Jack Edwin Dougherty

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/jack-dougherty.html

For some additional confusion, contradictions, and laughs (beyond just the above link full of confusion and belly laughs), have a look at Jack Dougherty's November 22, 1963, affidavit:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CmfIb3lQ_IM/Tvw3wrZvEFI/AAAAAAAABuY/N-aw1uC4Xq8/s1600-h/Jack-Dougherty-Affidavit.gif

In that affidavit, Dougherty claims to have seen several Depository employees on the sixth floor after the assassination took place, which is highly unlikely (if not impossible).

Dougherty's 11/22/63 affidavit also totally contradicts his Warren Commission testimony with respect to when he heard the "shot" that he said he heard. In his WC testimony, he said he heard the shot BEFORE he ate his lunch, but in his sworn affidavit that he signed on the day of the assassination, Dougherty claimed that the shooting took place AFTER he had eaten his lunch and after he had "already gone back to work", which he said was sometime after 12:45 PM, which, of course, is impossible since JFK was shot at 12:30 PM.

These assorted conflicts only help to reinforce my March 2008 assessment regarding the testimony of Jack E. Dougherty -- it's a "great big mess".

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Perhaps that was how he was coached, to make his story a mess. Perhaps "they" were more concerned about what we thought of Jack himself, than what we thought about what he saw. Perhaps they want us to think that Jack was incapable of doing anything conspiratorial. If so, they did a damn good job coaching him.

[John Corbett]

Jack Dougherty was obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I can forgive him for not accurately remembering the exact time certain events happened. Who makes a mental note of things like that? It's clear he got his sequencing wrong to. He was clearly a confused witness. I don't think he was trying to deceive anybody. I just don't think he could remember the details accurately.

[John Corbett]

So now you are using "perhaps" instead of "if" or "may have". That would be acceptable if you didn't treat these speculations as if they were established facts.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

When I don't know, I sometimes say perhaps, asshole.

[donald willis]

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 12:26:15 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 7:09:01 PM UTC, David Von Pein wrote:
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/jack-dougherty.html
> >
> > For some additional confusion, contradictions, and laughs (beyond just the above link full of confusion and belly laughs), have a look at Jack Dougherty's November 22, 1963, affidavit:
> >
> > http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CmfIb3lQ_IM/Tvw3wrZvEFI/AAAAAAAABuY/N-aw1uC4Xq8/s1600-h/Jack-Dougherty-Affidavit.gif
> >
> > In that affidavit, Dougherty claims to have seen several Depository employees on the sixth floor after the assassination took place, which is highly unlikely (if not impossible).
> >
> > Dougherty's 11/22/63 affidavit also totally contradicts his Warren Commission testimony with respect to when he heard the "shot" that he said he heard. In his WC testimony, he said he heard the shot BEFORE he ate his lunch, but in his sworn affidavit that he signed on the day of the assassination, Dougherty claimed that the shooting took place AFTER he had eaten his lunch and after he had "already gone back to work", which he said was sometime after 12:45 PM, which, of course, is impossible since JFK was shot at 12:30 PM.
> >
> > These assorted conflicts only help to reinforce my March 2008 assessment regarding the testimony of Jack E. Dougherty -- it's a "great big mess".
> Perhaps that was how he was coached, to make his story a mess.

I think that's what happened with McWatters, in order to cancel out his 11/22 affidavit.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Could be. I find the idea that Oswald told McWatters that JFK had been shot in the temple to be consistent with the apparent real story.

[John Corbett]

When Scrum Dumb says "perhaps", he is pretending he does know.

[Scrum Drum]

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:09:01 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

It is less than honest to ignore Dougherty's interview with Gil Toff in 1971:


Q: Did anybody tell you, for instance, you like Oswald probably if he was up on the sixth floor headed truly downstairs too, cause someone saw him down there on second floor, pretty fast
JD: Yes, they had to, but I don’t know who it was.
Q: You don’t know what?
JD: I don’t know who it was, who saw him come down.
Q: Did you see him at all that day do you remember?
JD: Well, just downstairs in the lunch room, was about all.
Q: But that was when you were having lunch right?
JD: Yes, uh huh.
Q: And he was having lunch in there too?
JD: No, I was downstairs having lunch and he was having lunch upstairs on two.
Q: Oh he had lunch on two? And you had lunch on one?
JD: Yes.
Q: And did you see him have lunch before you had it or after?
JD: That was after.
Q: You had your lunch first and then you saw him at lunch?
JD: Well, I come down and I saw him on two see and then I went downstairs and had mine.
Q: And he was already in eating?
JD: Yes uh huh.



Von Pein avoids analyzing that Dougherty could not have seen Oswald eating lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room at noon when he went down to the 1st floor to eat...That's impossible because the lunch room was full of people at that time and there would have been a solid record of witnesses seeing him there...

What this means is Dougherty's free flowing claim from memory of seeing Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room after Dougherty ate lunch in the Domino Room is correct...For Dougherty to be in front of the 5th floor elevator when the shots rang out means he had to come back upstairs around the time Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room...This reinforces Dougherty seeing Oswald "after" lunch...It tells you why Dougherty is so confident that Oswald was eating lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room while he himself ate his lunch in the Domino Room...

Dougherty slipped and told Toff he saw Oswald after he finished his lunch in the Domino Room...Knowing this had to be around 12:25, we can assume Dougherty somehow saw Oswald on his way back upstairs...When Dougherty got to the 5th floor he stood next to the stairs and therefore was in the one place where he could know Oswald never ran up to the 6th floor to shoot Kennedy...You have badly failed to answer that the Commission knew this from the information Dougherty told them right in that Commission testimony and their failure to point out what I am pointing out is a sure sign of their coaching and avoidance of evidence...You have failed to answer that Dougherty could not have ridden down the elevator in front of Oswald running down the stairs because the elevator would have arrived in synch with Truly & Baker and Dougherty would have been seen by them...That forces Dougherty to be on the 5th floor landing when Oswald would have ran by on his way to the 2nd floor lunch room and means he would have seen him...Hence the lack of follow-through by the Commission...

[John Corbett]

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 4:49:23 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:09:01 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> It is less than honest to ignore Dougherty's interview with Gil Toff in 1971:
>
>
> Q: Did anybody tell you, for instance, you like Oswald probably if he was up on the sixth floor headed truly downstairs too, cause someone saw him down there on second floor, pretty fast
> JD: Yes, they had to, but I don’t know who it was.
> Q: You don’t know what?
> JD: I don’t know who it was, who saw him come down.
> Q: Did you see him at all that day do you remember?
> JD: Well, just downstairs in the lunch room, was about all.
> Q: But that was when you were having lunch right?
> JD: Yes, uh huh.
> Q: And he was having lunch in there too?
> JD: No, I was downstairs having lunch and he was having lunch upstairs on two.
> Q: Oh he had lunch on two? And you had lunch on one?
> JD: Yes.
> Q: And did you see him have lunch before you had it or after?
> JD: That was after.
> Q: You had your lunch first and then you saw him at lunch?
> JD: Well, I come down and I saw him on two see and then I went downstairs and had mine.
> Q: And he was already in eating?
> JD: Yes uh huh.
>

So your star witness tells us he SAW Oswald in the lunchroom WHEN Dougherty was eating lunch which would be a neat trick if Dougherty was eating lunch in the Domino Room and Oswald was in the second floor lunchroom.

>
>
> Von Pein avoids analyzing that Dougherty could not have seen Oswald eating lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room at noon when he went down to the 1st floor to eat...

No shit.

> That's impossible because the lunch room was full of people at that time and there would have been a solid record of witnesses seeing him there...
>
> What this means is Dougherty's free flowing claim from memory of seeing Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room after Dougherty ate lunch in the Domino Room is correct...

Dougherty said he went up to the 6th floor after lunch. How does he see Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom from the elevator?

> For Dougherty to be in front of the 5th floor elevator when the shots rang out means he had to come back upstairs around the time Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room...This reinforces Dougherty seeing Oswald "after" lunch...It tells you why Dougherty is so confident that Oswald was eating lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room while he himself ate his lunch in the Domino Room...

If you can read Dougherty's scatterbrained account and conclude he was confident, you really are an idiot. In just about every telling of his story, he either contradicts himself or says things that couldn't be true.

>
> Dougherty slipped and told Toff he saw Oswald after he finished his lunch in the Domino Room...Knowing this had to be around 12:25, we can assume Dougherty somehow saw Oswald on his way back upstairs...

From the elevator. <chuckle>

> When Dougherty got to the 5th floor he stood next to the stairs and therefore was in the one place where he could know Oswald never ran up to the 6th floor to shoot Kennedy...

He said he was in front of the west elevator when he heard the shot. He didn't say he stayed there for any length of time.

[Scrum Drum]

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 5:27:21 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:



> Dougherty said he went up to the 6th floor after lunch. How does he see Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom from the elevator?

Because Dougherty sees that the manual elevator is up on the 2nd floor when he goes back upstairs...This happens at 12:23 when Oswald is still out on the staircase landing where Stanton saw him...Dougherty climbs the stairs to the 2nd floor landing and sees Oswald there just like Stanton did...Oswald tells Dougherty he's going back in to the break room just like he told Stanton...

Oswald is on the staircase landing when he hears Jarman and Norman going up in the elevator...

AND/OR - Dougherty came down from the 5th floor after the shots and saw Oswald exit the 2nd floor lunch room after the lunch room encounter...

[Bud]

This is Truly`s assessment of the guy, my comments in brackets...

Mr. BELIN. Could you tell us a little bit about Jack Dougherty?

Mr. TRULY. Jack Dougherty has been working for us 12 or 14 years. Until we moved into this building, he has been mostly in our State Department, the building at 1917 North Houston. He would fill orders for--that called for many cartons of books on a three-textbook-order basis to the various schools in Texas [Good for big orders that weren`t too complex]. And he seemed to be intelligent and smart and a hard worker. The main thing is he just worked all the time [True that, likely he was the only person in the whole building working when Kennedy was shot]. I have never had any occasion to have any hard words for Jack. A few times he would get a little bit---maybe do a little something wrong, and I would mention it to him, and he would just go to pieces--not anything--but anything the rest of the day or the next day would not be right. He is a great big husky fellow. I think he is 39 years old. He has never been married. He has no interest in women. He gets flustered, has a small word for it, at times [Clearly he gets flustered when he is put on the spot, like with a little mistake. Being grilled would likely get similar results]. He has never had any trouble. He is a good, loyal, hard working employee. He always has been.

Mr. BELIN. Would you consider him of average intelligence?

Mr. TRULY. Yes, sir. I think what is wrong with him mostly is his emotional makeup. I would say that for the work he is doing, he is of average intelligence.

[John Corbett]

For the work he is doing, which is unskilled labor, he is of average intelligence. I don't want to be hard on the guy. He sounds like a hard working guy who tried to do the right thing but as Truly said, got easily flustered. This explains why he would contradict himself so easily. I think we've all met people like that in our working lives. Anybody who would try to make a case based on something he said whether under oath or not can't be very bright either.

[Sam McClung]

Who told Oswald it was the temple? Seems it couldn't have been his "... former Bravo boyfriend driving by in utility truck bearing Bell Telephone Company markings."
quoted material from Nagell's 10-8-67 letter

[Scrum Drum]

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 5:27:21 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:



The more I read Dougherty's statements and the Commission's approach to him the more it looks like he was deliberately sabotaging his own witnessing to make it uncredible...


It is appearing more and more like Dougherty's real story was much more dangerous than the goobledigook he told the Commission and that he probably had a much more direct witnessing of Oswald being in the 2nd floor lunch room than the version we know allows...


The real story started to come out when Dougherty told Gil Toff Oswald was up eating his lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room while Dougherty ate his lunch in the Domino Room...There is obviously an untold witnessing by Dougherty that evidences this much more than what he started to tell Toff...It might have something to do with the white men Baker said he saw at the back of the 1st floor as he ran in...If Dougherty was one of them then it's a whole new ball game...And if Dougherty really was up on the 5th floor during the shots then he has no excuse for not seeing Oswald run by on the staircase landing on his way down from the 6th floor...

[BT George]

On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 9:10:29 AM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 5:27:21 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>
>
>
> The more I read Dougherty's statements and the Commission's approach to him the more it looks like he was deliberately sabotaging his own witnessing to make it uncredible...
>

The more you read; the more you seem to read the your preconceived notions into things. But if that was their intent, they succeeded. ...Wildly.

>
> It is appearing more and more like Dougherty's real story was much more dangerous than the goobledigook he told the Commission and that he probably had a much more direct witnessing of Oswald being in the 2nd floor lunch room than the version we know allows...
>

Hot of the presses 7 years later when Gill Toff was apparently trying equally hard to make him appear noncredible.

>
> The real story started to come out when Dougherty told Gil Toff Oswald was up eating his lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room while Dougherty ate his lunch in the Domino Room...There is obviously an untold witnessing by Dougherty that evidences this much more than what he started to tell Toff...It might have something to do with the white men Baker said he saw at the back of the 1st floor as he ran in...If Dougherty was one of them then it's a whole new ball game...And if Dougherty really was up on the 5th floor during the shots then he has no excuse for not seeing Oswald run by on the staircase landing on his way down from the 6th floor...

*THE REAL STORY* Code for: "What I want to believe."

[John Corbett]

On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 10:10:29 AM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 5:27:21 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>
>
>
> The more I read Dougherty's statements and the Commission's approach to him the more it looks like he was deliberately sabotaging his own witnessing to make it uncredible...

Why would he do that? Did he also sabotage his same day affidavit?

>
>
> It is appearing more and more like Dougherty's real story was much more dangerous than the goobledigook he told the Commission and that he probably had a much more direct witnessing of Oswald being in the 2nd floor lunch room than the version we know allows...
>

You think Dougherty was that smart?

>
> The real story started to come out when Dougherty told Gil Toff Oswald was up eating his lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room while Dougherty ate his lunch in the Domino Room...

As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, there is no way Dougherty could have known Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunchroom when Dougherty was in the Domino Room. But you don't care. It's what you want to believe so you do. Why do you suppose Dougherty didn't mention seeing Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom when he gave his 11/22/63 affidavit? Just asking.

> There is obviously

Obviously. Scrum Dumb's favorite word.

> an untold witnessing by Dougherty that evidences this much more than what he started to tell Toff...It might have something to do with the white men Baker said he saw at the back of the 1st floor as he ran in...If Dougherty was one of them then it's a whole new ball game...And if Dougherty really was up on the 5th floor during the shots then he has no excuse for not seeing Oswald run by on the staircase landing on his way down from the 6th floor...

If. Scrum Dumb's second favorite word.

[Scrum Drum]

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:09:01 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

Q: Did you see him at all that day do you remember?

JD: Well, just downstairs in the lunch room, was about all.

Q: But that was when you were having lunch right?

JD: Yes, uh huh.

Q: And he was having lunch in there too?

JD: No, I was downstairs having lunch and he was having lunch upstairs on two.

Q: Oh he had lunch on two? And you had lunch on one?

JD: Yes.

Q: And did you see him have lunch before you had it or after?

JD: That was after.

Q: You had your lunch first and then you saw him at lunch?

JD: Well, I come down and I saw him on two see and then I went downstairs and had mine.

Q: And he was already in eating?

JD: Yes uh huh.

Dougherty says he saw Oswald eating lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room...

We have already proven this had to be after Dougherty ate his lunch like he said because that was the only time he could see Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room...This was around the same time Stanton heard Oswald say he intended to go in to the break room...It was around the same time Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in the same break room he told Stanton he said he was going to...And it was the same place Baker & Truly saw him in...

The reason Dougherty gets his Warren Commission story so mixed up is because he's covering-up this dangerous real witnessing in the 2nd floor lunch room...

[John Corbett]

On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 5:13:41 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:09:01 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> Q: Did you see him at all that day do you remember?
>
> JD: Well, just downstairs in the lunch room, was about all.
>
> Q: But that was when you were having lunch right?
>
> JD: Yes, uh huh.
>
> Q: And he was having lunch in there too?
>
> JD: No, I was downstairs having lunch and he was having lunch upstairs on two.
>
> Q: Oh he had lunch on two? And you had lunch on one?
>
> JD: Yes.
>
> Q: And did you see him have lunch before you had it or after?
>
> JD: That was after.
>
> Q: You had your lunch first and then you saw him at lunch?
>
> JD: Well, I come down and I saw him on two see and then I went downstairs and had mine.
>
> Q: And he was already in eating?
>
> JD: Yes uh huh.
> Dougherty says he saw Oswald eating lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room...
>

While he was eating lunch in the Domino Room. <chuckle>

> We have already proven this had to be after Dougherty ate his lunch like he said because that was the only time he could see Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room...

That isn't what he said. He said he saw Oswald WHEN he was eating lunch, not after. You don't get to change what he said to make it fit what you want to believe. In two sworn statements he said the last time he saw Oswald was before noon on the 6th floor. Why didn't he mention seeing Oswald in the lunchroom in his same day affidavit. He said after lunch he went back to work first on the 6th floor and then down to the 5th. To do that he would have taken the elevator, bypassing the 2nd floor lunchroom. No chance for him to see Oswald. But you don't care. Toff got him to say he saw Oswald in the lunchroom at 12:25 and that's good enough for you.

> This was around the same time Stanton heard Oswald say he intended to go in to the break room...

You can't produce any cite for such a statement so why do you keep repeating it? It's not as if you can tap your ruby slippers together and make things come true that you want to be true.

> It was around the same time Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in the same break room he told Stanton he said he was going to...And it was the same place Baker & Truly saw him in...

Keep tapping those ruby slippers together.

>
> The reason Dougherty gets his Warren Commission story so mixed up is because he's covering-up this dangerous real witnessing in the 2nd floor lunch room...

You keep dodging the fact that he said virtually the same thing in his same day affidavit that he told the WC. The last time he saw Oswald was on the 6th floor before noon.

[Caeruleo]

I've had difficulties with Dougherty's credibility in general. He is supposedly the only TSBD employee, if I remember correctly, who was already inside the building and saw Oswald as he was first entering the building. Yet he made the astonishing claim that Oswald was carrying nothing at all at the time. Even the majority CTs agree that Oswald was carrying a long, narrow package, even if there is disagreement as to what was inside it. Frazier and his sister both saw the package and Frazier saw Oswald carry it toward the rear entrance of the Depository, and even to Fritz during interrogation later Oswald admitted to carrying "a" package into the depository, although he claimed it was his lunch and claimed he never told Frazier it was curtain rods. Yet if Dougherty is to be believed this package vanished — poof! — into thin air the instant Oswald crossed the threshold of the rear entrance of the Depository.

Dougherty was also inconsistent about hearing the gunfire. To the WC he said he went to lunch at 12:00 then went back to work at 12:30. And then at one point he said he heard the gunfire *before* he went to lunch, prompting Joseph Ball to ask, "Well, now, you remember having your lunch, do you?" I also find it curious that he recalled hearing only one gunshot.

[Scrum Drum]

On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 9:52:13 AM UTC-4, caer...@yahoo.com wrote:




> I've had difficulties with Dougherty's credibility in general. He is supposedly the only TSBD employee, if I remember correctly, who was already inside the building and saw Oswald as he was first entering the building. Yet he made the astonishing claim that Oswald was carrying nothing at all at the time.

Dougherty saw Lee not Harvey...

[John Corbett]

I have difficulties with Dougherty's credibility too but that's not one of the reasons. People in general don't take notice of such mundane details. We tend to remember things that we take notice of at the time. I've heard memory experts say one reason people don't remember the names of people they are introduced to is because they aren't listening closely at the time. We are often thinking about what we are going to say to the person we meet and aren't listening carefully to what is being said. Likewise, if Dougherty had something else on his mind, it's not surprising he wouldn't notice Oswald was carrying a package. If he didn't notice it, there's no reason to think he would remember it.

> Even the majority CTs agree that Oswald was carrying a long, narrow package, even if there is disagreement as to what was inside it. Frazier and his sister both saw the package and Frazier saw Oswald carry it toward the rear entrance of the Depository, and even to Fritz during interrogation later Oswald admitted to carrying "a" package into the depository, although he claimed it was his lunch and claimed he never told Frazier it was curtain rods. Yet if Dougherty is to be believed this package vanished — poof! — into thin air the instant Oswald crossed the threshold of the rear entrance of the Depository.

Frazier thought Oswald had one end of the package tucked under his arm but we know from the length of the package that would not be possible. This is one more example of a mundane detail not being noticed by a witness. Frazier said he was paying more attention to the railroad cars being switched and not so much how Oswald carried the package. He correctly remember Oswald had one end cupped in his hand. He was walking behind Oswald and apparently didn't notice that the other end was protruding above Oswald's shoulder. The fact Oswald told him it was curtain rods might also have influenced how he remembered the length of the bag. The human mind doesn't come with a DVR and we don't always capture all the details correctly.

>
> Dougherty was also inconsistent about hearing the gunfire. To the WC he said he went to lunch at 12:00 then went back to work at 12:30. And then at one point he said he heard the gunfire *before* he went to lunch, prompting Joseph Ball to ask, "Well, now, you remember having your lunch, do you?" I also find it curious that he recalled hearing only one gunshot.

This is the primary reason I have problems with Dougherty's credibility. He kept contradicting himself. It's hard to tell the tone of the interview by reading the transcript but I get the feeling Ball was becoming exasperated with Dougherty's inconsistencies and after a few failed attempts to get him to clarify his story, he simply gave up.

[John Corbett]

Even Dougherty was smart enough to know there was only one Oswald in the TSBD. Apparently there are some here who are dumber than Dougherty.

[Scrum Drum]

On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 12:40:09 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:




> Even Dougherty was smart enough to know there was only one Oswald in the TSBD. Apparently there are some here who are dumber than Dougherty.

I forgot the Peanut Brittle and Beer Oswald with the driver's license that had to be Lee...And it would make sense that Lee would not go in early because that would cause someone to notice two of them...The answer is Harvey probably dropped off the cheese sandwich in the brown bag prior to seeing Dougherty...Oh well...

[John Corbett]

I used to think you were just a liar. Now I'm beginning to think you are just plain nuts. We're talking Sam McClung and Sky Throne crazy. That's way out there. If you believe this shit you are spewing, you are in their class when it comes to nuttiness.

[Scrum Drum]

On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 3:24:58 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:



> I used to think you were just a liar. Now I'm beginning to think you are just plain nuts. We're talking Sam McClung and Sky Throne crazy. That's way out there. If you believe this shit you are spewing, you are in their class when it comes to nuttiness.

Translation: " I can't handle your dangerous evidence short of crude trolling "...


Dougherty probably didn't see the package because it was Oswald's lunch and he had already dropped it off...

[John Corbett]

You are a liar and you are nuts.

[Scrum Drum]

On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 6:14:36 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 3:30:00 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:

The Fritz Notes start at 90 seconds after the shots...The say Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room with a Coke when the officer came in...It is obvious that the reason they do that is because Fritz and the others were trying to cut off everything that happened before at the time of the assassination...The reason the Fritz notes start at the lunch room encounter is because they are operating under the premise that Oswald dashed down from the 6th floor just prior and made it to the 2nd floor lunch room just ahead of Truly & Baker...So they are designed to make sense in the context of the official story...

So while John Corbett lies and tries to erase the Coca-Cola from the record we have Fritz documenting it in his notes of his interview with Lee Harvey Oswald at 3pm on the 22nd...The way Ball deals with the Coke is he tries to incorporate it in to an allegedly false story by Oswald of him eating lunch on the first floor and going up to the 2nd floor lunch room to get a Coke at the time Truly & Baker had their encounter...Ball's version conflicts with Fritz's...The Fritz notes have Oswald getting the Coke and then going down to the 1st floor to eat lunch after the 2nd floor lunch room encounter...What Ball is doing here is trying to alter the witnessing to make it look like Oswald was offering a fake story of eating lunch in the Domino Room and popping up to get a Coke at the time of the assassination...It wasn't until after this setting of the Coke in stone in the Fritz notes that they realized they had set a serious timing conflict in stone that couldn't be accounted for...After they cobbled their lies together at some point they realized they locked themselves in to a timing conflict that showed Oswald didn't have enough time to rush down to the lunch room just ahead of Truly & Baker and still have time to buy the Coke...The reason why they mentioned the Coke at all was because they knew they had to account for the Coke seen by Mrs Reid...The September 1964 statement has Baker saying he saw Oswald drinking a Coke...Since there wasn't enough time for Oswald to buy that Coke in the brief instant Oswald flinched back from the vestibule window therefore that Coke had to be bought before Baker rushed up the stairs and proves beyond a doubt Oswald hadn't just ran down from the 6th floor...That was why Baker was forced to scratch out his saying he saw Oswald drinking a Coke in that statement...Note that Baker completely eliminates mentioning how he detected Oswald when he arrived on the 2nd floor staircase landing in this Sept 1964 statement...He is obviously avoiding mentioning that Oswald was standing stationary in the vestibule window and flinched back when he saw a cop...We can assume that Baker made that statement of seeing Oswald drinking a Coke to FBI transcriber Burnett and Burnett wrote down what Baker told him...Baker had relaxed and gone back to his real memory by the time of that statement...

What the Fritz notes really show is that Oswald's telling Fritz he was in the 2nd floor lunch room eating lunch during the shots was carefully doctored and tip-toed around in the altered statements...Fritz made clear Oswald told him he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots eating a cheese sandwich, as is plainly written in Fritz's Warren Commission testimony...It is even reinforced by Fritz's linguistic slip-ups in that testimony where he documents that Oswald corroborated his being on the 2nd floor by adding he usually worked on the 1st floor...So knowing all this we can then realize the context of the Fritz notes is their starting at 90 seconds after the shots was designed to bypass Oswald telling Fritz he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots...We know Oswald told Fritz he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots...If we look at the Fritz notes they clearly possess a big gaping hole right in that spot that was rather weakly filled in with obvious prevarication and silent presumption...

[John Corbett]

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 1:20:37 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 6:14:36 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 3:30:00 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> The Fritz Notes start at 90 seconds after the shots...The say Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room with a Coke when the officer came in...

We do not know how long after the shots were fired that Baker confronted Oswald in the lunchroom. We can only approximate that time. Fritz's notes indicate what Oswald said. They are not an indication of what Baker said and anything Oswald said cannot be accepted as factual.

> It is obvious

<snip>

Every time Scrum Dumb uses the words "obvious" or "obviously", he follows it with a blatant lie. In this case he claims, without evidence, Fritz was engaging in a cover up.

> The reason the Fritz notes start at the lunch room encounter is because they are operating under the premise that Oswald dashed down from the 6th floor just prior and made it to the 2nd floor lunch room just ahead of Truly & Baker...So they are designed to make sense in the context of the official story...

I didn't snip this because it is not a blatant lie. We do not know that Oswald dashed down from the 6th floor. There is no reason he could not have calmly walked down the stairs and reached the second floor just before Baker and Truly arrived, at which time he ducked into the lunchroom.

>
> So while John Corbett lies and tries to erase the Coca-Cola from the record

The Coca-Cola is only in the record because Oswald claimed he had a Coke. The other two witnesses both said he did not.

> we have Fritz documenting it in his notes of his interview with Lee Harvey Oswald at 3pm on the 22nd...

Fritz was only documenting what Oswald was telling him, not what the reality is.

<snip>

Scrum Dumb falsely claims Ball's version differs from Fritz's. Ball does not have a version. He was simply asking questions of the witnesses. Fritz testified to what Oswald told him. It is not an indication of what Fritz believed.

> The Fritz notes have Oswald getting the Coke and then going down to the 1st floor to eat lunch after the 2nd floor lunch room encounter...

The Fritz notes have Oswald SAYING he was getting a Coke. Scrum Dumb still cannot figure out the difference. He's too fucking stupid.

<snip>

Scrum Dumb falsely asserts Ball was trying to cover up evidence. Nothing required covering up. The only person who said Oswald had a Coke when confronted by Baker is Oswald. That doesn't count for shit.

> The reason why they mentioned the Coke at all was because they knew they had to account for the Coke seen by Mrs Reid...

Reid testified to seeing Oswald with a Coke AFTER he left the lunchroom which was also after the encounter with Baker. Since Baker insisted Oswald didn't have a Coke, that would mean Oswald bought the Coke after Baker and Truly left the lunchroom.

<snip>

This was a real whopper. Scrum Dumb falsely claims Baker said Oswald had a Coke.

<snip>

Scrum Dumb falsely claims Oswald flinched back from the vestibule. There is absolutely no evidence of that.

<snip>

Scrum Dumb falsely asserts Baker was forced to delete the reference to the Coke from his statement. The reality is Baker insisted that reference be deleted before he would sign it. Baker did not write the statement himself. It was written for him by an agent who got the facts mixed up which is why it contained the erroneous reference to the Coke. Baker NEVER said Oswald had a Coke during the encounter.

> Note that Baker completely eliminates mentioning how he detected Oswald when he arrived on the 2nd floor staircase landing in this Sept 1964 statement...He is obviously

We know when we see the word "obviously" that a Scrum Dumb whopper is about to follow.

<snip>

Scrum Dumb falsely asserts that Oswald was standing stationary in the vestibule when Baker spotted him. Baker's statement was that Oswald was moving away from him.

> We can assume

Another indication a whopper is about to follow.

<snip>

Scrum Dumb falsely asserts that Baker's statement said Oswald was drinking a Coke.
>

<snip>

Scrum Dumb falsely asserts Fritz's notes were doctored.

> Fritz made clear Oswald told him he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots eating a cheese sandwich, as is plainly written in Fritz's Warren Commission testimony...It is even reinforced by Fritz's linguistic slip-ups in that testimony where he documents that Oswald corroborated his being on the 2nd floor by adding he usually worked on the 1st floor...

Fritz wrote what Oswald said and Oswald was lying. Oswald doesn't corroborate anything. Someone cannot corroborate their own alibi. Somebody else has to do that. Nobody corroborated Oswald's alibi.

> So knowing all this we can then realize the context of the Fritz notes is their starting at 90 seconds after the shots was designed to bypass Oswald telling Fritz he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots...

Why would anybody want to bypass what Oswald said?

> We know Oswald told Fritz he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots...

Which doesn't mean shit.

> If we look at the Fritz notes they clearly possess a big gaping hole right in that spot that was rather weakly filled in with obvious prevarication and silent presumption...

WTF does this even mean?

[David Von Pein]

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

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/dr-pepper-talk.html

[Caeruleo]

Which would mean that Frazier gave Harvey a ride and watched Harvey walk toward the rear entrance of the TSBD carrying the long, narrow package. And now this would require not only the package vanishing into thin air the moment the man carrying it crossed the threshold of the rear entrance, but Harvey himself to also vanish into thin air, to instantly be replaced by Lee materializing *out* of thin air.

I think you need to start over from scratch.

[Scrum Drum]

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 2:01:27 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 1:20:37 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 6:14:36 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 3:30:00 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > The Fritz Notes start at 90 seconds after the shots...The say Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room with a Coke when the officer came in...



