Oswald Leaving TSBD?

[Thomas Graves]

Baker claimed he was at the head of the stairs on the 2nd floor when he spotted Oswald through the window of the door opening into the vestibule. If the door had been "you know, closing and almost shut at that time" the first oddity is that Truly, well ahead of Baker, did not see a half shut door in the process of closing, or Lee Harvey Oswald going through the vestibule door prior to it automatically closing, as the vestibule is so small, LHO could not have been in there for more than a couple of seconds.

The second oddity is that a person standing at the head of the stairs, as Baker claimed to be when he got a glimpse of LHO, cannot see the lunch room door by looking through the window on the upper part of the vestibule door. The lunch room door would be to the left of his line of sight when viewed from the head of the stairs. However, if Baker took a couple of steps toward the vestibule door, his view of the lunch room door, be it open or closed, improves dramatically, allowing him to see LHO standing twenty feet into the lunchroom.

The question is not how LHO managed to get twenty feet into the lunch room, be it through an open or closed lunch room door, the question is how did LHO manage to CLOSE the lunch room door and THEN proceed twenty feet into the lunch room, without being seen closing the door OR dashing into the lunch room by Baker?

Remember, Baker has seen movement in the vestibule, is focused on that spot and is quickly closing in on it. He only has to cover a fraction of the distance LHO covers before he has a wide open view of the lunch room door and LHO. Why did he not see LHO closing the door and walking twenty feet into the lunch room?

Robert,

OK, I see what you're saying.

Good point.

--Tommy

Edited September 27, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Steve Mcdonagh]

Hi Bill

“Whether it happened or not, the second floor encounter was a narrative written for the Warren Commission by military historian Alfred Goldberg - that's a fact Jack. “

• This could very well be true and its food for thought but one question springs to mind. When was the first report of the lunchroom story aired?

BK: THE FIRST REPORT OF THE LUNCHROOM STORY WAS WHEN BAKER PUT IT IN HIS FIRST STATEMENT - SITTING AT A DESK JUST OUTSIDE CAPT FRITZ'S OFFICE, WHEN HE COULD HEAR FRITZ SAY 'WHY DID YOU KILL THE PRESIDENT' AND OSWALD RESPOND 'THAT'S REDICULOUS.' SOMETIME LATE FRIDAY AFTERNOON.

“Since 80% of the people don't believe Oswald killed JFK alone, and many site the Second Floor Lunchroom encounter as a reason, it has been effective in helping to exonerate Oswald.“

• Even though I believe the Grassy Knoll to be the reason many people believe there was a conspiracy I cannot fathom for the life of me why you would say it (the ‘second’ floor lunchroom encounter) is “effective in helping to exonerate Oswald”? Nothing has been effective in exonerating Oswald because he is not exonerated? The second floor lunchroom encounter merely places Oswald closer to the sixth floor, its basic math and no doubt if there was a lunchroom on the third floor they may have even gone for that one. Oh wait; didn’t Baker mention the third and fourth floors already?

BK: STEVE, WHILE MORE PEOPLE ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE Z-FILM, THOSE SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN THE ASSASSINATION HAVE READ HOWARD ROFFMAN'S BOOK "PRESUMED GUILTY" WHICH GOES INTO THIS IN DETAIL.

“And I thought "Prayer Man" was Buell Wesley Frazer until Gary Mack said he showed the photo of "Prayer Man" to Frazer and he couldn't identify himself standing on the top step.”

• Maybe Gary should have shown the picture Sean (and others) have included in this thread that clearly seems to show Frazier on the steps. If Frazier cannot even recognise himself in a picture how can he be so certain that the curtain rod bag was only about 24”?

BK: MAYBE BECAUSE IT ISN'T HIM.

“Whether Oswald is "Prayer Man" or not, he most certainly was somewhere on the first or second floor at the time of the assassination, and entered the second floor lunchroom via the office door and was seen by Baker as he walked past the closed lunchroom door that Oswald didn't go through.”

• Bill although many would disagree with you that “he most certainly was somewhere on the first or second floor at the time of the assassination” the second floor lunchroom encounter is by no means certain. If Oswald is Prayer Man then the second floor lunchroom encounter is hastily starting to look a little like Don King’s “slim”.

BK: WELL, OSWALD SAID HE WAS ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND SEAN HAS HIM ON THE FIRST FLOOR LANDING, AND TWO OR THREE OTHER WITNESS LAST SAW HIM ON THE FIRST FLOOR, ONLY THOSE WHO THINK HIM THE SIXTH FLOOR SNIPER KNOW WHERE HE IS FOR SURE.

“And though when asked, Sean said he thought the whole second floor lunchroom fiction was concocted by the FBI, I don't think so. They are following Goldberg's orders, so whether it happened or is fiction, the narrative of the story as published in the Warren Report was written by Goldberg, who is a living witness and can still be questioned about all this. “

• Once again if they are following his orders then how far back or should I say how soon after the assassination was Goldberg pulling the strings (in your opinion of course)?

BK: GOLDBERG IS CERTAINLY PULLING THE STRINGS ON SEPTEMBER 23, WHEN HE HAS THE FBI GET ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS FROM BAKER AND TRULY AND MAYBE RECOGNIZES THERE IS A PROBLEM

Bill I respect you and I like reading what you say, but it’s starting to seem like you have difficulty (like so many others) of embracing potentially new possibilities that do not support or lay within the parameters of your own personal views.

BK: I'M ONLY RESPONDING TO YOU BECAUSE I WANT TO SEE IF THERE IS ANY LITTLE THING IN THIS NICK AND CRANNY THAT ALTERS OUR PERCEPTION OF WHAT HAPPENED. I DO HAVE A PROBLEM EMBRACING POTENTIALLY NEW POSSIBILITIES THAT REJECT REALITY - SUCH AS THE SECOND FLOOR LUNCHROOM ENCOUNTER DIDN'T TAKE PLACE - BECAUSE OSWALD IS PRAYER MAN, WHEN OSWALD CAN BE PRAYER MAN AND THE SECOND FLOOR LUNCHROOM ENCOUNTER STILL TAKE PLACE AS DESCRIBED. MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS ARE OPEN TO PERSUASION AND I AWAIT YOU OR SEAN OR ANYONE TO PRESENT NEW AND POTENTIALLY GAME CHANGING INFORMATION THAT WILL ALTER NOT ONLY MY VIEW OF WHAT HAPPENED BUT RESOLVE THE CASE TO A LEGAL AND MORAL CERTAINTY.

This is probably the reason why the JFK case appears to have been at a gridlock for so many years and it is also likely the reason that barring some extraordinary new dense piece of evidence that through its own weight can break down the barricades of stubbornness, it is likely to stay that way until all the LN’s and CT’s have joined that big forum in the sky.

Regards - Steve

STEVE, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU AND RICHARD AND A FEW OTHERS ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LATEST RESEARCH IS AT THE ED FORUM, AND WHILE THAT IS TRUE IN SOME CASES - IT IS VERY FAR FROM TRUE IN OTHERS - AS THERE WILL BE A NUMBER OF NEW BOOKS WITH NEW INFORMATION THAT COULD BE GAME CHANGERS - INCLUDING BILL SIMPICH'S NEW BOOK TO BE AVAILABLE ON LINE TOMORROW - FRIDAY - BILL TURNER'S NEW BOOK ON THE CIA IN CUBA, JOHN NEWMAN'S BOOK ON THE CIA AT JMWAVE, TONY SUMMERS UPDATE ON HIS BOOK "NOT IN YOUR LIFETIME" THAT I SUSPECT HAS A NEW INTERVIEW WITH THE MAN ON THE MOTORCYCLE IN MEXICO CITY, AND JOAN MELLEN'S THIRD BOOK OF HER TRILOGY ON THE TEXAS MAFIA, AND I'M SURE THERE WILL BE OTHERS.

THE ONLY THING THAT WILL BREAK DOWN THE BARRICADES OF STUBBORNESS IS TO COME UP WITH REAL EVIDENCE - EVIDENCE AND NEW WITNESSES THAT CAN BE INTRODUCED IN TO COURT AT A GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS - AND THAT WILL GO BEYOND ANY SILLY INTERNET ARGUMENT BY LONE NUTTERS AND CONSPIRACY THEORISTS.

