One Last Thing Before Xmas Eve: 2nd Floor Lunch Room Encounter

[Greg Parker]

So, Greg, do you want to throw Truly under the bus because he (allegedly) said that Oswald was sitting at a table? Does that discrepancy mean the "encounter" never took place at all?

Egads indeed!

Ah... so it's okay for him to lie to the media all of a sudden? Your double standards would embarrass a lesser mortal!

If you take multiple statements made by the same witness to the same event, you'll likely find some minor differences in how they tell their story with each re-telling. Your inability to account for this reality would embarrass any reasonable and fair-minded mortal.

But, let's face it, your mind has been made up on this thing for years. You're going to toss Roy Truly under the bus no matter what. And to hell with common-sense inquiries like this one that I offered up earlier today:

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?

Um, David how dumb to want to play this? Minor differences would be say, describing someone as wearing a beige shirt in one statement and a beige jacket in another. In various statements, Truly and Baker between them had Oswald walking away from the stairway, sitting in the lunchroom, leaning on the table, and standing beside the coke dispenser. Those are not "minor: differences" no matter how much you squeal and squirm about it.

But you do have something right. Roy Truly is going under the bus. No "if's" no "buts".

[David Von Pein]

In various statements, Truly and Baker between them had Oswald walking away from the stairway, sitting in the lunchroom, leaning on the table, and standing beside the coke dispenser.

And so you think BOTH Baker & Truly were so dumb, so stupid, so idiotic, they decided to alter their totally fabricated lie a half-a-dozen times??

And would you care to explain WHY the evil Baker/Truly twins decided to put Oswald on the SECOND floor via their lies---instead of the SIXTH floor?

How does putting him on the second floor do the patsy-framers any good at all?

But you do have something right. Roy Truly is going under the bus. No "if's" no "buts".

Gee, what a shocker.

Edited December 26, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Greg,

You think Jim Bookhout lied on WCR Page 619 too, right? .....

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

[Greg Parker]

In various statements, Truly and Baker between them had Oswald walking away from the stairway, sitting in the lunchroom, leaning on the table, and standing beside the coke dispenser.

And so you think BOTH Baker & Truly were so dumb, so stupid, so idiotic, they decided to alter their totally fabricated lie about LHO about a half-a-dozen times?? Is that correct?

And would you care to explain WHY the Baker/Truly twins decided to put Oswald on the SECOND floor via their lies---instead of the SIXTH floor?

How does putting him on the second floor do the patsy-framers any good at all?

But you do have something right. Roy Truly is going under the bus. No "if's" no "buts".

Gee, what a shocker.

Doesn't matter what I think. What I think doesn't change the fact that they gave all those stories. This is just another stunt you pull. Try and shift the debate to the messenger. Ain't happening. They said all of those things. I don't have to speculate what caused them to. It does show at least on face value, that neither are reliable witnesses. It also shows you have double-standards, crying about how anyone could possibly accuse them of lying on national TV after they actually got the script right when they constantly gave different accounts to the media - and to authors!

Why didn't they put him on the 6th floor? Are you serious? That's hilarious! The Headline DUMB DALLAS COP CATCHES SNIPER RED-HANDED BUT RELEASES HIM! HIS SUPERIORS DESCRIBE HIM AS SLOW WITTED. subhead: building superintended arrested as accomplice after vouching for shooter.

My onl;y regret is that Truly is not alive to see the bus coming.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

You think Jim Bookhout lied on WCR Page 619 too, right? .....

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

No.No I don't. Bookhout never wrote the WCR. Have you had maybe a wee bit much christmas cheer?

Oswald's interrogations and the subsequent reports are different kettle of fish. I am working on a major piece about those.

But you're just trying to shift the debate yet again.

Let's stick to first person accounts for now and leave the hearsay out because that will ultimately be another avenue for wiggle room for you. And we don't want that now, do we? Noooooo...... not today anyway. Try again tomorrow. I might cut some slack for your birthday.

[David Von Pein]

Why didn't they put him on the 6th floor? Are you serious? That's hilarious! The Headline: DUMB DALLAS COP CATCHES SNIPER RED-HANDED BUT RELEASES HIM! HIS SUPERIORS DESCRIBE HIM AS SLOW WITTED. subhead: building superintended [sic] arrested as accomplice after vouching for shooter.

Yeah, right. Too funny. As if Baker and Truly KNEW the sniper had been on the sixth floor as of 12:31:30 on Nov. 22. (Is that going to be your next lame-ass theory, Greg --- that Baker & Truly knew the "sixth floor" was the Floor Of Death as of 12:31 PM?)

Regardless of the FLOOR NUMBER, this headline would still apply....

DALLAS COP CATCHES SNIPER BUT RELEASES HIM!

Edited December 26, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

No I don't [think Bookhout lied on WCR Page 619].

