Who saw Baker enter the TSBD?

[Robert Prudhomme]

This forum amazes me sometimes. I look on the front page and see how many threads on the most trivial and inconsequential topics seem to perpetuate unending discussion, yet a thread about one of the key elements of the cover up is ignored.

I really wonder sometimes just how many of our members are here solely to direct discussion away from anything key to the assassination, by flooding the forum with "fill".

[Thomas Graves]

This forum amazes me sometimes. I look on the front page and see how many threads on the most trivial and inconsequential topics seem to perpetuate unending discussion, yet a thread about one of the key elements of the cover up is ignored.

I really wonder sometimes just how many of our members are here solely to direct discussion away from anything key to the assassination, by flooding the forum with "fill".

Yes, Robert.

It's a conspiracy.

Now, for my answer to your question:

Nobody saw Marion Baker run into the TSBD, except those liars Billy Lovelady and William Shelley.

Nobody!

And Darnell / Couch stopped filming too soon, darn it.

--Tommy

Edited April 11, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Terry Martin]

This forum amazes me sometimes. I look on the front page and see how many threads on the most trivial and inconsequential topics seem to perpetuate unending discussion, yet a thread about one of the key elements of the cover up is ignored.

I really wonder sometimes just how many of our members are here solely to direct discussion away from anything key to the assassination, by flooding the forum with "fill".

Robert,

I see the same thing, regrettably, but it seems to be the way people are. They each have their pet theories and push them whatever forum they're on. Many cannot seem to try and understand any part of the assassination without weaving it around their own special subject.

Even subjects I thought had been laid to rest decades ago (DoorMan, the SBT, the Second Floor Encounter, and so on) are still being debated alongside the question about how many shots were fired or which agency was most involved in the cover-up or what influence the Mafia had leveraged.

As someone else has pointed out, most of the discussion seems to center on the cover-up(s) rather than the assassination. Some want to build the conspiracy so large it includes RFJ, MLK, Lincoln and the debacle at the Little Big Horn. Trying to separate out the assassination from the cover-up is extremely difficult, it seems, and so the pet theories - or "fill" as you called it - flood the forums.

Unfortunately, I doubt if it can be stopped as it is the theorizing that seems to be the really interesting part of this community. Rather than worry about the direction others are taking, I concentrate on the threads that are meaningful to me. Yes, I'm just like everything else.

I just ignore the fillers. There is an assassination I would like to see solved.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Yes, we see Baker running up to the steps in the Darnell film, just before the camera pans away. Coincidentally, the same thing happens in the Couch film, though I would not go so far as to say there was alteration to these films to remove whatever it is that Baker does next.

Baker's testimony has always struck me as suspicious, right from the moment he claims he hears the first shot. Not only is he riding a barely muffled Harley-Davidson motorcycle 180-200 feet from the TSBD, he is wearing a helmet with flaps protruding over his ears, and is able to clearly hear a rifle shot that seems to have little audible effect on bystanders seen in this famous photo, almost 4 seconds after this shot was fired and almost directly under the source of the shot:

Baker's main inspiration for entering the TSBD is, as he tells the WC, a flock of pigeons he saw lift up from the roof of the TSBD. So, without stopping to see if anyone is hurt by these shots, or if there are any further developments that may require him to stay in position, Baker gets this split second brain wave to tear up to the top of the TSBD and look for...what? This is almost as good as the magical clairvoyant experience Roy Truly had. He only had to glance at Officer Baker and he just KNEW that Baker wanted to go to the roof of the TSBD.

Sorry, this whole thing stinks to high Heaven, and it is only made worse when the only witnesses who will support Baker's entering the front of the TSBD are Shelley and Lovelady. Both of these men are plainly lying in their WC testimony, if their first day affidavits are to be believed.

Randy, what if Baker ran right by the TSBD front steps, made the corner onto Houston St., investigated something he saw from his position further back on Houston St. and entered the back of the TSBD much later than he claimed, and only then met Truly and made his way up the stairs? It is not a matter of IF Truly and Baker went up the TSBD stairs, it is a matter of WHEN they went up the stairs. All of the first day reports of what he did and said could still hold true, outside of the fabricated 2nd floor lunch room encounter with Oswald.

I know some will say, "Why didn't he park his motorcycle right at the corner then?" Another equally valid question might be, "If he was heading for the front steps, why didn't he park his motorcycle right at the steps, instead of 45 west of the steps on the Elm St. extension?"

