A Victoria Adams Expert
John McAdams
becoming specialized."
http://mysite.verizon.net/restu5kb/index.html
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Sean Murphy
> Reminds me of the joke, the punch line of which is "my, my aren't we
> becoming specialized."
>
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/restu5kb/index.html
>
> .John
>
> --
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Sandra Styles mentioned to me that this author had contacted her some
years ago. She even knew the name of the book (which I hadn't heard of
myself).
Sandra claimed she told Ernest what she was now telling me: that she and
Victoria Adams did *not* go to the rear stairs anything close to as
quickly as Victoria had claimed.
I find it a little worrying that there is no mention of Sandra's
counter-version in any of the promotional material linked here. Why is the
book not titled 'The GirlS On The Stairs'? It will be interesting to see
how Ernest deals with Sandra's information.
Sean
WhiskyJoe
> A Victoria Adams Expert
> Reminds me of the joke, the punch line of which is
> "my, my aren't we becoming specialized."
This does seem a bit odd of a field to specialize in.
It would make more sense to become an expert on the
models of Victoria Secrets.
WhiskyJoe
> Sandra claimed she told Ernest what she was now
> telling me: that she and Victoria Adams did
> *not* go to the rear stairs anything close to
> as quickly as Victoria had claimed.
> I find it a little worrying that there is no
> mention of Sandra's counter-version in any of
> the promotional material linked here. Why is
> the book not titled 'The GirlS On The Stairs'?
> It will be interesting to see how Ernest deals
> with Sandra's information.
I will be even more interested to know, that if
he thinks Adams and Styles were descending the
stairs at the critical time, let's say T+80
seconds, on the stairs around the second floor,
proving Oswald could not have used the stairs,
how Adams and Styles avoided seeing Baker and
Truly and how Baker and Truly avoided seeing
Adams and Styles.
Anthony Marsh
Sure. If Adams and Styles were between the second floor and the third
floor Baker and Truly would have just missed seeing them when they went
into the lunch room.
WhiskyJoe
In which case they would also have missed seeing Oswald
who would be on the stairs ahead of them when he got to
the lunchroom just ahead of Baker and Truly and even more
ahead of Adams and Styles.
Also it would be strange that Adams and Styles sneaked past
the second floor without seeing Baker or Truly or Baker or Truly
seeing or hearing them.
***************************************************
Oh, I suppose if one carefully constructs a scenario it would
be barely possible.
Adams and Styles came down the stairs exactly when Oswald did,
if he was coming down from the sixth floor. When Adams and Styles,
reached the third floor, they paused, just long enough for Baker and
Truly to enter the second floor, then Adams and Styles sneaked
past the second floor while Baker and Truly confronted Oswald,
and continued down to the first floor. Then Baker and Truly
continued upward without anyone seeing Adams and Styles
and Adams and Styles just missed seeing anyone.
About as contrived a scenario as one can come up with, with split
second timing.
Essentially Adams and Styles needed to meet Baker and Truly
on the stairs to provide any kind of an alibi that Oswald was not
on the stairs.
curtjester1
It is one issue that is so frustrating, especially when their re-
enactments could have been so evidence worthy. Typical of so many things
in the case. Griffith takes it to a big level in his treatise:
http://www.beyondweird.com/conspiracies/cncka003.html
So does Roffman (Howard in ratville) in his, and I think makes it very
clear that an Oswald would have had to been superfast being's that the
door that shut to the lunchroom was an automatic door and would have
closed very slowly, so a Truly and Baker would have had to see that. There
he also explained that there was a corridor without needing that way
through the office and into the vestule right by the lunchroom that Oswald
could have gone if going from the first floor.
The stairs were also wooden and creaky. It's hard to fathom all the time
of cleaning a rifle and discarding (very carefully) under heavy boxes,
looking out the window. moving boxes..etc. etc. that anyone was descending
those stairs for a Baker-Truly meeting, IMO.
CJ
curtjester1
I forgot to mention that in that Griffith article, Lovelady said he
went right back in the TSBD which makes all that Shelley-Adams stuff
all the more controversial.
CJ
Anthony Marsh
and the other is in the lunchroom? Why didn't Baker hear or see Oswald
coming down the stairway according to your theory of superhuman vision
and hearing?
> ***************************************************
>
> Oh, I suppose if one carefully constructs a scenario it would
> be barely possible.
>
Could be what happened. We don't know.
> Adams and Styles came down the stairs exactly when Oswald did,
> if he was coming down from the sixth floor. When Adams and Styles,
> reached the third floor, they paused, just long enough for Baker and
> Truly to enter the second floor, then Adams and Styles sneaked
> past the second floor while Baker and Truly confronted Oswald,
> and continued down to the first floor. Then Baker and Truly
> continued upward without anyone seeing Adams and Styles
> and Adams and Styles just missed seeing anyone.
>
> About as contrived a scenario as one can come up with, with split
> second timing.
>
Sounds like one of those movies where everyone keeps going through doors
and misses each other, like the Marx Brothers.
Sean Murphy
> It is one issue that is so frustrating, especially when their re-
> enactments could have been so evidence worthy. Typical of so many things
> in the case. Griffith takes it to a big level in his treatise:
>
> http://www.beyondweird.com/conspiracies/cncka003.html
>
> So does Roffman (Howard in ratville) in his, and I think makes it very
> clear that an Oswald would have had to been superfast being's that the
> door that shut to the lunchroom was an automatic door and would have
> closed very slowly, so a Truly and Baker would have had to see that.
Hmmm. The SS reconstruction film shows the door closing pretty quickly.
But a man who goes through that door en route to the lunchroom before Roy
Truly has hit the second-floor landing will be completely out of Baker's
line-of-sight by the time Baker comes off the stairs. Indeed the angle
from door to lunchroom is such that he will have all but disappeared even
before the the door has closed. Bye bye Warren Report scenario.
Even Dale Myers and Jean Davison acknowledge this problem, albeit each
then goes on to offer a pitifully contrived and unconvincing solution that
keeps the cherished Oswald-Did-It fairytale intact. But it's all probably
academic: Baker's 11/22/63 affidavit talks about a man walking away from
the rear stairway on the third or fourth floor.
Sean Murphy
> went right back in the TSBD which makes all that Shelley-Adams stuff
> all the more controversial.
>
> CJ
Harold Norman told the HSCA that Lovelady personally witnessed Oswald
being allowed out the front entrance by cops shortly after the
assassination.
Sean Murphy
> Why would they see or hear each other when one couple is on the stairway
> and the other is in the lunchroom?
Baker & Truly's WC testimony puts neither in the lunchroom.
Sean Murphy
>
> About as contrived a scenario as one can come up with, with split
> second timing.
Agreed. It's pretty absurd. Besides, Sandra Styles made it clear that
their descent was significantly later.
>
> Essentially Adams and Styles needed to meet Baker and Truly
> on the stairs to provide any kind of an alibi that Oswald was not
> on the stairs.
Likewise, Jack Dougherty needed to be in Oswald's flight path to
provide an alibi that Oswald did not come down the stairs.
Right?
curtjester1
> On Jan 31, 6:16 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > It is one issue that is so frustrating, especially when their re-
>
> > enactments could have been so evidence worthy. Typical of so many things
> > in the case. Griffith takes it to a big level in his treatise:
>
> >http://www.beyondweird.com/conspiracies/cncka003.html
>
> > So does Roffman (Howard in ratville) in his, and I think makes it very
> > clear that an Oswald would have had to been superfast being's that the
> > door that shut to the lunchroom was an automatic door and would have
> > closed very slowly, so a Truly and Baker would have had to see that.
>
> Hmmm. The SS reconstruction film shows the door closing pretty quickly.
>
Still would have had to be observed unless a suspect was just sitting
there at the door....
> But a man who goes through that door en route to the lunchroom before Roy
> Truly has hit the second-floor landing will be completely out of Baker's
> line-of-sight by the time Baker comes off the stairs. Indeed the angle
> from door to lunchroom is such that he will have all but disappeared even
> before the the door has closed. Bye bye Warren Report scenario.