Good. Then you agree that Oswald himself said he encountered the policeman on the second floor.

It's good to have that finally settled. Thanks.

Oswald's interrogations and the subsequent reports are different kettle of fish. I am working on a major piece about those.

Will the number of liars in that "major piece" be three dozen or four dozen?

Edited December 26, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

I wonder when it was decided to drop the Coke in Oswald's hand from the script?

[Greg Parker]

Why didn't they put him on the 6th floor? Are you serious? That's hilarious! The Headline: DUMB DALLAS COP CATCHES SNIPER RED-HANDED BUT RELEASES HIM! HIS SUPERIORS DESCRIBE HIM AS SLOW WITTED. subhead: building superintended [sic] arrested as accomplice after vouching for shooter.

Yeah, right. Too funny. As if Baker and Truly KNEW the sniper had been on the sixth floor as of 12:31:30 on Nov. 22. (Is that going to be your next lame-ass theory, Greg --- that Baker & Truly knew the "sixth floor" was the Floor Of Death as of 12:31 PM?)

Regardless of the FLOOR NUMBER, this headline would still apply....

DALLAS COP CATCHES SNIPER BUT RELEASES HIM!

Here is what you said: "And would you care to explain WHY the evil Baker/Truly twins decided to put Oswald on the SECOND floor via their lies---instead of the SIXTH floor?" How are they supposed to put him on the 6th floor unless they see him there?

Baker supposedly stuck his gun in Oswald's gut for being in a second floor lunchroom.. He thought the shots came from much further up. Don't you think if he catches someone on the 6th floor, he is going to hold him? That is why they didn't put him on the 6th floor, genius. They could never explain away letting him go. There was NO such headline about the idiot cop letting someone go from the 2nd floor, so you saying same headline WOULD apply is just you making up history, It never happened. No such headline.

[Greg Parker]

No I don't [think Bookhout lied on WCR Page 619].

Good. Then you agree that Oswald himself said he encountered the policeman on the second floor.

It's good to have that finally settled. Thanks.

Oswald's interrogations and the subsequent reports are different kettle of fish. I am working on a major piece about those.

Will the number of liars in that "major piece" be three dozen or four dozen?

Bookhout never wrote the WCR, junior as you indicated he did.

Will the number of liars blah blah de blah blah. Grow up. Get a new script. Learn the Queensbury rules. Be constructive. You're a wearisome worn out recording.

As you will see, the number one rule of a cop interrogation is to lie through your teeth at every opportunity. It's just policy and nothing personal, your understand,

[Sandy Larsen]

And would you care to explain WHY the evil Baker/Truly twins decided to put Oswald on the SECOND floor via their lies---instead of the SIXTH floor?

How does putting him on the second floor do the patsy-framers any good at all?

It's funny how sometimes LNers question how a conspiracy could be pulled off without mistakes being made. And then other times they question how a conspiracy member could be so stupid as to make such a mistake.

LOL, they can't have it both ways!

[David Von Pein]

Baker supposedly stuck his gun in Oswald's gut for being in a second floor lunchroom. He thought the shots came from much further up. Don't you think if he catches someone on the 6th floor, he is going to hold him?

No. Not unless the person was carrying a gun. Baker very likely would have let him go from the sixth floor (just like he did on the 2nd floor) after Mr. Truly identifies LHO as just another employee. Baker originally thought the gunshots came from the roof, not the 6th floor (or any other floor).

The number one rule of a cop interrogation is to lie through your teeth at every opportunity.

Is that Rule #2A from "The CTer Guide To Make-Believe JFK Conspiracy Theories"?

But such a rule probably is in place for many Internet CTers. Otherwise, outer-fringe conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio and Greg R. Parker wouldn't be able to build up their lists of never-ending liars in the JFK case nearly as easily.

Good imaginary rule, Greg. It keeps you from having to accept the reality of Lee Harvey Oswald's obvious guilt.

Edited December 26, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Richard Gilbride]

Wow. Here is the problem with the hoaxers, which they repeatedly fail to address:

There is an aggregate of lunchroom-related evidence- the filmed interviews, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, the will-call counter bump, the Martha Jo Stroud document, the lack of corroboration for Biffle's story- which has to be contorted in order to be construed as supporting the hoax. Construed from its face-value, common-sense meaning. I have discussed these in depth (excepting the Stroud doc, for lack of time) in posts #148 & #160 on pp. 10-11 of the thread Great New Movie Spells Out the Case for Oswald as Prayer Man.

Until the hoaxers can find some way to overcome the weight of this aggregate, it is pointless to introduce ambiguous items such as the 1st-day affidavit and 10 FBI routes taken when re-constructing Oswald's sniper's nest escape. Every such item must be viewed through the lens of the incident's reality.

There is no way to overcome the weight of this aggregate, short of doing violence to the evidence listed, of doing violence to probability theory. That is why I am firm on this. And the situation has not been helped by the hoaxers' failure to produce a position paper for their argument.