Bill

Thank you for your honest reply and for the heads up on the new books coming out.

Steve

[Steve Mcdonagh]

Hi Richard

“Bill feels that the traditional Lunch Room story accepted by both the WC and the Critical Community is strong enough to stand on its own to vindicate Lee Oswald.”

• Yes I get that part but obviously in official circles it doesn't otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Furthermore if it could or was ever likely to ‘stand on its own to vindicate Lee Oswald” we still wouldn’t be having this conversation.

“I think there is another option. We cannot exclude the possibility of Prayer Man/Oswald going up to the second floor after Truly and Baker had passed through the Lobby. And perhaps after Campbell had ascended the Lobby stairs to the 2nd floor (to vindicate the sighting by the storage closet). Getting Oswald from the 6th floor to the lunch room in time to see Baker is problematic. Getting Oswald from the front lobby to the 2nd floor is not”

• Whilst it is true that the second floor lunchroom encounter cannot be discounted it is also true that both lunchroom encounters cannot coexist. Therefore one or the other has to be in error or even an error that led to a fabrication?

“We know a group of employees went up to the 2nd floor offices right after the assassination. It is entirely possible LHO also decided to go. We have no evidence that precludes this possibility. Could he have made it all the way to the lunch room? Possibly.”

• There are many things that could have happened and some are indeed possible but by all accounts the Baker/Oswald (+Truly) encounter did not involve a group merely these three. So common sense dictates (just like common sense would dictate if someone is going to take the time to hide a gun they would also take the time pick up the shells) that the incident happened before a group ascended on the second floor otherwise there would have been many more accounts of the event.

“A simple sighting of Oswald on the 2nd floor would give strength to any lunch room story, whether it happened as advertised by the WC or was simply a last resort fabrication by the conspirators to get LHO as close to the NW stairs as possible.”

• And this is why I assume this encounter is important to the FBI/DPD but not for reasons of potentially exonerating Oswald but because they needed to put him closer to the sixth floor.

At the end of the day in my opinion there is one fundamental problem with the Baker sees Oswald on the second floor story and that is that Truly did not see him. Truly (according to reports) led this charge of the light brigade up the stairs but he didn’t see or hear anything that alerted his attention to the second floor lunchroom and the question is why?

Are we really to believe that he was fearlessly so far ahead of the gun toting Baker in search of the big bad guys that had just shot JFK that he didn’t see or hear anything when he passed the door thus allowing Oswald and opportunity to slip past the door but unfortunately for him just in time for Baker to see him? Then we have the body popping Oswald sitting, standing and leaning against the table, the counter and the coke machine.

I am sorry but it’s just too much of a pill to swallow. I think Sean is onto something when he says it likely happened on the first floor and the reason Truly didn’t see Oswald through any door before Baker was probably because he hadn’t caught up with Bakers 0-60 in 3.2 seconds dash to the front door vestibule yet. Maybe he should have worn his Nike’s?

Regards - Steve

Steve,

you appear to have inferred content in my post that was neither there, nor implied.

• At no point did I say a group of people entered the Lunch Room. That is an element you introduced.

• You also introduced "both lunchroom encounters" ?? I am aware of only one alleged encounter in the Lunch Room.

• Likewise your last two paragraphs also appear to be taking me to task for items that were not in my post. Were these directed at me?

Just to clarify, my original post had one main idea: Prayer Man/Oswald may have gone up to the second floor. If he did go up to the second floor, it is possible he may have been seen in the vicinity of the Lunch Room.

Hi Richard

Actually I am not taking you personally to task on any issue, so I am sorry if you perceived that from my response as it was not my intention. I was merely commenting that both encounters cannot coexist and it has to be one or the other.

Your comments did however seem to imply there was another option but actually it appears to be just another way of describing a possible second floor encounter which is fine if your hold sway to that event happening. As for the group of people going up the stairs shortly after the assassination and LHO potentially doing the same, well of course this is possible, but again it seems to be just another explanation of how Oswald gets to the second floor lunchroom encounter?

Don’t get me wrong I understand you want to explore all possibilities and I respect that (after all I have read all 60+ pages) but Sean is trying to lay the foundation for the second floor lunchroom encounter never happening at all and ironically with every anomaly you guys raise with the second floor encounter you are indirectly helping him to lay it.

I am no expert like some of you and I don’t pretend to be, but if the encounter did not take place on the second floor, then logically wouldn’t this explain why much of it doesn’t make sense? Bill makes a good point when he says “it would be physically impossible for Truly not to see Oswald if he was going through the lunchroom door” and I not only agree with this point but I believe it to be a perfect example that if you can’t make the second floor encounter work after fifty years then surely there is something fundamentally wrong with it? What if the second floor lunchroom encounter (SFLE) anomalies are in fact errors because there was no second floor lunchroom encounter?

As far as I know nearly every single piece of the JKF case has been argued a thousand times or more; but I have personally never heard anyone argue this point before.

Regards – Steve

PS: For what it’s worth Richard I think you have been doing a good job in this thread and have made some excellent points.

[Richard Hocking]

Hi Richard

“Bill feels that the traditional Lunch Room story accepted by both the WC and the Critical Community is strong enough to stand on its own to vindicate Lee Oswald.”

• Yes I get that part but obviously in official circles it doesn't otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Furthermore if it could or was ever likely to ‘stand on its own to vindicate Lee Oswald” we still wouldn’t be having this conversation.

“I think there is another option. We cannot exclude the possibility of Prayer Man/Oswald going up to the second floor after Truly and Baker had passed through the Lobby. And perhaps after Campbell had ascended the Lobby stairs to the 2nd floor (to vindicate the sighting by the storage closet). Getting Oswald from the 6th floor to the lunch room in time to see Baker is problematic. Getting Oswald from the front lobby to the 2nd floor is not”

• Whilst it is true that the second floor lunchroom encounter cannot be discounted it is also true that both lunchroom encounters cannot coexist. Therefore one or the other has to be in error or even an error that led to a fabrication?

“We know a group of employees went up to the 2nd floor offices right after the assassination. It is entirely possible LHO also decided to go. We have no evidence that precludes this possibility. Could he have made it all the way to the lunch room? Possibly.”

• There are many things that could have happened and some are indeed possible but by all accounts the Baker/Oswald (+Truly) encounter did not involve a group merely these three. So common sense dictates (just like common sense would dictate if someone is going to take the time to hide a gun they would also take the time pick up the shells) that the incident happened before a group ascended on the second floor otherwise there would have been many more accounts of the event.

“A simple sighting of Oswald on the 2nd floor would give strength to any lunch room story, whether it happened as advertised by the WC or was simply a last resort fabrication by the conspirators to get LHO as close to the NW stairs as possible.”

• And this is why I assume this encounter is important to the FBI/DPD but not for reasons of potentially exonerating Oswald but because they needed to put him closer to the sixth floor.

At the end of the day in my opinion there is one fundamental problem with the Baker sees Oswald on the second floor story and that is that Truly did not see him. Truly (according to reports) led this charge of the light brigade up the stairs but he didn’t see or hear anything that alerted his attention to the second floor lunchroom and the question is why?

Are we really to believe that he was fearlessly so far ahead of the gun toting Baker in search of the big bad guys that had just shot JFK that he didn’t see or hear anything when he passed the door thus allowing Oswald and opportunity to slip past the door but unfortunately for him just in time for Baker to see him? Then we have the body popping Oswald sitting, standing and leaning against the table, the counter and the coke machine.

I am sorry but it’s just too much of a pill to swallow. I think Sean is onto something when he says it likely happened on the first floor and the reason Truly didn’t see Oswald through any door before Baker was probably because he hadn’t caught up with Bakers 0-60 in 3.2 seconds dash to the front door vestibule yet. Maybe he should have worn his Nike’s?

Regards - Steve

Steve,

you appear to have inferred content in my post that was neither there, nor implied.

