Jump to content
The Education Forum

Why Does DVP Rattle Cages Here?


Recommended Posts

It's a matter of timing, Dave, plus the fact Oswald was seen by a receptionist on the 2nd floor. Whomever Baker saw on the 4th floor (wearing a jacket that Oswald did not own) could not have been LHO, as he could not be seen by the receptionist PLUS be on the 4th floor.

Add to this it would look very suspicious for Oswald to have descended only two storeys in the time it took Baker to make his way to the 4th floor.

Fritz's notes, written to appear to be hastily jotted down during an interview, were actually written a week after the assassination. Bogus, and not a reliable source.

Why was Truly's affidavit taken on the 23rd, while almost every other TSBD gave their affidavits on the 22nd?

Not only was the interview with Curry filmed on the 23rd, at no point does Curry say where the encounter with Baker and Oswald took place. It could have been at the front door, for all we know. No matter, by the 23rd, the conspiracy was taking shape nicely. If this interview with Curry had taken place on the afternoon of the 22nd, I might take you seriously.

You got nothin', Dave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 283
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Let me get this straight, Bob....

You, too, are actually in the "THERE WAS NO SECOND-FLOOR ENCOUNTER AT ALL" camp?

So, here's the LIARS COUNT (per CTers) on JUST this one issue re: the second floor....

Baker
Truly
Fritz
Curry

Incredible.

And your excuse about Mrs. Reid and Oswald is laughable. If the encounter with Oswald had really happened on the 4th floor, there's no good reason under the moon to CHANGE it to the 2nd floor. In fact, it's idiotic. They'd be lying for no good reason whatsoever. And Oswald could have easily still seen Mrs. Reid in the 2nd-floor offices AFTER the encounter with Baker just two floors higher. There was nobody with a stopwatch timing Oswald's movements. The timing could have still worked out perfectly for LHO and Mrs. Reid to see each other on the 2nd floor.

You're inventing bogus nonsense out of nothing more than Marrion Baker misremembering exactly what floor he saw LHO on.

Pathetic.

IOW---par for the ABO / CT course.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Addendum / Follow-Up.....

While searching my November 1963 newspaper archive, I found the following excerpt in the 11/23/63 Dallas Morning News....

"Police had encountered him [Oswald] while searching the building shortly after the assassination. They turned him loose when he was identified as an employe..." -- Dallas Morning News, 11/23/63, p.1

Now keep in mind that the DMN newspaper was, of course, a MORNING paper and therefore in order for the above words to appear in that paper on the morning of Saturday, November 23rd, the information in the article would have certainly been obtained no later than the previous evening (November 22).

Therefore, the story about Lee Harvey Oswald having been "encountered" by the "police" while the police were "searching the building shortly after the assassination", and then the police having "turned him loose when he was identified as an employe" (all direct quotes from the DMN front-page article on November 23), was most definitely being reported to the press no later than the evening of Friday, November 22, 1963.

So, it looks like the conspiracy theorists can add the staff of the Dallas Morning News to their list of liars when it comes to this topic of Baker and Oswald and the "second-floor encounter".

Click to enlarge....

Dallas+Morning+News+Front+Page+(11-23-63

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Von Pein, if you would, kindly quote the part in that newspaper story where it says police encountered Oswald on the second floor...because I apparently missed that part.

And yes, I enlarged the newspaper to try to find it. Maybe your eyes are better than mine; please draw an arrow to the part of THIS newspaper where it says police encountered Oswald on the second floor. Because I'm not seeing a "second-floor encounter," to use your words, mentioned at all.

If it's NOT in the news story shown that the encounter was on the second floor....then you cannot use this newspaper story to prove a "second-floor encounter."

Which means you're being deceitful IF you're trying to tell us it mentions a "second-floor encounter" when it actually does not.

So please have the courtesy to point out where in the story it says that there was a "second-floor encounter," or please have the courtesy to admit that the story makes no mention of a "second floor encounter" and you were engaging in something less than honesty.

Unless you mean that the DMN actually WAS lying, when they FAILED to mention an encounter on the second floor. If that's what you meant, please clarify your statement.

And please answer this post BEFORE editing the aforementioned "second floor encounter" language out of your post # 138 above.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Addendum / Follow-Up.....

While searching my November 1963 newspaper archive, I found the following excerpt in the 11/23/63 Dallas Morning News....

"Police had encountered him [Oswald] while searching the building shortly after the assassination. They turned him loose when he was identified as an employe..." -- Dallas Morning News, 11/23/63, p.1

Now keep in mind that the DMN newspaper was, of course, a MORNING paper and therefore in order for the above words to appear in that paper on the morning of Saturday, November 23rd, the information in the article would have certainly been obtained no later than the previous evening (November 22).