> We do not know how long after the shots were fired that Baker confronted Oswald in the lunchroom. We can only approximate that time. Fritz's notes indicate what Oswald said. They are not an indication of what Baker said and anything Oswald said cannot be accepted as factual.
>

Your responses are weak, regressive, overly-general, and evasive...We know how long Baker took to reach the lunch room because they did two timed tests...It was between 75 and 90 seconds...Baker privately noted that the faster time was probably accurate...Corbett is really getting away with playing dumb and pretending he doesn't know this...Corbett makes a really stupid point here because it doesn't change the fact the Fritz notes omitted everything that happened before the Lunch Room Encounter...Corbett focuses on specious points in his disingenuous answers because he's trying to avoid your good arguments...


You are dishonestly avoiding Sarah Stanton's witnessing where she noted Oswald had a soda in his hand when she spoke to him on the 2nd floor staircase landing...Corbett is lying when he says Baker & Truly said Oswald did not have a Coke...They just didn't mention it...Logic tells you however it had to be there if Stanton saw it a few minutes before...We have to assume that the lunch Carolyn Arnold said she saw Oswald eating included a soda to wash it down with...


Corbett is lying...Any honest reading of Ball's questioning would show he was trying to get Fritz to say Oswald told him he went "up" to get a Coke...Ball is clearly leading the witness and trying to get Fritz to confirm Ball's version of Oswald eating lunch in the Domino Room and going up to get a Coke in the 2nd floor lunch room...Fritz refuses to bite and responds "He said he had a Coca-Cola"...The message Fritz is clearly sending there is Oswald never told him he went up from the Domino Room to get the Coke...


I've already repeatedly explained why there is evidence that Oswald flinched back from the vestibule window...If you look at the angle of perspective from Baker's viewpoint on the landing in combination with the dimensions of the vestibule the only way Baker could have seen Oswald in that window is if he was close to it...You are also obnoxiously and contemptuously ignoring that the best behavioral explanation for Oswald being in that window is if he got up from lunch where he was witnessed sitting and walked over to the vestibule to see who was using the stairs...More than likely Oswald heard Adams & Styles clattering down the stairs and got up to go see was running from the upper floors...If he was standing in the vestibule door and looking out the window then he was up close to the glass and therefore when he "moved away from me", according to Baker, then he did so when he flinched away upon seeing a cop - which is also the best behavioral explanation...


"Nobody corroborated Oswald's alibi" - Well, except for Stanton, Carolyn Arnold, Dougherty, Fritz, Baker, Truly, and Frazier...


Why would anyone want to bypass what Oswald said?" (kind of a dumb question)... Well, because it refuted the official story and showed Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots...The Fritz notes clearly start at the Lunch Room Encounter because they are using the faulty premise that Oswald came down from the 6th floor and got in to the lunch room just ahead of Baker & Truly as a means to not cover the period during the shots...If you look at Fritz's Commission testimony Oswald clearly told Fritz he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots...It was incumbent upon Fritz to mention that in his 3pm interrogation notes and the fact he didn't is proof of a cover-up...Fritz said Oswald told him he was eating a cheese sandwich...Ball showed no curiosity whether Oswald was eating that sandwich before Baker & Truly arrived (which he was according to Carolyn Arnold)...

[Caeruleo]

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 12:20:37 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
>
> The Fritz Notes start at 90 seconds after the shots...The say Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room with a Coke when the officer came in...

The notes say Oswald *claimed* that he already had a Coke when Baker and Truly first saw him. But Baker and Truly never once claimed, in any statement they ever made about this 2nd floor lunchroom encounter, from their earliest recorded statements to their last, that Oswald was holding any type of object in either of his hands, even an object very different from a soda bottle. There is a myth that on September 23 of the following year that Baker wrote a statement in which he initially wrote "drinking a Coke" and then crossed it out, but this statement is quite obviously not in his handwriting and was quite obviously written by the same person who wrote Truly's statement on the same day. Comparisons to documents genuinely handwritten by Baker and Truly plainly show that their handwriting was quite different.

Oswald already having a Coke in his hand when Baker and Truly first saw him is a myth. He quite obviously bought the Coke after Baker and Truly left the lunchroom.

> So while John Corbett lies and tries to erase the Coca-Cola from the record we have Fritz documenting it in his notes of his interview with Lee Harvey Oswald at 3pm on the 22nd...

No. Fritz documented Oswald's uncorroborated and unproven claim that he already had bought a Coke before Baker and Truly first saw him. Fritz also documented several other obviously false claims by Oswald.

> The September 1964 statement has Baker saying he saw Oswald drinking a Coke...Since there wasn't enough time for Oswald to buy that Coke in the brief instant Oswald flinched back from the vestibule window therefore that Coke had to be bought before Baker rushed up the stairs and proves beyond a doubt Oswald hadn't just ran down from the 6th floor...That was why Baker was forced to scratch out his saying he saw Oswald drinking a Coke in that statement...

No, he scratched it out because it was incorrect.

> Note that Baker completely eliminates mentioning how he detected Oswald when he arrived on the 2nd floor staircase landing in this Sept 1964 statement...He is obviously avoiding mentioning that Oswald was standing stationary in the vestibule window and flinched back when he saw a cop...We can assume that Baker made that statement of seeing Oswald drinking a Coke to FBI transcriber Burnett and Burnett wrote down what Baker told him...Baker had relaxed and gone back to his real memory by the time of that statement...

I am aware of no solid evidence that Baker was present when Burnett wrote that account. Burnett instead seems to have written the account based on notes provided to him and newspaper reports, such as the December 1, 1963 Washington Post article by Lawrence Stern and Alfred E. Lewis in which they had obviously conflated, mistakenly, Baker's and Truly's accounts of seeing Oswald in the second floor lunchroom, with the statement of one of the secretaries who saw Oswald holding a Coke as he walked through the office after the lunchroom encounter, a Coke which he had obviously bought *after* Baker and Truly left. Baker and Truly only came in after Burnett wrote the accounts, looked them over, made corrections, and signed them.

[Scrum Drum]

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 4:19:47 PM UTC-4, caer...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 12:20:37 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> >

> The notes say Oswald *claimed* that he already had a Coke when Baker and Truly first saw him. But Baker and Truly never once claimed, in any statement they ever made about this 2nd floor lunchroom encounter, from their earliest recorded statements to their last, that Oswald was holding any type of object in either of his hands, even an object very different from a soda bottle. There is a myth that on September 23 of the following year that Baker wrote a statement in which he initially wrote "drinking a Coke" and then crossed it out, but this statement is quite obviously not in his handwriting and was quite obviously written by the same person who wrote Truly's statement on the same day. Comparisons to documents genuinely handwritten by Baker and Truly plainly show that their handwriting was quite different.

The Fritz Notes are written in short-hand so they simply mention Coke...The context is not given so the possibility that Fritz was trying to say Oswald told him he went up to the 2nd floor to get a Coke is still open if you only use the notes as reference and nothing else..."Claims 2nd Floor Coke When Off Came In" could be construed as "Oswald said he went up to the 2nd floor to get a Coke when the officer came in to the 2nd floor lunch room"... This could be used to say Oswald was only up there to get a Coke to bring back downstairs to drink with his lunch...In fact the rest of the Fritz notes actually suggest this because they say he then ate lunch on the 1st floor after getting the Coke on the 2nd floor...The correct context of the Fritz notes can only be discovered when you compare them to Fritz's Warren Commission testimony where twice he clearly said Oswald was eating lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room...The first time he mentioned this was when he said Oswald was up there having a Coke in the 2nd floor lunch room...When Ball asked Fritz if Oswald told him he had gone up there from the 1st floor to get the Coke Fritz told Ball he only said he had a Coca-Cola...It is clear Fritz was telling Ball Oswald never said he went up there...Fritz was making clear to Ball that Oswald told him he was in there the whole time without saying it directly...The second time was when Fritz told Ball Oswald said he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots...When asked to check the 136B document Fritz looked at it and reiterated that yes, Oswald had said second floor...Fritz said Oswald even confirmed it by adding he normally worked on the 1st floor...The clear context of this is Oswald was saying although he usually worked on the 1st floor he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots...Furthermore, Oswald told Fritz he ate a cheese sandwich for lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room...So the mention of the Coke in the Fritz Notes can only be understood in this context...Confusion in the Fritz Notes and Ball baiting Fritz has led to the illusion that Oswald went from the 1st floor to the 2nd floor lunch room to get the Coke...However any honest study of the overall record shows Oswald was in there the whole time like he told Fritz...Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald eating that lunch at 12:25 (almost certainly with that Coke) and Baker & Truly saw him in the same place 6 minutes later...

>
> Oswald already having a Coke in his hand when Baker and Truly first saw him is a myth. He quite obviously bought the Coke after Baker and Truly left the lunchroom.

Sarah Stanton's relatives insisted Sarah told them Oswald had a soda in his hand when Sarah saw Oswald on the 2nd floor staircase landing as Sarah went out to watch the motorcade...If you look at Lovelady's testimony he said he went down to the Domino Room to eat lunch and when he went there he could see Stanton and Shelley out on the front steps so he went out there and joined them...I would guess Stanton saw Oswald at say 12:20 when she left the 2nd floor to go outside...Sarah's grand daughter Wanda told me Sarah told her Oswald said he intended to go back in to the break room...This puts a soda in Oswald's hand at 12:20 and shows intent to go back to where Carolyn Arnold would see Oswald a few minutes later...Plus Carolyn said Oswald was eating lunch when she saw him, which I assume includes a soda to wash it down with...

[John Corbett]

Nonsense. The fact that there was a 15 second difference between the two recreations indicates how inexact they were. A third recreation likely would have yielded a third time. It i is completely illogical to assume the actual time was between the times of the two recreations. In fact Baker said he thought it took longer on the day of the assassination.

> Baker privately noted that the faster time was probably accurate...

Cite?

> Corbett is really getting away with playing dumb

I don't think you are playing.

> and pretending he doesn't know this...

I know what the recreations indicated and I know they cannot be relied upon to give us anything more than a ballpark figure for how long after the shots the encounter took place.

> Corbett makes a really stupid point here because it doesn't change the fact the Fritz notes omitted everything that happened before the Lunch Room Encounter...

Fritz's notes were a reflection of what Oswald was saying in the interrogation. It was not his purpose to answer all the questions. He was pumping Oswald for answers and getting lies.

> Corbett focuses on specious points in his disingenuous answers because he's trying to avoid your good arguments...

When did you ever make a good argument? I must have missed it.

>
>
> You are dishonestly avoiding Sarah Stanton's witnessing where she noted Oswald had a soda in his hand when she spoke to him on the 2nd floor staircase landing...

You are dishonestly avoiding Sarah Stanton's signed statement in which she spoke for herself and said she didn't see Oswald at any time the day of the assassination. That trumps any and all hearsay accounts to the contrary.

<snip>

Here's where I snip one of Scrum Dumb's blatant lies. Baker insisted that the reference to the Coke be deleted before he would sign the erroneous prepared statement. That indicates he was adamant that Oswald did not have a Coke when the encounter took place. Truly also testified that Oswald did not have a Coke:

Mr. DULLES. When you, and the officer saw Oswald in the luncheon room. did any words pass between you?
Mr. TRULY. No. The officer said something to the boy.
Mr. DULLES. I mean between you and Oswald.
Mr. TRULY. No, sir. Oswald never said a word. Not to me.
Mr. DULLES. What was he doing?
Mr. TRULY. He was just standing there.
Mr. DULLES. Did he have a coke?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir.
Mr. DULLES. No drink?
Mr. TRULY. No drink at all. Just standing there.

This indicates Scrum Dumb was lying when he claimed Truly saw the Coke and just didn't mention it.

<snip>

Scrum Dumb continues to ignore the fact that Sarah Stanton signed a statement saying she didn't see Oswald at any time on the day of the assassination. Signing a false statement during a criminal investigation is a crime. It is obstruction of justice. It's what Martha Steward went to jail for.

We have to assume...

... that Scrum Dumb is about to tell a lie.

> that the lunch Carolyn Arnold said she saw Oswald eating included a soda to wash it down with...

Carolyn Arnold didn't see Oswald eating lunch. Not on the day of the assassination.
>
>
<snip>

Scrum Dumb continues to make accusations for which he has no evidence. Whenever he does that, he uses words like "obviously", "we can assume", "clearly", etc.

> Fritz refuses to bite and responds "He said he had a Coca-Cola"...The message Fritz is clearly sending there is Oswald never told him he went up from the Domino Room to get the Coke...

Fritz is clearly sending the message that Oswald said he had a Coke. This does nothing to establish that Oswald had a Coke when confronted by Baker.

>
>
> I've already repeatedly explained why there is evidence that Oswald flinched back from the vestibule window...

Yes you have and your explanations are FUBAR.

> If you look at the angle of perspective from Baker's viewpoint on the landing in combination with the dimensions of the vestibule the only way Baker could have seen Oswald in that window is if he was close to it...

Which he would have been had he just entered the lunchroom after coming down from the 6th floor and reaching the 2nd floor landing seconds ahead of Truly and Baker.

> You are also obnoxiously and contemptuously ignoring that the best behavioral explanation for Oswald being in that window is if he got up from lunch where he was witnessed sitting and walked over to the vestibule to see who was using the stairs...

"Best behavioral explanation". Damn, you're getting desperate.

> More than likely Oswald heard Adams & Styles clattering down the stairs and got up to go see was running from the upper floors...

There is no evidence that happened. You are just making it up.

> If he was standing in the vestibule door and looking out the window then he was up close to the glass and therefore when he "moved away from me", according to Baker, then he did so when he flinched away upon seeing a cop - which is also the best behavioral explanation...

"If" is another of Scrum Dumb's favorite words. He uses it when he is assuming things for which there is no evidence.
>
>
<snip>

One of Scrum Dumb's biggest lies just got deleted.. He claimed seven people corroborated Oswald's alibi that he was in the 2nd floor lunchroom when the shots were fired. That's seven lies rolled into one. Sarah Stanton signed a statement that she didn't see Oswald the day of the assassination. Fritz was not in the TSBD when the shots were fired so he cannot corroborate Oswald's alibi. He could only testify to what Oswald told him which isn't corroboration. Truly and Baker didn't see Oswald in the lunchroom until after the assassination so they don't corroborate his alibi. Arnold and Dougherty only claimed to have seen him years after the assassination took place and both of their claims contradicted their contemporaneous statements. And this is Scrum Dumb's idea of corroboration.

>
>
> Why would anyone want to bypass what Oswald said?" (kind of a dumb question)...

You mean why would the prime suspect in a presidential assassination and a cop killing lie about it? You can't think of a reason? Damn, you're even dumber than I thought.

> Well, because it refuted the official story and showed Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots...

I guess from now on if an accused person denies they committed the crime they are charged with, we should just let them go no matter how much evidence there is that they are guilty. A person wouldn't lie about something like that.

<snip>

Scrum Dumb claims it is a faulty premise that Oswald had come down from the 6th floor when Baker spotted him just inside the lunchroom door. There is a wealth of forensic evidence (which Scrum Dumb has never dealt with) and an eyewitness that indicate Oswald was the 6th floor shooter. We are supposed to ignore all that because Oswald said he was eating lunch when the shots were fired.

> If you look at Fritz's Commission testimony Oswald clearly told Fritz he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots...

Why would you believe Oswald?

> It was incumbent upon Fritz to mention that in his 3pm interrogation notes and the fact he didn't is proof of a cover-up...

A ludicrous claim. I was going to delete it but it is so ridiculous I decided to leave it in place.

> Fritz said Oswald told him he was eating a cheese sandwich...

Yes he did. So what?

> Ball showed no curiosity whether Oswald was eating that sandwich before Baker & Truly arrived (which he was according to Carolyn Arnold)...

When the WC was conducting their investigation, there is no record of Arnold having said she saw Oswald in the lunchroom at 12:25. Her signed statement of March 1964 said she went outside at 12:25 and did not see Oswald out there. Was Ball supposed to know that 15 years later Arnold would tell a completely different story? At the time the WC was interviewing witnesses, the only person who had said Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunchroom when the shots were fired was Oswald himself. Why would Ball have accepted that claim as factual?

[John Corbett]

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 6:59:52 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 4:19:47 PM UTC-4, caer...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 12:20:37 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > >
>
> > The notes say Oswald *claimed* that he already had a Coke when Baker and Truly first saw him. But Baker and Truly never once claimed, in any statement they ever made about this 2nd floor lunchroom encounter, from their earliest recorded statements to their last, that Oswald was holding any type of object in either of his hands, even an object very different from a soda bottle. There is a myth that on September 23 of the following year that Baker wrote a statement in which he initially wrote "drinking a Coke" and then crossed it out, but this statement is quite obviously not in his handwriting and was quite obviously written by the same person who wrote Truly's statement on the same day. Comparisons to documents genuinely handwritten by Baker and Truly plainly show that their handwriting was quite different.
> The Fritz Notes are written in short-hand so they simply mention Coke...The context is not given so the possibility that Fritz was trying to say Oswald told him he went up to the 2nd floor to get a Coke is still open if you only use the notes as reference and nothing else..."Claims 2nd Floor Coke When Off Came In" could be construed as "Oswald said he went up to the 2nd floor to get a Coke when the officer came in to the 2nd floor lunch room"... This could be used to say Oswald was only up there to get a Coke to bring back downstairs to drink with his lunch...In fact the rest of the Fritz notes actually suggest this because they say he then ate lunch on the 1st floor after getting the Coke on the 2nd floor...The correct context of the Fritz notes can only be discovered when you compare them to Fritz's Warren Commission testimony where twice he clearly said Oswald was eating lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room...The first time he mentioned this was when he said Oswald was up there having a Coke in the 2nd floor lunch room...When Ball asked Fritz if Oswald told him he had gone up there from the 1st floor to get the Coke Fritz told Ball he only said he had a Coca-Cola...It is clear Fritz was telling Ball Oswald never said he went up there...Fritz was making clear to Ball that Oswald told him he was in there the whole time without saying it directly...The second time was when Fritz told Ball Oswald said he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots...When asked to check the 136B document Fritz looked at it and reiterated that yes, Oswald had said second floor...Fritz said Oswald even confirmed it by adding he normally worked on the 1st floor...The clear context of this is Oswald was saying although he usually worked on the 1st floor he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots...Furthermore, Oswald told Fritz he ate a cheese sandwich for lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room...So the mention of the Coke in the Fritz Notes can only be understood in this context...Confusion in the Fritz Notes and Ball baiting Fritz has led to the illusion that Oswald went from the 1st floor to the 2nd floor lunch room to get the Coke...However any honest study of the overall record shows Oswald was in there the whole time like he told Fritz...Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald eating that lunch at 12:25 (almost certainly with that Coke) and Baker & Truly saw him in the same place 6 minutes later...

Fritz testified to what Oswald claimed. Why do you continue to present Oswald's lies as if they are established facts?

> >
> > Oswald already having a Coke in his hand when Baker and Truly first saw him is a myth. He quite obviously bought the Coke after Baker and Truly left the lunchroom.
> Sarah Stanton's relatives insisted Sarah told them Oswald had a soda in his hand when Sarah saw Oswald on the 2nd floor staircase landing as Sarah went out to watch the motorcade...

Sarah Stanton said in her signed statement that she didn't see Oswald at any time on the day of the assassination. Why do you keep ignoring that inconvenient truth. Your hearsay claims do not outweigh what Stanton said for hersef.

> If you look at Lovelady's testimony he said he went down to the Domino Room to eat lunch and when he went there he could see Stanton and Shelley out on the front steps so he went out there and joined them...

So what?

> I would guess Stanton saw Oswald at say 12:20 when she left the 2nd floor to go outside...

Your guesses are FUBAR. Stanton said she didn't see Oswald at all that day. Why should we put more faith in your guesses than Stanton's own signed statement?

> Sarah's grand daughter Wanda told me Sarah told her Oswald said he intended to go back in to the break room...

So you claim. You have told so many lies the past few weeks that anything you tell us would require corroboration to even consider that it might be the truth. What corroboration do you have for this claim?

> This puts a soda in Oswald's hand at 12:20 and shows intent to go back to where Carolyn Arnold would see Oswald a few minutes later...Plus Carolyn said Oswald was eating lunch when she saw him, which I assume includes a soda to wash it down with...

Your assumptions are nothing more than your guesses and they are based on the false premise that Arnold saw Oswald in the lunchroom at 12:25. That conflicts with Arnold's signed statement. But you don't care. To you, the outlier claims made years after the assassination in unsworn statements are the only things that are to be believed. That ignores the other 99% of the evidence we have that clearly tells us Oswald was JFK's assassin. You can try to lie your way out of that inconvenient truth but it won't work. Not with intelligent people anyway.

[Caeruleo]

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 3:17:46 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
>
> "Nobody corroborated Oswald's alibi" - Well, except for Stanton, Carolyn Arnold, Dougherty, Fritz, Baker, Truly, and Frazier...

Stanton, Arnold, Dougherty and Frazier do not corroborate Oswald's alibi that he was drinking a Coke when Baker and Truly first saw him because none of ever claimed to have witnessed the encounter between Oswald, Baker and Truly. And the times they all gave for seeing Oswald were at least five minutes before or after the time most commonly given for that encounter, which was 12:31-12:32 pm. The closest time Arnold ever gave for seeing Oswald, for example, was a minimum of six minutes before that, and that was in only one of her statements. In another statement she gave a time of no later than 12:20 as the time she last saw Oswald. And I'm surprised you claim Captain Fritz corroborated Oswald. No he didn't. He merely wrote down that Oswald *claimed* to have had a Coke in his hand when Baker and Truly first saw him. And Roy Truly? He never, at any time, not even in a statement handwritten by someone else and later signed by him, claimed Oswald was holding anything at all in either hand at the time. And there is no proof that Baker and Truly were present on September 23, 1964 when Burnett wrote "Baker's" and "Truly's" accounts of what happened; for all we know Burnett wrote those based on notes he was given, and then Baker and Truly came in afterward, read through the statements, made corrections (if necessary), and signed them. This was obviously a rush job; I'm not able to find it at the moment, but I clearly remember seeing the letter saying that the Commission desired to have statements from Baker and Truly as fast as possible to have them on file before the publication of the Report which was issued only a few days later.

> Why would anyone want to bypass what Oswald said?" (kind of a dumb question)...

Maybe because he was lying? It is common for real murderers to lie, you know.

[Scrum Drum]

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 7:11:34 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

> > Your responses are weak, regressive, overly-general, and evasive...We know how long Baker took to reach the lunch room because they did two timed tests...It was between 75 and 90 seconds...
> Nonsense. The fact that there was a 15 second difference between the two recreations indicates how inexact they were. A third recreation likely would have yielded a third time. It i is completely illogical to assume the actual time was between the times of the two recreations. In fact Baker said he thought it took longer on the day of the assassination.
> > Baker privately noted that the faster time was probably accurate...

.


Your answers are stupid and beneath the level I require for discussion...The reason you are stupid is because you don't realize the time that was tested for Baker running in was bracketed by other tests of the time it would have taken Oswald to hurry down from the 6th floor...They know that Baker can be seen running to the front door in the Couch/Darnell film that is 25 seconds after the shots...You show a distinct lack of analysis skills by not realizing your scenario gets Oswald in to the lunch room right ahead of Baker and therefore narrows it down to that 75 to 90 second window...But you still haven't credibly answered the point that Fritz's notes exclude the critical time of where Oswald was during the shots...By the way, I can't find it right now but Baker told someone privately that he got in there faster than what the Commission was saying...He never said it was slower...You're just trolling that...

> > You are dishonestly avoiding Sarah Stanton's witnessing where she noted Oswald had a soda in his hand when she spoke to him on the 2nd floor staircase landing...
> You are dishonestly avoiding Sarah Stanton's signed statement in which she spoke for herself and said she didn't see Oswald at any time the day of the assassination. That trumps any and all hearsay accounts to the contrary.

Only if you are a denier troll who is only seeking to avoid the incriminating evidence and force everything to the Commission's lies...Stanton died in like 1992 so no one ever got a chance to show her her Signed Statement...You would have to imagine if she was telling family members she saw Oswald on the 2nd floor staircase landing that she would have had something to say about the discrepancy between those statements...I'd have to imagine that Stanton would have said exactly what Arnold and Adams said when shown FBI's alteration of their statements...We have a record of FBI lying and altering statements...We have no such record for Adams, Arnold, or Stanton...Oswald was clearly waiting for the ladies to clear out from the lunch room...

>
> Here's where I snip one of Scrum Dumb's blatant lies. Baker insisted that the reference to the Coke be deleted before he would sign the erroneous prepared statement. That indicates he was adamant that Oswald did not have a Coke when the encounter took place. Truly also testified that Oswald did not have a Coke:
>
> Mr. DULLES. When you, and the officer saw Oswald in the luncheon room. did any words pass between you?
> Mr. TRULY. No. The officer said something to the boy.
> Mr. DULLES. I mean between you and Oswald.
> Mr. TRULY. No, sir. Oswald never said a word. Not to me.
> Mr. DULLES. What was he doing?
> Mr. TRULY. He was just standing there.
> Mr. DULLES. Did he have a coke?
> Mr. TRULY. No, sir.
> Mr. DULLES. No drink?
> Mr. TRULY. No drink at all. Just standing there.
>
> This indicates Scrum Dumb was lying when he claimed Truly saw the Coke and just didn't mention it.

Oswald doesn't have to be holding the Coke when Baker sees him...It is very possible that when he got up to go look out the vestibule window on to the staircase landing that he left the soda Sarah Stanton saw him holding on the lunch room table with the rest of his lunch...Truly's statement does not necessarily exclude the Coke being on the table...Nor does it exclude Truly being in on the cover-up...Corbett is quick to call our witnesses liars...He never says that about the Commission script-readers...

>
> Scrum Dumb continues to ignore the fact that Sarah Stanton signed a statement saying she didn't see Oswald at any time on the day of the assassination. Signing a false statement during a criminal investigation is a crime. It is obstruction of justice. It's what Martha Steward went to jail for.

Corbett is too stupid to realize how that very statement works in my favor...No authority ever went after Carolyn Arnold or asked her to account for going against her sworn statement...Most of these people were humble Texas-types that the FBI liars knew would probably never see their statements...No one ever went after Dougherty either...I wonder why?...They lied about a file room fire and had Adams re-do her statement, inserting Lovelady & Shelley in to the new statement...That's illegal- isn't it?...If such things are illegal why didn't FBI pursue its own documented difference between the 12:15 time and 12:25 time in Arnold's statements?...

> Carolyn Arnold didn't see Oswald eating lunch. Not on the day of the assassination.

In the 1978 Dallas Morning News article Carolyn Arnold is quoted as saying "I just recall that he was sitting there in one of the booth seats on the right hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him but I recognized him clearly." ...Obviously Carolyn Arnold saw something that made her think Oswald was having lunch...We can only assume it was the cheese sandwich and apple as well as Coke on the table...

> > I've already repeatedly explained why there is evidence that Oswald flinched back from the vestibule window...
> Yes you have and your explanations are FUBAR.
> > If you look at the angle of perspective from Baker's viewpoint on the landing in combination with the dimensions of the vestibule the only way Baker could have seen Oswald in that window is if he was close to it...
> Which he would have been had he just entered the lunchroom after coming down from the 6th floor and reaching the 2nd floor landing seconds ahead of Truly and Baker.

No...This is where you are stupidly wrong and I already explained why...You're obviously too stupid to realize when you've been out-argued...If your version were correct the timing of the door closing would have kept Oswald from being seen in the window...If Baker did not see the door still closing then the speed of Oswald going through the vestibule door would have carried him out of view by the time the door closed...With the vestibule door closed Oswald would have traveled so far beyond the vestibule door window that Baker would not be able to see him...This is proof that Oswald was standing stationary in the vestibule window looking out and flinched when he saw Baker...It is the only behavior and timing that allows Baker to see Oswald moving away from the window...Otherwise Oswald is too far in to the lunch room access to be seen in the window...It takes 3 seconds for the automatic door to close and by that time Oswald would be out of sight...Your level of analysis is idiotic and fails to answer to the intelligent level of evidence I offer...




> > More than likely Oswald heard Adams & Styles clattering down the stairs and got up to go see who was running from the upper floors...

> There is no evidence that happened. You are just making it up.

Your responses are trollish and badly fail to answer for the fact Mrs Garner did not see Oswald on the stairs and therefore my version has more evidence behind it...Oswald is looking through the vestibule window because he heard Adams & Styles clattering down the stairs...This is proven by the fact Baker could not see Oswald in that window unless he was standing stationary in it...

>
> One of Scrum Dumb's biggest lies just got deleted.. He claimed seven people corroborated Oswald's alibi that he was in the 2nd floor lunchroom when the shots were fired. That's seven lies rolled into one. Sarah Stanton signed a statement that she didn't see Oswald the day of the assassination. Fritz was not in the TSBD when the shots were fired so he cannot corroborate Oswald's alibi. He could only testify to what Oswald told him which isn't corroboration. Truly and Baker didn't see Oswald in the lunchroom until after the assassination so they don't corroborate his alibi. Arnold and Dougherty only claimed to have seen him years after the assassination took place and both of their claims contradicted their contemporaneous statements. And this is Scrum Dumb's idea of corroboration.

That is just McAdams-type dishonest wordsmithing to get around the fact that once you input all the other preponderance of evidence those 7 witnesses (Stanton, Carolyn Arnold, Dougherty, Fritz, Baker, Truly, and Frazier) all serve to corroborate Oswald's alibi of being in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots...

> > Why would anyone want to bypass what Oswald said?" (kind of a dumb question)...
> You mean why would the prime suspect in a presidential assassination and a cop killing lie about it? You can't think of a reason? Damn, you're even dumber than I thought.

That isn't honestly put...The real issue here is Fritz indicated Oswald told him he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots...That had to have come from Oswald during the 3pm Fritz interrogation and Fritz failed to enter it in his notes...You are not honestly answering what is being said...

> > It was incumbent upon Fritz to mention that in his 3pm interrogation notes and the fact he didn't is proof of a cover-up...
> A ludicrous claim. I was going to delete it but it is so ridiculous I decided to leave it in place.
> > Fritz said Oswald told him he was eating a cheese sandwich...
> Yes he did. So what?
> > Ball showed no curiosity whether Oswald was eating that sandwich before Baker & Truly arrived (which he was according to Carolyn Arnold)...
> When the WC was conducting their investigation, there is no record of Arnold having said she saw Oswald in the lunchroom at 12:25. Her signed statement of March 1964 said she went outside at 12:25 and did not see Oswald out there. Was Ball supposed to know that 15 years later Arnold would tell a completely different story? At the time the WC was interviewing witnesses, the only person who had said Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunchroom when the shots were fired was Oswald himself. Why would Ball have accepted that claim as factual?