>
Yep, plus a few more details that Roffman disects very well: 2/3's to
3/4's down
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp8.html
> Even Dale Myers and Jean Davison acknowledge this problem, albeit each
> then goes on to offer a pitifully contrived and unconvincing solution that
> keeps the cherished Oswald-Did-It fairytale intact. But it's all probably
> academic: Baker's 11/22/63 affidavit talks about a man walking away from
> the rear stairway on the third or fourth floor.
Like all LNerisms, it takes it to the probability brink...
CJ
curtjester1
That is extremely interesting. I think it could have huge
implications, and even allow for a doppleganger theory which could
explain the anomolies in dress say between a Mrs. Reid and Truly and
Baker...
CJ
Sean Murphy
> > Harold Norman told the HSCA that Lovelady personally witnessed Oswald
> > being allowed out the front entrance by cops shortly after the
> > assassination.
>
> That is extremely interesting. I think it could have huge
> implications, and even allow for a doppleganger theory which could
> explain the anomolies in dress say between a Mrs. Reid and Truly and
> Baker...
>
> CJ
Again, Baker's 11/22 affidavit may give us the key here: a man walking
away from the stairway on the third or fourth floor. Harry Holmes recalled
that Oswald told Fritz HIS officer incident took place at the front
entrance - a claim corroborated independently by what DPD were telling
press 11/22 and by Norman's HSCA information re. Lovelady.
Incidentally, it's curious that a couple of films show Billy Lovelady
standing smoking a cigarette on the front steps several minutes after the
assassination. How did he get back out of the building?
WhiskyJoe
> Why would they see or hear each other when one
> couple is on the stairway and the other is in
> the lunchroom? Why didn't Baker hear or see
> Oswald coming down the stairway according to
> your theory of superhuman vision and hearing?
Baker and Truly did not encounter Oswald on the
stairs because Oswald left the stairs on the
second floor. Baker and Truly should have
encountered Adams and Styles because they did
not leave the stairs until the first floor.
It is impossible for Baker and Truly to pass Adams
and Styles on the stairs without anyone seeing
either group, even if they only have normal
senses and not superhuman senses.
The only way the two groups could miss each other
is if Adams and Styles sneaked past the second
floor on the stairs while Baker and Truly
confronted Oswald. In which case Adams and
Styles were coming down the stairs too late to
see Oswald, whether he used the stairs or not.
Therefore, Adams and Styles cannot be used as a
alibi for Oswald not being on the stairs.
Therefore, it is a waste of time for that guy
to become an expert of Virginia Adams.
curtjester1
> > Why would they see or hear each other when one
> > couple is on the stairway and the other is in
> > the lunchroom? Why didn't Baker hear or see
> > Oswald coming down the stairway according to
> > your theory of superhuman vision and hearing?
>
> Baker and Truly did not encounter Oswald on the
> stairs because Oswald left the stairs on the
> second floor. Baker and Truly should have
> encountered Adams and Styles because they did
> not leave the stairs until the first floor.
>
going in a set of doors to the second floor lunchroom.
Adams and Styles would not necessarily have to encountered anyone. It
depends on corroborated times and/or paths, which there is none.
> It is impossible for Baker and Truly to pass Adams
> and Styles on the stairs without anyone seeing
> either group, even if they only have normal
> senses and not superhuman senses.
>
Either person (Styles and Adams).
> The only way the two groups could miss each other
> is if Adams and Styles sneaked past the second
> floor on the stairs while Baker and Truly
> confronted Oswald. In which case Adams and
> Styles were coming down the stairs too late to
> see Oswald, whether he used the stairs or not.
>
Or they descended prior to Baker and Truly ascending. Adams said the
time after the shooting and the time she made it to the bottom was 1
minute.
"whether he used the stairs or not" (Oswald). Good. It's provable
that he could have ascended to the second floor, or there could have
been another suspect besides Oswald that could have descended.
> Therefore, Adams and Styles cannot be used as a
> alibi for Oswald not being on the stairs.
> Therefore, it is a waste of time for that guy
> to become an expert of Virginia Adams.
Not unless you can get more precise verifications. Maybe there was
someone in the office where they were at the tme of the shooting to
have a good idea how long it took them to get to the stairwell?
CJ
WhiskyJoe
>> Therefore, Adams and Styles cannot be used as a
>> alibi for Oswald not being on the stairs.
>> Therefore, it is a waste of time for that guy
>> to become an expert of Virginia Adams.
> Not unless you can get more precise verifications.
We have all the data we need to know that Adams
and Styles cannot help us in determining if
Oswald went down the stairs just prior to
meeting Baker and Truly.
First, if one knows that:
* Oswald may have descended the stairs immediately
after the shooting.
* Adams and Styles did descend the stairs, possibly
immediately after the shooting.
it is unlikely that Adams and Styles can help us.
Adams and Styles are heading in the same direction
as Oswald. If they were coming down 10 seconds too
soon or 10 seconds too late, Oswald could have
easily avoided being seen.
If Adams and Styles meet Baker and Truly just after
leaving the stairs on the first floor, that is too
soon. Oswald could be on the stairs approaching the
second floor as Adams and Styles passed by Baker and
Truly.
If Adams and Styles meet Baker and Truly just
after Baker and Truly confront Oswald, that is
too late. Oswald could have entered the second
floor while Adams and Styles were descending at
the fourth floor.
If Adams and Styles passed the second floor while
Baker and Truly confront Oswald, that is too late.
Oswald could have entered the second floor while
Adams and Styles were descending at the third floor.
Only if Adams and Styles pass Baker and Truly
between the first and second floor, would we
have something. As the two pairs pass, Oswald
could not be entering the second floor, because
he would have been walking with or too close to
Adams and Styles.
But as it is, Adams and Styles didn't meet Baker
and Truly on the first, second, third or fourth
floor. Clearly they did not descend the stairs
at the critical time, not at the same time Oswald
allegedly did. They cannot help us determine if
Oswald was coming down the stairs a few seconds
before he was confronted by Baker.
Anthony Marsh
>
>>> Therefore, Adams and Styles cannot be used as a
>>> alibi for Oswald not being on the stairs.
>>> Therefore, it is a waste of time for that guy
>>> to become an expert of Virginia Adams.
>
>> Not unless you can get more precise verifications.
>
> We have all the data we need to know that Adams
> and Styles cannot help us in determining if
> Oswald went down the stairs just prior to
> meeting Baker and Truly.
>
> First, if one knows that:
>
> * Oswald may have descended the stairs immediately
> after the shooting.
>
Immediately as in not stopping to wipe off fingerprints and hide the rifle?
> * Adams and Styles did descend the stairs, possibly
> immediately after the shooting.
>
Are you playing nice by assuming that Adams and Styles were telling the
truth?
> it is unlikely that Adams and Styles can help us.
> Adams and Styles are heading in the same direction
> as Oswald. If they were coming down 10 seconds too
> soon or 10 seconds too late, Oswald could have
> easily avoided being seen.
>
How about adding a scenario where Oswald saw them and had to slow down
to wait for them to not see him? That way you might bump the total time
up to 2 minutes.
> If Adams and Styles meet Baker and Truly just after
> leaving the stairs on the first floor, that is too
> soon. Oswald could be on the stairs approaching the
> second floor as Adams and Styles passed by Baker and
> Truly.
>
> If Adams and Styles meet Baker and Truly just
> after Baker and Truly confront Oswald, that is
> too late. Oswald could have entered the second
> floor while Adams and Styles were descending at
> the fourth floor.
>
> If Adams and Styles passed the second floor while
> Baker and Truly confront Oswald, that is too late.
> Oswald could have entered the second floor while
> Adams and Styles were descending at the third floor.
>
Please, slow down, you're giving me a headache.
