Why Does DVP Rattle Cages Here?

[David Von Pein]

And the CT model is SO much more efficient, isn't it Greg?...

Endless-List-Of-Liars.com

Edited July 27, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Greg Parker]

And the CT model is SO much more efficient, isn't it Greg?...

Good point, David! 52 years, never needed a service and still purring like a kitten!

Endless-List-Of-Liars.com

New name for yer WC shrine?

[Don Jeffries]

Not after any prizes or recognition. I do like things to be kept honest and factual and I have an inbuilt distaste for plagiarists.

I did ask Jim to post a link to his essay which he said proved his claim. He hasn't done it yet. How about you? Can you post link showing YOU or ANYONE else denied the 2nd floor encounter ever happened that is dated pre-2001? Can you give a citation from a book published prior to 2001 where the alleged encounter is denied to have taken place?

See... now it's more about you guys insinuating I'm trying to take credit for something I shouldn't and not being able to back up your claims.

Put up or shut up.

The classic voice of the bully shines through in every one of your posts. I doubted the Baker story before I started posting on the internet, Greg. Sorry, I can't retrieve and print out twenty five year old memories. I also have no way of documenting when these doubts first arose in my mind, and I hadn't been published yet, beyond an article in Penn Jones TCI, which didn't touch on this. In your world, this somehow means that I'm trying to steal your thunder. If there are archives of the old DellaRosa forum, my thoughts on this should be there.

Now, IF I am mistaken about when I first expressed doubts about this online, I am perfectly willing to admit that my memory was faulty. Unlike you, I can admit a mistake. It's certainly possible that I wrote about this first on the Lancer forum, for instance. I've written a lot of posts over the years on various forums. If I did so after you'd already talked about it somewhere, then I did so without any knowledge of that, or of you. Like Jim, I had no idea who you were at that point. Of that I am certain.

You really have some hubris, to tell others that YOU know their beliefs, and when they expressed them, better than they do. I'm not claiming to have made some great discovery here; in fact, Vincent Salandria probably ought to get the credit for all of this, because he was the first to suggest that the shoddy cover-up was shoddy on purpose. I don't think anybody is claiming credit for this except you.

[Mark Knight]

I'm not going to weigh in on whether Greg Parker's claims about being the first are correct or not...simply because I don't know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is correct OR incorrect.

I will say that there has been considerable discussion about the [alleged] 2nd floor lunchroom encounter, and Bill Kelly's JFK Countercoup blog gives Greg Parker much credit for "the lunchroom encounter that never was." Kelly then goes on with the argument that, even if the lunchroom encounter DID occur, it didn't happen per the WC script.

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-doors-of-perception-why-oswald-is.html

Kelly's argument is that, even if such a 2nd-floor lunchroom encounter DID occur, Oswald had to have entered the lunchroom from the opposite direction as Baker. I think that Kelly's argument is sound and that even if a 2nd-floor encounter did occur, it was because Oswald had been on the FIRST floor as he claimed, and not the 6th...which does NOT preclude Oswald being "Prayer Man."

As to who gets the credit? I haven't read every article and paragraph out there, so I'm in no position to definitively answer the "Who's on first?" question.

[James DiEugenio]

Mark:

That is Howard Roffman in his early book, Presumed GuIlty. Which Bill likes a lot. And it is a good book for its era. BTW, Howard went on to law school, from which he graduated at an early age. In fact, I think he wrote his book when he was something like 19 or 20. He ended up being the corporate lawyer for Lucasfilm.

That idea of Oswald coming up from below, and not above, is also used in Don Thomas', Hear no Evil. Which is an interesting book. (BTW the whole "coming down the stairs from above" baloney is detonated in the Ernst book about Vickie Adams. And he found her before she died.)

Roffman/Thomas is a solid argument I think. But I don't advocate it myself anymore. As I noted, I came to this through Weisberg's book Whitewash 2, in which he refers to Baker's first day affidavit. But he did not have the original documents in the book. So I found them online. But Harold did note how the DPD began to change Baker's affidavit that night. I then noted the Baker dialogue with Dulles, and this lead me to the whole issue of him preparaing the affidavit in the witness room with Oswald, which Dulles tried to soften the impact of.

