• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

185 posts in this topic

Bart, to quote, another Bart,  "Can't wait".  (this is a quote from Bart Scott, then a member New York Jets football team, remarking about the next football game he was going to play in.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Conflicting reports...........sulking around the first floor.
Corpus Christi Times November 28, 1963.
 
The update to the essay will take another 3-4 weeks, there are quite a few bits and overall every chapter has had some sort of amendment. There will be about 25-30 pages extra.

corpus10.jpg

Edited by Bart Kamp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Something for conspiracy theorists to ponder....

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).
 

[Later....]

 

GREG PARKER SAID:

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 in 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. LOL.gif

David Von Pein
July 12-27, 2015

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP,

Photo-analysis of the Baker run proves beyond doubt that Baker was not running to the TSBD entrance. He was simply running across the street in the crosswalk.

He would enter the TSBD some 3 minutes later, as testified to by Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady.

Officer Marrion Baker's mad dash for the.... Dal-Tex building?

The lie that was the 2nd-floor encounter is thus exposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IN APRIL 2016....

SANDY LARSEN SAID:

[Marrion] Baker had no intention of running into the TSBD when he began his mad dash, and didn't enter till later. As you will see, this is yet one more nail in the coffin of the Baker-Oswald second-floor lunchroom encounter myth.

The key to following the path taken by Baker is to follow his footsteps. As obvious as that sounds, it has surprisingly never been done. At least not seriously.

[...]

Marrion Baker was not headed for the TSBD. Not to go inside. No way.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The utter desperation of conspiracy theorists is astounding, as Sandy Larsen's ludicrous claim regarding Police Officer Marrion L. Baker in this forum thread clearly demonstrates.

Sandy thinks Baker told one lie after another FOR DECADES ON END after the assassination.

Now, all Sandy needs to do is to logically and reasonably tell us Why Marrion Baker would want to tell a bunch of lies about his movements on November 22, 1963.

Was he paid very handsomely for lying so much, Sandy? Or did the FBI threaten Baker's life if he didn't go along with the "LN" story?

Here's the proof that Sandy Larsen is dead wrong:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-rcjDGNFEH_eGtobmZGdmthcW8/view

 

SANDY LARSEN SAID:

David, have you no eyes to see? The photographic evidence is irrefutable. Unless, of course, you believe the Darnell video has been altered.

I believe Marrion Baker initially told the truth, and after that was convinced by powerful people to be a Patriot and protect the nation from America's "enemies." And thus his lies -- as hard as they were for him to keep straight -- were justified.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, for Pete sake. Get real, Sandy. The Darnell film doesn't come close to providing "irrefutable" evidence that Baker bypassed the Book Depository and was headed for the Dal-Tex Building instead. The film clip stops short of showing Baker actually reaching the Depository's front steps. So your "irrefutable" evidence is nothing but pure speculation and amateur photographic (film) interpretation on your part.

I, on the other hand, have Marrion Baker's own words and testimony, which make it clear that he immediately ran into the Book Depository after the shooting. And Baker's own signed affidavit, which he filled out on the day of the assassination itself, also bears out the fact that he went straight to the Depository after jumping off of his police motorcycle:

"I decided the shots had come from the building on the northwest corner of Elm and Houston. This building is used by the Board of Education for book storage. I jumped off my motor and ran inside the building." -- Marrion L. Baker; November 22, 1963

Lots more:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1123.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2017 at 8:25 PM, David Von Pein said:

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Something for conspiracy theorists to ponder....

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).
 

[Later....]

 

GREG PARKER SAID:

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 in 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. LOL.gif

David Von Pein
July 12-27, 2015

 

Issue one

Your description regarding the content for us to ponder on is dead wrong from the word get go!

Baker gave the descr. of the man he encountered on the 3rd or 4th floor! That's the one who matches Brennan......

I think this page already explains all this in very great detail with all evidence quoted/ref.

 

Here's a challenge:

Read my essay, and nail it to the cross!

