Jump to content
The Education Forum
Robert Prudhomme

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

Recommended Posts

What I have been contending is that- Oswald was PrayerMan. He went up the lobby stairs. He entered the central offices, while Geneva Hine was down the hall knocking on SouthWestern Publishing's door. Oswald then positioned himself at the plate-glass window of the vestibule door, looking out at the 2nd-floor landing.

Truly arrived there moments later, but we don't know whether or not he noticed Oswald. The instant Oswald spotted Baker, he headed into the lunchroom. Baker found this suspicious and went right after him.

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

The hoaxers cannot give an adequate explanation as to why their hypothesis has produced only brittle results- Tan Jacket Man, Ira Trantham's HSCA memory (which was horrific), Spooky (Baker's 1st-day affidavit's "3rd or 4th floor" man), and Breakfast at Tiffany's (an imagined Baker-Oswald interaction on the front landing, which has no evidentiary support).

This is because the hoax is a chimera.

The hoaxers refuse to acknowledge that for every single item of lunchroom-related evidence that seemingly speaks for a hoax, there is a readily-available mundane explanation that speaks for the incident's reality.

This is because truth is found in the commonplace, not in the ornate. An extraordinary claim, such as the hoax, requires extraordinary proof.

The hoaxers refuse to acknowledge that there is an aggregate of evidence- the filmed interviews, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, the will-call counter bump, the lack of corroboration for Biffle's story, the Martha Jo Stroud document- every one of which has a face-value, common-sense interpretation that speaks for the incident's reality. Every one of which has to be contorted in extremis in order to construe it as speaking for the hoax.

Like in a Sherlock Holmes or Agatha Christie detective mystery, the reader is initially presented with ambiguous clues. What this aggregate does is resolve this ambiguity- the hoax is rendered so highly improbable that it is essentially impossible. And anything that seemed ambiguous at first must now be interpreted through the lens of the incident's reality.

The research community, largely through the sophistry of the ROKC forum, has been calcified by this school of thought- which has produced no fruit- for too many years. The hoaxers have engendered a situation where objective truth is discerned based upon tribal allegiances.

Feelings are not facts, and as passionately as they might argue for a hoax, the fact remains is that its solutions do not work.

You may put the following in an envelope marked DO NOT OPEN UNTIL 2020- I guarantee that no objectively-verifiable evidence will come forward supporting the lunchroom hoax hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2016 at 7:02 AM, Larry Hancock said:

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".

Larry,

With all due respect, I already have.

And the window in the outer door of the vestibule wasn't all that small.

It all depends on how close to the vestibule door Baker got, and how close to that door Oswald was standing.

It's possible that Oswald heard Truly and Baker walking up the stairs (and probably talking in loud voices as they went) from where he was inside the lunchroom, and that Oswald walked into the vestibule and up to the window in the outer door too see who it was that was coming up. When he saw it was Truly, he might well have turned away from the window to start walking back into the lunchroom proper, at which time Baker might have seen him through the window in that vestibule door.

Something to take into consideration is the possibility that Truly pointed out the location of the lunchroom to Baker by saying, "That's the lunchroom over there" or something like that when they reached the second floor landing, and that while Truly continued on up the stairs leading to the third floor, Baker swung wide towards the vestibule window to glance into the lunchroom through the vestibule's outer door window.

I mean, it does seem plausible to me.

I do I hope that it's okay to speculate about all of this.

(I'm not a CIA "disinfo agent," contrary to what most of the other members seem to think.)

Thanks for the response,

--Tommy :sun

PS Please bear in mind that I think Oswald entered the lunchroom through the door at the opposite end of the lunchroom from the door Baker and Truly eventually entered, or almost entered (they may have only stepped one foot into the vestibule to talk with Oswald), therefore the closing of the outer door of the vestibule by Oswald is not an issue because I don't think Oswald even used that door.

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speculate at will Tommy, I think that's required to get an Oswald who walked upstairs to the soda machine and at least according to some reports was occupied with getting a soda (we are talking pop bottles) over in front of the window to become noticeable to two guys who were rising up the stairway to the top floor. At least that seems to have been their goal since they tried and elevator first which would have bypassed the lunchroom floor. I certainly can't say Oswald wasn't peering through the glass, but I think that's the only option to get their attention. I've been at those stairs and you literally just swing around from one set to the other as you are use them - and it would be a tight turn if you were in a hurry and basically running up them. I certainly don't recall the wording from the two men at this point, how does their description match the scenario of seeing Oswald approaching the window from the direction of the soda machine in order to be visible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speculate at will Tommy, I think that's required to get an Oswald who walked upstairs to the soda machine and at least according to some reports was occupied with getting a soda (we are talking pop bottles) over in front of the window to become noticeable to two guys who were rising up the stairway to the top floor. At least that seems to have been their goal since they tried and elevator first which would have bypassed the lunchroom floor. I certainly can't say Oswald wasn't peering through the glass, but I think that's the only option to get their attention. I've been at those stairs and you literally just swing around from one set to the other as you are use them - and it would be a tight turn if you were in a hurry and basically running up them. I certainly don't recall the wording from the two men at this point, how does their description match the scenario of seeing Oswald approaching the window from the direction of the soda machine in order to be visible?