• At no point did I say a group of people entered the Lunch Room. That is an element you introduced.

• You also introduced "both lunchroom encounters" ?? I am aware of only one alleged encounter in the Lunch Room.

• Likewise your last two paragraphs also appear to be taking me to task for items that were not in my post. Were these directed at me?

Just to clarify, my original post had one main idea: Prayer Man/Oswald may have gone up to the second floor. If he did go up to the second floor, it is possible he may have been seen in the vicinity of the Lunch Room.

My replies in purple - RH

Hi Richard

Actually I am not taking you personally to task on any issue, so I am sorry if you perceived that from my response as it was not my intention. I was merely commenting that both encounters cannot coexist and it has to be one or the other.

I still do not know what you mean by "both encounters" ... ? RH

Your comments did however seem to imply there was another option but actually it appears to be just another way of describing a possible second floor encounter which is fine if your hold sway to that event happening. As for the group of people going up the stairs shortly after the assassination and LHO potentially doing the same, well of course this is possible, but again it seems to be just another explanation of how Oswald gets to the second floor lunchroom encounter?

I am not "endorsing" a 2nd floor encounter. I am saying that Oswald may have been seen on the 2nd floor (perhaps in the vicinity of the Lunch Room). There is a difference.

In piecing together Oswald's movements after the shooting, I don't think we should assume he never went to the 2nd floor. RH

Don’t get me wrong I understand you want to explore all possibilities and I respect that (after all I have read all 60+ pages) but Sean is trying to lay the foundation for the second floor lunchroom encounter never happening at all and ironically with every anomaly you guys raise with the second floor encounter you are indirectly helping him to lay it.

Exploring all the possibilities will hopefully lead to the most accurate explanation of what happened. As I have said several times in this thread, Sean is doing a remarkable job. For the most part, I believe he is spot on. There are however, a few points in his narrative where I think alternative possibilities exist. RH

I am no expert like some of you and I don’t pretend to be, but if the encounter did not take place on the second floor, then logically wouldn’t this explain why much of it doesn’t make sense? Bill makes a good point when he says “it would be physically impossible for Truly not to see Oswald if he was going through the lunchroom door” and I not only agree with this point but I believe it to be a perfect example that if you can’t make the second floor encounter work after fifty years then surely there is something fundamentally wrong with it? What if the second floor lunchroom encounter (SFLE) anomalies are in fact errors because there was no second floor lunchroom encounter?

As far as I know nearly every single piece of the JKF case has been argued a thousand times or more; but I have personally never heard anyone argue this point before.

The recent introduction of Prayer Man into the mix has stirred things up a bit. As I said in another thread, early researchers did an outstanding job, but they did not have this information on Prayer Man available to them. RH

Regards – Steve

PS: For what it’s worth Richard I think you have been doing a good job in this thread and have made some excellent points.

Thanks, Steve

[William Kelly]

And Sean, I'm really disappointed you won't go over and read the Oswald's Coke thread where Jean Davison and DVP document the origin of the September 23rd Statements Alfred Goldberg had the FBI obtain from Baker and Truly. You say your're not interested in the origin of the document that you keep referring to or the name of the guy who wrote the Second Floor narrative you say didn't happen?

I think we should call him and ask him about it.

BK

Bill, citing Goldberg as "the guy who wrote the Second Floor narrative" is just anachronistic. He's neither here nor there.

Sean, why is it "anachronistic"? How can the man responsible for writing the Warren Report narrative, the guy who can call the FBI up at the last minute and order them to reinterview Baker and Truly to make sure they got the story right - the document you repeatedly quote - how can this guy be neither here nor there. He's the guy who wrote the Second Floor lunchroom encounter story - the one you say didn't happen and is pure fiction - how come you're not interested in this military historian who was assigned to the Warren Commission for the sole purpose of getting the story straight?

BK: I think he's really important, and the fact that he's still living makes him even more significant. How come you don't have any questions for him?

And he's got a pal, a German named Winacker - or something like that, who is another ghost writer of the Warren Report narrative that you say is fiction.

I want to know more about these guys and find out what they did and learn why Goldberg had the FBI get the last minute statements from Baker and Truly...

Sean: Sorry, Bill, but this is thin gruel.

BK Notes "thin gruel" is watery soup, the kind you get in prison.

Sean: At best your argument establishes that Truly & Baker's testimony is strongly indicative that Oswald was coming from the corridor to Baker's right.

But it doesn't prove that scenario to the exclusion of all others.

It doesn't disprove the scenario I laid out, for instance.

It leaves Baker's first glimpse of Oswald ambiguous.

The thing can be--and has been--argued both ways.

And Roy Truly recognised that the incident exonerated Oswald?

He did no such thing.

Sean : "And Roy Truly recognized that the incident exonerated Oswald?

He did no such thing."

BK: Sean, when Baker opened the lunchroom door, pointed his pistol at Oswald he asked him "are you an employee?"

Truly then shows up behind Baker, hears the question, looks a Oswald, and later says that Oswald appeared perplexed but it is Truly who answers the question, "he works for me," and that was good enough for Baker - Oswald, because of his position in the lunchroom on the second floor, and his demeanor, was not considered a suspect by either man.

Why Truly would suddenly consider Oswald a suspect for being missing a few minutes later is a question that has yet to be answered.

And Truly testified he didn't know Baker saw Oswald through the closed door window until sometime after 11/22/63, but he certainly knew the significance of him not seeing Oswald walk through the door as he should have if Oswald went through the door, and David Belin asked, "What, weren't you paying attention?" or as other Warren Report appologists have suggested, perhaps he was looking at his feet. But the fact remains that when Truly opened that door at the top of the steps, he should have seen Oswald go through the lunchroom door if he in fact did so. And he didn't.

And Sean, I'm really disappointed you won't go over and read the Oswald's Coke thread where Jean Davison and DVP document the origin of the September 23rd Statements Alfred Goldberg had the FBI obtain from Baker and Truly. You say your're not interested in the origin of the document that you keep referring to or the name of the guy who wrote the Second Floor narrative you say didn't happen?

I think we should call him and ask him about it.

BK

Sean: Bill, citing Goldberg as "the guy who wrote the Second Floor narrative" is just anachronistic. He's neither here nor there.

BK: Sean, why is it "anachronistic"? How can the man responsible for writing the Warren Report narrative, the guy who can call the FBI up at the last minute and order them to reinterview Baker and Truly to make sure they got the story right - the document you repeatedly quote - how can this guy be neither here nor there. He's the guy who wrote the Second Floor lunchroom encounter story - the one you say didn't happen and is pure fiction - how come you're not interested in this military historian who was assigned to the Warren Commission for the sole purpose of getting the story straight?

I think he's really important, and the fact that he's still living makes him even more significant. How come you don't have any questions for him?

And he's got a pal, a German named Winacker - or something like that, who is another ghost writer of the Warren Report narrative that you say is fiction.

I want to know more about these guys and find out what they did and learn why Goldberg had the FBI get the last minute statements from Baker and Truly.

BK

Ah, yes, Rudolph Winnacker - Chief Historian - Office of Sec of Defense Nov. 1949 - June 1973

http://history.defense.gov/winnacker.shtml

And his mentor, Alfred Goldberg (Col. USAFR)

Chief Historian Oct 1973 - Nov 2007

http://www.history.defense.gov/goldberg.shtml

Co-Author of the Warren Report and the 2nd Floor Lunchroom Narrative

Also posted at http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/

Edited September 27, 2013 by William Kelly

[Thomas Graves]

Hi Richard

“Bill feels that the traditional Lunch Room story accepted by both the WC and the Critical Community is strong enough to stand on its own to vindicate Lee Oswald.”

• Yes I get that part but obviously in official circles it doesn't otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Furthermore if it could or was ever likely to ‘stand on its own to vindicate Lee Oswald” we still wouldn’t be having this conversation.

