Oswald Leaving TSBD?

[William Kelly]

Sean,

The idea that the second floor lunchroom encounter was contrived is not a new theory, but one that has been previously proposed by Greg Parker, one of the best researchers who I have worked with on many areas of the assassination and have the highest respect for and Gilbride - whose book I have.

And I'm still willing to be convinced that Baker, Truly, Oswald and Reid lied and were made to switch their stories to a preconceived scenario do conceal the conspiracy, but Baker's first day report that says the encounter occurred on the third or fourth floor does not mean it happened on the first floor, and Mrs. Reid saying Oswald had white t-shirt on (he did) does not discount her testimony that he also had a full coke in his hand and appeared calm and not in a hurry.

Although Dougherty and Tippit have also been said to have been dumb, Baker was also a hunter and proficient with guns, and he rode a motorcyle, and you can see him on Youtube and judge for yourself if he is lying or reciting a script, but there are many problems with the September 23, 1964 handwritten report - with the "coke in hand" crossed out, primarily the fact that it is the day before the Warren Report was formally issued and handed to President Johnson in the Oval Office.

What the puck? Why are they going over this one more time after the full report is already published and about to be released?

He may not have been the brightest lad in the class but he was a good, well trained police officer. The reason why Baker crossed out the "coke in hand" was because he realized that the man - identified by Truly as Oswald - didn't have a coke in his hand at the time he put the 38 in his belly - and he didn't flintch, but he - Baker had heard of Mrs. Reid's coke story since then.

Mrs. Reid was standing with Mr. Campbell, who thought the shots came from the Grassy Knoll. She goes in the building first and then Campbell goes in and the next day he is quoted in a news report that he saw Oswald by the storage area - which is under the first floor steps.

So there are other reports of Oswald being on the first floor - and then apparently leaving the building by the front door steps, and he might be "College Boy" in the third, yet unidentified or timed film, walking down the steps and heading east.

I have also taken Richard Hocking's Timeline and posted it here:

JFKCountercoup2: Timeline of Certain Pertinent Events

Other documented events can still be added to see if we can make a complicated topic simpler.

On 23 September 1964 Roy Truly and Marrion Baker were asked to go back on the record to clarify an important point: was Oswald on his own in the second-floor lunchroom when they saw him just after the assassination? There had been press reports--based in large part upon statements made by Jesse Curry on 11/23/63--that Oswald was with others in the room when the officer came in.

Baker dictated a statement to FBI Special Agent Richard J. Burnett. It has become notorious because of a certain deletion evident in Burnett's handwritten sheet:



Why did Baker originally say "drinking a coke", only to have it crossed out and the deletion initialled ("M.L.B.")?
Is not this little slip compelling evidence that--contrary to what Baker and Truly testified to the WC--Oswald had already bought the coke by the time of the incident? And does this not bear out Oswald's claim in custody (as reported by Fritz and Bookhout) on this head? And does it not deprive him of even more time to get down from the sixth floor?

Not so fast. I agree that Baker's little slip is very telling indeed, devastating even, but what it is telling is not what people have generally suspected.

To understand the significance of "drinking a coke" we need to note two other little slips in its immediate vicinity. Though they have achieved far less attention, they are in my view of no less importance.

**

The first relates to the floor on which the lunchroom was located:



Second or third floor: this uncertain either-or formula echoes in an uncanny way Baker's original 11/22/63 affidavit, where he talks of having seen a man walking away from the rear stairway on "the third or fourth floor".
At least on 11/22 Baker might be said to have some excuse in that he was unfamiliar with the building.
But this is different. Here we have Baker, on the far side of having taken part in multiple WC reconstructions of his movements inside the building, and on the far side of having testified in excruciating detail on the lunchroom incident to the WC, still showing uncertainty as to which bloody floor the incident happened on.

**

The second interesting item is Baker's description of the circumstances of his first sighting of Oswald:




I saw a man standing in the lunch room: even if we factor out the fact that this phrase originally closes with the words drinking a coke, it is still very troubling.
It need hardly be pointed out that it does not chime with Baker's 11/22 affidavit words (which again use the very same phrase construction): I saw a man walking away from the stairway.
That's just the half of it however. This phrase doesn't even chime with the story that Baker had told to the WC, the story of a man spotted while walking towards and then into the lunchroom.