Comparing witnesses who do not recall seeing PM with witnesses who do not recall seeing Baker is a bit paradoxical, I should think. On one hand, I can understand witnesses being intimidated into not recalling PM but, on the other hand, wouldn't the conspirators WANT the witnesses to recall seeing Baker entering the front of the TSBD? Surely, they would want all the corroboration they could get of Baker entering the front of the TSBD, wouldn't they?

I fail to see how the topic of this thread is not relevant. Baker's testimony is the only thing implicating Oswald being on an upper floor of the TSBD (or even in the building) at the time of the shooting,

P.S.

My hunting experience would tell me the pigeons flew up off of the roof due to a shot from an adjacent building. If the pigeons were on the roof, and shots were fired from a window two storeys down, they might not even hear the shots.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Thomas Graves]

Yes, we see Baker running up to the steps in the Darnell film, just before the camera pans away. Coincidentally, the same thing happens in the Couch film, though I would not go so far as to say there was alteration to these films to remove whatever it is that Baker does next.

Baker's testimony has always struck me as suspicious, right from the moment he claims he hears the first shot. Not only is he riding a barely muffled Harley-Davidson motorcycle 180-200 feet from the TSBD, he is wearing a helmet with flaps protruding over his ears, and is able to clearly hear a rifle shot that seems to have little audible effect on bystanders seen in this famous photo, almost 4 seconds after this shot was fired and almost directly under the source of the shot:

Baker's main inspiration for entering the TSBD is, as he tells the WC, a flock of pigeons he saw lift up from the roof of the TSBD. So, without stopping to see if anyone is hurt by these shots, or if there are any further developments that may require him to stay in position, Baker gets this split second brain wave to tear up to the top of the TSBD and look for...what? This is almost as good as the magical clairvoyant experience Roy Truly had. He only had to glance at Officer Baker and he just KNEW that Baker wanted to go to the roof of the TSBD.

Sorry, this whole thing stinks to high Heaven, and it is only made worse when the only witnesses who will support Baker's entering the front of the TSBD are Shelley and Lovelady. Both of these men are plainly lying in their WC testimony, if their first day affidavits are to be believed.

Randy, what if Baker ran right by the TSBD front steps, made the corner onto Houston St., investigated something he saw from his position further back on Houston St. and entered the back of the TSBD much later than he claimed, and only then met Truly and made his way up the stairs? It is not a matter of IF Truly and Baker went up the TSBD stairs, it is a matter of WHEN they went up the stairs. All of the first day reports of what he did and said could still hold true, outside of the fabricated 2nd floor lunch room encounter with Oswald.

I know some will say, "Why didn't he park his motorcycle right at the corner then?" Another equally valid question might be, "If he was heading for the front steps, why didn't he park his motorcycle right at the steps, instead of 45 west of the steps on the Elm St. extension?"

Comparing witnesses who do not recall seeing PM with witnesses who do not recall seeing Baker is a bit paradoxical, I should think. On one hand, I can understand witnesses being intimidated into not recalling PM but, on the other hand, wouldn't the conspirators WANT the witnesses to recall seeing Baker entering the front of the TSBD? Surely, they would want all the corroboration they could get of Baker entering the front of the TSBD, wouldn't they?

I fail to see how the topic of this thread is not relevant. Baker's testimony is the only thing implicating Oswald being on an upper floor of the TSBD (or even in the building) at the time of the shooting,

P.S.

My hunting experience would tell me the pigeons flew up off of the roof due to a shot from an adjacent building. If the pigeons were on the roof, and shots were fired from a window two storeys down, they might not even hear the shots.

Devil's Advocate: But they still would have felt the shot's shock wave in dem widdle feets.

--Tommy

Edited April 12, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Robert Prudhomme]

This forum amazes me sometimes. I look on the front page and see how many threads on the most trivial and inconsequential topics seem to perpetuate unending discussion, yet a thread about one of the key elements of the cover up is ignored.

I really wonder sometimes just how many of our members are here solely to direct discussion away from anything key to the assassination, by flooding the forum with "fill".

Robert,

I see the same thing, regrettably, but it seems to be the way people are. They each have their pet theories and push them whatever forum they're on. Many cannot seem to try and understand any part of the assassination without weaving it around their own special subject.

Even subjects I thought had been laid to rest decades ago (DoorMan, the SBT, the Second Floor Encounter, and so on) are still being debated alongside the question about how many shots were fired or which agency was most involved in the cover-up or what influence the Mafia had leveraged.

