David G. Healy Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 As usual, James DiEugenio doesn't have the slightest idea how to properly evaluate the sum total of the evidence connected with the various sub-topics associated with the JFK murder case. In this particular instance, Jim has decided that Marrion Baker told a bunch of lies in his Warren Commission testimony and in his 1964 CBS-TV interview. And Jim believes Officer Baker lied about the lunchroom encounter even though Jim knows about Roy Truly's 11/23/63 affidavit, wherein Truly confirms that both he and Officer Baker saw "Lee Oswald" in the second-floor lunchroom within just a couple of minutes of the assassination. So now Jim has no choice but to believe that BOTH Marrion L. Baker AND Roy S. Truly were big fat liars when it comes to the topic of their lunchroom encounter with Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963. DiEugenio probably thinks the above affidavit filled out by Depository Superintendent Roy S. Truly is totally worthless and completely bogus due to the date that is on it -- November 23rd. Jimmy thinks that the fix was in by that time. So that means that anything Roy Truly said on the 23rd must have been the result of coaching by patsy-framing members of the DPD and FBI. Right, James? As far as Baker saying "Nothing about a Coke" in his 11/22/63 affidavit, that's easy to explain, which I do, RIGHT HERE. Re: this comment made by DiEugenio.... "And the guy [Marrion Baker] saw does not appear to be Oswald. He was older, heavier and he was wearing a brown jacket." ....as I told Hank Sienzant recently: "I like to keep this "Assassination Arguments Part 1000" page handy whenever somebody tells me that it would have been utterly impossible for any witness to think Lee Oswald weighed as much as 165 pounds." -- DVP the above is the typical lone nut obsession with minutiae.... diversion at it's finest. btw, DVP we've )those of us that post at AMAZON-remember that place?) gone to talking about Hank Sienzant as Mr. Hanky, he's become so pathetic you can feel his embarrassment... biggest (next to you of course) avoider of case evidence and minutiae monger I've seen in 20 years. Evidently nutters seem to think every post is courtroom qualified... LMAO! What do .John nutters fear, FEAR, F-E-A-R? Simple answer: the Warren Commission Report and evidence qualified debaters that KNOW case evidence, which is why DVP no longers posts to JFK assassination related AMAZON forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 (edited) LNers are the ones obsessed with "minutiae", Healy? That's hilarity (and irony) at its finest! Healy's Pot/Kettle posts just never stop flowing. And, BTW, I still post semi-regularly at Amazon, Healy. So we can chalk that up as yet another thing you don't have a clue about. Edited December 25, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 (edited) DH: talking about Hank Sienzant as Mr. Hanky, he's become so pathetic you can feel his embarrassment... LOL Seamus will go down in history for that review. And how Hank will go down with Hankey. Edited December 25, 2015 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 (edited) Hi Thomas If Oswald was in the vestibule keeping an eye out for people coming up the stairs, he would have heard and seen Truly before Baker arrived on the 2nd floor landing. Do you think he would have allowed himself to be seen? If the vestibule door was already closed, moving away from the window would have been quite simple. Just trying to think like a detective, Robert. Alternate scenario: Maybe Oswald, having come up from the first floor via the front stairs or the passenger elevator, heard them as they were coming up the stairs, came to the vestibule window with a coke in his hands to see who it was, turned away from the vestibule window when he saw it was Truly, and was seen by Baker as he walked away from the window but was still inside the vestibule. --Tommy, the Serious bumped Edited December 25, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted December 25, 2015 Author Share Posted December 25, 2015 Hi Thomas If Oswald was in the vestibule keeping an eye out for people coming up the stairs, he would have heard and seen Truly before Baker arrived on the 2nd floor landing. Do you think he would have allowed himself to be seen? If the vestibule door was already closed, moving away from the window would have been quite simple. bumped, just in case Thomas did not see I had responded to him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 Hi Thomas If Oswald was in the vestibule keeping an eye out for people coming up the stairs, he would have heard and seen Truly before Baker arrived on the 2nd floor landing. Do you think he would have allowed himself to be seen? If the vestibule door was already closed, moving away from the window would have been quite simple. bumped, just in case Thomas did not see I had responded to him Dear Robert, Are you not able to discern the changes I made in order to better accommodate your original objection? Or do I need to spell them out for you? --Tommy, the Serious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted December 25, 2015 Author Share Posted December 25, 