I'm not the one who is dumb here...Fritz mentioned the cheese sandwich during Ball's Commission oversight...Ball did nothing to pursue it like he should have...The fact Carolyn Arnold's 1964 statement said 12:25 is proof her version is the real one...

You failed to answer the fact that Oswald had to have told Fritz he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the 3pm interrogation...Somehow it didn't make it to the Fritz notes that start at the Lunch Room Encounter 75 to 90 seconds after the shots...That is proof of Fritz covering-up that you can only answer with pretend indignation with no answer...

[Caeruleo]

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 5:59:52 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 4:19:47 PM UTC-4, caer...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 12:20:37 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> >
> > The notes say Oswald *claimed* that he already had a Coke when Baker and Truly first saw him. But Baker and Truly never once claimed, in any statement they ever made about this 2nd floor lunchroom encounter, from their earliest recorded statements to their last, that Oswald was holding any type of object in either of his hands, even an object very different from a soda bottle. There is a myth that on September 23 of the following year that Baker wrote a statement in which he initially wrote "drinking a Coke" and then crossed it out, but this statement is quite obviously not in his handwriting and was quite obviously written by the same person who wrote Truly's statement on the same day. Comparisons to documents genuinely handwritten by Baker and Truly plainly show that their handwriting was quite different.

> The Fritz Notes are written in short-hand so they simply mention Coke...

Yes, I know, I've read the notes a number of times since c.2002, including once again this morning.

> The correct context of the Fritz notes can only be discovered when you compare them to Fritz's Warren Commission testimony where twice he clearly said Oswald was eating lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room...

No. Fritz did not say Oswald "was" eating lunch in the second floor lunch room as if it was a fact. Fritz instead said Oswald *claimed* to have done that, which is an important distinction.

> Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald eating that lunch at 12:25 (almost certainly with that Coke) and Baker & Truly saw him in the same place 6 minutes later...

It is misleading of you to say simply that Arnold saw Oswald eating lunch at 12:25, period, as if that is the only time she ever gave, when in fact she is not recorded as saying "12:25" for the first time ever until more than a decade after the assassination. Much closer to the time of the assassination she gave the latest possible time of seeing Oswald as 12:20. And, as I've said before years ago in the other newsgroup, even if Oswald really was there in the lunchroom as late as 12:25 it comes nowhere close to precluding him from being the shooter, since five minutes is still plenty of time to go back up to the sixth floor sniper's nest and shoot at the motorcade if the rifle was already assembled earlier.

> > Oswald already having a Coke in his hand when Baker and Truly first saw him is a myth. He quite obviously bought the Coke after Baker and Truly left the lunchroom.

> Sarah Stanton's relatives insisted Sarah told them Oswald had a soda in his hand when Sarah saw Oswald on the 2nd floor staircase landing as Sarah went out to watch the motorcade...

That is hearsay. Is there a bonafide quote of Stanton herself saying that in her own words? On March 18, 1964 she said, "I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at that time or at any time during that day."

> If you look at Lovelady's testimony he said he went down to the Domino Room to eat lunch and when he went there he could see Stanton and Shelley out on the front steps so he went out there and joined them...I would guess Stanton saw Oswald at say 12:20 when she left the 2nd floor to go outside...

You would guess that from a statement that Stanton was never recorded as making?

> Sarah's grand daughter Wanda told me Sarah told her Oswald said he intended to go back in to the break room...

Is it possible, just possible, that Wanda was mistaken in her recollection? Most people would say that is a perfectly reasonable question, and I would be surprised if you didn't.

[John Corbett]

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 9:29:29 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 7:11:34 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>
> > > Your responses are weak, regressive, overly-general, and evasive...We know how long Baker took to reach the lunch room because they did two timed tests...It was between 75 and 90 seconds...
> > Nonsense. The fact that there was a 15 second difference between the two recreations indicates how inexact they were. A third recreation likely would have yielded a third time. It i is completely illogical to assume the actual time was between the times of the two recreations. In fact Baker said he thought it took longer on the day of the assassination.
> > > Baker privately noted that the faster time was probably accurate...
> .

Cite?

>
>
> Your answers are stupid and beneath the level I require for discussion...

Yet you continue to discuss them.

> The reason you are stupid is because you don't realize the time that was tested for Baker running in was bracketed by other tests of the time it would have taken Oswald to hurry down from the 6th floor...They know that Baker can be seen running to the front door in the Couch/Darnell film that is 25 seconds after the shots...

Which establishes how long it took him to reach the TSBD, not the second floor lunchroom.

> You show a distinct lack of analysis skills by not realizing your scenario gets Oswald in to the lunch room right ahead of Baker and therefore narrows it down to that 75 to 90 second window...

I know Oswald got to the lunchroom just ahead of Baker but I'm smart enough to know recreations can't tell us precisely how long after the shots that was. We can only estimate it based on the recreation.

> But you still haven't credibly answered the point that Fritz's notes exclude the critical time of where Oswald was during the shots...

A pretty stupid statement, even by your incredibly low standards. Fritz's notes only establish where Oswald said he was. They don't establish where Oswald actually was.

PS. You are a poor judge of what is credible.

> By the way, I can't find it right now but Baker told someone privately that he got in there faster than what the Commission was saying...He never said it was slower...You're just trolling that...

You can't find it but I'm supposed to believe you. <chuckle>

The reality is Baker said he thought it took him a little LONGER on the day of the assassination and I can cite that. Chapter 4, page 153 of the WCR:

"We simulated the shots and by the time we got there, we did everything that I did that day, and this would be the minimum, because I am sure that I, you know, it took me a little longer."

You're wrong again.

> > > You are dishonestly avoiding Sarah Stanton's witnessing where she noted Oswald had a soda in his hand when she spoke to him on the 2nd floor staircase landing...
> > You are dishonestly avoiding Sarah Stanton's signed statement in which she spoke for herself and said she didn't see Oswald at any time the day of the assassination. That trumps any and all hearsay accounts to the contrary.

> Only if you are a denier troll who is only seeking to avoid the incriminating evidence and force everything to the Commission's lies...

Hearsay evidence is not incriminating especially when it runs contrary to signed statement by the person to who the hearsay statement is attributed.

You're wrong again.

> Stanton died in like 1992 so no one ever got a chance to show her her Signed Statement...

She got to see it when she signed it, doofus.

> You would have to imagine if she was telling family members she saw Oswald on the 2nd floor staircase landing that she would have had something to say about the discrepancy between those statements...

I have no idea what she told her family members because we have no record of what she said or what they said she said. All we have are your unsubstantiated claims and you are not a trustworthy source.

> I'd have to imagine

You assume. You guess. Now you are imagining. Great way to determine the truth.

<chuckle>

> that Stanton would have said exactly what Arnold and Adams said when shown FBI's alteration of their statements...

In absence of evidence to the contrary, I'll go with the statement Stanton signed in March o 1964 in which she said she didn't see Oswald at anytime during the day.

<snip>

My first opportunity to snip a blatant lie. There will probably be more.

<snip>

We do have a record of what Stanton said. She gave a SIGNED statement. That won't go away no matter how hard you wish it would.

> Oswald was clearly

Here comes a Scrum Dumb whopper.

<snip>

I was right again. That's three in just this one post. So far.

> >
> > Here's where I snip one of Scrum Dumb's blatant lies. Baker insisted that the reference to the Coke be deleted before he would sign the erroneous prepared statement. That indicates he was adamant that Oswald did not have a Coke when the encounter took place. Truly also testified that Oswald did not have a Coke:
> >
> > Mr. DULLES. When you, and the officer saw Oswald in the luncheon room. did any words pass between you?
> > Mr. TRULY. No. The officer said something to the boy.
> > Mr. DULLES. I mean between you and Oswald.
> > Mr. TRULY. No, sir. Oswald never said a word. Not to me.
> > Mr. DULLES. What was he doing?
> > Mr. TRULY. He was just standing there.
> > Mr. DULLES. Did he have a coke?
> > Mr. TRULY. No, sir.
> > Mr. DULLES. No drink?
> > Mr. TRULY. No drink at all. Just standing there.
> >
> > This indicates Scrum Dumb was lying when he claimed Truly saw the Coke and just didn't mention it.
> Oswald doesn't have to be holding the Coke when Baker sees him...

He does if you want to claim Oswald had a Coke when Baker confronted him.

<snip>

Lie number four. Sarah Stanton did not say she saw Oswald with a Coke. She said she didn't see Oswald at any time that day.

> Truly's statement does not necessarily exclude the Coke being on the table...Nor does it exclude Truly being in on the cover-up...Corbett is quick to call our witnesses liars...He never says that about the Commission script-readers...

You've been claiming that Baker and Truly saw the Coke and lied about it. Now you are walking that back. Baker and Truly both said Oswald did not have a Coke when the encounter occurred. As you do with Sarah Stanton's unambiguous statement that she didn't see Oswald on the day of the assassination, you try to pretend they didn't say that. When you are shown what they did say, you prevaricate. Except of course with Sarah Stanton. You continue to claim she saw Oswald with a Coke when she signed a statement that said unambiguously that she never saw him on the day of the assassination. The funny part is you still expect to be taken seriously.

> >
> > Scrum Dumb continues to ignore the fact that Sarah Stanton signed a statement saying she didn't see Oswald at any time on the day of the assassination. Signing a false statement during a criminal investigation is a crime. It is obstruction of justice. It's what Martha Steward went to jail for.
> Corbett is too stupid to realize how that very statement works in my favor...

Oh, this should be good.

> No authority ever went after Carolyn Arnold or asked her to account for going against her sworn statement...

She did that 15 years later. Do you think the Warren Commission should have reconvened?

Most of these people were humble Texas-types that the FBI liars knew would probably never see their statements...

They would have to have seen the statements in order to sign them, doofus.

> No one ever went after Dougherty either...I wonder why?...

I don't. He was almost as scatterbrained as you. He couldn't even remember if the one shot he heard came before or after he ate lunch.

> They lied about a file room fire and had Adams re-do her statement, inserting Lovelady & Shelley in to the new statement...That's illegal- isn't it?...

Where do you get this shit? Rankin requested the FBI to go back and get SIGNED statements from the TSBD employees. He gave them a list of six questions he wanted answered. One of them was where were you and who were you with when the shots were fired. Adams replied to a specific question with a specific answer.

> If such things are illegal why didn't FBI pursue its own documented difference between the 12:15 time and 12:25 time in Arnold's statements?...

Because that is the kind of error witnesses routinely make from one telling to the next. People tend not to remember exact times of events unless there is something that establishes such times. We know the shots occurred at 12:30 because the big Hertz clock on top of the TSBD displayed the time for all in Dealey Plaza to see. Without that clock, we might have to estimate the time the shots were fired.

> > Carolyn Arnold didn't see Oswald eating lunch. Not on the day of the assassination.
> In the 1978 Dallas Morning News article Carolyn Arnold is quoted as saying "I just recall that he was sitting there in one of the booth seats on the right hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him but I recognized him clearly." ...

I put more weight in her two contemporaneous statements in which she made no mention of seeing Oswald in the lunchroom.

> Obviously Carolyn Arnold saw something that made her think Oswald was having lunch...

Or she had a false memory which is a common occurrence when people try to remember events from many years ago.

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-false-memory-2795193

"Memory Mistakes Are Quite Common

People often think of memory as something like a video recorder, accurately documenting and storing everything that happens with perfect accuracy and clarity. In reality, memory is very prone to fallacy. People can feel completely confident that their memory is accurate, but this confidence is no guarantee that a particular memory is correct."

We can only assume

You can only assume. I prefer to follow credible evidence.

> it was the cheese sandwich and apple as well as Coke on the table...
> > > I've already repeatedly explained why there is evidence that Oswald flinched back from the vestibule window...
> > Yes you have and your explanations are FUBAR.
> > > If you look at the angle of perspective from Baker's viewpoint on the landing in combination with the dimensions of the vestibule the only way Baker could have seen Oswald in that window is if he was close to it...
> > Which he would have been had he just entered the lunchroom after coming down from the 6th floor and reaching the 2nd floor landing seconds ahead of Truly and Baker.
> No...This is where you are stupidly wrong and I already explained why...You're obviously too stupid to realize when you've been out-argued...If your version were correct the timing of the door closing would have kept Oswald from being seen in the window...

No it wouldn't. Baker could see a short distance into the vestibule and could have seen Oswald in the vestibule if Oswald had just entered it. Depending on how wide a turn he made after reaching the second floor landing, he could also have seen a short distance into the lunchroom. Baker was non-specific as to how far inside the outer door Oswald was when he spotted him. He only said Oswald was moving away from him when spotted.

> If Baker did not see the door still closing then the speed of Oswald going through the vestibule door would have carried him out of view by the time the door closed...

There is a window on the outer door that Baker could look through.

> With the vestibule door closed Oswald would have traveled so far beyond the vestibule door window that Baker would not be able to see him...

That would depend on how long before Baker arrived that Oswald had entered the lunchroom and how fast he was moving. Neither of these is known.

> This is proof that Oswald was standing stationary in the vestibule window looking out and flinched when he saw Baker...

Just because you declare something to be proof does not establish that it is proof. You ignore all plausible explanations except for the one you want to argue for.

> It is the only behavior and timing that allows Baker to see Oswald moving away from the window...

Bulllshit. It's not even good bullshit.

> Otherwise Oswald is too far in to the lunch room access to be seen in the window...It takes 3 seconds for the automatic door to close and by that time Oswald would be out of sight...Your level of analysis is idiotic and fails to answer to the intelligent level of evidence I offer...

Here's a good example of how poor your analytical skills are. There is no evidence that there was 3 seconds between the time Oswald entered the vestibule and Baker spotting him. It could have been 1 or 2 seconds or fractions. We don't know.

>
>
>
>
> > > More than likely Oswald heard Adams & Styles clattering down the stairs and got up to go see who was running from the upper floors...
> > There is no evidence that happened. You are just making it up.
> Your responses are trollish and badly fail to answer for the fact Mrs Garner did not see Oswald on the stairs and therefore my version has more evidence behind it...

Mrs. Garner not seeing Oswald is evidence of nothing. Had Mrs. Garner seen Oswald, that would be evidence.

<snip>

Another Scrum Dumb fantasy snipped.

<snip>

More bullshit snipped.

> >
> > One of Scrum Dumb's biggest lies just got deleted.. He claimed seven people corroborated Oswald's alibi that he was in the 2nd floor lunchroom when the shots were fired. That's seven lies rolled into one. Sarah Stanton signed a statement that she didn't see Oswald the day of the assassination. Fritz was not in the TSBD when the shots were fired so he cannot corroborate Oswald's alibi. He could only testify to what Oswald told him which isn't corroboration. Truly and Baker didn't see Oswald in the lunchroom until after the assassination so they don't corroborate his alibi. Arnold and Dougherty only claimed to have seen him years after the assassination took place and both of their claims contradicted their contemporaneous statements. And this is Scrum Dumb's idea of corroboration.

<snip>

Repeating the same lie over and over again does nothing to improve its credibility. I forgot to address your claim about Frazier. What the hell does he have to do with whether or not Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunchroom?

> > > Why would anyone want to bypass what Oswald said?" (kind of a dumb question)...
> > You mean why would the prime suspect in a presidential assassination and a cop killing lie about it? You can't think of a reason? Damn, you're even dumber than I thought.
> That isn't honestly put...The real issue here is Fritz indicated Oswald told him he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots...

What does that prove?

> That had to have come from Oswald during the 3pm Fritz interrogation and Fritz failed to enter it in his notes...

So Oswald said it. Again I ask. What does that prove?

> You are not honestly answering what is being said...

I have fully acknowledged that Fritz reported that Oswald told him he was in the 2nd floor lunchroom when the shots were fired. That proves absolutely nothing. Guilty people claim they are innocent all the time. OJ Simpson claimed he didn't kill two people. He found some people dumb enough to believe him.

> > > It was incumbent upon Fritz to mention that in his 3pm interrogation notes and the fact he didn't is proof of a cover-up...
> > A ludicrous claim. I was going to delete it but it is so ridiculous I decided to leave it in place.
> > > Fritz said Oswald told him he was eating a cheese sandwich...
> > Yes he did. So what?
> > > Ball showed no curiosity whether Oswald was eating that sandwich before Baker & Truly arrived (which he was according to Carolyn Arnold)...
> > When the WC was conducting their investigation, there is no record of Arnold having said she saw Oswald in the lunchroom at 12:25. Her signed statement of March 1964 said she went outside at 12:25 and did not see Oswald out there. Was Ball supposed to know that 15 years later Arnold would tell a completely different story? At the time the WC was interviewing witnesses, the only person who had said Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunchroom when the shots were fired was Oswald himself. Why would Ball have accepted that claim as factual?
> I'm not the one who is dumb here...Fritz mentioned the cheese sandwich during Ball's Commission oversight...

Only because that is what Oswald told him. Fritz didn't say Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunchroom eating a cheese sandwich when the shots were fired.

> Ball did nothing to pursue it like he should have...The fact Carolyn Arnold's 1964 statement said 12:25 is proof her version is the real one...

Her 1964 statement said she went outside at 12:25. It makes no mention of seeing Oswald at 12:25 or any other time.

>
> You failed to answer the fact that Oswald had to have told Fritz he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the 3pm interrogation...

I don't give a shit what Oswald told Fritz. Oswald was lying to Fritz. We have ample evidence of that. He even denied owning a rifle.

<snip>

One last Scrum Dumb whopper deleted. Scrum Dumb has a very strange idea of what constitutes proof.

[Scrum Drum]

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 11:17:50 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:



> > The reason you are stupid is because you don't realize the time that was tested for Baker running in was bracketed by other tests of the time it would have taken Oswald to hurry down from the 6th floor...They know that Baker can be seen running to the front door in the Couch/Darnell film that is 25 seconds after the shots...
> Which establishes how long it took him to reach the TSBD, not the second floor lunchroom.

This is a dumb answer that doesn't answer the point...They timed how long it would take Oswald to get to the lunch room from the Sniper's Nest...There was a narrow window of when Oswald could have ducked in to the lunch room ahead of Baker without being seen...The 75 to 90 second window is accurate for these minimums and is the time it would have taken Baker to reach the lunch room...You show you don't have an intelligent grasp of what is being argued...Truly and Baker had a general idea of how fast they moved so they replicated it close enough for our purposes here...

> > You show a distinct lack of analysis skills by not realizing your scenario gets Oswald in to the lunch room right ahead of Baker and therefore narrows it down to that 75 to 90 second window...
> I know Oswald got to the lunchroom just ahead of Baker but I'm smart enough to know recreations can't tell us precisely how long after the shots that was. We can only estimate it based on the recreation.
> > But you still haven't credibly answered the point that Fritz's notes exclude the critical time of where Oswald was during the shots...
> A pretty stupid statement, even by your incredibly low standards. Fritz's notes only establish where Oswald said he was. They don't establish where Oswald actually was.

Again, you show you don't understand what is being argued...The Fritz Notes start at the 2nd floor lunch room encounter...Since we know Oswald told Fritz he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots in the 3pm interview that the Fritz notes are based on there is no excuse for Fritz not starting his notes with "Oswald claims in 2nd lunch room during shots"...You are entering irrelevant evasive bullshit but are failing to answer the main point that Fritz's omission is evidence of a cover-up...You answer is stupid because it doesn't reflect that Oswald DID establish where he was...He told Fritz he was in the 2nd floor lunch room eating lunch during the shots...You are transforming the material into a parallel sophist framework in order to launder out its obvious meaning and only respond to the sophist contrivance...That's dishonest...

Baker did tell someone that the re-creations slowed them down a little as they tried to repeat the motions...Baker said the way they really moved that day was more fluid and more based on trying to get upstairs fast so it was actually a little quicker than the times they determined in the recreations...

> > > > You are dishonestly avoiding Sarah Stanton's witnessing where she noted Oswald had a soda in his hand when she spoke to him on the 2nd floor staircase landing...

> Hearsay evidence is not incriminating especially when it runs contrary to signed statement by the person to who the hearsay statement is attributed.

You are trying to get too much out of the Signed Statements while ignoring we have serious evidence of criminal alteration in the statements by the authorities...Bullshit it is not incriminating...The connecting pattern of events seen in the statements of those witnesses matches the evidence better than the clumsy lies of the FBI alter-ers and all points in the same direction...Conflicting stories is exactly what the authorities call evidence of incrimination...It is plainly obvious the authorities were trying to cover-up evidence of Oswald being in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots...

> > Stanton died in like 1992 so no one ever got a chance to show her her Signed Statement...
> She got to see it when she signed it, doofus.

You give your dishonesty away in your answers...Stanton was never given a chance to speak about her Signed Statements vs the repeated story of seeing Oswald on the staircase landing she had been telling relatives...The reason you avoid answering what was written is because you know you can't answer it...

> > You would have to imagine if she was telling family members she saw Oswald on the 2nd floor staircase landing that she would have had something to say about the discrepancy between those statements...
> I have no idea what she told her family members because we have no record of what she said or what they said she said. All we have are your unsubstantiated claims and you are not a trustworthy source.

You are trying to get away from answering what the relatives clearly said in my interview, that is publicly posted on You Tube, by calling me an untrustworthy source...You're dodging there and it is obvious that FBI lied and omitted Stanton's witnessing...

> Lie number four. Sarah Stanton did not say she saw Oswald with a Coke. She said she didn't see Oswald at any time that day.

Stanton saying she saw Oswald holding a soda is confirmed strongly in my interview with Wanda Daniel by both Wanda and Rosa...

If Sarah said Oswald had a soda then that was what he was drinking when Carolyn Arnold saw him eating lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:25...

> She did that 15 years later. Do you think the Warren Commission should have reconvened?

It wouldn't have mattered if it did...It wasn't a legal body and had no perjury powers...

> > They lied about a file room fire and had Adams re-do her statement, inserting Lovelady & Shelley in to the new statement...That's illegal- isn't it?...
> Where do you get this shit? Rankin requested the FBI to go back and get SIGNED statements from the TSBD employees. He gave them a list of six questions he wanted answered. One of them was where were you and who were you with when the shots were fired. Adams replied to a specific question with a specific answer.

Don't play dumb...Leavelle went back and told Adams there was a file room fire and he needed another statement...After that ruse Lovelady & Shelley changed their time for leaving the steps to 3 minutes and they were inserted in to Adams' statement as being seen on the 1st floor when she got there on the steps...It is explained clearly on Barry Ernest's Facebook page...A clear intent to alter Adams' statement in order to scuttle her lack of witnessing of Oswald on the steps...I have no doubt Dougherty, Stanton, and Arnold all had their statements badly altered in order to remove their witnessing of Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room signed or not...

> > If such things are illegal why didn't FBI pursue its own documented difference between the 12:15 time and 12:25 time in Arnold's statements?...
> Because that is the kind of error witnesses routinely make from one telling to the next. People tend not to remember exact times of events unless there is something that establishes such times. We know the shots occurred at 12:30 because the big Hertz clock on top of the TSBD displayed the time for all in Dealey Plaza to see. Without that clock, we might have to estimate the time the shots were fired.

The March 64 statement was proof-read by Arnold...It included the correct 12:25 time that was attached to her other details of being pregnant and waiting until the last minute to avoid going out in to the sun...Seems FBI and the Commission didn't try too hard to sort that 10 minute difference out...Nor did they show any concern over the sighting in the foyer being dropped in this new version...

> > > Carolyn Arnold didn't see Oswald eating lunch. Not on the day of the assassination.
> > In the 1978 Dallas Morning News article Carolyn Arnold is quoted as saying "I just recall that he was sitting there in one of the booth seats on the right hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him but I recognized him clearly." ...
> I put more weight in her two contemporaneous statements in which she made no mention of seeing Oswald in the lunchroom.
> > Obviously Carolyn Arnold saw something that made her think Oswald was having lunch...
> Or she had a false memory which is a common occurrence when people try to remember events from many years ago.

Ah ha...I'm sure you believe that too...Funny how the false memory didn't extend to the 12:25 time that she got right in March 1964...Carolyn Arnold insisted to Golz that she said 12:25 in the 2nd floor lunch room in all her statements...And strange how two other people had the exact same false memory...

> No it wouldn't. Baker could see a short distance into the vestibule and could have seen Oswald in the vestibule if Oswald had just entered it. Depending on how wide a turn he made after reaching the second floor landing, he could also have seen a short distance into the lunchroom. Baker was non-specific as to how far inside the outer door Oswald was when he spotted him. He only said Oswald was moving away from him when spotted.
> > If Baker did not see the door still closing then the speed of Oswald going through the vestibule door would have carried him out of view by the time the door closed...
> There is a window on the outer door that Baker could look through.

That doesn't work...The angle of the window and angle of perspective from Baker's position precludes him seeing Oswald once he got a certain distance from the window...The reason you are wrong is because Truly said he did not see the door closing...With Oswald hearing Baker & Truly coming up the rickety stairs and ducking in to the lunch room to hide with the speed Oswald would be moving he would be out of sight by the time Baker got to the landing...You could have tested this and you would see it is conclusive...

> > This is proof that Oswald was standing stationary in the vestibule window looking out and flinched when he saw Baker...
> Just because you declare something to be proof does not establish that it is proof. You ignore all plausible explanations except for the one you want to argue for.

We know Oswald wasn't on the stairs because Mrs Garner didn't see him...

There is no evidence that there was 3 seconds between the time Oswald entered the vestibule and Baker spotting him. It could have been 1 or 2 seconds or fractions. We don't know.

Truly didn't see the vestibule door closing...We have video of that automatic door closing in some of the re-enactments...It took 3 seconds and it was closed by the time Baker got there...What that means is you have badly failed to answer conclusive forensic evidence...The only way Baker could have seen Oswald in that window is if Oswald was standing in it stationary before he flinched back...

> > > > More than likely Oswald heard Adams & Styles clattering down the stairs and got up to go see who was running from the upper floors...
> > > There is no evidence that happened. You are just making it up.
> > Your responses are trollish and badly fail to answer for the fact Mrs Garner did not see Oswald on the stairs and therefore my version has more evidence behind it...
> Mrs. Garner not seeing Oswald is evidence of nothing. Had Mrs. Garner seen Oswald, that would be evidence.

Wrong...I have proven Oswald had to be standing stationary in the window before Baker saw him flinch back...Therefore he had to have a reason and Adams & Styles is the best one because it fits the evidence...Don't think people can't see you not being able to answer for Mrs Garner not seeing Oswald on the steps...

> I have fully acknowledged that Fritz reported that Oswald told him he was in the 2nd floor lunchroom when the shots were fired. That proves absolutely nothing. Guilty people claim they are innocent all the time. OJ Simpson claimed he didn't kill two people. He found some people dumb enough to believe him.

Detective Bill Dear proved OJ's son Jason did the killing...

You are conspicuously ignoring that 7 people corroborated Oswald being in the 2nd floor lunch room...Frazier corroborated it by admitting he was told there was a partly-eaten sandwich and apple on the 2nd floor lunch room table where Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald...

Fritz didn't say Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunchroom eating a cheese sandwich when the shots were fired.

Wrong...Fritz said Oswald told him he was eating lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room...Oswald said he had a cheese sandwich...Oswald said he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots...COMBINED, this does say that...Anything else is disingenuous word games meant to deny the facts...

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I just wanted to say that you two boys are doing a fine job here. Keep up the good work!

[John Corbett]

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 2:55:38 AM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 11:17:50 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>
>
>
> > > The reason you are stupid is because you don't realize the time that was tested for Baker running in was bracketed by other tests of the time it would have taken Oswald to hurry down from the 6th floor...They know that Baker can be seen running to the front door in the Couch/Darnell film that is 25 seconds after the shots...
> > Which establishes how long it took him to reach the TSBD, not the second floor lunchroom.
> This is a dumb answer that doesn't answer the point...

If an intelligent person told me that, it might bother me.

> They timed how long it would take Oswald to get to the lunch room from the Sniper's Nest...

It is impossible to determine that from a recreation because we have no way of knowing how fast Oswald was moving when he descended from the 6th floor to the 2nd.

> There was a narrow window of when Oswald could have ducked in to the lunch room ahead of Baker without being seen...

Not really. The only thing we can surmise is that however long it took them to get to the second floor is that it took Baker a few more seconds than it took Oswald because Oswald got there first. He got to the lunchroom door before Truly because if he was still on the landing Truly would have seen him. Baker was right behind Truly and took a glance to his right and spotted Oswald moving away from him.

> The 75 to 90 second window is accurate for these minimums and is the time it would have taken Baker to reach the lunch room...You show you don't have an intelligent grasp of what is being argued...Truly and Baker had a general idea of how fast they moved so they replicated it close enough for our purposes here...

We have no idea if they are accurate. Oswald could have been moving faster or slower than the person who did the recreations. The fact there was a 15 second difference between the two timings indicate how inexact recreations are. I believe those recreations are probably close to accurate but there is no way of knowing for certain. We don't know what the margin for error is.

> > > You show a distinct lack of analysis skills by not realizing your scenario gets Oswald in to the lunch room right ahead of Baker and therefore narrows it down to that 75 to 90 second window...
> > I know Oswald got to the lunchroom just ahead of Baker but I'm smart enough to know recreations can't tell us precisely how long after the shots that was. We can only estimate it based on the recreation.
> > > But you still haven't credibly answered the point that Fritz's notes exclude the critical time of where Oswald was during the shots...
> > A pretty stupid statement, even by your incredibly low standards. Fritz's notes only establish where Oswald said he was. They don't establish where Oswald actually was.
> Again, you show you don't understand what is being argued...

I can't understand anything you argue. None of it makes sense.

> The Fritz Notes start at the 2nd floor lunch room encounter...Since we know Oswald told Fritz he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots in the 3pm interview that the Fritz notes are based on there is no excuse for Fritz not starting his notes with "Oswald claims in 2nd lunch room during shots"...You are entering irrelevant evasive bullshit

I guess only you are allowed to do that.

> but are failing to answer the main point that Fritz's omission is evidence of a cover-up...

Your silly figuring is not evidence of anything other than you are silly.

> You answer is stupid because it doesn't reflect that Oswald DID establish where he was...

The fact that you think Oswald claiming he was in the 2nd floor lunchroom establishes he was in the 2nd floor lunchroom reveals just how silly you really are.

> He told Fritz he was in the 2nd floor lunch room eating lunch during the shots...

The forensic evidence says otherwise. I believe the forensic evidence.

> You are transforming the material into a parallel sophist framework in order to launder out its obvious meaning and only respond to the sophist contrivance...That's dishonest...

The only think obvious here is that you are dishonest. And stupid. And crazy.

>
> Baker did tell someone that the re-creations slowed them down a little as they tried to repeat the motions...

<chuckle> So you claim but you can't cite any source for this. Baker is on the record as saying he thought the actual time took longer than the recreations and I have cited my source. Pity you can't do the same.

> Baker said the way they really moved that day was more fluid and more based on trying to get upstairs fast so it was actually a little quicker than the times they determined in the recreations...

You are making this up. You have no source for this. That makes it easy to dismiss as bullshit.

