Why Does DVP Rattle Cages Here?

[Thomas Graves]

It's more plausible, IMHO, that Baker and Brennan were coached, maybe even beforehand, on the descriptions (based on a 1960 Lee Harvey Oswald FBI / CIA "marked card" in which Oswald was described as being a Robert E. Webster-like 5' 10", 165 pounds) they were to give the authorities in order to incriminate Oswald...

So you're pretty much saying the patsy-framers screwed up pretty badly, huh?

Yes

They were trying to frame the very skinny, 131-pound Lee Oswald, ...

Yes

... but they used a 165-pound person as their "Oswald double"? Is that it?

Almost, David. Almost.

It's my belief that the patsy-framers thought that Lee Harvey Oswald was 5' 10" tall and weighed 165 pounds because those were the biometrics that had been "given" to him way back in May of 1960 when FBI agent John W. Fain interviewed Marguerite Oswald and in that interview she allegedly described her son, Lee, as being 5'10", 165 lbs, and having blue eyes. Fain's report with its false description of Oswald soon made its way to the CIA's Ann Egerter and Bill Bright and was quickly incorporated by the latter into the Agency's computerized Central Registry.

What's interesting for our purposes is that it just so happened that there was another "defector" (who really was 5'10", 165 lbs, had blue eyes, light brown wavy hair, and a face that at least somewhat resembled Oswald's) who was living in Russia at the time and who was trying to get permission from the Soviet authorities to return to the U.S. His name was Robert E. Webster, a plastics chemist with an Air Force security clearance who was working for Rand Development when he "defected" a few days before Oswald. The theory is that Oswald was "given" Webster's height, weight, and eye color in certain classified CIA documents so that those intentional inaccuracies could serve as "marked cards" in an ongoing "mole hunt" for "Popov's mole." .

The point I'm trying to make in this thread is that those false biometrics (5'10", 165 lbs) of Oswald were still circulating and / or being preserved in certain CIA documents at the time of the assassination, and my belief is that the patsy-framer was someone in U.S. intelligence (or an outsider who was privy to it) who was relying on the information in those documents to be accurate descriptions of Oswald, but they weren't. In the case of Oswald's weight, they were off by 25 to 30 pounds.

So yeah, the bad guys almost blew it, David.

Please bear in mind that Baker and Brennan weren't the only two witnesses to claim that "Oswald" / "The Assassin" was 5'10" tall and around 165 lbs.

There was also the mysterious, unnamed "witness" whom Police Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer allegedly relied upon for the description of the fleeing assassin -- "Early 30's, 5'10", 165 pounds" -- for the police radio broadcasts Sawyer made 10 to 15 minutes after the assassination. This alleged witness allegedly saw a man with those biometrics running away from the TSBD shortly after the assassination.

--Tommy

David,

Google "marked card" or "barium meal" if you want to. And "Popov's mole," too, while you're at it. Have you read Bill Simpich's "The Double Dangle"? http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/State_Secret_Chapter1

--Tommy

Altogether edited and therefore bumped.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[James DiEugenio]

Please note above, Davey never answered my question.

Because he likely did not read either of the books.

This is the kind of scholar he is. Recall, according to Davey: there was no manufactured evidence, right? And Oswald certainly did order the rifle. Both of those are now exposed as false, and there are threads proving them so.

You can't call someone on something if you don't know what they are talking about.

Now let us begin to to expose the above as nothing but pure arrogant bluster. And we will now see who is "incredibly stupid".

From Reclaiming Parkland, p. 192, where I am describing the scene in Oliver Stone's JFK with Baker confronting Oswald:

​Oliver Stone then memorably depicted it in his 1991 film JFK.. Since the incident has attained iconic status, we all understand what it conveys and what it is supposed to mean. Dallas Patrolman Marrion Baker was traveling in the motorcade. He heard the shots. He drove up to the Texas School Book Depository. He met Oswald's supervisor Roy Truly. They ascended to the second floor. Baker somehow saw a figure through a door window in the lunchroom there. He accosted him with his gun drawn and said to Truly, "Do you know this man, does he work here?" Truly replied that he did and they turned around and continued back up the stairs.

...everyone on both sides accepted it.....the argument centered over whether or not Oswald could have come down from the sixth floor and walked into the lunchroom in time for Baker to see him in front of a soda machine...or as authors like Howard Roffman and Don Thomas argued, whether or not Baker would have seen Oswald through the glass window in the door. If he did not, then he had likely come up to the lunchroom from the first floor. No one questioned whether or not it happened. And in one version Baker told, Oswald had a coke in his hand. In another he did not.

