Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sandy Larsen

Officer Marrion Baker's mad dash for the.... Dal-Tex building?

Recommended Posts

You are respectfully blind. Not only is Baker six feet from the sidewalk, he is taking a big step parallel to its edge... thus maintaining his six-foot distance from it. Follow my blue line.

Your silly blue line is worthless and meaningless. You can't start drawing lines on photos or films and expect to extract perfect three-dimensional information, which is something Dale Myers has been trying to drill into the heads of you know-it-all conspiracy hobbyists for years:

"Photogrammetry describes how three-dimensional spatial relationships can be extracted from two-dimensional photographs or images. Without taking into account these relationships, accurate interpretations of two-dimensional images are impossible. In short, you cannot simply draw or overlay lines on a two-dimensional image and extract three-dimensional information." -- Dale K. Myers

Seriously? You are calling Mr. Larsen's lines silly, and referencing Dale Myers, the king of silly line drawers?

Edited by Robert Prudhomme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy,

I think we've discussed this before.

Truly changes the trajectory of Baker's run. See gif.

He does appear to be running past the steps (could have been a split second decision). If he was going to run up the stairs initially, he more than likely would have entered on the left side of the handrail where the others are moving through. The right side is much too congested.

chris

1.gif

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22511&page=16

Starts about post #228 if interested. Post #254 also. The rest is up to you.

chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously? You are calling Mr. Larsen's lines silly, and referencing Dale Myers, the king of silly line drawers?

The difference being, of course, that if Mr. Myers has drawn a line onto a photo or diagram, he has already done the photogrammetry work to verify that the angles are accurate. Do you think Sandy did that kind of work prior to drawing in all his lines?

Let's ask ---

Did you, Sandy?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP: It's certainly true that Officer Baker doesn't mention the "lunchroom" or "second floor" or "pulling a gun on Oswald" in his 11/22/63 affidavit, but if we compare the two affidavits — BAKER'S and TRULY'S — the reasonable conclusion to reach, despite Baker's error about the event occurring on either the "third or fourth floor", is that Baker and Truly are describing the exact same encounter.

LOL :)

ROTF :lol:

LMAO :D :stupid

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Jimmy, it's either the SAME encounter, or Roy S. Truly was a big fat [L-word].

Now, guess which option I'm going to pick?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure is fun to watch the deniers coming out of the woodwork. It's just unfortunate that it distracts from serious discussion on this topic which is, of course, the primary purpose of deniers being on this forum.

I always measure how close a theory, such as Mr. Larsen's current theory regarding Baker, is to the actual truth by how frantic the opposition to it by DVP is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob P.,

Do you really think Roy Truly was lying through his teeth here? Really? ....

Roy-Truly-Affidavit.gif

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody had to be lying, why not Truly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Mr. BALL. Did you see Mr. Truly go into the building?

Mr. MOLINA. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where were you when you saw him go into the building?
Mr. MOLINA. I was right in the entrance.
Mr. BALL. Did you see a police officer with him?
Mr. MOLINA. I didn't see a police officer. I don't recall seeing a police officer but I did see him go inside.
Mr. BALL. Did you see a white-helmeted police officer any time there in the entrance?
Mr. MOLINA. Well, of course, there might have been one after they secured the building, you know.
Mr. BALL. No, I mean when Truly went in; did you see Truly actually go into the building?
Mr. MOLINA. I saw him go in.
Mr. BALL. Where were you standing?
Mr. MOLINA. Right at the front door; right at the front door.
Mr. BALL. Outside the front door?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes, outside the front door I was standing; the door was right behind me.
Mr. BALL. Were you standing on the steps?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes, on the uppermost step.
Mr. BALL. You actually saw Truly go
Mr. MOLINA. Yeah.
Mr. BALL. You were still standing there?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes.
Mr. BALL. How long was it after you heard the shots?
Mr. MOLINA. Oh, I would venture to say maybe 20 or 30 seconds afterwards."

"Mr. BALL - Now, then, did you have any impression at that time as to the direction from which the sound came?

