Fritz stutters because he is lying about the 2nd floor encounter. Batchelor report lists Roy Truly at front door with Det Kamisnki checking ID as workers left. Oswald confirms this. Nutters have NO ANSWER.

[Greg Parker]

Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?

Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.

"Told me about that...," Mr Truly or someone told me about it...." "Told me they met him...." "I Think he told me..." "person who told me about..." "I believe told me...." THis is called STUTTERING. Fritz did not USUALLY stutter.

What do police look for when evaluating the truthfulness of a witness? Well, one of the things they look for is stuttering when that is not the person's usual speech pattern.

"The indicators of lying include perspiration flow; flushing or paleness of the skin; pulse rate increase or decrease which is apparent from the appearance of visible veins in the head, neck, and throat; dry mouth and tongue; excessive swallowing; respiratory changes; muscle spasms; licking of the lips; thickened and blurred speech; *****stuttering****; darting eye movements; rigidity of the body; the 'playing' of the hands with each other; clenched fists; and cold, clammy sweat in the palms of the hands.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/nonverbal-communications-interrogations

Nowhere else in any testimony or interview is Fritz known to have stuttered. But on the question of the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter, he stuttered like Don Knotts in "The Shakiest Gun in the West".

Fritz was lying his ass off.

Mr. BALL. Did you question Oswald about that?

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the officer stopped him all right.

And that was the truth. He was stopped by Truly and Det. Kaminski at the front door.

As this document shows, they were stationed there to vet those leaving. Truly specifically had to verify to Kaminski that the person leaving was an employee.... thus his famous line "He's okay. He works here". SAID TO KAMINKI AT THE FRONT DOOR - NOT TO BAKER ON THE SECOND FLOOR IN SOME ALTERNATE UNIVERSE.
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=217812#relPageId=435 (go to the bottom and on to the next page)

"as each office and floor was cleared, the employees were cleared by Kaminski and Mr Truly, manager of the firm, at the front door where there names, addresses and telephone numbers were written down, ***and they were identified by Mr. Truly as to their employment.*** "HE'S OKAY - HE WORKS HERE"

Those names and addresses were later typed up. Whose name appears at the very top with the old Elsbeth address?

Say it with me now... Lee Oswald

Who had only one ID with an address on it to show Kaminski?

Say it with me now... Lee Oswald

What IID was that and what address did it show?

Say it with me now.... his library card with the old Elsbeth address.

And please please please quote me correctly and in context on your website. Thank you.

[John Corbett]

We're going on 60 years and this is the best you guys can come up with. Fritz stuttered. There's
the smoking gun for you.

[Greg Parker]

Well, there was a tad more than that to it.

But even that on it's own is telling. As is your inability to do any better than pick out on thing and pretend that's all there is and it means nothing.

Muthafuckahs bin fried on less evidence. It's police methodology, doncha know. The science of picking out liars. The science of following the evidence. Truly never left the 1st floor until it got past 12:45 - the end of the lunch break - the earliest opportunity to report a worker missing, since they cannot be MISSING on their own time.

Do better or admit you are screwed 10 ways to Sunday.

Tell me WHY the one instance of Fritz stuttering is meaningless.

Tell me how the Batchelor report is wrong.

Tell me how Oswald confirmed the Truly-Kaminski details per Harry Holmes' report and testimony

Tell me how the list typed up from the Truly-Kaminski effort has Oswald's name on it at the top - especially since he was supposedly long gone by the time they started - and it was typed before his correct address was known.

Tell me how Oswald's address was given by Truly as the Paine house in Irving, and as a rooming house by an unknown officer, yet this list has an old Elsbeth address - an address only listed in one place - his library card which is all he had on him with an address to show Kaminski. Do you see how each piece fits neatly in place? Do you understand that this is the way it all went down? Of course you do. You're not fucked up in the head like Brian.

You're just fucked up ethically and morally.

NEXT!!!

[John Corbett]

All the evidence points to Oswald and nobody else. Conspiracy hobbyists are on a snipe hunt and they are all going in different directions. We're supposed to believe they are following

evidence.

> Truly never left the 1st floor until it got past 12:45 - the end of the lunch break - the earliest opportunity to report a worker missing, since they cannot be MISSING on their own time.

You're just making shit up.

>
> Do better or admit you are screwed 10 ways to Sunday.
>
> Tell me WHY the one instance of Fritz stuttering is meaningless.

People stutter for lots of reasons. Every person who stutters isn't lying.

>
> Tell me how the Batchelor report is wrong.

First you need to tell me why it matters.

>
> Tell me how Oswald confirmed the Truly-Kaminski details per Harry Holmes' report and testimony

>
> Tell me how the list typed up from the Truly-Kaminski effort has Oswald's name on it at the top - especially since he was supposedly long gone by the time they started - and it was typed before his correct address was known.

This is a classic example of a conspiracy hobbyist trying to prove his case my raising
questions. You don't prove anything by raising questions. You have to find the answers. You
can't just assume the answer you want to believe.

>
> Tell me how Oswald's address was given by Truly as the Paine house in Irving, and as a rooming house by an unknown officer, yet this list has an old Elsbeth address - an address only listed in one place - his library card which is all he had on him with an address to show Kaminski. Do you see how each piece fits neatly in place? Do you understand that this is the way it all went down? Of course you do. You're not fucked up in the head like Brian.

What about this? What about this? Do you guys ever try to find the answers to the questions
your raise.

>
> You're just fucked up ethically and morally.
>

At least I can figure out a slam dunk 60 year old murder case that the cops had solved in the
first 12 hours.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 9:41:48 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

As Greg Parker has already said, he only believes his own arguments because he thinks Prayer Man is Oswald. Otherwise he would be a Nutter.
So every argument Parker makes presupposes Oswald's innocence. Oswald is not innocent because the 2nd floor encounter "didn't happen." The 2nd floor encounter didn't happen because Oswald is innocent. This is Parker Logic.

To me it seems reasonable that Baker might have a confused memory of which floor it was on, not being familiar with the building. His actions are confirmed by Truly, and by Garner, for whom Parker requires Lumpkin to be in uniform, which he wasn't. Truly might not be a reliable witness, but there's no reason to think that he was in cahoots with Baker. Truly must tell the truth because of Baker being present. But since Parker knows that the fuzzy old lady in the doorway is Oswald, he must call Baker a liar. Parker Logic demands it. It's hard to believe that Parker believes his own argument here. But he just wants to reopen the case, whatever that means. He doesn't want to prove the case, he just wants to tell the US government to have another go at it. The US government, apparently, is more trustworthy than the Dallas Police.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 18:48:32 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>We're going on 60 years and this is the best you guys can come up with.

We're going on 60 years and you can't figure out that the WC lied???

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 20:37:33 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>All the evidence points to Oswald and nobody else.

You're lying again, moron.

The head snap, the shots heard from the GK, the medical testimony
about Connally's wrist wound...

Run coward.

RUN!

[Brian Doyle]

On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 9:41:48 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:



>

> "Told me about that...," Mr Truly or someone told me about it...." "Told me they met him...." "I Think he told me..." "person who told me about..." "I believe told me...." THis is called STUTTERING. Fritz did not USUALLY stutter.
>

Parker stupidly fails to appreciate the real reason for Fritz's stuttering...Fritz was having trouble forming words to describe Oswald's location, just like Baker was having the exact same trouble explaining exactly how he detected Oswald in the Vestibule window...Both Fritz and Baker knew that Oswald was in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room during the shots, which is the true and accurate explanation for their "stuttering"...

We know Fritz wasn't lying about the Lunch Room Encounter because Fritz was the one who told of Oswald's true location in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room to the Commission...Any fool would realize the easily detectable stuttering Fritz was showing when explaining this was due to his knowledge that Oswald was in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room during the shots...

Greg is a troll...He has such a strong group of assholes supporting him that no one ever gets around to pointing-out the obvious stuttering Greg himself does when trying to avoid Hosty's admission to Nigel Turner that Oswald told them he was alone in the Lunch Room during the assassination...Any fool can see Parker, Kamp, and the Prayer Man idiots avoiding discussing that...The main asshole Gordon never explains why he is keeping that from being discussed on his website...

[Greg Parker]

When you do not know the facts, you are not entitled to just make them up as you have hear. The evidence precludes the 2nd floor encounter, not me.

> To me it seems reasonable that Baker might have a confused memory of which floor it was on, not being familiar with the building

Yep. There it is. That was the Nutter argument when I first raised this 20 years ago. It hasn't aged well.

Baker was not interested in floor plans. He wanted to get to the top of the building. I could get a 5 year old to find his or her way to the top of any building. Not hard. Stick to the stairs till you can't go any further. Not even Baker was that dumb. So that takes out the need to have Truly show him the way.

His memory failure is another bullshit Nutter argument. Most office buildings of the era have the same type stairs. You go up some stairs, reach a landing, then go up another flight. That constitutes one floor. Not hard to do the math on which floor you were on and not hard to tell the difference between a landing and a lunchroom.

Typical stairs of the era covering a single floor https://inspectapedia.com/Stairs/Stair-Landing-Dimensions.jpg

He would have to have been from outer space to run up 4 flights of stairs and think that equaled the number of floors he covered.

His actions are confirmed by Truly,

Roy Sansom Truly? Cousin to Fred Korth's wife and the lawyer whose office Oswald attended to have his manuscript typed up? The Roy Sansom Truly who hired Oswald despite not needing him? That Roy Sansom Truly? The Roy Sansom Truly who official records show was stationed at the door confirming those leaving were employees? That Roy Sansom Truly? The Roy Sansom Truly who then reported Oswald as missing? That Roy Sansom Truly? The Roy Sansom Truly whose wife was a cousin to the founder of the Flying Tigers? That Roy Sansom Truly? The Roy Sansom Truly who was rewarded for his bullshit testimony with a grand tour of FBI Head Quarters? That Roy Sansom Truly?

> and by Garner, for whom Parker requires Lumpkin to be in uniform, which he wasn't.

The problems with Garner include that she never personally confirmed or signed off on what was written. There was at least one witness who said Truly never left the first floor. If she did not see Truly and Lumpkin going up, then the story is simply a fabrication by Garner or the person who wrote it. Let's face it, the bullshit story needed all the support it could coerce.

Truly might not be a reliable witness, but there's no reason to think that he was in cahoots with Baker.

Absolutely. Baker was kept away from EVERYONE until he got his head right on what happened.

Truly must tell the truth because of Baker being present. But since Parker knows that the fuzzy old lady in the doorway is Oswald, he must call Baker a liar. Parker Logic demands it. It's hard to believe that Parker believes his own argument here. But he just wants to reopen the case, whatever that means. He doesn't want to prove the case, he just wants to tell the US government to have another go at it.

Listen Fuckface McGee or whatever name you use these days... Parker has the guts to put his name to what he claims. He uses actual evidence to support his claims. Much of that evidence was either found by Parker, or by others following Parker's leads and generating their own further leads. You can claim all you want that I started with a conclusion, but my posting history shows otherwise. Making up bullshit that suits you, is your domain. You are doing it right now.

How does it feel to know that even Brian Doyle has more guts than you by putting his real name to his posts?

> The US government, apparently, is more trustworthy than the Dallas Police.

You're the one claiming that the official US government version about Oswald's movements was correct, not me Fuckface.

It is a different world now. They ["they" being either Texas officials or US Federal official] would not get away with a bullshit investigation on this subject again.

[Greg Parker]

Thanks for contribution, Brian. Entertaining as always.

[Greg Parker]

I don't give a shit what anyone else is doing. Focus on what is happening in THIS thread. Focus on the evidence posted in THIS thread.

> > Truly never left the 1st floor until it got past 12:45 - the end of the lunch break - the earliest opportunity to report a worker missing, since they cannot be MISSING on their own time.
> You're just making shit up.
> >
> > Do better or admit you are screwed 10 ways to Sunday.
> >
> > Tell me WHY the one instance of Fritz stuttering is meaningless.
> People stutter for lots of reasons. Every person who stutters isn't lying.

Okay. You're engaged. Good. Why do you think he stuttered in that particular part of his voluminous testimony and nowhere else? Why do think police are trained to look for signs of lying including stuttering from a mnon-stutterer?

> > Tell me how the Batchelor report is wrong.
> First you need to tell me why it matters.

Oh lawd. Anything to avoid addressing it. Okay. Got it. You know it matters and no way you are going to address it.

> > Tell me how Oswald confirmed the Truly-Kaminski details per Harry Holmes' report and testimony
>
> >
> > Tell me how the list typed up from the Truly-Kaminski effort has Oswald's name on it at the top - especially since he was supposedly long gone by the time they started - and it was typed before his correct address was known.
> This is a classic example of a conspiracy hobbyist trying to prove his case my raising
> questions. You don't prove anything by raising questions. You have to find the answers. You
> can't just assume the answer you want to believe.

The answers are self-explanatory when you view all of the evidence together. The wuestion is only for you, as a denier of the evidence. But once again, you are going to do and say anything to avoid the answers.

> >
> > Tell me how Oswald's address was given by Truly as the Paine house in Irving, and as a rooming house by an unknown officer, yet this list has an old Elsbeth address - an address only listed in one place - his library card which is all he had on him with an address to show Kaminski. Do you see how each piece fits neatly in place? Do you understand that this is the way it all went down? Of course you do. You're not fucked up in the head like Brian.
> What about this? What about this? Do you guys ever try to find the answers to the questions
> your raise.

I already know the answers. I am offering you the opportunity to provide alternative ones. Which you won't do. You will simply keep using your broad brush and pointy finger and disingenuous takes on what I said in order tto deflect and avoid.

> > You're just fucked up ethically and morally.
> >
> At least I can figure out a slam dunk 60 year old murder case that the cops had solved in the
> first 12 hours.

You mean "solved".

Curry knew it wasn't. Hoover knew it wasn't. You know it wasn't.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Peter Dale Scott should see this!

[robert johnson]

GAME
SET
&
MATCH
TO GREG PARKER

THE LONE NUTTER PIGS (THAT INCLUDES YOU DOYLE) LOSE!!

[John Corbett]

Your assumption that Fritz's stuttering is evidence he was lying is not evidence.

> > > Truly never left the 1st floor until it got past 12:45 - the end of the lunch break - the earliest opportunity to report a worker missing, since they cannot be MISSING on their own time.
> > You're just making shit up.
> > >
> > > Do better or admit you are screwed 10 ways to Sunday.
> > >
> > > Tell me WHY the one instance of Fritz stuttering is meaningless.
> > People stutter for lots of reasons. Every person who stutters isn't lying.
> Okay. You're engaged. Good. Why do you think he stuttered in that particular part of his voluminous testimony and nowhere else?

Your question calls for speculation. I have no idea why he would stutter because the
possibilities are numerous. Maybe he was trying to remember something. Maybe he wanted to
make sure he didn't misspeak while under oath and was choosing his words carefully. As is
the custom of conspiracy hobbyists, you treat and unknown as an opportunity to fill in the blanks
to your liking.

> Why do think police are trained to look for signs of lying including stuttering from a mnon-stutterer?

Having never taken police training, I have no idea if that is true or why it is taught if it is true.
We can all make judgements as to a person's truthfulness based on their demeanor but that
doesn't mean our judgements are accurate.

> > > Tell me how the Batchelor report is wrong.
> > First you need to tell me why it matters.
> Oh lawd. Anything to avoid addressing it. Okay. Got it. You know it matters and no way you are going to address it.

Yet you can't tell me why it matters. Seems we are at an impasse.