> > > > > You are dishonestly avoiding Sarah Stanton's witnessing where she noted Oswald had a soda in his hand when she spoke to him on the 2nd floor staircase landing...
> > Hearsay evidence is not incriminating especially when it runs contrary to signed statement by the person to who the hearsay statement is attributed.
> You are trying to get too much out of the Signed Statements while ignoring we have serious evidence of criminal alteration in the statements by the authorities...Bullshit it is not incriminating...The connecting pattern of events seen in the statements of those witnesses matches the evidence better than the clumsy lies of the FBI alter-ers and all points in the same direction...Conflicting stories is exactly what the authorities call evidence of incrimination...It is plainly obvious the authorities were trying to cover-up evidence of Oswald being in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots...
> > > Stanton died in like 1992 so no one ever got a chance to show her her Signed Statement...
> > She got to see it when she signed it, doofus.
> You give your dishonesty away in your answers...Stanton was never given a chance to speak about her Signed Statements vs the repeated story of seeing Oswald on the staircase landing she had been telling relatives...The reason you avoid answering what was written is because you know you can't answer it...
> > > You would have to imagine if she was telling family members she saw Oswald on the 2nd floor staircase landing that she would have had something to say about the discrepancy between those statements...
> > I have no idea what she told her family members because we have no record of what she said or what they said she said. All we have are your unsubstantiated claims and you are not a trustworthy source.
> You are trying to get away from answering what the relatives clearly said in my interview, that is publicly posted on You Tube, by calling me an untrustworthy source...You're dodging there and it is obvious that FBI lied and omitted Stanton's witnessing...

I have no obligation to accept your unsupported claims or to answer them. You have no record of any of this. You could claim that Wanda told you she was Deep Throat and that would carry just as much weight.

> > Lie number four. Sarah Stanton did not say she saw Oswald with a Coke. She said she didn't see Oswald at any time that day.
> Stanton saying she saw Oswald holding a soda is confirmed strongly in my interview with Wanda Daniel by both Wanda and Rosa...

Nobody gives a shit what you claim someone told you in an interview because you are a liar.

We have ample evidence of that.
>

> If Sarah said Oswald had a soda then that was what he was drinking when Carolyn Arnold saw him eating lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:25...

Sarah didn't say she saw Oswald with a soda. She said she didn't see him at all that day.
Sarah Stanton is not your friend. She does nothing to support your silly theories. All her statement does is reveal how silly your theories are.

> > She did that 15 years later. Do you think the Warren Commission should have reconvened?
> It wouldn't have mattered if it did...It wasn't a legal body and had no perjury powers...
> > > They lied about a file room fire and had Adams re-do her statement, inserting Lovelady & Shelley in to the new statement...That's illegal- isn't it?...
> > Where do you get this shit? Rankin requested the FBI to go back and get SIGNED statements from the TSBD employees. He gave them a list of six questions he wanted answered. One of them was where were you and who were you with when the shots were fired. Adams replied to a specific question with a specific answer.
> Don't play dumb...Leavelle went back and told Adams there was a file room fire and he needed another statement...

So?

> After that ruse Lovelady & Shelley changed their time for leaving the steps to 3 minutes and they were inserted in to Adams' statement as being seen on the 1st floor when she got there on the steps...It is explained clearly on Barry Ernest's Facebook page...A clear intent to alter Adams' statement in order to scuttle her lack of witnessing of Oswald on the steps...I have no doubt Dougherty, Stanton, and Arnold all had their statements badly altered in order to remove their witnessing of Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room signed or not...

There is absolutely nothing suspicious about a witness telling a slightly different story from one telling to the next. People sometimes remember details that they omitted in another telling. Why would it be suspicious that Lovelady and Shelley were mentioned in one telling and not another? How would that change anything? Conspiracy hobbyists focus on all the wrong things.

> > > If such things are illegal why didn't FBI pursue its own documented difference between the 12:15 time and 12:25 time in Arnold's statements?...
> > Because that is the kind of error witnesses routinely make from one telling to the next. People tend not to remember exact times of events unless there is something that establishes such times. We know the shots occurred at 12:30 because the big Hertz clock on top of the TSBD displayed the time for all in Dealey Plaza to see. Without that clock, we might have to estimate the time the shots were fired.
> The March 64 statement was proof-read by Arnold...

Yes it was and it made no mention of seeing Oswald at 12:25 or any other time. One of the specific questions Rankin wanted each employee to answer was if they saw Oswald. If Arnold saw Oswald, why didn't she say so in that March statement.

> It included the correct 12:25 time that was attached to her other details of being pregnant and waiting until the last minute to avoid going out in to the sun...

Wonderful. It still made no mention off seeing Oswald.

> Seems FBI and the Commission didn't try too hard to sort that 10 minute difference out...Nor did they show any concern over the sighting in the foyer being dropped in this new version...

Her November statement said she thought she MIGHT have seen Oswald earlier but wasn't sure. If she wasn't sure, it would do nothing to establish an alibi for Oswald. Not only that but the time she reported she might have seen Oswald left plenty of time for Oswald to get to the 6th floor even if it was Oswald she spotted.

> > > > Carolyn Arnold didn't see Oswald eating lunch. Not on the day of the assassination.
> > > In the 1978 Dallas Morning News article Carolyn Arnold is quoted as saying "I just recall that he was sitting there in one of the booth seats on the right hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him but I recognized him clearly." ...
> > I put more weight in her two contemporaneous statements in which she made no mention of seeing Oswald in the lunchroom.
> > > Obviously Carolyn Arnold saw something that made her think Oswald was having lunch...
> > Or she had a false memory which is a common occurrence when people try to remember events from many years ago.
> Ah ha...I'm sure you believe that too...Funny how the false memory didn't extend to the 12:25 time that she got right in March 1964...

Funny how you ignore the fact that is the time she said she went outside, not the time she said she saw Oswald.

> Carolyn Arnold insisted to Golz that she said 12:25 in the 2nd floor lunch room in all her statements...And strange how two other people had the exact same false memory...

Strange how you keep lying.

> > No it wouldn't. Baker could see a short distance into the vestibule and could have seen Oswald in the vestibule if Oswald had just entered it. Depending on how wide a turn he made after reaching the second floor landing, he could also have seen a short distance into the lunchroom. Baker was non-specific as to how far inside the outer door Oswald was when he spotted him. He only said Oswald was moving away from him when spotted.
> > > If Baker did not see the door still closing then the speed of Oswald going through the vestibule door would have carried him out of view by the time the door closed...
> > There is a window on the outer door that Baker could look through.
> That doesn't work...The angle of the window and angle of perspective from Baker's position precludes him seeing Oswald once he got a certain distance from the window...

You presume to know how far Oswald was from the door when Baker spotted him.

> The reason you are wrong is because Truly said he did not see the door closing...

Truly didn't look in that direction. If he had, he would have seen the same thing Baker did but a second or two sooner.

> With Oswald hearing Baker & Truly coming up the rickety stairs and ducking in to the lunch room to hide with the speed Oswald would be moving he would be out of sight by the time Baker got to the landing...You could have tested this and you would see it is conclusive...

The only thing conclusive here is that you are really bad at drawing conclusions. You seem to have this nutty idea that if Oswald had just entered the lunchroom before Baker got to the landing he wouldn't have been visible from the landing. Oswald would have been visible to Baker whether he stationary of moving. We have one witness to Oswald in that vestibule and that one witness said Oswald was moving away from him when spotted.

> > > This is proof that Oswald was standing stationary in the vestibule window looking out and flinched when he saw Baker...
> > Just because you declare something to be proof does not establish that it is proof. You ignore all plausible explanations except for the one you want to argue for.
> We know Oswald wasn't on the stairs because Mrs Garner didn't see him...
> There is no evidence that there was 3 seconds between the time Oswald entered the vestibule and Baker spotting him. It could have been 1 or 2 seconds or fractions. We don't know.
> Truly didn't see the vestibule door closing...

Of course he didn't. He didn't see Oswald because he didn't glance in that direction. He continued up the stairway and only returned when he realized Baker was no longer following him.

> We have video of that automatic door closing in some of the re-enactments...It took 3 seconds and it was closed by the time Baker got there...

The door had a window so even if it had closed, Baker could have seen Oswald walking away from him. The other possibility is Oswald had entered the vestibule less than 3 seconds before the door closed behind him and the door was still partially open when Baker spotted Oswald.

I do need to correct something I wrote earlier. I said the inner door had an automatic closer. That is wrong. It was usually kept propped open. Apparently I had a false memory of what I had read years ago. I recently came across the truth of the matter.

> What that means is you have badly failed to answer conclusive forensic evidence...

What that means is you have a very bad idea of what constitutes conclusive forensic evidence. You dismiss all plausible explanations for known facts in favor of the only explanation that fits your narrative.

> The only way Baker could have seen Oswald in that window is if Oswald was standing in it stationary before he flinched back...

Oh really. The window was only transparent if Oswald was stationary. Baker couldn't have seen Oswald if he was moving.

You're nuts.

> > > > > More than likely Oswald heard Adams & Styles clattering down the stairs and got up to go see who was running from the upper floors...
> > > > There is no evidence that happened. You are just making it up.
> > > Your responses are trollish and badly fail to answer for the fact Mrs Garner did not see Oswald on the stairs and therefore my version has more evidence behind it...
> > Mrs. Garner not seeing Oswald is evidence of nothing. Had Mrs. Garner seen Oswald, that would be evidence.
> Wrong...I have proven Oswald had to be standing stationary in the window before Baker saw him flinch back...

You don't seem to understand the difference between claiming something and proving it. There are no witnesses to Oswald standing stationary in the vestibule of the lunchroom. Not even Oswald claimed he was doing that. We have one witness, Baker, who saw Oswald there and his testimony is that Oswald was moving away when he saw Oswald. Your postulation that Oswald was standing stationary there before being spotted by Baker is not proof. Your postulation REQUIRES proof, something you have yet to deliver.

> Therefore he had to have a reason and Adams & Styles is the best one because it fits the evidence...

One poor assumption often leads to more poor assumptions. Your assumptions amount to nothing more than a house of cards. They don't stand up to scrutiny. They only reveal your desperation to believe something other than the truth.

> Don't think people can't see you not being able to answer for Mrs Garner not seeing Oswald on the steps...

I need no answer for your crazy theories. It is enough to point out the fallacies.

> > I have fully acknowledged that Fritz reported that Oswald told him he was in the 2nd floor lunchroom when the shots were fired. That proves absolutely nothing. Guilty people claim they are innocent all the time. OJ Simpson claimed he didn't kill two people. He found some people dumb enough to believe him.
> Detective Bill Dear proved OJ's son Jason did the killing...
>

You are nuts.

> You are conspicuously ignoring that 7 people corroborated Oswald being in the 2nd floor lunch room...Frazier corroborated it by admitting he was told there was a partly-eaten sandwich and apple on the 2nd floor lunch room table where Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald...

You do love your hearsay. This demonstrates why hearsay is not a credible form of evidence.
Frazier did not see a cheese sandwich in the lunchroom. He only repeated what he had been told. Suppose there was an employee named Bob who tells 10 people he saw a pink unicorn in the employee parking lot. Each of those 10 people tell 10 other people. That means we now have 100 people who heard there was a pink unicorn in the employee parking lot. That doesn't add credibility to Bob's claim that he saw a pink unicorn in the employee parking lot. It doesn't mean we have 100 people who saw a pink unicorn in the employee parking lot. We still only have one person who claims to have seen the pink unicorn and the credibility of the report of a pink unicorn in the parking lot rests solely with the credibility of Bob's story. Those 100 people who heard Bob's story do not corroborate his story.

> Fritz didn't say Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunchroom eating a cheese sandwich when the shots were fired.
> Wrong...Fritz said Oswald told him he was eating lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room...Oswald said he had a cheese sandwich...Oswald said he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots...COMBINED, this does say that...Anything else is disingenuous word games meant to deny the facts...

Oswald is the sole source of the claim he was eating a cheese sandwich in the lunchroom. You have this idiotic idea that Fritz was endorsing what Oswald was telling him. The reality is he was only reporting what Oswald told him. You seem to think they are one and the same. That and the fact you think both Oswald and OJ are innocent means you are incapable of carrying on an intelligent conversation. No wonder you got kicked out of the Education Forum. When you are too stupid and crazy for those people, you really are nuts.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 12:36:11 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07
>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06


Ah! The proven coward is still around... and still running...

[John Corbett]

Just what this thread needed. Another asshole like Benny Yellowpants.

[BT George]

Hey is this John Reagor King/Caeruleo?

[Scrum Drum]

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 8:37:22 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:


> Not really. The only thing we can surmise is that however long it took them to get to the second floor is that it took Baker a few more seconds than it took Oswald because Oswald got there first. He got to the lunchroom door before Truly because if he was still on the landing Truly would have seen him. Baker was right behind Truly and took a glance to his right and spotted Oswald moving away from him.

You can't get away with that because it doesn't answer to the 3 second speed of the vestibule door closing...

> We have no idea if they are accurate. Oswald could have been moving faster or slower than the person who did the recreations. The fact there was a 15 second difference between the two timings indicate how inexact recreations are. I believe those recreations are probably close to accurate but there is no way of knowing for certain. We don't know what the margin for error is.

We have a good enough idea...You are just blathering because you are trying to troll around admitting my evidence...The 75 second time for Baker is more accurate because it was more like the hurried running in than the pacing of the 90 second trial...

> > > I know Oswald got to the lunchroom just ahead of Baker but I'm smart enough to know recreations can't tell us precisely how long after the shots that was. We can only estimate it based on the recreation.

You are failing to answer for the fact we have videos of the Commission recreating Oswald's descent from the 6th floor...Oswald was moving pretty quickly and he got in just ahead of the 75 second time...

> > It included the correct 12:25 time that was attached to her other details of being pregnant and waiting until the last minute to avoid going out in to the sun...
> Wonderful. It still made no mention off seeing Oswald.

Carolyn Arnold insisted it did and FBI altered it...

> > Seems FBI and the Commission didn't try too hard to sort that 10 minute difference out...Nor did they show any concern over the sighting in the foyer being dropped in this new version...
> Her November statement said she thought she MIGHT have seen Oswald earlier but wasn't sure. If she wasn't sure, it would do nothing to establish an alibi for Oswald. Not only that but the time she reported she might have seen Oswald left plenty of time for Oswald to get to the 6th floor even if it was Oswald she spotted.

The reason the FBI-forged claim that Carolyn saw Oswald in the foyer wasn't included in the March 1964 report is because Carolyn never said that...The evidence backs her, not you and your FBI lies...

> > The reason you are wrong is because Truly said he did not see the door closing...
> Truly didn't look in that direction. If he had, he would have seen the same thing Baker did but a second or two sooner.

You can't get away with that...In his Commission interview Truly said he was looking and that he didn't see anything...He didn't see the door moving...You are not answering for the strict forensics that require, if Oswald was coming down from upstairs, for the vestibule door to have taken 3 seconds to close before it could be seen as closed...You are failing to account for the fact Oswald was ducking in to the lunch room ahead of Baker & Truly whom he would have heard on the rickety stairs...If the door was closed by the time Truly saw it then Oswald had transited in to the lunch room entry for at least 3 seconds...You could have gone to the 2nd floor landing and tested this yourself and you would see that if you transited for those 3 seconds then you would no longer be visible in the vestibule window by the time Baker emerged on the landing...In the scenario presented by the Warren Commission Oswald would have transited out of view of Baker in the 3 second period it would have taken to close the door...

> > We know Oswald wasn't on the stairs because Mrs Garner didn't see him...

You once again stupidly fail to answer for the better more intelligent evidence...The timing of all this is also bracketed by Adams & Styles...They descended the steps and Mrs Garner stood at the 4th floor landing and watched it as Adams & Styles descended...Adams & Styles did not see or hear Oswald descend nor did Mrs Garner...The next thing Mrs Garner saw was Baker & Truly arriving at the 4th floor landing...The only way Adams & Styles and Mrs Garner could miss Oswald in this scenario is if Oswald got down way ahead of them and in to the 2nd floor lunch room...But if that happened then Oswald was so far ahead of everyone that he would have arrived in to the lunch room well before Baker & Truly...This scenario would also require Adams & Styles to have gotten down to the 1st floor and out before Baker & Truly arrived at the elevators...In any case it would exclude Oswald being seen walking away from the vestibule door after just entering it...But this scenario is impossible because it beats the fastest times possible for Oswald to have descended...The only solution therefore is that Oswald never descended the steps because he was in the 2nd floor lunch room like Carolyn Arnold and Sarah Stanton witnessed - and as he told Fritz...

> > The only way Baker could have seen Oswald in that window is if Oswald was standing in it stationary before he flinched back...
> Oh really. The window was only transparent if Oswald was stationary. Baker couldn't have seen Oswald if he was moving.
>

You are failing to answer the forensic evidence that proves this in public...If the automatic door is closed then Oswald has transited at least 3 seconds in to the lunch room entry and cannot be seen through the vestibule window from Baker's position...

> Oswald is the sole source of the claim he was eating a cheese sandwich in the lunchroom. You have this idiotic idea that Fritz was endorsing what Oswald was telling him. The reality is he was only reporting what Oswald told him. You seem to think they are one and the same. That and the fact you think both Oswald and OJ are innocent means you are incapable of carrying on an intelligent conversation. No wonder you got kicked out of the Education Forum. When you are too stupid and crazy for those people, you really are nuts.

Not true...Carolyn Arnold saw something that made her tell Golz that Oswald was apparently eating lunch...I'm guessing it was that cheese sandwich...Buell Frazier admitted he was told there was a partly-eaten cheese sandwich on that same table that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald sitting at...

I was banned at the Education Forum because the bully incompetent moderator James Gordon saw I was beating his favorites and was refuting their website's prize Prayer Man theory and he wasn't going to allow it...Gordon is a crook and a coward...It says a lot that a crude Lone Nutter like you would endorse him...

[John Corbett]

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 2:42:47 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 8:37:22 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>
>
> > Not really. The only thing we can surmise is that however long it took them to get to the second floor is that it took Baker a few more seconds than it took Oswald because Oswald got there first. He got to the lunchroom door before Truly because if he was still on the landing Truly would have seen him. Baker was right behind Truly and took a glance to his right and spotted Oswald moving away from him.
> You can't get away with that because it doesn't answer to the 3 second speed of the vestibule door closing...

It doesn't matter how fast the door closed. Baker could have seen him through the window or seen him before the door completely closed.

> > We have no idea if they are accurate. Oswald could have been moving faster or slower than the person who did the recreations. The fact there was a 15 second difference between the two timings indicate how inexact recreations are. I believe those recreations are probably close to accurate but there is no way of knowing for certain. We don't know what the margin for error is.
> We have a good enough idea...You are just blathering because you are trying to troll around admitting my evidence...The 75 second time for Baker is more accurate because it was more like the hurried running in than the pacing of the 90 second trial...

Keep telling yourself that. It won't make it true.

> > > > I know Oswald got to the lunchroom just ahead of Baker but I'm smart enough to know recreations can't tell us precisely how long after the shots that was. We can only estimate it based on the recreation.
> You are failing to answer for the fact we have videos of the Commission recreating Oswald's descent from the 6th floor...Oswald was moving pretty quickly and he got in just ahead of the 75 second time...

How the hell do you know how fast Oswald was moving?

> > > It included the correct 12:25 time that was attached to her other details of being pregnant and waiting until the last minute to avoid going out in to the sun...
> > Wonderful. It still made no mention off seeing Oswald.
> Carolyn Arnold insisted it did and FBI altered it...

She signed the statement and the statement she signed made no mention of Oswald.

> > > Seems FBI and the Commission didn't try too hard to sort that 10 minute difference out...Nor did they show any concern over the sighting in the foyer being dropped in this new version...
> > Her November statement said she thought she MIGHT have seen Oswald earlier but wasn't sure. If she wasn't sure, it would do nothing to establish an alibi for Oswald. Not only that but the time she reported she might have seen Oswald left plenty of time for Oswald to get to the 6th floor even if it was Oswald she spotted.
> The reason the FBI-forged claim that Carolyn saw Oswald in the foyer wasn't included in the March 1964 report is because Carolyn never said that...The evidence backs her, not you and your FBI lies...

So if you discount that one, there is no record that Arnold even might have seen Oswald.

> > > The reason you are wrong is because Truly said he did not see the door closing...
> > Truly didn't look in that direction. If he had, he would have seen the same thing Baker did but a second or two sooner.

<snip>

Here's the first chance to snip one of your lies. Truly never said he looked in the direction of the doorway. This is what he told the WC:

Mr. TRULY. That is it.
Mr. BELIN. What number is that?
Mr. TRULY. It is number 23.
Mr. BELIN. All right. Number 23, the arrow points to the door that has the glass in it.
Now, as you raced around, how far did you start up the stairs towards the third floor there?
Mr. TRULY. I suppose I was up two or three steps before I realized the officer wasn't following me.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. TRULY. I came back to the second floor landing.
Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
Mr. TRULY. I heard some voices, or a voice, coming from the area of the lunchroom, or the inside vestibule, the area of 24.
Mr. BELIN. All right. And I see that there appears to be on the second floor diagram, a room marked lunchroom.
Mr. TRULY. That is right.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. TRULY. I ran over and looked in this door No. 23.
Mr. BELIN. Through the glass, or was the door open?
Mr. TRULY. I don't know. I think I opened the door. I feel like I did. I don't remember.
Mr. BELIN. It could have been open or it could have been closed, you do not remember?
Mr. TRULY. The chances are it was closed.
Mr. BELIN. You thought you opened it?
Mr. TRULY. I think I opened it. I opened the door back and leaned in this way.
Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
Mr. TRULY. I saw the officer almost directly in the doorway of the lunch-room facing Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. And where was Lee Harvey Oswald at the time you saw him?
Mr. TRULY. He was at the front of the lunchroom, not very far inside he was just inside the lunchroom door.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. TRULY. 2 or 3 feet, possibly.

> You are not answering for the strict forensics that require, if Oswald was coming down from upstairs, for the vestibule door to have taken 3 seconds to close before it could be seen as closed...You are failing to account for the fact Oswald was ducking in to the lunch room ahead of Baker & Truly whom he would have heard on the rickety stairs...If the door was closed by the time Truly saw it then Oswald had transited in to the lunch room entry for at least 3 seconds...You could have gone to the 2nd floor landing and tested this yourself and you would see that if you transited for those 3 seconds then you would no longer be visible in the vestibule window by the time Baker emerged on the landing...In the scenario presented by the Warren Commission Oswald would have transited out of view of Baker in the 3 second period it would have taken to close the door...

The simple fact is Truly did not look in the direction of the lunchroom door or he would have seen what Baker saw and that is true whether Oswald was already in the vestibule or had just entered the vestibule when Baker spotted him. There is no need to account for the speed the door closed. This is just a red herring argument you have introduced.

> > > We know Oswald wasn't on the stairs because Mrs Garner didn't see him...
> You once again stupidly fail to answer for the better more intelligent evidence...The timing of all this is also bracketed by Adams & Styles...They descended the steps and Mrs Garner stood at the 4th floor landing and watched it as Adams & Styles descended...Adams & Styles did not see or hear Oswald descend nor did Mrs Garner...The next thing Mrs Garner saw was Baker & Truly arriving at the 4th floor landing...The only way Adams & Styles and Mrs Garner could miss Oswald in this scenario is if Oswald got down way ahead of them and in to the 2nd floor lunch room...But if that happened then Oswald was so far ahead of everyone that he would have arrived in to the lunch room well before Baker & Truly...This scenario would also require Adams & Styles to have gotten down to the 1st floor and out before Baker & Truly arrived at the elevators...In any case it would exclude Oswald being seen walking away from the vestibule door after just entering it...But this scenario is impossible because it beats the fastest times possible for Oswald to have descended...The only solution therefore is that Oswald never descended the steps because he was in the 2nd floor lunch room like Carolyn Arnold and Sarah Stanton witnessed - and as he told Fritz...

You haven't established that any of these people would have been on or near the stairway before Oswald came down so there is no reason to think any of them would have seen him coming down the stairs. Oswald would have good reason not to delay coming down the stairs. We don't know how quickly he was moving but running down would likely draw attention to himself so it would make more sense for him to walk down without delay. Had he done so, there is no reason he couldn't have already come down the stairs by the time any of these people got to the stairs.

> > > The only way Baker could have seen Oswald in that window is if Oswald was standing in it stationary before he flinched back...
> > Oh really. The window was only transparent if Oswald was stationary. Baker couldn't have seen Oswald if he was moving.
> >
> You are failing to answer the forensic evidence that proves this in public...If the automatic door is closed then Oswald has transited at least 3 seconds in to the lunch room entry and cannot be seen through the vestibule window from Baker's position...

Who said the door was all the way closed when Baker spotted Oswald. Baker didn't say that. Baker could have seen Oswald through the window before the door had completely closed.
The fact Baker saw Oswald through the window doesn't establish that Oswald had gone through the door 3 seconds earlier.

Mr. BAKER - I said let's take the stairs.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Then what did you do?
Mr. BAKER - He said, "Okay" and so he immediately turned around, which the stairs is just to the, would be to the, well, the west of this elevator.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Mr. BAKER - And we went up them.
Mr. BELIN - You went up the stairs then?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - When you started up the stairs what was your intention at that--
Mr. BAKER - My intention was to go all the way to the top where I thought the shots had come from, to see if I could find something there, you know, to indicate that.
Mr. BELIN - And did you go all the way up to the top of the stairs right away?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir; we didn't.
Mr. BAKER - What happened?
Mr. BAKER - As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly was ahead of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the rooms, and I caught a glimpse of this man walking away from this--I happened to see him through this window in this door. I don't know how come I saw him, but I had a glimpse of him coming down there.
Mr. DULLES - Where was he coming from, do you know?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir. All I seen of him was a glimpse of him go away from me.

> > Oswald is the sole source of the claim he was eating a cheese sandwich in the lunchroom. You have this idiotic idea that Fritz was endorsing what Oswald was telling him. The reality is he was only reporting what Oswald told him. You seem to think they are one and the same. That and the fact you think both Oswald and OJ are innocent means you are incapable of carrying on an intelligent conversation. No wonder you got kicked out of the Education Forum. When you are too stupid and crazy for those people, you really are nuts.

> Not true...Carolyn Arnold saw something that made her tell Golz that Oswald was apparently eating lunch...I'm guessing it was that cheese sandwich...

Guessing is all you ever do. And you aren't very good at it.

> Buell Frazier admitted he was told there was a partly-eaten cheese sandwich on that same table that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald sitting at...

Anything Frazier was told is hearsay and doesn't establish anything for reasons I already explained to you. I guess I didn't dumb it down enough for you to understand. Frazier cannot corroborate something he was not a witness to.

>
> I was banned at the Education Forum because the bully incompetent moderator James Gordon saw I was beating his favorites and was refuting their website's prize Prayer Man theory and he wasn't going to allow it...Gordon is a crook and a coward...It says a lot that a crude Lone Nutter like you would endorse him...

You mean like you are doing here?

<chuckle>

You are getting your ass handed to you in every thread in which you have participated. You ought to quit while you're behind. I suggest you find a new hobby. This one doesn't seem to suit you.

[Caeruleo]

Mmhmm. I probably won't be around much longer. These days I find myself in the mood to do newsgroups for about two weeks out of every decade, lol. I think this month is my first time here since 2016 or somewhere in there, hehe.

[BT George]

This place is open purely for entertainment purposes and the occasional lurker. I'm afraid the main CT proponents here are about as hopeless a group as can be found. ..Which is saying something in my experience.

[Caeruleo]

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 4:56:47 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:

> This place is open purely for entertainment purposes and the occasional lurker. I'm afraid the main CT proponents here are about as hopeless a group as can be found. ..Which is saying something in my experience.

I remember the old days, c.2002 to 2012, when I learned a lot about the assassination from other posters, including when they rightfully challenged some of my own assertions. This group, now, though...little more than childish sniping at each other. I've learned nothing even slightly constructive about the assassination from the vast majority of the posts made here since the beginning of this month.

[John Corbett]

I was kind of in the same boat. I participated in the Prodigy group in the early 1990s and was little more than a novice and had lots of misconceptions. I was an LN even then, but there were a lot of important details I was unaware of. I learned a lot on that board from both LNs and CTs. When Prodigy's pricing changed, the group broke up because it would have been very expensive to post more than the limit on monthly posts, whatever that was. I kind of lost interest other than the occasional argument I would get into with friends sitting around drinking beer and eating pizza. A trip to Dallas and Dealey Plaza in 2008 rekindled my interest and soon after I located McAdams board (and this one) and began to post regularly again. There was still a lot I didn't know but I thought I was in much better command of the facts than back in the early 1990s. I continued to learn from posters of all stripes. Marsh was always a jerk but I was impressed by his knowledge of small details. That seemed to deteriorate over the next decade to the point he was just a jerk. I don't pretend to know everything there is to know about the assassination, but I think I have command of the important facts. Every once in a while I'll still learn a small tidbit I didn't know before. Just this week I learned something about the 2nd floor lunchroom on the TSBD. For the longest time I was under the impression that the inner door had and automatic closer that would have closed behind Oswald when he entered it just before Baker reached the landing. What I learned is only the outer door had the automatic closer and the inner door was usually propped open. Effectively that meant there was only one door Baker had to see through to spot Oswald. The angle would have restricted how far into the lunchroom he could have seen and that angle would have been dictated by how wide a turn he made when he reached the landing. That didn't materially change much. We know Baker spotted Oswald through the window of the outer door and the only question is how deep into the lunchroom Oswald was when he was spotted. I doubt we'll never know that with certainty but it's not something we need to know with certainty.

The facts of the JFK assassination are out there and readily available to anyone who is interested. CTs have convinced themselves that the few remaining unreleased documents are going to contain the smoking gun of conspiracy. That would amaze me. As far as I'm concerned, the hay is in the barn. If someone can't figure out from what we know now that Oswald was the assassin, they never will figure it out. There is no evidence he had even a single accomplice and it is highly doubtful any such evidence will ever surface.

[BT George]

There are plenty here who *can* post substantively and even do (Hank Sienzant comes to mind), but these guys are so unserious it's like embracing a rubber tar baby to exchange with them. Unfortunately, I have found some of the Facebook groups to be just an intellectually vapid. Seems most CTs today buy into the "everything was faked" belief system and thus have no foot solidly planted in reality.

[John Corbett]

I try to avoid the offerings from Sam McClung and Sky Throne because they are out in La-la land. Other than an occasional wisecrack about their nuttiness, it's a waste of time arguing with people who are so delusional. I real wonder why I spend so much time with Scrum Dumb because his theories are almost as nutty but I derive a bit of fiendish pleasure from kicking over his sandcastles, not that they ever amounted to much. It's a little like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Scrum Drum]

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 4:45:38 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:




> How the hell do you know how fast Oswald was moving?