Mr. FRAZIER - Well, to be frank with you I thought it come from down there, you know, where that underpass is. There is a series, quite a few number, of them railroad tracks running together and from where I was standing it sounded like it was coming from down the railroad tracks there.
Mr. BALL - Were you able to see the President, could you still see the President's car when you heard the first sound?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I couldn't. From there, you know, people were standing out there on the curb, you see, and you know it drops, you know the ground drops, off there as you go down toward that underpass and I couldn't see any of it because people were standing up there in my way, but however, when he did turn that corner there, there wasn't anybody standing there in the street and you could see good there, but after you got on past down there you couldn't see anything.
Mr. BALL - You didn't see the President's car at the time you heard the sound?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. BALL - But you stood right there, did you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Stood right where I was.
Mr. BALL - And Mr. Shelley was still standing there?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - And also Billy Lovelady?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - The three of you didn't go any place?
Mr. FRAZIER - I believe Billy and them walked down toward that direction but I didn't. I just stood where I was. I hadn't moved at all.
Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody after that come into the Building while you were there?
Mr. FRAZIER - You mean somebody other that didn't work there?
Mr. BALL - A police officer.
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I stood there a few minutes, you know, and some people who worked there; you know normally started to go back into the Building because a lot of us didn't eat our lunch, and so we stared back into the Building and it wasn't but just a few minutes that there were a lot of police officers and so forth all over the Building there."

Here is a question for you, Davey; was Baker invisible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is a question for you, Davey; was Baker invisible?

Just as invisible as Oswald, I guess, since nobody on the steps saw Oswald walk right past them at 12:33 either.* Funny, huh?

* Not counting Buell Frazier's 2002 story of seeing Oswald walking down Houston Street, which is an observation totally at odds with what Frazier said in his 11/22/63 affidavit.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are respectfully blind. Not only is Baker six feet from the sidewalk, he is taking a big step parallel to its edge... thus maintaining his six-foot distance from it. Follow my blue line.

Your silly blue line is worthless and meaningless. You can't start drawing lines on photos or films and expect to extract perfect three-dimensional information, which is something Dale Myers has been trying to drill into the heads of you know-it-all conspiracy hobbyists for years:

"Photogrammetry describes how three-dimensional spatial relationships can be extracted from two-dimensional photographs or images. Without taking into account these relationships, accurate interpretations of two-dimensional images are impossible. In short, you cannot simply draw or overlay lines on a two-dimensional image and extract three-dimensional information." -- Dale K. Myers

David,

First, I want to apologize for my earlier knee-jerk response (where I said, "You are respectfully blind.") Your constant disagreeing with me got the better of me. I actually value a lot of your posts because I want to be made aware when there is a problem with a CTer's POV, including when it it my own.

You are right, of course. Photo analysis is something the needs to be approached very carefully and is something best left to experts.

However that doesn't mean that simple analyses cannot be made by people who aren't experts but who do understand the tricks that can be played by perspective, focal length, etc.

In my analysis I chose to focus on where the feet of Baker (and the young woman) touch the ground. There is nothing ambiguous or that can be misinterpreted about these points. I then connected these points with a smooth line. Had Baker been walking, the straight-line may not have perfectly represent his path. But he was running fast and momentum would have prevented him from varying directions appreciably from my smooth line. Estimated locations of his foot-landings behind others are in support of my smooth line.

Only the very last footstep is up to any kind of interpretation. But 1) knowing the location of this step is not necessary in showing that Baker was not headed for the TSBD entrance, and 2) I'm confident the any impartial interpretation of the final step would indicate that Baker's direction at that point would be roughly parallel to the curb.

That Baker was running roughly parallel with the curb is verified by the fact that we see him from his side (and not his BACK side), whereas we see the BACK side of the nearby woman who is undoubtedly running toward the sidewalk. (And there is second nearby woman walking to the sidewalk whose back side we see.) This is the clincher to the argument if you ask me.

As for Baker's distance from the curb/sidewalk at that point, it is easy to see in this clip

Baker-TSBD-11-22-63.gif

where Baker's shadow hits the face of the curb and quickly rises to the top of the curb. (Remember, the gray line I drew represents the base of the curb.) When that happens, we know that Baker is a distance from the curb that is equal to the length of his shadow. I haven't done a careful measurement, but on my monitor, with its aspect ratio, I can see that that the lengths of people's shadows are roughly the same as their heights. And so I conclude that Baker is roughly six feet away from the curb/sidewalk at the end of the clip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, Sandy, how can Baker's shadow "[hit] the face of the curb and quickly [rise] to the top of the curb" if he's not running TOWARD that curb?

If he's running parallel to the curb, then why do we see his shadow hitting the curb and rising, as if he's running right toward the curb/sidewalk?

