Jump to content
The Education Forum
Robert Prudhomme

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

Recommended Posts

Oswald called the vestibule the area between the front door of the TSBD and the double doors leading to the shipping area. And Holmes is the only one, afaik, who mentioned this.

Anyone using this word in conjunction with the tiny area behind the pneumatic door leading to the lunch room and the offices on the 2nd floor is using it wrongly and this is more evidence that Oswald was stopped on the 1st floor..

It is inappropriately used in that context, and if you go to Mary Ferrell than you can see in the docs there that is connected with outer space, as well except in the JFK and RFK murder cases (go figure.....).

Look at Wiki/Google and the chances are extremely slim for you to connect it with a spacial situation as the 2nd floor lunchroom.

And that's that with the 2nd floor lunchroom fugezi.

Mr. BELIN. By the way, where did this policeman stop him when he was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting?

Mr. HOLMES. He said it was in the vestibule.

Mr. BELIN. He said he was in the vestibule?

Mr. HOLMES. Or approaching the door to the vestibule. He was just coming, apparently, and I have never been in there myself. Apparently there is two sets of doors, and he had come out to this front part.

Mr. BELIN. Did he state it was on what floor?

Mr. HOLMES. First floor. The front entrance to the first floor.

Barto,

I seriously doubt that Oswald ever used the word "vestibule" to refer to the area inside the front door or to the small, five-sided, three-doored, room-like section of hallway / passageway / corridor next to the second-floor lunchroom. I don't think he used the word, period. But if he did, for all practical purposes it would have worked just fine in referring to the latter.

I think Holmes put the "vegetables" in Oswald's mouth, figuratively speaking.

--Tommy :sun

Tommy,

Since you insist on believing that the second floor encounter really occurred, why don't you do so in a way that is actually plausible.

Holmes's last statement quoted in Bart's post makes it absolutely clear that he is talking about the vestibule on the first floor, right there at the front entrance of the TSBD. There should be no question about that. I mean, had he merely said "on the first floor," then you could say that he just misspoke, or that he got confused and thought the lunchroom was on the first floor. But not only does Holmes specify the first floor (twice!), he also connects the vestibule to the front door. Not to a lunchroom!

So let me help you out. What about suggesting that perhaps Oswald, in his interrogation, reported that he had had encounters with TWO policemen. One in the lunchroom, the other on the first floor. And that Holmes accidentally conflated the two stories in his testimony.

Doesn't that sound like it actually could have happened? With a little creative thought, I'll bet you can come up with an even better denial than mine!

Or why not just surrender to the truth that the second floor encounter never occurred? That way you'll be ahead of the curve, not left in the dust!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tommy,

Apologies on the bad link I provided. To get the Weisberg memo, google up "stavis ellis jfk water cooler" and hit the link "Item 01.pdf"

The first sentence of the relevant paragraph is missing a noun or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 1 of 3

Bart,

I appreciate your taking the time to respond to the 6 points I raised critiquing the hoax hypothesis. You are free to believe what you like. As I am free to consider this hypothesis as a fruitless, regressive way of thinking.

1) every single item of lunchroom-related evidence has a mundane explanation that supports the incident's reality.

Truly had no idea about Baker's "I saw a glimpse through the window" until a day or so before the WC testimony.

Mundane explanation- Truly never asked, nor did Baker explain, what had motivated Baker to head for the lunchroom. It wasn't discussed during their remaining few minutes together in the Depository, and Truly didn't see him again until the March 20 re-enactments (III p. 226).

Michael T. Griffith, by the way, published a revised and expanded 4th edition of his Baker-Oswald article in 2001, word-for-word the same as his 2012 article.

I do not find it credible that a man of Baker's limited intellect would be able to confabulate 6-7 pages of testimony.

Baker's testimony went off the record 5 times

A) (III p. 244) Does not apply to our debate. Baker had just testified about traveling 5-10 mph near Main & Record Streets.

B) (p. 254) Belin had just covered Baker's re-enactment timings to the lunchroom, and Oswald's timing from the sniper's nest (run through by Baker with SS agent John Joe Howlett). The latter was 74 seconds. Belin then said he wanted to get the focus back to the 6th floor with some of Dulles' questions about that, and Dulles interrupted. Does not pertain to the hoax vs. incident debate, but...

They sequed into rehashing what Baker saw when looking up the west elevator shaft. Baker, previously, had not described this in any detail (p. 249) when he first related about his rush into the warehouse. Truly, who testified the day before, had gone into greater detail about his time at the 1st-floor elevator shaft (223, 240).