> > > Tell me how Oswald confirmed the Truly-Kaminski details per Harry Holmes' report and testimony
> >
> > >
> > > Tell me how the list typed up from the Truly-Kaminski effort has Oswald's name on it at the top - especially since he was supposedly long gone by the time they started - and it was typed before his correct address was known.
> > This is a classic example of a conspiracy hobbyist trying to prove his case my raising
> > questions. You don't prove anything by raising questions. You have to find the answers. You
> > can't just assume the answer you want to believe.
> The answers are self-explanatory when you view all of the evidence together. The wuestion is only for you, as a denier of the evidence. But once again, you are going to do and say anything to avoid the answers.

The answer is I don't know the answer and neither do you. One of us is unwilling to assume
what the answers are. You're the other guy.

> > >
> > > Tell me how Oswald's address was given by Truly as the Paine house in Irving, and as a rooming house by an unknown officer, yet this list has an old Elsbeth address - an address only listed in one place - his library card which is all he had on him with an address to show Kaminski. Do you see how each piece fits neatly in place? Do you understand that this is the way it all went down? Of course you do. You're not fucked up in the head like Brian.
> > What about this? What about this? Do you guys ever try to find the answers to the questions
> > your raise.

> I already know the answers.

Because you think your assumptions are correct.

> I am offering you the opportunity to provide alternative ones. Which you won't do. You will simply keep using your broad brush and pointy finger and disingenuous takes on what I said in order tto deflect and avoid.

I think it is a silly exercise to make assumptions without knowing the facts. You on the other
hand seem to have no problem doing that.

> > > You're just fucked up ethically and morally.
> > >
> > At least I can figure out a slam dunk 60 year old murder case that the cops had solved in the
> > first 12 hours.

> You mean "solved".

I thought that's what I wrote.

>
> Curry knew it wasn't. Hoover knew it wasn't. You know it wasn't.

Strike one. Strike two. Strike three.

You went down swinging and missing.

[Bud]

On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 9:41:48 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

> Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?
>
> Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.
>
> "Told me about that...," Mr Truly or someone told me about it...." "Told me they met him...." "I Think he told me..." "person who told me about..." "I believe told me...." THis is called STUTTERING. Fritz did not USUALLY stutter.

This is quoting out of context, not evidence of stuttering.

[John Corbett]

On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:24:21 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 9:41:48 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> > Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?
> >
> > Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.
> >
> > "Told me about that...," Mr Truly or someone told me about it...." "Told me they met him...." "I Think he told me..." "person who told me about..." "I believe told me...." THis is called STUTTERING. Fritz did not USUALLY stutter.
> This is quoting out of context, not evidence of stuttering.

So Parker just made up the quote to make it appear Fritz was stuttering. When am I going to
learn not to accept conspiracy hobbyist claims at face value. This is a glaring example of
deceptive posting, AKA lying. When they are forced to blatantly make things up like this, it
reveals they have nothing of substance to offer.

Holmes, Parker, Jesus. Three peas in a pod. All liars.

[John Corbett]

On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 9:41:48 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

> Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?
>
> Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.
>
> "Told me about that...," Mr Truly or someone told me about it...." "Told me they met him...." "I Think he told me..." "person who told me about..." "I believe told me...." THis is called STUTTERING. Fritz did not USUALLY stutter.
>

I fucked up. I trusted you. That won't happen again. There was no stuttering. You manufactured
that. Bud exposed you for the liar you are. I should have known better. Fool me once, shame on
you. Fool me twice, shame on me. You fooled me once. You won't fool me twice.

[robert johnson]

Corbet and Bud both are as delusional as a Jewish land grabbing settler.

DEEP DENIAL MOFOS!!!!!!!!!!

[John Corbett]

On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 10:25:44 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:
> Corbet and Bud both are as delusional as a Jewish land grabbing settler.
>
> DEEP DENIAL MOFOS!!!!!!!!!!

As if anybody gives a shit what an anti-Semetic asshole like you thinks.

[Brian Doyle]

On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 8:29:13 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 2:44:53 AM UTC+11, Brian Doyle wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 9:41:48 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> >

You are simply bankrupt as far as credibility and response...

You really should be removed from the Kennedy internet...

You are an agent provocateur and evidence-fucking troll...

Parker & Kamp never address Hosty telling Nigel Turner Oswald said he was alone in the Lunch Room during the assassination because they both know it is the truth and they don't want to admit that it refutes their bullshit disinformation Prayer Man claim...

[Donald Willis]

He doesn't sound anti-Arabic

[Donald Willis]

Here's my take on the scene in question:

Fritz, yes, is very confused, and confusing, almost, at one point, tongue-tied: "Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him, I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me...." He's lost in the Who and Where of it all, apparently aware of only one lunchroom in the depository.
Fritz was lost. And for good reason, I think. Go back to that line in his report: "[Oswald] said he was on the second floor drinking a coca cola when the officer came in" (p600). Yet, as late as Dec. 23, 1963, the DPD Homicide Captain is still placing the Baker/Oswald confrontation "on the third or fourth floor on the stairway". Maybe Fritz was not just ignoring the information provided by the suspect. Perhaps the latter did not actually provide it. That would help explain Fritz Adrift.
In his testimony, Fritz says that someone or some two told him that he/they ran into Oswald "on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom...." That would mean that Homicide did not begin, or at least complete, an investigation into the matter of the site of the confrontation until sometime after Dec. 23rd! If, as it seems, Fritz had gotten conflicting information from his officer and from Oswald himself, wouldn't he have wanted a little clarificaton? How could Fritz have been kept in the dark so long? Maybe the FBI could have thrown him a life preserver.... (See below.)
Fritz and co., it seems, saw, for the longest time--well, for at least a month--nothing to investigate: "Mr. Baker says that he stopped this man on the third or fourth floor on the stairway." It's as if, on Dec. 23rd, Fritz still did not know that Oswald supposedly said that he was stopped in the second-floor lunchroom. And he did not know it, I submit, because Oswald did not say it....
The undated Fritz notes and report must not have been written, or at least not completed, until after Dec. 23rd, when the Oswald reference to "second floor" was... revised, after Fritz was finally apprised of the "fact" that Oswald had, in that first interview session, said that he had bumped into a cop on the second floor.
The truth, apparently, that is, was that all that Oswald had said about the second floor in that first interview was that he "went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his lunch. Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building" (WR p613). This from the joint Hosty-Bookhout FBI report on the first interview.
Before Dec. 23rd, it sounds as if all that Fritz knew, all that he had heard from Oswald re the second floor was that the latter had simply gotten a soda there, for his lunch, which he ate "on the first floor". And Fritz could not--for the life of him-- connect any soda machine with any confrontation, whether "on the third or fourth floor" stairway or on the second floor. So "second floor" never really entered into his Baker/Oswald thinking, even when Ball brought up the subject.

dcw

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Fritz probably did not think it was an important issue. He was trying to nail Oswald for murder, not for meeting a cop near a stairway. And he probably wasn't worried about "Prayer Man" or the location of Shelly & Lovelady, either. The Warren Commission was handling that end.

[Bud]

On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 2:22:20 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 6:36:23 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:24:21 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 9:41:48 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> > > > Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?
> > > >
> > > > Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.
> > > >
> > > > "Told me about that...," Mr Truly or someone told me about it...." "Told me they met him...." "I Think he told me..." "person who told me about..." "I believe told me...." THis is called STUTTERING. Fritz did not USUALLY stutter.
> > > This is quoting out of context, not evidence of stuttering.
> > So Parker just made up the quote to make it appear Fritz was stuttering. When am I going to
> > learn not to accept conspiracy hobbyist claims at face value. This is a glaring example of
> > deceptive posting, AKA lying. When they are forced to blatantly make things up like this, it
> > reveals they have nothing of substance to offer.
> Here's my take on the scene in question:
>
> Fritz, yes, is very confused, and confusing, almost, at one point, tongue-tied: "Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him, I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me...." He's lost in the Who and Where of it all, apparently aware of only one lunchroom in the depository.

He isn`t confused, and he isn`t stuttering. Conspiracy folks do not understand qualifiers* (like they don`t understand reasoning and a whole truckload of other things). He is making it clear, through the use of qualifiers like "I believe" that he wasn`t 100% certain of the information he was providing.

*And Parker is particularly bad with them. He declares Reid a liar on the testimony of Hines, when her testimony is rife with qualifiers he chooses to ignore.

> Fritz was lost. And for good reason, I think.

For good reason, but not why you think. How many people did Fritz talk to that day? Why should he know the layout of the TSBD? He is relating impressions on events that came at him from numerous directions, then relating those impression much later. This is why witnesses, even police captains are best corroborated by more solid information.

> Go back to that line in his report: "[Oswald] said he was on the second floor drinking a coca cola when the officer came in" (p600). Yet, as late as Dec. 23, 1963, the DPD Homicide Captain is still placing the Baker/Oswald confrontation "on the third or fourth floor on the stairway".

No, he isn`t. He is saying investigation clarified the information, he doesn`t give a time when that clarification occurred. The interview with Oswald was part of the investigation, maybe that is when the location became more precise.

[John Corbett]

More of your silly "this must mean this figuring". Almost invariably, for any piece of evidence there
are multiple possible explanations but you always gravitate towards the one that takes you
where you want to go, ignoring all other possibilities.

[Donald Willis]

You have learned Trump's major lesson well--never admit it even when you're dead wrong and you know it.

[Donald Willis]

His handling of it certainly indicates that.

[Donald Willis]

On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 12:14:55 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 2:22:20 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 6:36:23 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:24:21 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 9:41:48 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> > > > > Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Told me about that...," Mr Truly or someone told me about it...." "Told me they met him...." "I Think he told me..." "person who told me about..." "I believe told me...." THis is called STUTTERING. Fritz did not USUALLY stutter.
> > > > This is quoting out of context, not evidence of stuttering.
> > > So Parker just made up the quote to make it appear Fritz was stuttering. When am I going to
> > > learn not to accept conspiracy hobbyist claims at face value. This is a glaring example of
> > > deceptive posting, AKA lying. When they are forced to blatantly make things up like this, it
> > > reveals they have nothing of substance to offer.
> > Here's my take on the scene in question:
> >
> > Fritz, yes, is very confused, and confusing, almost, at one point, tongue-tied: "Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him, I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me...." He's lost in the Who and Where of it all, apparently aware of only one lunchroom in the depository.

> He isn`t confused

A perfect example of pathetic, almost laughable LN defensiveness in the face of the incontrovertible.

and he isn`t stuttering. Conspiracy folks do not understand qualifiers* (like they don`t understand reasoning and a whole truckload of other things). He is making it clear, through the use of qualifiers like "I believe" that he wasn`t 100% certain of the information he was providing.
>
> *And Parker is particularly bad with them. He declares Reid a liar on the testimony of Hines, when her testimony is rife with qualifiers he chooses to ignore.

So Hines is acting just like Fritz? Or are you talking about Mrs. Liar Reid?

> > Fritz was lost. And for good reason, I think.
> For good reason, but not why you think. How many people did Fritz talk to that day? Why should he know the layout of the TSBD? He is relating impressions on events that came at him from numerous directions, then relating those impression much later. This is why witnesses, even police captains are best corroborated by more solid information.
> > Go back to that line in his report: "[Oswald] said he was on the second floor drinking a coca cola when the officer came in" (p600). Yet, as late as Dec. 23, 1963, the DPD Homicide Captain is still placing the Baker/Oswald confrontation "on the third or fourth floor on the stairway".
> No, he isn`t. He is saying investigation clarified the information

How does "on the third or fourth floor" clarify anything? That's back to square one! Get with it, Robot!

, he doesn`t give a time when that clarification occurred. The interview with Oswald was part of the investigation, maybe that is when the location became more precise.

The Oswald interview was on 11/22. How could something written that day "clarify" something written in December? You really need to review what you write before you post it...

dcw

[Bud]

On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 3:49:54 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 12:14:55 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 2:22:20 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 6:36:23 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:24:21 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 9:41:48 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> > > > > > Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Told me about that...," Mr Truly or someone told me about it...." "Told me they met him...." "I Think he told me..." "person who told me about..." "I believe told me...." THis is called STUTTERING. Fritz did not USUALLY stutter.
> > > > > This is quoting out of context, not evidence of stuttering.
> > > > So Parker just made up the quote to make it appear Fritz was stuttering. When am I going to
> > > > learn not to accept conspiracy hobbyist claims at face value. This is a glaring example of
> > > > deceptive posting, AKA lying. When they are forced to blatantly make things up like this, it
> > > > reveals they have nothing of substance to offer.
> > > Here's my take on the scene in question:
> > >
> > > Fritz, yes, is very confused, and confusing, almost, at one point, tongue-tied: "Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him, I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me...." He's lost in the Who and Where of it all, apparently aware of only one lunchroom in the depository.
>
> > He isn`t confused
> A perfect example of pathetic, almost laughable LN defensiveness in the face of the incontrovertible.

A perfect example of trying to explain simple things to morons.

> and he isn`t stuttering. Conspiracy folks do not understand qualifiers* (like they don`t understand reasoning and a whole truckload of other things). He is making it clear, through the use of qualifiers like "I believe" that he wasn`t 100% certain of the information he was providing.
> >
> > *And Parker is particularly bad with them. He declares Reid a liar on the testimony of Hines, when her testimony is rife with qualifiers he chooses to ignore.
> So Hines is acting just like Fritz?

No, Parker was acting like you, unable or incapable of understanding simple things.

>Or are you talking about Mrs. Liar Reid?
> > > Fritz was lost. And for good reason, I think.
> > For good reason, but not why you think. How many people did Fritz talk to that day? Why should he know the layout of the TSBD? He is relating impressions on events that came at him from numerous directions, then relating those impression much later. This is why witnesses, even police captains are best corroborated by more solid information.
> > > Go back to that line in his report: "[Oswald] said he was on the second floor drinking a coca cola when the officer came in" (p600). Yet, as late as Dec. 23, 1963, the DPD Homicide Captain is still placing the Baker/Oswald confrontation "on the third or fourth floor on the stairway".
> > No, he isn`t. He is saying investigation clarified the information
> How does "on the third or fourth floor" clarify anything?

No lunchroom there.

"...our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom."

>That's back to square one! Get with it, Robot!
> , he doesn`t give a time when that clarification occurred. The interview with Oswald was part of the investigation, maybe that is when the location became more precise.
> The Oswald interview was on 11/22.

That might be when Oswald told them where the encounter took place.

[Gil Jesus]

On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 3:49:54 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:
> The Oswald interview was on 11/22. How could something written that day "clarify" something written in December?

Good question. You'll have to excuse Bud, he doesn't deal in evidence, he deals in "reasoning". IOW, speculation not supported by facts.

Here's the 12/23 note from Fritz to Chief Curry where Fritz says Baker said he encountered a man on the third or fourth floor "on the stairway" and Truly "identified him as one of the employees":
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29121#relPageId=2

[Bud]

On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 4:29:24 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 3:49:54 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:
> > The Oswald interview was on 11/22. How could something written that day "clarify" something written in December?
> Good question. You'll have to excuse Bud, he doesn't deal in evidence, he deals in "reasoning".

You say it like it is a bad thing.

>IOW, speculation not supported by facts.
>
> Here's the 12/23 note from Fritz to Chief Curry where Fritz says Baker said he encountered a man on the third or fourth floor "on the stairway" and Truly "identified him as one of the employees":
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29121#relPageId=2

You folks expect a perfect, flawless accounting from imperfect, flawed humans. How many murders did Fritz handle a month? Why should he know, and retain the layout of the TSBD? The "third or fourth floor" sounds like Baker`s affidavit...