“I think there is another option. We cannot exclude the possibility of Prayer Man/Oswald going up to the second floor after Truly and Baker had passed through the Lobby. And perhaps after Campbell had ascended the Lobby stairs to the 2nd floor (to vindicate the sighting by the storage closet). Getting Oswald from the 6th floor to the lunch room in time to see Baker is problematic. Getting Oswald from the front lobby to the 2nd floor is not”

• Whilst it is true that the second floor lunchroom encounter cannot be discounted it is also true that both lunchroom encounters cannot coexist. Therefore one or the other has to be in error or even an error that led to a fabrication?

“We know a group of employees went up to the 2nd floor offices right after the assassination. It is entirely possible LHO also decided to go. We have no evidence that precludes this possibility. Could he have made it all the way to the lunch room? Possibly.”

• There are many things that could have happened and some are indeed possible but by all accounts the Baker/Oswald (+Truly) encounter did not involve a group merely these three. So common sense dictates (just like common sense would dictate if someone is going to take the time to hide a gun they would also take the time pick up the shells) that the incident happened before a group ascended on the second floor otherwise there would have been many more accounts of the event.

“A simple sighting of Oswald on the 2nd floor would give strength to any lunch room story, whether it happened as advertised by the WC or was simply a last resort fabrication by the conspirators to get LHO as close to the NW stairs as possible.”

• And this is why I assume this encounter is important to the FBI/DPD but not for reasons of potentially exonerating Oswald but because they needed to put him closer to the sixth floor.

At the end of the day in my opinion there is one fundamental problem with the Baker sees Oswald on the second floor story and that is that Truly did not see him. Truly (according to reports) led this charge of the light brigade up the stairs but he didn’t see or hear anything that alerted his attention to the second floor lunchroom and the question is why?

Are we really to believe that he was fearlessly so far ahead of the gun toting Baker in search of the big bad guys that had just shot JFK that he didn’t see or hear anything when he passed the door thus allowing Oswald and opportunity to slip past the door but unfortunately for him just in time for Baker to see him? Then we have the body popping Oswald sitting, standing and leaning against the table, the counter and the coke machine.

I am sorry but it’s just too much of a pill to swallow. I think Sean is onto something when he says it likely happened on the first floor and the reason Truly didn’t see Oswald through any door before Baker was probably because he hadn’t caught up with Bakers 0-60 in 3.2 seconds dash to the front door vestibule yet. Maybe he should have worn his Nike’s?

Regards - Steve

Steve,

you appear to have inferred content in my post that was neither there, nor implied.

• At no point did I say a group of people entered the Lunch Room. That is an element you introduced.

• You also introduced "both lunchroom encounters" ?? I am aware of only one alleged encounter in the Lunch Room.

• Likewise your last two paragraphs also appear to be taking me to task for items that were not in my post. Were these directed at me?

Just to clarify, my original post had one main idea: Prayer Man/Oswald may have gone up to the second floor. If he did go up to the second floor, it is possible he may have been seen in the vicinity of the Lunch Room.

[...]

...Sean is trying to lay the foundation for the second floor lunchroom encounter never happening at all...

[...]

Bill makes a good point when he says “it would be physically impossible for Truly not to see Oswald if he was going through the lunchroom door”

Steve,

Sean is also trying to show that the lunchroom encounter story, although fabricated, was sufficiently plausible for the task at hand, which was not to absolutely incriminate Oswald, but to place Oswald closer to the sniper's nest and, in the process, not exonerate him.

Given the situation, It would have been unreasonable for the fabricators to say,

"Baker suspected Oswald of killing JFK, but decided to let him go"

or

"Baker didn't suspect Oswald because he didn't notice that Oswald was breathing heavily, sweating profusely, and reeking of gunpowder"

or

"Baker was trying to arrest Oswald, but Oswald got away."

The facts are that Baker was escorted by Truly to the upper floors of the TSBD while Baker was trying to find the sniper who had shot at the President of the United States. Given the fact that Baker was the only policeman in the building at the time, it would have been unprofessional of him to arrest cool, calm, and collected TSBD employee Oswald for simply being in the lunch room (if indeed that's where he was). I mean, if Baker had arrested Oswald in the second floor lunchroom, I suppose he could have handcuffed him to a pipe or a chair or something, but Baker still would have had the upper floors to search.

Question: How many handcuffs did Baker have with him that day?

--Tommy

Edited September 27, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Pat Speer]

HE NEVER LOOKED THROUGH THAT WINDOW AND DIDN'T KNOW BAKER WAS THERE UNTIL BAKER WALKED OVER AND OPENED THE CLOSED DOOR AND POINTED HIS GUN AT OSWALD'S BELLY. BESIDES PROVIDING PROOF - AT LEAST FOR ME - THAT OSWALD DIDN'T GO THROUGH THAT DOOR - BAKER AND TRULY'S DESCRIPTION OF OSWALD'S DEMEANOR - COOL, CALM AND COLLECTED - ALSO INDICATE HE DIDN'T JUST BLOW SOMEBODY'S HEAD OPEN LESS THAN TWO MINUTES EARLIER - AS ANYONE WHO HAS KILLED SOMEONE AND RAN DOWN FOUR FLIGHTS OF STEPS WOULD BY HYPER, HEART PUMPING, BREATHING HEAVY, SWEATING, ETC. THE SECOND FLOOR ENCOUNTER EXONERATES OSWALD AS A SUSPECT, AS TRULY RECOGNIZED, AND GAVE OSWALD A PASS.

Proof - at least for me... X indicates not-Y...

Sorry, Bill, but this is thin gruel.

At best your argument establishes that Truly & Baker's testimony is strongly indicative that Oswald was coming from the corridor to Baker's right.

But it doesn't prove that scenario to the exclusion of all others.

It doesn't disprove the scenario I laid out, for instance.

It leaves Baker's first glimpse of Oswald ambiguous.

The thing can be--and has been--argued both ways.

And Roy Truly recognised that the incident exonerated Oswald?

He did no such thing.

Sean : "And Roy Truly recognized that the incident exonerated Oswald?

He did no such thing."

Sean, when Baker opened the lunchroom door, pointed his pistol at Oswald he asked him "are you an employee?"

Truly then shows up behind Baker, hears the question, looks a Oswald, and later says that Oswald appeared perplexed but it is Truly who answers the question, "he works for me," and that was good enough for Baker - Oswald, because of his position in the lunchroom on the second floor, and his demeanor, was not considered a suspect by either man.

Why Truly would suddenly consider Oswald a suspect for being missing a few minutes later is a question that has yet to be answered.

And Truly testified he didn't know Baker saw Oswald through the closed door window until sometime after 11/22/63, but he certainly knew the significance of him not seeing Oswald walk through the door as he should have if Oswald went through the door, and David Belin asked, "What, weren't you paying attention?" or as other Warren Report appologists have suggested, perhaps he was looking at his feet. But the fact remains that when Truly opened that door at the top of the steps, he should have seen Oswald go through the lunchroom door if he in fact did so. And he didn't.

And Sean, I'm really disappointed you won't go over and read the Oswald's Coke thread where Jean Davison and DVP document the origin of the September 23rd Statements Alfred Goldberg had the FBI obtain from Baker and Truly. You say your're not interested in the origin of the document that you keep referring to or the name of the guy who wrote the Second Floor narrative you say didn't happen?

I think we should call him and ask him about it.

BK

Bill, citing Goldberg as "the guy who wrote the Second Floor narrative" is just anachronistic. He's neither here nor there.

Sean, why is it "anachronistic"? How can the man responsible for writing the Warren Report narrative, the guy who can call the FBI up at the last minute and order them to reinterview Baker and Truly to make sure they got the story right - the document you repeatedly quote - how can this guy be neither here nor there. He's the guy who wrote the Second Floor lunchroom encounter story - the one you say didn't happen and is pure fiction - how come you're not interested in this military historian who was assigned to the Warren Commission for the sole purpose of getting the story straight?

I think he's really important, and the fact that he's still living makes him even more significant. How come you don't have any questions for him?

And he's got a pal, a German named Winacker - or something like that, who is another ghost writer of the Warren Report narrative that you say is fiction.

I want to know more about these guys and find out what they did and learn why Goldberg had the FBI get the last minute statements from Baker and Truly.