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think the key would be why Styles and Adams wouldn't see a Truly and
a Baker. If they were too fast, they would have had to be really
fast, as they should have met at the bottom where Truly/Baker
ascended. If they were slow, how would it be that they missed the
action going on in the lunchroom? If a suspect were ahead of them and
before a Baker/Truly, they could have been most likely in a time
element to see the slow moving door close. Of course this slow moving
door and a Styles/Adams precise grilling along with office workers
would have been ideal in a good investigation, but here was virtually
ignored. As it stands, one has to wonder what the testimony relates
as the only way of linking an Oswald or suspect at all, and that's
with the suspicious Baker scenario, and the suspect of having to be
hiding in the only one possible spot that would make him available to
be seen, at a window right behind the foyer door off that 2nd floor
stairwell. Here's Bakers take and some of the potentials of that:
from Mike Griffiths....2001
Baker said he spotted Oswald from the second-floor landing just after
he (Baker) reached the landing, when he looked through the small
window of the foyer door. Recounted Baker,
. . . I was coming out this one on the second floor, and I don't know,
I was kind of sweeping [visually] this area as I come up, I was
looking from right to left and as I got to this door here I caught a
glimpse of this man, just, you know, a sudden glimpse. . . . (WCR
151)
Baker said Oswald was about 20 feet away when he caught a glimpse of
him, which would have put Oswald right next to the foyer door. Baker,
according to the Warren Commission, then walked through the foyer door
and saw Oswald in the lunchroom (WCR 151). Oswald had continued
walking and thus was still about 20 feet from Baker. [1] Is this how
it happened? There are problems with Baker's account.
With the foyer door shut, the window would have been at a 45-degree
angle to Baker. In all probability, that door, which was an automatic
door, was already closed when Baker looked through its small window.
However, in his WC testimony, Baker suggested that the door "might"
have been moving. There is reason to question his word on this point.
Among other things, this was the first and only time that Baker
suggested the door might have been in motion. Truly said nothing about
the door having been in motion, and his testimony indicates that he
looked at the door when he reached the landing (the door would have
been right in the middle of his field of view; more will be said on
this point further below).
If the door was still moving, it must have been nearly shut, or else
Baker would have had an even harder time seeing anything through the
window. Baker himself said that the door "might have been . . .
closing and almost shut at that time." In other words, even Baker
indicated that if the door was in fact moving it was "almost shut at
that time." Additionally, if Oswald was 20 feet from Baker when Baker
spotted him, then Oswald would have been no more than a foot past the
foyer door, in which case the door--with its slow automatic closing
mechanism--would not have had enough time to close or nearly close if
Oswald had just gone through it.
Another problem with Baker's account is that Baker said he wasn't even
sure if Oswald had gone through the foyer door (3 H 255). Now this is
very odd indeed. If Baker spotted Oswald through the foyer door a
second or two after reaching the top of the stairs, and if the door
was "almost shut" when Baker looked at it, and if Oswald was no more
than a foot beyond the door at the time (as he would have had to be
for Baker to see him), how, then, could Baker have had any doubt about
whether Oswald had walked through that door? (If someone wants to
propose that Baker was referring to the lunchroom door, though he
clearly wasn't, then his uncertainty becomes even more astounding. How
in the world could Baker have had any doubt that Oswald had just gone
through the lunchroom door to reach the lunchroom?)
Perhaps the most serious problem with Baker's account is that if
Oswald was only a foot past the foyer door when he spotted him, then
Roy Truly, who was running ahead of Baker, surely would have seen
Oswald either coming off the stairs, or walking across the landing
toward the door, or opening the door. The Commission itself admitted
that Oswald must have gone through the foyer door only "a second or
two" before being spotted by Baker:
Since the vestibule [foyer] door is only a few feet from the lunchroom
door, the man [Oswald] must have entered the vestibule door only a
second or two before Baker arrived at the top of the stairwell. Yet he
must have entered the vestibule door before Truly reached the top of
the stairwell [leading to the second-floor landing], since Truly did
not see him. (WCR 151)
But the Commission never explained how Oswald could have done this. If
Oswald had gone through the foyer door before Truly reached the top of
the stairs, he would have been several feet beyond the door by the
time Baker reached the landing, and thus would not have been visible
to Baker through the window. And, if Oswald had entered the door "only
a second or two" before Baker reached the top of the stairwell, then
Truly could not have missed seeing him. Nor did the Commission explain
how Baker could have been the least bit unsure about whether or not
Oswald had gone through the foyer door if Baker spotted Oswald right
next to the door and if the door was in any kind of motion at the
time.
Truly told the WC that he had already started up the stairs to the
third floor when he noticed that Baker was no longer running behind
him. Truly also said there was slightly more distance between him and
Baker on the second floor than there was on the first floor. So, it is
reasonable to assume that Truly gained a view of the second-floor
landing a minimum of 2 seconds before Baker did. Truly's account
suggests that Baker was beginning to tire on his way up the stairs.
(This is understandable, given the fact that Baker had been running
very fast virtually every second after he got off his bike.) Baker
himself said that when he arrived to the landing and began to scan it,
Truly "had already started around the bend to come to the next
elevation going up" (3 H 255). Thus, if Oswald had gone through the
foyer door "a second or two" before Baker spotted him, Truly could not
possibly have missed seeing Oswald coming off the stairs, or
approaching the door, or starting to open the door.
Truly told the Commission that he was already in the process of "going
around" to the third-floor stairs at the time Baker would have seen
the alleged movement in the foyer door's window (3 H 226; cf. 3 H
223-224). Interestingly, Truly testified that he knew nothing about
Baker's having supposedly spotted movement through the door's window
until a few days before he testified (3 H 226). Said Truly, "I never
knew until a day or two ago that he said he saw a movement, saw a man
going away from him" (3 H 226). Does it not seem odd that Baker would
not have mentioned this to Truly when he asked Truly if he knew Oswald
when they were standing there in the lunchroom? Does it not seem
somewhat curious that Baker didn't say anything about this to Truly as
the two of them continued up the stairs and to other parts of the
building? One can't be faulted for wondering why Baker, if he had just
seen Oswald right next to and walking away from the foyer door, didn't
ask Truly, when Truly arrived to the lunchroom, something along the
lines of "Hey, I just saw this guy walking away from that door over
there, so are you sure he's OK?" Nor can one be faulted for wondering
why Baker, as he and Truly continued their search of the building,
didn't say to Truly, "About that guy we just saw downstairs in that
lunchroom, you know I saw him right next to that foyer door, and he
was walking away from it. So are you sure he's legit? You're sure he's
OK?"
At this point it should be noted out that in two of his statements
Baker said Oswald was walking away from him when he spotted him. But,
in another statement, Baker said Oswald was standing in the lunchroom
when he saw him there. Moreover, on November 22, Truly said Baker
didn't see Oswald until Baker "stuck his head into the lunchroom
area." After studying a photograph of the view Baker would have had of
the foyer door just after he reached the second-floor landing, I do
not believe Baker spotted Oswald in the manner he described to the WC.
This photo can be seen on page 286 of Gary Savage's book JFK: First
Day Evidence (photo number 140). It is clear from this picture that in
order for Baker to have "spotted" any kind of "movement" by Oswald
near that door, Oswald would have had to be no more than a foot beyond
the door. But, again, the door would not have had time to close or
nearly close by that time, and Truly could not have missed seeing
Oswald coming off the stairs or crossing the landing as he approached
the door. Another telling photograph is CE 741, which is a picture
taken of the foyer door from inside the lunchroom. This photo likewise
makes it clear that Oswald would have had to be no more than a foot
past the foyer door in order for Baker to have seen any "movement" on
his part through the door's window (see Savage 289, photo number 143).
I believe Baker ran over to the door in order to glance through the
window and then saw Oswald in the lunchroom. Nevertheless, I have
assumed for the sake of argument that Baker spotted Oswald just after
he reached the second-floor landing
CJ
Sean Murphy
> I believe Baker ran over to the door in order to glance through the
> window and then saw Oswald in the lunchroom.
I find Griffith's scenario here very hard to credit.
Why on earth would Baker be interested in checking out what's behind
that door? His goal is to get to the roof as quickly as possible. He
needs a damn good reason to have his progress retarded. This scenario
gives him none. (On his way down from the roof, he will make a point
of taking a look around certain floors on the off-chance of finding
something. But not on the way up.)