Gee, Larry, you really got me there. I'm too darn lazy to read all 286 of the variations of their descriptions right now.

I'm sure you're right, though.

Sorry to have suggested such a silly scenario.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think its necessarily silly Tommy, I just think it would need to be tested....including trying to map it out against a timeline for the guys coming up the stairs.

Actually it sounds like a valuable exercise since it would address what seems to have been a long term issue with the encounter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The hoaxers cannot give an adequate explanation as to why their hypothesis has produced only brittle results- Tan Jacket Man, Ira Trantham's HSCA memory (which was horrific), Spooky (Baker's 1st-day affidavit's "3rd or 4th floor" man), and Breakfast at Tiffany's (an imagined Baker-Oswald interaction on the front landing, which has no evidentiary support).

I refer to the multitude of scientific papers done showing that earliest statements from witnesses are the best and most reliable.

Tan Jacket Man is just your strawman and has nothing to do with the strength or weakness of any case for no 2nd floor encounter.

Oswald's alibi was eating lunch in the domino room, going upstairs to grab a coke and then being drawn outside because of the noise. To say that this has no support in the record is the real hoax.

From Fritz:

Mr. Truly had told me that one of the police officers had stopped this man immediately after the shooting somewhere near the back stairway, so I asked Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him. He said he was on the second floor drinking a coca cola when the officer came in.

Fritz is putting words in Oswald's dead mouth:

Here is what he actually said as stated in the Hosty-Bookhout joint report: Oswald stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his lunch. Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building.

In short, he followed his normal routine of going up and buying a coke and coming back down to have it with his lunch IN THE DOMINO room. The purchase of the coke happened BEFORE the assassination - and that is when he was seen by Reid.

What happened is not rocket science. Oswald gave his alibi and that evening panic set when the Altgens6 was published appearing to confirm that alibi. To counter it was a two-pronged effort - they had to hope and pray the photo actually showed Lovelady and then they had to get Oswald off the first floor/front steps area. 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 back down with a coke, the answer seemed to be to combine those 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 they 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.

If Mrs. Reid had really seen Oswald AFTER the assassination, she was a PRIME witness and according to the police, they made interviewing PRIME witnesses priorty that first day. Someone claiming to see Oswald BEFORE the assassination drinking a coke is not a PRIME witness and would be interviewed sometime in the following days.

When was Mrs. Reid interviewed again? That's right! Nov 23!

Same goes for Truly. Surely a major witness for the prime investigators - the DPD. His first interview however was with the FBI on the night of the 22nd - probably straight after they had established that Lovelady was Doorway Man. The 2nd floor lunch encounter is born during that interview. The next day, the DPD take Truly's statement, and he notes Reid's name for them as "corroboration".

Ira Trantham? Just another Straw Man. Not a plank in this building at all. Maybe a bit of skirting board.

No encounter with a cop on the fist floor? Oswald said there was, and a number of newspaper accounts agreed, citing A COP...

Edited by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gee, Larry, you really got me there. I'm too darn lazy to read all 286 of the variations of their descriptions right now.

No need to exaggerate the figure, Tommy.

It was as I stated, 268 variations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gee, Larry, you really got me there. I'm too darn lazy to read all 286 of the variations of their descriptions right now.

No need to exaggerate the figure, Tommy.

It was as I stated, 268 variations.

Well, that's what The Agency told me to say.

I may be stupid but at least I'm loyal!

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No encounter with a cop on the fist floor? Oswald said there was, and a number of newspaper accounts agreed, citing A COP...

Greg,

I just read the newspaper account of the first-floor cop-Oswald encounter, over on the Oswald Leaving TSBD thread. But I don't recall any report of Oswald saying the encounter with a cop occurred on the first floor. Can you quote that, or tell me where to find it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg,

One of us cannot be wrong, and it will be cataclysmic for you when you finally recognize and admit defeat. It will be similar to the ending of Lord of the Flies, when the adults arrive on the island and shatter the protracted illusion of the boys' tribe.