 

Refute that Truly was full of it when he said he was ahead of Baker, when two newspaper interviews clearly state he was behind him!

But then came the Secret Service and took his statement that very same week and guess what happened next.....and no word of being ahead of Baker at any time before that!!!

Refute that Baker can't keep his story straight for one second!

Refute that Reid did not lie her sorry arse off, with Hine being inside the office clearly stating that between 12:25-12:35 no one was in that office and the first person that came in was a cop! Add on Sarah Stanton who said in her statement that she went back to the second floor office IMMEDIATELY as well. I mean WTF. That's besides Oswald wearing a tshirt!

Refute that Truly spoke to Brennan!

Refute Peggy Joyce Hawkins who saw the policeman (Baker) standing in front of the steps. No storming up those stairs is there???? Carolyn Walther is to be doubted since she is giving three different accounts of Baker's dash.

Refute Frazier and Molina who stood on the landing in Darnell and did not see Baker go in!

Refute all the newspaper articles with quotes from TSBD staff and lawmen that point to a first floor alteration instead.

See Truly only gave his affidavit later that day as he was at the TSBD "running things", and when our deep conservative bigoted TSBD superintendent  found out that his star employee ("I wish I had 5 Oswalds") had defected and lived in Russia for three years, and was accused of shooting a cop shortly after leaving, he dumped him and more or less said "what do you need from me? you got it".

Fritz spoke with Truly in the Bookstore (is this the room were bookings are done, or is it an actual book store?) I reckon the former, but have not seen any confirmation of any shape as of yet), one wonders what was discussed there. Not much good on Lee though, that's for sure. 

I can go on till the cows come home DVP, this matter has bypassed you and taken you over again leaving you a full lap behind, seriously this whole thing has moved on big time!

Read the essay, oh and there's a 30 odd page update in a few weeks so get ready and refute that torrent of evidence.

:)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

Refute Frazier and Molina who stood on the landing in Darnell and did not see Baker go in!

Bart, I just wanted to ask for clarification, is the implication there that Baker didn't enter the TSBD whilst they were on the landing? Inasmuch as because Frazier and Molina did not see Baker go in then Baker did not go in (at that time)...

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

Issue one

Your description regarding the content for us to ponder on is dead wrong from the word get go!

Baker gave the descr. of the man he encountered on the 3rd or 4th floor! That's the one who matches Brennan......

I think this page already explains all this in very great detail with all evidence quoted/ref.

[...]

Hasn't it already been established that Brennan couldn't have accurately guessed how tall the man in the window was, due to the sharp angle Brennan was viewing the sixth floor window from?

Hasn't it already been shown that the description of the suspect Officer Sawyer broadcast over police radio AND the description given by Brennan strangely matched the biometrics of false defector Robert E. Webster, whose measurements were grafted onto Oswald's way back in 1960 by FBI agent Fain (and forwarded to CIA which incorporated said LHO description into it's computerized records in an apparent Pavlov's Mole hunt)?

Does the name Bill Bright ring a bell?

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alistair, they were storming up the stairs, Truly caught up with him.......such bollox.

Yes Molina and Frazier completely contradict that, besides Hawkins and Truly's chat w Brennan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bart Kamp said:

Alistair, they were storming up the stairs, Truly caught up with him.......such bollox.

Yes Molina and Frazier completely contradict that, besides Hawkins and Truly's chat w Brennan.

Cheers for the response, Bart, much appreciated. And again kudos to you for your 'Anatomy of the second floor lunch room' it is a great read.

I just don't quite fully understand the part about Frazier and Molina not seeing Baker enter meaning that Baker didn't enter (whilst they were still on the steps)... I know that both testified that they did not see a(ny) police officer go in. But Frazier also testified that by the time he re-entered the building there was a lot of police officers (and so forth) all over the Building there. (Granted there is some ambiguity about 'over the building there', but Frazier also mentions 'we stared back into the building'.

Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody after that come into the Building while you were there?
Mr. FRAZIER - You mean somebody other that didn't work there?
Mr. BALL - A police officer.
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I stood there a few minutes, you know, and some people who worked there; you know normally started to go back into the Building because a lot of us didn't eat our lunch, and so we stared back into the Building and it wasn't but just a few minutes that there were a lot of police officers and so forth all over the Building there.
Mr. BALL - Then you went back into the Building, did you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

When I read that it makes it sound like by the time Frazier re-entered the building there was a number of 'police officers' already in the building, and yet Frazier didn't see any of them go in... (perhaps they all went in through another entrance)...

The immediate next part of his testimony,

Mr. BALL - And before you went back into the Building no police officer came up the steps and into the building?
Mr. FRAZIER - Not that I know. They could walk by the way and I was standing there talking to somebody else and didn't see it.

backs up the thought that he didn't see any police officers going up the steps in to the building at all. But he backs it up by saying that it could have happened, he just didn't see it.

As for Molina, well he too didn't see any police officers enter the building either, but he does testify to seeing Truly enter the building 20-30's after the shots.

Mr. BALL. Did you see Mr. Truly go into the building?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where were you when you saw him go into the building?
Mr. MOLINA. I was right in the entrance.
Mr. BALL. Did you see a police officer with him?
Mr. MOLINA. I didn't see a police officer. I don't recall seeing a police officer but I did see him go inside.
Mr. BALL. Did you see a white-helmeted police officer any time there in the entrance?
Mr. MOLINA. Well, of course, there might have been one after they secured the building, you know.
Mr. BALL. No, I mean when Truly went in; did you see Truly actually go into the building?
Mr. MOLINA. I saw him go in.
Mr. BALL. Where were you standing?
Mr. MOLINA. Right at the front door; right at the front door.
Mr. BALL. Outside the front door?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes, outside the front door I was standing; the door was right behind me.
Mr. BALL. Were you standing on the steps?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes, on the uppermost step.
Mr. BALL. You actually saw Truly go
Mr. MOLINA. Yeah.
Mr. BALL. You were still standing there?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes.
Mr. BALL. How long was it after you heard the shots?
Mr. MOLINA. Oh, I would venture to say maybe 20 or 30 seconds afterwards.

(NB: there is a little bit therein that could explain why Molina (and by inference Frazier) did not/could not see Baker enter (if indeed Baker entered at that time) ;) )

With Frazier readily admitting that it could have happened he just didn't see it, and Molina putting Truly entering the building 20-30 seconds after the steps, I don't feel that both of them not seeing Baker enter can be used as evidence that Baker did not enter...

Put it this way,

The statement: Frazier and Molina did not see Baker enter at the time and therefore Baker did not enter at that time. on face value it seems like a sound statement (after all the expectation is that they must have seen it seen as they were so close to it), but I can think of a (relatively) simple way that Baker could have entered at that time and both Frazier and Molina wouldn't have seen him - they were looking the opposite way.

Regards

P.S. no biggy though to be honest, I reckon though that the 2nd floor encounter could still have been an 'addition' even if Baker did enter the building after 30 seconds.

P.P.S just on the part in your 'Anatomy of the second floor encounter' piece about Adams, in later years, refuting seeing Shelley and Lovelady and the accusation that the WC inserted that part into her testimony... I've yet to see the evidence for it being 'that part' inserted and I am very interested in seeing it... I don't doubt it could have been inserted, but if it was, whoever did insert it has been astonglishly clever with by not only adding mention of it twice but also having Adams correct the use of a word. To me that points away from it being an 'addition'...

Again though, no biggy, I'm just curious on a couple of things. And as I said earlier your work is great.

Peace :)

 

In

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

Refute that Truly was full of it when he said he was ahead of Baker, when two newspaper interviews clearly state he was behind him!

[...]

Refute that Baker can't keep his story straight for one second!