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm

But as usual you idiots contrive reasons to disregard the best source, Truly, who was with Baker and knew the building, to focus on the wrong thing, Fritz`s (who wasn`t there) understanding of where the encounter took place.

[Donald Willis]

Non sequitur.

>
> "...our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom."
> >That's back to square one! Get with it, Robot!
> > , he doesn`t give a time when that clarification occurred. The interview with Oswald was part of the investigation, maybe that is when the location became more precise.
> > The Oswald interview was on 11/22.
> That might be when Oswald told them where the encounter took place.

No, on 11/22 all Oswald apparently said was that he got a drink from the 2nd floor. Read my post for comprehension!  In a later interview, he apparently did say the encounter took place at the building's front door. Apparently, again, he did not say it took place on the 2nd floor, whether or not it did. But Fritz & co. wanted unanimity.

dcw

[Donald Willis]

On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:55:52 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 4:29:24 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 3:49:54 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:
> > > The Oswald interview was on 11/22. How could something written that day "clarify" something written in December?
> > Good question. You'll have to excuse Bud, he doesn't deal in evidence, he deals in "reasoning".
> You say it like it is a bad thing.
> >IOW, speculation not supported by facts.
> >
> > Here's the 12/23 note from Fritz to Chief Curry where Fritz says Baker said he encountered a man on the third or fourth floor "on the stairway" and Truly "identified him as one of the employees":
> > https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29121#relPageId=2
> You folks expect a perfect, flawless accounting from imperfect, flawed humans.

No, I'm saying that Fritz had not seemed to have heard about the lunchroom encounter till the end of the year, although he inserted a reference to it in his 11/22 Oswald-interview report.

dcw

[Bud]

On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 8:17:26 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:55:52 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 4:29:24 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 3:49:54 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:
> > > > The Oswald interview was on 11/22. How could something written that day "clarify" something written in December?
> > > Good question. You'll have to excuse Bud, he doesn't deal in evidence, he deals in "reasoning".
> > You say it like it is a bad thing.
> > >IOW, speculation not supported by facts.
> > >
> > > Here's the 12/23 note from Fritz to Chief Curry where Fritz says Baker said he encountered a man on the third or fourth floor "on the stairway" and Truly "identified him as one of the employees":
> > > https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29121#relPageId=2
> > You folks expect a perfect, flawless accounting from imperfect, flawed humans.
> No, I'm saying that Fritz had not seemed to have heard about the lunchroom encounter till the end of the year, although he inserted a reference to it in his 11/22 Oswald-interview report.

It`s in his notes.

[Bud]

When the officer came in.

[robert johnson]

Touched a nerve there haven't I? An extremist Christian like you believing and supporting this delusional GOD thing. You poor delusional nutter.
This is just beautiful, it exposes you exactly of who you are.
See you at Lancer, we should talk some more!

[John Corbett]

Said the pot to the kettle.

[John Corbett]

This is why courts don't allow hearsay evidence. Every time information passes from one person
to another, there is the opportunity for distortion. The person conveying the information is less
than articulate or the person receiving the information misunderstands what he is being told or
both. It's not at all surprising to have second, third, or fourth hand accounts to be less than
accurate. Every time a conspiracy hobbyist comes across one of these distortions, their knee
jerk reaction is to assume that somebody is lying as part of a cover up when all it indicates is
humans being human.

[John Corbett]

On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 4:30:53 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 3:41:06 PM UTC+1, John Corbett wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 10:25:44 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:
> > > Corbet and Bud both are as delusional as a Jewish land grabbing settler.
> > >
> > > DEEP DENIAL MOFOS!!!!!!!!!!
> > As if anybody gives a shit what an anti-Semetic asshole like you thinks.
> Touched a nerve there haven't I? An extremist Christian like you believing and supporting this delusional GOD thing. You poor delusional nutter.

If you think I am a Christian, that is one of your delusions. You can find plenty of instances on
this forum and the McAdams forum where I have indicated I am and atheist leaning agnostic.
While I don't believe in a God, I cannot rule it out logically. What I despise is bigotry of any kind.
I believe everyone is entitled to believe what they choose. I have nothing but contempt for
people like you who hate people because of their race or creed.

> This is just beautiful, it exposes you exactly of who you are.

You have no idea who I am.

> See you at Lancer, we should talk some more!

With an asshole like you? I'll pass.

[Brian Doyle]

On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 6:00:59 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 4:30:53 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 3:41:06 PM UTC+1, John Corbett wrote:

A call to order...

A call to On-Topic...

Fritz and Baker both stuttered in their accounts because they both knew they witnessed Oswald being in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room during the shots...

[Donald Willis]

On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 6:04:47 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 8:17:26 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:55:52 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 4:29:24 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 3:49:54 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:
> > > > > The Oswald interview was on 11/22. How could something written that day "clarify" something written in December?
> > > > Good question. You'll have to excuse Bud, he doesn't deal in evidence, he deals in "reasoning".
> > > You say it like it is a bad thing.
> > > >IOW, speculation not supported by facts.
> > > >
> > > > Here's the 12/23 note from Fritz to Chief Curry where Fritz says Baker said he encountered a man on the third or fourth floor "on the stairway" and Truly "identified him as one of the employees":
> > > > https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29121#relPageId=2
> > > You folks expect a perfect, flawless accounting from imperfect, flawed humans.
> > No, I'm saying that Fritz had not seemed to have heard about the lunchroom encounter till the end of the year, although he inserted a reference to it in his 11/22 Oswald-interview report.
> It`s in his notes.

Yes, it's inserted into his notes, too, written long after the fact.

[Bud]

On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 11:43:28 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 6:04:47 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 8:17:26 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:55:52 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 4:29:24 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 3:49:54 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:
> > > > > > The Oswald interview was on 11/22. How could something written that day "clarify" something written in December?
> > > > > Good question. You'll have to excuse Bud, he doesn't deal in evidence, he deals in "reasoning".
> > > > You say it like it is a bad thing.
> > > > >IOW, speculation not supported by facts.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's the 12/23 note from Fritz to Chief Curry where Fritz says Baker said he encountered a man on the third or fourth floor "on the stairway" and Truly "identified him as one of the employees":
> > > > > https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29121#relPageId=2
> > > > You folks expect a perfect, flawless accounting from imperfect, flawed humans.
> > > No, I'm saying that Fritz had not seemed to have heard about the lunchroom encounter till the end of the year, although he inserted a reference to it in his 11/22 Oswald-interview report.
> > It`s in his notes.
> Yes, it's inserted into his notes, too, written long after the fact.

Whatever your ideas require, Don.

[Donald Willis]

On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 12:55:35 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 11:43:28 AM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 6:04:47 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 8:17:26 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:55:52 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 4:29:24 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 3:49:54 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:
> > > > > > > The Oswald interview was on 11/22. How could something written that day "clarify" something written in December?
> > > > > > Good question. You'll have to excuse Bud, he doesn't deal in evidence, he deals in "reasoning".
> > > > > You say it like it is a bad thing.
> > > > > >IOW, speculation not supported by facts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here's the 12/23 note from Fritz to Chief Curry where Fritz says Baker said he encountered a man on the third or fourth floor "on the stairway" and Truly "identified him as one of the employees":
> > > > > > https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29121#relPageId=2
> > > > > You folks expect a perfect, flawless accounting from imperfect, flawed humans.
> > > > No, I'm saying that Fritz had not seemed to have heard about the lunchroom encounter till the end of the year, although he inserted a reference to it in his 11/22 Oswald-interview report.
> > > It`s in his notes.
> > Yes, it's inserted into his notes, too, written long after the fact.
> Whatever your ideas require, Don.

Ouch!

[David Von Pein]

THE LUNCHROOM ENCOUNTER (REVISITED):
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html

Excerpts.....

"Why can't conspiracists accept Marrion Baker's "third or fourth floor" statement for what it so clearly is — a simple and honest mistake made by a police officer who was in a chaotic and frantic situation within minutes of the President having just been shot, and who was not paying close attention at all to what floor he was standing on when he pointed his gun at Lee Harvey Oswald's stomach in the lunchroom on November 22, 1963?" -- DVP; December 2017

-------------------------------

"Let's cut to the chase --- You're full of crap, Jimmy [DiEugenio]. And the worst part is that you don't even know it. (Or maybe you do, but you can't admit it.)

The bottom line on this is that you said something that was incredibly stupid and I called you on it. And now you don't like it. Well, that's just tough, Jimbo. And you can't walk it back. So you're stuck with that dumb quote from now until doomsday. You said something that is not supported by the facts in any way, shape, or form--and you damn well know it. And the incredibly stupid thing you said was this....

"Baker never saw Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; July 13, 2015

The above quote doesn't come close to resembling the facts and the witness testimony of both Marrion L. Baker and Roy S. Truly. And yet I am being chastised for "making stuff up". The irony is so delicious and thick, we'd need a chainsaw to slice through it.

You, Jimmy D., give new meaning to the words POT, KETTLE, and "MAKING STUFF UP".

You're a joke, Jimmy. And, yes, you're a clown. (There, I said it again. Cry me a river.)"

-----------------------------------

"So, according to Jim DiEugenio and other conspiracy theorists, apparently there was NO WAY IN HADES that Baker's "third or fourth floor" remark in his Day 1 affidavit could have POSSIBLY been just a simple mistake. He MUST have been lying when he later confirmed it was the second floor?

Geesh.

And it's also clear already from his first-day affidavit that Baker was NOT EXACTLY SURE which floor it was -- "third or fourth". So he doesn't really know even on Day 1."

------------------------------------

"Howard Brennan's initial description of the gunman is remarkably similar to policeman Marrion Baker's description of the man he encountered on the 2nd floor just a couple of minutes after the shooting. And the man Baker encountered was undeniably Lee Harvey Oswald (although, incredibly, some CTers on the outer fringe of reality are now pretending that the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter on the 2nd floor never even happened AT ALL, which is pure tommyrot, of course)."

------------------------------

"Then what do you [a CTer] do about OSWALD HIMSELF confirming that the encounter with Officer Baker took place on the SECOND floor, not the fourth or any other floor? Oswald told Captain Fritz it was the "second floor". That's in Fritz' notes and Fritz' written report too (WR; p.600). Was Oswald lying too? Was LHO in cahoots with Truly and Baker....and Fritz?"

------------------------------

"Marrion Baker describes the encounter in his original affidavit. He just didn't specifically say the encounter occurred in the "lunchroom".

Given the frantic circumstances just after the assassination, I think it's quite possible that Baker might not have had the slightest idea he had encountered Oswald in a "lunchroom" at all. The brief encounter took just a matter of seconds, and Baker was certainly not concentrating his attention on the TYPE of room he was in at the time he shoved his gun up against Oswald's mid-section. And Baker, of course, wasn't familiar with the layout of the building at all on November 22. So he might have only later learned that the encounter took place in the Depository's lunchroom.

Yes, Baker got the floor number wrong in his November 22 affidavit. But the absolute proof that the "Oswald/Baker Lunchroom Encounter" took place is Roy Truly's presence there in the lunchroom when Baker saw Oswald. Truly confirmed it happened on the SECOND FLOOR and in the LUNCHROOM. And Truly confirmed it was OSWALD who had been stopped by Baker.

Do conspiracy believers really want to drag Roy S. Truly through the mud by labelling him a liar or a "conspirator"? Come on. That's just silly.

Also --- I'm wondering if the skeptics would be more willing to accept the lunchroom encounter if Officer Baker had said "second or third floor" in his original affidavit, instead of "third or fourth floor"? I doubt they would. But it's quite clear to me that Baker wasn't sure at all which floor he was on when he saw Oswald. Hence his writing "third or fourth floor"."

-------------------------------------

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

I once said that DVP should do stand up.

The proof of that is above us for all to see.

The guy just rewrote the first day Baker affidavit. Which does not take place in the lunchroom, does not take place on the right floor, and which features no coke, and the guy he accosted does not fit the correct description and is wearing a jacket. Dave says, no problem.

...Oswald's words were transformed, but Davey says, forget it.

At least he did not say this time: Vince Bugliosi said it happened alright!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And the one person DiEugenio completely ignored just now is Roy S. Truly, who is the person who verified the "encounter" took place on the SECOND FLOOR in the LUNCHROOM with OSWALD.

But I guess Roy Truly was just one more lying S.O.B. who wanted to frame poor Lee Harvey, right Jim?

(Jimmy's stand-up gig in Vegas awaits.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html

[Greg Parker]

On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 10:30:52 PM UTC+11, John Corbett wrote:
> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 8:41:01 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> > On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 2:37:35 PM UTC+11, John Corbett wrote:
> > > On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 10:51:23 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

> > > > On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 12:48:34 PM UTC+11, John Corbett wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 9:41:48 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> > > > > > Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Told me about that...," Mr Truly or someone told me about it...." "Told me they met him...." "I Think he told me..." "person who told me about..." "I believe told me...." THis is called STUTTERING. Fritz did not USUALLY stutter.
> > > > > >

> > > > > > What do police look for when evaluating the truthfulness of a witness? Well, one of the things they look for is stuttering when that is not the person's usual speech pattern.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The indicators of lying include perspiration flow; flushing or paleness of the skin; pulse rate increase or decrease which is apparent from the appearance of visible veins in the head, neck, and throat; dry mouth and tongue; excessive swallowing; respiratory changes; muscle spasms; licking of the lips; thickened and blurred speech; *****stuttering****; darting eye movements; rigidity of the body; the 'playing' of the hands with each other; clenched fists; and cold, clammy sweat in the palms of the hands.
> > > > > > https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/nonverbal-communications-interrogations
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nowhere else in any testimony or interview is Fritz known to have stuttered. But on the question of the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter, he stuttered like Don Knotts in "The Shakiest Gun in the West".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fritz was lying his ass off.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mr. BALL. Did you question Oswald about that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the officer stopped him all right.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And that was the truth. He was stopped by Truly and Det. Kaminski at the front door.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As this document shows, they were stationed there to vet those leaving. Truly specifically had to verify to Kaminski that the person leaving was an employee.... thus his famous line "He's okay. He works here". SAID TO KAMINKI AT THE FRONT DOOR - NOT TO BAKER ON THE SECOND FLOOR IN SOME ALTERNATE UNIVERSE.
> > > > > > www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=217812#relPageId=435 (go to the bottom and on to the next page)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "as each office and floor was cleared, the employees were cleared by Kaminski and Mr Truly, manager of the firm, at the front door where there names, addresses and telephone numbers were written down, ***and they were identified by Mr. Truly as to their employment.*** "HE'S OKAY - HE WORKS HERE"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Those names and addresses were later typed up. Whose name appears at the very top with the old Elsbeth address?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Say it with me now... Lee Oswald
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who had only one ID with an address on it to show Kaminski?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Say it with me now... Lee Oswald
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What IID was that and what address did it show?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Say it with me now.... his library card with the old Elsbeth address.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And please please please quote me correctly and in context on your website. Thank you.
> > > > > We're going on 60 years and this is the best you guys can come up with. Fritz stuttered. There's
> > > > > the smoking gun for you.
> > > > Well, there was a tad more than that to it.
> > > >
> > > > But even that on it's own is telling. As is your inability to do any better than pick out on thing and pretend that's all there is and it means nothing.
> > > >
> > > > Muthafuckahs bin fried on less evidence. It's police methodology, doncha know. The science of picking out liars. The science of following the evidence.
> > > All the evidence points to Oswald and nobody else. Conspiracy hobbyists are on a snipe hunt and they are all going in different directions. We're supposed to believe they are following
> > > evidence.
> > I don't give a shit what anyone else is doing. Focus on what is happening in THIS thread. Focus on the evidence posted in THIS thread.
> Your assumption that Fritz's stuttering is evidence he was lying is not evidence.

