Belzer, Baker, And Oswald

[David Von Pein]

http://Kennedy-Books-Videos.blogspot.com/2011/03/kennedy-catalog.html

I have added a few new entries to my "Kennedy Catalog" (linked above),
including a new 2012 book by Richard Belzer and David Wayne, entitled
"Dead Wrong: Straight Facts On The Country's Most Controversial Cover-
Ups" [Skyhorse Publishing; 528 pages]....

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1616086734?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1616086734&linkCode=xm2&tag=dvsre-20

You can read some sections of "Dead Wrong" at Amazon.com for free,
including Mr. Belzer's very weak argument behind this bold claim
(which Belzer does put in all capital letters in the book's Intro):

"IT WAS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR OSWALD TO HAVE SHOT PRESIDENT
KENNEDY!!! THANK YOU AND GOODNIGHT!"

The main reason, Belzer says, to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald could
not have physically murdered JFK is because the reconstructions of the
alleged movements of Oswald and the known movements of Dallas
policeman Marrion Baker were "rigged" by the Warren Commission,
permitting Baker to arrive in the second-floor lunchroom of the
Depository at just about the same time as Oswald would have arrived
there.

But what Belzer never mentions in his book's brief Introduction is the
fact that the man performing the Oswald portion of the reconstruction
(Secret Service agent John Howlett) did not run or trot at all in any
of the tests. He merely walked at two different speeds (normal and a
fast walk) when attempting to duplicate Oswald's movements from the
sixth floor to the lunchroom.

Quite obviously, therefore, if Oswald had been moving any faster than
Agent Howlett (and he probably was moving faster), it means that
Oswald could have easily gotten down to the second-floor lunchroom
sooner than Howlett did in the WC re-creations.

In addition, Belzer pouints to Commission Exhibit 3076, which is the
statement signed by Officer Baker in September of 1964 with the famous
"drinking a Coke" portion of the statement crossed out and initialed
by Baker.

Belzer, like almost all other conspiracy theorists, wants to believe
that BAKER HIMSELF wrote the words "drinking a Coke" on that document
we see in CE3076, when, in fact, it's clear from the handwriting that
Baker only initialed and signed that document, he did not write
anything else in it. Somebody else (probably an FBI man) wrote the
statement, and then Baker corrected the incorrect things in the
document--such as "drinking a Coke". Baker was quite clear in his WC
testimony (as was Roy Truly) that he did not see anything in Lee
Oswald's hands when Baker encountered him on 11/22/63.

Yeah, that's some great proof you've got there for Oswald's total
innocence, Mr. Belzer -- a set of reconstructions done by Baker and
Howlett (as you ignore the important point about Howlett moving at a
snail's pace during those tests) and a document which was obviously
not even written by Marrion L. Baker at all.

If the rest of the book is anything like that weak-sister Intro I read
on Amazon's website, then I have a feeling that the title of Mr.
Belzer's book would more aptly applied to his own conclusions (when it
comes to the JFK case anyway) -- "Dead Wrong".

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-baker-truly-and-coca-cola.html

[David Von Pein]

Addendum:

There's also the fact that Marrion Baker told the Warren Commission
that it likely took him LONGER on 11/22/63 to do the things that he
was re-creating for the Commission in March '64. And yet author
Richard Belzer thinks Baker's re-creation test was rigged to
intentionally slow him down, and yet Officer Baker said that the re-
creations were done too QUICKLY. Go figure.

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-13.html

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/15/2012 8:46 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> http://Kennedy-Books-Videos.blogspot.com/2011/03/kennedy-catalog.html
>
> I have added a few new entries to my "Kennedy Catalog" (linked above),
> including a new 2012 book by Richard Belzer and David Wayne, entitled
> "Dead Wrong: Straight Facts On The Country's Most Controversial Cover-
> Ups" [Skyhorse Publishing; 528 pages]....
>

You are wasting your intellectual capital on attack Richard Belzer? My
God, man, he's just some damn comedian. That's like asking us to take Dick
Gregory seriously. Our whole table at the conference openly laughed at him
when he started waving around the Nixon-Ruby memo. No one takes these
comedians seriously. It is a straw man argument for you to be attacking a
comedian. What next, your book denouncing the UFO theories?