This is why you are out of my league and not worth answering...The fastest time in the recreation of Oswald's run down from the 6th floor was 74 seconds...That time is directly linked to Baker & Truly's time as well as Adams, Styles, and Garner...

> She signed the statement and the statement she signed made no mention of Oswald.

Carolyn Arnold is inferring they somehow removed it...Your weak excuses don't adequately answer for the fact the 12:25 time on that March 1964 report corroborates Arnold...

> > The reason the FBI-forged claim that Carolyn saw Oswald in the foyer wasn't included in the March 1964 report is because Carolyn never said that...The evidence backs her, not you and your FBI lies...
> So if you discount that one, there is no record that Arnold even might have seen Oswald.

I'm not discounting it...I'm using it as evidence of FBI's criminal alteration of witness statements...Your attempt to deny Arnold her own witnessing as told to Golz isn't working and it is the best evidence because it comes from the witness herself once she was familiarized with the problem of FBI alteration...

> The simple fact is Truly did not look in the direction of the lunchroom door or he would have seen what Baker saw and that is true whether Oswald was already in the vestibule or had just entered the vestibule when Baker spotted him. There is no need to account for the speed the door closed. This is just a red herring argument you have introduced.

This is dumb and it is just in contempt of the forensic evidence I am explaining...You haven't answered for the fact we know Oswald was moving away from the window and in to the lunch room because Baker said Oswald was inside the lunch room when he caught up to him...That movement gives us a firm idea of how fast Oswald was moving despite your attempt to troll everything by saying we don't know to every single point of evidence - which is just your denier's trolling technique...

.
> You haven't established that any of these people would have been on or near the stairway before Oswald came down so there is no reason to think any of them would have seen him coming down the stairs. Oswald would have good reason not to delay coming down the stairs. We don't know how quickly he was moving but running down would likely draw attention to himself so it would make more sense for him to walk down without delay. Had he done so, there is no reason he couldn't have already come down the stairs by the time any of these people got to the stairs.

That's where you're wrong...The timing is established by the fact Mrs Garner said she watched Adams & Styles descend and then stood there watching the steps and landing...The next thing she saw was Baker & Truly coming up to the 4th floor landing...This creates firm time parameters that can't be denied as stupidly and trollishly as you do...If Baker & Truly got to Oswald in 75 seconds then they probably took 20 seconds to question him and another 15 to climb to the 4th floor landing...Mrs Garner would have seen Baker & Truly emerge about 110 seconds after the shots...The only possibility then becomes Oswald getting down the steps far enough in front of Adams & Styles that they don't hear him on the rickety steps...So you are stupidly and contemptibly ignoring that this forces and proves that Oswald would have had to gotten in to the 2nd floor lunch room long before Baker & Truly got there because Baker & Truly never saw Adams & Styles on the 1st floor...Oswald would be so far ahead of Baker & Truly that there would be no way that he had just gotten there ahead of them and Baker saw him moving away from the window after just entering...This is proof...You're just trolling it and avoiding credibly answering it...

> > > > The only way Baker could have seen Oswald in that window is if Oswald was standing in it stationary before he flinched back...
> > > Oh really. The window was only transparent if Oswald was stationary. Baker couldn't have seen Oswald if he was moving.
> > >
> > You are failing to answer the forensic evidence that proves this in public...If the automatic door is closed then Oswald has transited at least 3 seconds in to the lunch room entry and cannot be seen through the vestibule window from Baker's position...
> Who said the door was all the way closed when Baker spotted Oswald. Baker didn't say that. Baker could have seen Oswald through the window before the door had completely closed.

You have a moronic lack of understanding of what is being said and don't even realize you haven't answered it...Only a real dumb-ass would claim victory after being so badly unable to answer the science in public...You failed to answer that Truly was 2 seconds ahead of Baker and the automatic door took 3 seconds to close...If Truly did not see the door closing then Oswald was 5 seconds in to walking in to the vestibule...You could do a recreation and you would see that 5 seconds of walking where Baker said Oswald ended up in the lunch room would mean Oswald was not visible in the window...

In Googling this I found an article by Michael T. Griffith that made the same discovery I did in 2012...Brilliant minds think alike and I am glad to see Griffith came to the same conclusions independently...It gives them verification and credibility...I'd like to post Griffith's article...

[Caeruleo]

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 7:01:22 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 5:57:40 PM UTC-5, caer...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 4:56:47 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> >
> > > This place is open purely for entertainment purposes and the occasional lurker. I'm afraid the main CT proponents here are about as hopeless a group as can be found. ..Which is saying something in my experience.
> > I remember the old days, c.2002 to 2012, when I learned a lot about the assassination from other posters, including when they rightfully challenged some of my own assertions. This group, now, though...little more than childish sniping at each other. I've learned nothing even slightly constructive about the assassination from the vast majority of the posts made here since the beginning of this month.
> There are plenty here who *can* post substantively and even do (Hank Sienzant comes to mind),

Yes, Hank does and I do at least read his articles. There are certain others whose articles I decided years ago never to read again (and not all of them are CTs, btw, hehehe.)

> but these guys are so unserious it's like embracing a rubber tar baby to exchange with them.

Mmhmm.

[Caeruleo]

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 8:26:54 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:

> That's where you're wrong...The timing is established by the fact Mrs Garner said she watched Adams & Styles descend and then stood there watching the steps and landing...

No, Garner did not say that she stared continuously at the steps and landing. I'm reading The Girl on the Stairs now while composing this article.

**********

She couldn't remember exactly why she went out there, other than to say, "probably to get something." Mrs. Garner said she did not actually see "the girls" enter the stairway, though, arriving on the fourth-floor landing seconds after.

**********

She quite obviously was not claiming to have been looking continuously at the stairway, especially since she is claimed to have said that she didn't actually see Adams and Styles enter the stairway.

> The next thing she saw was Baker & Truly coming up to the 4th floor landing...This creates firm time parameters that can't be denied as stupidly and trollishly as you do...If Baker & Truly got to Oswald in 75 seconds then they probably took 20 seconds to question him and another 15 to climb to the 4th floor landing...

Where are you getting "75 seconds" from? You seem to be going with the shortest possible estimate without acknowledging that it could have easily been a full minute longer.

> Mrs Garner would have seen Baker & Truly emerge about 110 seconds after the shots...

Again, you seem to be going with the shortest possible estimate which betrays a bias that you want the timings to preclude Oswald.

> The only possibility then becomes Oswald getting down the steps far enough in front of Adams & Styles that they don't hear him on the rickety steps...

It is not the only possibility. You are using an obviously biased interpretation.

[Scrum Drum]

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 12:51:45 AM UTC-4, caer...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 8:26:54 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
>


> > That's where you're wrong...The timing is established by the fact Mrs Garner said she watched Adams & Styles descend and then stood there watching the steps and landing...
> No, Garner did not say that she stared continuously at the steps and landing. I'm reading The Girl on the Stairs now while composing this article.

> She couldn't remember exactly why she went out there, other than to say, "probably to get something." Mrs. Garner said she did not actually see "the girls" enter the stairway, though, arriving on the fourth-floor landing seconds after.

That is not an honest record of what Mrs Garner told Ernest...The reason Garner did not see Adams & Styles enter the steps is because they bolted so fast to the steps after the shots that she didn't realize they were gone...While it is correct that Garner didn't see them enter the steps the true record has Garner saying that when she got to the steps she could hear them descending...Adams herself was quite clear that if Oswald was on the steps ahead of them as they entered the steps that her and Sandra Styles would have heard him just like Garner heard them...

> She quite obviously was not claiming to have been looking continuously at the stairway, especially since she is claimed to have said that she didn't actually see Adams and Styles enter the stairway.

I did some searching and you are misrepresenting what Garner said...Once Garner got to the 4th floor landing she stayed out there...If you are familiar with the NW stairs in the Book Depository anyone who was using the stairs would be seen because you had to cut across the open landing to get to the next course..That's why Garner saw Truly & Baker and mentioned it in her June 2 1964 letter that she saw them coming up the stairs...

> Where are you getting "75 seconds" from? You seem to be going with the shortest possible estimate without acknowledging that it could have easily been a full minute longer.

It would make no difference...Dorothy Garner said Adams & Styles left almost immediately after the shots...This means they had to be ahead of Oswald who had a longer route to follow...So if the girls didn't hear Oswald on the stairs in front of them and time and distance made it impossible for Oswald to be ahead of the girls then the only slot for Oswald would be behind the girls...If Baker & Truly did not see Adams & Styles (they may have and did not admit it because of the timing) then Oswald would be so far behind the girls that Mrs Garner would have to see him...You have to remember Oswald needs to be just ahead of Baker & Truly so he has to be coming down as Baker & Truly get to the 2nd floor...If Baker & Truly didn't see Adams & Styles then that pushes Baker & Truly and Oswald further back enough that Mrs Garner has to be at the landing by that time...Mrs Garner got to the landing just behind the girls because she could hear them on the steps...

You're not following the timing here...If Adams & Styles left right after Jackie climbed on to the trunk they are to the stairs in 15 to 20 seconds...They bolt down the steps in another 20 seconds and are out the rear exit at the base of the stairs just ahead of Baker & Truly...That means Baker & Truly are still 30 seconds before arriving at the 2nd floor...That means Oswald is 25 seconds behind the girls and irrefutably within the range of Mrs Garner's watch on the stairs...

[John Corbett]

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 9:26:54 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 4:45:38 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > How the hell do you know how fast Oswald was moving?
> This is why you are out of my league and not worth answering...The fastest time in the recreation of Oswald's run down from the 6th floor was 74 seconds...That time is directly linked to Baker & Truly's time as well as Adams, Styles, and Garner...

You begged the question. I asked you how you know how fast Oswald went down the stairs and you respond with the timing of the recreation. Would you like to try again.

> > She signed the statement and the statement she signed made no mention of Oswald.
> Carolyn Arnold is inferring they somehow removed it...Your weak excuses don't adequately answer for the fact the 12:25 time on that March 1964 report corroborates Arnold...

She can infer all she wants. Her signed statement is in evidence and she even acknowledges how any pages are in the signed statement, one and a half. How could they remove her reference to Oswald from that statement. Lee Rankin did the due diligence to get SIGNED statements from the employees in the TSBD and even had each of them state in the last paragraph of their statement how many pages the statement contained so that additions or subtractions could not be made from the statements.

> > > The reason the FBI-forged claim that Carolyn saw Oswald in the foyer wasn't included in the March 1964 report is because Carolyn never said that...The evidence backs her, not you and your FBI lies...
> > So if you discount that one, there is no record that Arnold even might have seen Oswald.
> I'm not discounting it...I'm using it as evidence of FBI's criminal alteration of witness statements...Your attempt to deny Arnold her own witnessing as told to Golz isn't working and it is the best evidence because it comes from the witness herself once she was familiarized with the problem of FBI alteration...

I put far more faith in the statement she signed in March 1964 than something she told Golz 15 years later. She was specifically asked if she saw Oswald and she made not mention of having done so. She simply stated she went outside at 12:25 and told us who she was with.

> > The simple fact is Truly did not look in the direction of the lunchroom door or he would have seen what Baker saw and that is true whether Oswald was already in the vestibule or had just entered the vestibule when Baker spotted him. There is no need to account for the speed the door closed. This is just a red herring argument you have introduced.
> This is dumb and it is just in contempt of the forensic evidence I am explaining...You haven't answered for the fact we know Oswald was moving away from the window and in to the lunch room because Baker said Oswald was inside the lunch room when he caught up to him...That movement gives us a firm idea of how fast Oswald was moving despite your attempt to troll everything by saying we don't know to every single point of evidence - which is just your denier's trolling technique...

You are guessing, and doing it badly. You have no idea how fast Oswald was moving.

> .
> > You haven't established that any of these people would have been on or near the stairway before Oswald came down so there is no reason to think any of them would have seen him coming down the stairs. Oswald would have good reason not to delay coming down the stairs. We don't know how quickly he was moving but running down would likely draw attention to himself so it would make more sense for him to walk down without delay. Had he done so, there is no reason he couldn't have already come down the stairs by the time any of these people got to the stairs.
> That's where you're wrong...The timing is established by the fact Mrs Garner said she watched Adams & Styles descend and then stood there watching the steps and landing...The next thing she saw was Baker & Truly coming up to the 4th floor landing...This creates firm time parameters that can't be denied as stupidly and trollishly as you do...If Baker & Truly got to Oswald in 75 seconds then they probably took 20 seconds to question him and another 15 to climb to the 4th floor landing...Mrs Garner would have seen Baker & Truly emerge about 110 seconds after the shots...The only possibility then becomes Oswald getting down the steps far enough in front of Adams & Styles that they don't hear him on the rickety steps...So you are stupidly and contemptibly ignoring that this forces and proves that Oswald would have had to gotten in to the 2nd floor lunch room long before Baker & Truly got there because Baker & Truly never saw Adams & Styles on the 1st floor...Oswald would be so far ahead of Baker & Truly that there would be no way that he had just gotten there ahead of them and Baker saw him moving away from the window after just entering...This is proof...You're just trolling it and avoiding credibly answering it...

This tells us that Garner did not get to the stairway in time to see Oswald coming down but got there in a little later to see Truly and Baker coming up. That is all this tells us.

> > > > > The only way Baker could have seen Oswald in that window is if Oswald was standing in it stationary before he flinched back...
> > > > Oh really. The window was only transparent if Oswald was stationary. Baker couldn't have seen Oswald if he was moving.
> > > >
> > > You are failing to answer the forensic evidence that proves this in public...If the automatic door is closed then Oswald has transited at least 3 seconds in to the lunch room entry and cannot be seen through the vestibule window from Baker's position...
> > Who said the door was all the way closed when Baker spotted Oswald. Baker didn't say that. Baker could have seen Oswald through the window before the door had completely closed.
> You have a moronic lack of understanding of what is being said and don't even realize you haven't answered it...Only a real dumb-ass would claim victory after being so badly unable to answer the science in public...You failed to answer that Truly was 2 seconds ahead of Baker and the automatic door took 3 seconds to close...If Truly did not see the door closing then Oswald was 5 seconds in to walking in to the vestibule...You could do a recreation and you would see that 5 seconds of walking where Baker said Oswald ended up in the lunch room would mean Oswald was not visible in the window...

If Oswald was not visible in the window, why would Baker have detoured into the lunchroom?

If Truly did not see the door closing it just means he didn't look to his right when he reached the second floor landing. Baker state specifically in his testimony he was scanning to his right and that's why he say Oswald through the window.

>
> In Googling this I found an article by Michael T. Griffith that made the same discovery I did in 2012...Brilliant minds think alike and I am glad to see Griffith came to the same conclusions independently...It gives them verification and credibility...I'd like to post Griffith's article...

I was doing battle with Michael T. Griffith way back in 1991 and a brilliant mind is one term I would never associate with him, nor would I with you.

[Hank Sienzant]

If they can make it down and out of the TSBD in 35 to 40 seconds why couldn’t Oswald make it down to the second floor ahead of them?

Are women in heels faster on steps than a 24-year-old ex-marine?

Are you understanding that Howlett’s recreations were done at a normal walking pace and a fast walk, and that if Howlett had jogged, he could do it at an even faster time than the recreations of record?

Adams herself estimated that she was at the window for 15-30 seconds after the shooting before she even started to the back stairs. She was starting from the front of the building and had to walk to the back stairs, like Oswald did.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0201b.htm

But the witnesses said the shooter left the sixth floor window after only a few seconds.

If she left the window and started her descent when she *estimated*, why didn’t she see Baker and Truly? Why did she see Lovelady and Shelley?

Speaking of estimates, Shelley estimated he saw Baker and Truly enter the building 3 or 4 minutes after the shooting, then walked to the knoll area and watched the police searching cars “for a while, then re-entered the building.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0170a.htm

Putting the Shelley account side by side with Adams account, how do you get her seeing Lovelady and Shelley inside the building so quickly on the first floor if they testified to going to the knoll first before re-entering the building?

Do you not understand the problems with eyewitness testimony?

Apparently not.



Hank

[John Corbett]

The fallacy of your approach is that you are trying to do precise calculations with imprecise data. Nobody was timing their movements on the day of the assassination so we don't know how quickly any of these movements happened. We don't know how quickly the two women moved to the stairs or how quickly they descended. We don't know how quickly Oswald descended the stairs. We just know he got to the second floor landing as Baker and Truly were coming up the stairs from one and ducked into the lunchroom only to be spotted by Baker through the door window.

[Caeruleo]

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 1:18:42 AM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 12:51:45 AM UTC-4, caer...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 8:26:54 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> >
>
>
> > > That's where you're wrong...The timing is established by the fact Mrs Garner said she watched Adams & Styles descend and then stood there watching the steps and landing...
> > No, Garner did not say that she stared continuously at the steps and landing. I'm reading The Girl on the Stairs now while composing this article.
> > She couldn't remember exactly why she went out there, other than to say, "probably to get something." Mrs. Garner said she did not actually see "the girls" enter the stairway, though, arriving on the fourth-floor landing seconds after.
> That is not an honest record of what Mrs Garner told Ernest...

I quoted it verbatim from Ernest's book, so how is it not an honest record of what she told Ernest?

> > She quite obviously was not claiming to have been looking continuously at the stairway, especially since she is claimed to have said that she didn't actually see Adams and Styles enter the stairway.
> I did some searching and you are misrepresenting what Garner said...Once Garner got to the 4th floor landing she stayed out there...If you are familiar with the NW stairs in the Book Depository anyone who was using the stairs would be seen because you had to cut across the open landing to get to the next course..That's why Garner saw Truly & Baker and mentioned it in her June 2 1964 letter that she saw them coming up the stairs...

Nevertheless she still never said that she stared continuously at the stairs every second of every minute from the moment the "girls" left to the moment she saw Baker and Truly coming up.

> > Where are you getting "75 seconds" from? You seem to be going with the shortest possible estimate without acknowledging that it could have easily been a full minute longer.
> It would make no difference...Dorothy Garner said Adams & Styles left almost immediately after the shots...This means they had to be ahead of Oswald who had a longer route to follow...So if the girls didn't hear Oswald on the stairs in front of them and time and distance made it impossible for Oswald to be ahead of the girls then the only slot for Oswald would be behind the girls...

Agreed.

> If Baker & Truly did not see Adams & Styles (they may have and did not admit it because of the timing) then Oswald would be so far behind the girls that Mrs Garner would have to see him...

I still don't agree that Garner would "have" to see him, as in it would be impossible in an absolute sense to miss him. In reality it's not even remotely impossible. If she looked away from the stairs for even as short a time as ten seconds she could have quite easily missed seeing him.

> You have to remember Oswald needs to be just ahead of Baker & Truly so he has to be coming down as Baker & Truly get to the 2nd floor...If Baker & Truly didn't see Adams & Styles then that pushes Baker & Truly and Oswald further back enough that Mrs Garner has to be at the landing by that time...Mrs Garner got to the landing just behind the girls because she could hear them on the steps...
>
> You're not following the timing here...If Adams & Styles left right after Jackie climbed on to the trunk they are to the stairs in 15 to 20 seconds...They bolt down the steps in another 20 seconds and are out the rear exit at the base of the stairs just ahead of Baker & Truly...That means Baker & Truly are still 30 seconds before arriving at the 2nd floor...That means Oswald is 25 seconds behind the girls and irrefutably within the range of Mrs Garner's watch on the stairs...

No. I continue to disagree with "irrefutably." She never said she was staring continuously at the stairs without looking away in another direction for even the briefest time.

[Scrum Drum]

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 7:03:03 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:



> If they can make it down and out of the TSBD in 35 to 40 seconds why couldn’t Oswald make it down to the second floor ahead of them?

Don't play dumb...Oswald has to thread the book-laden aisles and clean off the gun...He's allegedly on the 6th floor so he has to do that obstacle course and clean off the gun and hide it...Let's say Oswald manages to do a fast time and get out ahead of Adams & Styles by getting to the 4th floor in like 25 seconds...He's then way ahead of Adams & Styles who are just starting to bolt from the front windows...That would mean Oswald got to the 2 floor in like 40 seconds and therefore arrived way too soon for Baker & Truly...This is the time parameter Corbett pretends he doesn't see so he can just gum-up and nay-say the obvious with his denial trolling...

>
> Adams herself estimated that she was at the window for 15-30 seconds after the shooting before she even started to the back stairs. She was starting from the front of the building and had to walk to the back stairs, like Oswald did.

You are refreshing me on what I read on Ernest's page many months ago...It would have to be 15 seconds because Mrs Garner was insistent it was "almost immediately" and right after Jackie climbed out on to the trunk...What you are not accounting for is these fast times for Oswald place him at the 4th floor and descending close to when Adams & Styles got there and they did not hear anyone ahead of them on the rickety and loud stairs...

>
> If she left the window and started her descent when she *estimated*, why didn’t she see Baker and Truly? Why did she see Lovelady and Shelley?

I believe the authorities got Lovelady & Shelley to lie and change their times...You can see Lovelady & Shelley headed up the Elm St extension in Couch/Darnell...They left the steps around 20 seconds after the shots...If you use Couch/Darnell as a guide Baker did not get in to the Lobby until about 35 seconds...

If Adams & Styles were pumped by adrenaline and left the window at 15 seconds then the 4th floor was an open warehouse where they could have feasibly gotten to the steps in 9 seconds of quick time...They could have feasibly taken 6 seconds per storey to descend and gotten out of the overhead door right at the base of the steps unseen in 43-45 seconds and therefore gotten out just ahead of Baker & Truly who took a little more time pushing through the crowd on the steps, asking where the stairs were in the Lobby, talking to Truly who offered to guide him, and running in to Truly at the swinging door than they estimated...I asked Ernest to contact Styles and ask her what door they took to get out...If they took that overhead door right at the base of the steps they could have ducked-out unseen...In any case there is no way Lovelady & Shelley were back inside by 45 seconds...That is the one thing I have serious disagreement with Armstrong over and he shows lack of discipline by trying to force it...

>
> Speaking of estimates, Shelley estimated he saw Baker and Truly enter the building 3 or 4 minutes after the shooting, then walked to the knoll area and watched the police searching cars “for a while, then re-entered the building.

Shelley told Dean Glaze he was CIA...The conspirators went to Shelley and Lovelady and got them to lie about leaving the steps after 3 minutes in order to screw-up Adams...She was adamant to Ernest that they never saw Lovelady & Shelley when they arrived on the 1st floor...You can see Lovelady & Shelley heading up the extension in Couch/Darnell at 25 seconds...

You guys are organized liars who specialize in fucking up good research by editing the lies in the most destructive way...You are serpents...

Lovelady & Shelley went around the west side of the Depository and back in the west side loading shed entry...If you read Lovelady he was more honest and said he didn't really see the girls on the 1st floor...The Warren Commissioner who was interviewing Lovelady & Shelley made a comment that 3 minutes was a little long...

[John Corbett]

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 12:24:21 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 7:03:03 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>
>
>
> > If they can make it down and out of the TSBD in 35 to 40 seconds why couldn’t Oswald make it down to the second floor ahead of them?
> Don't play dumb...Oswald has to thread the book-laden aisles and clean off the gun...He's allegedly on the 6th floor so he has to do that obstacle course and clean off the gun and hide it...Let's say Oswald manages to do a fast time and get out ahead of Adams & Styles by getting to the 4th floor in like 25 seconds...He's then way ahead of Adams & Styles who are just starting to bolt from the front windows...That would mean Oswald got to the 2 floor in like 40 seconds and therefore arrived way too soon for Baker & Truly...This is the time parameter Corbett pretends he doesn't see so he can just gum-up and nay-say the obvious with his denial trolling...

I see parameters. You are trying to see exactitude where none exists. It is impossible to determine with any certainty how long it took any of the principles to make their movements. You point out that Oswald had to negotiate obstacles on the 6th floor but don't see the same problem for Adams and Styles. Do you think the 4th floor was a big open space where they could just beeline to the stairs? Page 3 of the following pdf shows the floor plan of the fourth floor.

http://dealey.org/updown.pdf

Garner, Adams, and Styles worked for the Scott Forsman Co. and their section of that floor was office space where presumably there were desks. Between the office space and the stairs was storage space. I have no information as to what was stored there but we do know Garner said she probably went back there to get supplies.

Here's what we know. Garner said she saw Baker and Truly coming up the stairs so we can work backwards from there. Adams and Styles went down the stairs before that happened and they didn't run into Baker and Truly. They didn't see Oswald which means he descended either before them or after them. Oswald avoided running into Baker and Truly by ducking into the lunchroom. Baker followed him in and Truly once he realized Baker was no longer behind him turned around and headed to the lunchroom. If he descended before them, Adams and Styles could have passed the second floor landing while Baker and Truly were confronting Oswald. The other possibility is that Oswald went down after them. That would mean Adams and Styles reached the ground floor and exited while Baker and Truly were still trying to get an elevator to come down. Either explanation is plausible though I tend to lean toward the latter.

> >
> > Adams herself estimated that she was at the window for 15-30 seconds after the shooting before she even started to the back stairs. She was starting from the front of the building and had to walk to the back stairs, like Oswald did.
> You are refreshing me on what I read on Ernest's page many months ago...It would have to be 15 seconds

Here's where you try to insert exactitude where none exists.

> because Mrs Garner was insistent it was "almost immediately" and right after Jackie climbed out on to the trunk...What you are not accounting for is these fast times for Oswald place him at the 4th floor and descending close to when Adams & Styles got there and they did not hear anyone ahead of them on the rickety and loud stairs...

Where do you get the idea the stairs were rickety and loud. I visited the TSBD in 2008 and went to the staircase on the 6th floor. It was blocked off but still in plain sight. It sure didn't look rickety to me. It looked very solid and that was 35 years after the assassination.

We don't know whether Oswald was in front of or behind the two women or how close he was to them. Therefore it would be silly to assume they would have heard him if they were both on the stairs at the same time. I don't pretend to know how fast Oswald was moving but if I were to guess, I would say he would not be racing because that would tend to draw attention to himself in a way walking down calmly would not.

> >
> > If she left the window and started her descent when she *estimated*, why didn’t she see Baker and Truly? Why did she see Lovelady and Shelley?

I offered two possibilities above.

> I believe the authorities got Lovelady & Shelley to lie and change their times...You can see Lovelady & Shelley headed up the Elm St extension in Couch/Darnell...They left the steps around 20 seconds after the shots...If you use Couch/Darnell as a guide Baker did not get in to the Lobby until about 35 seconds...
>
> If Adams & Styles were pumped by adrenaline and left the window at 15 seconds then the 4th floor was an open warehouse where they could have feasibly gotten to the steps in 9 seconds of quick time...

9 seconds? Which orifice did you pull that from?

> They could have feasibly taken 6 seconds per storey to descend and gotten out of the overhead door right at the base of the steps unseen in 43-45 seconds and therefore gotten out just ahead of Baker & Truly who took a little more time pushing through the crowd on the steps, asking where the stairs were in the Lobby, talking to Truly who offered to guide him, and running in to Truly at the swinging door than they estimated...I asked Ernest to contact Styles and ask her what door they took to get out...If they took that overhead door right at the base of the steps they could have ducked-out unseen...In any case there is no way Lovelady & Shelley were back inside by 45 seconds...That is the one thing I have serious disagreement with Armstrong over and he shows lack of discipline by trying to force it...
> >
> > Speaking of estimates, Shelley estimated he saw Baker and Truly enter the building 3 or 4 minutes after the shooting, then walked to the knoll area and watched the police searching cars “for a while, then re-entered the building.
> Shelley told Dean Glaze he was CIA...The conspirators went to Shelley and Lovelady and got them to lie about leaving the steps after 3 minutes in order to screw-up Adams...

It's amazing how many people you have to claim lied in order for your theories to hold water.

> She was adamant to Ernest that they never saw Lovelady & Shelley when they arrived on the 1st floor...You can see Lovelady & Shelley heading up the extension in Couch/Darnell at 25 seconds...
>
> You guys are organized liars who specialize in fucking up good research by editing the lies in the most destructive way...You are serpents...

Your research requires no fucking up. It was that way from the start.

>
> Lovelady & Shelley went around the west side of the Depository and back in the west side loading shed entry...If you read Lovelady he was more honest and said he didn't really see the girls on the 1st floor...The Warren Commissioner who was interviewing Lovelady & Shelley made a comment that 3 minutes was a little long...

Here again, we have no exactitude. We can only estimate the timing of the movements of the various people involved. The permutations are almost limitless.

[Caeruleo]

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 11:24:21 AM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 7:03:03 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>
> > If they can make it down and out of the TSBD in 35 to 40 seconds why couldn’t Oswald make it down to the second floor ahead of them?
> Don't play dumb...Oswald has to thread the book-laden aisles and clean off the gun...

Why does he have to clean off the gun? That seems totally unnecessary and irrelevant to me, and I am aware of no conclusive proof that he did any such thing.

> He's allegedly on the 6th floor so he has to do that obstacle course

It was nothing even remotely close to an obstacle course. All he had to do was go straight north down the easternmost aisle between the stacks of books and then turn left and go straight west along the northernmost aisle between the stacks of books. The location where the rifle was found was fairly close to the stairs. He could quite easily toss the rifle in there without slowing down for more than a few seconds and then continue to the stairs, most especially if he had already decided hours earlier that that was the place where he would hide the rifle after the shooting. He had more than four hours to look over the sixth floor and decide where he would hide the rifle afterwards.

> and clean off the gun

Still not getting why cleaning off the gun is at all necessary to this scenario.

> and hide it...Let's say Oswald manages to do a fast time and get out ahead of Adams & Styles by getting to the 4th floor in like 25 seconds...He's then way ahead of Adams & Styles who are just starting to bolt from the front windows...That would mean Oswald got to the 2 floor in like 40 seconds and therefore arrived way too soon for Baker & Truly...This is the time parameter Corbett pretends he doesn't see so he can just gum-up and nay-say the obvious with his denial trolling...
> >
> > Adams herself estimated that she was at the window for 15-30 seconds after the shooting before she even started to the back stairs. She was starting from the front of the building and had to walk to the back stairs, like Oswald did.
> You are refreshing me on what I read on Ernest's page many months ago...It would have to be 15 seconds because Mrs Garner was insistent it was "almost immediately" and right after Jackie climbed out on to the trunk...What you are not accounting for is these fast times for Oswald place him at the 4th floor and descending close to when Adams & Styles got there and they did not hear anyone ahead of them on the rickety and loud stairs...

The problem with all these estimations of timing is that all the witnesses, 100 percent of them, with no exceptions were just *guessing*.

Victoria Adams is one of the witnesses who said it the best. When David Belin asked her how long it took her to get from the window to the stairs, she replied, "I don't think I can answer that question accurately, because the time approximation, without a stopwatch, would be difficult."

Just so.