Your analysis that I was assuming anything is wrong.

What I said was very clear. But I will give you more detail since you're playing dumb. As with a polygraph, you need a baseline of someone's normal speech pattern before making any determination. If Fritz's testimony had instead been a police interview of him as a witness, his baseline speech patterns were well established prior to the stutter appearing. If this had been a police interview, the sudden appearance of the stutter would be taken as an indicator - not evidence - not proof - an indicator -that Fritz was lying regarding the subject he stuttered through. That would in turn, trigger the police to further investigate this particular incident (in the case, the alleged 2nd floor lunch encounter).

> > > > Truly never left the 1st floor until it got past 12:45 - the end of the lunch break - the earliest opportunity to report a worker missing, since they cannot be MISSING on their own time.
> > > You're just making shit up.
> > > >
> > > > Do better or admit you are screwed 10 ways to Sunday.
> > > >
> > > > Tell me WHY the one instance of Fritz stuttering is meaningless.
> > > People stutter for lots of reasons. Every person who stutters isn't lying.
> > Okay. You're engaged. Good. Why do you think he stuttered in that particular part of his voluminous testimony and nowhere else?

> Your question calls for speculation. I have no idea why he would stutter because the
> possibilities are numerous. Maybe he was trying to remember something. Maybe he wanted to
> make sure he didn't misspeak while under oath and was choosing his words carefully. As is
> the custom of conspiracy hobbyists, you treat and unknown as an opportunity to fill in the blanks
> to your liking.

LOL. Speculating like crazy.

Let me help you out of your pickle.

Unlike you, Fritz obviously did not like to speculate, or stretch his powers of recall. In his first appearance alone before the commission, he said "I don't remember" 19 times. He had that option here, but instead, the thought that they might be sniffing around the truth made him panic into trying to stamp out a possible fire at his feet. His evident panic only succeeded in fanning the flames.

> > Why do think police are trained to look for signs of lying including stuttering from a mnon-stutterer?
> Having never taken police training, I have no idea if that is true or why it is taught if it is true.

I provided a justice dept link showing it is true, Bozo.

> We can all make judgements as to a person's truthfulness based on their demeanor but that
> doesn't mean our judgements are accurate.

It provides a sound basis for questioning a statement and investigating it further.

> > > > Tell me how the Batchelor report is wrong.
> > > First you need to tell me why it matters.
> > Oh lawd. Anything to avoid addressing it. Okay. Got it. You know it matters and no way you are going to address it.
> Yet you can't tell me why it matters. Seems we are at an impasse.

Stevie Wonder could see why it matters. You know how it goes.... there are none so blind as those who will not see. And there you are... standing in the willful blindness corner....

> > > > Tell me how Oswald confirmed the Truly-Kaminski details per Harry Holmes' report and testimony
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Tell me how the list typed up from the Truly-Kaminski effort has Oswald's name on it at the top - especially since he was supposedly long gone by the time they started - and it was typed before his correct address was known.
> > > This is a classic example of a conspiracy hobbyist trying to prove his case my raising
> > > questions. You don't prove anything by raising questions. You have to find the answers. You
> > > can't just assume the answer you want to believe.
> > The answers are self-explanatory when you view all of the evidence together. The question is only for you, as a denier of the evidence. But once again, you are going to do and say anything to avoid the answers.
> The answer is I don't know the answer and neither do you. One of us is unwilling to assume

You don't have any answer to the document showing Truly and Kaminski vetting people to leave. You don't know why it is important. You don't understand why a non-stutterer suddenly stuttering on one question only should be suspicious.

But you DO believe the Dallas police wrapped up this case in 2 hours.

ROFL

> what the answers are. You're the other guy.
> > > >
> > > > Tell me how Oswald's address was given by Truly as the Paine house in Irving, and as a rooming house by an unknown officer, yet this list has an old Elsbeth address - an address only listed in one place - his library card which is all he had on him with an address to show Kaminski. Do you see how each piece fits neatly in place? Do you understand that this is the way it all went down? Of course you do. You're not fucked up in the head like Brian.
> > > What about this? What about this? Do you guys ever try to find the answers to the questions
> > > your raise.
>
> > I already know the answers.

> Because you think your assumptions are correct.

What assumptions? You haven't pointed to any.

It is a fact that Truly and Kaminski were stationed at the door.

It is a fact that Kaminski was checking ID and taking contact details.

It is a fact that Truly was advising him of the employment status of the person leaving.

It is a fact that Holmes stated that Oswald had said he encountered Mr Truly and a cop at the front entrance. It is YOU who assumes either Holmes got it wrong or Oswald lied.

It is a fact that Baker said he encountered someone on the 3rd or 4th floor. It is YOU who assumes he could not tell the difference between a landing and a lunchroom.

Seems to me, I have stuck to facts and you have continually tried to dismiss those facts with YOUR assumptions.

> > I am offering you the opportunity to provide alternative ones. Which you won't do. You will simply keep using your broad brush and pointy finger and disingenuous takes on what I said in order tto deflect and avoid.

> I think it is a silly exercise to make assumptions without knowing the facts. You on the other
> hand seem to have no problem doing that.

And yet as I showed above, that is precisely what you have been doing throughout

> > > > You're just fucked up ethically and morally.
> > > >
> > > At least I can figure out a slam dunk 60 year old murder case that the cops had solved in the
> > > first 12 hours.
>
> > You mean "solved".
> I thought that's what I wrote.

Oh dear. Still playing dumb.

> > Curry knew it wasn't. Hoover knew it wasn't. You know it wasn't.

> Strike one. Strike two. Strike three.
>
> You went down swinging and missing.

ROFL. Your posts so far, have you fucking yourself up so hard with disingenuous bullshit, you're starting to walk like a jockey.

[Greg Parker]

On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 9:58:35 AM UTC+11, David Von Pein wrote:
> THE LUNCHROOM ENCOUNTER (REVISITED):
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html
>
> Excerpts.....
>
> "Why can't conspiracists accept Marrion Baker's "third or fourth floor" statement for what it so clearly is — a simple and honest mistake made by a police officer who was in a chaotic and frantic situation within minutes of the President having just been shot, and who was not paying close attention at all to what floor he was standing on when he pointed his gun at Lee Harvey Oswald's stomach in the lunchroom on November 22, 1963?" -- DVP; December 2017

You need to speculate and make assumptions. I need no such crutches.

But for the sake of argument, let's ASSUME that at the time, he stopped and questioned this person because he thought he may be the perp. In that scenario, it is kind of important to get the facts right. Baker's statement got nothing right.

Got the floor wrong - 3rd or 4th as opposed to 2nd

Got the precise location wrong - stairs as opposed to lunchroom

Got the physical description wrong - despite eyeballing Oswald as his statement is being given.

Got the clothing description wrong.

You know all this because you have been taken to task over it more times than you've had home cooking.

Your version is dead without your excuses, speculations and assumptions. My version needs none of that.

And I repeat yet again, the stairs were of the type common in offices buildings of the era. Two short flights to every floor. Four flights = 2 floors, not 4 floors. He did not need Truly to show him the way up. He was trying to get to the top. I could have got any 5 year old to run up to the top of that or any building. It is not rocket science. Stick to the stairs until you can't go any higher.

The rest snipped. Who gives a shit about you debate with Jim di on this subject. You are on my thread. Respond top what I have written, not some past debate with someone not even here.

Sheesh, indeed. But it is the type of bullshit you do. So there is that in your favor. If predictability can be seen as a positive at all.

>

[Bud]

On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 8:07:22 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 9:58:35 AM UTC+11, David Von Pein wrote:
> > THE LUNCHROOM ENCOUNTER (REVISITED):
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html
> >
> > Excerpts.....
> >
> > "Why can't conspiracists accept Marrion Baker's "third or fourth floor" statement for what it so clearly is — a simple and honest mistake made by a police officer who was in a chaotic and frantic situation within minutes of the President having just been shot, and who was not paying close attention at all to what floor he was standing on when he pointed his gun at Lee Harvey Oswald's stomach in the lunchroom on November 22, 1963?" -- DVP; December 2017
> You need to speculate and make assumptions. I need no such crutches.

Please. You assume everyone who gave information that conflicts with your childish ideas was lying.

[David Von Pein]

On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 8:07:22 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> Your version is dead without your excuses, speculations and assumptions. My version needs none of that.

Your version requires *both* Baker & Truly to be rotten liars.

IOW, your version is something only an idiot would swallow.

[David Von Pein]

*** HILARITY BREAK! ***

GREG PARKER SAID (IN JULY 2015):

Up until 2001 or 02, the only criticism of the second floor lunch story was about how long it would take Oswald to get down there from 6. No one suggested that meant there was no encounter on the second floor. If anyone HAD suggested it, I believe the famous scene in Stone's movie would have looked quite different. No one gave the affidavit a second look. In fact, few if any gave it a FIRST look. So Don [Jeffries] and anyone else claiming they questioned if the second floor lunchroom story ever actually happened are just conflating their questioning of ASPECTS of the story with questioning the whole damn story.


DON JEFFRIES SAID:

You [Greg Parker] won't win any prizes for it, but if it makes you feel better, keep claiming credit for being the first to doubt Baker encountered Oswald.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

This is hilarity at its finest.

It's kind of like wanting to take credit for being the person who designed The Edsel.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22081-why-does-dvp-rattle-cages-here/?do=findComment&comment=310010

[Greg Parker]

On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 11:33:44 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 8:07:22 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> > On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 9:58:35 AM UTC+11, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > THE LUNCHROOM ENCOUNTER (REVISITED):
> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html
> > >
> > > Excerpts.....
> > >
> > > "Why can't conspiracists accept Marrion Baker's "third or fourth floor" statement for what it so clearly is — a simple and honest mistake made by a police officer who was in a chaotic and frantic situation within minutes of the President having just been shot, and who was not paying close attention at all to what floor he was standing on when he pointed his gun at Lee Harvey Oswald's stomach in the lunchroom on November 22, 1963?" -- DVP; December 2017
> > You need to speculate and make assumptions. I need no such crutches.

> Please. You assume everyone who gave information that conflicts with your childish ideas was lying.

I made no such comment.

Baker's 1st day statement is at odds with the official version is a fact. I make no assumptions about how or why he got it wrong.

You and DVP however, fall over yourselves to speculate that he was "mistaken" and then compound the speculation by assuming he was rattled by the moment.

[Greg Parker]

ROFL.

That is just flagrant disregard for the evidence I provided. No. More than that. It is a blatant attempt at pointing elsewhere to avoid a proper response to the evidence.

There is no fire.

Respond to this

"as each office and floor was cleared, the employees were cleared by Kaminski and Mr Truly, manager of the firm, at the front door where there names, addresses and telephone numbers were written down, ***and they were identified by Mr. Truly as to their employment.***

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=217812#relPageId=435

Confirmed by Frazier

Mr. FRAZIER - ***No, sir; I don't believe they did, because they, you know, like one man showed us, we had to give proper identification*** and after we passed him he told us to walk on then to the next man, and ***we, you know, put down proper information where he could be found if they wanted to see you and talk to you any more***, and then we went on up to a little bit more to *** the front entrance more toward Mr. Shelley's office there with another man and stood there for a little while and told us all that was there could go ahead and go home.***

Confirmed again by Oswald as reported by Holmes

"a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. "

You require Buell, Bachelor and Holmes all to be liars.

And the stuttering Fritz to be a paragon of truthfulness.

Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.

"Told me about that...," Mr Truly or someone told me about it...." "Told me they met him...." "I Think he told me..." "person who told me about..." "I believe told me...." THis is called STUTTERING. Fritz did not USUALLY stutter.

Again -- I need no speculation or assumptions. I rely on the evidence. You need my evidence to be somehow wrong and much of your own evidence to be made up of honest mistakes.

[David Von Pein]

"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there."

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm

Key phrases in the above Bookhout report:

"OSWALD STATED..."

"HE WAS ON THE **SECOND FLOOR**..."

So, apparently Greg Parker thinks that James W. Bookhout just IMAGINED Oswald saying those things (even though Bookhout was right there in Fritz' office with Oswald when Oswald "stated" those various things.

Or did Bookhout just MAKE UP those things that he said Oswald had "stated"?

You've got room for one more liar (Bookhout) on your front porch, don't you Gregory?

[Greg Parker]

Why do you believe Bookhout?

Fritz report: I asked him what part of the building he was in at the time the President was shot, and he said that he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor.

Fritz report: Mr. Truly had told me that one of the police officers had stopped this man immediately after the shooting somewhere near the back stairway, so I asked Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him. He said he was on the second floor drinking a coca cola when the officer came in.

Fritz testimony:

Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.

-----------------

So Truly initially lied saying the encounter was near the back stairway AND OSWALD told the truth that it was in the 2nd floor lunchroom - according to you? Correct?

All of this conflicting information, not just from Oswald, but also from Baker and Truly, caused Fritz to "investigate" according to his own testimony. What was the nature of that investigation? MRS FUCXKING REID TRULY's FUCKING SECRETARY WHO OTHER WITNESSES PUT ON THAT FLOOR WITH A BUNC OF OTHERS, NONE OF WHO SAW DIDDLY SQUAT.

Now quit yer farnarckling around and address the Batchelor report, and how it relates to what Buell testified to, what Holmes quoted Oswald as stating and in regard to the Oswald information on the Kaminski list of names.

Then of course, there is the Hosty-Bookhout joint report which negates Bookhout's solo effort

"Oswald stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his lunch. Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building."

Again, as with the Fritz and Hosty notes, we see a timeline of Oswald's alibi. In this version, there is no mention of any cop encounter. Which is probably why Bookhout later submitted a solo report.

-Broke for lunch i
-Went up to grab a coke to have with lunch
-Went back and had lunch in the domino room

[John Corbett]

Cite your credentials analyze speech patterns. Otherwise, you're just jerking off.

>
> > > > > Truly never left the 1st floor until it got past 12:45 - the end of the lunch break - the earliest opportunity to report a worker missing, since they cannot be MISSING on their own time.
> > > > You're just making shit up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do better or admit you are screwed 10 ways to Sunday.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tell me WHY the one instance of Fritz stuttering is meaningless.
> > > > People stutter for lots of reasons. Every person who stutters isn't lying.
> > > Okay. You're engaged. Good. Why do you think he stuttered in that particular part of his voluminous testimony and nowhere else?
>
> > Your question calls for speculation. I have no idea why he would stutter because the
> > possibilities are numerous. Maybe he was trying to remember something. Maybe he wanted to
> > make sure he didn't misspeak while under oath and was choosing his words carefully. As is
> > the custom of conspiracy hobbyists, you treat and unknown as an opportunity to fill in the blanks
> > to your liking.
>
> LOL. Speculating like crazy.

Why do you ask questions that call for speculation than get snotty when you are answered
with speculation.

>
> Let me help you out of your pickle.
>
> Unlike you, Fritz obviously did not like to speculate, or stretch his powers of recall. In his first appearance alone before the commission, he said "I don't remember" 19 times. He had that option here, but instead, the thought that they might be sniffing around the truth made him panic into trying to stamp out a possible fire at his feet. His evident panic only succeeded in fanning the flames.
>
> > > Why do think police are trained to look for signs of lying including stuttering from a mnon-stutterer?
> > Having never taken police training, I have no idea if that is true or why it is taught if it is true.
>
> I provided a justice dept link showing it is true, Bozo.
>
> > We can all make judgements as to a person's truthfulness based on their demeanor but that
> > doesn't mean our judgements are accurate.
>
> It provides a sound basis for questioning a statement and investigating it further.