Therefore, the story about Lee Harvey Oswald having been "encountered" by the "police" while the police were "searching the building shortly after the assassination", and then the police having "turned him loose when he was identified as an employe" (all direct quotes from the DMN front-page article on November 23), was most definitely being reported to the press no later than the evening of Friday, November 22, 1963.

So, it looks like the conspiracy theorists can add the staff of the Dallas Morning News to their list of liars when it comes to this topic of Baker and Oswald and the "second-floor encounter".

Click to enlarge....

Dallas+Morning+News+Front+Page+(11-23-63

David,

Where on this newspaper page does it say anything about a "second floor encounter?"

Thank you,

--Tommy :sun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

~sigh~

Mark, when I put quotes around the words "second-floor encounter", I was certainly NOT directly quoting the DMN article. I've been putting quote marks around those words ("second-floor encounter") for the last couple of days now in my posts here at EF (such as this post and this post), only to stress that the conspiracy theorists think the "second-floor encounter" is a totally bogus and fabricated "second-floor encounter" altogether. The utilization of quotation marks around a word or phrase, as you know, oftentimes is done by a writer to denote something that ALLEGEDLY has taken place.

If I confused you with my quotation marks in my last post, I'm sorry. But I was not quoting the DMN there. Because, you're right, the paper doesn't specifically say the "encounter" took place on the second floor. But the main point I was making in posting that DMN article was to simply show people like Bob Prudhomme, etc., that an "encounter" involving the police and Lee Oswald inside the Depository WAS being reported to the press on November 22. With the press also receiving the additional important information about Oswald being "turned...loose when he was identified as an employe".

All of that information fits perfectly with every version of the event that was ever uttered by both Marrion Baker and Roy Truly. The only thing missing is the exact location within the Depository where the "encounter" took place.

Now, let's see if Robert Prudhomme would like to take back what he told me just a few hours ago when he said this....

"If this interview with Curry had taken place on the afternoon of the 22nd, I might take you seriously." -- Bob Prudhomme

Well, I think I just proved in my last post (via the DMN article) that the press most definitely had the story on November 22 itself about Oswald being seen by the police in the TSBD and then "turned loose". But many CTers don't seem to believe that ANY "encounter" occurred between the policeman Baker and Lee Oswald AT ALL.

So let's see if Bob now wants to claim that the alleged official cover story concerning the Baker/Oswald encounter started just a tiny little bit BEFORE the 11/23/63 edition of the Dallas Morning News went to press.

And then when I find an AFTERNOON paper from November 22 from somewhere else in the country, or when I locate a radio or television snippet from the afternoon of November 22 which mentions the policeman/Oswald encounter (which might very well exist somewhere in my huge audio/video collection), maybe Bob can then move those goal posts even more, perhaps to the MORNING of November 22nd.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then...the term "second floor encounter" is nowhere to be found in the newspaper page you used to prove a "second floor encounter." Thank goodness; I though my eyes had failed me.

While I believe you DID intend to mislead by using the phrase, "second floor encounter" in conjunction with the newspaper page, I'll let you off the hook since I cannot prove intent. And while I know that you probably won't take any advice from me, I'll offer one tidbit anyway:

Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, I know of nothing you have shown that would get a guilty vote.

Yeah, sure, Ken.

All you have to do, Ken, is totally IGNORE all of these little nitpicky items in order to avoid a "Guilty" vote against Lee Oswald....

...The C2766 rifle.

there is not even any evidence that rifle was fired on 11/22

...The documents establishing that OSWALD owned the C2766 rifle.

And of course, you know there is not any such documents

...All of the bullets.

Not one single bullet has been proven to have been fired from 2766 on 11/22. Absolutely none.

...All of the bullet shells.

Did not keep the recoverers initials on them and there is no chain of custody and there is no proof they were fired on 11/22

...Oswald's prints on various items (boxes, rifle, paper bag).

Of which there is Eggzackly none.

...The Tippit murder evidence (and eyewitnesses).

There is no Tippit murder evidence that even slightly implicates Oswald, other than that??????

...Howard Brennan's WC testimony.

Now you're back to having to use Brennan? Even tho his description has been proven 100% in error.

...Oswald's OWN ACTIONS and out-of-the-ordinary behavior on both Nov. 21 and 22.

Drinking the coke in the lunch room? Coming to work that day? Being named Lee Harvey Oswald? Being a CIA agent? which one of those wraps it up?