His 11/22/63 affidavit, on the other hand, gives a simple,
intelligible scenario: a man "walking away from the stairway". A man
doing this is clearly a man behaving suspiciously. He is doing what
one would expect a fleeing assassin to do. Baker's challenging of this
man thus makes perfect sense.
Seems to me that Baker's WC story, involving an indeterminate movement
glimpsed behind the door followed by a confrontation on the threshold
of the lunchroom, is a hopelessly clumsy attempt to merge two stories:
the affidavit incident (a man 'walking away from the stairway') and a
lunchroom encounter (Oswald in the lunchroom).
curtjester1
In all honesty, Sean, i don't see anything clearcut, and having seen
Oswald is just as unclear as a lot of potential stuff. Even IF Oswald
was just hiding behind the door, it wouldn't mean that he went in that
door. He could have been in that lunchroom by going through the
offices and othe vestibule leading to the lunchroom. Being behind the
door is the only plausible way of a Baker being able to see at a
glance. If he just went over there without seeing, it wouldn't seem
plausible unless Baker knew of something in advance and was in on 'a
search' from the beginning. It really is just one opinion weighed vs.
another. I don't really buy going up to the top either. What is up
'there' as opposed to anywhere else? I think Baker also well could
have put in the seeing the door close scenario as it would make it
appear that it was plausible to check the window on the door. He had
a lot of time to contemplate what was riding on him fingering Oswald
by the time he testified. I don't see this lunchroom thing happening
way later. Too many saw Oswald leave at a time that would preclude
anything later.
Just as a sidenote. The person walking through Mrs. Hughes office
doesn't seem to fit the person who was confronted by Baker and Truly.
She saw that person with a white tee shirt, and Baker saw the brown
long sleeved shirt.
I also believe that Oswald would have had to be in on keeping out of
the way, if the controllers of the assassination were to have anyway
of pinning a patsy portrayal on him.
CJ
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 5, 6:49 pm, curtjester1<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I believe Baker ran over to the door in order to glance through the
>> window and then saw Oswald in the lunchroom.
>
> I find Griffith's scenario here very hard to credit.
> Why on earth would Baker be interested in checking out what's behind
> that door? His goal is to get to the roof as quickly as possible. He
> needs a damn good reason to have his progress retarded. This scenario
> gives him none. (On his way down from the roof, he will make a point
> of taking a look around certain floors on the off-chance of finding
> something. But not on the way up.)
> His 11/22/63 affidavit, on the other hand, gives a simple,
> intelligible scenario: a man "walking away from the stairway". A man
> doing this is clearly a man behaving suspiciously. He is doing what
Wow, walking away from the stairway is behaving suspiciously??
How about the Coke in his hand? That's highly suspicious when everyone
knew that Dr. Pepper was his favorite drink.
> one would expect a fleeing assassin to do. Baker's challenging of this
> man thus makes perfect sense.
Walking across the floor is fleeing? Baker must have passed several
people on the way who were simply walking across the room. Were they all
suspects? Baker was looking for a stranger. That's why he let Oswald go.
Sean Murphy
> In all honesty, Sean, i don't see anything clearcut, and having seen
> Oswald is just as unclear as a lot of potential stuff. Even IF Oswald
> was just hiding behind the door, it wouldn't mean that he went in that
> door. He could have been in that lunchroom by going through the
> offices and othe vestibule leading to the lunchroom. Being behind the
> door is the only plausible way of a Baker being able to see at a
> glance.
Agreed.
And it's just possible that Robert Groden's claimed interview with a
witness - Geneva Hine, presumably - who said she was with Oswald in the
second-floor office area at the time of the assassination, giving him
change for the coke machine, may bear out Griffith's case that Oswald was
coming from there when he was spotted by Baker. However - and sorry to
labour the point - Baker's 11/22 affidavit speaks of a man "walking away
from the stairway". That phrase is extremely odd if Baker is recalling a
man glimpsed behind a closed door. How on earth is such a man "walking
away from the stairway"? A look at photos of the area makes the problem
painfully clear. And that's without even considering the fact that Baker's
first-day statement puts the incident several floors up rather than just
one. (According to Marvin Johnson, Baker was talking that afternoon of the
fourth floor.) And talks of a man wearing a "light brown jacket". Just how
many elementary 'mistakes' are we prepared to grant a trained officer?
Did Baker encounter someone other than Oswald on a floor other than the
second? I believe so. And did he really encounter Oswald in the lunchroom?
I doubt it.
***
> If he just went over there without seeing, it wouldn't seem
> plausible unless Baker knew of something in advance and was in on 'a
> search' from the beginning.
Yes, and that notion is a complete non-starter in my opinion. Apart from
anything else, an 'in-on-it' Baker would hardly have let Oswald go. Nor
would he have subsequently described Oswald as calm and unruffled.
***
>It really is just one opinion weighed vs.
> another. I don't really buy going up to the top either. What is up
> 'there' as opposed to anywhere else?
Well, Baker thought the shots may have come from the top of the
building. It makes sense that he should race up there.
***
> I think Baker also well could
> have put in the seeing the door close scenario as it would make it
> appear that it was plausible to check the window on the door.
Again, I think the original - and fake - story was that Baker had popped
his head into the lunchroom and happened to see Oswald in there. The
complete discrepancy between this and Baker's affidavit story of seeing a
man walking away from the stairway forced the subsequent introduction of
an element of *movement* into the thing: Oswald walking 'away' into the
lunchroom. But the stories simply don't harmonise. That damn door. Those
damn angles.
***
> He had
> a lot of time to contemplate what was riding on him fingering Oswald
> by the time he testified. I don't see this lunchroom thing happening
> way later. Too many saw Oswald leave at a time that would preclude
> anything later.
It seems Oswald was actually challenged by a cop at the front door - an
incident witnessed by Billy Lovelady. Thanks to Ed Hicks, Harry Holmes and
Harold Norman, the incident wasn't completely scrubbed from the official
record.
***
> Just as a sidenote. The person walking through Mrs. Hughes office
> doesn't seem to fit the person who was confronted by Baker and Truly.
> She saw that person with a white tee shirt, and Baker saw the brown
> long sleeved shirt.
You mean Mrs Reid?
Again Baker's 11/22 affidavit speaks of a "light brown jacket", not a
shirt.
***
> I also believe that Oswald would have had to be in on keeping out of
> the way, if the controllers of the assassination were to have anyway
> of pinning a patsy portrayal on him.
Yes, they would have had to contrive a means of keeping him indoors. A
phone-call has been suggested. (There was a phone for employees' use near
the domino room at the rear of the first floor - which is where Oswald
reportedly told Fritz he was at the time of the shooting and which is
where Baker recalled seeing two *white* men as he and Truly tried to call
the elevator. Who were these white men? The best answer LNers can come up
with is: two black men!)
What the conspirators didn't predict was that a cop would rush into the
building with the heroic speed of Marion Baker. His actions were a
game-changer: they give us the key to Oswald's innocence, and they
establish the presence of a suspicious and unaccounted-for white male,
other than Oswald, coming down the rear stairs just after the shooting.
Sean
Sean Murphy
> On 2/6/2011 10:55 AM, Sean Murphy wrote:
>
> > His 11/22/63 affidavit, on the other hand, gives a simple,
> > intelligible scenario: a man "walking away from the stairway". A man
> > doing this is clearly a man behaving suspiciously. He is doing what
>
> Wow, walking away from the stairway is behaving suspiciously??
On the third or fourth floor? Of course it is.
> How about the Coke in his hand? That's highly suspicious when everyone
> knew that Dr. Pepper was his favorite drink.
Baker's 11/22 affidavit speaks of a man with a Coke in his hand? Gosh,
thanks for the new information.
> > one would expect a fleeing assassin to do. Baker's challenging of this
> > man thus makes perfect sense.
>
> Walking across the floor is fleeing?