BK

Bill, if I remember it correctly, Goldberg was the main guy assigned to study the conspiracy theories already proliferating, and to address them in the report. The two books that come to mind were by Buchanan and Joesten. Was there something on the lunch room encounter (or lack of) in either of those two books? I don't remember.

It's also possible, now that I come to think of it, that he was trying to nail down the lunch room story in order to help shut down the "Oswald was in the Altgens photo" rumors widely reported in the press.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Pat Speer
Made an inaccurate claim about Alfred Goldberg

[William Kelly]

Hey Pat, I think you may be right about Goldberg writing the chapter on dispelling rumors, but are you sure he's the brother of the Supreme Court Justice? That makes me wonder if he is also related to the Dallas attorney LBJ called from AF1?

From the nature of the question asked, it seems like they were trying to dispel a rumor that there was someone else in the lunchroom at the time. Goldberg is credited as co-author of the Warren Report so he must have had more of a hand in writing more than just the rumors chapter.

And Winnacker was not a Nazi, as I suggested, but was OSS, as was the Supreme Court Justice Goldberg.

And Sean, I'm really disappointed you won't go over and read the Oswald's Coke thread where Jean Davison and DVP document the origin of the September 23rd Statements Alfred Goldberg had the FBI obtain from Baker and Truly. You say your're not interested in the origin of the document that you keep referring to or the name of the guy who wrote the Second Floor narrative you say didn't happen?

I think we should call him and ask him about it.

BK

Bill, citing Goldberg as "the guy who wrote the Second Floor narrative" is just anachronistic. He's neither here nor there.

Sean, why is it "anachronistic"? How can the man responsible for writing the Warren Report narrative, the guy who can call the FBI up at the last minute and order them to reinterview Baker and Truly to make sure they got the story right - the document you repeatedly quote - how can this guy be neither here nor there. He's the guy who wrote the Second Floor lunchroom encounter story - the one you say didn't happen and is pure fiction - how come you're not interested in this military historian who was assigned to the Warren Commission for the sole purpose of getting the story straight?

BK: I think he's really important, and the fact that he's still living makes him even more significant. How come you don't have any questions for him?

And he's got a pal, a German named Winacker - or something like that, who is another ghost writer of the Warren Report narrative that you say is fiction.

I want to know more about these guys and find out what they did and learn why Goldberg had the FBI get the last minute statements from Baker and Truly...

Sean: Sorry, Bill, but this is thin gruel.

BK Notes "thin gruel" is watery soup, the kind you get in prison.

Sean: At best your argument establishes that Truly & Baker's testimony is strongly indicative that Oswald was coming from the corridor to Baker's right.

But it doesn't prove that scenario to the exclusion of all others.

It doesn't disprove the scenario I laid out, for instance.

It leaves Baker's first glimpse of Oswald ambiguous.

The thing can be--and has been--argued both ways.

And Roy Truly recognised that the incident exonerated Oswald?

He did no such thing.

Sean : "And Roy Truly recognized that the incident exonerated Oswald?

He did no such thing."

BK: Sean, when Baker opened the lunchroom door, pointed his pistol at Oswald he asked him "are you an employee?"

Truly then shows up behind Baker, hears the question, looks a Oswald, and later says that Oswald appeared perplexed but it is Truly who answers the question, "he works for me," and that was good enough for Baker - Oswald, because of his position in the lunchroom on the second floor, and his demeanor, was not considered a suspect by either man.

Why Truly would suddenly consider Oswald a suspect for being missing a few minutes later is a question that has yet to be answered.

And Truly testified he didn't know Baker saw Oswald through the closed door window until sometime after 11/22/63, but he certainly knew the significance of him not seeing Oswald walk through the door as he should have if Oswald went through the door, and David Belin asked, "What, weren't you paying attention?" or as other Warren Report appologists have suggested, perhaps he was looking at his feet. But the fact remains that when Truly opened that door at the top of the steps, he should have seen Oswald go through the lunchroom door if he in fact did so. And he didn't.

And Sean, I'm really disappointed you won't go over and read the Oswald's Coke thread where Jean Davison and DVP document the origin of the September 23rd Statements Alfred Goldberg had the FBI obtain from Baker and Truly. You say your're not interested in the origin of the document that you keep referring to or the name of the guy who wrote the Second Floor narrative you say didn't happen?

I think we should call him and ask him about it.

BK

Sean: Bill, citing Goldberg as "the guy who wrote the Second Floor narrative" is just anachronistic. He's neither here nor there.

BK: Sean, why is it "anachronistic"? How can the man responsible for writing the Warren Report narrative, the guy who can call the FBI up at the last minute and order them to reinterview Baker and Truly to make sure they got the story right - the document you repeatedly quote - how can this guy be neither here nor there. He's the guy who wrote the Second Floor lunchroom encounter story - the one you say didn't happen and is pure fiction - how come you're not interested in this military historian who was assigned to the Warren Commission for the sole purpose of getting the story straight?

I think he's really important, and the fact that he's still living makes him even more significant. How come you don't have any questions for him?

And he's got a pal, a German named Winacker - or something like that, who is another ghost writer of the Warren Report narrative that you say is fiction.

I want to know more about these guys and find out what they did and learn why Goldberg had the FBI get the last minute statements from Baker and Truly.

BK

Ah, yes, Rudolph Winnacker - Chief Historian - Office of Sec of Defense Nov. 1949 - June 1973

http://history.defense.gov/winnacker.shtml

And his mentor, Alfred Goldberg (Col. USAFR)

Chief Historian Oct 1973 - Nov 2007

http://www.history.defense.gov/goldberg.shtml

Co-Author of the Warren Report and the 2nd Floor Lunchroom Narrative

Also posted at http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/

And Sean, I'm really disappointed you won't go over and read the Oswald's Coke thread where Jean Davison and DVP document the origin of the September 23rd Statements Alfred Goldberg had the FBI obtain from Baker and Truly. You say your're not interested in the origin of the document that you keep referring to or the name of the guy who wrote the Second Floor narrative you say didn't happen?

I think we should call him and ask him about it.

BK

Bill, citing Goldberg as "the guy who wrote the Second Floor narrative" is just anachronistic. He's neither here nor there.

Sean, why is it "anachronistic"? How can the man responsible for writing the Warren Report narrative, the guy who can call the FBI up at the last minute and order them to reinterview Baker and Truly to make sure they got the story right - the document you repeatedly quote - how can this guy be neither here nor there. He's the guy who wrote the Second Floor lunchroom encounter story - the one you say didn't happen and is pure fiction - how come you're not interested in this military historian who was assigned to the Warren Commission for the sole purpose of getting the story straight?

BK: I think he's really important, and the fact that he's still living makes him even more significant. How come you don't have any questions for him?

And he's got a pal, a German named Winacker - or something like that, who is another ghost writer of the Warren Report narrative that you say is fiction.

I want to know more about these guys and find out what they did and learn why Goldberg had the FBI get the last minute statements from Baker and Truly...

Sean: Sorry, Bill, but this is thin gruel.

BK Notes "thin gruel" is watery soup, the kind you get in prison.

Sean: At best your argument establishes that Truly & Baker's testimony is strongly indicative that Oswald was coming from the corridor to Baker's right.

But it doesn't prove that scenario to the exclusion of all others.

It doesn't disprove the scenario I laid out, for instance.

It leaves Baker's first glimpse of Oswald ambiguous.

The thing can be--and has been--argued both ways.

And Roy Truly recognised that the incident exonerated Oswald?

He did no such thing.

Sean : "And Roy Truly recognized that the incident exonerated Oswald?

He did no such thing."

BK: Sean, when Baker opened the lunchroom door, pointed his pistol at Oswald he asked him "are you an employee?"

Truly then shows up behind Baker, hears the question, looks a Oswald, and later says that Oswald appeared perplexed but it is Truly who answers the question, "he works for me," and that was good enough for Baker - Oswald, because of his position in the lunchroom on the second floor, and his demeanor, was not considered a suspect by either man.

Why Truly would suddenly consider Oswald a suspect for being missing a few minutes later is a question that has yet to be answered.