Edited July 15, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Continuing from RP, page 193:

"That last discrepancy should have told us something. For how, on the day of the assassination, could Baker have not recalled such a revealing detail? Or how could he have let someone talk him out of it? Because in the version printed in the WR, Truly added that Oswald's hands were empty. Yet, as Sylvia Meagher points out, as late as September of 1964, Baker was still writing about the Coke In Oswald's hands. Someone actually drew a line through that bit of information. What makes this interesting is that Baker wrote this six months after he gave his Commission testimony in which he said there was nothing in Oswald's hands. In other words, Baker never got his story straight.

Another indication as to how Baker's testimony was evolving is the version of it in Gary Savage's book, First Day Evidence. In that version, he says he encountered Oswald on the first floor. Truly identified him as an employee, and they left him there as they proceeded into the building....

Yet, this version pretty much coincides with Oswald's own story."

[James DiEugenio]

Continuing from RP, p. 193:

"The first person I ever heard who actually questioned the provenance of this story was David Lifton. He asked whether, on the surface, it made any sense. Because as Truly tells it, Baker hailed Oswald, Oswald walked toward him, and Baker essentially had his gun within three feet of his stomach. As LIfton commented, "Was Baker going to shot him for drinking a Coke?" I smiled at the cleverness, but I didn't actually question the incident."

Today I do.

Why? Because the final Commission version does not even resemble the incident that Baker described on the day of the assassination. "

Edited July 14, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

From RP, p. 193-94:

"On that day, Baker executed an affidavit in which he described this encounter himself. He describes going up the stairs with Truly. Then this startling passage follows:

....as we reached the third or fourth floor, I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back towards me. The manager said I know that man and he works here. I then turned the man loose and went on up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately thirty years old, 5' 9'', 165 lbs. dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket.

This affidavit exists in two forms, a handwritten and typed version. Unlike the handwritten one, the typed version has no cross outs and is phrased more grammatically. But they both say the same thing. Baker signed them both on the 22nd. Note the stunning differences between the affidavits and the incident as described in the WR. In the affidavits there is nothing about seeing Oswald through a window in the door. Nothing about the lunchroom. Nothing about a Coke. They weren't even in any room, but near a stairway. And the guy he saw does not appear to be Oswald. He was older, heavier and he was wearing a brown jacket."

Edited July 14, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

From RP. p. 194:

"For me, what certified that Baker is being honest here is that when he went down to the police station to write his affidavit, Oswald was in the same room with him.

Which Baker described as a small room, so small that he had to almost fall over Oswald to get out. In other words, he was in the same room with Oswald and he still did not name him in either version of his affidavit. According to the Commission, he had just stuck a gun in this guy's stomach.

Toward the end of the evening, the DPD began to realize that Baker's first day testimony could prevent the noose they were preparing from setting around Oswald's neck. So when Det. Marvin Johnson made out an undated report either that evening or the next day, he transmitted Baker's first day information accurately--except for one thing not in the affidavit. He wrote, "Officer Baker later identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man he had seen on the 4th floor....

At the very end of this report, and completely out of chronological order, Johnson adds that Baker identified Oswald at the station in the small room. Yet, Baker told the Commission that he was making out the affidavit at the time in the room,. And Oswald's name is not on it."

[Thomas Graves]

From RP, p. 193-94:

"On that day, Baker executed an affidavit in which he described this encounter himself. He describes going up the stairs with Truly. Then this startling passage follows:

....as we reached the third or fourth floor, I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back towards me. The manager said I know that man and he works here. I then turned the man loose and went on up to the top floor. The man I saw was white man approximately thirty years old, 5' 9'', 165 lbs. dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket.

This affidavit exist in two forms, a handwritten and typed version. Unlike the handwritten one, the typed version has no cross outs and is phrased more grammatically. But they both say the same thing. Baker signed them both on the 22nd. Note the stunning differences between the affidavits and the incident as described in the WR. In the affidavits there is nothing about seeing Oswald through a window in the door. Nothing about the lunchroom. Nothing about a Coke. They weren't even in any room, but near a stairway. And the guy he saw does not appear to be Oswald. He was older, heavier and he was wearing a brown jacket."

Gee, how much heavier? Just a little, or a whole lot?

Well, Baker said the guy he encountered (Oswald? Tan Jacket Man? Brown Jacket Man?) weighed 165 pounds, and

Oswald weighed only 131 pounds on 11/22/63, as documented on his DPD fingerprint card.

Sounds like a big difference to me. Too big of a difference for Baker, Brennan, and J.Herbert Sawyer's "mystery witness" to make a mistake about if they really had encountered / seen Lee Harvey Oswald.

--Tommy

[James DiEugenio]

(ibid)

"Then, four months later, Baker's testimony was in its final dry-cleaned and altered version for the Warren Commission. Baker ID's Oswald, but now he is a guy in the second floor lunchroom. In other words, the guy in the jacket on the fourth floor stairway was gone, not to be seen again. If you are counting, that is four different versions of this story.