On November 26, 1963, when Carolyn Arnold supposedly told the FBI that the last time she saw Oswald was "a few minutes before 12:15 PM" she was just *guessing*. Even if she looked at her watch at the exact moment she saw him, she would still have no possible way of knowing for certain if that was the correct time since it was quite common for personal wristwatches to run fast or slow back then (and still decades later) unless she had set her watch within the past 24 hours from a reliable source such as a radio station, and had checked it again to make sure that the watch wasn't running too fast or slow. People back then didn't have the advantage we have today with our cell phones in which the time shown on the phone is derived from a database the phone is connected to. Today when I look at my phone and it says 12:12 pm I can be more than reasonably certain that that is less than 60 seconds off of "official" time here in the United States. And when in 1978 (I think?) Arnold said that she last saw Oswald at 12:25 she would have been just *guessing*. Even if she looked at her watch at the moment she saw him the above still applies unless it can be proven that her watch was set almost exactly with "official" time at the moment she looked at it, and I don't recall her ever saying anything about how diligent she was about setting her watch, or even whether or not she ever said she even wore a wristwatch that day. And if she was, for example, looking at a clock in one of the offices in the TSBD the same still applies: today we have no proof of how accurately that clock was set, how long it had been since the last time the clock was set, etc.

Baker and Truly, in every statement they ever made about their movements from the moment Baker got off his motorcycle to the moment they first saw Oswald, were just *guessing*. No number of recreations after the fact would give them any true certainty of the timing because just as Victoria Adams correctly pointed out this would be impossible unless Baker or Truly was looking at a stopwatch or the second hand of a wristwatch *during* the original event. Stopwatches were used only during the later recreations. Nobody was looking at a stopwatch during the original event on November 22, 1963.

> > If she left the window and started her descent when she *estimated*, why didn’t she see Baker and Truly? Why did she see Lovelady and Shelley?
> I believe the authorities got Lovelady & Shelley to lie and change their times...

You "believe" the authorities got them to lie? Do you have any proof of it?

> You can see Lovelady & Shelley headed up the Elm St extension in Couch/Darnell...They left the steps around 20 seconds after the shots...If you use Couch/Darnell as a guide Baker did not get in to the Lobby until about 35 seconds...
>
> If Adams & Styles were pumped by adrenaline and left the window at 15 seconds then the 4th floor was an open warehouse where they could have feasibly gotten to the steps in 9 seconds of quick time...They could have feasibly taken 6 seconds per storey

I strongly disagree with your usage of "feasibly." Six seconds per storey, as in six seconds per floor or six seconds per flight seems much too short to me, especially if these ladies were wearing high heels, which was far more common for female office workers back then than today. I was in that building in 2003 (I think it was) and made my own test. Admittedly those rickety stairs in the northwest corner had long been closed to the public by then, so I had no choice but to use the main stairway in the building, but the vertical distance between each floor is still the same today as it was in 1963. I *did* look at the second hand of my watch, and I timed myself as trotting down one flight of stairs in 12 seconds, and being a man I definitely was not wearing high heels. ;-)

> > Speaking of estimates, Shelley estimated he saw Baker and Truly enter the building 3 or 4 minutes after the shooting, then walked to the knoll area and watched the police searching cars “for a while, then re-entered the building.
> Shelley told Dean Glaze he was CIA...The conspirators went to Shelley and Lovelady and got them to lie about leaving the steps after 3 minutes in order to screw-up Adams...

Your wording, "The conspirators went to," without qualification, instead of saying something such as, "I believe there were conspirators who went to" suggests that you consider this to be a proven fact, even though above you said "I believe" as if it was mere speculation. Can you *prove* that *anyone* went to Shelley and Lovelady and got them to lie? You do realize there is no possible way to prove this without giving the identities of these conspirators and additionally proving that this people did what you claim they did. Can you prove this?

> She was adamant to Ernest that they never saw Lovelady & Shelley when they arrived on the 1st floor...You can see Lovelady & Shelley heading up the extension in Couch/Darnell at 25 seconds...

Yet Adams said she *did* see Lovelady and Shelley. Go figure.

Now, I admit that I haven't read every article you've posted in this thread, but in all the articles that I have read I have spotted a gigantic, glaring omission.

You've stated, correctly, that in a letter dated June 2, 1964, Martha Stroud informed Lee Rankin that she had just talked to Dorothy Garner that morning and that Garner had told her that after Adams and Styles went down the stairs she saw Baker and Truly come up the stairs. You've also referenced Garner's more detailed account in "The Girl on the Stairs." And indeed, she was quite clear that she never saw Oswald on the stairs...

...but this means she also never saw the ***REAL*** shooter come down the stairs either.

Someone quite obviously fired shots from the Depository, whether or not that person was the only gunman. There are just a "few too many" witnesses (to put it mildly) who said they were looking directly at the rifle as it was being fired, or saw the rifle, or saw a long, narrow object, etc. No, they didn't agree with each other on which window or which floor, but it's just a few too many saying that there was a rifle being held by somebody up there to reasonably dismiss. Then we add to that the fact that more than 90 percent of all the witnesses who said they thought shots came from the building specifically said that *all* of the shots sounded as if they came from the building or else named no other location in their statements. The percentage is the same for any other location named as the source of the sounds; no matter what the location was, more than 90 percent of all the witnesses who named that location said *all* the shots sounded as if they came from that location. This is powerful evidence that all these witnesses were hearing the same three sounds fired from the same rifle.

So unless you're going to propose that no one fired any shots from the TSBD, the shooter, no matter who he was, would have exactly the same problems to overcome, with no difference whatsoever, as Oswald would have to overcome if he was the shooter.

Any shooter would have to do something with the rifle before leaving the building, or risk being seen carrying it out of the building and being immediately suspected of being the assassin.

Any shooter would have to get down to the ground floor somehow to escape the building, no matter whether the shooter fired from the fifth floor, the sixth floor, the seventh floor, or the roof. The fire escape on the east side of the building would have of course been a ridiculous choice since the gunman would have been helplessly visible to dozens of witnesses all the way down. And we already know that the elevator was stuck. So no matter who the gunman was, his one and only choice to escape the the building without detection would have been the same stairway that Adams and Styles went down. Yet no matter who he was, nobody saw him. Why is that?

Quite obvious. No one was staring *continuously* at the stairs every second of every minute between the moment the last shot was fired and the moment Baker and Truly reached the fourth floor and Garner saw them. Let's keep in mind that she is the single uncorroborated witness who stayed near the fourth floor landing of the stairway. No one can confirm every detail of her story. She could have quite easily looked away from the stairway for no more than 10 seconds and missed the gunman coming down.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 12:24:21 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 7:03:03 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>
>
>
> > If they can make it down and out of the TSBD in 35 to 40 seconds why couldn’t Oswald make it down to the second floor ahead of them?
> Don't play dumb...Oswald has to thread the book-laden aisles and clean off the gun...

What do you mean "clean off the gun"?
That's simply a conspiracy myth.

No cleaning was necessary. Nor would Oswald even bother. The rifle could be traced to him soon enough.
== QUOTE ==
Representative BOGGS. Does the material that one touches have any effect?
Mr. LATONA. Very definitely. It depends on how hard or smooth the material is.
Representative BOGGS. Now, does a weapon lend itself to retaining fingerprints?
Mr. LATONA. This particular weapon here, first of all, in my opinion, the metal is very poorly finished. It is absorbent. Believe it or not, there is a certain amount of absorption into this metal itself. It is not finished in the sense that it is highly polished.
Representative BOGGS. So this would be conducive to getting a good print, or would it?
Mr. LATONA. It would not.
== UNQUOTE ==

> He's allegedly on the 6th floor so he has to do that obstacle course and clean off the gun and hide it...Let's say Oswald manages to do a fast time and get out ahead of Adams & Styles by getting to the 4th floor in like 25 seconds...He's then way ahead of Adams & Styles who are just starting to bolt from the front windows...That would mean Oswald got to the 2 floor in like 40 seconds and therefore arrived way too soon for Baker & Truly...This is the time parameter Corbett pretends he doesn't see so he can just gum-up and nay-say the obvious with his denial trolling...

So you admit your argument that Oswald couldn't get there ahead of Adams and Styles is false. You admit he could. Now your argument is with your own reconstruction, which has Adams and Styles leaving quickly. That's the problem, not Oswald's time.

> >
> > Adams herself estimated that she was at the window for 15-30 seconds after the shooting before she even started to the back stairs. She was starting from the front of the building and had to walk to the back stairs, like Oswald did.
> You are refreshing me on what I read on Ernest's page many months ago...

No, I'm referencing her Warren Commission testimony. She wasn't even sure of how long it was then.
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/adams_v.htm

== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN - How long do you think it was between the time the shots were fired and the time you left the window to start toward the stairway?
Miss ADAMS - Between 15 and 30 seconds, estimated, approximately.
== UNQUOTE ==

> It would have to be 15 seconds because Mrs Garner was insistent it was "almost immediately"

How many decades after the fact did she first make this claim? You're pretending memory is inviolable. It's not. It's subject to decay. Pretend it's as good as good three decades or more after the fact, it doesn't change the fact that it's not, and it's subject to all kinds of influences that can change it. Something as simple as the way the question is phrased can affect the response.

> and right after Jackie climbed out on to the trunk...What you are not accounting for is these fast times for Oswald place him at the 4th floor and descending close to when Adams & Styles got there and they did not hear anyone ahead of them on the rickety and loud stairs...

So again we see the problem with your reconstruction of Adams and Styles leaving so early. Which means they left later.

> >
> > If she left the window and started her descent when she *estimated*, why didn’t she see Baker and Truly? Why did she see Lovelady and Shelley?
> I believe the authorities got Lovelady & Shelley to lie and change their times...

Ah. I see. Anything that contradicts your beliefs must be a lie. That's not conducive to reaching a correct solution, if you reach a conclusion and then reject anything and everything that contradicts your conclusion.

> You can see Lovelady & Shelley headed up the Elm St extension in Couch/Darnell...They left the steps around 20 seconds after the shots...If you use Couch/Darnell as a guide Baker did not get in to the Lobby until about 35 seconds...

Okay, so? This gives Oswald more time to descend from the sixth floor, not less.

>
> If Adams & Styles were pumped by adrenaline and left the window at 15 seconds then the 4th floor was an open warehouse where they could have feasibly gotten to the steps in 9 seconds of quick time...They could have feasibly taken 6 seconds per storey to descend and gotten out of the overhead door right at the base of the steps unseen in 43-45 seconds and therefore gotten out just ahead of Baker & Truly who took a little more time pushing through the crowd on the steps, asking where the stairs were in the Lobby, talking to Truly who offered to guide him, and running in to Truly at the swinging door than they estimated...

But now you have Adams and Styles on the first floor while the film agrees with Shelley's statement that he headed to the knoll area "for a while". Why did the women see Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor -- how could they see them? -- if Shelley and Lovelady's movements to the knoll are documented by film?

Quoting Adams:
== QUOTE ==
Miss ADAMS - A tree. and we heard a shot, and it was a pause, and then a second shot, and then a third shot.
It sounded like a firecracker or a cannon at a football game, it seemed as if it came from the right below rather than from the left above. Possibly because of the report. And after the third shot, following that, the third shot, I went to the back of the building down the back stairs, and encountered Bill Shelley and Bill Lovelady on the first floor on the way out to the Houston Street dock.
== UNQUOTE ==

Your problem is that Shelley and Lovelady need to spend "a while" at the knoll area before heading back into the building and getting to the area where Adams and Styles saw them *as they came down the stairs*. Do you understand the problem yet? You have Adams and Styles descending the stairs WAY too soon. A reconstruction that puts Truly and Baker already reaching the roof and Oswald out of the building by the time Shelley and Lovelady were seen by Adams and Styles is more faithful to the testimony of all the witnesses.

> I asked Ernest to contact Styles and ask her what door they took to get out...If they took that overhead door right at the base of the steps they could have ducked-out unseen...In any case there is no way Lovelady & Shelley were back inside by 45 seconds...That is the one thing I have serious disagreement with Armstrong over and he shows lack of discipline by trying to force it...

Then you understand the problem. You just don't explain it.

> >
> > Speaking of estimates, Shelley estimated he saw Baker and Truly enter the building 3 or 4 minutes after the shooting, then walked to the knoll area and watched the police searching cars “for a while, then re-entered the building.
> Shelley told Dean Glaze he was CIA...

Wait, what? Who is Dean Glaze and why is what he says credible? How many decades after the fact did this claim get made? You could say you were CIA. I could say I was CIA. See how easy that was? The claim is meaningless. Where's the evidence of that?

Bud is right that you guys look at the wrong things wrongly. This is a great example.

> The conspirators went to Shelley and Lovelady and got them to lie about leaving the steps after 3 minutes in order to screw-up Adams...

And you know this happened why? Because you *need* it to happen to preserve your scenario. But we already know your scenario is trash because of the film showing Shelley and Lovelady heading to the knoll area while Adams testified she saw Lovelady and Shelley inside the building when she and Styles reached the bottom of the stairs. You can call anyone you want a liar, but the film and Adams testimony is sufficient to rule out Adams and Styles reaching the first floor as quickly as you wish.

> She was adamant to Ernest that they never saw Lovelady & Shelley when they arrived on the 1st floor...You can see Lovelady & Shelley heading up the extension in Couch/Darnell at 25 seconds...

How many decades after the fact was she adamant? Was this sworn testimony? Can you attest to her memory not decaying over the ensuing decades? There is so many problems with the things you accept as a given that I hardly know what problem to point out first.

>
> You guys are organized liars who specialize in fucking up good research by editing the lies in the most destructive way...You are serpents...

Jeez. Don't hold back, tell us what you really think. ;)

You'll note I did not attack you at all in the above. I quoted the evidence and pointed out how it conflicts with your reconstruction. In response, you end up attacking the messenger, which of course is the logical fallacy of ad hominem. If the evidence was on your side you wouldn't need to resort to logical fallacies like ad hominem and begging the question ("good research"). You would prove your case using the evidence.

>
> Lovelady & Shelley went around the west side of the Depository and back in the west side loading shed entry...If you read Lovelady he was more honest and said he didn't really see the girls on the 1st floor...

But your problem is Adams testified she saw him and Shelley. Explain that. Was Adams lying?
And Shelley said he saw Adams after the shooting, but couldn't remember where.

== QUOTE ==
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Vickie Adams?
Mr. SHELLEY - I saw her that day but I don't remember where I saw her.
Mr. BALL - You don't remember whether you saw her when you came back?
Mr. SHELLEY - It was after we entered the building.
Mr. BALL - You think you did see her after you entered the building?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, sir; I thought it was on the fourth floor awhile after that.
== UNQUOTE ==

Now, a question you can't answer. If Shelley was CIA and lying, why didn't he testify he *definitely* saw Adams on the first floor after he got back in the building? Your arguments don't make any sense, and you reject any evidence that conflicts with your scenario and credit anything that helps it.

> The Warren Commissioner who was interviewing Lovelady & Shelley made a comment that 3 minutes was a little long...

Joseph Ball interviewed Shelley and Lovelady. He was not a Warren Commissioner. Get your facts straight.
Secondly, it was Lovelady's estimate of how long it was before Gloria Calvary came up to them.

== QUOTE ==
Mr. BALL - You heard the shots. And how long after that was it before Gloria Calvary came up?
Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, approximately 3 minutes, I would say.
Mr. BALL - Three minutes is a long time.
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, it's---I say approximately; I can't say because I don't have a watch; it could.
== UNQUOTE ==

Now, your problem just got bigger. Shelley and Lovelady had an exchange with Calvary before they headed to the knoll area. Lovelady's *estimate* should clue you in on why you shouldn't rely on estimates of time elapsed from witnesses. It should, but it doesn't. You still accept the estimates from decades after the fact in unsworn statements and reject everything that conflicts with your scenario.

Not the best way to reach the correct solution.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 1:36:56 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 12:24:21 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 7:03:03 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > If they can make it down and out of the TSBD in 35 to 40 seconds why couldn’t Oswald make it down to the second floor ahead of them?
> > Don't play dumb...Oswald has to thread the book-laden aisles and clean off the gun...He's allegedly on the 6th floor so he has to do that obstacle course and clean off the gun and hide it...Let's say Oswald manages to do a fast time and get out ahead of Adams & Styles by getting to the 4th floor in like 25 seconds...He's then way ahead of Adams & Styles who are just starting to bolt from the front windows...That would mean Oswald got to the 2 floor in like 40 seconds and therefore arrived way too soon for Baker & Truly...This is the time parameter Corbett pretends he doesn't see so he can just gum-up and nay-say the obvious with his denial trolling...
> I see parameters. You are trying to see exactitude where none exists. It is impossible to determine with any certainty how long it took any of the principles to make their movements. You point out that Oswald had to negotiate obstacles on the 6th floor but don't see the same problem for Adams and Styles. Do you think the 4th floor was a big open space where they could just beeline to the stairs? Page 3 of the following pdf shows the floor plan of the fourth floor.
>
> http://dealey.org/updown.pdf
>
> Garner, Adams, and Styles worked for the Scott Forsman Co. and their section of that floor was office space where presumably there were desks. Between the office space and the stairs was storage space. I have no information as to what was stored there but we do know Garner said she probably went back there to get supplies.
>
> Here's what we know. Garner said she saw Baker and Truly coming up the stairs so we can work backwards from there. Adams and Styles went down the stairs before that happened and they didn't run into Baker and Truly. They didn't see Oswald which means he descended either before them or after them. Oswald avoided running into Baker and Truly by ducking into the lunchroom. Baker followed him in and Truly once he realized Baker was no longer behind him turned around and headed to the lunchroom. If he descended before them, Adams and Styles could have passed the second floor landing while Baker and Truly were confronting Oswald. The other possibility is that Oswald went down after them. That would mean Adams and Styles reached the ground floor and exited while Baker and Truly were still trying to get an elevator to come down. Either explanation is plausible though I tend to lean toward the latter.
> > >
> > > Adams herself estimated that she was at the window for 15-30 seconds after the shooting before she even started to the back stairs. She was starting from the front of the building and had to walk to the back stairs, like Oswald did.
> > You are refreshing me on what I read on Ernest's page many months ago...It would have to be 15 seconds
> Here's where you try to insert exactitude where none exists.
> > because Mrs Garner was insistent it was "almost immediately" and right after Jackie climbed out on to the trunk...What you are not accounting for is these fast times for Oswald place him at the 4th floor and descending close to when Adams & Styles got there and they did not hear anyone ahead of them on the rickety and loud stairs...
> Where do you get the idea the stairs were rickety and loud. I visited the TSBD in 2008 and went to the staircase on the 6th floor. It was blocked off but still in plain sight. It sure didn't look rickety to me. It looked very solid and that was 35 years after the assassination.

45 years.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 1:55:30 PM UTC-4, caer...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 11:24:21 AM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 7:03:03 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> >
> > > If they can make it down and out of the TSBD in 35 to 40 seconds why couldn’t Oswald make it down to the second floor ahead of them?
> > Don't play dumb...Oswald has to thread the book-laden aisles and clean off the gun...
> Why does he have to clean off the gun? That seems totally unnecessary and irrelevant to me, and I am aware of no conclusive proof that he did any such thing.
> > He's allegedly on the 6th floor so he has to do that obstacle course
> It was nothing even remotely close to an obstacle course. All he had to do was go straight north down the easternmost aisle between the stacks of books and then turn left and go straight west along the northernmost aisle between the stacks of books. The location where the rifle was found was fairly close to the stairs. He could quite easily toss the rifle in there without slowing down for more than a few seconds and then continue to the stairs, most especially if he had already decided hours earlier that that was the place where he would hide the rifle after the shooting. He had more than four hours to look over the sixth floor and decide where he would hide the rifle afterwards.
> > and clean off the gun
> Still not getting why cleaning off the gun is at all necessary to this scenario.
> > and hide it...Let's say Oswald manages to do a fast time and get out ahead of Adams & Styles by getting to the 4th floor in like 25 seconds...He's then way ahead of Adams & Styles who are just starting to bolt from the front windows...That would mean Oswald got to the 2 floor in like 40 seconds and therefore arrived way too soon for Baker & Truly...This is the time parameter Corbett pretends he doesn't see so he can just gum-up and nay-say the obvious with his denial trolling...
> > >
> > > Adams herself estimated that she was at the window for 15-30 seconds after the shooting before she even started to the back stairs. She was starting from the front of the building and had to walk to the back stairs, like Oswald did.
> > You are refreshing me on what I read on Ernest's page many months ago...It would have to be 15 seconds because Mrs Garner was insistent it was "almost immediately" and right after Jackie climbed out on to the trunk...What you are not accounting for is these fast times for Oswald place him at the 4th floor and descending close to when Adams & Styles got there and they did not hear anyone ahead of them on the rickety and loud stairs...
> The problem with all these estimations of timing is that all the witnesses, 100 percent of them, with no exceptions were just *guessing*.
>
> Victoria Adams is one of the witnesses who said it the best. When David Belin asked her how long it took her to get from the window to the stairs, she replied, "I don't think I can answer that question accurately, because the time approximation, without a stopwatch, would be difficult."
>
> Just so.
>
> On November 26, 1963, when Carolyn Arnold supposedly told the FBI that the last time she saw Oswald was "a few minutes before 12:15 PM" she was just *guessing*. Even if she looked at her watch at the exact moment she saw him, she would still have no possible way of knowing for certain if that was the correct time since it was quite common for personal wristwatches to run fast or slow back then (and still decades later) unless she had set her watch within the past 24 hours from a reliable source such as a radio station, and had checked it again to make sure that the watch wasn't running too fast or slow. People back then didn't have the advantage we have today with our cell phones in which the time shown on the phone is derived from a database the phone is connected to. Today when I look at my phone and it says 12:12 pm I can be more than reasonably certain that that is less than 60 seconds off of "official" time here in the United States. And when in 1978 (I think?) Arnold said that she last saw Oswald at 12:25 she would have been just *guessing*. Even if she looked at her watch at the moment she saw him the above still applies unless it can be proven that her watch was set almost exactly with "official" time at the moment she looked at it, and I don't recall her ever saying anything about how diligent she was about setting her watch, or even whether or not she ever said she even wore a wristwatch that day. And if she was, for example, looking at a clock in one of the offices in the TSBD the same still applies: today we have no proof of how accurately that clock was set, how long it had been since the last time the clock was set, etc.
>
> Baker and Truly, in every statement they ever made about their movements from the moment Baker got off his motorcycle to the moment they first saw Oswald, were just *guessing*. No number of recreations after the fact would give them any true certainty of the timing because just as Victoria Adams correctly pointed out this would be impossible unless Baker or Truly was looking at a stopwatch or the second hand of a wristwatch *during* the original event. Stopwatches were used only during the later recreations. Nobody was looking at a stopwatch during the original event on November 22, 1963.
> > > If she left the window and started her descent when she *estimated*, why didn’t she see Baker and Truly? Why did she see Lovelady and Shelley?
> > I believe the authorities got Lovelady & Shelley to lie and change their times...
> You "believe" the authorities got them to lie? Do you have any proof of it?
> > You can see Lovelady & Shelley headed up the Elm St extension in Couch/Darnell...They left the steps around 20 seconds after the shots...If you use Couch/Darnell as a guide Baker did not get in to the Lobby until about 35 seconds...
> >
> > If Adams & Styles were pumped by adrenaline and left the window at 15 seconds then the 4th floor was an open warehouse where they could have feasibly gotten to the steps in 9 seconds of quick time...They could have feasibly taken 6 seconds per storey
> I strongly disagree with your usage of "feasibly." Six seconds per storey, as in six seconds per floor or six seconds per flight seems much too short to me, especially if these ladies were wearing high heels, which was far more common for female office workers back then than today.

Three inch heels per Adams:
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN - Those stairs would be in the northwest comer of the building, is that correct?
Miss ADAMS - That's correct.
Mr. BELIN - You took those stairs. Were you walking or running as you went down the stairs?
Miss ADAMS - I was running. We were running.
Mr. BELIN - What kind of shoes did you have on?
Miss ADAMS - Three-inch heels.
Mr. BELIN - You had heels. Now, as you were running down the stairs, did you encounter anyone?
Miss ADAMS - Not during the actual running down the stairs; no, sir.
== UNQUOTE ==

> I was in that building in 2003 (I think it was) and made my own test. Admittedly those rickety stairs in the northwest corner had long been closed to the public by then, so I had no choice but to use the main stairway in the building, but the vertical distance between each floor is still the same today as it was in 1963. I *did* look at the second hand of my watch, and I timed myself as trotting down one flight of stairs in 12 seconds, and being a man I definitely was not wearing high heels. ;-)
> > > Speaking of estimates, Shelley estimated he saw Baker and Truly enter the building 3 or 4 minutes after the shooting, then walked to the knoll area and watched the police searching cars “for a while, then re-entered the building.
> > Shelley told Dean Glaze he was CIA...The conspirators went to Shelley and Lovelady and got them to lie about leaving the steps after 3 minutes in order to screw-up Adams...
> Your wording, "The conspirators went to," without qualification, instead of saying something such as, "I believe there were conspirators who went to" suggests that you consider this to be a proven fact, even though above you said "I believe" as if it was mere speculation. Can you *prove* that *anyone* went to Shelley and Lovelady and got them to lie? You do realize there is no possible way to prove this without giving the identities of these conspirators and additionally proving that this people did what you claim they did. Can you prove this?
> > She was adamant to Ernest that they never saw Lovelady & Shelley when they arrived on the 1st floor...You can see Lovelady & Shelley heading up the extension in Couch/Darnell at 25 seconds...
> Yet Adams said she *did* see Lovelady and Shelley. Go figure.
>
> Now, I admit that I haven't read every article you've posted in this thread, but in all the articles that I have read I have spotted a gigantic, glaring omission.
>
> You've stated, correctly, that in a letter dated June 2, 1964, Martha Stroud informed Lee Rankin that she had just talked to Dorothy Garner that morning and that Garner had told her that after Adams and Styles went down the stairs she saw Baker and Truly come up the stairs. You've also referenced Garner's more detailed account in "The Girl on the Stairs." And indeed, she was quite clear that she never saw Oswald on the stairs...
>
> ...but this means she also never saw the ***REAL*** shooter come down the stairs either.
>
> Someone quite obviously fired shots from the Depository, whether or not that person was the only gunman. There are just a "few too many" witnesses (to put it mildly) who said they were looking directly at the rifle as it was being fired, or saw the rifle, or saw a long, narrow object, etc. No, they didn't agree with each other on which window or which floor, but it's just a few too many saying that there was a rifle being held by somebody up there to reasonably dismiss. Then we add to that the fact that more than 90 percent of all the witnesses who said they thought shots came from the building specifically said that *all* of the shots sounded as if they came from the building or else named no other location in their statements. The percentage is the same for any other location named as the source of the sounds; no matter what the location was, more than 90 percent of all the witnesses who named that location said *all* the shots sounded as if they came from that location. This is powerful evidence that all these witnesses were hearing the same three sounds fired from the same rifle.

No, you're confusing the number of witnesses who said there were three shots with the witnesses who named the depository.

The percentage who said three shots was about 90% in most tabulations. The percentage that said the Depository was the source of all the shots was about 60%. The overpass and the knoll were about 30%, and about 10% were other places or unsure.

>
> So unless you're going to propose that no one fired any shots from the TSBD, the shooter, no matter who he was, would have exactly the same problems to overcome, with no difference whatsoever, as Oswald would have to overcome if he was the shooter.
>
> Any shooter would have to do something with the rifle before leaving the building, or risk being seen carrying it out of the building and being immediately suspected of being the assassin.
>
> Any shooter would have to get down to the ground floor somehow to escape the building, no matter whether the shooter fired from the fifth floor, the sixth floor, the seventh floor, or the roof. The fire escape on the east side of the building would have of course been a ridiculous choice since the gunman would have been helplessly visible to dozens of witnesses all the way down. And we already know that the elevator was stuck. So no matter who the gunman was, his one and only choice to escape the the building without detection would have been the same stairway that Adams and Styles went down. Yet no matter who he was, nobody saw him. Why is that?

Two Thumbs Up! Excellent points.

>
> Quite obvious. No one was staring *continuously* at the stairs every second of every minute between the moment the last shot was fired and the moment Baker and Truly reached the fourth floor and Garner saw them. Let's keep in mind that she is the single uncorroborated witness who stayed near the fourth floor landing of the stairway. No one can confirm every detail of her story. She could have quite easily looked away from the stairway for no more than 10 seconds and missed the gunman coming down.

Or she inflated her testimony.

[John Corbett]

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 2:05:54 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 1:36:56 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 12:24:21 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 7:03:03 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > If they can make it down and out of the TSBD in 35 to 40 seconds why couldn’t Oswald make it down to the second floor ahead of them?
> > > Don't play dumb...Oswald has to thread the book-laden aisles and clean off the gun...He's allegedly on the 6th floor so he has to do that obstacle course and clean off the gun and hide it...Let's say Oswald manages to do a fast time and get out ahead of Adams & Styles by getting to the 4th floor in like 25 seconds...He's then way ahead of Adams & Styles who are just starting to bolt from the front windows...That would mean Oswald got to the 2 floor in like 40 seconds and therefore arrived way too soon for Baker & Truly...This is the time parameter Corbett pretends he doesn't see so he can just gum-up and nay-say the obvious with his denial trolling...
> > I see parameters. You are trying to see exactitude where none exists. It is impossible to determine with any certainty how long it took any of the principles to make their movements. You point out that Oswald had to negotiate obstacles on the 6th floor but don't see the same problem for Adams and Styles. Do you think the 4th floor was a big open space where they could just beeline to the stairs? Page 3 of the following pdf shows the floor plan of the fourth floor.
> >
> > http://dealey.org/updown.pdf
> >
> > Garner, Adams, and Styles worked for the Scott Forsman Co. and their section of that floor was office space where presumably there were desks. Between the office space and the stairs was storage space. I have no information as to what was stored there but we do know Garner said she probably went back there to get supplies.
> >
> > Here's what we know. Garner said she saw Baker and Truly coming up the stairs so we can work backwards from there. Adams and Styles went down the stairs before that happened and they didn't run into Baker and Truly. They didn't see Oswald which means he descended either before them or after them. Oswald avoided running into Baker and Truly by ducking into the lunchroom. Baker followed him in and Truly once he realized Baker was no longer behind him turned around and headed to the lunchroom. If he descended before them, Adams and Styles could have passed the second floor landing while Baker and Truly were confronting Oswald. The other possibility is that Oswald went down after them. That would mean Adams and Styles reached the ground floor and exited while Baker and Truly were still trying to get an elevator to come down. Either explanation is plausible though I tend to lean toward the latter.
> > > >
> > > > Adams herself estimated that she was at the window for 15-30 seconds after the shooting before she even started to the back stairs. She was starting from the front of the building and had to walk to the back stairs, like Oswald did.
> > > You are refreshing me on what I read on Ernest's page many months ago...It would have to be 15 seconds
> > Here's where you try to insert exactitude where none exists.
> > > because Mrs Garner was insistent it was "almost immediately" and right after Jackie climbed out on to the trunk...What you are not accounting for is these fast times for Oswald place him at the 4th floor and descending close to when Adams & Styles got there and they did not hear anyone ahead of them on the rickety and loud stairs...
> > Where do you get the idea the stairs were rickety and loud. I visited the TSBD in 2008 and went to the staircase on the 6th floor. It was blocked off but still in plain sight. It sure didn't look rickety to me. It looked very solid and that was 35 years after the assassination.
> 45 years.