Have at it, asshole.

>
> > > > > Tell me how the Batchelor report is wrong.
> > > > First you need to tell me why it matters.
> > > Oh lawd. Anything to avoid addressing it. Okay. Got it. You know it matters and no way you are going to address it.
> > Yet you can't tell me why it matters. Seems we are at an impasse.
>
> Stevie Wonder could see why it matters.

But apparently you can't explain it.

> You know how it goes.... there are none so blind as those who will not see. And there you are... standing in the willful blindness corner....

As I was saying. You have no explanation.

>
> > > > > Tell me how Oswald confirmed the Truly-Kaminski details per Harry Holmes' report and testimony
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Tell me how the list typed up from the Truly-Kaminski effort has Oswald's name on it at the top - especially since he was supposedly long gone by the time they started - and it was typed before his correct address was known.
> > > > This is a classic example of a conspiracy hobbyist trying to prove his case my raising
> > > > questions. You don't prove anything by raising questions. You have to find the answers. You
> > > > can't just assume the answer you want to believe.
> > > The answers are self-explanatory when you view all of the evidence together. The question is only for you, as a denier of the evidence. But once again, you are going to do and say anything to avoid the answers.
> > The answer is I don't know the answer and neither do you. One of us is unwilling to assume
>
> You don't have any answer to the document showing Truly and Kaminski vetting people to leave. You don't know why it is important.

You won't explain why it is important. You think you prove something by raising questions.

> You don't understand why a non-stutterer suddenly stuttering on one question only should be suspicious.

Fritz was not stuttering. You tried to make it seem like he was stuttering by drastically editing
the quote. I fucked up by believing you were honestly quoting Fritz. I'll admit that was a pretty
stupid thing to do. It won't happen again. I'll assume anything your write from this day forward
is a lie until it can be verified.

>
> But you DO believe the Dallas police wrapped up this case in 2 hours.

I said 12 hours you lying fuck. Is there any lie you won't tell. Your whoppers put Joe Biden to
shame.

>
> ROFL
>
> > what the answers are. You're the other guy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tell me how Oswald's address was given by Truly as the Paine house in Irving, and as a rooming house by an unknown officer, yet this list has an old Elsbeth address - an address only listed in one place - his library card which is all he had on him with an address to show Kaminski. Do you see how each piece fits neatly in place? Do you understand that this is the way it all went down? Of course you do. You're not fucked up in the head like Brian.
> > > > What about this? What about this? Do you guys ever try to find the answers to the questions
> > > > your raise.
> >
> > > I already know the answers.
>
> > Because you think your assumptions are correct.
>
> What assumptions? You haven't pointed to any.
>
> It is a fact that Truly and Kaminski were stationed at the door.
>
> It is a fact that Kaminski was checking ID and taking contact details.
>
> It is a fact that Truly was advising him of the employment status of the person leaving.
>
> It is a fact that Holmes stated that Oswald had said he encountered Mr Truly and a cop at the front entrance. It is YOU who assumes either Holmes got it wrong or Oswald lied.

I make no assumptions. Oswald told numerous lies during his various interrogations. What's
one more.

>
> It is a fact that Baker said he encountered someone on the 3rd or 4th floor. It is YOU who assumes he could not tell the difference between a landing and a lunchroom.

It is you who is lying his ass off. When Baker said 3rd or 4th floor, it's obvious he was unsure
where the encounter took place because it could not have happened in two different places.
The fact is the encounter took place in the 2nd floor lunchroom because there wasn't a
lunchroom on the 3rd of 4th floor.

>
> Seems to me, I have stuck to facts and you have continually tried to dismiss those facts with YOUR assumptions.

You're full of shit. As if your doctoring of Fritz's quote was a fact.

>
> > > I am offering you the opportunity to provide alternative ones. Which you won't do. You will simply keep using your broad brush and pointy finger and disingenuous takes on what I said in order tto deflect and avoid.
>
> > I think it is a silly exercise to make assumptions without knowing the facts. You on the other
> > hand seem to have no problem doing that.
>
> And yet as I showed above, that is precisely what you have been doing throughout

You ask me questions that require speculation and then chastise me for speculating. You
really are an asshole.

>
> > > > > You're just fucked up ethically and morally.
> > > > >
> > > > At least I can figure out a slam dunk 60 year old murder case that the cops had solved in the
> > > > first 12 hours.
> >
> > > You mean "solved".
> > I thought that's what I wrote.
>
> Oh dear. Still playing dumb.

With you, it's not an act.

>
> > > Curry knew it wasn't. Hoover knew it wasn't. You know it wasn't.
>
> > Strike one. Strike two. Strike three.
> >
> > You went down swinging and missing.
>
> ROFL. Your posts so far, have you fucking yourself up so hard with disingenuous bullshit, you're starting to walk like a jockey.

Was that your attempt to sound clever? It didn't work.

[Greg Parker]

Yeah, you have the kind of humor that will get you a gig as MC at the next burger-flipping marathon held at the Church of the Fallen Madonna with the Tiny Boobies in Buttscratch, Idaho.

[David Von Pein]

The encounter WAS near the "back stairway". The stairs are practically right next to where Baker stopped Oswald.

And the Holmes/Batchelor stuff certainly does *NOT*, in any fashion, negate the 2nd-Floor Lunchroom Encounter. No way. No how. Holmes' report is quite clearly referring to the 2nd-floor encounter, not anything on the FIRST floor.

How can we know that for sure?

Easy. Because there were no cops in the TSBD clearing the employees to leave AT 12:33 PM (which is the approx. time LHO left the building). Hence, Holmes can't possibly be referring to the "Police Clearing The Employees At The Front Door" situation when referring to anything relating to OSWALD on 11/22.

[Greg Parker]

Because I am the one being accused of making assumptions and speculating, I have not done either. But you need to to to explain away Baker's initial statament and a bunch ofother stuff.

> > Let me help you out of your pickle.
> >
> > Unlike you, Fritz obviously did not like to speculate, or stretch his powers of recall. In his first appearance alone before the commission, he said "I don't remember" 19 times. He had that option here, but instead, the thought that they might be sniffing around the truth made him panic into trying to stamp out a possible fire at his feet. His evident panic only succeeded in fanning the flames.
> >
> > > > Why do think police are trained to look for signs of lying including stuttering from a mnon-stutterer?
> > > Having never taken police training, I have no idea if that is true or why it is taught if it is true.
> >
> > I provided a justice dept link showing it is true, Bozo.
> >
> > > We can all make judgements as to a person's truthfulness based on their demeanor but that
> > > doesn't mean our judgements are accurate.
> >
> > It provides a sound basis for questioning a statement and investigating it further.
> Have at it, asshole.
> >
> > > > > > Tell me how the Batchelor report is wrong.
> > > > > First you need to tell me why it matters.
> > > > Oh lawd. Anything to avoid addressing it. Okay. Got it. You know it matters and no way you are going to address it.
> > > Yet you can't tell me why it matters. Seems we are at an impasse.
> >
> > Stevie Wonder could see why it matters.
> But apparently you can't explain it.
> > You know how it goes.... there are none so blind as those who will not see. And there you are... standing in the willful blindness corner....
> As I was saying. You have no explanation.

It is self-explanatory. Except maybe to an orangutan.

> > > > > > Tell me how Oswald confirmed the Truly-Kaminski details per Harry Holmes' report and testimony
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tell me how the list typed up from the Truly-Kaminski effort has Oswald's name on it at the top - especially since he was supposedly long gone by the time they started - and it was typed before his correct address was known.
> > > > > This is a classic example of a conspiracy hobbyist trying to prove his case my raising
> > > > > questions. You don't prove anything by raising questions. You have to find the answers. You
> > > > > can't just assume the answer you want to believe.
> > > > The answers are self-explanatory when you view all of the evidence together. The question is only for you, as a denier of the evidence. But once again, you are going to do and say anything to avoid the answers.
> > > The answer is I don't know the answer and neither do you. One of us is unwilling to assume
> >
> > You don't have any answer to the document showing Truly and Kaminski vetting people to leave. You don't know why it is important.
> You won't explain why it is important. You think you prove something by raising questions.

No. I can explain it. I just have no need to. You wanting me to jump through unneccessary hoops doesn't count as a valid reason.

> > You don't understand why a non-stutterer suddenly stuttering on one question only should be suspicious.
> Fritz was not stuttering. You tried to make it seem like he was stuttering by drastically editing
> the quote. I fucked up by believing you were honestly quoting Fritz. I'll admit that was a pretty
> stupid thing to do. It won't happen again. I'll assume anything your write from this day forward
> is a lie until it can be verified.

I supplied the full quote, then repeated the parts that constituted what in lay terms is stuttering. Sorry if that confused you.

Let me confuse you some more.

Fritz technically, was not stuttering. But it IS what police refer to as stuttering.

What it really was is dysfluency. The inability to talk smoothly.

This can affect anyone under stress, or because of nervousness, or being over-tired.

Which is why police consider it a SIGN that the person may be lying.

> > But you DO believe the Dallas police wrapped up this case in 2 hours.
> I said 12 hours you lying fuck. Is there any lie you won't tell. Your whoppers put Joe Biden to
> shame.

Yes, but you meant 2. He was picked up in about 2. According to you they got the right man. Ergo, they wrapped it up in 2 according to you. UNLESS....

You have specific evidence in mind that was obtained in the first 12 hours? Which brings us up around the midnight press conference when the cops and ol Henry were telling the media that they had the case cinched.

So name the evidence obtained in that 12 hours that convinces you that wrapped it up in that time?

This should be good for a laugh since Hoover was telling LBJ that the case was not good and ol Henry was telling the media that Oswald had planned it for months and had calmly sat at the window eating lunch while waiting for the kill shot.

[Bud]

On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 8:42:56 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 11:33:44 AM UTC+11, Bud wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 8:07:22 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 9:58:35 AM UTC+11, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > THE LUNCHROOM ENCOUNTER (REVISITED):
> > > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html
> > > >
> > > > Excerpts.....
> > > >
> > > > "Why can't conspiracists accept Marrion Baker's "third or fourth floor" statement for what it so clearly is — a simple and honest mistake made by a police officer who was in a chaotic and frantic situation within minutes of the President having just been shot, and who was not paying close attention at all to what floor he was standing on when he pointed his gun at Lee Harvey Oswald's stomach in the lunchroom on November 22, 1963?" -- DVP; December 2017
> > > You need to speculate and make assumptions. I need no such crutches.
>
> > Please. You assume everyone who gave information that conflicts with your childish ideas was lying.
> I made no such comment.

Non sequitur.

You *do* believe that any witness who gives information that goes against your childish ideas is lying.

> Baker's 1st day statement is at odds with the official version is a fact. I make no assumptions about how or why he got it wrong.
>
> You and DVP however, fall over yourselves to speculate that he was "mistaken" and then compound the speculation by assuming he was rattled by the moment.

You guys bring it up. I don`t see it as significant.

So which is less fantastic, that Baker *did* stop Oswald in the second floor lunchroom and *did* write his initial report as written or *what* exactly?

[John Corbett]

I don't need to do shit. You expect me to find the answers to your silly questions. If you think
these questions are important, you need to find the answers.

> > > Let me help you out of your pickle.
> > >
> > > Unlike you, Fritz obviously did not like to speculate, or stretch his powers of recall. In his first appearance alone before the commission, he said "I don't remember" 19 times. He had that option here, but instead, the thought that they might be sniffing around the truth made him panic into trying to stamp out a possible fire at his feet. His evident panic only succeeded in fanning the flames.
> > >
> > > > > Why do think police are trained to look for signs of lying including stuttering from a mnon-stutterer?
> > > > Having never taken police training, I have no idea if that is true or why it is taught if it is true.
> > >
> > > I provided a justice dept link showing it is true, Bozo.
> > >
> > > > We can all make judgements as to a person's truthfulness based on their demeanor but that
> > > > doesn't mean our judgements are accurate.
> > >
> > > It provides a sound basis for questioning a statement and investigating it further.
> > Have at it, asshole.
> > >
> > > > > > > Tell me how the Batchelor report is wrong.
> > > > > > First you need to tell me why it matters.
> > > > > Oh lawd. Anything to avoid addressing it. Okay. Got it. You know it matters and no way you are going to address it.
> > > > Yet you can't tell me why it matters. Seems we are at an impasse.
> > >
> > > Stevie Wonder could see why it matters.
> > But apparently you can't explain it.
> > > You know how it goes.... there are none so blind as those who will not see. And there you are... standing in the willful blindness corner....
> > As I was saying. You have no explanation.
> It is self-explanatory. Except maybe to an orangutan.

Keep dodging. You can't explain shit. You think you are proving something by raising questions.
That's not how it works. You prove things by finding answers. You don't seem to have any.

> > > > > > > Tell me how Oswald confirmed the Truly-Kaminski details per Harry Holmes' report and testimony
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tell me how the list typed up from the Truly-Kaminski effort has Oswald's name on it at the top - especially since he was supposedly long gone by the time they started - and it was typed before his correct address was known.
> > > > > > This is a classic example of a conspiracy hobbyist trying to prove his case my raising
> > > > > > questions. You don't prove anything by raising questions. You have to find the answers. You
> > > > > > can't just assume the answer you want to believe.
> > > > > The answers are self-explanatory when you view all of the evidence together. The question is only for you, as a denier of the evidence. But once again, you are going to do and say anything to avoid the answers.
> > > > The answer is I don't know the answer and neither do you. One of us is unwilling to assume
> > >
> > > You don't have any answer to the document showing Truly and Kaminski vetting people to leave. You don't know why it is important.
> > You won't explain why it is important. You think you prove something by raising questions.
> No. I can explain it. I just have no need to.

And I have no need to answer you if you can't or won't.

> You wanting me to jump through unneccessary hoops doesn't count as a valid reason.

What do you think you are doing with your silly what-about-this questions?

> > > You don't understand why a non-stutterer suddenly stuttering on one question only should be suspicious.
> > Fritz was not stuttering. You tried to make it seem like he was stuttering by drastically editing
> > the quote. I fucked up by believing you were honestly quoting Fritz. I'll admit that was a pretty
> > stupid thing to do. It won't happen again. I'll assume anything your write from this day forward
> > is a lie until it can be verified.
> I supplied the full quote, then repeated the parts that constituted what in lay terms is stuttering. Sorry if that confused you.

You distorted what he said.

>
> Let me confuse you some more.
>
> Fritz technically, was not stuttering. But it IS what police refer to as stuttering.

Cite?

>
> What it really was is dysfluency. The inability to talk smoothly.

Christ, are you getting desparate.

>
> This can affect anyone under stress, or because of nervousness, or being over-tired.

This from the guy who claims he doesn't speculate.

>
> Which is why police consider it a SIGN that the person may be lying.

Key phrase: "may be".

> > > But you DO believe the Dallas police wrapped up this case in 2 hours.
> > I said 12 hours you lying fuck. Is there any lie you won't tell. Your whoppers put Joe Biden to
> > shame.
> Yes, but you meant 2.

Quit lying. But if you did that, you would have to quit posting.

> He was picked up in about 2. According to you they got the right man. Ergo, they wrapped it up in 2 according to you. UNLESS....

They picked him up as a suspect in the killing of a cop. It was after they had him in custody and
discovered he was the same man who went missing from the TSBD that they suspected he might
be the assassin. It was roughly 12 hours after the assassination that they had enough evidence
to formally charge him.

>
> You have specific evidence in mind that was obtained in the first 12 hours? Which brings us up around the midnight press conference when the cops and ol Henry were telling the media that they had the case cinched.
>
> So name the evidence obtained in that 12 hours that convinces you that wrapped it up in that time?