But let me add this about Baker's Warren Commission testimony. He still denied that Oswald was dressed like the man he saw. Second, assistant counsel David Belin had to admonish him about his revealing body language--he told him to look at him when he answered questions. Third, Allen Dulles understood the problem Baker's police station non identification of Oswald presented. So he tried to make the time they shared the same room as brief as possible. Finally, Dulles and Belin took this interview off the record no less than five times."

Edited July 14, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

From RP, p. 195:

"In tracing the evolution of this story, it is necessary to follow how Oswald's words were also transmuted. As Anthony Summers writes in Conspiracy , Oswald maintained that he was on the first floor eating his cheese sandwich for lunch at the time of the shooting. (Which, by the way, is the lunch he maintained he brought from home) On November 23rd, James Hosty and Jim Bookhout wrote an FBI report. Based on Oswald's November 22nd questioning, the authors' wrote that Oswald said he ate lunch on the first floor, but went up to the second floor to get a Coke. It is not specified in this report when he went to the second floor. But more importantly, there is no mention of Oswald getting a gun stuck in his stomach by Baker. Which Oswald certainly would have recalled and reported.

On the 24th, , after Oswald is shot, Bookhout rewrites this report by himself. Now, Bookhout has Oswald remembering the Baker gun in his stomach. Notably, before the Commission, Hosty had an opportunity to alter this memo also. He chose not to.

Another example of this evolution: when postal inspector Harry Holmes wrote a long memorandum recalling what Oswald said in his interviews, there was no mention of Oswald at the soda machine, the Coke in his hand, or of Baker pointing the gun at him. When pressed by the Commission, he could not recall Oswald saying anything about the second floor encounter with Baker. But David Belin later prompted Holmes about the Coke: "Did he say anything about a Coca Cola or anything like that...?"

This was clearly a leading question. And then Holmes recalled it five months after he wrote the memo. But he only recalled what Belin prompted him about: the Coke and the machine. There was nothing else about Baker and Truly."

Edited July 14, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

For the next three paragraphs I detail the various witnesses who give Oswald an alibi for not being on the sixth floor. Like Dougherty etc.

From RP, p. 196:

"Now. let us interconnect this material to explain why Bugliosi leaves it out. With Williams on the sixth floor until 12:25 and Dougherty where he was on the fifth floor at the time of the shooting, Oswald could not have been where the Commission says he was at the time Kenendy was killed. With the Baker incident now dubious, this most likely leaves him on the first floor. When he exactly bought his coke, no one knows. But it was not when Baker said he did.

And this is the reason I believe the incident was created after the fact. Getting Oswald from floor six to floor two was improbable enough. Getting him from floor six to floor one would have been impossible. And the weight of this new evidence suggests the DPD, FBI and WC understood that. So they created this phony forty year old argument over Oswald speeding down the stars by altering Baker's first day affidavit."

Let me add: as The Girl on the Stairs proves, Oswald was not flying down those stairs anyway.

Edited July 14, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

From RP, p. 196:

"Recall, Baker ...was a prosecution witness at the London trial. Spence never confronted him with his first day affidavit to impeach him. But further, who was the man he confronted on the stairwell, and where did he go."

In my view, in light of all the above plus the work of Rich Gilbride, and especially the revolutionary work of Sean Murphy, I think the guy on the stairway was probably the guy that Worrell saw running out the back of the building. I think the other conspirators got out through the freight elevator after planting the rifle and shells.. And I think the odds are that Sean is correct about LHO being outside. Sean brought up some other devastating evidence--including photos-- about how the WC aided in putting the whole lunch room encounter together. It took them awhile to get it down and he showed some amazing photos of the dress rehearsal.

Anyway, thanks Davey, no one leads with his chin like you do. I am already getting emails thanking me for putting you in your place again. Some things never change.

(BTW, what is taking so long for you to confer with Gary Mack on this one?)

[Thomas Graves]

For the next three paragraphs I detail the various witnesses who give Oswald an alibi for not begin on the sixth floor. Like Dougherty etc.

From RP, p. 196:

"Now. let us interconnect this material to explain why Bugliosi leave it out. With Williams not eh sixth floor until 12:25 and Dougherty where he was on the fifth floor at the time of the shooting, Oswald could not have been where the Commission says he was at thtime Kenendy was killed. With the Baker incident now dubious, this most likely leaves him on the first floor. When he exactly bought his coke, no one knows. But it was to when Baker said he did.