2015 I guess it would have been possible for Oswald to hear Baker and Truly coming up the stairs through the closed vestibule door, as you point out in your edited post. This would point to an extremely thin and not very soundproofed vestibule door, though. You should offer this idea to Richard Gilbride. He does not believe Truly and Baker could have heard Adams and Styles coming down the stairs and through the second floor landing, as he believes the vestibule door closed behind Truly during the lunch room encounter. He also does not believe Adams and Styles could have heard the brief but heated discussion in the second floor lunch room, through the closed vestibule door, as they passed through the second floor landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 "I rushed into the building with a policeman. He thought the shooting came from the roof, and we ran up the stairway. On the second floor he stuck his head into a snack bar we have, and saw Oswald sitting at one of the tables. "Does this man work here?"the policeman asked. I said,"Yes he does". We continued up the stairs. That was when Oswald left the building." .US New and World Report, Dec 8, 1963 Egads! According you, DVP, Truly LIED to the national media!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 (edited) 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! Edited December 25, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted December 26, 2015 Share Posted December 26, 2015 The lunchroom incident either happened, or it did not happen. Thanks to the multi-year efforts of Sean Murphy & Greg Parker, a school of thought has emerged that contends that the incident was hoaxed. They refuse to acknowledge that every item of evidence relating to the lunchroom incident has a mundane explanation, readily available, that supports the incident's reality. They refuse to acknowledge that there is a set of items, an aggregate- the filmed interviews, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, the will-call counter bump, the lack of corroboration for Biffle's news story, the Martha Jo Stroud document- and every item of this aggregate has to be contorted, beyond common sense, in order to be construed as supporting the hoax. Even if the researcher successfully un-contorts one of these items, there are four more to justify, and all of them must be justified in order to support a hoax interpretation, i.e. its chances are infinitesmal (if that). Which means that you, the researcher, must evaluate this Bakerview problem through the lens of the lunchroom incident's reality. Sean Murphy & Greg Parker are zealots in regards to this issue. They cannot and will not be reasoned with. To admit defeat would entail a loss of their sycophants, and an extreme loss of face. After all, they are the co-discoverers and marketers of this pernicious school of thought. They might seem progressive, but are actually regressive. In this arena they are sophists extraordinaire. G'day Richard. Glad to see you accepted Rob's invitation which seems to have gotten you out of your premature retirement. I was happy to pass on your contact details to Rob He provides a very good platform. Do yourself a favor though. Drop the sword in the ground shtick. Here you are provoking an argument with me whilst simultaneously claiming I can't be reasoned with... which makes you sound like a masochist. I mean, I don't know of any "normal" person who goes around picking arguments with people who are beyond reason. Or maybe it's just my lack of education and I'm missing something? Whatever, apart from this venture into absurdist theatrics, good to see you back. Loosen the tin-foil hat a bit maybe, and you'll be fine. Hope you had a have a great Christmas. Hate to rub it in, but I'm way ahead with that as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted December 26, 2015 Share Posted December 26, 2015 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted December 26, 2015 Share Posted December 26, 2015 (edited) 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? Edited December 26, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted December 26, 2015 Share Posted December 26, 2015 Wait a minute! Was it really a mistatement? If I recall correctly, when Sean Murphy was on this site, did he not produce photos of a Secret Service reenactment which did have Oswald at a table in the lunchroom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted December 26, 2015 Share Posted December 26, 2015 At 23:45.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted December 26, 2015 Share Posted December 26, 2015 Wait a minute! Was it really a mistatement? If I recall correctly, when Sean Murphy was on this site, did he not produce photos of a Secret Service reenactment which did have Oswald at a table in the lunchroom? Yep, What's more, they tested 10 different methods of getting Oswald from the sniper's nest and out the front door - with only 5 of those including a 2nd floor lunchroom pit-stop. Why would that be when the 2nd floor encounter had already long been stitched up as a done deal? Maybe they were rehearsing scenes for a proposed fictional movie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now