**

What, we must yet again ask ourselves, is going on here?

To get a handle on Baker's very weird Sep 64 statement, we need to bear in mind an important point made by Paul Rigby yesterday:

"The cover-up is, after all, a process, not an event, with many errors, early inadequacies, and/or improvisation, many of them subsequently abandoned."

I submit that the second-floor lunchroom incident is not just a fiction, it is a fiction contrived in haste and panic on the evening of the assassination. The authorities knew that Oswald had an alibi and they knew that something, anything, had to be done fast to liquidate it. It didn't much matter what that something was, as long as it got Oswald away from the damned front entrance at the time of the President's passing (no pun intended). The details could be worried about later

**

So what did they do?
In order to maintain maximum consonance between the true story already circulating and already being told by Oswald in custody, and in order to make things as easy as possible on Baker and Truly, they chose the simplest operation possible:
The Wholesale Switcheroo.
Fact: Oswald was standing drinking a coca-cola when the armed officer burst into the front entrance
became...
Fiction: Oswald was standing drinking a coca-cola when the armed officer burst into the second-floor lunchroom.
The details could be refined later.

**

Marrion Baker's fellow motorcycle officer Stavis Ellis told Larry Sneed that Baker was known to be not "real bright". In fact, he was thought to be "slow" and was nicknamed "Momma Son". Harold Weisberg, years earlier, remarked that Baker was thought by his colleagues to be a "dope".

Put the case that this verdict, however unkind, had at least a grain of truth in it.
And put the case that Baker, at some point after the assassination, was fed the first draft of the lunchroom story as follows:
You saw a man standing in the second-floor lunchroom drinking a coke. Got that? A man. Standing in the lunchroom. Second floor. Drinking a coke.

Going in to give his Sep 64 statement, Baker has not been heavily prepped in the way that he most assuredly was going into his WC session. The 'finished' script is no longer fresh in his memory.
What happens? He gets successive drafts of the Oswald Encounter Story almost comically confused with one another. He talks like a man who is not drawing on primary memory to describe an actually experienced incident. That's because he is describing an event that never happened.

• When he writes (and crosses out) "drinking a coke", he is not betraying a real, empirical memory of having seen Oswald drinking a coke in the lunchroom, he is betraying a real memory of having at some point been told to say that he had seen Oswald drinking a coke in the lunchroom.
• When he writes of having seen the man "standing in the lunch room", he is not betraying a real, empirical memory of having seen Oswald standing in the lunchroom, he is betraying a real memory of having at some point been told to say that he had seen Oswald standing in the lunchroom.
• And when he writes (and crosses out part of) "second or third floor", he is not betraying uncertainty as to where the incident had really. empirically taken place, he is...

Well, we must hold that thought because it brings us to Baker's all-important 11/22/63 affidavit story.

Excellent and well thought analysis. Do tell us more.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Sean:

I tried to post the famous imagine of Oz and his white-shirted employees

handing out leaflets in New Orleans, but I am not allowed to post images.

But you know the photo I mean and I chose it because Lee is a good distance from the camera

just as prayer man is.

Can you use your wizardry to draw an oval around Oz in New Orleans

as you did with Prayer Man,

and put them side by side for comparison?

Edited August 26, 2013 by J. Raymond Carroll

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I've met Groden, and like him, and consider him to be a serious researcher.

Well that's very magnanimous of you Pat, considering

that Robert is one of the last relics of the old guard,

the original critics who began this inquiry,

and one who has paid the biggest price

in terms of persecution, much more

than any researcher ever in this case.

I must single Robert J. Groden out for another special distinction:

Neither Mark Lane nor Harold Weisberg ever got off the fence

on whether Oz was innocent or whether he was part of the plot.

Sylvia Meagher started in the same vein, but we know from John Kelin's book that by the time Accessories was published she had become convinced -- and I feel certain it was the Milteer tapes that convinced her -- that Oz was completely innocent. Accessories was just a draft of what would have been a brief for the defense. Sylvia never wrote another book, but she and Larry Ray Harris lobbied Blakey and the HSCA in vain to keep an open mind on Oz's complete non-involvement.