[David Von Pein]

Belzer's book, declaring that "IT WAS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR OSWALD
TO HAVE SHOT PRESIDENT
KENNEDY" (which is an outright lie, of course), is currently the 147th
best-selling book at Amazon.com (as of 2 AM EDT on 8/17/12), which is
an incredibly good ranking there. Somebody's taking this comedian
seriously, no doubt.

[Anthony Marsh]

What was that famous saying that you can't fool all of the people all of
the time? Belzer is a kook.

[Ace Kefford]

Yean, I know. I love Belzer. But unfortunately he's like a lot of
dabblers who are successful in other fields. He knows more than the
average person about the case, but a lot less than the experts. Like me
going on about baseball "sabermetrics".

[burgundy]

Check the Couch film. Baker can be seen sprinting...SPRINTING... into the TSBD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OYN8VLf_04

And this from Roffman's "Presumed Guilty", chapter 8

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp8.html

The Alibi: Oswald's Actions after the Shots



The first person to see Oswald after the assassination was Dallas Patrolman Marrion Baker, who had been riding a motorcycle behind the last camera car in the motorcade. As he reached a position some 60 to 80 feet past the turn from Main Street onto Houston, Baker heard the first shot (3H246). Immediately after the last shot, he "revved up that motorcycle" and drove it to a point near a signal light on the northwest corner of Elm and Houston (3H247). From here Baker ran 45 feet to the main entrance of the Book Depository, pushing through people and quickly scanning the area. At the main entrance, Baker's shouts for the stairs were spontaneously answered by building manager Roy Truly as both men continued across the first floor to the northwest corner, where Truly hollered up twice for an elevator. When an elevator failed to descend, Truly led Baker up the adjacent steps to the second floor. From the second floor, Truly continued up the steps to the third; Baker, however, did not. The Report describes the situation:
On the second floor landing there is a small open area with a door at the east end. This door leads into a small vestibule, and another door leads from the vestibule into the second-floor lunchroom. The lunchroom door is usually open, but the first door is kept shut by a closing mechanism on the door. This vestibule door is solid except for a small glass window in the upper part of the door. As Baker reached the second floor, he was about 20 feet from the vestibule door. He intended to continue around to his left toward the stairway going up but through the window in the door he caught a fleeting glimpse of a man walking in the vestibule toward the lunchroom. (R151)
Baker ran into the vestibule with his pistol drawn and stopped the man, who turned out to be Lee Harvey Oswald. Truly, realizing that Baker was no longer following him, came down to the second floor and identified Oswald as one of his employees. The two men then continued up the stairs toward the Depository roof.
"In an effort to determine whether Oswald could have descended to the lunchroom from the sixth floor by the time Baker and Truly arrived," the Commission staged a timed reconstruction of events. The Commission knew that this encounter in the lunchroom such a short time after the shots could have provided Oswald with an alibi, thus exculpating him from involvement in the shooting. The reconstruction could not establish whether Oswald was at the sixth-floor window; it could, however, tell whether he was not. In the interest of determining the truth, it was vital that this reenactment be faithfully conducted, simulating the proper actions to the most accurate degree possible.
From beginning to end, the execution of the reconstruction was in disregard of the known actions of the participants, stretching -- if not by intent, certainly in effect -- the time consumed for Baker to have arrived on the second floor and shrinking the time for the "assassin's" descent.[1]
To begin with, the reconstruction of Baker's movements started at the wrong time. Baker testified that he revved up his motorcycle immediately after the last shot (3H247). However, Baker's time was clocked from a simulated first shot (3H252). To compare the time of the assassin's descent with that of Baker's ascent, the reconstruction obviously had to start after the last shot. Since the time span of the shots was, according to the Report, from 4.8 to over 7 seconds, the times obtained for Baker's movements are between 4.8 and 7 seconds in excess.