What was suspicious was the Mystery of the West Elevator, which assistant counsel Norman Redlich prepared a memo about shortly before the Truly-Baker testimonies.

C) (p. 255) Conclusion of elevator shaft discussion and segue into what Baker saw in the vestibule door (Belin's term). As Baker was coming around on the landing he caught a glimpse of Oswald in the plate-glass window "and it looked to me like he was going away."

I am familiar with the hoaxers' complaints of matching up Baker's position with being able to see Oswald- it has led me to conclude that Oswald was up near the glass and flinched away the instant he saw Baker.

Oswald's position inside the lunchroom changed/progressed from sitting at the table, to standing at the coke machine to having a coke standing next to the cupboards... if he had a coke already...

You have fallen for Truly's gambit, which was to shift attention away from the west elevator and onto the lunchroom. Please see Inside Job p. 33.

D) (p. 256) Baker had marked his position on the 2nd-floor landing- where he was when he spotted Oswald. With a diagram for reference (Exhibit 497), after going off-the-record, Belin rehashes Baker's position during the Oswald encounter. Belin then elicits details as to what Oswald was wearing- and I would hazard a guess that this was the focus of this particular discussion off-the-record.

E) (p. 262) After Baker has recounted the tail end of his time in the Depository, Belin shifts gears and asks about his clothing while at DPD HQ. And then Senator Cooper finally breaks in and starts asking some questions. Does not apply to the hoax vs. incident debate.

Sorry, Baker's testimony going off-the-record 5 times is just another fun fact. It does not take one iota away from the incident's reality.

Need I go on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 2 of 3

2) The Sept. 23rd affidavit shows Baker's continuing confusion with the TSBD floor layout, and cannot be construed as supportive of a hoax

This is an opinion by you. There is no evidence to support this... The FBI is bricking it...

The question of whether or not the FBI is bricking it is irrelevant to the content of the Sept. 23rd affidavit. The fact is that Baker, 6 months beforehand, had already gone through a lengthy testimony and had spent considerable time in the TSBD doing re-enactments. His location of the lunchroom was without doubt during his testimony. He wasn't quite as sure when he initially related this information to SA Burnett on Sept. 23rd.

A hoaxer has to take the position that Baker, a man of limited intellect, wove his way masterfully through 6-7 pages of testimony about the lunchroom, but had a failure of nerve on Sept. 23rd- he flubbed up the cover story.

A stretch, to say the least. You are throwing up a smokescreen and avoiding this uncomfortable fact.

3) The 1964 filmed interview shows Baker as a modest man with integrity. His fellow officers called him "Momma Son" and referred to him as "dopey". Yet Greg wants to paint him as a coverup monster, more clever than any professional actors of the day, telling a whopper about the lunchroom with a complete deadpan delivery.

You omitted the first line of your paragraph-excerpt from First Day Evidence, and you omitted some more.

"The man who said he was the building superintendent was outside and met me at the door and went in with me. Shortly after I entered the building I confronted Oswald. The man who identified himself as the superintendent said Oswald was all right, that he was employed there. We left Oswald there, and the supervisor showed the way upstairs. We couldn't get anyone to send the freight elevator down. In giving the place a quick check, I found nothing that seemed out of the ordinary, so I started back to see what had happened. Not knowing for sure what had happened, I was limited in what I could legally do.

The traditional hoaxer critique here concerns the misplacement of sending the freight elevator down. It's an afterthought, from a man with a limited intellect. That's all there is to it.

And, please remember that there is a 1986 filmed testimony as well. Don't you think Baker would be a tad apprehensive, had a hoax occurred, that Bugliosi would smell it out?

There's no trace, zip. The film evidence is superstrong. This is where you hoaxers go off the reservation. And it will be to your enduring discredit that your character assessment of Baker is 180 degrees wrong.

4) The will-call counter bump, a superfluous incident that serves no purpose in a contrived hoax narrative, is a telltale indicator that other points of correspondence (at the elevator & in the lunchroom) in the Baker/Truly testimonies actually happened...

...I expect a serious list to counteract...