They had enough evidence to formally charge him which happened before midnight. They
would not have done that with probable cause.

>
> This should be good for a laugh since Hoover was telling LBJ that the case was not good and ol Henry was telling the media that Oswald had planned it for months and had calmly sat at the window eating lunch while waiting for the kill shot.

Hoover didn't know shit. If by Henry you mean Wade, cite him saying Oswald had planned the
assassination for months. I hope you don't expect me to take your word for that.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 04:16:16 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Keep dodging. You can't explain shit. You think you are proving something by raising questions.
>That's not how it works. You prove things by finding answers. You don't seem to have any.

Well stated.

Unfortunately, you can't FIND the answers.

You lose.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 04:30:51 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I think it is a silly exercise to make assumptions without knowing the facts.

Yet you do this all the time. Your comments on Bugliosi are one
example, your claims about the FBI Summary Report is another.

Many more examples could be given.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 12:14:53 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:


So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 06:24:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 12:55:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 18:04:46 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 17:33:42 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 19:16:45 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:


>The encounter WAS near the "back stairway".

Is that what you think?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 13:26:15 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 18:23:43 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>"OSWALD stated...

You don't believe him.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 06:36:21 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Holmes, Parker, Jesus. Three peas in a pod. All liars.

I killfiled Parker the same day he arrived here. You are COMPLETELY
unable to document any lies from Gil or myself.

Indeed, precisely the opposite has happened.

Remember the FBI Summary Report that you repeately lied about?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 17:42:13 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>*** HILARITY BREAK! ***


How silly! We laugh at you ALL the time!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 17:38:12 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

Logical fallacy deleted.

Von Penis uses them less than others, but still can't restrain
himself.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 15:58:33 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>THE LUNCHROOM ENCOUNTER (REVISITED):
>http://jfk-archives.blog

You've been schooled...


>Excerpts.....


Nope... Not unless you can defend 'em.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 06:40:31 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:


>I fucked up.


Quite a common occurance among believers...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 03:00:57 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:


>If you think I am a Christian, that is one of your delusions.

Don't worry, only morons would think that.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 02:49:31 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:


>This is why courts don't allow hearsay evidence.

But the WC was DROWNING in hearsay...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 12:18:59 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:


>More of your silly "this must mean this figuring".

A Chickenshit sock puppet.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 03:54:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 13:55:50 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 18:05:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Donald Willis]

On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 6:57:47 PM UTC-7, Greg Parker wrote:
> On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 12:23:44 PM UTC+11, David Von Pein wrote:
> > "OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there."
> >
> > https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm
> >
> > Key phrases in the above Bookhout report:
> >
> > "OSWALD STATED..."
> >
> > "HE WAS ON THE **SECOND FLOOR**..."
> >
> > So, apparently Greg Parker thinks that James W. Bookhout just IMAGINED Oswald saying those things (even though Bookhout was right there in Fritz' office with Oswald when Oswald "stated" those various things.
> >
> > Or did Bookhout just MAKE UP those things that he said Oswald had "stated"?
> >
> > You've got room for one more liar (Bookhout) on your front porch, don't you Gregory?
> Why do you believe Bookhout?
>
> Fritz report: I asked him what part of the building he was in at the time the President was shot, and he said that he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor.
>
> Fritz report: Mr. Truly had told me that one of the police officers had stopped this man immediately after the shooting somewhere near the back stairway, so I asked Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him. He said he was on the second floor drinking a coca cola when the officer came in.
>
> Fritz testimony:

> Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.

> -----------------
>
> So Truly initially lied saying the encounter was near the back stairway AND OSWALD told the truth that it was in the 2nd floor lunchroom - according to you? Correct?
>
> All of this conflicting information, not just from Oswald, but also from Baker and Truly, caused Fritz to "investigate" according to his own testimony. What was the nature of that investigation? MRS FUCXKING REID TRULY's FUCKING SECRETARY WHO OTHER WITNESSES PUT ON THAT FLOOR WITH A BUNC OF OTHERS, NONE OF WHO SAW DIDDLY SQUAT.
>
> Now quit yer farnarckling around and address the Batchelor report, and how it relates to what Buell testified to, what Holmes quoted Oswald as stating and in regard to the Oswald information on the Kaminski list of names.
>
> Then of course, there is the Hosty-Bookhout joint report which negates Bookhout's solo effort
>
> "Oswald stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his lunch. Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building."
>
> Again, as with the Fritz and Hosty notes, we see a timeline of Oswald's alibi. In this version, there is no mention of any cop encounter. Which is probably why Bookhout later submitted a solo report.

Or, yes, why a solo report was submitted in Bookhout's name. Bookhout, in his Commission testimony, states that the joint report was the only one. So either he did not submit it himself, or he's purposely dissociating himself from it.

dcw

[Donald Willis]

On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 6:58:01 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
> On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 7:48:16 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 10:30:52 PM UTC+11, John Corbett wrote:
> > > On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 8:41:01 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> > > > On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 2:37:35 PM UTC+11, John Corbett wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 10:51:23 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 12:48:34 PM UTC+11, John Corbett wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 9:41:48 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> > > > > > > > Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?
> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.
> > > > > > > >

> > Let me help you out of your pickle.
> >
> > Unlike you, Fritz obviously did not like to speculate, or stretch his powers of recall. In his first appearance alone before the commission, he said "I don't remember" 19 times. He had that option here, but instead, the thought that they might be sniffing around the truth made him panic into trying to stamp out a possible fire at his feet. His evident panic only succeeded in fanning the flames.
> >
> > > > Why do think police are trained to look for signs of lying including stuttering from a mnon-stutterer?
> > > Having never taken police training, I have no idea if that is true or why it is taught if it is true.
> >
> > I provided a justice dept link showing it is true, Bozo.
> >
> > > We can all make judgements as to a person's truthfulness based on their demeanor but that
> > > doesn't mean our judgements are accurate.
> >
> > It provides a sound basis for questioning a statement and investigating it further.
> Have at it, asshole.
> >
> > > > > > Tell me how the Batchelor report is wrong.
> > > > > First you need to tell me why it matters.
> > > > Oh lawd. Anything to avoid addressing it. Okay. Got it. You know it matters and no way you are going to address it.
> > > Yet you can't tell me why it matters. Seems we are at an impasse.
> >
> > Stevie Wonder could see why it matters.
> But apparently you can't explain it.
> > You know how it goes.... there are none so blind as those who will not see. And there you are... standing in the willful blindness corner....
> As I was saying. You have no explanation.
> >

> > > > > > Tell me how Oswald confirmed the Truly-Kaminski details per Harry Holmes' report and testimony
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tell me how the list typed up from the Truly-Kaminski effort has Oswald's name on it at the top - especially since he was supposedly long gone by the time they started - and it was typed before his correct address was known.
> > > > > This is a classic example of a conspiracy hobbyist trying to prove his case my raising
> > > > > questions. You don't prove anything by raising questions. You have to find the answers. You
> > > > > can't just assume the answer you want to believe.
> > > > The answers are self-explanatory when you view all of the evidence together. The question is only for you, as a denier of the evidence. But once again, you are going to do and say anything to avoid the answers.
> > > The answer is I don't know the answer and neither do you. One of us is unwilling to assume
> >
> > You don't have any answer to the document showing Truly and Kaminski vetting people to leave. You don't know why it is important.
> You won't explain why it is important. You think you prove something by raising questions.

> > You don't understand why a non-stutterer suddenly stuttering on one question only should be suspicious.
> Fritz was not stuttering. You tried to make it seem like he was stuttering by drastically editing
> the quote. I fucked up by believing you were honestly quoting Fritz. I'll admit that was a pretty
> stupid thing to do. It won't happen again. I'll assume anything your write from this day forward
> is a lie until it can be verified.
> >

> > But you DO believe the Dallas police wrapped up this case in 2 hours.
> I said 12 hours you lying fuck. Is there any lie you won't tell. Your whoppers put Joe Biden to
> shame.
> >

> > ROFL
> >
> > > what the answers are. You're the other guy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tell me how Oswald's address was given by Truly as the Paine house in Irving, and as a rooming house by an unknown officer, yet this list has an old Elsbeth address - an address only listed in one place - his library card which is all he had on him with an address to show Kaminski. Do you see how each piece fits neatly in place? Do you understand that this is the way it all went down? Of course you do. You're not fucked up in the head like Brian.
> > > > > What about this? What about this? Do you guys ever try to find the answers to the questions
> > > > > your raise.
> > >
> > > > I already know the answers.
> >
> > > Because you think your assumptions are correct.
> >
> > What assumptions? You haven't pointed to any.
> >
> > It is a fact that Truly and Kaminski were stationed at the door.
> >
> > It is a fact that Kaminski was checking ID and taking contact details.
> >
> > It is a fact that Truly was advising him of the employment status of the person leaving.
> >
> > It is a fact that Holmes stated that Oswald had said he encountered Mr Truly and a cop at the front entrance. It is YOU who assumes either Holmes got it wrong or Oswald lied.
> I make no assumptions. Oswald told numerous lies during his various interrogations. What's
> one more.
> >
> > It is a fact that Baker said he encountered someone on the 3rd or 4th floor. It is YOU who assumes he could not tell the difference between a landing and a lunchroom.
> It is you who is lying his ass off. When Baker said 3rd or 4th floor, it's obvious he was unsure
> where the encounter took place because it could not have happened in two different places.
> The fact is the encounter took place in the 2nd floor lunchroom because there wasn't a
> lunchroom on the 3rd of 4th floor.

Faulty logic. Baker does not mention a lunchroom in his 11/22 affidavit. "I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around & came back toward me." Early on 11/22, then, Baker has the encounter taking place on the stairway. What happened? Perhaps Vickie Adams...

dcw


> >
> > Seems to me, I have stuck to facts and you have continually tried to dismiss those facts with YOUR assumptions.
> You're full of shit. As if your doctoring of Fritz's quote was a fact.
> >
> > > > I am offering you the opportunity to provide alternative ones. Which you won't do. You will simply keep using your broad brush and pointy finger and disingenuous takes on what I said in order tto deflect and avoid.
> >
> > > I think it is a silly exercise to make assumptions without knowing the facts. You on the other
> > > hand seem to have no problem doing that.
> >
> > And yet as I showed above, that is precisely what you have been doing throughout
> You ask me questions that require speculation and then chastise me for speculating. You
> really are an asshole.
> >
> > > > > > You're just fucked up ethically and morally.
> > > > > >
> > > > > At least I can figure out a slam dunk 60 year old murder case that the cops had solved in the
> > > > > first 12 hours.
> > >
> > > > You mean "solved".
> > > I thought that's what I wrote.
> >
> > Oh dear. Still playing dumb.
> With you, it's not an act.
> >
> > > > Curry knew it wasn't. Hoover knew it wasn't. You know it wasn't.
> >
> > > Strike one. Strike two. Strike three.
> > >
> > > You went down swinging and missing.
> >
> > ROFL. Your posts so far, have you fucking yourself up so hard with disingenuous bullshit, you're starting to walk like a jockey.
> Was that your attempt to sound clever? It didn't work.

[Bud]

On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 10:42:51 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

> Because I am the one being accused of making assumptions and speculating, I have not done either.

Of course you have. You guys ask for explanations and when they are offered you either cry "speculation!" or pooh-pooh them. Meanwhile you speculate dozens of fantastic occurrences, and pile one the other.

All the conspiracy hobbyists here are delusional, they act like they have a crystal ball that allows them to correctly discern events, but what they really have are individual funhouse mirrors, that distort information into shapes and patterns they find personally appealing.

>But you need to to to explain away Baker's initial statament and a bunch ofother stuff.

That is where you are wrong. *YOU* need to establish that it is impossible for a second floor lunchroom encounter and Baker initial affidavit to co-exist. And all you are going to be able to do is employ the "argument from incredulity" fallacy, while meanwhile imagining other possibilities that are many hundreds of times more fantastic.

> > > Let me help you out of your pickle.
> > >
> > > Unlike you, Fritz obviously did not like to speculate, or stretch his powers of recall. In his first appearance alone before the commission, he said "I don't remember" 19 times. He had that option here, but instead, the thought that they might be sniffing around the truth made him panic into trying to stamp out a possible fire at his feet. His evident panic only succeeded in fanning the flames.
> > >
> > > > > Why do think police are trained to look for signs of lying including stuttering from a mnon-stutterer?
> > > > Having never taken police training, I have no idea if that is true or why it is taught if it is true.
> > >
> > > I provided a justice dept link showing it is true, Bozo.
> > >
> > > > We can all make judgements as to a person's truthfulness based on their demeanor but that
> > > > doesn't mean our judgements are accurate.
> > >
> > > It provides a sound basis for questioning a statement and investigating it further.
> > Have at it, asshole.
> > >
> > > > > > > Tell me how the Batchelor report is wrong.
> > > > > > First you need to tell me why it matters.
> > > > > Oh lawd. Anything to avoid addressing it. Okay. Got it. You know it matters and no way you are going to address it.
> > > > Yet you can't tell me why it matters. Seems we are at an impasse.
> > >
> > > Stevie Wonder could see why it matters.
> > But apparently you can't explain it.
> > > You know how it goes.... there are none so blind as those who will not see. And there you are... standing in the willful blindness corner....
> > As I was saying. You have no explanation.

> It is self-explanatory. Except maybe to an orangutan.

> > > > > > > Tell me how Oswald confirmed the Truly-Kaminski details per Harry Holmes' report and testimony
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tell me how the list typed up from the Truly-Kaminski effort has Oswald's name on it at the top - especially since he was supposedly long gone by the time they started - and it was typed before his correct address was known.
> > > > > > This is a classic example of a conspiracy hobbyist trying to prove his case my raising
> > > > > > questions. You don't prove anything by raising questions. You have to find the answers. You
> > > > > > can't just assume the answer you want to believe.
> > > > > The answers are self-explanatory when you view all of the evidence together. The question is only for you, as a denier of the evidence. But once again, you are going to do and say anything to avoid the answers.
> > > > The answer is I don't know the answer and neither do you. One of us is unwilling to assume
> > >
> > > You don't have any answer to the document showing Truly and Kaminski vetting people to leave. You don't know why it is important.
> > You won't explain why it is important. You think you prove something by raising questions.

> No. I can explain it. I just have no need to. You wanting me to jump through unneccessary hoops doesn't count as a valid reason.

> > > You don't understand why a non-stutterer suddenly stuttering on one question only should be suspicious.
> > Fritz was not stuttering. You tried to make it seem like he was stuttering by drastically editing
> > the quote. I fucked up by believing you were honestly quoting Fritz. I'll admit that was a pretty
> > stupid thing to do. It won't happen again. I'll assume anything your write from this day forward
> > is a lie until it can be verified.

> I supplied the full quote, then repeated the parts that constituted what in lay terms is stuttering. Sorry if that confused you.
>

> Let me confuse you some more.
>
> Fritz technically, was not stuttering. But it IS what police refer to as stuttering.
>

> What it really was is dysfluency. The inability to talk smoothly.

I suppose when you have nothing, you are forced to pretend that nothing is something.

> This can affect anyone under stress, or because of nervousness, or being over-tired.
>

> Which is why police consider it a SIGN that the person may be lying.

> > > But you DO believe the Dallas police wrapped up this case in 2 hours.
> > I said 12 hours you lying fuck. Is there any lie you won't tell. Your whoppers put Joe Biden to
> > shame.

> Yes, but you meant 2. He was picked up in about 2.

He had just killed a cop. They arrest you for stuff like that.