Good luck, Ken, in finding 12 jurors who are willing to pretend that ALL OF THE ABOVE is "fake" stuff (including OSWALD'S OWN ACTIONS AND LIES).

Most of the 'evidence' wouldn't get in the court room, certainly not presented to a jury.

(Are all of the O.J. jurors still alive? You might give them a call. They're about your only hope.)

You sure like to beat a dead horse. Putting out a list of 'evidence' that would never get to the jury is not very impressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me get this straight, Bob....

You, too, are actually in the "THERE WAS NO SECOND-FLOOR ENCOUNTER AT ALL" camp?

So, here's the LIARS COUNT (per CTers) on JUST this one issue re: the second floor....

Baker

Truly

Fritz

Curry

Incredible.

And your excuse about Mrs. Reid and Oswald is laughable. If the encounter with Oswald had really happened on the 4th floor, there's no good reason under the moon to CHANGE it to the 2nd floor. In fact, it's idiotic. They'd be lying for no good reason whatsoever. And Oswald could have easily still seen Mrs. Reid in the 2nd-floor offices AFTER the encounter with Baker just two floors higher. There was nobody with a stopwatch timing Oswald's movements. The timing could have still worked out perfectly for LHO and Mrs. Reid to see each other on the 2nd floor.

You're inventing bogus nonsense out of nothing more than Marrion Baker misremembering exactly what floor he saw LHO on.

Pathetic.

IOW---par for the ABO / CT course.

DVP

you sure are confused. At no time has Bob said he didn't believe there was a 2nd floor encounter. His problem is that Baker said it was the 3rd or 4th floor while the world thinks/thought it was on the 2nd floor but the Baker allowed them to 'change' Baker's testimony (statement) to the 2nd floor.

and my question was: How many other 'pieces of evidence' got changed to fit with the preconception/preplanned scenario. It's like Weitzman being absolutely sure it was a Mauser, but then agreed that 'he was mistaken' just because the rifle was changed out to a MC. (There were actually about 5 witnesses that swore that it was a Mauser that later 'changed' their story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Addendum / Follow-Up.....

While searching my November 1963 newspaper archive, I found the following excerpt in the 11/23/63 Dallas Morning News....

"Police had encountered him [Oswald] while searching the building shortly after the assassination. They turned him loose when he was identified as an employe..." -- Dallas Morning News, 11/23/63, p.1

Now keep in mind that the DMN newspaper was, of course, a MORNING paper and therefore in order for the above words to appear in that paper on the morning of Saturday, November 23rd, the information in the article would have certainly been obtained no later than the previous evening (November 22).

Therefore, the story about Lee Harvey Oswald having been "encountered" by the "police" while the police were "searching the building shortly after the assassination", and then the police having "turned him loose when he was identified as an employe" (all direct quotes from the DMN front-page article on November 23), was most definitely being reported to the press no later than the evening of Friday, November 22, 1963.

So, it looks like the conspiracy theorists can add the staff of the Dallas Morning News to their list of liars when it comes to this topic of Baker and Oswald and the "second-floor encounter".

Click to enlarge....

Dallas+Morning+News+Front+Page+(11-23-63

So, it looks like the conspiracy theorists can add the staff of the Dallas Morning News Ah, but it's you DVP that is playing kangaroo and jumping to conclusions. Because it is in a morning paper does not mean they had to know the 'evening' before. Some reporters may actually work until the paper goes to press.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're the confused one, Ken.

Bob Prudhomme most definitely is silly enough to think there wasn't ANY "second-floor encounter" between Baker and Oswald.

Isn't it obvious he thinks there was no such encounter when he said all this?.....

"Whomever Baker saw on the 4th floor (wearing a jacket that Oswald did not own) could not have been LHO. .... At no point does Curry say where the encounter with Baker and Oswald took place. .... You got nothin', Dave."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Addendum / Follow-Up.....

While searching my November 1963 newspaper archive, I found the following excerpt in the 11/23/63 Dallas Morning News....

"Police had encountered him [Oswald] while searching the building shortly after the assassination. They turned him loose when he was identified as an employe..." -- Dallas Morning News, 11/23/63, p.1

Now keep in mind that the DMN newspaper was, of course, a MORNING paper and therefore in order for the above words to appear in that paper on the morning of Saturday, November 23rd, the information in the article would have certainly been obtained no later than the previous evening (November 22).

Therefore, the story about Lee Harvey Oswald having been "encountered" by the "police" while the police were "searching the building shortly after the assassination", and then the police having "turned him loose when he was identified as an employe" (all direct quotes from the DMN front-page article on November 23), was most definitely being reported to the press no later than the evening of Friday, November 22, 1963.