Edited July 27, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Kenneth Drew]

You [Greg Parker] won't win any prizes for it, but if it makes you feel better, keep claiming credit for being the first to doubt Baker encountered Oswald.

This is hilarity at its finest.

It's kind of like wanting to take credit for being the person who designed The Edsel.

the person who designed The Edsel. Hey are you overlooking the Studebaker?

[Kenneth Drew]

You're being deliberately ridiculous, Ken. But you already know that.

Let me pose some questions back at you.

So it would be okay with you if someone else claimed credit for Armstrong's 2 Oswald theory?

I'm sure someone talked about the CIA framing Oswald in the past 50 years, so it's the same thing according to your reasoning, and Armstrong is being wrongly credited.

Lifton's body snatch theory?

I'm sure someone talked about the medical evidence in the past 50 years prior to Lifton, so he shouldn't be claiming any credit for his twist on it?

This whole thing started with Jimmy di making a claim that Weisberg was the first to suggest the 2nd floor encounter never happened. Are you happy for incorrect claims like that to be made? Isn't that kind of thing the thin end of the wedge, and part of the problem with this whole alleged community? I mean, where is the line being drawn? Shouldn't people be asked to substantiate their claims? Are we now and forever more, playing Rafferty's Rules with history?

Shouldn't people be asked to substantiate their claims? Depends. What is a 'claim'. My statement that the BYPs are fake is not a 'claim', it's an opinion. Substantiate it? Look at the photos. You would likely have the same 'opinion'. I would expect that if someone has a theory or a claim that may be a little different and they want to write a book or paper about it, then I would expect that they would show 'evidence' of their reason for the claim. I'm sure that if someone wrote a book on 'My Speculations' about JFK, then they might get by with just making a statement, But then the books would likely sell like, uh, well like DVPs 'co written' book. "So it would be okay with you if someone else claimed credit for Armstrong's 2 Oswald theory?" I suspect not too many would want credit for it. It is interesting reading. I was working on "The Aliens Done it" but I'm having problems getting any Martians or Venusians to verify my claims.

[Greg Parker]

My statement that the BYPs are fake is not a 'claim', it's an opinion. Substantiate it? Look at the photos. You would likely have the same 'opinion'.

Yes, but not from eyeballing. From other evidence.

[Greg Parker]

Mark:

That is Howard Roffman in his early book, Presumed GuIlty. Which Bill likes a lot. And it is a good book for its era. BTW, Howard went on to law school, from which he graduated at an early age. In fact, I think he wrote his book when he was something like 19 or 20. He ended up being the corporate lawyer for Lucasfilm.

That idea of Oswald coming up from below, and not above, is also used in Don Thomas', Hear no Evil. Which is an interesting book. (BTW the whole "coming down the stairs from above" baloney is detonated in the Ernst book about Vickie Adams. And he found her before she died.)

Roffman/Thomas is a solid argument I think. But I don't advocate it myself anymore. As I noted, I came to this through Weisberg's book Whitewash 2, in which he refers to Baker's first day affidavit. But he did not have the original documents in the book. So I found them online. But Harold did note how the DPD began to change Baker's affidavit that night. I then noted the Baker dialogue with Dulles, and this lead me to the whole issue of him preparaing the affidavit in the witness room with Oswald, which Dulles tried to soften the impact of.

Bill has a hard time believing Marrion Baker would lie. That's the bottom line.

The DPD made no changes in Baker's affidavit. They simply typed it up. The 2nd floor lunch room story emerged through Truly later that night via the FBI. Weisberg never questioned that the 2nd floor encounter actually happened, and Marvin Johnson was the first indication of Oswald being present when the affidavit was taken. It is not possible for you to have taken the idea of "no lunchroom encounter" from Weisberg. You may have extrapolated from his work. But then, that is not the claim you are making.