> According to you they got the right man. Ergo, they wrapped it up in 2 according to you. UNLESS....
>

> You have specific evidence in mind that was obtained in the first 12 hours? Which brings us up around the midnight press conference when the cops and ol Henry were telling the media that they had the case cinched.
>
> So name the evidence obtained in that 12 hours that convinces you that wrapped it up in that time?
>

[Donald Willis]

"individual funhouse mirrors"--a point for Bud for creativity! As for accuracy, debatable...

Scoggins and Benavides apparently didn't agree. They were apparently the only two witnesses to the actual shooting, and they did not ID Oswald until Saturday (Scoggins) or the next year (Benavides)! And yet Scoggins chased after the perp three times--by foot, by taxi, and by cop car.

dcw

[Brian Doyle]

On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 10:16:47 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

> On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 9:57:47 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> > On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 12:23:44 PM UTC+11, David Von Pein wrote:




> >
> > "Oswald stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his lunch. Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building."
> >

As the person who discovered the most important evidence that puts this to context, I can say with confidence that the above quote is a lie that was fabricated by the 3pm interrogators in order to cover-up Oswald telling them he was in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room during the assassination...

Sarah Stanton most-likely left the 2nd Floor Lunch Room sometime around 12:17 to 12:20...She was most likely in there trying to get her lunch in before the motorcade...On her way out she encountered Oswald out on the 2nd Floor staircase landing where she thought he was a loner who was going to miss the motorcade so she asked him if he was going down to see the president...Oswald replied to Stanton "No, I'm not going downstairs to watch the motorcade I am going back in to the Break Room"...

Fritz told the truth on this when he specified that Oswald was getting a soda "When Officer Came In"...That one additional piece of information revealed that this happened 90 seconds after the shots when officer Baker encountered Oswald in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...

Further proof of this was given by Fritz in his Commission testimony where he admitted Oswald told him he was eating lunch in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room during the assassination...Ball knew this was the correct location because he tried to coach Fritz back down to the 1st Floor lie...Hosty also corroborated Oswald being in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room during the assassination to Nigel Turner...This is the true source of Fritz's stuttering despite the crazy evidence vandalism Greg Parker tries to inject...



> Easy. Because there were no cops in the TSBD clearing the employees to leave AT 12:33 PM (which is the approx. time LHO left the building). Hence, Holmes can't possibly be referring to the "Police Clearing The Employees At The Front Door" situation when referring to anything relating to OSWALD on 11/22.



Frazier said "Oswald" left 5 to 10 minutes after the shots...Craig said 10 minutes...Holmes was quite clear that Oswald was stopped on the 1st Floor in the Lobby...What Holmes did not realize was that, during the Sunday Interrogation, he had heard Oswald describe both stops...One by Baker in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room and one by an un-named cop in the Lobby shortly afterward...So not only is the Lunch Room Encounter real and important but so is the Lobby Encounter too...

Harvey did not leave through the front door...He tried to leave through the front door when he saw Lee blunder in to the east end of the Lobby from the front stairs...Harvey then panicked and tried to exit through the front door but was stopped by a cop and told to step aside...CIA Shelley saw what was happening and intervened, telling the cop Oswald was his charge as supervisor and was OK...Lee ducked in to the Utility Closet...Shelley then led Harvey out the Loading Dock and Lee went out the west side to the Knoll to make sure they didn't cross paths again...

[Donald Willis]

On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 2:41:11 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 3:37:10 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 12:19:00 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
>
> > > More of your silly "this must mean this figuring". Almost invariably, for any piece of evidence there
> > > are multiple possible explanations but you always gravitate towards the one that takes you
> > > where you want to go, ignoring all other possibilities.
> > You have learned Trump's major lesson well--never admit it even when you're dead wrong and you know it.
> Said the pot to the kettle.

You're applying that aphorism to the wrong person. I used to think that Oswald wasn't the depository shooter, remember? I later admitted that I thought that he must have been.

Now, I predict that you won't admit you're wrong re pot/kettle...

[John Corbett]

Why would I when I know I'm right?

[John Corbett]

On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 12:23:09 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:
> On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 6:58:01 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

> > The fact is the encounter took place in the 2nd floor lunchroom because there wasn't a
> > lunchroom on the 3rd of 4th floor.
>
> Faulty logic. Baker does not mention a lunchroom in his 11/22 affidavit. "I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around & came back toward me." Early on 11/22, then, Baker has the encounter taking place on the stairway. What happened? Perhaps Vickie Adams...
>

There were three people involved in the encounter and all three said it took place in the 2nd
floor lunchroom. But your silly figuring tells you it happened someplace else so you go with that.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 9:41:48 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?
>
> Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.
>
> "Told me about that...," Mr Truly or someone told me about it...." "Told me they met him...." "I Think he told me..." "person who told me about..." "I believe told me...." THis is called STUTTERING. Fritz did not USUALLY stutter.
>
> What do police look for when evaluating the truthfulness of a witness? Well, one of the things they look for is stuttering when that is not the person's usual speech pattern.
>
> "The indicators of lying include perspiration flow; flushing or paleness of the skin; pulse rate increase or decrease which is apparent from the appearance of visible veins in the head, neck, and throat; dry mouth and tongue; excessive swallowing; respiratory changes; muscle spasms; licking of the lips; thickened and blurred speech; *****stuttering****; darting eye movements; rigidity of the body; the 'playing' of the hands with each other; clenched fists; and cold, clammy sweat in the palms of the hands.
> https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/nonverbal-communications-interrogations
>
> Nowhere else in any testimony or interview is Fritz known to have stuttered. But on the question of the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter, he stuttered like Don Knotts in "The Shakiest Gun in the West".
>
> Fritz was lying his ass off.
>
> Mr. BALL. Did you question Oswald about that?
>
> Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the officer stopped him all right.
>
> And that was the truth. He was stopped by Truly and Det. Kaminski at the front door.
>
> As this document shows, they were stationed there to vet those leaving. Truly specifically had to verify to Kaminski that the person leaving was an employee.... thus his famous line "He's okay. He works here". SAID TO KAMINKI AT THE FRONT DOOR - NOT TO BAKER ON THE SECOND FLOOR IN SOME ALTERNATE UNIVERSE.
> www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=217812#relPageId=435 (go to the bottom and on to the next page)

So Roy Truly lied as well? He puts the encounter with the policeman on the second floor:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/truly1.htm
== quote ==
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.
== unquote ==

And the officer in question (Marrion Baker) lied as well? He puts the encounter with Oswald inside the building on the afternoon of the assassination:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
== quote ==
As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket.
== unquote ==

And James Bookhout of the FBI lied too, when he claimed in this memorandum for the record that Oswald admitted to this encounter with Truly and Baker in the lunchroom?
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm

Or is it your theory Oswald lied and Bookhout recorded that lie by Oswald?

It’s amazing how many people you have to accuse of lying to get the facts distorted into an account you prefer.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 8:27:52 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 4:02:53 PM UTC+11, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 9:41:48 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> > > Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?
> > >
> > > Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.
> > >
> > > "Told me about that...," Mr Truly or someone told me about it...." "Told me they met him...." "I Think he told me..." "person who told me about..." "I believe told me...." THis is called STUTTERING. Fritz did not USUALLY stutter.
> > >
> > > What do police look for when evaluating the truthfulness of a witness? Well, one of the things they look for is stuttering when that is not the person's usual speech pattern.
> > >
> > > "The indicators of lying include perspiration flow; flushing or paleness of the skin; pulse rate increase or decrease which is apparent from the appearance of visible veins in the head, neck, and throat; dry mouth and tongue; excessive swallowing; respiratory changes; muscle spasms; licking of the lips; thickened and blurred speech; *****stuttering****; darting eye movements; rigidity of the body; the 'playing' of the hands with each other; clenched fists; and cold, clammy sweat in the palms of the hands.
> > > https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/nonverbal-communications-interrogations
> > >
> > > Nowhere else in any testimony or interview is Fritz known to have stuttered. But on the question of the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter, he stuttered like Don Knotts in "The Shakiest Gun in the West".
> > >
> > > Fritz was lying his ass off.
> > >
> > > Mr. BALL. Did you question Oswald about that?
> > >
> > > Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the officer stopped him all right.
> > >
> > > And that was the truth. He was stopped by Truly and Det. Kaminski at the front door.
> > >
> > > As this document shows, they were stationed there to vet those leaving. Truly specifically had to verify to Kaminski that the person leaving was an employee.... thus his famous line "He's okay. He works here". SAID TO KAMINKI AT THE FRONT DOOR - NOT TO BAKER ON THE SECOND FLOOR IN SOME ALTERNATE UNIVERSE.
> > > www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=217812#relPageId=435 (go to the bottom and on to the next page)
> > >

> > > "as each office and floor was cleared, the employees were cleared by Kaminski and Mr Truly, manager of the firm, at the front door where there names, addresses and telephone numbers were written down, ***and they were identified by Mr. Truly as to their employment.*** "HE'S OKAY - HE WORKS HERE"
> > >
> > > Those names and addresses were later typed up. Whose name appears at the very top with the old Elsbeth address?
> > >
> > > Say it with me now... Lee Oswald
> > >
> > > Who had only one ID with an address on it to show Kaminski?
> > >
> > > Say it with me now... Lee Oswald
> > >
> > > What IID was that and what address did it show?
> > >
> > > Say it with me now.... his library card with the old Elsbeth address.
> > >
> > > And please please please quote me correctly and in context on your website. Thank you.

> > As Greg Parker has already said, he only believes his own arguments because he thinks Prayer Man is Oswald. Otherwise he would be a Nutter.
> > So every argument Parker makes presupposes Oswald's innocence. Oswald is not innocent because the 2nd floor encounter "didn't happen." The 2nd floor encounter didn't happen because Oswald is innocent. This is Parker Logic.
> When you do not know the facts, you are not entitled to just make them up as you have hear. The evidence precludes the 2nd floor encounter, not me.
> > To me it seems reasonable that Baker might have a confused memory of which floor it was on, not being familiar with the building
> Yep. There it is. That was the Nutter argument when I first raised this 20 years ago. It hasn't aged well.

Why not? He and Truly put the encounter inside the building. Bookhout put in a memorandum that Oswald admitted to the encounter in custody. Was Baker, Truly, and Bookhout all lying?


>
> Baker was not interested in floor plans. He wanted to get to the top of the building. I could get a 5 year old to find his or her way to the top of any building. Not hard. Stick to the stairs till you can't go any further. Not even Baker was that dumb. So that takes out the need to have Truly show him the way.

Nonsense. Truly testified one stairway went only to the second floor.
== quote ==
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this, Mr. Truly. I note on Exhibit 362 right where you came in there appears to be some stairs there. Why didn't you go up those stairs, instead of running to the back?
Mr. TRULY. Those stairs only reached to the second floor, and they wouldn't have any way of getting up to the top without going to the back stairway.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. TRULY. So this is the logical stairway that goes all the way to the seventh floor.
== unquote ==

Would Baker have known that?

CE362:
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0491b.htm


>
> His memory failure is another bullshit Nutter argument. Most office buildings of the era have the same type stairs. You go up some stairs, reach a landing, then go up another flight. That constitutes one floor. Not hard to do the math on which floor you were on and not hard to tell the difference between a landing and a lunchroom.

You thing Bakker would count every flight when attempting to reach a Presidential assassin on the roof? He wasn’t concerned about an armed assailant maybe being prepared to shoot first?


>
> Typical stairs of the era covering a single floor https://inspectapedia.com/Stairs/Stair-Landing-Dimensions.jpg
>
> He would have to have been from outer space to run up 4 flights of stairs and think that equaled the number of floors he covered.
> His actions are confirmed by Truly,
> Roy Sansom Truly? Cousin to Fred Korth's wife and the lawyer whose office Oswald attended to have his manuscript typed up? The Roy Sansom Truly who hired Oswald despite not needing him? That Roy Sansom Truly? The Roy Sansom Truly who official records show was stationed at the door confirming those leaving were employees? That Roy Sansom Truly? The Roy Sansom Truly who then reported Oswald as missing? That Roy Sansom Truly? The Roy Sansom Truly whose wife was a cousin to the founder of the Flying Tigers? That Roy Sansom Truly? The Roy Sansom Truly who was rewarded for his bullshit testimony with a grand tour of FBI Head Quarters? That Roy Sansom Truly?
> > and by Garner, for whom Parker requires Lumpkin to be in uniform, which he wasn't.

Along with Bookhout, who noted in a memorandum Oswald told the same story. That Bookhout.

So Fritz, Baker, Truly, and Bookhout (or Oswald) all lied about the encounter?



> The problems with Garner include that she never personally confirmed or signed off on what was written. There was at least one witness who said Truly never left the first floor. If she did not see Truly and Lumpkin going up, then the story is simply a fabrication by Garner or the person who wrote it. Let's face it, the bullshit story needed all the support it could coerce.
> Truly might not be a reliable witness, but there's no reason to think that he was in cahoots with Baker.
> Absolutely. Baker was kept away from EVERYONE until he got his head right on what happened.
> Truly must tell the truth because of Baker being present. But since Parker knows that the fuzzy old lady in the doorway is Oswald, he must call Baker a liar. Parker Logic demands it. It's hard to believe that Parker believes his own argument here. But he just wants to reopen the case, whatever that means. He doesn't want to prove the case, he just wants to tell the US government to have another go at it.
> Listen Fuckface McGee or whatever name you use these days... Parker has the guts to put his name to what he claims. He uses actual evidence to support his claims. Much of that evidence was either found by Parker, or by others following Parker's leads and generating their own further leads. You can claim all you want that I started with a conclusion, but my posting history shows otherwise. Making up bullshit that suits you, is your domain. You are doing it right now.
>
> How does it feel to know that even Brian Doyle has more guts than you by putting his real name to his posts?
> > The US government, apparently, is more trustworthy than the Dallas Police.
> You're the one claiming that the official US government version about Oswald's movements was correct, not me Fuckface.
>
> It is a different world now. They ["they" being either Texas officials or US Federal official] would not get away with a bullshit investigation on this subject again.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 4:29:24 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 3:49:54 PM UTC-4, Donald Willis wrote:
> > The Oswald interview was on 11/22. How could something written that day "clarify" something written in December?
> Good question. You'll have to excuse Bud, he doesn't deal in evidence, he deals in "reasoning". IOW, speculation not supported by facts.
>
> Here's the 12/23 note from Fritz to Chief Curry where Fritz says Baker said he encountered a man on the third or fourth floor "on the stairway" and Truly "identified him as one of the employees":
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29121#relPageId=2

And that is almost verbatim from Baker’s report of 11/22/63 saying essentially the same thing.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm

Where do you think Fritz got the information?

And, as Bud likes to say, you guys look at the wrong things, and look at them incorrectly.

What does it matter what Fritz said?