1- While inside the front lobby, Baker asked Truly where the stairs were (III pp. 221, 249)

2- Truly ran into the swinging door at the will-call counter and Baker bumped into him (222, 249)

3- Truly pressed call button and freight elevator did not come down (223, 254)

4- T & B looked up the elevator shaft (223, 254)

5- They saw that the elevators were stuck upstairs (240, 254)

6- Truly yelled up the shaft twice (223, 249)

7- Truly led the way up the stairs (224, 250)

8- B & O were just inside the lunchroom door area (225, 250)

9- Baker was facing Oswald (225, 250)

10- Baker asked "Does he work here?" and Truly says "Yes" (225, 251)

11- Baker left immediately (225, 251)

12- Oswald was calm & collected (225, 252)

13- Oswald had no change of expression as Baker's gun was close to him (225, 252)

And Dorothy Garner's deposition would have enforced Victoria Adams' contention that she ran downstairs shortly after the 3rd shot. That would have raised questions about Adams' timeline vs. Oswald's timeline, and then called for an Adams re-enactment. Thus no Garner deposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 3 of 3

5) the Biffle story has not one whit of corroboration, nothing that substantiates it as supporting a hoax

And you challenge this by showing a Nov. 22 article with an Ochus Campbell quote in the New York Herald Tribune, without a by-line, that has the exact same words as Biffle's article in the Dallas Morning News on Nov. 23?!!

If anything, this adds fuel to the argument that Biffle may have been involved with Operation Mockingbird. It is not corroboration.

6) The Stroud document, coupled with a fact-based understanding of their timelines, places Adams & Styles on the stairs during the same timeframe that Truly & Baker are ascending the stairs from the elevator area.

...the stairs are tiny it takes a few seconds to descend...

9 steps, a split-level landing, 9 more steps, then a 12-foot landing to cross to get to the next flight...

I gave them 14 seconds per flight in Inside Job, and a superOlympian 8 seconds per flight in my 1st lunchroom essay. The real time was probably approx. 18 seconds per flight. In any case, in order for Adams & Styles to get out of the warehouse unnoticed, you have to add an unnaturally-long

pause to Truly & Baker's time in the lobby. They never mentioned such a pause, and there were other people in the lobby and they never mentioned seeing Truly & Baker lingering.

Otis Williams told the DPD's Walter Potts on Nov. 22 that he "came back into the building, and went to his office on the second floor. He then went to the fourth floor after hearing the President had been shot. He used the stairway to go to the fourth floor, but stated he did not see anyone on the stairway."

His 11/23 FBI report repeated that he "immediately went back into the building into his office on the second floor."

But by 1996 in No More Silence he had skipped the office stop. "I entered the building immediately, climbed the stairs back where the warehouse elevator was which led to the sixth floor and went up to the fourth floor..."

Otis was a portly man. He may have started going up the lobby stairs before Truly & Baker exited the lobby, but stopped at least a minute at the central office and could not have beaten T & B up the stairs to the 4th. I made your mistake here in 2009's The Elevator Escape Theory, which has a whole subsection Otis Williams on the Rear Stairwell.

**************************

Who's doing the fantasizing here, Bart? For starters, you hoaxers are asking us to believe that 3-4 pages of Truly's and 6-7 pages of Baker's testimonies are confabulated. Asking us to ignore the Sept. 23rd affidavit. Asking us to believe that one of the dumbest cops on the force told a monstrous lie with deadpan delivery in 1964 and again in 1986.

And the following dreck from Greg Parker, offered up after 10+ years as co-founder of the hoax hypothesis-

"Since Baker had already claimed in his affidavit to have had an encounter with an employee on the 3rd or 4th floor and Mrs. Reid had seen Oswald on the second floor about to go down with a coke, the answer seemed to be to combine these two events and make them flow one to the other. To do that, they brought Baker's encounter down to the 2nd-floor lunchroom and claimed it was Oswald and changed Reid's sighting from a pre-assassination one to a post-assassination one. Voila! Mission accomplished! This was the whole reason for the confusion about the coke.

To achieve this ruse, simply add in Leavelle (who took Reid's affidavit), those "in-the-know" at the DPD, Belin (who took Reid's testimony), those "in-the-know" on the Warren Commission, Jeraldean Reid, the stenographer, and don't forget Ochus Campbell, into the Truly-Baker mini-conspiracy to fabricate the lunchroom story.

i.e. A convoluted mess- all for a hypothesis that gives no empirical results. This is a fruitless, regressive school of thought, whose tenets do not survive the crucible of fire- they turn to vapor when tested.

You may build your sand castles to your heart's content at the ROKC forum. But please be aware that you will be challenged if you bring that belief system here.

Thank you, that was a considered reply, Bart, but there is a quantum-leap in work required to get on a soapbox with extraordinary confidence and declare that the hoaxers are incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

[...]