Walking away from the rear stairway on the third or fourth floor just
after a shooting that has taken place on a higher floor... no, nothing
suspicious about that at all. Whatever the man is doing, he certainly
isn't trying to make his descent from the scene of the crime.
>Baker must have passed several
> people on the way who were simply walking across the room.
Really? Who?
> Were they all
> suspects? Baker was looking for a stranger. That's why he let Oswald go.
You still haven't explained why Baker challenged Oswald in the first
place. Is this because you can't?
bigdog
Baker spotted Oswald just as Oswald had entered the lunchroom. Had Oswald
been in the lunchroom for any length of time, the inner door would have
closed behind him and Baker couldn't have seen him. Seeing him through the
door is perfectly consistent with a man walking away from the stairway.
There is no inconsistency between the affadavit and the testimony.
curtjester1
> On Feb 6, 8:10 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In all honesty, Sean, i don't see anything clearcut, and having seen
> > Oswald is just as unclear as a lot of potential stuff. Even IF Oswald
> > was just hiding behind the door, it wouldn't mean that he went in that
> > door. He could have been in that lunchroom by going through the
> > offices and othe vestibule leading to the lunchroom. Being behind the
> > door is the only plausible way of a Baker being able to see at a
> > glance.
>
> Agreed.
>
> And it's just possible that Robert Groden's claimed interview with a
> witness - Geneva Hine, presumably - who said she was with Oswald in the
> second-floor office area at the time of the assassination, giving him
> change for the coke machine, may bear out Griffith's case that Oswald was
> coming from there when he was spotted by Baker. However - and sorry to
> labour the point - Baker's 11/22 affidavit speaks of a man "walking away
> from the stairway". That phrase is extremely odd if Baker is recalling a
> man glimpsed behind a closed door. How on earth is such a man "walking
> away from the stairway"? A look at photos of the area makes the problem
> painfully clear. And that's without even considering the fact that Baker's
> first-day statement puts the incident several floors up rather than just
> one. (According to Marvin Johnson, Baker was talking that afternoon of the
> fourth floor.) And talks of a man wearing a "light brown jacket". Just how
> many elementary 'mistakes' are we prepared to grant a trained officer?
>
The walking away is going to be an enigma always. I don't see Oswald
going up there to the 4th unless by instruction. There is no place for a
worker to go that would be a destination that would fit. You just don't
roam offices, and the TSBD had many offices that weren't related to
Oswald's type of work.
> Did Baker encounter someone other than Oswald on a floor other than the
> second? I believe so. And did he really encounter Oswald in the lunchroom?
> I doubt it.
>
> ***
That's a lot of supposing. I just don't think a 4th is plausible at all.
As far as encountering Oswald, I do believe it could have been his
doppleganger, look-alike, which has a lot of support of many witnesses and
incidents prior to and even on the day of the assassination.
>
> > If he just went over there without seeing, it wouldn't seem
> > plausible unless Baker knew of something in advance and was in on 'a
> > search' from the beginning.
>
> Yes, and that notion is a complete non-starter in my opinion. Apart from
> anything else, an 'in-on-it' Baker would hardly have let Oswald go. Nor
> would he have subsequently described Oswald as calm and unruffled.
>
Unless he was instructed to let him go. If Oswald was detained there, he
could have provided an alibi for his whereabout's most likely. I think he
knew of the assassination and was told to lay low, and to go to a theater
where he would be picked up. Or he could have just been an alibi for the
perpetrators and in on it enough to take the heat from what they were
doing for the day.....
> ***
>
> >It really is just one opinion weighed vs.
> > another. I don't really buy going up to the top either. What is up
> > 'there' as opposed to anywhere else?
>
> Well, Baker thought the shots may have come from the top of the
> building. It makes sense that he should race up there.
>
> ***
>
What did his testimony say? I don't know. Did he have a destination?
> > I think Baker also well could
> > have put in the seeing the door close scenario as it would make it
> > appear that it was plausible to check the window on the door.
>
> Again, I think the original - and fake - story was that Baker had popped
> his head into the lunchroom and happened to see Oswald in there. The
> complete discrepancy between this and Baker's affidavit story of seeing a
> man walking away from the stairway forced the subsequent introduction of
> an element of *movement* into the thing: Oswald walking 'away' into the
> lunchroom. But the stories simply don't harmonise. That damn door. Those
> damn angles.
>
> ***
>
They sure don't.
> > He had
> > a lot of time to contemplate what was riding on him fingering Oswald
> > by the time he testified. I don't see this lunchroom thing happening
> > way later. Too many saw Oswald leave at a time that would preclude
> > anything later.
>
> It seems Oswald was actually challenged by a cop at the front door - an
> incident witnessed by Billy Lovelady. Thanks to Ed Hicks, Harry Holmes and
> Harold Norman, the incident wasn't completely scrubbed from the official
> record.
>
> ***
>
It would be of utmost interest to get any detail on that.
> > Just as a sidenote. The person walking through Mrs. Hughes office
> > doesn't seem to fit the person who was confronted by Baker and Truly.
> > She saw that person with a white tee shirt, and Baker saw the brown
> > long sleeved shirt.
>
> You mean Mrs Reid?
> Again Baker's 11/22 affidavit speaks of a "light brown jacket", not a
> shirt.
>
> ***
>
Ooops, yes, Mrs. Reid.
She was emphatic about the wear too. That's a huge discrepancy. On the
other hand, there were Oswald sightings getting into a Rambler that
contradicted the bus/taxi scenario, and I believe white was the color of
choice....as was the sixth floor window sighters.
Mrs. Reid:
Mr. BELIN. Did you know his name on the day you saw him?
Mrs. REID. No; I did not. When I saw his picture I still didn't know
his name until they told us who it was.
Mr. BELIN. How did you know the person you saw was Lee Harvey Oswald
on the second floor?
Mrs. REID. Because it looked just like him.
Mr. BELIN. You mean the picture with the name Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mrs. REID. Oh, yes.
Mr. BELIN. But you had seen him in the building?
Mrs. REID. Other than that day, sure.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what clothes he had on when you saw him?
Mrs. REID. What he was wearing, he had on a white T-shirt and some
kind of wash trousers. What color I couldn't tell you.
Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission
Exhibit, first 157 and then 158, and I will ask you if either or both
look like they might have been the trousers that you saw him wear or
can you tell?
Mrs. REID. I just couldn't be positive about that. I would rather not
say, because I just cannot.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether he had any shirt or jacket on over
his T-shirt?
Mrs. REID. He did not. He did not have any jacket on.
Mr. BELIN. Have you ever seen anyone working at the book depository
wearing any kind of a shirt or jacket similar to Commission Exhibit
150 or do you know?
Mrs. REID. No; I do not. I have never, so far as I know ever seen that
shirt. I have been asked about that shirt before, I have seen it once
before but not since all this happened.
Mr. BELIN. All right. Mrs. Reid, if a person were in the lunchroom
with a coke on the second floor, and then wanted to get to the front
stairway or front elevator, would there be only one route to get there
or would there be more than one?
Mrs. REID. Yes; he could either go around this hallway, or back here
in this hallway or he could have gotten through our office or--
************************************************************************
Again, this places 'an Oswald' on the second floor. I don't know what
Mrs. Reid might have said about the lunchroom incident with Truly/
Baker/Oswald, either.
> > I also believe that Oswald would have had to be in on keeping out of
> > the way, if the controllers of the assassination were to have anyway
> > of pinning a patsy portrayal on him.
>
> Yes, they would have had to contrive a means of keeping him indoors. A
> phone-call has been suggested. (There was a phone for employees' use near
> the domino room at the rear of the first floor - which is where Oswald
> reportedly told Fritz he was at the time of the shooting and which is
> where Baker recalled seeing two *white* men as he and Truly tried to call
> the elevator. Who were these white men? The best answer LNers can come up
> with is: two black men!)
>
Enquiring minds wanna know, for sure.
> What the conspirators didn't predict was that a cop would rush into the
> building with the heroic speed of Marion Baker. His actions were a
> game-changer: they give us the key to Oswald's innocence, and they
> establish the presence of a suspicious and unaccounted-for white male,
> other than Oswald, coming down the rear stairs just after the shooting.