Anything he said about the encounter is hearsay. What matters is what the witnesses said, and that would be Roy Truly and Marrion Baker, both of whom put the encounter inside the building within minutes after the assassination. Not on the front steps, and not at 12:45.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 7:48:16 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 10:30:52 PM UTC+11, John Corbett wrote:
> > On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 8:41:01 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> > > On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 2:37:35 PM UTC+11, John Corbett wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 10:51:23 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

> > > > > On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 12:48:34 PM UTC+11, John Corbett wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 9:41:48 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> > > > > > > Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Told me about that...," Mr Truly or someone told me about it...." "Told me they met him...." "I Think he told me..." "person who told me about..." "I believe told me...." THis is called STUTTERING. Fritz did not USUALLY stutter.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What do police look for when evaluating the truthfulness of a witness? Well, one of the things they look for is stuttering when that is not the person's usual speech pattern.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "The indicators of lying include perspiration flow; flushing or paleness of the skin; pulse rate increase or decrease which is apparent from the appearance of visible veins in the head, neck, and throat; dry mouth and tongue; excessive swallowing; respiratory changes; muscle spasms; licking of the lips; thickened and blurred speech; *****stuttering****; darting eye movements; rigidity of the body; the 'playing' of the hands with each other; clenched fists; and cold, clammy sweat in the palms of the hands.
> > > > > > > https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/nonverbal-communications-interrogations
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nowhere else in any testimony or interview is Fritz known to have stuttered. But on the question of the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter, he stuttered like Don Knotts in "The Shakiest Gun in the West".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fritz was lying his ass off.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mr. BALL. Did you question Oswald about that?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the officer stopped him all right.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And that was the truth. He was stopped by Truly and Det. Kaminski at the front door.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As this document shows, they were stationed there to vet those leaving. Truly specifically had to verify to Kaminski that the person leaving was an employee.... thus his famous line "He's okay. He works here". SAID TO KAMINKI AT THE FRONT DOOR - NOT TO BAKER ON THE SECOND FLOOR IN SOME ALTERNATE UNIVERSE.
> > > > > > > www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=217812#relPageId=435 (go to the bottom and on to the next page)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "as each office and floor was cleared, the employees were cleared by Kaminski and Mr Truly, manager of the firm, at the front door where there names, addresses and telephone numbers were written down, ***and they were identified by Mr. Truly as to their employment.*** "HE'S OKAY - HE WORKS HERE"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Those names and addresses were later typed up. Whose name appears at the very top with the old Elsbeth address?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Say it with me now... Lee Oswald
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Who had only one ID with an address on it to show Kaminski?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Say it with me now... Lee Oswald
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What IID was that and what address did it show?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Say it with me now.... his library card with the old Elsbeth address.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And please please please quote me correctly and in context on your website. Thank you.

> > > > > > We're going on 60 years and this is the best you guys can come up with. Fritz stuttered. There's
> > > > > > the smoking gun for you.
> > > > > Well, there was a tad more than that to it.
> > > > >
> > > > > But even that on it's own is telling. As is your inability to do any better than pick out on thing and pretend that's all there is and it means nothing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Muthafuckahs bin fried on less evidence. It's police methodology, doncha know. The science of picking out liars. The science of following the evidence.
> > > > All the evidence points to Oswald and nobody else. Conspiracy hobbyists are on a snipe hunt and they are all going in different directions. We're supposed to believe they are following
> > > > evidence.
> > > I don't give a shit what anyone else is doing. Focus on what is happening in THIS thread. Focus on the evidence posted in THIS thread.
> > Your assumption that Fritz's stuttering is evidence he was lying is not evidence.
>
> Your analysis that I was assuming anything is wrong.
>
> What I said was very clear. But I will give you more detail since you're playing dumb. As with a polygraph, you need a baseline of someone's normal speech pattern before making any determination. If Fritz's testimony had instead been a police interview of him as a witness, his baseline speech patterns were well established prior to the stutter appearing. If this had been a police interview, the sudden appearance of the stutter would be taken as an indicator - not evidence - not proof - an indicator -that Fritz was lying regarding the subject he stuttered through. That would in turn, trigger the police to further investigate this particular incident (in the case, the alleged 2nd floor lunch encounter).

What stuttering?

Stuttering is typically denoted like this:
S-s-s-stutter-r-r-ring.

I see no evidence of stuttering in his testimony.

>
> > > > > Truly never left the 1st floor until it got past 12:45 - the end of the lunch break - the earliest opportunity to report a worker missing, since they cannot be MISSING on their own time.
> > > > You're just making shit up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do better or admit you are screwed 10 ways to Sunday.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tell me WHY the one instance of Fritz stuttering is meaningless.
> > > > People stutter for lots of reasons. Every person who stutters isn't lying.
> > > Okay. You're engaged. Good. Why do you think he stuttered in that particular part of his voluminous testimony and nowhere else?
>
> > Your question calls for speculation. I have no idea why he would stutter because the
> > possibilities are numerous. Maybe he was trying to remember something. Maybe he wanted to
> > make sure he didn't misspeak while under oath and was choosing his words carefully. As is
> > the custom of conspiracy hobbyists, you treat and unknown as an opportunity to fill in the blanks
> > to your liking.
>
> LOL. Speculating like crazy.
>

> Let me help you out of your pickle.
>
> Unlike you, Fritz obviously did not like to speculate, or stretch his powers of recall. In his first appearance alone before the commission, he said "I don't remember" 19 times. He had that option here, but instead, the thought that they might be sniffing around the truth made him panic into trying to stamp out a possible fire at his feet. His evident panic only succeeded in fanning the flames.
>
> > > Why do think police are trained to look for signs of lying including stuttering from a mnon-stutterer?
> > Having never taken police training, I have no idea if that is true or why it is taught if it is true.
>
> I provided a justice dept link showing it is true, Bozo.

Where did Fritz stutter? Show me the evidence!

>
> > We can all make judgements as to a person's truthfulness based on their demeanor but that
> > doesn't mean our judgements are accurate.
>
> It provides a sound basis for questioning a statement and investigating it further.
>

> > > > > Tell me how the Batchelor report is wrong.
> > > > First you need to tell me why it matters.
> > > Oh lawd. Anything to avoid addressing it. Okay. Got it. You know it matters and no way you are going to address it.
> > Yet you can't tell me why it matters. Seems we are at an impasse.
>

> Stevie Wonder could see why it matters. You know how it goes.... there are none so blind as those who will not see. And there you are... standing in the willful blindness corner....

>
> > > > > Tell me how Oswald confirmed the Truly-Kaminski details per Harry Holmes' report and testimony
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Tell me how the list typed up from the Truly-Kaminski effort has Oswald's name on it at the top - especially since he was supposedly long gone by the time they started - and it was typed before his correct address was known.
> > > > This is a classic example of a conspiracy hobbyist trying to prove his case my raising
> > > > questions. You don't prove anything by raising questions. You have to find the answers. You
> > > > can't just assume the answer you want to believe.
> > > The answers are self-explanatory when you view all of the evidence together. The question is only for you, as a denier of the evidence. But once again, you are going to do and say anything to avoid the answers.
> > The answer is I don't know the answer and neither do you. One of us is unwilling to assume
>

> You don't have any answer to the document showing Truly and Kaminski vetting people to leave. You don't know why it is important. You don't understand why a non-stutterer suddenly stuttering on one question only should be suspicious.

>
> But you DO believe the Dallas police wrapped up this case in 2 hours.
>

> ROFL
>
> > what the answers are. You're the other guy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tell me how Oswald's address was given by Truly as the Paine house in Irving, and as a rooming house by an unknown officer, yet this list has an old Elsbeth address - an address only listed in one place - his library card which is all he had on him with an address to show Kaminski. Do you see how each piece fits neatly in place? Do you understand that this is the way it all went down? Of course you do. You're not fucked up in the head like Brian.
> > > > What about this? What about this? Do you guys ever try to find the answers to the questions
> > > > your raise.
> >
> > > I already know the answers.
>
> > Because you think your assumptions are correct.
>
> What assumptions? You haven't pointed to any.
>
> It is a fact that Truly and Kaminski were stationed at the door.
>
> It is a fact that Kaminski was checking ID and taking contact details.
>
> It is a fact that Truly was advising him of the employment status of the person leaving.
>
> It is a fact that Holmes stated that Oswald had said he encountered Mr Truly and a cop at the front entrance. It is YOU who assumes either Holmes got it wrong or Oswald lied.
>

> It is a fact that Baker said he encountered someone on the 3rd or 4th floor. It is YOU who assumes he could not tell the difference between a landing and a lunchroom.

>
> Seems to me, I have stuck to facts and you have continually tried to dismiss those facts with YOUR assumptions.
>

> > > I am offering you the opportunity to provide alternative ones. Which you won't do. You will simply keep using your broad brush and pointy finger and disingenuous takes on what I said in order tto deflect and avoid.
>
> > I think it is a silly exercise to make assumptions without knowing the facts. You on the other
> > hand seem to have no problem doing that.
>
> And yet as I showed above, that is precisely what you have been doing throughout
>

> > > > > You're just fucked up ethically and morally.
> > > > >
> > > > At least I can figure out a slam dunk 60 year old murder case that the cops had solved in the
> > > > first 12 hours.
> >
> > > You mean "solved".
> > I thought that's what I wrote.
>
> Oh dear. Still playing dumb.
>

[Hank Sienzant]

> > > > > Truly never left the 1st floor until it got past 12:45 - the end of the lunch break - the earliest opportunity to report a worker missing, since they cannot be MISSING on their own time.
> > > > You're just making shit up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do better or admit you are screwed 10 ways to Sunday.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tell me WHY the one instance of Fritz stuttering is meaningless.
> > > > People stutter for lots of reasons. Every person who stutters isn't lying.
> > > Okay. You're engaged. Good. Why do you think he stuttered in that particular part of his voluminous testimony and nowhere else?
>
> > Your question calls for speculation. I have no idea why he would stutter because the
> > possibilities are numerous. Maybe he was trying to remember something. Maybe he wanted to
> > make sure he didn't misspeak while under oath and was choosing his words carefully. As is
> > the custom of conspiracy hobbyists, you treat and unknown as an opportunity to fill in the blanks
> > to your liking.
>
> LOL. Speculating like crazy.
>
> Let me help you out of your pickle.
>
> Unlike you, Fritz obviously did not like to speculate, or stretch his powers of recall. In his first appearance alone before the commission, he said "I don't remember" 19 times. He had that option here, but instead, the thought that they might be sniffing around the truth made him panic into trying to stamp out a possible fire at his feet. His evident panic only succeeded in fanning the flames.
>
> > > Why do think police are trained to look for signs of lying including stuttering from a mnon-stutterer?
> > Having never taken police training, I have no idea if that is true or why it is taught if it is true.
>
> I provided a justice dept link showing it is true, Bozo.
>

No, that’s incorrect. Holmes testified thusly:
== quote ==
Then he said when all this commotion started, "I just went on downstairs." And he didn't say whether he took the elevator or not. He said, "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about."
== unquote ==

There are four problems with your attempt to utilize Holmes statement here:
1. It is hearsay. Hearsay isn’t allowed in court except under certain limited conditions.
2. It isn’t a precise quote of what Oswald said - it’s clearly a paraphrase.
3. Holmes is testifying months later and this is a recollection of what Oswald said. But memory is malleable and is influenced by things you see and hear and read later.
3. The statement Holmes gave is imprecise in terms of where all this happened - you are assuming it happened at the front door, but Holmes didn’t say Oswald located it there, that’s solely your assumption.

Let’s look at this in detail:
“ He said, "I went down…”
— To where? From the sixth to the second would suffice, wouldn’t it?


“and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me…”
— This would fit the encounter as described by Baker and Truly, and in Bookhout’s memorandum for the record.


“… just before I got to the front door,”

— How long before is “just before”? Would the second floor suffice on a trip from the sixth floor?


“…and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building….”
— This would fit the encounter as described by Baker and Truly, and in Bookhout’s memorandum for the record. Except for “officers” - in the official story and your version, there is only one officer that Truly related those words to.


“…so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later.
— Except we both know Oswald didn’t step aside and wait for anyone to get to him. He left the building.


“…Then I just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about."
— This fits what we know Oswald did. He left.

> It is YOU who assumes either Holmes got it wrong or Oswald lied.

Of course Holmes got it wrong. No one recalls word-for-word a conversation from months earlier. Some — if not most — of that language has to be a reconstruction. You can’t rely on a reconstructed hearsay account as evidence of anything. But that’s precisely what you’re doing here.

>
> It is a fact that Baker said he encountered someone on the 3rd or 4th floor. It is YOU who assumes he could not tell the difference between a landing and a lunchroom.
>
> Seems to me, I have stuck to facts and you have continually tried to dismiss those facts with YOUR assumptions.
>

You ignore inconvenient facts as well.

For example, there’s also a little problem of putting him on a bus by 12:37 or so, and then taking a cab to his rooming house by “about one o’clock”. So explain how a bus transfer from McWatter’s bus wound up in Oswald’s possession, and how Oswald gotto the roominghouse by “about one o’clock”.

Was everyone there all lying or mistaken as well? Flesh this out for us. What happens after Oswald leaves the TSBD at 12:45orthereafter, and how is he identified by Bledsoe on a bus and by Roberts at the roominghouse? Why do multiple witnesses pick him out of lineups as the person they saw in the vicinity of the Tippit murder?

Let us know what you’ve come up with so far.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Will the two Anti-Conspiracists, Sienzant & Parker continue this discussion? Or will they quickly break it off, realizing that they are on the same side? Note well, Dear Lurker!

[Brian Doyle]

On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 9:41:48 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:



>
> As this document shows, they were stationed there to vet those leaving. Truly specifically had to verify to Kaminski that the person leaving was an employee.... thus his famous line "He's okay. He works here". SAID TO KAMINKI AT THE FRONT DOOR - NOT TO BAKER ON THE SECOND FLOOR IN SOME ALTERNATE UNIVERSE.
> www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=217812#relPageId=435 (go to the bottom and on to the next page)
>

Greg is a disinformation troll so he never mentions that it was Shelley who told the un-named cop at the door that Oswald was OK...

Greg also forgets to tell the reader that the cop then responded to Oswald to step aside...Truly said in his testimony that when he identified Oswald as an employee to Baker that Baker said nothing and just turned and ran up the stairs...So we have evidence for a second stop of Oswald in the Lobby...

Ham handed Greg fails to see the subtle detective nuances that Shelley had to assure the un-named cop that Harvey was OK because Harvey had panicked and tried to leave because Lee had stumbled in to the Lobby...Forensic Linguistics tell you that Shelley had to assure the cop not to take undue interest by using the words that Oswald was OK and worked there exactly because Harvey had attracted unwanted attention to himself by panicking and trying to leave when Lee stumbled in to the same location and threatened to spoil the plot...

Greg is so full of shit and so interested in peddling his bullshit disinformation that he also misses Truly protesting that he never said Oswald was OK...Truly did that because he actually never said it...It was "superintendent" Shelley and it was in the Lobby...

The rest is just the usual trolls bullying their way in to domination in the thread...Only they don't have their asshole moderators here...

[John Corbett]

On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 1:14:08 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

Come on, Hank. Don't you know all those witnesses were coerced into lying. As for the bus
transfer, obviously that was planted by the cops. They just happened to have a McWatters bus
transfer handy and MacDonald shoved it into Oswald's pocket while they were grappling for his
gun.

[Donald Willis]

I don't know where it took place. Just pointing out the flaws in the 2nd-floor version of the encounter. Another one is that Baker, in his last take on the subject, seemed to say that it occurred on the 1st floor (see "JFK First Day Evidence") The uncertainty re where Oswald was between, say, 12:20 & 12:40 led me to believe that Oswald had to have been a shooter, in order to keep him out of the public (or even private) eye. Neither the plotters nor Fritz liked uncertainty...

dcw

[Donald Willis]

Ta da! Prediction fulfilled. Not hard to predict John Robot's responses.

[Donald Willis]

Almost verbatim what Insp. Sawyer's witness re a man running out the back of the building about 12:33 reported.

> == unquote ==
>
> And James Bookhout of the FBI lied too, when he claimed in this memorandum for the record that Oswald admitted to this encounter with Truly and Baker in the lunchroom?
> https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm

Contradicting his earlier acquiescence in the Hosty-Bookhout report, which had Oswald simply fetching a soda from the 2nd floor, no encounter.

dcw