And please, look at the fruits produced by thinking this way- Tan Jacket Man, Ira Trantham, Spooky, Breakfast at Tiffany's (my new slogan for the Baker-Oswald front landing encounter). These ephemeral fruits are supported only by wishful thinking. These ephemeral fruits are a very good indicator of the brittleness of the hoax hypothesis- it does not yield tangible results.

It should raise an eyebrow that a dyed-in-the-wool LNer such as David von Pein, and a dyed-in-the-wool CTer such as Richard Gilbride, are united in their efforts to derail this hoax cattle-train before it gathers more victims. His insights are not mine, and they are quite good, and the desired result is the same- we want truth, not wishful thinking.

Anyone is welcome to analyse my pieces on this subject- The Lunchroom Incident: A Short Proof and Long Explanation and pp. 26-36 of Inside Job. And consider the thought that went into arranging the argument as it is laid out.

This is a politically-charged topic, and breaking through this impasse will likely require someone breaking off from the herd at ROKC- someone who has the moxie to stand up to that abusive herd and assert their voice. Someone who gives a hoot about where JFK research will be in 5 years. Because the hoaxers would have us tent outside Langley, clamoring for that one piece of paper still being withheld about "3rd or 4th floor man".

[Robert Prudhomme]

Wow. Here is the problem with the hoaxers, which they repeatedly fail to address:

There is an aggregate of lunchroom-related evidence- the filmed interviews, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, the will-call counter bump, the Martha Jo Stroud document, the lack of corroboration for Biffle's story- which has to be contorted in order to be construed as supporting the hoax. Construed from its face-value, common-sense meaning. I have discussed these in depth (excepting the Stroud doc, for lack of time) in posts #148 & #160 on pp. 10-11 of the thread Great New Movie Spells Out the Case for Oswald as Prayer Man.

Until the hoaxers can find some way to overcome the weight of this aggregate, it is pointless to introduce ambiguous items such as the 1st-day affidavit and 10 FBI routes taken when re-constructing Oswald's sniper's nest escape. Every such item must be viewed through the lens of the incident's reality.

There is no way to overcome the weight of this aggregate, short of doing violence to the evidence listed, of doing violence to probability theory. That is why I am firm on this. And the situation has not been helped by the hoaxers' failure to produce a position paper for their argument.

And please, look at the fruits produced by thinking this way- Tan Jacket Man, Ira Trantham, Spooky, Breakfast at Tiffany's (my new slogan for the Baker-Oswald front landing encounter). These ephemeral fruits are supported only by wishful thinking. These ephemeral fruits are a very good indicator of the brittleness of the hoax hypothesis- it does not yield tangible results.

It should raise an eyebrow that a dyed-in-the-wool LNer such as David von Pein, and a dyed-in-the-wool CTer such as Richard Gilbride, are united in their efforts to derail this hoax cattle-train before it gathers more victims. His insights are not mine, and they are quite good, and the desired result is the same- we want truth, not wishful thinking.

Anyone is welcome to analyse my pieces on this subject- The Lunchroom Incident: A Short Proof and Long Explanation and pp. 26-36 of Inside Job. And consider the thought that went into arranging the argument as it is laid out.

This is a politically-charged topic, and breaking through this impasse will likely require someone breaking off from the herd at ROKC- someone who has the moxie to stand up to that abusive herd and assert their voice. Someone who gives a hoot about where JFK research will be in 5 years. Because the hoaxers would have us tent outside Langley, clamoring for that one piece of paper still being withheld about "3rd or 4th floor man".

1. The filmed interviews. Proves nothing, except some people can lie to a camera.

2. The Sept. 23 affidavit. Right about the time the coverup was gaining definition. Of course, no one has ever conveniently backdated an affidavit either.

3. The will-call counter bump. Could have happened, but also could have happened much later. Might indicate Truly and Baker went upstairs, but does nothing to support a 2nd floor lunch room encounter.

4. The Stroud document. Confirms, via Dorothy Garner, that Baker and Truly came up to the 4th floor, but does not state when, or how long after Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles descended from 4th floor. Does NOT confirm 2nd floor lunch room encounter in any way at all, or that Oswald descended from 6th floor.

5. Biffle's story. Once again, please explain to us why you believe this would support the 2nd floor lunch room encounter.

Why don't you try to find some real evidence, Richard?

Edited December 26, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Mark Knight]

Would someone care to refresh my memory on why a SEPTEMBER 23 affidavit would be considered evidence? That would have been 10 months AFTER the assassination...certainly not a FRESH recollection, by ANY stretch of the definition. And September 23 would have been ONE DAY before the WCR was given to the President, and FOUR days before the release of the report to the public. [i'm assuming September 23, 1964 because September 23, 1963 would have been two months PRIOR TO the assassination.]