Tommy,

Since you insist on believing that the second floor encounter really occurred, why don't you do so in a way that is actually plausible.

Holmes's last statement quoted in Bart's post makes it absolutely clear that he is talking about the vestibule on the first floor, right there at the front entrance of the TSBD. There should be no question about that. I mean, had he merely said "on the first floor," then you could say that he just misspoke, or that he got confused and thought the lunchroom was on the first floor. But not only does Holmes specify the first floor (twice!), he also connects the vestibule to the front door. Not to a lunchroom!

So let me help you out. What about suggesting that perhaps Oswald, in his interrogation, reported that he had had encounters with TWO policemen. One in the lunchroom, the other on the first floor. And that Holmes accidentally conflated the two stories in his testimony.

Doesn't that sound like it actually could have happened? With a little creative thought, I'll bet you can come up with an even better denial than mine!

Or why not just surrender to the truth that the second floor encounter never occurred? That way you'll be ahead of the curve, not left in the dust!

Sandy,

From Holmes' Informal Memorandum / Statement given to "Special Agent" Charles T. Brown on 11/24/63:

“When asked about his whereabouts at the time of the shooting, he stated that when lunch time came, and he didn’t say which floor he was on, he said one of the negro employees invited him to eat lunch with him and stated ‘You go on down and send the elevator back up and I will join you in a few minutes.’ Before he could finish whatever he was doing, he stated, the commotion surrounding the assassination took place and when he went down stairs, a policeman questioned him as to his identification and his boss stated that ‘he is one of our employees’ whereupon the policeman had him step aside momentarily. Following this, he simply walked out the front door of the building. I don’t recall that anyone asked him why he left or where or how he went. I just presumed that this had been covered in an earlier questioning.

From Holmes' WC deposition on April 2, 1964:

Mr. BELIN. Did he say where he was at the time of the shooting?

Mr. HOLMES. He just said he was still up in the building when the commotion-- he kind of----

Mr. BELIN. Did he gesture with his hands, do you remember?

Mr. HOLMES. He talked with his hands all the time. He was handcuffed, but he was quiet--well, he was not what you call a stoic phlegmatic person. He is very definite with his talk and his eyes and his head, and he goes like that, you see.

Mr. BELIN. Did Oswald say anything about seeing a man with a crew cut in front of the building as he was about to leave it? Do you remember anything about that?

Mr. HOLMES. No.

Mr. BELIN. You don't remember anything about that. Did he say anything about telling a man about going to a pay phone in the building?

Mr. HOLMES. Policeman rushed--I take it back---I don't know whether he said a policeman or not--a man came rushing by and said, "Where's your telephone?" And the man showed him some kind of credential and I don't know that he identified the credential, so he might not have been a police officer, and said I am so and so, and shoved something at me which I didn't look at and said, "Where is the telephone?"

And I said, "Right there," and just pointed in to the phone, and I [Oswald] went on out.

Mr. BELIN. Did Oswald say why he left the building?

Mr. HOLMES. No; other than just said he talked about this commotion and went out to see what it was about.

[...]

Mr. BELIN. By the way, where did this policeman stop him when he was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting?

Mr. HOLMES. He said it was in the vestibule.

Mr. BELIN. He said he was in the vestibule?

Mr. HOLMES. Or approaching the door to the vestibule. He was just coming, apparently, and I have never been in there myself. Apparently there is two sets of doors, and he had come out to this front part.

Mr. BELIN. Did he state it was on what floor?

Mr. HOLMES. First floor. The front entrance to the first floor.

Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything about a Coca Cola or anything like that, if you remember?

Mr. HOLMES. Seems like he said he was drinking a Coca Cola, standing there by the Coca Cola machine drinking a Coca Cola.

Mr. BELIN. Anything else?

Mr. HOLMES. Nothing more than what I have already told you on it.

The Coca Cola is a different question, about a different time.

[...]

A different question about a different time?

Which time would that be, Edward?

Do you mean the time Truly bought Oswald a Coca-Cola from the machine in the 2nd floor lunchroom, way back when he hired him in September? (For all you naive students and newbie "researchers" out there, I'm just kidding. I think Truly bought him a Dr. Pepper from the machine on the 1st floor, instead. LOL)

It does seem Holmes got his stories mixed up and may have "let the cat out of the bag" regarding Oswald's claiming that he was on the first floor earlier than the official story says he was (but too late to be Prayer Man, unfortunately, unless by "the commotion" Holmes meant the increasing crowd noise in anticipation of the approaching motorcade).

