One Last Thing Before Xmas Eve: 2nd Floor Lunch Room Encounter

[Robert Prudhomme]

Richard Gilbride said:

"In WC 3076, the Sept. 23rd affidavit (p. 34 of Inside Job), the fifth paragraph initially began "On the second or third floor, where the lunchroom is located..." but ""or third floor" was crossed out, i.e. 6 months after his testimony, which included 2 re-enactments, Baker was still confused about the TSBD floor layout. Just like he was during his 1st-day affidavit."

Does this mean Baker was still confused about whether or not Oswald was drinking a Coke, as this was crossed out and initialled by Baker in the same manner?

[David Von Pein]

LEE HARVEY OSWALD, MARRION BAKER, ROY TRULY, AND THE COKE:

Excerpt.....

"Officer Baker's 9/23/64 statement is weird, I'll grant the conspiracy theorists that much. It's obviously not Baker's handwriting. It's someone else's. But Baker DID sign it and initial the cross-outs. There's no doubt about that either. If CTers want to think Baker was coerced into crossing out the "Coke" reference, I'll ask again -- Why didn't the FBI simply re-write the whole thing--sans any "Coke" reference--and then have Baker sign the revised statement? That would have taken--what?--an extra 5 minutes?

The fact that CROSS-OUTS exist in that document at all is pretty good proof that the FBI wasn't hiding anything concerning that document.

Heck, they could also have just as easily crossed out the word "Coke" entirely. But they didn't even do that. The word "Coke" can still easily be read underneath Baker's cross-out. Some cover-up there." -- DVP; January 11, 2013

Edited December 27, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Greg Parker]

Richard, you need to argue with DVP. He's just as certain of his nonsense as you are of yours. It makes it an even contest.

[William Kelly]

The biggest problem with the lunchroom encounter isn't that Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed door - it's that Truly - ahead of Baker didn't see Oswald going through the door as he surely would have had to if Oswald went through that door a few moments before Baker saw him. I think Oswald entered the vestibule through the same door he left by.

How does DVP explain Truly not seeing Oswald as he should have? And how come none of the four witnesses on the stairs did not see Oswald either?

BK

Edited January 15, 2016 by William Kelly

[Thomas Graves]

The biggest problem with the lunchroom encounter isn't that Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed door - it's that Truly - ahead of Baker didn't see Oswald going through the door as he surely would have had to if Oswald went through that door a few moments before Baker saw him. I think Oswald entered the vestibule through the same door he left by.

How does DVP explain Truly not seeing Oswald as he should have? And how come none of the four witnesses on the stairs did not see Oswald either?

BK

Or, Gilbride could be right when he says Oswald went up to the second floor via the stairs or the passenger elevator near the TSBD's front door, entered the lunchroom from the opposite direction than Baker and Truly kinda did a few seconds or minutes later, and happened to be seen by Baker through the window in the vestibule's outer door.

--Tommy

[Greg Parker]

The biggest problem with the lunchroom encounter isn't that Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed door - it's that Truly - ahead of Baker didn't see Oswald going through the door as he surely would have had to if Oswald went through that door a few moments before Baker saw him. I think Oswald entered the vestibule through the same door he left by.

How does DVP explain Truly not seeing Oswald as he should have? And how come none of the four witnesses on the stairs did not see Oswald either?

BK

Or, Gilbride could be right when he says Oswald went up to the second floor via the stairs or the passenger elevator near the TSBD's front door, entered the lunchroom from the opposite direction than Baker and Truly kinda did a few seconds or minutes later, and happened to be seen by Baker through the window in the vestibule's outer door.

--Tommy

This reminds me of all the made up police scenarios now coming to light through things like Innocence Project. The cops, DAs and assorted supporters continue to try and massage the scenario to get it to somehow work - forget about the fact that all the hidden evidence now uncovered show the lies - if it can work in theory, we're okay!

[Thomas Graves]

The biggest problem with the lunchroom encounter isn't that Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed door - it's that Truly - ahead of Baker didn't see Oswald going through the door as he surely would have had to if Oswald went through that door a few moments before Baker saw him. I think Oswald entered the vestibule through the same door he left by.

How does DVP explain Truly not seeing Oswald as he should have? And how come none of the four witnesses on the stairs did not see Oswald either?

BK

Or, Gilbride could be right when he says Oswald went up to the second floor via the stairs or the passenger elevator near the TSBD's front door, entered the lunchroom from the opposite direction than Baker and Truly kinda-almost did a few seconds or minutes later, and happened to be seen by Baker through the window in the vestibule's outer door.

--Tommy

This reminds me of all the made up police scenarios now coming to light through things like Innocence Project. The cops, DAs and assorted supporters continue to try and massage the scenario to get it to somehow work - forget about the fact that all the hidden evidence now uncovered show the lies - if it can work in theory, we're okay! [ -- Greg Parker, the Highly Intuitive Poet]

Doesn't anyone else besides Parker have an opinion on what I wrote in green, above?

Edited January 15, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Larry Hancock]

Tommy, I certainly think you could make a case that he went up the front staircase but if he does that and goes directly to the soda machine then I think chances are slim that two men who are running

up the back stairs would see him through the small window in that vestibule. I suggest taking a look at the floor plan and the angles of view,.....if they had actually seen him entering the

outer vestibule door or even seen it closing it might have attracted their attention to look in but otherwise if they are rushing up the back stairs to the roof, which is Baker's scenario, I don't know what takes them

over to the door to look into the break room. The angles are poor for that from the back stairs...this was a major focus of one of the very earliest books which discussed the "encounter".

[Greg Parker]

The biggest problem with the lunchroom encounter isn't that Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed door - it's that Truly - ahead of Baker didn't see Oswald going through the door as he surely would have had to if Oswald went through that door a few moments before Baker saw him. I think Oswald entered the vestibule through the same door he left by.