Leo Sauvage's book is a flat out convincing argument that, at the very least, Warren did not prove that Lee shot anyone, leaving reasonable doubt, but of course Sauvage did not address the question of whether Lee was a conspirator.

So I believe it is fair to say that Robert Groden is the first JFK author to flatly declare, with supporting evidence, that Oz had no involvement in any crime, as he does in The Search For Lee Harvey Oswald.

I happen to concur with Robert, though up to now I seem to have no one on this forum concurring with me.

Edited August 26, 2013 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Sean Murphy]

Sean,

The idea that the second floor lunchroom encounter was contrived is not a new theory, but one that has been previously proposed by Greg Parker, one of the best researchers who I have worked with on many areas of the assassination and have the highest respect for and Gilbride - whose book I have.

And I'm still willing to be convinced that Baker, Truly, Oswald and Reid lied and were made to switch their stories to a preconceived scenario do conceal the conspiracy, but Baker's first day report that says the encounter occurred on the third or fourth floor does not mean it happened on the first floor, and Mrs. Reid saying Oswald had white t-shirt on (he did) does not discount her testimony that he also had a full coke in his hand and appeared calm and not in a hurry.

Bill,

Greg Parker is aces with me--always has been, always will be. My single favourite JFK researcher.

And Richard Gilbride has done some genuinely enduring work too, not least on the archival side. He was also very quick to support the idea that Prayer Man might be Oswald when the idea was first mooted on Lancer a few years back.

**

I never said Baker's 11/22 affidavit 'means 'a first-floor encounter, nor that Mrs Reid's sighting of a white t-shirt is what undermines her testimony.

**

Let's forget Prayer Man for a moment. Let's forget first-floor encounters. Let's forget 3rd/4th floor encounters.

Instead let's consider Baker's supposed actions that day.

He believes shots have been fired from the top of the building.

He has dashed into the building and, after a maddening delay at the elevators, begun his ascent.

Just one floor up in what he knows is going to be a high climb up a multi-storey building he comes out onto the landing and, as he is turning to hit the next flight of stairs, notices an indeterminate movement behind the glass pane of a closed door a good distance away--

There is nothing intrinsically suspicious about this movement, and certainly no sign that the person behind it has just passed through the closed door.

Yet Baker decides to interrupt his already delayed dash up the stairs and go after this person.

Don't you find this decision of Baker's just a little...counter-intuitive?

And don't you find it just a little too flukey for comfort that Baker's decision should prove so inspired, bringing him face to face with--of all people--the very person who will later be arrested for the shooting of the President?

**

Now if Baker had gone after, say, a man caught walking away from the stairway several floors up the building, that would be a rather different matter...

Edited August 26, 2013 by Sean Murphy

[Sean Murphy]

I believe there is an aspect ratio issue with the Darnell frames we have been looking at, with width being flattered somewhat.

This may be making Prayer Man look a little bulkier than he really is.

Look for instance at how brawny the man in the white cowboy suit (back to camera) looks in Darnell (look at those big arms!):

Now look at the same man in Wiegman--he looks so much more slight:

Aspect ratio really does matter in these things. It was for instance the reason some people thought the rather gorilla-esque 'Lovelady' in the Martin film couldn't possibly be the real Lovelady.

Here is what happens to Prayer Man with a 10% reduction in the width of the Darnell frame (without corresponding reduction in height):

**

Would anyone here--Robin? Martin?--have the know-how to look at this aspect ratio issue in a more systematic fashion?

Edited August 26, 2013 by Sean Murphy

[J. Raymond Carroll]

What do Joe Molina, Carl Edward Jones, Roy Edward Lewis, and Prayer Man all have in common?

No one else in the "Step Group" testified these individuals were on the steps.

Nice one Richard!

i Have no doubt that Prayer man was there,

and I am assuming there is no reason to doubt that the others you mention were there.

Since this is such a great thread, and you seem to have done the homework, perhaps you would elaborate, for the sake of completeness.

Edited August 26, 2013 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Robert Prudhomme]

I believe there is an aspect ratio issue with the Darnell frames we have been looking at, with width being flattered somewhat.

This may be making Prayer Man look a little bulkier than he really is.