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Coca Cola is a different question, about a different time.

Mr. BELIN. Did anyone say anything about Oswald saying anything about his leaving the Texas School Book Depository after the shooting?
Mr. HOLMES. ...Then he said when all this commotion started, "I just went on downstairs." And he didn't say whether he took the elevator or not. He said, "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Coca Cola is a different question, about a different time.

[...]

A different question about a different time?

Which time would that be, Edward?

Do you mean the time Truly bought Oswald a Coca-Cola from the machine in the 2nd floor lunchroom, way back when he hired him in September? (For all you naive students and newbie "researchers" out there, I'm just kidding. I think Truly bought him a Dr. Pepper from the machine on the 1st floor, instead. LOL)

It does seem Holmes got his stories mixed up and may have "let the cat out of the bag" regarding Oswald's claiming that he was on the first floor earlier than the official story says he was (but too late to be Prayer Man, unfortunately, unless by "the commotion" Holmes meant the increasing crowd noise in anticipation of the approaching motorcade).

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Preempted by Barto's three monumental posts (see below), and therefore moved to another thread.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard, it has become painstakingly clear that your denials and speculative methods do you no favours at all, as a matter of fact I am close to classifying your work as Fetzerian and this causes a massive belly ache for you since not many will buy into what you have to say. In mundane English: you end up talking to yourself.

1) every single item of lunchroom-related evidence has a mundane explanation that supports the incident's reality.

Truly had no idea about Baker's "I saw a glimpse through the window" until a day or so before the WC testimony.

Mundane explanation- Truly never asked speculation, nor did Baker explain speculation again, what had motivated Baker to head for the lunchroom. It wasn't discussed during their remaining few minutes together in the Depository speculation, and Truly didn't see him again until the March 20 re-enactments (III p. 226). Since we are dealing with a massive lie here it is hard to believe this as well.

Michael T. Griffith, by the way, published a revised and expanded 4th edition of his Baker-Oswald article in 2001, word-for-word the same as his 2012 article.

I do not find it credible that a man of Baker's limited intellect would be able to confabulate 6-7 pages of testimony. This is just another opinion

Baker's testimony went off the record 5 times

A) (III p. 244) Does not apply to our debate. Baker had just testified about traveling 5-10 mph near Main & Record Streets.

(p. 254) Belin had just covered Baker's re-enactment timings to the lunchroom, and Oswald's timing from the sniper's nest (run through by Baker with SS agent John Joe Howlett). The latter was 74 seconds. Belin then said he wanted to get the focus back to the 6th floor with some of Dulles' questions about that, and Dulles interrupted. Does not pertain to the hoax vs. incident debate, but...

They sequed into rehashing what Baker saw when looking up the west elevator shaft. Baker, previously, had not described this in any detail (p. 249) when he first related about his rush into the warehouse. Truly, who testified the day before, had gone into greater detail about his time at the 1st-floor elevator shaft (223, 240).

What was suspicious was the Mystery of the West Elevator, which assistant counsel Norman Redlich prepared a memo about shortly before the Truly-Baker testimonies.

C) (p. 255) Conclusion of elevator shaft discussion and segue into what Baker saw in the vestibule door (Belin's term ). actually Belin called it a vestibule or hall As Baker was coming around on the landing he caught a glimpse of Oswald in the plate-glass window "and it looked to me like he was going away."

I am familiar with the hoaxers' complaints of matching up Baker's position with being able to see Oswald- it has led me to conclude that Oswald was up near the glass and flinched away the instant he saw Baker. so he goes in and gets the coke and then goes back to the window? On what basis? And no one heard the door and/or saw it swing. Terrible speculating going on here Richard.

Oswald's position inside the lunchroom changed/progressed from sitting at the table, to standing at the coke machine to having a coke standing next to the cupboards... if he had a coke already...

You have fallen for Truly's gambit, which was to shift attention away from the west elevator and onto the lunchroom.Speculation Please see Inside Job p. 33. It defies common sense and can be easily dismissed.

D) (p. 256) Baker had marked his position on the 2nd-floor landing- where he was when he spotted Oswald. With a diagram for reference (Exhibit 497), after going off-the-record, Belin rehashes Baker's position during the Oswald encounter. Belin then elicits details as to what Oswald was wearing- and I would hazard a guess you've already admitted it's just a guess, a hazardous one at that that this was the focus of this particular discussion off-the-record.

E) (p. 262) After Baker has recounted the tail end of his time in the Depository, Belin shifts gears and asks about his clothing while at DPD HQ. And then Senator Cooper finally breaks in and starts asking some questions. Does not apply to the hoax vs. incident debate.

