering
> what you base these claims on.
Baker's testimony.
Try reading it and all will be clear.
***
> How do you know Baker hadn`t finished the affidavit when Oswald was
> brought in? It is common English usage to say things like "I was down
> taking my driving test when i ran into Bill". That is not to say that
> I ran over Bill while taking the test, Bill was there the same time I
> was, and the reason i was there was to take my driving test.
Baker said Oswald was brought in "[a]s I was in the homicide office
there writing this, giving this affidavit". As, not after.
Even supposing for argument's sake that the final t had already been
crossed by the time Oswald was brought in -
are you seriously suggesting that a positive ID from Baker would not
have merited a single extra sentence along the lines of, "I have just
seen this man brought into custody"? That Johnson and/or Baker would
have left out the clincher?
And don't you find it just a little bit strange that Baker never
attended a lineup?
***
> > And only Eddie Piper moved around - from a front window to the coffee-
> > making area by the west wall - which, according to Troy West, was not
> > anywhere near the rear stairway (or, we can add, the rear elevators).
> > Troy West testified that he was already at the coffee area and did not
> > move.
>
> You expect that weeks or months later, these people will give
> accurate accounts of their movements within this room?
Why not? I'm thinking the shooting of the President just outside the
front door may have made 11/22/63 a little bit more memorable for
these people than an average day in the life.
***
> > Actually we do have a moment to moment account from Piper.
>
> There is also a moment by moment account given by Truly outside
> before following Baker in. Is it accurate?
Seems to be, yes.
***
>
> > Just
> > because you can't make his testimony fit your need for a white man in
> > the locus Baker puts one...
>
> No, but I know of two people who were in the room, and have no way
> of knowing whether Baker could have mistaken their race in his haste
> to go apprehend an assailant.
You have absolutely no reason to posit such a basic error - beyond
your need to posit it.
***
> > He remembered them enough to make a mental note. And he remembered
> > that they were white. And Belin immediately changed the subject.
>
> It was Belin that offered the information that they were white.
No, it was Baker.
But if you mean that Belin was the one who asked Baker about the men's
race, you really do need to read Baker's testimony again. It was
Dulles.
***
> > I don't assume that Truly was honest.
>
> Because a newspaper account differs from his own?
Not just that - and it's (at least) two newspaper accounts btw.
There is IMO a disturbing pattern to Truly's behaviour.
Why, for instance, did he draw Fritz's attention to Oswald without
even mentioning the fact that he himself had seen this employee way,
way down in the building immediately after the assassination?
Why did he vouch for the man Baker challenged on the third or fourth
floor?
Why did he show Baker every single floor EXCEPT the sixth?
Etc.
***
> > Unlike you, I don't take it as axiomatic that only conspiracy-
> > supporting witnesses ever lie.
>
> I`m not sure I think any witnesses are outright lying, not Dealy
> witnesses anyway (not even Roger Craig or Jean Hill). But
> extraordinary information needs extraordinary support. That Truly lied
> about the encounter occurring in the lunchroom is an extraordinary
> idea I see you trying to support with the weakest information
> imaginable, newspaper accounts.
The only reason you find the idea of someone lying so extraordinary is
that you think cover-ups are unthinkable.
I find that extraordinary.
Are you calling Tip O'Neill a liar?
***
> "As I entered the door, I saw people standing around." When do you
> suppose Baker figured he was in the building, if not when he went in
> the door?
He recalled noticing two white men "as we tried to get on the
elevators". Unless you're going to suggest he means the front-of-house
elevator, you're going off topic.
***
> > > > > And just who are the people asked for the location of the stairs when he
> > > > > came in?
>
> > > > The people who have just been watching the motorcade from the steps.
>
> > > Who?
>
> > Read CE1381.
>
> Do you have the names of the people Baker asked for the stairs?
Why on earth do you need them? Baker shouted out a question, Truly
answered. This has nothing to do with the two white men Baker noticed
"as we tried to get on the elevators" - one of whom was watching them
from 20-30 feet away.
***
> > Of course B is true.
> > Human error can play a role in these things.
> > But it cannot be used as a get-out-of-jail card every time you find
> > yourself presented with inconvenient testimony.
>
> No, the best information, the one containing as much verifiable
> information as possible, the information from the most reliable
> source, ect. Two people are known to have conducted a search of the
> building shortly after the assassination. One of the two knew the
> building, and the personnel. If there is a conflict about where
> something occurred, or who it involved, he is the person to go to for
> clarification. That he is purposely moving events where they didn`t
> occur, or placing people where he knows they were not is an amazing
> premise, one you can`t seem to muster anywhere near the kind of
> support such an amazing premise requires.
All you're saying is that cover-ups don't happen. I disagree.
***
> > The problem is, you are approaching the 'information' with your
> > conclusion already worked out:
>
> No, what is reasonable to believe and what makes sense. That only
> leaves one direction to follow (clearly marked with large blinking
> signs), and one destination (the truth, that Oswald was guilty).