And Truly testified he didn't know Baker saw Oswald through the closed door window until sometime after 11/22/63, but he certainly knew the significance of him not seeing Oswald walk through the door as he should have if Oswald went through the door, and David Belin asked, "What, weren't you paying attention?" or as other Warren Report appologists have suggested, perhaps he was looking at his feet. But the fact remains that when Truly opened that door at the top of the steps, he should have seen Oswald go through the lunchroom door if he in fact did so. And he didn't.

And Sean, I'm really disappointed you won't go over and read the Oswald's Coke thread where Jean Davison and DVP document the origin of the September 23rd Statements Alfred Goldberg had the FBI obtain from Baker and Truly. You say your're not interested in the origin of the document that you keep referring to or the name of the guy who wrote the Second Floor narrative you say didn't happen?

I think we should call him and ask him about it.

BK

Sean: Bill, citing Goldberg as "the guy who wrote the Second Floor narrative" is just anachronistic. He's neither here nor there.

BK: Sean, why is it "anachronistic"? How can the man responsible for writing the Warren Report narrative, the guy who can call the FBI up at the last minute and order them to reinterview Baker and Truly to make sure they got the story right - the document you repeatedly quote - how can this guy be neither here nor there. He's the guy who wrote the Second Floor lunchroom encounter story - the one you say didn't happen and is pure fiction - how come you're not interested in this military historian who was assigned to the Warren Commission for the sole purpose of getting the story straight?

I think he's really important, and the fact that he's still living makes him even more significant. How come you don't have any questions for him?

And he's got a pal, a German named Winacker - or something like that, who is another ghost writer of the Warren Report narrative that you say is fiction.

I want to know more about these guys and find out what they did and learn why Goldberg had the FBI get the last minute statements from Baker and Truly.

BK

Ah, yes, Rudolph Winnacker - Chief Historian - Office of Sec of Defense Nov. 1949 - June 1973

http://history.defense.gov/winnacker.shtml

And his mentor, Alfred Goldberg (Col. USAFR)

Chief Historian Oct 1973 - Nov 2007

http://www.history.defense.gov/goldberg.shtml

Co-Author of the Warren Report and the 2nd Floor Lunchroom Narrative

Also posted at http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/

[Thomas Graves]

Hi Richard

“Bill feels that the traditional Lunch Room story accepted by both the WC and the Critical Community is strong enough to stand on its own to vindicate Lee Oswald.”

• Yes I get that part but obviously in official circles it doesn't otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Furthermore if it could or was ever likely to ‘stand on its own to vindicate Lee Oswald” we still wouldn’t be having this conversation.

“I think there is another option. We cannot exclude the possibility of Prayer Man/Oswald going up to the second floor after Truly and Baker had passed through the Lobby. And perhaps after Campbell had ascended the Lobby stairs to the 2nd floor (to vindicate the sighting by the storage closet). Getting Oswald from the 6th floor to the lunch room in time to see Baker is problematic. Getting Oswald from the front lobby to the 2nd floor is not”

• Whilst it is true that the second floor lunchroom encounter cannot be discounted it is also true that both lunchroom encounters cannot coexist. Therefore one or the other has to be in error or even an error that led to a fabrication?

“We know a group of employees went up to the 2nd floor offices right after the assassination. It is entirely possible LHO also decided to go. We have no evidence that precludes this possibility. Could he have made it all the way to the lunch room? Possibly.”

• There are many things that could have happened and some are indeed possible but by all accounts the Baker/Oswald (+Truly) encounter did not involve a group merely these three. So common sense dictates (just like common sense would dictate if someone is going to take the time to hide a gun they would also take the time pick up the shells) that the incident happened before a group ascended on the second floor otherwise there would have been many more accounts of the event.

“A simple sighting of Oswald on the 2nd floor would give strength to any lunch room story, whether it happened as advertised by the WC or was simply a last resort fabrication by the conspirators to get LHO as close to the NW stairs as possible.”

• And this is why I assume this encounter is important to the FBI/DPD but not for reasons of potentially exonerating Oswald but because they needed to put him closer to the sixth floor.

At the end of the day in my opinion there is one fundamental problem with the Baker sees Oswald on the second floor story and that is that Truly did not see him. Truly (according to reports) led this charge of the light brigade up the stairs but he didn’t see or hear anything that alerted his attention to the second floor lunchroom and the question is why?

Are we really to believe that he was fearlessly so far ahead of the gun toting Baker in search of the big bad guys that had just shot JFK that he didn’t see or hear anything when he passed the door thus allowing Oswald and opportunity to slip past the door but unfortunately for him just in time for Baker to see him? Then we have the body popping Oswald sitting, standing and leaning against the table, the counter and the coke machine.

I am sorry but it’s just too much of a pill to swallow. I think Sean is onto something when he says it likely happened on the first floor and the reason Truly didn’t see Oswald through any door before Baker was probably because he hadn’t caught up with Bakers 0-60 in 3.2 seconds dash to the front door vestibule yet. Maybe he should have worn his Nike’s?

Regards - Steve

Steve,

you appear to have inferred content in my post that was neither there, nor implied.

• At no point did I say a group of people entered the Lunch Room. That is an element you introduced.

• You also introduced "both lunchroom encounters" ?? I am aware of only one alleged encounter in the Lunch Room.

• Likewise your last two paragraphs also appear to be taking me to task for items that were not in my post. Were these directed at me?

Just to clarify, my original post had one main idea: Prayer Man/Oswald may have gone up to the second floor. If he did go up to the second floor, it is possible he may have been seen in the vicinity of the Lunch Room.

[...]

...Sean is trying to lay the foundation for the second floor lunchroom encounter never happening at all...

[...]

Bill makes a good point when he says “it would be physically impossible for Truly not to see Oswald if he was going through the lunchroom door”

Steve,

A fact that has to be taken into consideration when critiquing the Lunch Room Encounter Story is that, in the story, Baker obviously had to let Oswald get away.

Sean is trying to show that the lunch room encounter story, although flawed, was sufficiently plausible for the task at hand, which was to place Oswald significantly closer to the sniper's nest than the front steps, and to let him "get away" in a manner that was believable and therefore not bound to scandalize the Dallas Police Department.

Truly's telling Baker that Oswald was a TSBD employee didn't exactly exonerate Oswald, but it did lower his "suspect status" so that, given the urgency of the situation, Baker could let him go. This seemed to be a reasonable thing to do, especially since the alleged encounter puts Oswald a full six floors below the place where Baker thought the shots had come from, and because Oswald appeared to be cool, calm, and collected.

Although a Lunch Room Encounter Story was necessary in order to not only put Oswald reasonably close to the sniper's nest but also in a place that was a secluded part of the building where such a private encounter could realistically "happen", and although Baker had to let Oswald "get away," it would have been unrealistic for the fabricators to say,

"Baker encountered Oswald in the lunch room and strongly suspected him of killing JFK, but decided to let him go"

or

"Baker encountered Oswald in the lunch room but didn't suspect Oswald because he didn't notice that he was breathing heavily and sweating profusely."

or my favorite

"Baker encountered Oswald in the lunch room and was trying to arrest him, but Oswald got away."

The story they decided upon was much better than the ones above:

"Baker encountered Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room, which is not far from the north west stairs. Due to the fact that Oswald appeared normal and that Baker was told (by the accompanying) superintendent of the building that Oswald was an employee, Baker decided to let Oswald go so that Baker could continue on his way up to the roof to look for the sniper."

Given the circumstances, it would have been unprofessional of Baker to arrest a cool, calm, and collected male TSBD employee for simply being in the 2nd floor lunch room by himself at the time (if indeed that's where Oswald was). In the story, if Baker had arrested Oswald in the lunch room, I suppose he could have handcuffed him to a drain pipe or something, but Baker still had the roof to search.

In the story, Baker makes the rational decision to let Oswald go because Oswald is only a low-level suspect and because Baker has much more urgent things to do.

In short, The Lunch Room Encounter Story was very well done. It placed Oswald closer to the sniper's nest and let him get away, plausibly.