How does DVP explain Truly not seeing Oswald as he should have? And how come none of the four witnesses on the stairs did not see Oswald either?

BK

Or, Gilbride could be right when he says Oswald went up to the second floor via the stairs or the passenger elevator near the TSBD's front door, entered the lunchroom from the opposite direction than Baker and Truly kinda-almost did a few seconds or minutes later, and happened to be seen by Baker through the window in the vestibule's outer door.

--Tommy

This reminds me of all the made up police scenarios now coming to light through things like Innocence Project. The cops, DAs and assorted supporters continue to try and massage the scenario to get it to somehow work - forget about the fact that all the hidden evidence now uncovered show the lies - if it can work in theory, we're okay! [ -- Greg Parker, the Highly Intuitive Poet]

Doesn't anyone else besides Parker have an opinion on what I wrote in green, above?

I'd suggest you do some reading on Innocence Project case studies and maybe even watch Making a Murderer.

In the meantime we'll name a new law in your honor; Tommy's Law - "If a provable lie by officials can be shown to be at least theoretically possible, it has met the minimum requirement for redemption, and the exculpatory evidence may be ignored".

[Michael Cross]

I'd suggest you do some reading on Innocence Project case studies and maybe even watch Making a Murderer.

In the meantime we'll name a new law in your honor; Tommy's Law - "If a provable lie by officials can be shown to be at least theoretically possible, it has met the minimum requirement for redemption, and the exculpatory evidence may be ignored".

LOL, right on.

[Thomas Graves]

On 1/15/2016 at 9:25 AM, Michael Cross said:

On 1/15/2016 at 7:15 AM, Greg Parker said:

On 1/15/2016 at 5:16 AM, Thomas Graves said:

 

I'd suggest you do some reading on Innocence Project case studies and maybe even watch Making a Murderer.

In the meantime we'll name a new law in your honor; Tommy's Law - "If a provable lie by officials can be shown to be at least theoretically possible, it has met the minimum requirement for redemption, and the exculpatory evidence may be ignored".

LOL, right on.

Dear Mr. Parker,

Which scumbag official said that Oswald ("Prayer Man") went up to the second floor after the assassination and entered the lunchroom from the opposite direction than Baker and Truly eventually entered it (or at least got one foot inside it)?

Why would any scumbag official say anything that would exonerate Oswald?

--Tommy

Edited April 5, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Greg Parker]

Dear Mr. Parker,

Which scumbag official said that Oswald ("Prayer Man") went up to the second floor after the assassination and entered the lunchroom from the opposite direction that Baker and Truly almost entered it?

Why would any scumbag official say anything that would exonerate Oswald?

--Tommy

Tommy, you're flogging a deceased mackerel within an inch of its nine lives.

Settle down.

The official story being referred to is the Sacred Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter. It never happened. The evidence shows it never happened. Nevertheless, Tommy's Law dictates that because (with a bit of scenario tweaking) it can be shown to be theoretically possible that it did happen by for instance, bringing Oswald up from the 1st, instead of down from the 6th, all of the evidence showing LHO had no such 2nd floor encounter can be totally ignored. That's the beauty of Tommy's Law. Evidence schmevidence. Who needs it? All you need is the official story and the will to keep massaging it to make it work in theory!

[Thomas Graves]

Dear Mr. Parker,

Which scumbag official said that Oswald ("Prayer Man") went up to the second floor after the assassination and entered the lunchroom from the opposite direction that Baker and Truly almost entered it?

Why would any scumbag official say anything that would exonerate Oswald?

--Tommy

Tommy, you're flogging a deceased mackerel within an inch of its nine lives.

Settle down.

The official story being referred to is the Sacred Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter. It never happened. The evidence shows it never happened. Nevertheless, Tommy's Law dictates that because (with a bit of scenario tweaking) it can be shown to be theoretically possible that it did happen by for instance, bringing Oswald up from the 1st, instead of down from the 6th, all of the evidence showing LHO had no such 2nd floor encounter can be totally ignored. That's the beauty of Tommy's Law. Evidence schmevidence. Who needs it? All you need is the official story and the will to keep massaging it to make it work in theory!

But Greg,

Why can't Oswald have been "Prayer Man" and also have gone up to the second floor lunchroom, getting there just in time and and close enough to the open inner door of the vestibule to be seen by Baker when Baker glanced through the window in the closed outer vestibule door?

Because we must prove that Baker and Truly were lying about having encountered Oswald on the second floor?

--Tommy

[Greg Parker]

Because we must prove that Baker and Truly were lying about having encountered Oswald on the second floor?

But Tommy - THEY proved they were lying by offering up 268* different versions of events.

And the OFFICIALS knew they were lying because they recreated 268^ different versions of events to see which BS version would fly best. And only HALF of those 268 recreations included ANY encounter on the 2nd floor.

* exaggerated for purposes of comedic emphasis only. Reality may vary.

^ exaggeration repeated for the sake of internal consistency.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Greg Parker

[Thomas Graves]

Because we must prove that Baker and Truly were lying about having encountered Oswald on the second floor?

But Tommy - THEY proved they were lying by offering up 268* different versions of events.

And the OFFICIALS knew they were lying because they recreated 268^ different versions of events to see which BS version would fly best. And only HALF of those 268 recreations included ANY encounter on the 2nd floor.

* exaggerated for purposes of comedic emphasis only. Reality may vary.

^ exaggeration repeated for the sake of internal consistency.

Comedic emphasis.

LOL

Thinking of getting into comedy, are you?

So it was really more like only 126 versions?

Or 2 or 3?

--Tommy

Edited January 16, 2016 by Thomas Graves