Please explain further. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sandy,
I appreciate the work you put into this but I'm really not seeing the relevance. I mean it's obvious a great little slice of the event captured on film of him running into the TSBD is what we see in the GIF. And the far more intriguing part of it is the Prayer Man figure still standing there at the top of the stairs.
There are people standing, looking, walking, and running amid the confusion of what just happened in that clip but I just don't see how you can take such a huge leap to assume he's heading over to D-T, then cuts and runs into TSBD. And even if he did cut and run, what does it really matter anyway?

Michael Walton:

I tend to agree with your commentary, but skipping all the "optical" details, the main point I would like to make is this--we must look at this crime from the standpoint of "what was planned" versus "what actually happened" as a consequence of mistakes made in its execution.

If JFK's murder was carefully pre-planned (and I think it was); and if that plan involved Oswald-as-scapegoat (and I think it did), then what can be called--for want of a better term--the "fatal intersection" between Oswald and Kennedy was integral to the original design of the plot.

In other words, it cannot possibly be viewed as coincidence that a returned defector--one of a half doze such persons in a nation of almost 200 million--ended up being employed on the President's parade route.

If so, then it was planned in advance to create the (false) appearance that President Kennedy was shot by an assassin who was located in the Texas School Book Depository. To that end, a so-called "sniper's nest" was set up, and the "assassin's rifle" was placed nearby. (Exactly how that was arranged is besides the point, for the purposes of this post).

If this--in principle, anyway--was the was this scheme was supposed to work, then I see no reason--none at all--to have a police officer run into the wrong building. That's what the Dal-Tex building would appear to be--an incorrect destination if (and I stress "if") --what I have just described was the original design of this scheme. To have the officer heading into the wrong building would have been a whopper of an error.

For these reasons, I am reluctant to enter into, and then attempt to descend, into this "rabbit hole", which I believe to be (a) incorrect and (b ) (largely) irrelevant.

The DPD radio transmissions--as well as the behavior of Baker--makes eminently clear that the TSBD was the pre-planned location of the pre-selected scapegoat. (See Ch. 14 of B.E.)

Personally, I think Officer Marion Baker was a bit of a dope, but that is besides the point.

From his earliest statements (11/22 and 11/23) there was never any question as to his destination--based on what he himself said. What changed--over the first 24 hours--was his "probable cause" for running into that building. (First, he "decided" that the shots came from there; later, it was "pigeons flying". etc.

Also: don't forget what Baker himself said--according to Truly's testimony--after the lunchroom encounter, and as the two of them ascended the stairs to the roof. This is in the testimony of Roy Truly: "We must be careful. This man can blow your head off." (From memory).

I'm sorry, but IMHO, I don't believe that the Dal-Tex building played any role whatsoever in terms of the frame-up of Oswald.

DSL

David,

Thank you for your analysis. I agree with much of what you say, that the TSBD and Oswald were pre-selected parts of the assassination plot. But I strongly believe that the analysis of Baker's path I present here conclusively shows that the intended destination of his "mad dash" was not the inside of the TSBD. (Not to say that he didn't subsequently enter the TSBD.) His part in the cover up story was therefore a later add-on.

BTW, I never meant to say or imply that the Dal-Tex building was Baker's destination. I posed that only as an off-the-cuff question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy,

I think we've discussed this before.

Truly changes the trajectory of Baker's run. See gif.

He does appear to be running past the steps (could have been a split second decision). If he was going to run up the stairs initially, he more than likely would have entered on the left side of the handrail where the others are moving through. The right side is much too congested.

chris

1.gif

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22511&page=16

Starts about post #228 if interested. Post #254 also. The rest is up to you.

chris

Thanks Chris.

Your link is when we first discussed this. Back then I didn't know many of the fundamentals, like the layout of Dealey Plaza, from where Baker was running, etc. At the time I saw only a closeup of Baker making his last steps. To me (and others) it looked like he was running parallel to the curb in front of the TSBD. You showed me that Baker was actually running perpendicular to the curb!

It was in my subsequent study of the clip that I realized Baker changed course, from perpendicular to parallel. I found that I could prove it, and I promised that I would. And finally now, I found the time to do so.

I know now that some people have trouble seeing what I (and others) can see. I don't know how to make them see what looks obvious to me. I suppose I could do what Tom Neal suggested, and do a mapping so that the footsteps could be viewed from an overhead position. But I suspect if I did that, many or most of these same people would merely question my mapping. So I am not inclined to do that.

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...