--Tommy

edited and bumped

Edited September 28, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Mark Knight]

Hi Richard

“Bill feels that the traditional Lunch Room story accepted by both the WC and the Critical Community is strong enough to stand on its own to vindicate Lee Oswald.”

• Yes I get that part but obviously in official circles it doesn't otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Furthermore if it could or was ever likely to ‘stand on its own to vindicate Lee Oswald” we still wouldn’t be having this conversation.

“I think there is another option. We cannot exclude the possibility of Prayer Man/Oswald going up to the second floor after Truly and Baker had passed through the Lobby. And perhaps after Campbell had ascended the Lobby stairs to the 2nd floor (to vindicate the sighting by the storage closet). Getting Oswald from the 6th floor to the lunch room in time to see Baker is problematic. Getting Oswald from the front lobby to the 2nd floor is not”

• Whilst it is true that the second floor lunchroom encounter cannot be discounted it is also true that both lunchroom encounters cannot coexist. Therefore one or the other has to be in error or even an error that led to a fabrication?

“We know a group of employees went up to the 2nd floor offices right after the assassination. It is entirely possible LHO also decided to go. We have no evidence that precludes this possibility. Could he have made it all the way to the lunch room? Possibly.”

• There are many things that could have happened and some are indeed possible but by all accounts the Baker/Oswald (+Truly) encounter did not involve a group merely these three. So common sense dictates (just like common sense would dictate if someone is going to take the time to hide a gun they would also take the time pick up the shells) that the incident happened before a group ascended on the second floor otherwise there would have been many more accounts of the event.

“A simple sighting of Oswald on the 2nd floor would give strength to any lunch room story, whether it happened as advertised by the WC or was simply a last resort fabrication by the conspirators to get LHO as close to the NW stairs as possible.”

• And this is why I assume this encounter is important to the FBI/DPD but not for reasons of potentially exonerating Oswald but because they needed to put him closer to the sixth floor.

At the end of the day in my opinion there is one fundamental problem with the Baker sees Oswald on the second floor story and that is that Truly did not see him. Truly (according to reports) led this charge of the light brigade up the stairs but he didn’t see or hear anything that alerted his attention to the second floor lunchroom and the question is why?

Are we really to believe that he was fearlessly so far ahead of the gun toting Baker in search of the big bad guys that had just shot JFK that he didn’t see or hear anything when he passed the door thus allowing Oswald and opportunity to slip past the door but unfortunately for him just in time for Baker to see him? Then we have the body popping Oswald sitting, standing and leaning against the table, the counter and the coke machine.

I am sorry but it’s just too much of a pill to swallow. I think Sean is onto something when he says it likely happened on the first floor and the reason Truly didn’t see Oswald through any door before Baker was probably because he hadn’t caught up with Bakers 0-60 in 3.2 seconds dash to the front door vestibule yet. Maybe he should have worn his Nike’s?

Regards - Steve

Steve,

you appear to have inferred content in my post that was neither there, nor implied.

• At no point did I say a group of people entered the Lunch Room. That is an element you introduced.

• You also introduced "both lunchroom encounters" ?? I am aware of only one alleged encounter in the Lunch Room.

• Likewise your last two paragraphs also appear to be taking me to task for items that were not in my post. Were these directed at me?

Just to clarify, my original post had one main idea: Prayer Man/Oswald may have gone up to the second floor. If he did go up to the second floor, it is possible he may have been seen in the vicinity of the Lunch Room.

[...]

...Sean is trying to lay the foundation for the second floor lunchroom encounter never happening at all...

[...]

Bill makes a good point when he says “it would be physically impossible for Truly not to see Oswald if he was going through the lunchroom door”

Steve,

Sean is trying to show that the lunch room encounter story, although fabricated and perhaps flawed, was sufficiently plausible for the task at hand, which was to place Oswald significantly closer to the sniper's nest than the front steps, and to let him "get away" in a believable manner.

Truly's (alleged) telling Baker that Oswald was a TSBD employee didn't exactly exonerate Oswald, but it did lower his "suspect status" to the point that it could be used as the reason for letting Oswald "get away", especially when taken in consideration with the fact that the (alleged) encounter took place six floors below the roof of the building (where Baker thought the shots had come from) and that Oswald (allegedly) appeared to be cool, calm, and collected.

A fact that has to be taken into consideration when critiquing the Lunch Room Encounter Story is that, in the story, Baker obviously had to let Oswald get away.

Although The Lunch Room Encounter had to take place (in order to put Oswald reasonably close to the sniper's nest and in a secluded part of the building where such a private encounter could realistically "happen"), and Baker had to let Oswald "get away," it would have been unrealistic for the fabricators to say,

"Baker encountered Oswald in the lunch room and strongly suspected him of killing JFK, but decided to let him go"

or

"Baker encountered Oswald in the lunch room but didn't suspect Oswald because he didn't notice that he was breathing heavily and sweating profusely."

or my favorite

"Baker encountered Oswald in the lunch room and was trying to arrest him, but Oswald got away."

The story they ended up with was much better than the ones above:

"Baker encountered Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room, which is not far from the north west stairs. Due to the fact that Oswald appeared normal and that Baker was told (by the accompanying) superintendent of the building that Oswald was an employee, Baker decided to let Oswald go. Baker continued on his way up to the roof to look for the sniper."

Given the circumstances, it would have been unprofessional of Baker to arrest a cool, calm, and collected male TSBD employee for simply being in the 2nd floor lunch room by himself at the time (if indeed that's where Oswald was). In the story, if Baker had arrested Oswald in the lunch room, I suppose he could have handcuffed him to a pipe or something, but Baker still had the roof to search.

In the story, Baker makes the rational decision to let Oswald go because Oswald is only a low-level suspect and because Baker has much more urgent things to do.

The Lunch Room Encounter Story was very well done. It placed Oswald closer to the sniper's nest and let him get away, plausibly.

--Tommy

edited and bumped

I like your reasoning, Tommy.

[Thomas Graves]

Hi Richard

“Bill feels that the traditional Lunch Room story accepted by both the WC and the Critical Community is strong enough to stand on its own to vindicate Lee Oswald.”

• Yes I get that part but obviously in official circles it doesn't otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Furthermore if it could or was ever likely to ‘stand on its own to vindicate Lee Oswald” we still wouldn’t be having this conversation.

“I think there is another option. We cannot exclude the possibility of Prayer Man/Oswald going up to the second floor after Truly and Baker had passed through the Lobby. And perhaps after Campbell had ascended the Lobby stairs to the 2nd floor (to vindicate the sighting by the storage closet). Getting Oswald from the 6th floor to the lunch room in time to see Baker is problematic. Getting Oswald from the front lobby to the 2nd floor is not”

• Whilst it is true that the second floor lunchroom encounter cannot be discounted it is also true that both lunchroom encounters cannot coexist. Therefore one or the other has to be in error or even an error that led to a fabrication?

“We know a group of employees went up to the 2nd floor offices right after the assassination. It is entirely possible LHO also decided to go. We have no evidence that precludes this possibility. Could he have made it all the way to the lunch room? Possibly.”

• There are many things that could have happened and some are indeed possible but by all accounts the Baker/Oswald (+Truly) encounter did not involve a group merely these three. So common sense dictates (just like common sense would dictate if someone is going to take the time to hide a gun they would also take the time pick up the shells) that the incident happened before a group ascended on the second floor otherwise there would have been many more accounts of the event.

“A simple sighting of Oswald on the 2nd floor would give strength to any lunch room story, whether it happened as advertised by the WC or was simply a last resort fabrication by the conspirators to get LHO as close to the NW stairs as possible.”

• And this is why I assume this encounter is important to the FBI/DPD but not for reasons of potentially exonerating Oswald but because they needed to put him closer to the sixth floor.

At the end of the day in my opinion there is one fundamental problem with the Baker sees Oswald on the second floor story and that is that Truly did not see him. Truly (according to reports) led this charge of the light brigade up the stairs but he didn’t see or hear anything that alerted his attention to the second floor lunchroom and the question is why?