Johnson's statement:

REPORT ON OFFICER'S DUTIES IN REGARD TO THE PRESIDENT'S

MURDER

MARVIN JOHNSON - #879

"While in the office [Fritz's] from 3:00pm until 2:00am I answered the phone and took an affidavit from Patrolman ML Baker. Patrolman Baker stated in his affidavit that he was riding escort on his motorcycle for the President's motorcade; that he heard the shots that killed the President and wounded Governor Connally; that he decided the shots were coming from the Texas School Book Depository Building. After determining the origin of the shots, he jumped from his motor and ran into the building. He found a man who said he was the building manager. Officer Baker and the building manager then went to a stairway and started up the stairs to search the building. On the 4th floor Officer Baker apprehended a man that was walking away from the stairway on that floor. Officer Baker started to search the man, but the building manager stated that the man was an employee of the company and was known to him. Officer Baker released the man and continued his search of the building. Officer Baker later identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man he had seen on the 4th floor of the Texas School Book Depository."

"When Patrolman ML Baker identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man that he stopped in the Texas School Book Depository Building, Patrolman Baker was in the Homicide Bureau giving an affidavit and Oswald was brought into the room to talk to some Secret Service men. When Baker saw Oswald he stated, 'that is the man I stopped on the 4th floor of the School Book Depository.'"

------------------------------------------

I posted the above to McAdams' newsgroup in 2002.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/IjGQfgzWlEk

The statement is not dated. It's sole purpose seems to be to cover Baker's butt because Baker most emphatically did NOT identify Oswald in his affidavit. But it also confirms that Baker had an encounter on the 4th floor and since that is a lot closer to the top of the building, suspicion is far more warranted - so those talking about the gun being pulled etc as being in itself suspicious, are not correct - not when you move the encounter to the right location. Truly allowed either another employee, or a stranger in the building, to escape Baker's clutches. I rule out another employee on the basis that there seems no reason to cover that up.

[Greg Parker]

Not after any prizes or recognition. I do like things to be kept honest and factual and I have an inbuilt distaste for plagiarists.

I did ask Jim to post a link to his essay which he said proved his claim. He hasn't done it yet. How about you? Can you post link showing YOU or ANYONE else denied the 2nd floor encounter ever happened that is dated pre-2001? Can you give a citation from a book published prior to 2001 where the alleged encounter is denied to have taken place?

See... now it's more about you guys insinuating I'm trying to take credit for something I shouldn't and not being able to back up your claims.

Put up or shut up.

The classic voice of the bully shines through in every one of your posts. I doubted the Baker story before I started posting on the internet, Greg. Sorry, I can't retrieve and print out twenty five year old memories. I also have no way of documenting when these doubts first arose in my mind, and I hadn't been published yet, beyond an article in Penn Jones TCI, which didn't touch on this. In your world, this somehow means that I'm trying to steal your thunder. If there are archives of the old DellaRosa forum, my thoughts on this should be there.

Now, IF I am mistaken about when I first expressed doubts about this online, I am perfectly willing to admit that my memory was faulty. Unlike you, I can admit a mistake. It's certainly possible that I wrote about this first on the Lancer forum, for instance. I've written a lot of posts over the years on various forums. If I did so after you'd already talked about it somewhere, then I did so without any knowledge of that, or of you. Like Jim, I had no idea who you were at that point. Of that I am certain.

You really have some hubris, to tell others that YOU know their beliefs, and when they expressed them, better than they do. I'm not claiming to have made some great discovery here; in fact, Vincent Salandria probably ought to get the credit for all of this, because he was the first to suggest that the shoddy cover-up was shoddy on purpose. I don't think anybody is claiming credit for this except you.

Your previous claim was that many raised doubts that the 2nd floor encounter ever happened. So my question to you was "Can you post a link showing YOU or ANYONE else denied the 2nd floor encounter ever happened that is dated pre-2001? Can you give a citation from a book published prior to 2001 where the alleged encounter is denied to have taken place?"

I would have thought since there were so many voices casting doubt on it, that it would be an easy thing for you to point to just one example in an article or book. Apparently you can't.

I think you calling me a bully instead of simply admitting there are no examples you can give from anyone or any source, says it all. You can't provide what never existed.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Kenneth Drew]

My statement that the BYPs are fake is not a 'claim', it's an opinion. Substantiate it? Look at the photos. You would likely have the same 'opinion'.

Yes, but not from eyeballing. From other evidence.