Refute that Reid did not lie her sorry arse off, with Hine being inside the office clearly stating that between 12:25-12:35 no one was in that office and the first person that came in was a cop!

[...]

Refute that Truly spoke to Brennan!

[...snipping remainder of fantasy-filled nonsense...]

[...]

I can go on till the cows come home DVP, this matter has bypassed you and taken you over again leaving you a full lap behind, seriously this whole thing has moved on big time!

Read the essay, oh and there's a 30 odd page update in a few weeks[,] so get ready and refute that torrent of evidence.

I know I shouldn't be the least bit surprised anymore when I see Internet conspiracy fantasists travelling to the ends of the Earth digging up things to try and justify their bizarre beliefs (like their super-nutty fantasy about the second-floor Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter never occurring at all), but the level of denial about certain things relating to President Kennedy's assassination that exists within some quarters of the "JFK Conspiracy Community" on the World Wide Web has just about reached levels of unparallelled proportions in the last few years (IMO). And, frankly, it's just plain crazy.

~~~~~~~~~~~

“If the whole Baker/Truly "encounter" was nothing but a lie in the first place, then why in hell didn't the Twins Of Deception (Baker and Truly) make their lie a much better one by saying they had encountered Oswald on the SIXTH FLOOR? For Pete sake, even Oswald HIMSELF confirmed the second-floor encounter (Warren Report; Pages 600 and 619). But I guess both Fritz and Bookhout were liars too, huh?” -- DVP; December 25, 2015

~~~~~~~~~~~

Lots more CTer craziness here:

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

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1080.html

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Level of denial huh? Pot....kettle.

Ah yes Bookhout and Fritz, filthy liars indeed.

Read the essay, you will be reborn and leave the dark side David ;)

 

Edited by Bart Kamp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, David, I'm so, so glad you think the government got it all right.  I mean, how could they not; they are, after all, the government, the same government where the assistant attorney general, instead of writing a memo saying to the likes of "We're going to dig and keep on digging until we get to the bottom of this," he writes a memo saying that all leads to conspiracy are to be swept under the rug, to be stifled, and to lead to conclusions - before the real investigation is to even begin - that no conspiracy is to be discovered or investigated further.

I mean, wow - that's pretty much the marching papers of the all-seeing and all-knowing government to its agents and investigators.  That is definitely going to be an honest, vigorous pursuit of the truth as to what happened.  And I'm so glad you agree with that.

You mentioned Howard Brennan above, the government's star witness who just so happened to look up within the six-second time frame of the shooting, and after a single ex-Marine had pulled off one of the most remarkable shooting feats in world history, a feat that not even several expert marksmen under controlled conditions could pull off, and he looks up to see this same expert shooter holding 80% of the gun out the window to pull off this feat.  I mean, really?  This same shooter would have had to be leaning out the window himself to have gotten a decent look through the scope. 

But the all-seeing and all-knowing government got it right - yep, that's what happened. And I'm so glad that you believe it al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Cheers for the response, Bart, much appreciated. And again kudos to you for your 'Anatomy of the second floor lunch room' it is a great read.

I just don't quite fully understand the part about Frazier and Molina not seeing Baker enter meaning that Baker didn't enter (whilst they were still on the steps)... I know that both testified that they did not see a(ny) police officer go in. But Frazier also testified that by the time he re-entered the building there was a lot of police officers (and so forth) all over the Building there. (Granted there is some ambiguity about 'over the building there', but Frazier also mentions 'we stared back into the building'.

The official story has Baker storming up the stairs and Truly catching up with him just before or just after going inside.

Frazier stood there and he must have seen this, hell he would have felt it more than likely. 

Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody after that come into the Building while you were there?
Mr. FRAZIER - You mean somebody other that didn't work there?
Mr. BALL - A police officer.
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I stood there a few minutes, you know, and some people who worked there; you know normally started to go back into the Building because a lot of us didn't eat our lunch, and so we stared back into the Building and it wasn't but just a few minutes that there were a lot of police officers and so forth all over the Building there.
Mr. BALL - Then you went back into the Building, did you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

When I read that it makes it sound like by the time Frazier re-entered the building there was a number of 'police officers' already in the building, and yet Frazier didn't see any of them go in... (perhaps they all went in through another entrance)...

I disagree, it is meant as subsequently after going in.

The immediate next part of his testimony,

Mr. BALL - And before you went back into the Building no police officer came up the steps and into the building?
Mr. FRAZIER - Not that I know. They could walk by the way and I was standing there talking to somebody else and didn't see it.

backs up the thought that he didn't see any police officers going up the steps in to the building at all. But he backs it up by saying that it could have happened, he just didn't see it. I disagree as I already explained above. Anything can be derived from that, but never under estimate the pressure Frazier was under.

As for Molina, well he too didn't see any police officers enter the building either, but he does testify to seeing Truly enter the building 20-30's after the shots.

Mr. BALL. Did you see Mr. Truly go into the building?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where were you when you saw him go into the building?
Mr. MOLINA. I was right in the entrance.
Mr. BALL. Did you see a police officer with him?
Mr. MOLINA. I didn't see a police officer. I don't recall seeing a police officer but I did see him go inside.
Mr. BALL. Did you see a white-helmeted police officer any time there in the entrance?
Mr. MOLINA. Well, of course, there might have been one after they secured the building, you know.
Mr. BALL. No, I mean when Truly went in; did you see Truly actually go into the building?
Mr. MOLINA. I saw him go in.
Mr. BALL. Where were you standing?
Mr. MOLINA. Right at the front door; right at the front door.
Mr. BALL. Outside the front door?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes, outside the front door I was standing; the door was right behind me.
Mr. BALL. Were you standing on the steps?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes, on the uppermost step.
Mr. BALL. You actually saw Truly go
Mr. MOLINA. Yeah.
Mr. BALL. You were still standing there?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes.
Mr. BALL. How long was it after you heard the shots?
Mr. MOLINA. Oh, I would venture to say maybe 20 or 30 seconds afterwards.

That is correct, in his HSCA interview he said that Truly went back in as well, although does not attach a time to it.

Still makes no difference since Baker is not noticed going in as fast as Truly. That is the official line. And how does Truly going in rhyme with him admitting talking to Brennan? So even if Truly did go in, he did go out again.......coz Baker was outside sealing the front entrance.

(NB: there is a little bit therein that could explain why Molina (and by inference Frazier) did not/could not see Baker enter (if indeed Baker entered at that time) ;) )

With Frazier readily admitting that it could have happened he just didn't see it, and Molina putting Truly entering the building 20-30 seconds after the steps, I don't feel that both of them not seeing Baker enter can be used as evidence that Baker did not enter...

Put it this way,

The statement: Frazier and Molina did not see Baker enter at the time and therefore Baker did not enter at that time. on face value it seems like a sound statement (after all the expectation is that they must have seen it seen as they were so close to it), but I can think of a (relatively) simple way that Baker could have entered at that time and both Frazier and Molina wouldn't have seen him - they were looking the opposite way.

Regards

P.S. no biggy though to be honest, I reckon though that the 2nd floor encounter could still have been an 'addition' even if Baker did enter the building after 30 seconds.

P.P.S just on the part in your 'Anatomy of the second floor encounter' piece about Adams, in later years, refuting seeing Shelley and Lovelady and the accusation that the WC inserted that part into her testimony... I've yet to see the evidence for it being 'that part' inserted and I am very interested in seeing it... I don't doubt it could have been inserted, but if it was, whoever did insert it has been astonglishly clever with by not only adding mention of it twice but also having Adams correct the use of a word. To me that points away from it being an 'addition'...

Read The Girl On The Stairs

Again though, no biggy, I'm just curious on a couple of things. And as I said earlier your work is great.

Peace :)

 

In

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now