And this is the reason I believe the incident was created after the fact. Getting Oswald from floor six to floor two was improbable enough. Getting him from floor six to floor one would have been impossible. And the weight of this new evidence suggests the DPD, FBI and WC understood that. So they created this phony forty year old argument over Oswald speeding down the stars by altering Baker's first day affidavit."

Let me add: as The Girl on the Stairs proves, Oswald was not flying down those stairs anyway.

Jimbo,

With four consecutive posts, it looks like you're in the process of publishing another book on this thread.

--Tommy

Edited July 14, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[James DiEugenio]

Well, not really. I am just showing how ignorant Davey is of the evidentiary record.

And then he calls me dumb and stupid.

(BTW, before I get accused of plugging my own work, I think that people should source things as much as possible on forums. And my books are the things I know best, so that is why I do it.)

Edited July 14, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Thomas Graves]

From RP, p. 193-94:

"On that day, Baker executed an affidavit in which he described this encounter himself. He describes going up the stairs with Truly. Then this startling passage follows:

....as we reached the third or fourth floor, I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back towards me. The manager said I know that man and he works here. I then turned the man loose and went on up to the top floor. The man I saw was white man approximately thirty years old, 5' 9'', 165 lbs. dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket.

This affidavit exist in two forms, a handwritten and typed version. Unlike the handwritten one, the typed version has no cross outs and is phrased more grammatically. But they both say the same thing. Baker signed them both on the 22nd. Note the stunning differences between the affidavits and the incident as described in the WR. In the affidavits there is nothing about seeing Oswald through a window in the door. Nothing about the lunchroom. Nothing about a Coke. They weren't even in any room, but near a stairway. And the guy he saw does not appear to be Oswald. He was older, heavier and he was wearing a brown jacket."

Gee, Jim, how much heavier? Just a little, or a whole lot?

Well, Baker said the guy he encountered (Oswald? Tan Jacket Man? Brown Jacket Man?) weighed 165 pounds, and we know that

Oswald weighed only 131 pounds on 11/22/63, as documented on his DPD fingerprint card and which, by the way, is supported by the photographic evidence below which shows the skinny Oswald on 11/22/63.

It sounds (and looks) like a big difference to me. Too big of a difference for Baker, Brennan, and J.Herbert Sawyer's "mystery witness" to make a mistake about if they really had encountered or seen Lee Harvey Oswald. That's my whole point.

--Tommy

bumped

Edited July 14, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Pat Speer]

Point of order.

When someone testifies regarding their recollections, and admits their recollections are not in keeping with what 1) the official photos show, or 2) the official story as pieced together by the investigators says happened, they are not "denying" the authenticity of the photos or "denying" that the incident upon which they are testifying happened in that way.

Witnesses are supposed to testify about what they recall, and the jurors (or in this case, the commission) are supposed to decide what actually happened...based upon ALL of the witnesses and ALL of the evidence. As a consequence, it is rare that in any case involving more than a few witnesses that there will fail to be a conflict.

When you add in, moreover, that it is perfectly normal for people recalling an incident to recall it a little different over time, I find nothing surprising about Baker's statements and testimony.

I mean, it's not as if he changed his recollections to match what the WC undoubtedly wanted him to say--that he took his time going up the stairs to the break room, that Oswald appeared nervous and out of breath when he saw him, and that when he saw him, Oswald was wearing the dark brown shirt whose fibers were 'discovered" on the rifle.

That he failed to say these things was quite damaging to the "official" story, IMO.

And no, I don't buy into this notion this was a "limited hangout" etc, whereby the conspirators created a story that would suggest Oswald's innocence, to conceal that he was actually outside, blah blah blah. That's just silly. The conspirators picked Oswald, IMO, because he could be painted as a commie, a psycho, or both. There was no advantage whatsoever in clouding his guilt with the testimony of people like Frazier and Baker. This is not a viable plot, IMO. I mean, the media's coverage of the assassination leading up to the release of the WC's hearings was smooth sailing. A crazy commie-wanna-be named Oswald did it all by his lonesome. And the American people bought this, by and large. But then people like Weisberg and Lane started looking at the testimony of witnesses such as Frazier and Baker, and voila, guess what, America? All was not as it appeared. And soon the public was doubting again.

Well, who would come up with such a plot? Rube Goldberg?

Oh, wait, that's right. Those evil masterminds foresaw that creating a class of people who knew their government was lying would lead to their eventual disillusionment, and the rise of a new class of uber-wealthy neo-Nazis bent on world domination.

Pretty clever. But I'm not buying it. I've met and worked with some mighty clever and ruthless people, and their MO is not in telling stories which still leave room for doubt. No, their MO is the BIG lie. It's right in your face. It's "cutting taxes on the wealthy improves the living conditions of the poor". It's "Businessman make the best leaders".

Edited July 14, 2015 by Pat Speer