>
Baker is an enigma, as he certainly waffled too much to be even close
to credible.
CJ
Anthony Marsh
Unless that type of door kept swinging back and forth several times like
a pendulum as some doors do. I have never tested that particular door,
but maybe someone has.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 7, 4:50 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 2/6/2011 10:55 AM, Sean Murphy wrote:
>>
>>> His 11/22/63 affidavit, on the other hand, gives a simple,
>>> intelligible scenario: a man "walking away from the stairway". A man
>>> doing this is clearly a man behaving suspiciously. He is doing what
>>
>> Wow, walking away from the stairway is behaving suspiciously??
>
> On the third or fourth floor? Of course it is.
>
>> How about the Coke in his hand? That's highly suspicious when everyone
>> knew that Dr. Pepper was his favorite drink.
>
> Baker's 11/22 affidavit speaks of a man with a Coke in his hand? Gosh,
> thanks for the new information.
>
>>> one would expect a fleeing assassin to do. Baker's challenging of this
>>> man thus makes perfect sense.
>>
>> Walking across the floor is fleeing?
>
> Walking away from the rear stairway on the third or fourth floor just
> after a shooting that has taken place on a higher floor... no, nothing
> suspicious about that at all. Whatever the man is doing, he certainly
> isn't trying to make his descent from the scene of the crime.
>
Well then, by your criteria the three black employees are suspicious by
being on the fifth floor, or the two women walking down the stairway.
How did they know those women weren't actually walking down from the
sixth floor after shooting the President?
>> Baker must have passed several
>> people on the way who were simply walking across the room.
>
> Really? Who?
>
I said MUST HAVE.
>> Were they all
>> suspects? Baker was looking for a stranger. That's why he let Oswald go.
>
> You still haven't explained why Baker challenged Oswald in the first
> place. Is this because you can't?
>
>
Because he didn't know who the guy was. The guy could have been a
stranger in the building and therefore a suspect.
Anthony Marsh
What about Truly? Why didn't Baker suspect Truly of being the shooter?
> ***
>
>> If he just went over there without seeing, it wouldn't seem
>> plausible unless Baker knew of something in advance and was in on 'a
>> search' from the beginning.
>
> Yes, and that notion is a complete non-starter in my opinion. Apart from
> anything else, an 'in-on-it' Baker would hardly have let Oswald go. Nor
> would he have subsequently described Oswald as calm and unruffled.
>
Someone, can't remember who, had a theory that Baker was supposed to
shoot Oswald, but Truly interrupted his task.
> ***
>
>> It really is just one opinion weighed vs.
>> another. I don't really buy going up to the top either. What is up
>> 'there' as opposed to anywhere else?
>
> Well, Baker thought the shots may have come from the top of the
> building. It makes sense that he should race up there.
>
> ***
>
>> I think Baker also well could
>> have put in the seeing the door close scenario as it would make it
>> appear that it was plausible to check the window on the door.
>
> Again, I think the original - and fake - story was that Baker had popped
> his head into the lunchroom and happened to see Oswald in there. The
> complete discrepancy between this and Baker's affidavit story of seeing a
> man walking away from the stairway forced the subsequent introduction of
> an element of *movement* into the thing: Oswald walking 'away' into the
> lunchroom. But the stories simply don't harmonise. That damn door. Those
> damn angles.
>
Why would Baker decide to go into the lunchroom when his goal was to get
to the top floor?
> ***
>
>> He had
>> a lot of time to contemplate what was riding on him fingering Oswald
>> by the time he testified. I don't see this lunchroom thing happening
>> way later. Too many saw Oswald leave at a time that would preclude
>> anything later.
>
> It seems Oswald was actually challenged by a cop at the front door - an
> incident witnessed by Billy Lovelady. Thanks to Ed Hicks, Harry Holmes and
> Harold Norman, the incident wasn't completely scrubbed from the official
> record.
>
And he was coached on what to say. Which is why Loftus reminds us to
look at the earliest statements.
The WC defenders would ignore a witness who said immediately after the
shooting that "the shots came from the grassy knoll" and instead be
impressed by a witness who said 40 years later that the "shots came from
the TSBD because the WC proved that."
bigdog
>
>
> > > If he just went over there without seeing, it wouldn't seem
> > > plausible unless Baker knew of something in advance and was in on 'a
> > > search' from the beginning.
>
> > Yes, and that notion is a complete non-starter in my opinion. Apart from
> > anything else, an 'in-on-it' Baker would hardly have let Oswald go. Nor
> > would he have subsequently described Oswald as calm and unruffled.
>
> Unless he was instructed to let him go. If Oswald was detained there, he
> could have provided an alibi for his whereabout's most likely. I think he
> knew of the assassination and was told to lay low, and to go to a theater
> where he would be picked up. Or he could have just been an alibi for the
> perpetrators and in on it enough to take the heat from what they were
> doing for the day.....
>
Oswald as he tried to duck out of sight into the lunchroom?
> > ***
>
> > >It really is just one opinion weighed vs.
> > > another. I don't really buy going up to the top either. What is up
> > > 'there' as opposed to anywhere else?
>
> > Well, Baker thought the shots may have come from the top of the
> > building. It makes sense that he should race up there.
>
> > ***
>
> What did his testimony say? I don't know. Did he have a destination?
>
fly off the roof. It was nothing more than an educated guess but it
was all he had to go on.
> > > I think Baker also well could
> > > have put in the seeing the door close scenario as it would make it
> > > appear that it was plausible to check the window on the door.
>
> > Again, I think the original - and fake - story was that Baker had popped
> > his head into the lunchroom and happened to see Oswald in there. The
> > complete discrepancy between this and Baker's affidavit story of seeing a
> > man walking away from the stairway forced the subsequent introduction of
> > an element of *movement* into the thing: Oswald walking 'away' into the
> > lunchroom. But the stories simply don't harmonise. That damn door. Those
> > damn angles.
>
> > ***
>
> They sure don't.
>
There is nothing Baker wrote in his affadavit or said in his WC
testimony that is inconsistent with him spotting Oswald as he ducked
into the lunchroom.
> > > He had
> > > a lot of time to contemplate what was riding on him fingering Oswald
> > > by the time he testified. I don't see this lunchroom thing happening
> > > way later. Too many saw Oswald leave at a time that would preclude
> > > anything later.
>
> > It seems Oswald was actually challenged by a cop at the front door - an
> > incident witnessed by Billy Lovelady. Thanks to Ed Hicks, Harry Holmes and
> > Harold Norman, the incident wasn't completely scrubbed from the official
> > record.
>
> > ***
>
> It would be of utmost interest to get any detail on that.
>
Until then, let's just assume it means something sinister.
Truly places LEE HARVEY Oswald on the second floor.
> > > I also believe that Oswald would have had to be in on keeping out of
> > > the way, if the controllers of the assassination were to have anyway
> > > of pinning a patsy portrayal on him.
>
> > Yes, they would have had to contrive a means of keeping him indoors. A
> > phone-call has been suggested. (There was a phone for employees' use near
> > the domino room at the rear of the first floor - which is where Oswald
> > reportedly told Fritz he was at the time of the shooting and which is
> > where Baker recalled seeing two *white* men as he and Truly tried to call
> > the elevator. Who were these white men? The best answer LNers can come up
> > with is: two black men!)
>
> Enquiring minds wanna know, for sure.
>
Why?
> > What the conspirators didn't predict was that a cop would rush into the
> > building with the heroic speed of Marion Baker.
Right. Who would think that just because you fire a high powered rifle
at the POTUS this would draw cops.
> > His actions were a
> > game-changer: they give us the key to Oswald's innocence,
<snicker>
> > and they
> > establish the presence of a suspicious and unaccounted-for white male,
> > other than Oswald, coming down the rear stairs just after the shooting.
>
Really? Who was unaccounted for?
> Baker is an enigma, as he certainly waffled too much to be even close
> to credible.
>
You mean he told a story consistent with Oswald shooting the POTUS and
then coming down the stairs.