Although Baker testified that he was flanking the last "press" car in the motorcade (3H245), the record indicates that he was, in fact, flanking the last camera car -- the last of the convertibles carrying the various photographers, closer to the front of the procession than the vehicles carrying other press representatives. Baker said he was some 60 to 80 feet along Houston Street north of Main when he heard the first shot (3H246). Those in the last camera car were also in this general location at the time of the first shot (Jackson: 2H158; Couch: 6H156; Dillard: 6H163-64; Underwood: 6H169;). During the reconstruction, Baker drove his motorcycle from his location at the time of the first shot a distance of 180 to 200 feet to the point in front of the Depository at which he dismounted (3H247). However, since Baker had revved up his cycle immediately after the last shot on November 22, the distance he traveled in the reenactment was entirely too long. Since the motorcade advanced about 116 feet during the time span of the shots, the distance Baker should have driven in the reconstruction was no greater than 84 feet (200 - 116 = 84). This would have placed Baker near the intersection of Elm and Houston at the time he revved up his cycle, not 180 feet from it as was reconstructed. Likewise, the men in the last camera car recalled being in proximity to the intersection at the time of the last shot (Underwood: 6H169; Couch: 6H158; Jackson: 2H159).
With 116 feet extra to travel in a corresponding added time of 4.8 to 7 seconds, Baker was able to reach the front entrance of the Depository in only 15 seconds during the reconstruction (7H593). Had the reenactment properly started at the time of the last shot, it follows that Baker could have reached the main entrance in 8 to 10 seconds. Did Baker actually consume so little time in getting to the Depository on November 22?
The Commission made no effort to answer this question, leaving an incomplete and unreliable record. Billy Lovelady, Bill Shelley, Joe Molina, and several other employees were standing on the steps of the Depository's main entrance during the assassination. Lovelady and Shelley testified that another employee, Gloria Calvery, ran up to them and stated that the President had been shot; the three of them began to run west toward the parking lot, at which time they saw Truly and a police officer run into the Depository (6H329-31, 339). This story is contradicted by Molina, who contended that Truly (he did not notice Baker) ran into the main entrance before Gloria Calvery arrived (6H372). Mrs. Calvery was not called to testify, and the one statement by her to the FBI does not address this issue. From her position just east of the Stemmons Freeway sign on the north side of Elm (22H638), it does not seem likely that she could have made the 150-foot run to the main entrance in only 15 seconds. Yet, adding to this confusion is an affidavit that Shelly executed for the Dallas Police on November 22, 1963. Here he stated that he ran down to the "park" on Elm Street and met Gloria Calvery there (24H226). Obviously, the issue cannot be resolved through these witnesses.
While Molina felt that Truly ran into the Depository some 20 to 30 seconds after the shots (6H372), Lovelady and Shelley estimated that as much as three minutes had elapsed (6H329, 339). When Counsel Joe Ball cautioned Lovelady that "three minutes is a long time," Lovelady partially retracted because he did not have a watch then and could not be exact (6H339). Supporting Molina's estimate, Roy Truly told the Secret Service in December 1963 that Baker made his way to the front entrance "almost immediately" (CD87, Secret Service Control No. 491); almost a year later Truly said on a CBS News Special that Baker's arrival "was just a matter of seconds after the third shot."[2]
I was able to resolve the issue concerning Baker's arrival at the Depository through evidence strangely absent from the Commission's record. Malcolm Couch, riding in the last camera car (Camera Car 3), took some very important motion-picture footage immediately after the shots. Couch, whose car was almost at the intersection of Elm and Houston when the last shot sounded, immediately picked up his camera, made the proper adjustments, and began filming (6H158). Others in Camera Car 3 related how their car came to a stop or hesitated in the middle of the turn into Elm to let some of the photographers out (2H162; 6H165, 169). Couch's film begins slightly before the stop, just as the car was making the turn (6H158). From Couch's testimony and the scenes depicted in his film, in addition to the testimony of others in the same car, it can be determined that Couch began filming no more than 10 seconds after the last shot.[3]