Sorry, Baker's testimony going off-the-record 5 times is just another fun fact. It does not take one iota away from the incident's reality. You are reaching. You have no idea what Baker was told by the WC before his testimony went on the record again in all 5 instances.

Need I go on?

No but I will:

Marvin Johnson’s statement

Baker’s fraudulent timings in the re-enactment

The fact that Baker never pointed Oswald out as the man he encountered, while dictating his first statement to MJ which would be a mundane explanation for identifying the suspect no?

Baker did not ID Oswald in a line-up as MJ claimed

This very statement is typed out and signed by Baker again! The 3rd /4th fl encounter is not just an oversight.

Will Fritz’s report a month later.

The lack of any questioning by Belin and co about the discrepancy regarding the floors.

The fact that the word "vestibule" is only used in regard to the TSBD to describe an area on the second floor – and then only in regard to the Baker-Truly-Oswald encounter. Meanwhile, the only real vestibule is on the first floor – yet it is never called one – except by Oswald via Holmes. This semantical ploy says it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 2 of 3

2) The Sept. 23rd affidavit shows Baker's continuing confusion with the TSBD floor layout, and cannot be construed as supportive of a hoax

This is an opinion by you. There is no evidence to support this... The FBI is bricking it...

The question of whether or not the FBI is bricking it is irrelevant to the content of the Sept. 23rd affidavit. On the contrary, and your denial attitude becomes quite obvious here The fact is that Baker, 6 months beforehand, had already gone through a lengthy testimony and had spent considerable time in the TSBD doing re-enactments (considerable….you are doing some poor defending here, and the re-enactment was fraudulent from a timing perspective). His location of the lunchroom was without doubt during his testimony. He wasn't quite as sure when he initially related this information to SA Burnett on Sept. 23rd. Major speculation, you are just making stuff up, shameful really.

A hoaxer has to take the position that Baker, a man of limited intellect, wove his way masterfully through 6-7 pages of testimony about the lunchroom, but had a failure of nerve on Sept. 23rd- he flubbed up the cover story. Speculation again, you are dreaming this stuff up. There is no basis for this whatsoever. You seem to have adopted proof by repeated assertion as your flag.

A stretch, to say the least. You are throwing up a smokescreen and avoiding this uncomfortable fact. Am I? And all this speculation amounts to what exactly?

3) The 1964 filmed interview shows Baker as a modest man with integrity. His fellow officers called him "Momma Son" and referred to him as "dopey". Yet Greg wants to paint him as a coverup monster, more clever than any professional actors of the day, telling a whopper about the lunchroom with a complete deadpan delivery.

You omitted the first line of your paragraph-excerpt from First Day Evidence, and you omitted some more.

"The man who said he was the building superintendent was outside and met me at the door and went in with me. Shortly after I entered the building I confronted Oswald. The man who identified himself as the superintendent said Oswald was all right, that he was employed there. We left Oswald there, and the supervisor showed the way upstairs. We couldn't get anyone to send the freight elevator down. In giving the place a quick check, I found nothing that seemed out of the ordinary, so I started back to see what had happened. Not knowing for sure what had happened, I was limited in what I could legally do.

Omitting that bit out is my fault, but it still does not change anything. Baker gave the game away. The fact you are not admitting this shows the true state of denial you live in.

The traditional hoaxer critique here concerns the misplacement of sending the freight elevator down. It's an afterthought, from a man with a limited intellect. That's all there is to it.

Really? You seem to be missing the all-important fact that he encountered Oswald shortly after they entered and before they went up!

And, please remember that there is a 1986 filmed testimony as well. Don't you think Baker would be a tad apprehensive, had a hoax occurred, that Bugliosi would smell it out?

Speculation again, and now Bugliosi gets the credit…….

There's no trace, zip. The film evidence is superstrong. This is where you hoaxers go off the reservation. And it will be to your enduring discredit that your character assessment of Baker is 180 degrees wrong. Again merely an opinion by you.

4) The will-call counter bump, a superfluous incident that serves no purpose in a contrived hoax narrative, is a telltale indicator that other points of correspondence (at the elevator & in the lunchroom) in the Baker/Truly testimonies actually happened.. It now starts to become delusional Richard and for someone who claims to be a CTer I am astonished you lap the WR up like this and reproduce it as gospel.

...I expect a serious list to counteract...