Sean Murphy had a cataclysmic meltdown after his PrayerMan thread, at least as far as JFK matters. His last post was on November 22, 2013. He had nothing more to give- it had all been left on the playing field.

His efforts there came in three parts- PrayerMan, the Fritz/Bookhout notes, and then the hypothesis & consequences of Truly & Baker ascending via the west elevator rather than the stairs. I dubbed this "Murphy's Postulate", and showed that this idea was fatally flawed in my first lunchroom essay.

Somebody had to do it. I downloaded about 100 pages from that thread, and reviewed that material 2-3 times, in order to give his work the proper respect. It was an ingenious postulate. It directly stemmed from his struggles with the Stroud document. Because Sean understood that Adams & Styles should have intersected Truly & Baker on the stairs. In order for his lunchroom hoax hypothesis to survive, it would be required that Truly & Baker be somewhere other than on the stairs.

You have achieved a Bolshevik-style freedom of speech on this issue at your website, where anyone who contradicts the Party line will get thrown to the wolves. You run it like a saloon-keeper. Do you understand that only a small minority are comfortable in places like that? That it all-too-easily morphs into a witches' cauldron of negativity?

Bill Kelly showed his gracious manner when he commented, in the PrayerMan thread, that the lunchroom hoaxers are only fooling themselves. I was more contentious, being in the thick of it at the ROKC forum, and that probably stems from my building-trade persona. The point remains- either the lunchroom incident happened, or it did not.

You have not addressed why every single item of lunchroom-related evidence has a readily-available mundane explanation, nor any of the items from the aggregate. Until you do that, you are still mired in sophistry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg,

One of us cannot be wrong, and it will be cataclysmic for you when you finally recognize and admit defeat. It will be similar to the ending of Lord of the Flies, when the adults arrive on the island and shatter the protracted illusion of the boys' tribe.

Sean Murphy had a cataclysmic meltdown after his PrayerMan thread, at least as far as JFK matters. His last post was on November 22, 2013. He had nothing more to give- it had all been left on the playing field.

His efforts there came in three parts- PrayerMan, the Fritz/Bookhout notes, and then the hypothesis & consequences of Truly & Baker ascending via the west elevator rather than the stairs. I dubbed this "Murphy's Postulate", and showed that this idea was fatally flawed in my first lunchroom essay.

Somebody had to do it. I downloaded about 100 pages from that thread, and reviewed that material 2-3 times, in order to give his work the proper respect. It was an ingenious postulate. It directly stemmed from his struggles with the Stroud document. Because Sean understood that Adams & Styles should have intersected Truly & Baker on the stairs. In order for his lunchroom hoax hypothesis to survive, it would be required that Truly & Baker be somewhere other than on the stairs.

Richard, if you will, please explain what complications for hoaxers result from Adams and Styles going down the stairs before Truly and Baker going up, without the two pairs passing each other.

You have achieved a Bolshevik-style freedom of speech on this issue at your website, where anyone who contradicts the Party line will get thrown to the wolves. You run it like a saloon-keeper. Do you understand that only a small minority are comfortable in places like that? That it all-too-easily morphs into a witches' cauldron of negativity?

Bill Kelly showed his gracious manner when he commented, in the PrayerMan thread, that the lunchroom hoaxers are only fooling themselves. I was more contentious, being in the thick of it at the ROKC forum, and that probably stems from my building-trade persona. The point remains- either the lunchroom incident happened, or it did not.

You have not addressed why every single item of lunchroom-related evidence has a readily-available mundane explanation, nor any of the items from the aggregate. Until you do that, you are still mired in sophistry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg,

One of us cannot be wrong, and it will be cataclysmic for you when you finally recognize and admit defeat. It will be similar to the ending of Lord of the Flies, when the adults arrive on the island and shatter the protracted illusion of the boys' tribe.

Sean Murphy had a cataclysmic meltdown after his PrayerMan thread, at least as far as JFK matters. His last post was on November 22, 2013. He had nothing more to give- it had all been left on the playing field.

His efforts there came in three parts- PrayerMan, the Fritz/Bookhout notes, and then the hypothesis & consequences of Truly & Baker ascending via the west elevator rather than the stairs. I dubbed this "Murphy's Postulate", and showed that this idea was fatally flawed in my first lunchroom essay.