Believe it or not, math was my strong suit.

[Caeruleo]

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 1:15:19 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 1:55:30 PM UTC-4, Caeruleo wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 11:24:21 AM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > > She was adamant to Ernest that they never saw Lovelady & Shelley when they arrived on the 1st floor...You can see Lovelady & Shelley heading up the extension in Couch/Darnell at 25 seconds...
> > Yet Adams said she *did* see Lovelady and Shelley. Go figure.
> >
> > Now, I admit that I haven't read every article you've posted in this thread, but in all the articles that I have read I have spotted a gigantic, glaring omission.
> >
> > You've stated, correctly, that in a letter dated June 2, 1964, Martha Stroud informed Lee Rankin that she had just talked to Dorothy Garner that morning and that Garner had told her that after Adams and Styles went down the stairs she saw Baker and Truly come up the stairs. You've also referenced Garner's more detailed account in "The Girl on the Stairs." And indeed, she was quite clear that she never saw Oswald on the stairs...
> >
> > ...but this means she also never saw the ***REAL*** shooter come down the stairs either.
> >
> > Someone quite obviously fired shots from the Depository, whether or not that person was the only gunman. There are just a "few too many" witnesses (to put it mildly) who said they were looking directly at the rifle as it was being fired, or saw the rifle, or saw a long, narrow object, etc. No, they didn't agree with each other on which window or which floor, but it's just a few too many saying that there was a rifle being held by somebody up there to reasonably dismiss. Then we add to that the fact that more than 90 percent of all the witnesses who said they thought shots came from the building specifically said that *all* of the shots sounded as if they came from the building or else named no other location in their statements. The percentage is the same for any other location named as the source of the sounds; no matter what the location was, more than 90 percent of all the witnesses who named that location said *all* the shots sounded as if they came from that location. This is powerful evidence that all these witnesses were hearing the same three sounds fired from the same rifle.
> No, you're confusing the number of witnesses who said there were three shots with the witnesses who named the depository.
>
> The percentage who said three shots was about 90% in most tabulations. The percentage that said the Depository was the source of all the shots was about 60%. The overpass and the knoll were about 30%, and about 10% were other places or unsure.

You misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about the total percentage of witnesses who said shots came from the TSBD. I meant that *of* all the witnesses who said *any* shot came from the TSBD (which would include a few multiple-direction witnesses), more than 90 percent of *those* witnesses only said that *all* the shots came from the TSBD, or else named no other direction or location in their statements.

The same thing applies to the GK witnesses. Of all the witnesses who said *any* shot came from the GK, more than 90 percent of *those* witnesses (which again would include a few multiple-direction witnesses) said *all* the shots sounded as if they came from the GK, or else named no other direction or location in their statements.

Here's another way of saying it: more than 90 percent of the witnesses who named any direction at all for the perceived sounds of gunfire each individually named only a single direction, even if that direction was different from other witnesses. Less than 10 percent of the witnesses *individually* named multiple directions, such as an *individual* witness saying that two shots sounded as if they came from the TSBD but one shot sounded as if it came from the fence on the GK.

One of the best examples of this is to compare our Victoria Adams, whom we've already been talking about in a different context, and James Jarman. Adams on the fourth floor three pairs of windows from the west end of the building thought all the shots sounded as if they came from below her and to her right, i.e. from the west, the GK. Jarman, on the fifth floor right below the sniper's nest and near the eastern end of the building, said his initial impression was that all the shots sounded as if they came from *below* him and to his *left*, i.e. from the east, the opposite direction of what Adams thought. But unless one proposes the ridiculous scenario that there were six shots and that Adams only heard the shots from the west and didn't hear even the faintest trace of the "other three shots" from the east, and that Jarman's hearing was equally selective in the opposite direction, it's quite obvious that both of these witnesses were hearing the same three sounds of gunfire fired from the same rifle, and simply due to mundane tricks of acoustics "heard" the same three sounds coming "from" opposite directions.

The witnesses as a whole are our most powerful evidence that firstly, three shots were fired, and secondly all were fired by the same weapon and none were fired by any other weapon. The physical evidence alone doesn't tell us this. A rifle and three shells found on the sixth floor merely suggest that three shots were fired from there, but says nothing about whether or not one or more other shots were fired from somewhere else. It's the witnesses who tell us it was all one location, all one weapon, because if it wasn't, we'd have a much large percentage of multiple-direction witnesss.

I already knew that out of the total number of witnesses in or near Dealey Plaza it wasn't anywhere near 90 percent who said the TSBD. I meant that *of* those who said the TSBD for *any* shot, more than 90 percent of only those witnesses said that it was the only source of the sounds.

> > Quite obvious. No one was staring *continuously* at the stairs every second of every minute between the moment the last shot was fired and the moment Baker and Truly reached the fourth floor and Garner saw them. Let's keep in mind that she is the single uncorroborated witness who stayed near the fourth floor landing of the stairway. No one can confirm every detail of her story. She could have quite easily looked away from the stairway for no more than 10 seconds and missed the gunman coming down.
> Or she inflated her testimony.

Oh, I don't know if Garner did that, exactly. The earliest known statement of hers that I know of in which she went into further detail about precisely where she went after "the girls" went downstairs was in her 2011 interview with Barry Ernest, during which she admitted that it was difficult for her to remember all the details since this was c.48 years after the event. For example she seemed to have forgotten that on June 2, 1964 she had told Martha Stroud that at some point after Adams and Styles went downstairs she saw Baker and Truly come up the stairs, without any mention being made by Stroud as to whether or not Garner had told her how much time had elapsed. When asked in 2011 whether or not she remembered Baker and Truly coming up the stairs she said, "I could have but there was so much confusion. It was, after all, a few years ago!"

As far as what she did after Adams and Styles went downstairs she said, "There was this warehouse or storage area behind our office, out by the freight elevators and the rear stairway, and I went out there." But she said nothing about looking continuously at the stairs from the storage area, and while the stairs could be "noisy," I can quite easily imagine someone stepping quickly and lightly down the stairs and making less noise than a woman in high heels who might not have been making any intentional effort to be quiet.

And after all, the gunman got past Garner somehow, whether or not the gunman was Oswald, unless one posits that after firing the shots he vanished into thin air, just like the package Oswald obviously carried into the TSBD also vanished into thin air at the threshold of the rear entrance to the Depository according to a sole uncorroborated witness, Jack Dougherty.

[Scrum Drum]

On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 1:41:10 PM UTC-4, caer...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 1:15:19 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 1:55:30 PM UTC-4, Caeruleo wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 11:24:21 AM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > > > She was adamant to Ernest that they never saw Lovelady & Shelley when they arrived on the 1st floor...You can see Lovelady & Shelley heading up the extension in Couch/Darnell at 25 seconds...
> > > Yet Adams said she *did* see Lovelady and Shelley. Go figure.
> > >
> > > Now, I admit that I haven't read every article you've posted in this thread, but in all the articles that I have read I have spotted a gigantic, glaring omission.
> > >
> > > You've stated, correctly, that in a letter dated June 2, 1964, Martha Stroud informed Lee Rankin that she had just talked to Dorothy Garner that morning and that Garner had told her that after Adams and Styles went down the stairs she saw Baker and Truly come up the stairs. You've also referenced Garner's more detailed account in "The Girl on the Stairs." And indeed, she was quite clear that she never saw Oswald on the stairs...
> > >
> > > ...but this means she also never saw the ***REAL*** shooter come down the stairs either.
> > >

I don't have time today to answer all that was posted...However the reason Adams & Styles and Garner did not see the real set-up and shooting team descending the stairs is explained by John Armstrong in his 6th floor escape article...The replacement of the flooring on the 6th floor was a set-up designed to conceal the fact the conspirators escaped through the floor and in to the elevator mechanical room on the 5th floor...They climbed through the roof of the passenger elevator that was parked on the 4th floor and rode it down...I believe the white T-shirt Oswald may have gotten off at the 3rd floor and may have been seen by Baker &Truly on the 3rd floor staircase landing - which explains why Baker settled on only reporting that Oswald because they had just seen two Oswald's one floor apart...You can read up on this on Armstrong's "Harvey & Lee" website...

[John Corbett]

You believe all this? Really? You think all of this makes more sense than Oswald shot JFK and took the stairs down to the 2nd floor lunchroom where Baker confronted him?

Just one question. Why didn't Baker think it strange that he met two Oswalds so close together?

[Scrum Drum]

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 1:36:56 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:




>
> Here's what we know. Garner said she saw Baker and Truly coming up the stairs so we can work backwards from there. Adams and Styles went down the stairs before that happened and they didn't run into Baker and Truly. They didn't see Oswald which means he descended either before them or after them. Oswald avoided running into Baker and Truly by ducking into the lunchroom. Baker followed him in and Truly once he realized Baker was no longer behind him turned around and headed to the lunchroom. If he descended before them, Adams and Styles could have passed the second floor landing while Baker and Truly were confronting Oswald. The other possibility is that Oswald went down after them. That would mean Adams and Styles reached the ground floor and exited while Baker and Truly were still trying to get an elevator to come down. Either explanation is plausible though I tend to lean toward the latter.
> > >

I'm pressed on time today so I wish I could answer more extensively...

Oswald can't be on the steps after Adams & Styles because Mrs Garner heard the girls on the steps (which proves they were rickety)...If Garner heard the girls descending then they could not have missed Baker & Truly if Oswald was behind them...Richard Gilbride thinks he read a report where Baker said he frisked Oswald down...If this is true then Baker was in the lunch room deeper and longer than he admitted...If so that would provide a longer window for Adams & Styles to sneak by the lunch room while Baker & Truly were inside...Gilbride backs that scenario...If Garner heard the girls descending then that proves she wasn't far behind them when she went to the 4th floor landing...Which in turn proves that if Oswald was in the narrow gap between Garner and the girls it would be impossible for the girls to miss Baker & Truly according to the necessary timing...Baker would be reluctant to admit he was further in to the lunch room and for longer because he would have seen Oswald's lunch on the table...

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 1:41:10 PM UTC-4, caer...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 1:15:19 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 1:55:30 PM UTC-4, Caeruleo wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 11:24:21 AM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > > > She was adamant to Ernest that they never saw Lovelady & Shelley when they arrived on the 1st floor...You can see Lovelady & Shelley heading up the extension in Couch/Darnell at 25 seconds...
> > > Yet Adams said she *did* see Lovelady and Shelley. Go figure.
> > >
> > > Now, I admit that I haven't read every article you've posted in this thread, but in all the articles that I have read I have spotted a gigantic, glaring omission.
> > >
> > > You've stated, correctly, that in a letter dated June 2, 1964, Martha Stroud informed Lee Rankin that she had just talked to Dorothy Garner that morning and that Garner had told her that after Adams and Styles went down the stairs she saw Baker and Truly come up the stairs. You've also referenced Garner's more detailed account in "The Girl on the Stairs." And indeed, she was quite clear that she never saw Oswald on the stairs...
> > >
> > > ...but this means she also never saw the ***REAL*** shooter come down the stairs either.
> > >
> > > Someone quite obviously fired shots from the Depository, whether or not that person was the only gunman. There are just a "few too many" witnesses (to put it mildly) who said they were looking directly at the rifle as it was being fired, or saw the rifle, or saw a long, narrow object, etc. No, they didn't agree with each other on which window or which floor, but it's just a few too many saying that there was a rifle being held by somebody up there to reasonably dismiss. Then we add to that the fact that more than 90 percent of all the witnesses who said they thought shots came from the building specifically said that *all* of the shots sounded as if they came from the building or else named no other location in their statements. The percentage is the same for any other location named as the source of the sounds; no matter what the location was, more than 90 percent of all the witnesses who named that location said *all* the shots sounded as if they came from that location. This is powerful evidence that all these witnesses were hearing the same three sounds fired from the same rifle.
> > No, you're confusing the number of witnesses who said there were three shots with the witnesses who named the depository.
> >
> > The percentage who said three shots was about 90% in most tabulations. The percentage that said the Depository was the source of all the shots was about 60%. The overpass and the knoll were about 30%, and about 10% were other places or unsure.
> You misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about the total percentage of witnesses who said shots came from the TSBD. I meant that *of* all the witnesses who said *any* shot came from the TSBD (which would include a few multiple-direction witnesses), more than 90 percent of *those* witnesses only said that *all* the shots came from the TSBD, or else named no other direction or location in their statements.
>
> The same thing applies to the GK witnesses. Of all the witnesses who said *any* shot came from the GK, more than 90 percent of *those* witnesses (which again would include a few multiple-direction witnesses) said *all* the shots sounded as if they came from the GK, or else named no other direction or location in their statements.
>
> Here's another way of saying it: more than 90 percent of the witnesses who named any direction at all for the perceived sounds of gunfire each individually named only a single direction, even if that direction was different from other witnesses. Less than 10 percent of the witnesses *individually* named multiple directions, such as an *individual* witness saying that two shots sounded as if they came from the TSBD but one shot sounded as if it came from the fence on the GK.
>
> One of the best examples of this is to compare our Victoria Adams, whom we've already been talking about in a different context, and James Jarman. Adams on the fourth floor three pairs of windows from the west end of the building thought all the shots sounded as if they came from below her and to her right, i.e. from the west, the GK. Jarman, on the fifth floor right below the sniper's nest and near the eastern end of the building, said his initial impression was that all the shots sounded as if they came from *below* him and to his *left*, i.e. from the east, the opposite direction of what Adams thought. But unless one proposes the ridiculous scenario that there were six shots and that Adams only heard the shots from the west and didn't hear even the faintest trace of the "other three shots" from the east, and that Jarman's hearing was equally selective in the opposite direction, it's quite obvious that both of these witnesses were hearing the same three sounds of gunfire fired from the same rifle, and simply due to mundane tricks of acoustics "heard" the same three sounds coming "from" opposite directions.

Okay, then we’re saying the same thing in different ways. I have gone through this with Ben on a number of occasions, and he pretends having a group of witnesses pointing in one direction as the source of *all* the shots and having another group pointing in a different direction as the source of *all* the shots is evidence of two shooters. It’s not. It’s evidence one group was wrong at a minimum. They can both be wrong, but they can’t both be right because they contradict each other.

>
> The witnesses as a whole are our most powerful evidence that firstly, three shots were fired, and secondly all were fired by the same weapon and none were fired by any other weapon. The physical evidence alone doesn't tell us this. A rifle and three shells found on the sixth floor merely suggest that three shots were fired from there, but says nothing about whether or not one or more other shots were fired from somewhere else. It's the witnesses who tell us it was all one location, all one weapon, because if it wasn't, we'd have a much large percentage of multiple-direction witnesss.

And more witnesses saying four or more shots. The number that suggest four or more is fewer than those that said two, and both are swamped by those that said exactly three.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 2:54:29 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 1:36:56 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Here's what we know. Garner said she saw Baker and Truly coming up the stairs so we can work backwards from there. Adams and Styles went down the stairs before that happened and they didn't run into Baker and Truly. They didn't see Oswald which means he descended either before them or after them. Oswald avoided running into Baker and Truly by ducking into the lunchroom. Baker followed him in and Truly once he realized Baker was no longer behind him turned around and headed to the lunchroom. If he descended before them, Adams and Styles could have passed the second floor landing while Baker and Truly were confronting Oswald. The other possibility is that Oswald went down after them. That would mean Adams and Styles reached the ground floor and exited while Baker and Truly were still trying to get an elevator to come down. Either explanation is plausible though I tend to lean toward the latter.
> > > >
> I'm pressed on time today so I wish I could answer more extensively...
>
> Oswald can't be on the steps after Adams & Styles because Mrs Garner heard the girls on the steps (which proves they were rickety)...If Garner heard the girls descending then they could not have missed Baker & Truly if Oswald was behind them...Richard Gilbride thinks he read a report

So a great example of a false memory. And you think memory is inviolable.

> where Baker said he frisked Oswald down...If this is true then Baker was in the lunch room deeper and longer than he admitted...If so that would provide a longer window for Adams & Styles to sneak by the lunch room while Baker & Truly were inside...Gilbride backs that scenario...If Garner heard the girls descending then that proves she wasn't far behind them when she went to the 4th floor landing...Which in turn proves that if Oswald was in the narrow gap between Garner and the girls it would be impossible for the girls to miss Baker & Truly according to the necessary timing...Baker would be reluctant to admit he was further in to the lunch room and for longer because he would have seen Oswald's lunch on the table...

Or Gilbride has a faulty memory. It’s amazing to me how far your conspiracy clown car can run on fumes. You’re basing your last paragraph on a recollection of a report that you can’t even establish ever existed.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 12:15:25 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

> Okay, then we’re saying the same thing in different ways. I have
>gone through this with Ben on a number of occasions, and he pretends
> having a group of witnesses pointing in one direction as the source of
> *all* the shots and having another group pointing in a different
> direction as the source of *all* the shots is evidence of two
> shooters. It’s not.

Nor have I **EVER** said that. You're simply molesting your own
Grandfather now...

You're too much a coward to address what I *ACTUALLY* say, and you're
stupid enough to think you can get away with it in an open uncensored
forum.

>It’s evidence one group was wrong at a minimum.

Begging the question.

> They can both be wrong, but they can’t both be right because they
> contradict each other.

No they don't. QUOTE the testimony of anyone you claim is "wrong."
Let's examine what they actually said, rather than your begged
implications of what they said.

But you won't.

[John Corbett]

On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 4:43:14 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 12:15:25 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Okay, then we’re saying the same thing in different ways. I have
> >gone through this with Ben on a number of occasions, and he pretends
> > having a group of witnesses pointing in one direction as the source of
> > *all* the shots and having another group pointing in a different
> > direction as the source of *all* the shots is evidence of two
> > shooters. It’s not.
> Nor have I **EVER** said that. You're simply molesting your own
> Grandfather now...
>

Remarks like that make me suspect Holmes is Rossley's bastard son.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

It's a metaphor. Holmes has recently explained the metaphor. But, being an old fart with short term memory problems, you have probably already forgotten it.

[Caeruleo]

On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 1:39:13 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 1:41:10 PM UTC-4, Caeruleo wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 1:15:19 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 1:55:30 PM UTC-4, Caeruleo wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 11:24:21 AM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > > > > She was adamant to Ernest that they never saw Lovelady & Shelley when they arrived on the 1st floor...You can see Lovelady & Shelley heading up the extension in Couch/Darnell at 25 seconds...
> > > > Yet Adams said she *did* see Lovelady and Shelley. Go figure.
> > > >
> > > > Now, I admit that I haven't read every article you've posted in this thread, but in all the articles that I have read I have spotted a gigantic, glaring omission.
> > > >
> > > > You've stated, correctly, that in a letter dated June 2, 1964, Martha Stroud informed Lee Rankin that she had just talked to Dorothy Garner that morning and that Garner had told her that after Adams and Styles went down the stairs she saw Baker and Truly come up the stairs. You've also referenced Garner's more detailed account in "The Girl on the Stairs." And indeed, she was quite clear that she never saw Oswald on the stairs...
> > > >
> > > > ...but this means she also never saw the ***REAL*** shooter come down the stairs either.
> > > >
> I don't have time today to answer all that was posted...However the reason Adams & Styles and Garner did not see the real set-up and shooting team descending the stairs is explained by John Armstrong in his 6th floor escape article...

Oh

good

gawd.

John Armstrong???

One of the most unreliable and extremely biased researchers I have ever encountered. And he isn't very good at getting his facts straight. One of my favorites is what he said about Oswald's jacket in "Harvey, Lee and Tippit: A New Look at the Tippit Shooting":

"Marina told the FBI (CE 1843) that "Lee Harvey Oswald" had only two jackets, one a heavy jacket, blue in color (later found at the TSBD), and another light jacket, grey in color. She said both of these jackets were purchased in Russia."

But that's not what CE 1843 says at all. Instead it says:

"She said she believes OSWALD possessed both of these jackets in Russia and had purchased them in the United States prior to his departure for Russia."

And the other day when I pointed out that according to Jack Dougherty, the package Frazier saw Oswald carrying toward the Depository seemed to vanish into thin air as he crossed the threshold, you said something to the effect of "Dougherty saw Harvey, not Lee," or Lee not Harvey or whichever way it was. I then replied that the only possible way that Dougherty could be telling the truth would be that not just the package, but Harvey himself, or whichever one, would also have to vanish into thin air at the threshold of the rear entrance to the TSBD, to be instantly replaced by the other one, and I notice you still haven't responded to that, at least that I have seen.

My goodness, this is like Star Trek, where the one carrying the package gets beamed up and the one not carrying a package gets beamed down in his place.

> The replacement of the flooring on the 6th floor was a set-up designed to conceal the fact the conspirators escaped through the floor and in to the elevator mechanical room on the 5th floor...They climbed through the roof of the passenger elevator that was parked on the 4th floor and rode it down...I believe the white T-shirt Oswald may have gotten off at the 3rd floor and may have been seen by Baker &Truly on the 3rd floor staircase landing - which explains why Baker settled on only reporting that Oswald because they had just seen two Oswald's one floor apart...You can read up on this on Armstrong's "Harvey & Lee" website...

Where Mr. Armstrong provides nothing even remotely similar to conclusive proof that this scenario is even close to what really happened, and instead engages in the wildest imaginable speculation.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

this tortured lone nut logic response, is, ah torturing!

[John Corbett]

Metaphor? I googled the phrase and nothing came up. Not even in the urban dictionary. It must be something the twisted mind of Benny came up with. I never saw Benny's explanation of it but I'm sure it was equally perverted. Rossley used to come up with lots of similar "metaphors".

[John Corbett]

I knew Scrummy was out in la-la land when he started talking about there being two Oswalds in the TSBD, Harvey and Lee. It doesn't get any goofier than that.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You would not have understood his explanation, anyway, as it was itself a bit metaphorical. To understand metaphor you must be able to think. Even Hank never recognizes metaphors, and he's not nearly so retarded as you.

[John Corbett]

Not surprising given that Benny was doing the explaining. Nothing he says makes sense.

> as it was itself a bit metaphorical. To understand metaphor you must be able to think.

I do think. I think Benny's an asshole. You too.

> Even Hank never recognizes metaphors, and he's not nearly so retarded as you.

Understanding Benny's rants is not a litmus test of intelligence.

[Caeruleo]

On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 10:28:33 PM UTC-5, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:

And yet you seem helplessly unable to explain in detail how, exactly, my logic is "tortured."

"Almost as if" you can't explain it.

I was responding to a person who claimed that the reason why Buell Frazier saw Oswald carry a long, narrow package to the rear entrance of the TSBD, but that as soon as Oswald crossed the threshold of that entrance Jack Dougherty claimed Oswald was holding nothing in his hands was because Frazier saw "Harvey" and Dougherty saw "Lee," a scenario which would require one man holding the package to vanish into thin air at the instant of crossing the threshold to be instantly replaced by a different man not holding a package materializing *out* of thin air. The same poster went on to produce John Armstrong, of all people, as further support for other aspects of the scenario.

And you call *my* logic tortured? This articulates your stunning lack of objectivity, that you fail to criticize your fellow CT for using logic that is a hundred times more "tortured" than mine. You must be using a remarkably different and novel definition of "tortured logic" than the majority of English-speakers worldwide.

Oh, but of course, how silly of me. You're just "saying" my logic is "tortured," not because it's really true, but merely because I believe differently than you and no other reason. Otherwise you would have already demonstrated in precise detail exactly how my logic is more "tortured" than the poster to whom I was responding.

[Scrum Drum]

On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 3:21:25 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:



> So a great example of a false memory. And you think memory is inviolable.

You and Corbett just say false memory or people are lying when faced with evidence you can't honestly answer...

> > where Baker said he frisked Oswald down...If this is true then Baker was in the lunch room deeper and longer than he admitted...If so that would provide a longer window for Adams & Styles to sneak by the lunch room while Baker & Truly were inside...Gilbride backs that scenario...If Garner heard the girls descending then that proves she wasn't far behind them when she went to the 4th floor landing...Which in turn proves that if Oswald was in the narrow gap between Garner and the girls it would be impossible for the girls to miss Baker & Truly according to the necessary timing...Baker would be reluctant to admit he was further in to the lunch room and for longer because he would have seen Oswald's lunch on the table...
> Or Gilbride has a faulty memory. It’s amazing to me how far your conspiracy clown car can run on fumes. You’re basing your last paragraph on a recollection of a report that you can’t even establish ever existed.

Mrs Garner said she could hear the girls on the steps when she got over to the 4th floor landing...The girls were obviously just ahead of her by one or two flights...Oswald could not have been just ahead of the girls because Adams & Styles would have heard him just like Mrs Garner heard the girls...Plus Oswald would have gotten to the lunch room too early...This proves Mrs Garner was not that far behind the girls so it is very unlikely Oswald slipped in between Adams & Styles and Mrs Garner...As I already proved, Oswald could not be in between the girls and Garner because the timing would have forced the girls to see Baker & Truly...This more or less proves that the girls had to get out before Baker & Truly got to the elevators...And if so that would take such a lead time that Mrs Garner would have to be at the steps when Oswald came down...Even the Commission noted this...The only other possibility is Gilbride is right (He's pretty reliable on sources so if he saw it I believe it) and Baker frisked Oswald for longer than Truly admitted and the girls passed on the landing while Baker & Truly were in the lunch room...

[John Corbett]

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 1:31:54 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 3:21:25 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>
>
>
> > So a great example of a false memory. And you think memory is inviolable.
> You and Corbett just say false memory or people are lying when faced with evidence you can't honestly answer...

Like you do with Roy Truly's testimony.

> > > where Baker said he frisked Oswald down...If this is true then Baker was in the lunch room deeper and longer than he admitted...If so that would provide a longer window for Adams & Styles to sneak by the lunch room while Baker & Truly were inside...Gilbride backs that scenario...If Garner heard the girls descending then that proves she wasn't far behind them when she went to the 4th floor landing...Which in turn proves that if Oswald was in the narrow gap between Garner and the girls it would be impossible for the girls to miss Baker & Truly according to the necessary timing...Baker would be reluctant to admit he was further in to the lunch room and for longer because he would have seen Oswald's lunch on the table...
> > Or Gilbride has a faulty memory. It’s amazing to me how far your conspiracy clown car can run on fumes. You’re basing your last paragraph on a recollection of a report that you can’t even establish ever existed.
> Mrs Garner said she could hear the girls on the steps when she got over to the 4th floor landing...The girls were obviously

He comes one of Scrummy's baseless claims.

> just ahead of her by one or two flights...

See what I mean.

> Oswald could not have been just ahead of the girls because Adams & Styles would have heard him just like Mrs Garner heard the girls...

A silly assumption. We don't know if Oswald was ahead of those girls or behind them. I tend to think he was behind him but the evidence is not conclusive. There are so many possibilities that you don't want to consider because you want to assume that Oswald did not come down from the 6th floor after the shots.

> Plus Oswald would have gotten to the lunch room too early...This proves Mrs Garner was not that far behind the girls so it is very unlikely Oswald slipped in between Adams & Styles and Mrs Garner...

It doesn't need to be likely. Only possible.

> As I already proved, Oswald could not be in between the girls and Garner because the timing would have forced the girls to see Baker & Truly...

Claiming something is not the same as proving it. Claims require proof to be valid.

> This more or less proves that the girls had to get out before Baker & Truly got to the elevators...

I actually agree with you that is likely but wouldn't go so far as to say it is a certainty. It's possible they came down after Oswald and passed the second floor landing while Truly and Baker were confronting Oswald in the lunchroom.

> And if so that would take such a lead time that Mrs Garner would have to be at the steps when Oswald came down...

Bullshit.

> Even the Commission noted this...The only other possibility is Gilbride is right (He's pretty reliable on sources so if he saw it I believe it)

Because you're gullible.

> and Baker frisked Oswald for longer than Truly admitted and the girls passed on the landing while Baker & Truly were in the lunch room...

That would not require Baker to be frisking Oswald. If the girls reached the second floor landing as Truly was entering the lunchroom, they could have easily been by them before Baker and Truly came out of the lunchroom in which case Baker and Truly would not have run into Adams and Styles.

[BT George]

To the contrary. It's a sure sign of missing ones marbles.

[Scrum Drum]

You lose the debate right here a**hole...

You are refusing to discuss the technical aspects and resorting to one-liner nay-say trolling because you know I've out-argued you...

Oswald could not be ahead of Adams & Styles because that would get him to the lunch room too early to be possible...You liars refuse to answer that your fast times for Oswald conflict with the arrival times of Baker & Truly by the elevator...And he couldn't be in between Adams & Styles and Mrs Garner arriving at the 4th floor landing because Adams & Styles would have seen Baker & Truly in that scenario...The only possibility is that Oswald was after Adams & Styles but that can't be possible because Mrs Garner got to the landing soon enough to hear the girls on the stairs, which means if Oswald was behind the girls Mrs Garner would have seen him on the steps...

Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots as he told Fritz and as numerous other witnesses attested...He never came down the stairs which is why Adams, Styles, and Mrs Garner never saw him...This also provides evidence for when Oswald got up and went to the vestibule window because Adams & Styles didn't see him (though they did have the worst angle because they were going away with their backs turned)...

[John Corbett]

Scrummy declares victory!!! WOO-HOO!!!

>
> You are refusing to discuss the technical aspects and resorting to one-liner nay-say trolling because you know I've out-argued you...

The technical aspects (aka forensic evidence) are all against you.

>
> Oswald could not be ahead of Adams & Styles because that would get him to the lunch room too early to be possible...

Only if we can determine with precision how fast any of the principles were moving. We can't. We can only estimate which prevents making such exclusions.

> You liars refuse to answer that your fast times for Oswald conflict with the arrival times of Baker & Truly by the elevator...

I don't have times, for Oswald, Baker, Truly, Adams or Styles. I have approximations.

> And he couldn't be in between Adams & Styles and Mrs Garner arriving at the 4th floor landing because Adams & Styles would have seen Baker & Truly in that scenario...

There are two possibilities for Adams and Styles not seeing Truly and Baker. One would be they reached the first floor landing before Truly and Baker had given up on the elevator or they passed the second floor landing while Truly and Baker were confronting Oswald in the lunchroom. I tend to lean to the former but I cannot logically dismiss the latter. Either is possible.

> The only possibility is

Here's where you reveal how myopic your thinking is. You are unable to recognize possibilities other than the one you want to gravitate to.

> that Oswald was after Adams & Styles but that can't be possible because Mrs Garner got to the landing soon enough to hear the girls on the stairs, which means if Oswald was behind the girls Mrs Garner would have seen him on the steps...