1- While inside the front lobby, Baker asked Truly where the stairs were (III pp. 221, 249) There is possible evidence to refute this not just from Peggy Hawkins but Truly’s statement that they saw no one there

2- Truly ran into the swinging door at the will-call counter and Baker bumped into him (222, 249) This comes from the re-enactment? Right…………

3- Truly pressed call button and freight elevator did not come down (223, 254) Items 3/4/5/6 could have been presented as one item no need to thicken the broth which is already rather thin.

4- T & B looked up the elevator shaft (223, 254)

5- They saw that the elevators were stuck upstairs (240, 254)

6- Truly yelled up the shaft twice (223, 249)

7- Truly led the way up the stairs (224, 250) A fairy tale at best, you think the building super visor went ahead of the armed police man to possibly encounter another gun man and be ‘in the middle’ of it. Come on………again apply common sense. Unless Truly was a ninja martial arts specialist or did he carry a piece as well ??? Who in their right mind goes ahead of an armed police officer facing a possible armed felon?

8- B & O were just inside the lunchroom door area (225, 250) Oswald was sitting at the table? Standing near the coke machine? Standing against the kitchen counter? In the doorway? Where exactly?

9- Baker was facing Oswald (225, 250) This and the next four points have no merit since it is abundantly clear the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter was a hoax.

10- Baker asked "Does he work here?" and Truly says "Yes" (225, 251)

11- Baker left immediately (225, 251) Baker claimed he left the TSBD immediately when they got down to the 1st floor as well which is a lie since we have him in the Alyea film quacking with Truly and others. Yet that is what he stated in his testimony……so leaving the second fl lunchroom immediately can be doubted as well.

12- Oswald was calm & collected (225, 252) Their words…..

13- Oswald had no change of expression as Baker's gun was close to him (225, 252) The point being? And again their words just to make him look like the calm and collected killer he was….oh sure.

And Dorothy Garner's deposition would have enforced Victoria Adams' contention that she ran downstairs shortly after the 3rd shot. Which she did. That would have raised questions about Adams' timeline vs. Oswald's timeline, and then called for an Adams re-enactment. Thus no Garner deposition.

Oswald was on the 1st floor……….and never went past Gardner/Adams…..not involving her in the re-enactment is negligent at best.

Edited by Bart Kamp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 3 of 3

5) the Biffle story has not one whit of corroboration, nothing that substantiates it as supporting a hoax

And you challenge this by showing a Nov. 22 article with an Ochus Campbell quote in the New York Herald Tribune, without a by-line, that has the exact same words I suggest you re-read both articles again and there is only to conclude that they are NOT THE EXACT SAME WORDS as Biffle's article in the Dallas Morning News on Nov. 23?!! This is either an attempt to mislead all readers or a bad mistake from your end,

If anything, this adds fuel to the argument that Biffle may have been involved with Operation Mockingbird. It is not corroboration.

Speculation and only an opinion expressed by you.

6) The Stroud document, coupled with a fact-based understanding of their timelines, places Adams & Styles on the stairs during the same timeframe that Truly & Baker are ascending the stairs from the elevator area. Speculation

...the stairs are tiny it takes a few seconds to descend...

9 steps, a split-level landing, 9 more steps, then a 12-foot landing to cross to get to the next flight...

I gave them 14 seconds per flight in Inside Job (14 seconds doing a flight? What are you on….), and a superOlympian 8 seconds per flight in my 1st lunchroom essay (again 8 seconds to do 9 steps blazing down…..). The real time was probably approx. 18 seconds per flight. In any case, in order for Adams & Styles to get out of the warehouse unnoticed, you have to add an unnaturally-long

Speculation again, but allow me to speculate this once now unless you take these stairs with a zimmer/walker or crutches, nine flights running down, 2/3 seconds per flight and 3/4 to do the landing that makes it 14 seconds at the most and that is being extremely generous, you see how fast they would have been downstairs? So that is three floors in 42 seconds!!!

pause to Truly & Baker's time in the lobby. They never mentioned such a pause, and there were other people in the lobby and they never mentioned seeing Truly & Baker lingering.

No Truly said they saw no one there! Which is iffy to say the least.

Has it ever occurred to you that the whole episode of Baker entering the TSBD with or without Truly and them going through the shipping department and so on is clouded in mystery….?

Otis Williams told the DPD's Walter Potts on Nov. 22 that he "came back into the building, and went to his office on the second floor. He then went to the fourth floor after hearing the President had been shot. He used the stairway to go to the fourth floor, but stated he did not see anyone on the stairway."