The first portion of the Couch film depicts the crowds dispersing along the island at the northwest corner of Elm and Houston. The camera pans in a westerly direction as the grassy knoll and Elm Street come into view. In these beginning sequences, a motorcycle is visible, parked next to the north curb of Elm, very slightly west of a traffic light at the head of the island. Baker testified that he parked his cycle 10 feet east of this signal light (3H247-48). The position of the motorcycle in the Couch film is not in great conflict with the position at which Baker recalled having dismounted; it is doubtful that Baker paid much attention to the exact position of his motorcycle in those confused moments. It would appear that this cycle, identical with the others driven in the motorcade, must have been Baker's, for it is not visible in any photographs taken during the shots, including footage of that area by David Weigman,[4] and no other motorcycle officer arrived at that location in so short a time after the shots. No policeman appears on or around the cycle depicted in the Couch film.
Thus, photographic evidence known to, but never sought by, the Commission proves that Officer Baker had parked and dismounted his motorcycle within 10 seconds after the shots. Corroborative evidence is found in the testimony of Bob Jackson, also riding in Camera Car 3. Jackson told the Commission that after the last shot, as his car hesitated through the turn into Elm, he saw a policeman run up the Depository steps, toward the front door (2H164). This is entirely consistent with Baker's abandoned motorcycle's appearing at this same time in the Couch film.
During the Baker-Truly reconstructions, Baker reached the second floor in one minute and 30 seconds on the first attempt and one minute, 15 seconds on the second (3H252). Since Baker's simulated movements up to the time he reached the main entrance consumed 15 seconds (7H593), the actions subsequent to that must have been reenacted in a span of one minute to about 75 seconds. However, since Baker actually reached the main entrance within 10 seconds on November 22, the reconstructed time is cut by at least five seconds. Further reductions are in order.
Officer Baker described the manner in which he simulated his movements subsequent to dismounting his motorcycle:
From the time I got off the motorcycle we walked the first time and then we kind of run the second time from the motorcycle on into the building. (3H253)
Baker neither walked nor "kind of" ran to the Depository entrance on November 22. From his own description, he surveyed the scene as he was parking his cycle, and then "ran straight to" the main entrance (3H248-249). Billy Lovelady also swore that Baker was running (6H339). However, Truly provided the most graphic description of Baker's apparent "mad dash" to the building:
I saw a young motorcycle policeman run up to the building, up the steps to the entrance of our building. He ran right by me. And he was pushing people out of the way. He pushed a number of people out of the way before he got to me. I saw him coming through, I believe. As he ran up the stairway -- I mean up the steps, I was almost to the steps, and I ran up and caught up with him. (3H221; emphasis added)
Thus, walking through this part of the reconstruction was, as Harold Weisberg aptly termed it, pure fakery, unnecessarily and unfaithfully burdening Baker's time.[5] The Report, on the other hand, assures us that the time on November 22 would actually have been longer, because "no allowance was made for the special conditions which existed on the day of the assassination -- possible delayed reaction to the shot, jostling with the crowd of people on the steps and scanning the area along Elm Street and the Parkway" (R152-53). Had the Commission directed any significant effort to obtaining as many contemporaneous pictures as possible -- including those taken by Couch -- it could not have engaged in such excuse-making. Even at that, how could the Commission dare go to all the efforts of staging a reconstruction and then admit -- to its own advantage -- that it deliberately failed to simulate actions? As was discussed in chapter 1, this child's play was inexcusable as an effort bearing such weight in deciding Oswald's guilt. The Couch film eliminates the possibility that the factors mentioned in the Report could have slowed Baker down. As for "jostling with the crowd of people on the steps," the Report neglected to mention other disproof of this as a slowing factor. As Truly testified,
when the officer and I ran in, we were shouldering people aside in front of the building, so we possibly were slowed a little bit more coming in than we were when he and I came in on March 20 (date of the reconstruction). I don't believe so. But it wouldn't be enough to matter there. (3H228; emphasis added)