Somebody had to do it. I downloaded about 100 pages from that thread, and reviewed that material 2-3 times, in order to give his work the proper respect. It was an ingenious postulate. It directly stemmed from his struggles with the Stroud document. Because Sean understood that Adams & Styles should have intersected Truly & Baker on the stairs. In order for his lunchroom hoax hypothesis to survive, it would be required that Truly & Baker be somewhere other than on the stairs.

You have achieved a Bolshevik-style freedom of speech on this issue at your website, where anyone who contradicts the Party line will get thrown to the wolves. You run it like a saloon-keeper. Do you understand that only a small minority are comfortable in places like that? That it all-too-easily morphs into a witches' cauldron of negativity?

Bill Kelly showed his gracious manner when he commented, in the PrayerMan thread, that the lunchroom hoaxers are only fooling themselves. I was more contentious, being in the thick of it at the ROKC forum, and that probably stems from my building-trade persona. The point remains- either the lunchroom incident happened, or it did not.

You have not addressed why every single item of lunchroom-related evidence has a readily-available mundane explanation, nor any of the items from the aggregate. Until you do that, you are still mired in sophistry.

The sophistry is all in your own clueless and evidence-free but bloated assertions. There is nothing more to address. What little substance there was in your last post was addressed. You have responded here with more bombast and false memory syndrome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg,

One of us cannot be wrong, and it will be cataclysmic for you when you finally recognize and admit defeat. It will be similar to the ending of Lord of the Flies, when the adults arrive on the island and shatter the protracted illusion of the boys' tribe.

Sean Murphy had a cataclysmic meltdown after his PrayerMan thread, at least as far as JFK matters. His last post was on November 22, 2013. He had nothing more to give- it had all been left on the playing field.

His efforts there came in three parts- PrayerMan, the Fritz/Bookhout notes, and then the hypothesis & consequences of Truly & Baker ascending via the west elevator rather than the stairs. I dubbed this "Murphy's Postulate", and showed that this idea was fatally flawed in my first lunchroom essay.

Somebody had to do it. I downloaded about 100 pages from that thread, and reviewed that material 2-3 times, in order to give his work the proper respect. It was an ingenious postulate. It directly stemmed from his struggles with the Stroud document. Because Sean understood that Adams & Styles should have intersected Truly & Baker on the stairs. In order for his lunchroom hoax hypothesis to survive, it would be required that Truly & Baker be somewhere other than on the stairs.

Richard, if you will, please explain what complications for hoaxers result from Adams and Styles going down the stairs before Truly and Baker going up, without the two pairs passing each other.

You have achieved a Bolshevik-style freedom of speech on this issue at your website, where anyone who contradicts the Party line will get thrown to the wolves. You run it like a saloon-keeper. Do you understand that only a small minority are comfortable in places like that? That it all-too-easily morphs into a witches' cauldron of negativity?

Bill Kelly showed his gracious manner when he commented, in the PrayerMan thread, that the lunchroom hoaxers are only fooling themselves. I was more contentious, being in the thick of it at the ROKC forum, and that probably stems from my building-trade persona. The point remains- either the lunchroom incident happened, or it did not.

You have not addressed why every single item of lunchroom-related evidence has a readily-available mundane explanation, nor any of the items from the aggregate. Until you do that, you are still mired in sophistry.

What "hoaxers" would that be? His labels are are just more deceit in this little game of revenge he is playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No encounter with a cop on the fist floor? Oswald said there was, and a number of newspaper accounts agreed, citing A COP...

Greg,

I just read the newspaper account of the first-floor cop-Oswald encounter, over on the Oswald Leaving TSBD thread. But I don't recall any report of Oswald saying the encounter with a cop occurred on the first floor. Can you quote that, or tell me where to find it?

From Holmes' testimony. Holmes was the only interrogator in that room not trained in the Reid Interrogation Technique. Because of that, he is the most trust-worthy as far as the alibi goes.

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."

And he wouldn't tell what happened then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No encounter with a cop on the fist floor? Oswald said there was, and a number of newspaper accounts agreed, citing A COP...

Greg,

I just read the newspaper account of the first-floor cop-Oswald encounter, over on the Oswald Leaving TSBD thread. But I don't recall any report of Oswald saying the encounter with a cop occurred on the first floor. Can you quote that, or tell me where to find it?

From Holmes' testimony. Holmes was the only interrogator in that room not trained in the Reid Interrogation Technique. Because of that, he is the most trust-worthy as far as the alibi goes.

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."

And he wouldn't tell what happened then.

Sandy,

Please ask Greg what he means by "The Reid Interrogation Technique." I would myself, but I figure he's more likely to give you a straight answer.

Thanks,

--Tommy :sun

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...