Are we really to believe that he was fearlessly so far ahead of the gun toting Baker in search of the big bad guys that had just shot JFK that he didn’t see or hear anything when he passed the door thus allowing Oswald and opportunity to slip past the door but unfortunately for him just in time for Baker to see him? Then we have the body popping Oswald sitting, standing and leaning against the table, the counter and the coke machine.

I am sorry but it’s just too much of a pill to swallow. I think Sean is onto something when he says it likely happened on the first floor and the reason Truly didn’t see Oswald through any door before Baker was probably because he hadn’t caught up with Bakers 0-60 in 3.2 seconds dash to the front door vestibule yet. Maybe he should have worn his Nike’s?

Regards - Steve

Steve,

you appear to have inferred content in my post that was neither there, nor implied.

• At no point did I say a group of people entered the Lunch Room. That is an element you introduced.

• You also introduced "both lunchroom encounters" ?? I am aware of only one alleged encounter in the Lunch Room.

• Likewise your last two paragraphs also appear to be taking me to task for items that were not in my post. Were these directed at me?

Just to clarify, my original post had one main idea: Prayer Man/Oswald may have gone up to the second floor. If he did go up to the second floor, it is possible he may have been seen in the vicinity of the Lunch Room.

[...]

...Sean is trying to lay the foundation for the second floor lunchroom encounter never happening at all...

[...]

Bill makes a good point when he says “it would be physically impossible for Truly not to see Oswald if he was going through the lunchroom door”

Steve,

A fact that has to be taken into consideration when critiquing the Lunch Room Encounter Story is that, in the story, Baker obviously had to let Oswald get away.

Sean is trying to show that the lunch room encounter story, although flawed, was sufficiently plausible for the task at hand, which was to place Oswald significantly closer to the sniper's nest than the front steps, and to let him "get away" in a manner that was believable and therefore not bound to scandalize the Dallas Police Department.

Truly's telling Baker that Oswald was a TSBD employee didn't exactly exonerate Oswald, but it did lower his "suspect status" so that, given the urgency of the situation, Baker could let him go. This seemed to be a reasonable thing to do, especially since the alleged encounter puts Oswald a full six floors below the place where Baker thought the shots had come from, and because Oswald appeared to be cool, calm, and collected.

Although a Lunch Room Encounter Story was necessary in order to not only put Oswald reasonably close to the sniper's nest but also in a place that was a secluded part of the building where such a private encounter could realistically "happen", and although Baker had to let Oswald "get away," it would have been unrealistic for the fabricators to say,

"Baker encountered Oswald in the lunch room and strongly suspected him of killing JFK, but decided to let him go"

or

"Baker encountered Oswald in the lunch room but didn't suspect Oswald because he didn't notice that he was breathing heavily and sweating profusely."

or my favorite

"Baker encountered Oswald in the lunch room and was trying to arrest him, but Oswald got away."

The story they decided upon was much better than the ones above:

"Baker encountered Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room, which is not far from the north west stairs. Due to the fact that Oswald appeared normal and that Baker was told (by the accompanying) superintendent of the building that Oswald was an employee, Baker decided to let Oswald go so that Baker could continue up to the roof to look for the sniper."

In the story, given the circumstances, it would have been unprofessional of Baker to arrest a cool, calm, and collected TSBD employee for simply being in the 2nd floor lunch room by himself at the time (if indeed that's where Oswald was). In the story, if Baker had arrested Oswald in the lunch room, I suppose he could have handcuffed him to a drain pipe or something, but Baker still had the roof to search. In the story, Baker makes the rational decision to let Oswald go because he is only a low-level suspect and because Baker has much more urgent things to do.

In short, The Lunch Room Encounter Story was very well done. It placed Oswald closer to the sniper's nest and let him get away, plausibly.

--Tommy

[deleted]

Rewritten to make it a little more intelligible. P.S. Thanks for the compliment, Mark Knight!

Edited September 28, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

Sean,

I wonder why Shelley would lie about being on the "island?"

Was it just a faulty memory?

--Tommy

He and Lovelady are just at the 'island'.

In a second or two they will turn around and notice Baker and Truly at the TSBD front entrance.

Sean,

OK.

In his WC testimony, Shelley said that they ran out "on" (onto?) the island, but in the clip it appears that he and Lovelady are walking down the middle of Elm Street Extension, towards the railway yard / parking lot.

At the very end of the clip, it looks like Lovelady starts running in that direction, leaving Shelley behind.

Thanks,

--Tommy

Edit:

I watched it frame-by-frame as my old computer was downloading the clip at a slowish wi-fi "hot spot," and I noticed that when the sun shines briefly on him a couple of times, one can see that the shorter, "Lovelady" figure has a white collar. Which leads me to believe that this isn't Lovelady after all.

Tommy,

Can you post the frame (or frames) where you believe you detect a white collar?

There are numerous white artifacts that flash on the clip in the vicinity of Lovelady and the man next to him, and also on the TSBD in the background. That would explain why the white spot only appears "briefly on him". I believe that is probably what you are seeing.

Richard,

I accept your explanation and I am now convinced that the two men in the red circle are Shelley and Lovelady. Thank you.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I'd like to point out that in this clip, Shelly and Lovelady are walking down the Elm Street Extension towards the rail road tracks, not towards the "island" at the intersection of Elm and Houston that Shelley testified they went to. Please compare both of the versions of the clip in this post with the still photograph viewable at the bottom of the page at warsh.livejournal.com/3649523.html and note how S & L pass behind a car that's parked on the Elm Street Extension and that they also pass behind the traffic light pole that's on the "island."

Near the end of the clip with the red circle, Lovelady starts running down the street towards the rail way yard / parking lot, and I think Shelley starts running, too.

--Tommy

Edited September 28, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Robert Prudhomme]

Good eye, Tommy. Yes they are walking in the middle of the street.

A closer look at Shelley's testimony backs this up.

"Mr. BALL - You went to the concrete between the two Elm Streets?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, where they split.
Mr. BALL - You went out there and then what did you do?
Mr. SHELLEY - Well, officers started running down to the railroad yards and Billy and I walked down that way.
Mr. BALL - How did you get down that way; what course did you take?
Mr. SHELLEY - We walked down the middle of the little street.
Mr. BALL - The dead-end street?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes."

[Robert Prudhomme]

However, in his affidavit of 22/11/63, he makes no mention of going to the railroad yard.

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/13/1339-001.gif

In his affidavit, he runs across the street to the corner of the park, hears the news about JFK from Gloria Calvery, goes back inside the TSBD, phones his wife and then stands guard at the elevators; staying there until he accompanies the police to the upper floors and leaves Jack Dougherty in charge of the elevators.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme

[Thomas Graves]

However, in his affidavit of 22/11/63, he makes no mention of going to the railroad yard.

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/13/1339-001.gif

In his affidavit, he runs across the street to the corner of the park, hears the news about JFK from Gloria Calvery, goes back inside the TSBD, phones his wife and then stands guard at the elevators; staying there until he accompanies the police to the upper floors and leaves Jack Dougherty in charge of the elevators.

Exactly, Robert.

That's why I asked several pages ago why William Shelley had lied or had had such a serious memory lapse (in his affidavit).

We know that later on, Billy Lovelady was caught on the John Martin and the Robert Hughes films while smoking a cigarette in the crowd on the TSBD steps, and that even later he was also caught on film while sitting in a chair, watching Oswald being brought into an office at the police station. We know that some time after the assassination William Shelley got into a police car with Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce, because that's on film, too.

But where did Shelley and Lovelady go and what did they do after they walked and ran down the Elm Street Extension towards the railway yard, as is shown in the Malcolm Couch clip?

Did they not go all the way to the railway yard, but hang a right at the corner of the TSBD, and then hang another right and go to the rear of the building and enter it?

Why did Shelley say in his affidavit that they went to the "island," saw Baker run into the TSBD from out there, got the bad news from Gloria Calvery out there, etc?

What bothers me is that in his affidavit, Shelley talks about interacting with the mysterious Jack Dougherty.

Did he really leave Dougherty in charge of the elevators?

--Tommy

Edited September 28, 2013 by Thomas Graves