Sean Murphy
> Baker spotted Oswald just as Oswald had entered the lunchroom.
Can you get nothing right? If you're going to defend Baker's WC story,
at least familiarise yourself with its details:
1. Baker sees Oswald before Oswald has entered the lunchroom.
2. Baker runs over and opens the door, by which time Oswald has
entered the lunchroom.
3. Baker calls Oswald to the threshold of the lunchroom.
> Had Oswald
> been in the lunchroom for any length of time, the inner door would have
> closed behind him and Baker couldn't have seen him.
(Eyes to heaven.) Even with an open door, the lunchroom could not be
seen from Baker's vantage point just off the stairs. The line from the
stairway to the lunchroom is a sharp zigzag.
> door is perfectly consistent with a man walking away from the stairway.
> There is no inconsistency between the affadavit and the testimony.
Given that you still don't understand the testimony, perhaps you're
not ready just yet to understand the significance of the affidavit.
Sean Murphy
> The walking away is going to be an enigma always. I don't see Oswald
> going up there to the 4th unless by instruction. There is no place for a
> worker to go that would be a destination that would fit. You just don't
> roam offices, and the TSBD had many offices that weren't related to
> Oswald's type of work.
I'm not suggesting the man on the 4th floor was Oswald. Unless he was Jack
Dougherty, which seems most unlikely, he was a non-employee who happened
to resemble Oswald enough to confuse Baker later. Nor am I suggesting that
this man was roaming around on the 4th floor. The point is that Baker
caught him walking away from the stairway. This suggests - and will have
suggested to Baker - that he had been coming down the stairs only to have
his descent interrupted by the ascending cop.
Sean Murphy
> Unless that type of door kept swinging back and forth several times like
> a pendulum as some doors do. I have never tested that particular door,
> but maybe someone has.
No, the SS reconstruction film shows that it wasn't a swinging door.
It opened out onto the landing and had an automatic closing mechanism.
Sean Murphy
> Well then, by your criteria the three black employees are suspicious by
> being on the fifth floor,
By my criteria? Did I say the three black employees were caught
walking away from the stairway on the third or fourth floor just after
the shooting?
> or the two women walking down the stairway.
> How did they know those women weren't actually walking down from the
> sixth floor after shooting the President?
Baker didn't meet these women, so what's your point?
> >> Baker must have passed several
> >> people on the way who were simply walking across the room.
>
> > Really? Who?
>
> I said MUST HAVE.
I say: must not have. Because all employees are accounted for, and not
a single one is "simply walking across the room" by the rear stairs on
any floor.
> > You still haven't explained why Baker challenged Oswald in the first
> > place. Is this because you can't?
>
> Because he didn't know who the guy was. The guy could have been a
> stranger in the building and therefore a suspect.
So why didn't he challenge Troy West on the first floor? Or Eddie
Piper?
bigdog
> On Feb 7, 7:53 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Baker spotted Oswald just as Oswald had entered the lunchroom.
>
> Can you get nothing right? If you're going to defend Baker's WC story,
> at least familiarise yourself with its details:
> 1. Baker sees Oswald before Oswald has entered the lunchroom.
> 2. Baker runs over and opens the door, by which time Oswald has
> entered the lunchroom.
> 3. Baker calls Oswald to the threshold of the lunchroom.
>
> > Had Oswald
> > been in the lunchroom for any length of time, the inner door would have
> > closed behind him and Baker couldn't have seen him.
>
> (Eyes to heaven.) Even with an open door, the lunchroom could not be
> seen from Baker's vantage point just off the stairs. The line from the
> stairway to the lunchroom is a sharp zigzag.
>
If Oswald had just entered the vestibule as Baker arrived on the landing,
he could have seen Oswald. If Oswald had just passed through the inner
door and it had not closed behind him, Baker could have seen him. In
either case Oswald would have been walking away from Baker. All Baker
would have needed was glimpse of Oswald to raise his curiousity about him.
> > door is perfectly consistent with a man walking away from the stairway.
> > There is no inconsistency between the affadavit and the testimony.
>
> Given that you still don't understand the testimony, perhaps you're
> not ready just yet to understand the significance of the affidavit.
I understand the testimony and the affidavit and I understand there is no
conflict between the two. In typical CT fashion, you are trying to create
an issue out of thin air.
curtjester1
Not when they looked very much alike, and it was able to fool so many.
You think Truly would have interfaced with Oswald much? Not when he was a
mere building manager and wouldn't have had much to do with him on a daily
basis.
>
>
>
> > > > If he just went over there without seeing, it wouldn't seem
> > > > plausible unless Baker knew of something in advance and was in on 'a
> > > > search' from the beginning.
>
> > > Yes, and that notion is a complete non-starter in my opinion. Apart from
> > > anything else, an 'in-on-it' Baker would hardly have let Oswald go. Nor
> > > would he have subsequently described Oswald as calm and unruffled.
>
> > Unless he was instructed to let him go. If Oswald was detained there, he
> > could have provided an alibi for his whereabout's most likely. I think he
> > knew of the assassination and was told to lay low, and to go to a theater
> > where he would be picked up. Or he could have just been an alibi for the
> > perpetrators and in on it enough to take the heat from what they were
> > doing for the day.....
>
> You really think that is more plausible than Baker just spotting
> Oswald as he tried to duck out of sight into the lunchroom?> > ***
>
There's nothing plausible about Baker sighting an Oswald, as I see you
haven't read the thread, and are just bouncing in as usual and want to get
a blather in. Baker really has nothing to do with Oswalds actions after
the meeting or leaving the TSBD....
> > > >It really is just one opinion weighed vs.
> > > > another. I don't really buy going up to the top either. What is up
> > > > 'there' as opposed to anywhere else?
>
> > > Well, Baker thought the shots may have come from the top of the
> > > building. It makes sense that he should race up there.
>
> > > ***
>
> > What did his testimony say? I don't know. Did he have a destination?
>
> Baker thought the shots came from the roof because he saw the pigeons
> fly off the roof. It was nothing more than an educated guess but it
> was all he had to go on.
>
>
Well it isn't much to me to go to a certain spot. Wouldn't pigeons
fly at the sound of any gunshot in Dealey?
>
>
>
> > > > I think Baker also well could
> > > > have put in the seeing the door close scenario as it would make it
> > > > appear that it was plausible to check the window on the door.
>
> > > Again, I think the original - and fake - story was that Baker had popped
> > > his head into the lunchroom and happened to see Oswald in there. The
> > > complete discrepancy between this and Baker's affidavit story of seeing a
> > > man walking away from the stairway forced the subsequent introduction of
> > > an element of *movement* into the thing: Oswald walking 'away' into the
> > > lunchroom. But the stories simply don't harmonise. That damn door. Those
> > > damn angles.
>
> > > ***
>
> > They sure don't.
>
> There is nothing Baker wrote in his affadavit or said in his WC
> testimony that is inconsistent with him spotting Oswald as he ducked
> into the lunchroom.
>
He couldn't get the coke thing right, and having a clothing description
that matched many of Oswald's shirt descriptions, doesn't bode well for
the description that Mrs. Reid gave which was within a few seconds of that
so-called meeting. His door story doesn't match with the outlay of the
building. The only way he could have spotted anyone is if the suspect
were glued to the window that he would have supposedly went through, or
came to (from the other vesibule), or from the lunchroom itself.
> > > > He had
> > > > a lot of time to contemplate what was riding on him fingering Oswald
> > > > by the time he testified. I don't see this lunchroom thing happening
> > > > way later. Too many saw Oswald leave at a time that would preclude
> > > > anything later.
>
> > > It seems Oswald was actually challenged by a cop at the front door - an
> > > incident witnessed by Billy Lovelady. Thanks to Ed Hicks, Harry Holmes and
> > > Harold Norman, the incident wasn't completely scrubbed from the official
> > > record.
>
> > > ***
>
> > It would be of utmost interest to get any detail on that.
>
> Until then, let's just assume it means something sinister.