Look for instance at how brawny the man in the white cowboy suit (back to camera) looks in Darnell (look at those big arms!):

Now look at the same man in Wiegman--he looks so much more slight:

Aspect ratio really does matter in these things. It was for instance the reason some people thought the rather gorilla-esque 'Lovelady' in the Martin film couldn't possibly be the real Lovelady.

Here is what happens to Prayer Man with a 10% reduction in the width of the Darnell frame (without corresponding reduction in height):

**

Would anyone here--Robin? Martin?--have the know-how to look at this aspect ratio issue in a more systematic fashion?

Hello Sean

If that is a bottle of Coke that Payer Man is holding, it still bothers me that, in both pictures, he appears to be holding it with both hands. Does this seem normal?

As I stated earlier in this thread, the posture reminds me of the stance my late father used to assume after he bought his first 8 mm home movie camera in the early 60's and he was out in public looking for something to film. We used to say he looked like a vulture waiting for something to die.

[Thomas Graves]

Sean,

The idea that the second floor lunchroom encounter was contrived is not a new theory, but one that has been previously proposed by Greg Parker, one of the best researchers who I have worked with on many areas of the assassination and have the highest respect for and Gilbride - whose book I have.

And I'm still willing to be convinced that Baker, Truly, Oswald and Reid lied and were made to switch their stories to a preconceived scenario do conceal the conspiracy, but Baker's first day report that says the encounter occurred on the third or fourth floor does not mean it happened on the first floor, and Mrs. Reid saying Oswald had white t-shirt on (he did) does not discount her testimony that he also had a full coke in his hand and appeared calm and not in a hurry.

Sean Murphy wrote:

[L]et's consider Baker's supposed actions that day.

He believes shots have been fired from the top of the building.

He has dashed into the building and, after a maddening delay at the elevators, begun his ascent.

Just one floor up in what he knows is going to be a high climb up a multi-storey building he comes out onto the landing and, as he is turning to hit the next flight of stairs, notices an indeterminate movement behind the glass pane of a closed door a good distance away--

There is nothing intrinsically suspicious about this movement, and certainly no sign that the person behind it has just passed through the closed door.

Yet Baker decides to interrupt his already delayed dash up the stairs and go after this person.

[...]

(emphasis added by T. Graves)

Sean,

I respectfully disagree.

It looks like officer Baker was only about 20 feet away from that lunchroom vestibule door when (he claimed) he saw Oswald through its window. (For orientation purposes, the photograph labeled "Commission Exhibit No. 498" was taken from about where the circled number "22" is on the diagram. http://mffprodos5.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=139038 )

Looking at the diagram, it seems that whoever Baker saw (if he saw anyone) must have been quite close to the window in order to be visible from stairs/stairwell area, and must have either 1) just gone through the door from the stairs/stairwell landing area into the "inside vestibule," 2) been getting ready to come though the door from the "inside vestibule", or 3) been looking (or getting ready to look) through the door's window towards the stairs/stairwell landing. I can think of no other reason to be in that strange little "inside vestibule" area, and I don't think a person standing inside the lunchroom proper would have been visible to Baker through that window.

(If you scroll down about 1/3 of the way on the following link, you'll see that Roy Truly calls the area where number "24" is in the diagram the "inside vestibule.")

--Tommy

Edited August 27, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Sean Murphy]

Hello Sean

If that is a bottle of Coke that Payer Man is holding, it still bothers me that, in both pictures, he appears to be holding it with both hands. Does this seem normal?

As I stated earlier in this thread, the posture reminds me of the stance my late father used to assume after he bought his first 8 mm home movie camera in the early 60's and he was out in public looking for something to film. We used to say he looked like a vulture waiting for something to die.

Robert, holding a coke with both hands is a little unusual but by no means unheard of...

If Prayer Man is taking periodic sips, his hands' default position will be a bit higher than in the photo above.

I actually came across a classic old-school small coke bottle yesterday and tried holding it in the posture of Prayer Man. The stance was surprisingly natural and comfortable.

There is of course also the possibility that something other than a coke is in Prayer Man's two hands.

Our old friend Captain Fritz might be able to offer us one interesting pointer:

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he was doing in the lunchroom?

Mr. FRITZ. He said he was having his lunch. He had a cheese sandwich and a Coca-Cola.

A sandwich?