Burgundy

[Anthony Marsh]

You don't know that for a fact. What about the secretary who said that
she talked to Oswald right after the shooting? Are you claiming that
Oswald walked through her office to chat with her after being let go by
Baker?

[David Emerling]

On Thursday, August 16, 2012 5:20:24 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:


> You are wasting your intellectual capital on attack Richard Belzer? My
>
> God, man, he's just some damn comedian. That's like asking us to take Dick
>
> Gregory seriously. Our whole table at the conference openly laughed at him
>
> when he started waving around the Nixon-Ruby memo. No one takes these
>
> comedians seriously. It is a straw man argument for you to be attacking a
>
> comedian. What next, your book denouncing the UFO theories?
>
>
>
> > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1616086734?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1616086734&linkCode=xm2&tag=dvsre-20
>
> >
>
> > You can read some sections of "Dead Wrong" at Amazon.com for free,
>
> > including Mr. Belzer's very weak argument behind this bold claim
>
> > (which Belzer does put in all capital letters in the book's Intro):

And yet, it sounds as if Belzer's arguments for the impossibility of Oswald meeting Baker within the allotted time is quite familiar to me; the points being very similar (if not identical) to the many arguments posed by conspiracy theorists who claim to be "researchers". How do you know that Richard Belzer is any less of a "researcher" on the Kennedy assassination than YOU are, Tony? I assume you have some sort of occupation *other* than JFK assassination researcher.

Do you think Belzer's book is intended to be comedy?

Belzer *used* to be a comedian and has long since transitioned into serious acting roles as a deadpan, serious detective. I would not be surprised if Belzer did not fancy himself an accomplished investigator.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[David Emerling]

On Sunday, August 19, 2012 9:11:19 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> You don't know that for a fact. What about the secretary who said that
>
> she talked to Oswald right after the shooting? Are you claiming that
>
> Oswald walked through her office to chat with her after being let go by
>
> Baker?

You criticized Von Pein for being critical of a book written by a comedian. Yet, look how this discussion is going. Those who probably claim to be legitimate researchers are probably making the same arguments that Belzer made in his book. If people subscribe to Belzer's points, then it is irrelevant whether Belzer was a comedian, circus clown, or full-time JFK assassination researcher with a PhD. It is the POINTS that are under attack, not Belzer.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[David Von Pein]

DAVID EMERLING SAID:

>>> "You [Tony Marsh] criticized Von Pein for being critical of a book written by a comedian. Yet, look how this discussion is going. Those who probably claim to be legitimate researchers are probably making the same arguments that Belzer made in his book." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, yes, you're absolutely right about that, David. I didn't mean to
suggest that Richard Belzer's nonsense about the Baker/Howlett re-
creations was anything "new". Not at all. It's the same old tired junk
that CTers have tried to prop up to "prove" Oswald's innocence for
decades.

It's just that Belzer's all-caps "IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE" bunk in his book
caught my eye, so I decided to write a post about it.

BTW, that book ("Dead Wrong") is still selling amazingly well. As of
this writing, it's #46 at Amazon among all books sold there. That's
incredible, IMO.

And just think how many more people will gobble up Belzer's "OSWALD
COULDN'T HAVE DONE IT" malarkey, without even knowing about the little
tidbits concerning Howlett's snail-pace movements during his part of
the reconstruction.*

* = To be fair, I really have no idea whether Belzer (or co-writer
Wayne) have put anything in the book about Howlett's speed during the
'64 re-creations, because I have only read a small portion of the
introduction (for free) at Amazon. So it's possible that Belzer talks
about the stuff I mentioned earlier concerning Howlett's movements,
but I would kind of doubt that he does, because if he does, it would
pretty much destroy Belzer's "OSWALD HAS TO BE INNOCENT" intro piece.

[burgundy]

On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 7:46:24 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

Agreed.