As someone else has pointed out, most of the discussion seems to center on the cover-up(s) rather than the assassination. Some want to build the conspiracy so large it includes RFJ, MLK, Lincoln and the debacle at the Little Big Horn. Trying to separate out the assassination from the cover-up is extremely difficult, it seems, and so the pet theories - or "fill" as you called it - flood the forums.

Unfortunately, I doubt if it can be stopped as it is the theorizing that seems to be the really interesting part of this community. Rather than worry about the direction others are taking, I concentrate on the threads that are meaningful to me. Yes, I'm just like everything else.

I just ignore the fillers. There is an assassination I would like to see solved.

I want to see the murder solved as well, but I am still fascinated with the intricacies of the cover, and the he said/she said and filtering through all the paper work to see who is lying and who is telling the truth.

One of the biggest hurdles to overcome, in both endeavours, are the WC generated myths that pass for common knowledge, such as Baker entering the front of the TSBD.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Yes, we see Baker running up to the steps in the Darnell film, just before the camera pans away. Coincidentally, the same thing happens in the Couch film, though I would not go so far as to say there was alteration to these films to remove whatever it is that Baker does next.

Baker's testimony has always struck me as suspicious, right from the moment he claims he hears the first shot. Not only is he riding a barely muffled Harley-Davidson motorcycle 180-200 feet from the TSBD, he is wearing a helmet with flaps protruding over his ears, and is able to clearly hear a rifle shot that seems to have little audible effect on bystanders seen in this famous photo, almost 4 seconds after this shot was fired and almost directly under the source of the shot:

Baker's main inspiration for entering the TSBD is, as he tells the WC, a flock of pigeons he saw lift up from the roof of the TSBD. So, without stopping to see if anyone is hurt by these shots, or if there are any further developments that may require him to stay in position, Baker gets this split second brain wave to tear up to the top of the TSBD and look for...what? This is almost as good as the magical clairvoyant experience Roy Truly had. He only had to glance at Officer Baker and he just KNEW that Baker wanted to go to the roof of the TSBD.

Sorry, this whole thing stinks to high Heaven, and it is only made worse when the only witnesses who will support Baker's entering the front of the TSBD are Shelley and Lovelady. Both of these men are plainly lying in their WC testimony, if their first day affidavits are to be believed.

Randy, what if Baker ran right by the TSBD front steps, made the corner onto Houston St., investigated something he saw from his position further back on Houston St. and entered the back of the TSBD much later than he claimed, and only then met Truly and made his way up the stairs? It is not a matter of IF Truly and Baker went up the TSBD stairs, it is a matter of WHEN they went up the stairs. All of the first day reports of what he did and said could still hold true, outside of the fabricated 2nd floor lunch room encounter with Oswald.

I know some will say, "Why didn't he park his motorcycle right at the corner then?" Another equally valid question might be, "If he was heading for the front steps, why didn't he park his motorcycle right at the steps, instead of 45 west of the steps on the Elm St. extension?"

Comparing witnesses who do not recall seeing PM with witnesses who do not recall seeing Baker is a bit paradoxical, I should think. On one hand, I can understand witnesses being intimidated into not recalling PM but, on the other hand, wouldn't the conspirators WANT the witnesses to recall seeing Baker entering the front of the TSBD? Surely, they would want all the corroboration they could get of Baker entering the front of the TSBD, wouldn't they?

I fail to see how the topic of this thread is not relevant. Baker's testimony is the only thing implicating Oswald being on an upper floor of the TSBD (or even in the building) at the time of the shooting,

P.S.

My hunting experience would tell me the pigeons flew up off of the roof due to a shot from an adjacent building. If the pigeons were on the roof, and shots were fired from a window two storeys down, they might not even hear the shots.

Bumped - waiting for a reply

[Jon G. Tidd]

Robert Prudhomme,

Let's assume arguendo that Baker didn't enter the TSBD from the front; that Shelley and Frazier lied when they said they saw him enter from the front; and that the Baker-Truly timeline is different from what was determined by the W.C.

Questions: Who do think got Baker, Frazier, and Shelley to lie? What reasons (threats, inducements) were there for them to lie? Why did someone want them to lie?

All I can imagine, based on my assumption, is that someone coerced them to lie so as to cover up some fact relating to Oswald that made it impossible for him to be the assassin. I don't think coercion would have been difficult to pull off if it came from on high. If these three were coerced, as to any statements they made, the earliest statements are the most believable.