As I say, you're approaching the 'information' with your conclusion
already worked out. You wouldn't notice a problem with the officially
sanctioned narrative if it came up and shook you by the hand.
***
> > You 'know' (your word) that Oswald shot JFK.
>
> Of course. Just like I know the Titanic hit an iceberg and sunk.
Very revealing analogy.
If you really think the two are comparable, then you're not
researching, you're just having fun confirming your prejudices.
***
> > Thus your bottom line is a circle.
>
> A straight line, event, information, conclusion. No wandering in the
> desert for decades, no red herrings, no blind alleys, no clutching at
> newspaper reports for decades in the desperate hope of contriving a
> world in which Oswald is innocent.
No asking questions.
***
> > However, the joint Bookhout-Hosty report trumps the peculiar Bookhout
> > solo 'supplement'.
> > It precedes it and is co-signed.
>
> And you like what it says better so you will hold your nose at the
> source.
No. A simple textual analysis of Bookhout-Hosty vs Bookhout shows that
the latter was written in order to change retroactively the meaning of
the former.
What does the former say? That Oswald claimed to have broken for lunch
around noon. He bought a Coke in the second-floor lunchroom. He had
lunch in the domino room on the first floor. He was on the first floor
when the President passed the building.
No mention of any incident in the lunchroom.
Bookhout's solo 'supplement' simply takes this narrative and shifts
the timeframe out of all recognition - all in order to force a
'confirmation' of the second-floor lunchroom incident into Oswald's
mouth.
***
> > > If one was Oswald, who was the other?
>
> > I don't know, but I suspect it may have been Jack Dougherty (your own
> > first suggestion, ironically enough).
>
> OK, you accept Dougherty could have been there. Which raises the
> possibility that Baker only misidentified the race of the person in
> the background (either Piper or West).
Er, no it doesn't.
You seem to be granting the possibility that Dougherty may have been
on the first floor - i.e. that he was a liar.
***
> > > I offered two employees who said they were in that room.
>
> > Yes, but they were black and neither was anywhere near 20-30 feet of
> > the rear elevators!
>
> I don`t know that we have their exact placement when Baker and Truly
> entered the room in evidence.
We do, at least for the second man mentioned by Baker: some 20-30 feet
away from the rear elevators.
Sean
Sean Murphy
Yes, and per Bill Shelley.
Sean Murphy
Can you give me a list of errors made by Kent Biffle that weekend?
Anthony Marsh
> On Apr 8, 11:53 pm, Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Baker thought Oswald was increasing the distance between himself and
>> the stairway when Baker saw him.
>
>
> "A man walking away from the stairway" does not mean a man increasing
> the distance between himself and the stairway.
> It means a man creating a distance between himself and the stairway.
>
Huh?? If the man is not on the stairway there is already a distance
between himself and the stairway, be it 2 inches or 2 feet. As he walks
away from the stairway he increases that distance.
>
> ***
>
>
>> You think Oswald was constantly changing
>> clothes ll day. I don`t think two people describe him wearing the same
>> thing all day, out of maybe a dozen people who described what he was
>> wearing.
>
>
> There may be a reason for that.
>
What, fashion hound?
>
> ***
>
> I think Reid is also corroborated by other witness evidence in
>>>> that she said Oswald had on a white shirt,
>>
>>> No she didn't.
>>
>> A t-shirt is still a shirt. I can walk into a "No shirt-No service"
>> establishment in a t-shirt and still be served.
>
>
> T-Shirt = Shirt.
>
Nope. No shirt may get you kicked out if wearing only a white undershirt.
> The list gets longer...
>
> By the way:
> "Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether he had any shirt or jacket on over
> his T-shirt?
> Mrs. REID. He did not."
>
So you have Oswald shooting the President wearing his shirt and then
taking it off before running downstairs? Then how did he go back up and
get it?
>
> ***
>
>
>>> And then saw the dark brown shirt later that afternoon in the homicide
>>> bureau and *still* mistook it for a light brown jacket? Sure.
>>> I'm amused by your habit of leaving out the words 'dark' and 'light'
>>> btw:)
>>
>> Who are you quoting when you say "dark"? Bledsoe saw the shirt, she
>> didn`t call it dark.
>
White undershirt is dark?
Anthony Marsh
Ah ha, so now we know that it was really Milton Jones who shot the
President!
David Von Pein
>>> "Can you give me a list of errors made by Kent Biffle that weekend?"
<<<
Nope, sure can't.
David Von Pein
>>> "Ah ha, so now we know that it was really Milton Jones who shot the
President!" <<<
Nah. It was Bledsoe. Jones was merely Bledsoe's "spotter" on the Knoll.
Bledsoe was an evil old bitty. And, just like the rest of Dallas and the
world, she wanted to make an innocent Oswald look like a guilty man
(hence, her "maniac" comment to the WC).
Sean Murphy
> >>> "Can you give me a list of errors made by Kent Biffle that weekend?"
>
> <<<
>
> Nope, sure can't.
Right, so we can't put Biffle in the same category as Henry Wade.