Here again you illogically dismiss a plausible scenario.

>
> Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots as he told Fritz and as numerous other witnesses attested...

Damn, you're gullible.

> He never came down the stairs which is why Adams, Styles, and Mrs Garner never saw him...

Keep telling yourself that. The forensic evidence says otherwise.

> This also provides evidence for when Oswald got up and went to the vestibule window because Adams & Styles didn't see him (though they did have the worst angle because they were going away with their backs turned)...

One silly assumption usually leads to more silly assumptions.

[Scrum Drum]

On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 1:18:46 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:




> Scrummy declares victory!!! WOO-HOO!!!
> >
> > You are refusing to discuss the technical aspects and resorting to one-liner nay-say trolling because you know I've out-argued you...
> The technical aspects (aka forensic evidence) are all against you.

When the opposition resorts to infantile reversals like a 4 year old you've pretty much won...

> >
> > Oswald could not be ahead of Adams & Styles because that would get him to the lunch room too early to be possible...
> Only if we can determine with precision how fast any of the principles were moving. We can't. We can only estimate which prevents making such exclusions.

You are lying in order to avoid admitting what we can know...Those parameters were expressed credibly enough and you failed to answer...


In a properly moderated debate you would be shown the door and victory would be decided for myself...

> > You liars refuse to answer that your fast times for Oswald conflict with the arrival times of Baker & Truly by the elevator...
> I don't have times, for Oswald, Baker, Truly, Adams or Styles. I have approximations.

My time claims all involve the outside estimates for the outliers...You are using unintelligent, dishonest deflections to avoid acknowledging that so what that means is you have failed to answer them...All you are really showing people is you can't answer the evidence when it is expertly argued...You are failing to answer that Oswald cannot get to the vestibule too far before Baker & Truly who need to get there right behind him...And you are failing to connect that to your lackadaisical claim that Baker & Truly took longer...You can't have Baker & Truly taking longer and Oswald taking less time in the same space and that is the gap you fail to cover in your trolling answers...You have Mrs Garner as the end stop to that when she sees Baker & Truly emerge...Not to mention Bonnie Ray Williams when he sees Baker's white helmet emerge in synch with the officially-claimed time...You're losing this badly Corbett...

> > And he couldn't be in between Adams & Styles and Mrs Garner arriving at the 4th floor landing because Adams & Styles would have seen Baker & Truly in that scenario...
> There are two possibilities for Adams and Styles not seeing Truly and Baker. One would be they reached the first floor landing before Truly and Baker had given up on the elevator or they passed the second floor landing while Truly and Baker were confronting Oswald in the lunchroom. I tend to lean to the former but I cannot logically dismiss the latter. Either is possible.

It seems unlikely that Baker & Truly would not hear or see Adams & Styles arrive on the 1st floor because there was an open area between the elevators and the staircase landing on the 1st floor...There was an overhead door right at the base of the steps that led right out to the loading dock...I asked Ernest to e-mail Styles and ask her how they got out of the building once they reached the bottom of the steps but he ignored it...If Adams & Styles went out that overhead door at the base of the steps it is possible for Baker & Truly to not have seen them..

It seems unlikely that Adams & Styles would be missed by Baker & Truly even if they were inside the 2nd floor lunch room frisking Oswald...If Mrs Garner heard them going down Baker & Truly would have heard them just as well...However if Oswald was ahead of the girls they would have heard him on the steps...It would also require a very late departure from the 4th floor window by Adams & Styles that Mrs Garner excluded...Mrs Garner said they took off so quickly that she didn't even realize they had gone...If Adams & Styles took off 15 seconds after the last shot there was time for them to get out that overhead door in front of Baker & Truly and not be seen...Mrs Garner said she saw Truly and a cop emerge on the 4th floor landing after Adams & Styles descended...

[John Corbett]

On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 2:00:32 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 1:18:46 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > Scrummy declares victory!!! WOO-HOO!!!
> > >
> > > You are refusing to discuss the technical aspects and resorting to one-liner nay-say trolling because you know I've out-argued you...
> > The technical aspects (aka forensic evidence) are all against you.
> When the opposition resorts to infantile reversals like a 4 year old you've pretty much won...

So you consider that pointing out the forensic evidence is against is is an infantile reversal.

> > >
> > > Oswald could not be ahead of Adams & Styles because that would get him to the lunch room too early to be possible...
> > Only if we can determine with precision how fast any of the principles were moving. We can't. We can only estimate which prevents making such exclusions.
> You are lying in order to avoid admitting what we can know...Those parameters were expressed credibly enough and you failed to answer...

Credibly isn't good enough for what you are claiming. You need precision for what you are claiming and that precision does not exist.

>
>
> In a properly moderated debate you would be shown the door and victory would be decided for myself...

Keep declaring victory. It's the only way you'll ever get one.

> > > You liars refuse to answer that your fast times for Oswald conflict with the arrival times of Baker & Truly by the elevator...
> > I don't have times, for Oswald, Baker, Truly, Adams or Styles. I have approximations.
> My time claims all involve the outside estimates for the outliers...You are using unintelligent, dishonest deflections to avoid acknowledging that so what that means is you have failed to answer them...

Failing to answer them to your satisfaction is not the same as failing to answer them.

> All you are really showing people is you can't answer the evidence when it is expertly argued...

You don't present evidence and you don't argue expertly. You present assumptions which are neither evidence or expert arguments.

> You are failing to answer that Oswald cannot get to the vestibule too far before Baker & Truly who need to get there right behind him...

I don't have to answer your assumptions. You have simply asserted what you cannot prove.

> And you are failing to connect that to your lackadaisical claim that Baker & Truly took longer...

I know Truly and Baker took longer to get there because Oswald got to the lunchroom first and Baker followed him in.

> You can't have Baker & Truly taking longer and Oswald taking less time in the same space and that is the gap you fail to cover in your trolling answers...

What gap?

> You have Mrs Garner as the end stop to that when she sees Baker & Truly emerge...

The fact she saw Baker and Truly coming up the stairs does not establish that she would have seen Oswald going down the stairs.

> Not to mention Bonnie Ray Williams when he sees Baker's white helmet emerge in synch with the officially-claimed time...

There is no officially claimed time for that.

> You're losing this badly Corbett...

Still declaring imaginary victories. <chuckle>

> > > And he couldn't be in between Adams & Styles and Mrs Garner arriving at the 4th floor landing because Adams & Styles would have seen Baker & Truly in that scenario...
> > There are two possibilities for Adams and Styles not seeing Truly and Baker. One would be they reached the first floor landing before Truly and Baker had given up on the elevator or they passed the second floor landing while Truly and Baker were confronting Oswald in the lunchroom. I tend to lean to the former but I cannot logically dismiss the latter. Either is possible.
> It seems unlikely that Baker & Truly would not hear or see Adams & Styles arrive on the 1st floor because there was an open area between the elevators and the staircase landing on the 1st floor...There was an overhead door right at the base of the steps that led right out to the loading dock...I asked Ernest to e-mail Styles and ask her how they got out of the building once they reached the bottom of the steps but he ignored it...

So instead you'll just take a scientific wild assed guess.

> If Adams & Styles went out that overhead door at the base of the steps it is possible for Baker & Truly to not have seen them..
>
> It seems unlikely that Adams & Styles would be missed by Baker & Truly even if they were inside the 2nd floor lunch room frisking Oswald...

It doesn't matter if it is likely or unlikely. It is possible and therefore cannot be dismissed logically.

> If Mrs Garner heard them going down Baker & Truly would have heard them just as well...However if Oswald was ahead of the girls they would have heard him on the steps...

One more silly assumption.

> It would also require a very late departure from the 4th floor window by Adams & Styles that Mrs Garner excluded...

Witnesses do not establish facts unless it can be established that the witness got the details correct. Witnesses often get details wrong and in this case the details are crucial.

> Mrs Garner said they took off so quickly that she didn't even realize they had gone...

She doesn't say how quickly. Quickly could be right away or quickly could mean a minute or two after the shots.

> If Adams & Styles took off 15 seconds after the last shot there was time for them to get out that overhead door in front of Baker & Truly and not be seen...Mrs Garner said she saw Truly and a cop emerge on the 4th floor landing after Adams & Styles descended...

Yes she did. She didn't say how long after but we can safely say there was an indeterminant amount of time between Adams and Styles going down and Truly and Baker coming up. Oswald could have descended the stairs during that time frame whatever it happened to be.
You continue to ignore the fact that nobody was being timed as to their movements following the shots. Since all we have are approximations for these various movements, we don't have sufficient data to rule out scenarios based on time frames. You want to present the argument that Oswald could not have descended the stairs from 6 to 2 based on these approximations which is a half assed way of going about it.

[Scrum Drum]

On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 2:37:43 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:




No need to answer Corbett's nick-picking, nay-say trolling...


A credible researcher would realize Dougherty obviously had a reason to tell Gil Toff Oswald was eating his lunch up in the 2nd floor lunch room...

Dougherty was obviously holding that reason back and avoided detailing it by saying he saw Oswald on his way down to lunch...

But we know Dougherty didn't see Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room at noon when he went down...

That tells a credible researcher Dougherty found out another way that he's not saying...

Dougherty was obviously scared off of saying what he really witnessed by the original investigators and reverted back to that gag order when Toff asked him why...

[John Corbett]

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 1:54:19 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 2:37:43 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>
>
>
>
> No need to answer Corbett's nick-picking, nay-say trolling...
>
>
> A credible researcher would realize Dougherty obviously had a reason to tell Gil Toff Oswald was eating his lunch up in the 2nd floor lunch room...

Strange he never had a reason to tell anybody that in 1963.
>
> Dougherty was obviously

He comes a Scrummy lie.

> holding that reason back and avoided detailing it by saying he saw Oswald on his way down to lunch...

Why?

>
> But we know Dougherty didn't see Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room at noon when he went down...
>
> That tells a credible researcher Dougherty found out another way that he's not saying...

You'll believe just about anything. Except the truth.
>
> Dougherty was obviously

Here comes another Scrummy lie.

> scared off of saying what he really witnessed by the original investigators and reverted back to that gag order when Toff asked him why...

Who scared him? How did they scare him?

It's amazing the things you will dream up to avoid confronting evidence that contradicts what you want to believe, which is 99+% of the available evidence.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 1:31:54 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 3:21:25 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>
>
>
> > So a great example of a false memory. And you think memory is inviolable.
> You and Corbett just say false memory or people are lying when faced with evidence you can't honestly answer...

You didn't cite any evidence. What you said was "Richard Gilbride thinks he read a report where Baker said he frisked Oswald down".

That's solely a memory with *nothing* substantive backing it up. We know false memories are a real thing. Given this supposed report never has surfaced, given that Baker testified he never frisked Oswald, given that neither you nor Gilbride can provide a link to this supposed report, it sounds more like a false memory than a real one. The only way to verify Gilbride's recollection is to provide a link to the report. This you cannot do.

I don't accuse people of lying, except conspiracy authors who should know better.

> > > where Baker said he frisked Oswald down...If

*IF*

> this is true then Baker was in the lunch room deeper and longer than he admitted...If

*IF*

> so that would provide a longer window for Adams & Styles to sneak by the lunch room while Baker & Truly were inside...Gilbride backs that scenario...If

*IF*

Garner heard the girls descending then that proves she wasn't far behind them when she went to the 4th floor landing...Which in turn proves that if

*IF*

Oswald was in the narrow gap between Garner and the girls it would be impossible for the girls to miss Baker & Truly according to the necessary timing...Baker would be reluctant to admit he was further in to the lunch room and for longer because he would have seen Oswald's lunch on the table...

I count four IFs in your scenario above. How many do you count?

> > Or Gilbride has a faulty memory. It’s amazing to me how far your conspiracy clown car can run on fumes. You’re basing your last paragraph on a recollection of a report that you can’t even establish ever existed.
> Mrs Garner said she could hear the girls on the steps when she got over to the 4th floor landing...The girls were obviously just ahead of her by one or two flights...Oswald could not have been just ahead of the girls because Adams & Styles would have heard him just like Mrs Garner heard the girls...

Asked and answered... you haven't shown how quickly the women came down the stairs. You've assumed it.

> Plus Oswald would have gotten to the lunch room too early...

Oswald could have been out of the building and Truly and Baker on the roof if the women came down and saw Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor.

> This proves Mrs Garner was not that far behind the girls so it is very unlikely Oswald slipped in between Adams & Styles and Mrs Garner...

For a change, try dealing with my argument and not ones I'm not advancing.


> As I already proved,

You don't seem to know the meaning of the word. It's not a synonym for "argued","suggested", or "asserted".

> Oswald could not be in between the girls and Garner because the timing would have forced the girls to see Baker & Truly...This more or less proves that the girls had to get out before Baker & Truly got to the elevators...

Or after they reached the roof. How do you accomplish getting the women seeing Shelley and Lovelady if they came down as quickly as you assert?

> And if so that would take such a lead time that Mrs Garner would have to be at the steps when Oswald came down...

Unless of course all the stuff involving the women happened three or four minutes after the assassination.

> Even the Commission noted this...The only other possibility is Gilbride is right (He's pretty reliable on sources so if he saw it I believe it)

What's his citation for this frisking report? Where is this report? Where can I read it?

> and Baker frisked Oswald for longer than Truly admitted and the girls passed on the landing while Baker & Truly were in the lunch room...

Neither Truly nor Baker suggested Baker frisked Oswald. This is not a matter of Oswald being frisked longer than Truly admitted. It's a matter of whether it occurred at all.
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; and when I hollered at him he turned around and walked back to me.
Representative BOGGS -Right close to you?
Mr. BAKER - And we were right here at this position 24, right here in this doorway.
Representative BOGGS -Right. What did you say to him?
Mr. BAKER - I didn't get anything out of him. Mr. Truly had come up to my side here, and I turned to Mr. Truly and I says, "Do you know this man, does he work here?" And he said yes, and I turned immediately and went on out up the stairs.
Mr. BELIN - Then you continued up the stairway?
Representative BOGGS -Let me ask one other question. You later, when you recognized this man as Lee Oswald, is that right, saw pictures of him?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. I had occasion to see him in the homicide office later that evening after we got through with Parkland Hospital and then Love Field and we went back to the City Hall and I went up there and made this affidavit.
Representative BOGGS -After he had been arrested?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES - Could you tell us anything more about his appearance, what he was doing, get an impression of the man at all? Did he seem to be hurrying, anything of that kind?
Mr. BAKER - Evidently he was hurrying because at this point here, I was running, and I ran on over here to this door.
== UNQUOTE ==

Nothing about a frisking. Nothing in Truly's testimony about a frisking either.

== QUOTE ==
Mr. TRULY. I suppose I was up two or three steps before I realized the officer wasn't following me.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. TRULY. I came back to the second floor landing.
Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
Mr. TRULY. I heard some voices, or a voice, coming from the area of the lunchroom, or the inside vestibule, the area of 24.
...
Mr. TRULY. I saw the officer almost directly in the doorway of the lunch-room facing Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. And where was Lee Harvey Oswald at the time you saw him?
Mr. TRULY. He was at the front of the lunchroom, not very far inside he was just inside the lunchroom door.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. TRULY. 2 or 3 feet, possibly.
...
Mr. TRULY. When I reached there, the officer had his gun pointing at Oswald. The officer turned this way and said, "This man work here?" And I said, "Yes."
Mr. BELIN. And then what happened?
Mr. TRULY. Then we left Lee Harvey Oswald immediately and continued to run up the stairways ...
== UNQUOTE ==

Nothing about a frisking. But you trust the recollection of a non-witness over the testimony of two witnesses.

[Scrum Drum]

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 6:13:16 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:




> That's solely a memory with *nothing* substantive backing it up. We know false memories are a real thing. Given this supposed report never has surfaced, given that Baker testified he never frisked Oswald, given that neither you nor Gilbride can provide a link to this supposed report, it sounds more like a false memory than a real one. The only way to verify Gilbride's recollection is to provide a link to the report. This you cannot do.

I sent an e-mail to Gilbride telling him his reference had been challenged by lying Lone Nutters and linked this discussion...Knowing Richard he'll probably pass not wanting to stoop to answering crass deniers who aren't going to give any honest answer to his material...

But this thread is a good example of how the Lone Nutters use dishonest arguing tactics to switch the subject from the main substance of what is being argued to their superficial reductions in order to divert the thread off the main subject matter that they are obviously failing to give adequate answer to and in to the denial nit-picking...

> I count four IFs in your scenario above. How many do you count?

Counting "ifs" is a trolling/evasion tactic designed to escape credible discussion of the only possible scenarios for Adams & Styles descending the steps...There's only two possible scenarios once you credibly process the evidence...One is that the girls got out fast like Mrs Garner said and got out ahead of Baker & Truly's arrival at the elevators...I tend to believe this scenario...I think Adams did shock paralysis where time slows down and over-estimated her departure time from the 4th floor windows...I think Adams got focused on the motorcade scene in between the last shot at Z313 and the limousine entering the overpass and the intense data her eyes were picking up of Secret Service men sprinting to the trunk and Jackie trying to escape and the severity of that information overload...That overload stretched time, like it tends to do in witnesses, and made Adams remember it as being 15 to 30 seconds...I think it was more like 10 to 15 seconds...I take Mrs Garner's word that Adams & Styles left "almost immediately" and were gone before she could even notice...That gets them to the stairs in like 20 seconds after the shots and it gets them out of the building on the 1st floor at like +50...Baker and Truly arrive at the elevators at +65 and that explains why they missed the girls...

OR - the girls pass the 2nd floor lunch room when Baker and Truly are inside with Oswald at +75...I tend to doubt this scenario because it would be almost impossible for Baker & Truly to not hear the girls descending or clattering by on the landing...Baker would have been interested in anyone coming down fast from the upper floors and would not have been likely to ignore such traffic...I also think the early-descending girls and their noise caught the attention of Oswald and made him go to the vestibule window from his lunch room seat to watch who was descending the stairs...

.
> Unless of course all the stuff involving the women happened three or four minutes after the assassination.

Hank is disqualified from this discussion because he stupidly ignores that these events could not happen minutes later because Mrs Garner saw Baker & Truly ascending as the first people she saw after the girls descended...It shows a basic lack of grasp of the evidence...Garner is backed by Bonnie Ray Williams who saw Baker's helmet on the 5th and then descended to the 4th in synch with the girls being on the steps when Oswald needed to be there...

Jack Dougherty told the truth to Gil Toff and he had a specific reason why he knew Oswald was up eating in the 2nd floor lunch room during the assassination while Dougherty himself ate his lunch in the Domino Room...When pressed Dougherty obviously reverted to remembering the gag order by the FBI and Commission and simply passed it off as seeing Oswald on his way down to lunch...Dougherty did that in order to not tell how he really knew...He gave away the truth when he said he saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room after lunch...

I'm going to start backing off answering denial trolls like Hank because they are obviously not answering honestly and are therefore a waste of time...

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, August 23, 2021 at 1:24:57 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 6:13:16 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > That's solely a memory with *nothing* substantive backing it up. We know false memories are a real thing. Given this supposed report never has surfaced, given that Baker testified he never frisked Oswald, given that neither you nor Gilbride can provide a link to this supposed report, it sounds more like a false memory than a real one. The only way to verify Gilbride's recollection is to provide a link to the report. This you cannot do.
> I sent an e-mail to Gilbride telling him his reference had been challenged by lying Lone Nutters and linked this discussion...Knowing Richard he'll probably pass not wanting to stoop to answering crass deniers who aren't going to give any honest answer to his material...
>

How can I give any answer to a *recollection*? There's no 'there' there.

> But this thread is a good example of how the Lone Nutters use dishonest arguing tactics to switch the subject from the main substance of what is being argued to their superficial reductions in order to divert the thread off the main subject matter that they are obviously failing to give adequate answer to and in to the denial nit-picking...

Please, explain in detail what is a "dishonest arguing tactic" about asking for documentation for a *recollection*?
If I claimed I have a *recollection* Gilbride conceded he might have imagined the whole thing, but can't find that discussion anymore, would that top his *recollection*?

> > I count four IFs in your scenario above. How many do you count?

> Counting "ifs" is a trolling/evasion tactic designed to escape credible discussion ...

No, it's a what to point out how dependent your arguments on begged questions. If this happened, then if this happened, then if, then if.... then my scenario works.

> of the only possible scenarios for Adams & Styles descending the steps...There's only two possible scenarios once you credibly process the evidence...One is that the girls got out fast like Mrs Garner said and got out ahead of Baker & Truly's arrival at the elevators...I tend to believe this scenario...I think Adams did shock paralysis where time slows down and over-estimated her departure time from the 4th floor windows...I think Adams got focused on the motorcade scene in between the last shot at Z313 and the limousine entering the overpass and the intense data her eyes were picking up of Secret Service men sprinting to the trunk and Jackie trying to escape and the severity of that information overload...That overload stretched time, like it tends to do in witnesses, and made Adams remember it as being 15 to 30 seconds...I think it was more like 10 to 15 seconds...I take Mrs Garner's word that Adams & Styles left "almost immediately" and were gone before she could even notice...That gets them to the stairs in like 20 seconds after the shots and it gets them out of the building on the 1st floor at like +50...Baker and Truly arrive at the elevators at +65 and that explains why they missed the girls...
>
> OR - the girls pass the 2nd floor lunch room when Baker and Truly are inside with Oswald at +75...I tend to doubt this scenario because it would be almost impossible for Baker & Truly to not hear the girls descending or clattering by on the landing...Baker would have been interested in anyone coming down fast from the upper floors and would not have been likely to ignore such traffic...I also think the early-descending girls and their noise caught the attention of Oswald and made him go to the vestibule window from his lunch room seat to watch who was descending the stairs...
> .
> > Unless of course all the stuff involving the women happened three or four minutes after the assassination.

> Hank is disqualified from this discussion because he stupidly ignores that these events could not happen minutes later because Mrs Garner saw Baker & Truly ascending as the first people she saw after the girls descended...It shows a basic lack of grasp of the evidence...

What evidence? Where can I find her sworn statement? What's that? There isn't one? There's only an unsworn recollection from decades after the fact?

> Garner is backed by Bonnie Ray Williams who saw Baker's helmet on the 5th and then descended to the 4th in synch with the girls being on the steps when Oswald needed to be there...

Wait, what?

Baker said he took the elevator *after* the encounter with Oswald on the second floor.
And if Williams saw Baker on the fifth floor, Baker was coming from the stairs to the elevator.
By then the lunchroom encounter was over and Oswald could be out of the building.
But you put the women on the steps after that, when Williams descended.

== quote ==
Mr. BELIN - Officer Baker, you then left the second floor lunchroom with Mr. Truly, is that correct?
Mr. BAKER - That is right, sir.
Mr. BELIN - How long did you stay in the lunchroom after Truly identified this person as being an employee?
Mr. BAKER - Just momentarily. As he said, "Yes, he works here," I turned and went on up the stairs.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Do you have any time estimate as to the period of time that elapsed between the time that you first got to the head of the stairs and saw some movement through that first doorway and the time you left-to go back up to the flight of stairs going to the third floor?
Mr. BAKER - I would say approximately maybe 30 seconds, something like that. It was a real quick interview, you know, and then I left.
Mr. BELIN - All right. As you left, did you notice whether or not the man in the lunchroom did anything or started moving anywhere?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir. As I left he was still in the position that he was when. ever I was facing him.
Mr. BELIN - You then went where?
Mr. BAKER - I immediately turned and went on, started on, up the stairways.
Mr. BELIN - All right. After going up the stairways, do you know what numbered floor it was---I will ask you this, did you take the stairway all the way to the top?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir; we caught that elevator, it seemed like we went up either one or two floors, and Mr. Truly said "Let's take the elevator, here it is."
Mr. BELIN - Did you take an east or west elevator?
Mr. BAKER - We took the east elevator.
Mr. BELIN - Now, the nearest elevator to you when you got off a flight of stairs would have been the east or the west?
Mr. BAKER - The west.
Mr. BELIN - When You got off the flight of stairs Mr. Truly said, "Here is an elevator," did the west elevator appear to be there?
Mr. BAKER - I didn't notice. I was looking around over the building at the time he said, "Let's take the elevator" and I just followed him on around.
Mr. BELIN - You went to an east elevator?
Mr. BAKER - That is right, sir.
Mr. BELIN - How far did it appear you rode up the elevator?
Mr. BAKER - It was a. short ride. We just, either went one or two floors. I couldn't remember. I was still looking at the floors, you know, as we went up.
=== unquote ==

Your scenario now puts the women on the steps well after Oswald had already made it to the second floor.

>
> Jack Dougherty told the truth to Gil Toff

This is a man who had trouble formulating sentences... he said he served overseas and never left the country, he says he was 13 when he graduated high school and then a year later it was 1938, he says he was in the service until the end of the war but gives a specific discharge date that was before the end of the war, etc. etc. His testimony is unreliable. In the interview with Toff, he says he saw Oswald before his lunch, during his lunch, and after his lunch. You want this witness? He's all yours.

> and he had a specific reason why he knew Oswald was up eating in the 2nd floor lunch room during the assassination while Dougherty himself ate his lunch in the Domino Room...When pressed Dougherty obviously reverted to remembering the gag order by the FBI and Commission and simply passed it off as seeing Oswald on his way down to lunch...Dougherty did that in order to not tell how he really knew...He gave away the truth when he said he saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room after lunch...

He said before, during, and after lunch. His testimony to the WC is a jumble, and his father even informed the agents taking his testimony that Jack had difficulty with his speech.

>
> I'm going to start backing off answering denial trolls like Hank because they are obviously not answering honestly and are therefore a waste of time...

You're going to start ignoring me because I point out inconvenient truths. And you can't handle the truth.

[John Corbett]

On Monday, August 23, 2021 at 1:24:57 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 6:13:16 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > That's solely a memory with *nothing* substantive backing it up. We know false memories are a real thing. Given this supposed report never has surfaced, given that Baker testified he never frisked Oswald, given that neither you nor Gilbride can provide a link to this supposed report, it sounds more like a false memory than a real one. The only way to verify Gilbride's recollection is to provide a link to the report. This you cannot do.
> I sent an e-mail to Gilbride telling him his reference had been challenged by lying Lone Nutters and linked this discussion...Knowing Richard he'll probably pass not wanting to stoop to answering crass deniers who aren't going to give any honest answer to his material...

Or he'll just ignore you. Hank and I should probably do the same since you are basically another harmless conspiracy hobbyist but you do provide daily chuckles.

>
> But this thread is a good example of how the Lone Nutters use dishonest arguing tactics to switch the subject from the main substance of what is being argued to their superficial reductions in order to divert the thread off the main subject matter that they are obviously failing to give adequate answer to and in to the denial nit-picking...

Why don't you give an example of our dishonesty. Dishonesty involves a misstatement of facts. Arguments based on facts are opinions. They do not involve dishonesty. Just because you don't agree with our analysis of the facts doesn't make us dishonest. Just because you interpret the facts differently doesn't make you dishonest. I only call you a liar when you misstate the facts, like when you claim Sarah Stanton spoke to Oswald on 11/22/63. She signed a statement that said she didn't see him at all that day. You cannot cite any document that says otherwise.

> > I count four IFs in your scenario above. How many do you count?
> Counting "ifs" is a trolling/evasion tactic designed to escape credible discussion of the only possible scenarios for Adams & Styles descending the steps...There's only two possible scenarios once you credibly process the evidence...One is that the girls got out fast like Mrs Garner said and got out ahead of Baker & Truly's arrival at the elevators...I tend to believe this scenario...I think Adams did shock paralysis where time slows down and over-estimated her departure time from the 4th floor windows...

Oh, boy, are you stretching now. I won't call it a lie but it's damn close.

> I think Adams got focused on the motorcade scene in between the last shot at Z313 and the limousine entering the overpass and the intense data her eyes were picking up of Secret Service men sprinting to the trunk and Jackie trying to escape and the severity of that information overload...That overload stretched time, like it tends to do in witnesses, and made Adams remember it as being 15 to 30 seconds...I think it was more like 10 to 15 seconds...

So the short answer is we cannot put much stock in Adams' estimate of time frames.

> I take Mrs Garner's word that Adams & Styles left "almost immediately" and were gone before she could even notice...

I guess Mrs. Garner, seeing the same thing Adams saw, didn't suffer.....what the hell did you call it......Oh, that's right. Shock paralysis. I'm sure you have lots of expertise in the field and can explain why one person would suffer it and another would not.

> That gets them to the stairs in like 20 seconds after the shots and it gets them out of the building on the 1st floor at like +50...Baker and Truly arrive at the elevators at +65 and that explains why they missed the girls...

Here is where you just pull numbers out of your ass and act as if they have meaning.

>
> OR - the girls pass the 2nd floor lunch room when Baker and Truly are inside with Oswald at +75...I tend to doubt this scenario because it would be almost impossible for Baker & Truly to not hear the girls descending or clattering by on the landing...

A statement of opinion which is not evidence unless it is given by an expert in a field.

> Baker would have been interested in anyone coming down fast from the upper floors and would not have been likely to ignore such traffic...I also think the early-descending girls and their noise caught the attention of Oswald and made him go to the vestibule window from his lunch room seat to watch who was descending the stairs...
> .
> > Unless of course all the stuff involving the women happened three or four minutes after the assassination.
> Hank is disqualified from this discussion because he stupidly ignores that these events could not happen minutes later because Mrs Garner saw Baker & Truly ascending as the first people she saw after the girls descended...

Just a ballpark guess but three or four minutes seems about the right time frame for Truly and Baker to reach the fourth floor after confronting Oswald on two. Unlike you I won't present this as if it is an established fact. Only that it is plausible.

> It shows a basic lack of grasp of the evidence...Garner is backed by Bonnie Ray Williams who saw Baker's helmet on the 5th and then descended to the 4th in synch with the girls being on the steps when Oswald needed to be there...

HUH???

>
> Jack Dougherty told the truth to Gil Toff

Which means he lied in his two earlier statements. Why should we believe anything a proven liar tells us?

> and he had a specific reason why he knew Oswald was up eating in the 2nd floor lunch room during the assassination while Dougherty himself ate his lunch in the Domino Room...

Let me guess. Dougherty was clairvoyant.

> When pressed Dougherty obviously reverted to remembering the gag order by the FBI and Commission and simply passed it off as seeing Oswald on his way down to lunch...Dougherty did that in order to not tell how he really knew...He gave away the truth when he said he saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room after lunch...

This is a fine example of the chuckles you provide on a daily basis. Have you ever thought of becoming a comedy writer. You seem to have a knack for it.

>
> I'm going to start backing off answering denial trolls like Hank because they are obviously not answering honestly and are therefore a waste of time...

IOW, he is exposing your fantasies as goofy. Good idea. Maybe it would be best if you quit posting altogether. If I need a few good laughs, I can always dial up the old Dean Martin roasts on YouTube. Either that or Election Night 2016.