Whether Coke, sandwich or neither--

Is it just me, or do Prayer Man's hands begin to lower ever so slightly just as the gif is reaching the end?

Edited August 27, 2013 by Sean Murphy

[Richard Hocking]

What do Joe Molina, Carl Edward Jones, Roy Edward Lewis, and Prayer Man all have in common?

No one else in the "Step Group" testified these individuals were on the steps.

Nice one Richard!

i Have no doubt that Prayer man was there,

and I am assuming there is no reason to doubt that the others you mention were there.

Since this is such a great thread, and you seem to have done the homework, perhaps you would elaborate, for the sake of completeness.

Ray,

Joe Molina is a good example. He gave his location as being on the top step of the entrance. He mentions Otis Williams standing next to him to his left, and Pauline Sanders being "close to there". He also mentioned seeing Roy Truly and Mr. Campbell standing together. But in Otis Williams FBI Statement of 3/19/64, he cannot recall who was standing on either side of him that day. Campbell did vouch for Sanders being out near him.

As for Sanders, the only person she mentions being out on the steps with her is Sarah Stanton. Truly and Campbell likewise fail to mention Molina's name.

Jones and Lewis also give specific information concerning their locations and who they were near. No one mentions either one of their names as being in the "Stair Group".

So are we to believe, Molina, Jones, Lewis, and Prayer Man were not on the steps?

It has been suggested numerous times that the failure of witnesses to include a certain individual in their testimony is proof that individual was not present. I was simply trying to illustrate the faulty logic.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hello Sean

If that is a bottle of Coke that Payer Man is holding, it still bothers me that, in both pictures, he appears to be holding it with both hands. Does this seem normal?

As I stated earlier in this thread, the posture reminds me of the stance my late father used to assume after he bought his first 8 mm home movie camera in the early 60's and he was out in public looking for something to film. We used to say he looked like a vulture waiting for something to die.

Robert, holding a coke with both hands is a little unusual but by no means unheard of...

If Prayer Man is taking periodic sips, his hands' default position will be a bit higher than in the photo above.

I actually came across a classic old-school small coke bottle yesterday and tried holding it in the posture of Prayer Man. The stance was surprisingly natural and comfortable.

There is of course also the possibility that something other than a coke is in Prayer Man's two hands.

Our old friend Captain Fritz might be able to offer us one interesting pointer:

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he was doing in the lunchroom? [/size]

Mr. FRITZ. He said he was having his lunch. He had a [/size]cheese sandwich[/size] and a Coca-Cola.[/size]

A sandwich?

Whether Coke, sandwich or neither--

Is it just me, or do Prayer Man's hands begin to lower ever so slightly just as the gif is reaching the end?

Now that you mention it...hmmm....

[Thomas Graves]

Hello Sean

If that is a bottle of Coke that Payer Man is holding, it still bothers me that, in both pictures, he appears to be holding it with both hands. Does this seem normal?

As I stated earlier in this thread, the posture reminds me of the stance my late father used to assume after he bought his first 8 mm home movie camera in the early 60's and he was out in public looking for something to film. We used to say he looked like a vulture waiting for something to die.

Robert, holding a coke with both hands is a little unusual but by no means unheard of...

If Prayer Man is taking periodic sips, his hands' default position will be a bit higher than in the photo above.

I actually came across a classic old-school small coke bottle yesterday and tried holding it in the posture of Prayer Man. The stance was surprisingly natural and comfortable.

There is of course also the possibility that something other than a coke is in Prayer Man's two hands.

Our old friend Captain Fritz might be able to offer us one interesting pointer:

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he was doing in the lunchroom?

Mr. FRITZ. He said he was having his lunch. He had a cheese sandwich and a Coca-Cola.

A sandwich?

Whether Coke, sandwich or neither--

Is it just me, or do Prayer Man's hands begin to lower ever so slightly just as the gif is reaching the end?

Sean,

The (apparent) lowering of PM's hands might be an optical illusion caused by the slow rising of the person in front of him (who is either standing up from a kneeling or sitting position or, perhaps, going up one step backwards).

--Tommy

Edited August 27, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Richard Hocking]

I believe there is an aspect ratio issue with the Darnell frames we have been looking at, with width being flattered somewhat.

This may be making Prayer Man look a little bulkier than he really is.