[David Josephs]

We seriously must remember that what is recorded in the reports of the DPD and FBI, along with the published WCR testimony is

NOT necessarily what was said.

Testimony was reviewed and rewitten in the galleys before the final publishing... if expert FBI testimony could be rewritten, ANYONE's testimony could be rewritten.

The "Final" FBI/DPD reports were most definitely "santized" to focus on the incrimination of Oswald. That's why corroborating reports of the same event are hardly ever found together but are spread out over thousands of pages.

Anyone can go to the witnesses page and scroll to the bottom of each testimony and see that few if any of these key witnesses reviewed and signed their testimony..

Spending as much time with the documents/evidence as I have over the last 15 years I know for a fact that there is no guaranteed relationship between what we see published and what was actually said

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

Mr. BALL. I believe that's all. Your other deposition is going to come down here and you can sign it at the same time you sign this one.
Mr. SHELLEY. OK; I was coming back up the next day and we were awful busy down there is the reason I didn't.
Mr. BALL. Anyway, it will come down for your signature and you can look it over and, if you have any corrections to make, correct them and initial them. That's all, and thank you.
Mr. SHELLEY. All right; thank you.

Mr. BALL - Mr. Lovelady, your testimony will be written up and it can be submitted to you for your signature if you wish and you can make any changes, or you can waive signature and we will make this your final---
Mr. LOVELADY - I want this to be the final one.
Mr. BALL - All right; you waive signature?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Thanks very much.

Mr. BALL - I have no further questions.
The CHAIRMAN - Anything from you, Senator?
Well, that will be all. Thank you very much for coming and testifying before the Commission.
Mr. FRAZIER - Thank you, Mr. Warren.

Mr. DULLES - Any further questions?
Thank you very much, Officer Baker. Your testimony has been very helpful.

Mr. BELIN - Miss ADAMS, you have the opportunity if you would like, to read this deposition and sign it before it goes to Washington, or you can waive the signing of it and just let the court reporter send it directly to us. Do you have any preference?
Miss ADAMS - I think I will let you use your own discretion.
Mr. BELIN - It doesn't make any difference to us. If it doesn't make any difference, we can waive it and you won't have to make another trip down here.
Miss ADAMS - That is all right.

Mr. BALL. She writes this up. Then if you wish, you can come in, read it over and, if there are any changes to be made, you make them and you swear to it before this young lady, who is a notary public, or you can waive signature and we will send it on to the Commission.
Mr. ARCE. I guess you all could send it on to the Commission.
Mr. BALL. And you waive signature?
Mr. ARCE. Yes

Mr. BALL - That's all I have to ask you, and this will be written up and if you would like to come down and read it and sign it, you can, or you can waive your signature.
What do you want to do?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, whatever you want to do---it doesn't make any difference.

Edited April 15, 2015 by David Josephs

[Jon G. Tidd]

David Josephs,

The W.C. testimony you reproduce at post #25 suggests clearly that the witness's statements to the W.C. could have been misrepresented. And were.

Assuming Specter, Warren, and the lot, who had nothing to do with the assassination, foisted a cover-up on the American people, do you think they did so out of self-interest, or out of some perceived sense of patriotism?

My take is self-interest.

[David Josephs]

Going along to get along....

As Creshaw said...(I para-phrase) if they killed the POTUS what do you think they'd do to me.

Look at the careers of those who cooperated. Then ask Bolden how things went, or Craig.

LBJ mentioned something about the CIA running a "Murder, Inc" in south and latin America.

Anyone with any amount of savvy who touched the assassination quickly saw what was going on.

I truly doubt that Spector and the others wanted to believe that their own government could do such a thing... the ethnocentricity of Americans borders on the insane... and then Dulles has a book pushed which shows how each and every assassination in american history was the work of a Lone Nut... no such thing as political assassination in the good ole US of A...

From Fonzi's The Last Investigation: Remember now, this is from 40 years ago.

At the time, Schweiker was a member of what was officially named the Select Committee To Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities, headed by Idaho Senator Frank Church. The Church Committee, as it became known in the press, had been making deadlines (sic - headlines) since early in the year by revealing how the FBI abused its power by harassing dissident political groups and conducting illegal investigations, how the CIA, Army Intelligence and the National Security Agency were involved in domestic snooping and how the intelligence agencies had planned assassination attempts on foreign leaders. For Schweiker, despite his long stints in both houses of Congress, these were eye-opening revelations. "I've learned more about the inner workings of government in the past nine months than in my 15 previous years in Congress," he later told a reporter.