His 11/23 FBI report repeated that he "immediately went back into the building into his office on the second floor."

But by 1996 in No More Silence he had skipped the office stop. "I entered the building immediately, climbed the stairs back where the warehouse elevator was which led to the sixth floor and went up to the fourth floor..."

Otis was a portly man. He may (!!!) have started going up the lobby stairs before Truly & Baker exited the lobby, but stopped at least a minute at the central office and could not have beaten T & B up the stairs to the 4th. I made your mistake here in 2009's The Elevator Escape Theory, which has a whole subsection Otis Williams on the Rear Stairwell.

Again you speculate up the yazoo, accepting the 2nd floor gospel but dare to question OW testimony. The bottom line is, is that he went up those stairs while Adams and Styles were descending and B&T went up there and no one saw each other, geez how can that be. But that leaves plenty for you to speculate, dream on Richard, it’s time to leave the fairy tales to the kids. And what else does he mention in Larry Sneed’s book, he did not come across Oswald on those steps as Oswald could have gone done by elevator……. Oh oh…….that doesn’t fit neither does it…..

**************************

Who's doing the fantasizing here, Bart? For starters, you hoaxers are asking us to believe that 3-4 pages of Truly's and 6-7 pages of Baker's testimonies are confabulated. Asking us to ignore the Sept. 23rd affidavit. Asking us to believe that one of the dumbest cops on the force told a monstrous lie with deadpan delivery in 1964 and again in 1986.

Yeah Richard who is speculating here…..who?! And it is you who is defending the hoax and it is us just pointing it out!

And the following dreck from Greg Parker, offered up after 10+ years as co-founder of the hoax hypothesis-

"Since Baker had already claimed in his affidavit to have had an encounter with an employee on the 3rd or 4th floor and Mrs. Reid had seen Oswald on the second floor about to go down with a coke, the answer seemed to be to combine these two events and make them flow one to the other. To do that, they brought Baker's encounter down to the 2nd-floor lunchroom and claimed it was Oswald and changed Reid's sighting from a pre-assassination one to a post-assassination one. Voila! Mission accomplished! This was the whole reason for the confusion about the coke.

Again, like what I mentioned a few days ago, what Greg says is Greg’s, and since he cannot be here to defend himself it has no place here, so this will all be stricken.

I’d like to introduce Geneva Hine’s remarks which you are well aware off which put Reid’s story in serious doubt.

To achieve this ruse, simply add in Leavelle (who took Reid's affidavit), those "in-the-know" at the DPD, Belin (who took Reid's testimony), those "in-the-know" on the Warren Commission, Jeraldean Reid, the stenographer, and don't forget Ochus Campbell, into the Truly-Baker mini-conspiracy to fabricate the lunchroom story. This assumes that Leavelle, Belin, the steno and Ochus Campbell all knew they were hearing lies. That assumption seems anchored to the hope that you can fool readers into believing what you say next. It's no more than a sales pitch from a lousy salesman.

i.e. A convoluted mess- all for a hypothesis that gives no empirical results. This is a fruitless, regressive school of thought, whose tenets do not survive the crucible of fire- they turn to vapor when tested.

You may build your sand castles to your heart's content at the ROKC forum. But please be aware that you will be challenged if you bring that belief system here.

No one from ROKC has been seriously challenged here since you were a member. And if so point it out with a neat little list.

Thank you, that was a considered reply, Bart, but there is a quantum-leap in work required to get on a soapbox with extraordinary confidence and declare that the hoaxers are incorrect.

Richard your defence has been poorly crafted, not only do you speculate left, right and centre and make a mockery about this specific JFK Research, it is also evident you wilfully ignore very important key facts to come to a conclusion that is seriously flawed.

Like a true denier that you are and promoting a non existent hoax I doubt there is any point debating this further with you, not until you accept ALL the evidence presented.

Best of luck with your catching up to do.

Edited by Bart Kamp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

Baker never pointed Oswald out as the man he encountered while dictating his first statement to Marvin Johnson, which would be a mundane explanation for identifying the suspect, no?

Baker did not ID Oswald in a line-up as Marvin Johnson claimed.

[...]

Barto,

Would you kindly provide us with a link to the statement which Baker made to Marvin Johnson?

I searched for it but couldn't find it. Probably because there's so much other stuff written about Baker on the Internet.

Thanks,

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Preempted by Barto's three monumental black-and-red posts, and therefore moved to the "Oswald Leaving TSBD?" thread.

--Tommy :sun

bumped

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
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...