Yes, but not from eyeballing. Greg, I have seen some copies of the photos where you can see images through the 'body' of LHO, such as the boards in the fence and some of the twigs and leaves of the flower bushes. When you see those images, you know they were on the negative before the body was laid over it. No other substantiation is necessary. Kinda like BHO's birth certificate.

[Greg Parker]

My statement that the BYPs are fake is not a 'claim', it's an opinion. Substantiate it? Look at the photos. You would likely have the same 'opinion'.

Yes, but not from eyeballing. From other evidence.

Yes, but not from eyeballing. Greg, I have seen some copies of the photos where you can see images through the 'body' of LHO, such as the boards in the fence and some of the twigs and leaves of the flower bushes. When you see those images, you know they were on the negative before the body was laid over it. No other substantiation is necessary. Kinda like BHO's birth certificate.

I agree the photos look odd. But I am not a photo-analyst. Besides which eyeballing doesn't tell anything about the back-story to their creation, and that's my real interest in them.

[Kenneth Drew]

My statement that the BYPs are fake is not a 'claim', it's an opinion. Substantiate it? Look at the photos. You would likely have the same 'opinion'.

Yes, but not from eyeballing. From other evidence.

Yes, but not from eyeballing. Greg, I have seen some copies of the photos where you can see images through the 'body' of LHO, such as the boards in the fence and some of the twigs and leaves of the flower bushes. When you see those images, you know they were on the negative before the body was laid over it. No other substantiation is necessary. Kinda like BHO's birth certificate.

I agree the photos look odd. But I am not a photo-analyst. Besides which eyeballing doesn't tell anything about the back-story to their creation, and that's my real interest in them.

I'm not a photo analyst either, unless the definition of photo analyst is "can look at photo and see what is in the photo'. Once you know the photo's are fake then you know there is/was a conspiracy. Does it matter who made them and planted them? I'm sure they were simply operatives of the conspiracy. We certainly know that there were copies of them in DPD headquarters the night of the 22nd, before they were 'supposedly' found at Oswald's place. We know that several of them were found in locations having nothing to do with private photos taken of Lee by Marina.

[Greg Parker]

My statement that the BYPs are fake is not a 'claim', it's an opinion. Substantiate it? Look at the photos. You would likely have the same 'opinion'.

Yes, but not from eyeballing. From other evidence.

Yes, but not from eyeballing. Greg, I have seen some copies of the photos where you can see images through the 'body' of LHO, such as the boards in the fence and some of the twigs and leaves of the flower bushes. When you see those images, you know they were on the negative before the body was laid over it. No other substantiation is necessary. Kinda like BHO's birth certificate.

I agree the photos look odd. But I am not a photo-analyst. Besides which eyeballing doesn't tell anything about the back-story to their creation, and that's my real interest in them.

I'm not a photo analyst either, unless the definition of photo analyst is "can look at photo and see what is in the photo'. Once you know the photo's are fake then you know there is/was a conspiracy. Does it matter who made them and planted them? I'm sure they were simply operatives of the conspiracy. We certainly know that there were copies of them in DPD headquarters the night of the 22nd, before they were 'supposedly' found at Oswald's place. We know that several of them were found in locations having nothing to do with private photos taken of Lee by Marina.

What I'm saying is that the photos looking odd to me means diddlysquat. I am not qualified to say they are fake. There could be perfectly rational reasons for their odd appearance to do with all manner of technical matters of which I am unaware. I do think they are fake because of other evidence that also points to who faked them.

If you believe you have ruled out any possible rational explanations for the odd appearance of the photos, more power to you.

[James DiEugenio]

In Weisberg's book Whitewash 2, he quotes from Baker's first day affidavit, about the 3rd or 4th floor. (See page 42.)

He then shows how this evolved over time into something else in another affidavit by Baker which contradicts the first one. (See page 44)

He then writes that certain documents he found since his first book, "destroy the basic parts of Baker's story" as portrayed in the WR. (ibid, p. 42)

Johnson said Baker identified Oswald as the man on the fourth floor. Harold refers to Johnson taking an affidavit from Baker. Which is what led me to Johnson.

If you are willing to do that kind of cheap smear against me, you can count me out of speaking at your conference.

And goodbye Greg.