Schweiker had never been moved to take a special interest in the details of the Kennedy assassination. He had assumed, as did most Americans then, that the Warren Commission Report reflected a comprehensive, objective investigation. He had never had the inclination to critically question the Report closely because that inclination would have had to include the assumption that certain government officials and agencies could have been involved in at the very least a cover-up. Schweiker did not want to believe that. However, when the Church Committee discovered that United States Government officials -- specifically, CIA agents -- had made alliances with the Mafia and other members of Organized Crime in planning assassination, Schweiker was traumatically shaken. "That was so repugnant and shocking to me that I did a backflip on any number of things," he later recalled.

Edited April 15, 2015 by David Josephs

[Robert Prudhomme]

Going along to get along....

As Creshaw said...(I para-phrase) if they killed the POTUS what do you think they'd do to me.

Look at the careers of those who cooperated. Then ask Bolden how things went, or Craig.

LBJ mentioned something about the CIA running a "Murder, Inc" in south and latin America.

Anyone with any amount of savvy who touched the assassination quickly saw what was going on.

I truly doubt that Spector and the others wanted to believe that their own government could do such a thing... the ethnocentricity of Americans borders on the insane... and then Dulles has a book pushed which shows how each and every assassination in american history was the work of a Lone Nut... no such thing as political assassination in the good ole US of A...

From Fonzi's The Last Investigation: Remember now, this is from 40 years ago.

At the time, Schweiker was a member of what was officially named the Select Committee To Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities, headed by Idaho Senator Frank Church. The Church Committee, as it became known in the press, had been making deadlines (sic - headlines) since early in the year by revealing how the FBI abused its power by harassing dissident political groups and conducting illegal investigations, how the CIA, Army Intelligence and the National Security Agency were involved in domestic snooping and how the intelligence agencies had planned assassination attempts on foreign leaders. For Schweiker, despite his long stints in both houses of Congress, these were eye-opening revelations. "I've learned more about the inner workings of government in the past nine months than in my 15 previous years in Congress," he later told a reporter.

Schweiker had never been moved to take a special interest in the details of the Kennedy assassination. He had assumed, as did most Americans then, that the Warren Commission Report reflected a comprehensive, objective investigation. He had never had the inclination to critically question the Report closely because that inclination would have had to include the assumption that certain government officials and agencies could have been involved in at the very least a cover-up. Schweiker did not want to believe that. However, when the Church Committee discovered that United States Government officials -- specifically, CIA agents -- had made alliances with the Mafia and other members of Organized Crime in planning assassination, Schweiker was traumatically shaken. "That was so repugnant and shocking to me that I did a backflip on any number of things," he later recalled.

God bless America.

[David Josephs]

Bankers and Lawyers Bob.

Nations, countries, sovereignty is really of no matter. Human greed meets Darwin... Pick any moment in the last 5000 years and prove it wrong..

And don't forget... You want fries with that?

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Yeah right.

And Schweiker was such poison to the "powers that be" that no less than Ronald Reagan named him as his running mate in the 1976 Presidential elections.

That's right - Ronald Reagan, the embodiment of all that is evil and profane to liberals everywhere - chose Richard Schweiker, the fiend who exposed government wrongdoings - as his running mate.

And he did this right after the Church Committee hearings were in the news every day.

Wow, that must have been part of the sinister plan to keep tabs on Schweiker, huh?

Hey, maybe there were TWO Schweikers...one born in Lithuania and the other born in the US...

[Thomas Graves]

Yeah right.

And Schweiker was such poison to the "powers that be" that no less than Ronald Reagan named him as his running mate in the 1976 Presidential elections.

That's right - Ronald Reagan, the embodiment of all that is evil and profane to liberals everywhere - chose Richard Schweiker, the fiend who exposed government wrongdoings - as his running mate.

And he did this right after the Church Committee hearings were in the news every day.

Wow, that must have been part of the sinister plan to keep tabs on Schweiker, huh?

Hey, maybe there were TWO Schweikers...one born in Lithuania and the other born in the US...

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

Mark,

I agree.

It's obvious that the bad guys chose the two "Schweikers" when they were only eight years old and those clever devils somehow knew that the two boys would grow up looking just enough alike to fool lots and lots of witnesses many years later.

Hey, did you say Lithuania.....?

Isn't that in the..... Balkans?

No? Then how about "Eastern Russia" ....???

--Tommy

Edited April 17, 2015 by Thomas Graves