Look for instance at how brawny the man in the white cowboy suit (back to camera) looks in Darnell (look at those big arms!):

Now look at the same man in Wiegman--he looks so much more slight:

Aspect ratio really does matter in these things. It was for instance the reason some people thought the rather gorilla-esque 'Lovelady' in the Martin film couldn't possibly be the real Lovelady.

Here is what happens to Prayer Man with a 10% reduction in the width of the Darnell frame (without corresponding reduction in height):

**

Would anyone here--Robin? Martin?--have the know-how to look at this aspect ratio issue in a more systematic fashion?

Hello Sean

If that is a bottle of Coke that Payer Man is holding, it still bothers me that, in both pictures, he appears to be holding it with both hands. Does this seem normal?

As I stated earlier in this thread, the posture reminds me of the stance my late father used to assume after he bought his first 8 mm home movie camera in the early 60's and he was out in public looking for something to film. We used to say he looked like a vulture waiting for something to die.

Robert, The YouTube film clip that William Kelly linked to shows Prayer Man in the first segment.

Prayer Man lowers his right hand down to his side. There also appears to be upward movement with his left hand moving closer to his face.

If you have time to take a look at it, I would be interested in your take.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I believe there is an aspect ratio issue with the Darnell frames we have been looking at, with width being flattered somewhat.

This may be making Prayer Man look a little bulkier than he really is.

Look for instance at how brawny the man in the white cowboy suit (back to camera) looks in Darnell (look at those big arms!):

Now look at the same man in Wiegman--he looks so much more slight:

Aspect ratio really does matter in these things. It was for instance the reason some people thought the rather gorilla-esque 'Lovelady' in the Martin film couldn't possibly be the real Lovelady.

Here is what happens to Prayer Man with a 10% reduction in the width of the Darnell frame (without corresponding reduction in height):

**

Would anyone here--Robin? Martin?--have the know-how to look at this aspect ratio issue in a more systematic fashion?

Hello Sean

If that is a bottle of Coke that Payer Man is holding, it still bothers me that, in both pictures, he appears to be holding it with both hands. Does this seem normal?

As I stated earlier in this thread, the posture reminds me of the stance my late father used to assume after he bought his first 8 mm home movie camera in the early 60's and he was out in public looking for something to film. We used to say he looked like a vulture waiting for something to die.

Robert, The YouTube film clip that William Kelly linked to shows Prayer Man in the first segment.

Prayer Man lowers his right hand down to his side. There also appears to be upward movement with his left hand moving closer to his face.

If you have time to take a look at it, I would be interested in your take.

Hello Richard

Are you referring to the link Mr. Kelly posted in the first post of this thread?

[Richard Hocking]

I believe there is an aspect ratio issue with the Darnell frames we have been looking at, with width being flattered somewhat.

This may be making Prayer Man look a little bulkier than he really is.

Look for instance at how brawny the man in the white cowboy suit (back to camera) looks in Darnell (look at those big arms!):

Now look at the same man in Wiegman--he looks so much more slight:

Aspect ratio really does matter in these things. It was for instance the reason some people thought the rather gorilla-esque 'Lovelady' in the Martin film couldn't possibly be the real Lovelady.

Here is what happens to Prayer Man with a 10% reduction in the width of the Darnell frame (without corresponding reduction in height):

**

Would anyone here--Robin? Martin?--have the know-how to look at this aspect ratio issue in a more systematic fashion?

Hello Sean

If that is a bottle of Coke that Payer Man is holding, it still bothers me that, in both pictures, he appears to be holding it with both hands. Does this seem normal?

As I stated earlier in this thread, the posture reminds me of the stance my late father used to assume after he bought his first 8 mm home movie camera in the early 60's and he was out in public looking for something to film. We used to say he looked like a vulture waiting for something to die.

Robert, The YouTube film clip that William Kelly linked to shows Prayer Man in the first segment.

Prayer Man lowers his right hand down to his side. There also appears to be upward movement with his left hand moving closer to his face.

If you have time to take a look at it, I would be interested in your take.

Hello Richard

Are you referring to the link Mr. Kelly posted in the first post of this thread?

Yes.

Here is the link:

▶ L.H. Oswald Leaving TSBD November 22 1963? - YouTube