>
>
It wouldn't have to, but it could. Timelines are important, and Lovelady
was a key witness since he was in or around the doorway to the TSBD during
the shooting. (His shots heard were from the GK area BTW)
If it Truly was Oswald! hahahahahhaha
> > > > I also believe that Oswald would have had to be in on keeping out of
> > > > the way, if the controllers of the assassination were to have anyway
> > > > of pinning a patsy portrayal on him.
>
> > > Yes, they would have had to contrive a means of keeping him indoors. A
> > > phone-call has been suggested. (There was a phone for employees' use near
> > > the domino room at the rear of the first floor - which is where Oswald
> > > reportedly told Fritz he was at the time of the shooting and which is
> > > where Baker recalled seeing two *white* men as he and Truly tried to call
> > > the elevator. Who were these white men? The best answer LNers can come up
> > > with is: two black men!)
>
> > Enquiring minds wanna know, for sure.
>
> Why?
>
Because it's been quite alluded to that people were looked at, and Oswald
said he was on the first floor. Who do you have besides Troy West?
> > > What the conspirators didn't predict was that a cop would rush into the
> > > building with the heroic speed of Marion Baker.
>
> Right. Who would think that just because you fire a high powered rifle
> at the POTUS this would draw cops.
>
> > > His actions were a
> > > game-changer: they give us the key to Oswald's innocence,
>
> <snicker>
>
> > > and they
> > > establish the presence of a suspicious and unaccounted-for white male,
> > > other than Oswald, coming down the rear stairs just after the shooting.
>
> Really? Who was unaccounted for?
>
> > Baker is an enigma, as he certainly waffled too much to be even close
> > to credible.
>
> You mean he told a story consistent with Oswald shooting the POTUS and
> then coming down the stairs.- Hide quoted text -
>
Not at all. He didn't see anybody coming down the stairs or hear anyone.
Truly was up the stairs leading before Baker could have seen anything like
someone 'just going in'. Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles don't seem to
match Truly and Baker, and Adams said she was down at the bottom within a
minute.
CJ
curtjester1
First you have to believe Baker actually saw someone walking away. I
don't think Dougherty mentioned fourth floor, and I think he was kinda
old anyway. Many think the fourth floor was confused with the second
because of the two zigzag ascents for each floor of stairs to get to a
'one floor'. Like I say it's an enigma. What almost sounds plausible
and since I do believe in a concerted, intricate, doppleganging for
the patsyism of Oswald (arrested in the Texas Theater), that the
doppleganger would have wanted to get noticed and would hang around
that one and only window to help pin some suspicion on Oswald down on
the first floor. (that's why I am so interested in your police
confrontation of a leaving Oswald). The only thing that holds me back
is Baker's description of his clothing, but again too, Baker is so
inconsistent he could have just gone along with a 'get Oswald at any
cost' attitude by WC interrogation time.
CJ
bigdog
You mean like when he hired him. Or assigned tasks to him. Gee, I'll bet
he didn't see him more than 5 or 6 times a day.
> Not when he was a
> mere building manager and wouldn't have had much to do with him on a daily
> basis.
>
It's not as if Truly had hundreds of people working for him in that
building.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > If he just went over there without seeing, it wouldn't seem
> > > > > plausible unless Baker knew of something in advance and was in on 'a
> > > > > search' from the beginning.
>
> > > > Yes, and that notion is a complete non-starter in my opinion. Apart from
> > > > anything else, an 'in-on-it' Baker would hardly have let Oswald go. Nor
> > > > would he have subsequently described Oswald as calm and unruffled.
>
> > > Unless he was instructed to let him go. If Oswald was detained there, he
> > > could have provided an alibi for his whereabout's most likely. I think he
> > > knew of the assassination and was told to lay low, and to go to a theater
> > > where he would be picked up. Or he could have just been an alibi for the
> > > perpetrators and in on it enough to take the heat from what they were
> > > doing for the day.....
>
> > You really think that is more plausible than Baker just spotting
> > Oswald as he tried to duck out of sight into the lunchroom?> > ***
>
> There's nothing plausible about Baker sighting an Oswald, as I see you
> haven't read the thread, and are just bouncing in as usual and want to get
> a blather in. Baker really has nothing to do with Oswalds actions after
> the meeting or leaving the TSBD....
>
Baker would have turned and briefly faced the lunchroom as he hit the
second floor landing and made the U-turn to the next flight of stairs. He
could only have seen Oswald if he was still in the vestibule or passing
through the inner doorway. Had he not seen Oswald, there would have been
no reason for him to detour off the stairway into the lunchroom.
>
>
>
>
> > > > >It really is just one opinion weighed vs.
> > > > > another. I don't really buy going up to the top either. What is up
> > > > > 'there' as opposed to anywhere else?
>
> > > > Well, Baker thought the shots may have come from the top of the
> > > > building. It makes sense that he should race up there.
>
> > > > ***
>
> > > What did his testimony say? I don't know. Did he have a destination?
>
> > Baker thought the shots came from the roof because he saw the pigeons
> > fly off the roof. It was nothing more than an educated guess but it
> > was all he had to go on.
>
> Well it isn't much to me to go to a certain spot. Wouldn't pigeons
> fly at the sound of any gunshot in Dealey?
>
If Baker wasn't heading toward the roof, why do you suppose he was going
up the stairs. Did he need the excercise?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > I think Baker also well could
> > > > > have put in the seeing the door close scenario as it would make it
> > > > > appear that it was plausible to check the window on the door.
>
> > > > Again, I think the original - and fake - story was that Baker had popped
> > > > his head into the lunchroom and happened to see Oswald in there. The
> > > > complete discrepancy between this and Baker's affidavit story of seeing a
> > > > man walking away from the stairway forced the subsequent introduction of
> > > > an element of *movement* into the thing: Oswald walking 'away' into the
> > > > lunchroom. But the stories simply don't harmonise. That damn door. Those
> > > > damn angles.
>
> > > > ***
>
> > > They sure don't.
>
> > There is nothing Baker wrote in his affadavit or said in his WC
> > testimony that is inconsistent with him spotting Oswald as he ducked
> > into the lunchroom.
>
> He couldn't get the coke thing right, and having a clothing description
> that matched many of Oswald's shirt descriptions, doesn't bode well for
> the description that Mrs. Reid gave which was within a few seconds of that
> so-called meeting.
That is more an impeachment of Mrs. Reid's memory than Baker's. Baker's
description is consistent with what Oswald was wearing when spotted by
Mrs. Bledsoe on the bus and what he was wearing when arrested.
> His door story doesn't match with the outlay of the
> building. The only way he could have spotted anyone is if the suspect
> were glued to the window that he would have supposedly went through, or
> came to (from the other vesibule), or from the lunchroom itself.
>
Did you have trouble with geometry in school?
>
>
>
>
> > > > > He had
> > > > > a lot of time to contemplate what was riding on him fingering Oswald
> > > > > by the time he testified. I don't see this lunchroom thing happening
> > > > > way later. Too many saw Oswald leave at a time that would preclude
> > > > > anything later.
>
> > > > It seems Oswald was actually challenged by a cop at the front door - an
> > > > incident witnessed by Billy Lovelady. Thanks to Ed Hicks, Harry Holmes and
> > > > Harold Norman, the incident wasn't completely scrubbed from the official
> > > > record.
>
> > > > ***
>
> > > It would be of utmost interest to get any detail on that.
>
> > Until then, let's just assume it means something sinister.
>
> It wouldn't have to, but it could.
That's all a CT needs.
Sean Murphy
> If Oswald had just entered the vestibule as Baker arrived on the landing,
> he could have seen Oswald.
So... you're quietly dropping your line that 'Baker spotted Oswald
just as Oswald had entered the lunchroom'. Clap clap.
> If Oswald had just passed through the inner
> door and it had not closed behind him, Baker could have seen him.
Don't tell me you're unaware of the fact that this door had a window.
> I understand the testimony
You don't. Your cluelessness on it is frankly embarrassing.
Anthony Marsh
Yes, maybe some day when they release ALL the photos we will have one
showing the exact moment that they flew off the roof.