Burgundy

[Anthony Marsh]

No, I didn't. I criticized DVP for wasting his time taking seriously a
comedian. He has lot of work still ahead of him collating and uploading
thousands of videos. He can't afford to get sidetracked on ridiculous
issues.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/23/2012 4:12 PM, David Emerling wrote:

> On Thursday, August 16, 2012 5:20:24 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>
>> You are wasting your intellectual capital on attack Richard Belzer? My
>>
>> God, man, he's just some damn comedian. That's like asking us to take Dick
>>
>> Gregory seriously. Our whole table at the conference openly laughed at him
>>
>> when he started waving around the Nixon-Ruby memo. No one takes these
>>
>> comedians seriously. It is a straw man argument for you to be attacking a
>>
>> comedian. What next, your book denouncing the UFO theories?
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1616086734?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1616086734&linkCode=xm2&tag=dvsre-20
>>
>>>
>>
>>> You can read some sections of "Dead Wrong" at Amazon.com for free,
>>
>>> including Mr. Belzer's very weak argument behind this bold claim
>>
>>> (which Belzer does put in all capital letters in the book's Intro):
>
> And yet, it sounds as if Belzer's arguments for the impossibility of Oswald meeting Baker within the allotted time is quite familiar to me; the points being very similar (if not identical) to the many arguments posed by conspiracy theorists who claim to be "researchers". How do you know that Richard Belzer is any less of a "researcher" on the Kennedy assassination than YOU are, Tony? I assume you have some sort of occupation *other* than JFK assassination researcher.
>

Yes, Belzer is much less of a researcher than I am. Yes, Belcher is much
less of a human being than I am.
No, I do not have an occupation. I am retired.

> Do you think Belzer's book is intended to be comedy?
>

No. He's a kook who thinks only he can see the Truth.

> Belzer *used* to be a comedian and has long since transitioned into serious acting roles as a deadpan, serious detective. I would not be surprised if Belzer did not fancy himself an accomplished investigator.
>

I am not impressed by actors.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[burgundy]

On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 7:46:24 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

Could someone please explain this line of thinking?

QUOTE ON

Belcher is much
less of a human being than I am.

QUOTE OFF

Burgundy

[David Von Pein]

"DC DAVE" SAID [AT AMAZON]:

Nice of you to ignore 99.9% of what is in [Richard Belzer's] book [called
"Dead Wrong"] and call it a review.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

If the authors can be so blatantly wrong about something so incredibly
easy to research (the Baker/Howlett/Oswald timelines and reconstructions),
and they are wrong, then I hate to think what other myths have been turned
into proven "facts" by the co-authors of this book.

And if Belzer can't be trusted to tell the truth even in his INTRODUCTION
to his book (and it's obvious he can't), I have no reason to suspect that
the innards of the book are any better.

In fact, I'd be willing to wager that the inaccurate conspiracy nonsense
gets MUCH, much worse as the book progresses, with one already-debunked
myth being spouted after another. That's almost certainly true. I'd bet my
next CIA Disinfo check on it.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1143.html

[Jason Burke]

We're not supposed to talk about the eck-chay isinfo-day.

[Anthony Marsh]

Hey, he's a comedian, not a researcher. That's like accusing Stephen
King of writing history books, or for that matter, Billo.

[bigdog]

You guys are getting paid to do this?

[Ralph Cinque]

Baker saw Oswald entering the lunch room from the office side. It's the
only way he could have seen Oswald through the glass. Oswald did not come
down from the 6th floor, and he did not use the rear stairs. He used the
front stairs, which were next to the doorway in the northeast corner of
the building. And, he traced his steps going down, which is why he had an
encounter with Mrs. Reid in the office area. Oswald did not use the rear
stairs. He used the front stairs because he came from the front of the
building. And he left the doorway early. That's the only way he could have
beat Baker to the lunch room- slightly. It all makes perfect sense and
works out perfectly time-wise if you realize where Oswald was during the
motorcade, which was in the doorway.

[Anthony Marsh]

Are you?

[Jason Burke]

Damn. You blew our cover.