So, it looks like the conspiracy theorists can add the staff of the Dallas Morning News to their list of liars when it comes to this topic of Baker and Oswald and the "second-floor encounter".

Click to enlarge....

Dallas+Morning+News+Front+Page+(11-23-63

DVP I hope you're not using that paper for it's 'accuracy'. It says Kennedy was shot with a Mauser at 12:20 and died at 1:00Pm and that LHO was apprehended an hour later at a Theatre. Which of those statements are true. Mauser? 12:20? 1:00PM? an hour later? Maybe the reporters should have gotten an earlier start and they might have gotten at least one of those correct. Oh, and it says the call that it was LHO went out after he didn't show up for a 'roll call of employees' meeting. Are we supposed to believe that meeting was held prior to the 12:45 call that it was him?

Edited by Kenneth Drew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it is in a morning paper does not mean they had to know the 'evening' before. Some reporters may actually work until the paper goes to press.

And when do you think the DMN went to press in order for it to be on the streets early in the morning on the 23rd?

Care to split any more hairs tonight, Ken?

You guys are cooked on this thing and you know it.

After my Curry and DMN proofs in this thread, no CTer can possibly still pretend that NO "encounter" (regardless of the floor number) took place between a Dallas policeman and Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63.

But I'm guessing there will be a few CTers who will still give it a try.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then...the term "second floor encounter" is nowhere to be found in the newspaper page you used to prove a "second floor encounter." Thank goodness; I though my eyes had failed me.

While I believe you DID intend to mislead by using the phrase, "second floor encounter" in conjunction with the newspaper page, I'll let you off the hook since I cannot prove intent.

I resent the implication in that remark, Mr. Knight. I NEVER deliberately misquote people, or newspapers, or anything else, with an intent to deceive. Never have. Never will.

I fully explained the reason I utilized the quote marks in that previous post. And I even cited TWO previous recent examples where I did exactly the same thing (and I certainly wasn't quoting the DMN in those posts; ergo, those quote marks were there for a different purpose---the very same purpose I intended in the DMN post).

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

~sigh~

Mark, when I put quotes around the words "second-floor encounter", I was certainly NOT directly quoting the DMN article. I've been putting quote marks around those words ("second-floor encounter") for the last couple of days now in my posts here at EF (such as this post and this post), only to stress that the conspiracy theorists think the "second-floor encounter" is a totally bogus and fabricated "second-floor encounter" altogether. The utilization of quotation marks around a word or phrase, as you know, oftentimes is done by a writer to denote something that ALLEGEDLY has taken place.

If I confused you with my quotation marks in my last post, I'm sorry. But I was not quoting the DMN there. Because, you're right, the paper doesn't specifically say the "encounter" took place on the second floor. But the main point I was making in posting that DMN article was to simply show people like Bob Prudhomme, etc., that an "encounter" involving the police and Lee Oswald inside the Depository WAS being reported to the press on November 22. With the press also receiving the additional important information about Oswald being "turned...loose when he was identified as an employe".

All of that information fits perfectly with every version of the event that was ever uttered by both Marrion Baker and Roy Truly. The only thing missing is the exact location within the Depository where the "encounter" took place.

Now, let's see if Robert Prudhomme would like to take back what he told me just a few hours ago when he said this....

"If this interview with Curry had taken place on the afternoon of the 22nd, I might take you seriously." -- Bob Prudhomme

Well, I think I just proved in my last post (via the DMN article) that the press most definitely had the story on November 22 itself about Oswald being seen by the police in the TSBD and then "turned loose". But many CTers don't seem to believe that ANY "encounter" occurred between the policeman Baker and Lee Oswald AT ALL.

So let's see if Bob now wants to claim that the alleged official cover story concerning the Baker/Oswald encounter started just a tiny little bit BEFORE the 11/23/63 edition of the Dallas Morning News went to press.

And then when I find an AFTERNOON paper from November 22 from somewhere else in the country, or when I locate a radio or television snippet from the afternoon of November 22 which mentions the policeman/Oswald encounter (which might very well exist somewhere in my huge audio/video collection), maybe Bob can then move those goal posts even more, perhaps to the MORNING of November 22nd.

was to simply show people like Bob Prudhomme, etc., that an "encounter" involving the police and Lee Oswald inside the Depository WAS being reported to the press on November 22. that's not true at all, because you said that we now had to add the DMN staff to the list of liars about there being a 'second floor encounter' If it had just been an encounter, then no one would be lying and you wouldn't have a point. As it is, you tried to make up something to support your misleading info and got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

Edited by Kenneth Drew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...