Jump to content
The Education Forum

----- >>>>> It's Lee <<<<< -----


Guest Bart Kamp

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

I know this [is] hard for you to take in, David, but I suggest you stay calm.

The overall evidence (!), not just the bits you fancy, [shows] clearly that there was no 2FLRE on the 22nd.

The overall evidence, of course, does exactly the opposite, Barto.

But keep fighting reality. It's what ABO CTers do best.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you go through all the evidence for a change, it may open that closed mind of yours a tad and see things as they really are.

We all know you will not allow that to happen, that open mindedness, yet I do urge you to do it so good luck with that

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

However, I think this discussion is futile. It leads nowhere as whatever I write in response to you, it will be questioned by quite silly, sorry,  comments. Do you really want to discuss Prayer Man's height or only provoke? Please show your calculations, estimates, measurements, whatever.

 

Andrej,

For accuracy's sake.

Stairs.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
17 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

I know this [is] hard for you to take in, David, but I suggest you stay calm.

The overall evidence (!), not just the bits you fancy, [shows] clearly that there was no 2FLRE on the 22nd.


The overall evidence, of course, does exactly the opposite, Barto.
 


Not if the evidence has been tampered with, David.

The problem with most of your JFKA analyses is that you won't consider the possibility of a coverup. This is a major flaw in your thinking. You use circular logic: We know there was no coverup because the (tampered with) evidence shows there was no coverup.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Not if the evidence has been tampered with, David.

But in the particular topic that Bart and I were arguing about above --- the "2nd Floor Lunchroom Encounter" and whether or not that encounter occurred at all --- the physical evidence that can be examined in order to determine whether that encounter happened or not is certainly very minimal, as I'm sure you'd agree. There are the reports and notes of Fritz, Bookhout, and Hosty, plus some newspaper articles from various papers (none of which mention the SECOND floor, that's true, with at least one paper saying the encounter occurred on the FIRST floor).

But in a situation like this, we're really forced to rely on the words and statements and testimony of those people who were involved in the "2nd Floor Encounter" --- e.g., Roy Truly and Marrion Baker and, yes, even Lee Harvey Oswald, with Oswald HIMSELF (per Captain Fritz' final typed report) verifying that he was stopped by a policeman on the second floor of the Depository, with Oswald telling Fritz (again, according to Fritz' own report) that he was "on the second floor drinking a Coca-Cola when the officer came in".

Now, conspiracy theorists, if they choose to do so, can believe that those three people (Marrion Baker, Roy Truly, and J.W. Fritz) lied their eyes out when they each said that an encounter with Oswald occurred on the second floor. But, Sandy, does such a lie really make much sense at all? All that lying and manipulation of the facts just to put Lee Harvey Oswald on the second floor of a building, when everybody knows that the assassin of President Kennedy was located on the sixth floor of that building when the President was killed?

It's flat-out ridiculous.

A couple of "Common Sense" reminders....

"And all of that subterfuge and lying was done just so they could—what was it now?—oh, yes....just so they could falsely place Oswald on the SECOND FLOOR instead of the FIRST FLOOR (which is where most CTers say he was in the first place). Hardly seems worth it, does it? Because the SECOND FLOOR isn't the SIXTH FLOOR, is it? You'd think the crafters of this Baker/Oswald ruse would have had Baker and Truly (both rotten l-i-a-r-s, according to CTers) say they saw Oswald dashing down the stairs between the SIXTH and FIFTH floors. Such a fabricated tale would have been infinitely better for the "Let's Frame Oswald" team of plotters. But no! They only wanted to say they saw him on the SECOND floor. As if THAT story somehow nails the resident "patsy" to the cross more efficiently. (Hilarious!) .... The fact that the "Lunchroom Encounter" makes ZERO sense if it were, in fact, just made up from whole cloth is one of the reasons to know that it really did happen the way Officer Baker and Roy S. Truly always said it happened." -- DVP; December 2017

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Why can't conspiracists accept Marrion Baker's "third or fourth floor" statement for what it so clearly is — a simple and honest mistake made by a police officer who was in a chaotic and frantic situation within minutes of the President having just been shot, and who was not paying close attention at all to what floor he was standing on when he pointed his gun at Lee Harvey Oswald's stomach in the lunchroom on November 22, 1963?" -- DVP; December 2017

 

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2019 at 7:48 PM, David Von Pein said:

Point taken, Sandy. Thanks for your input.


And thank you, David.

Of course there is nothing wrong with being skeptical, and in fact that is a good thing. Andrej says he will release his probability calculations once he's finished. His 1 in 700,000 preliminary figure seems awfully high to me too. But then I haven't put in more than a few minutes effort on this, in contrast to his enormous effort.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

"And all of that subterfuge and lying was done just so they could—what was it now?—oh, yes....just so they could falsely place Oswald on the SECOND FLOOR instead of the FIRST FLOOR (which is where most CTers say he was in the first place). Hardly seems worth it, does it? Because the SECOND FLOOR isn't the SIXTH FLOOR, is it? You'd think the crafters of this Baker/Oswald ruse would have had Baker and Truly (both rotten l-i-a-r-s, according to CTers) say they saw Oswald dashing down the stairs between the SIXTH and FIFTH floors.



Well that's a good point, David. Why didn't the WC's fabricated story have the Oswald/Baker encounter occur on, say, the fifth floor instead of the second?

Right off, I'd wonder if Baker even had enough time to get to the fifth floor. Didn't the reconstruction show that Baker just barely made it to the second floor?

Also, what about the coke? It appears that the coke was an important factor in Baker/Oswald story. I don't know the facts well enough to make this argument, but maybe there were reports of Oswald having a coke in his hand when he was caught. If so, the story would sound awfully suspicious if it said that Baker encountered Oswald on the fifth floor as he was rushing away from the snipers nest with a coke in his hand. You mean Oswald took all those shots at Kennedy, took the time to hide the gun, and then grabbed a bottle of coke as he tried to get away?

There are more knowledgeable people than I who could hypothesize on this. Regardless, I don't think the second floor lunchroom was a terrible choice. After all it did put Oswald way in the back of the building, far from the front entrance.

Hey, here's something: Maybe the WC thought they could get a witness on the second floor to testify that she saw Oswald there near the time of the encounter. Come to think of it, there was a witness who saw Oswald there BEFORE the shooting, right? Well the interrogation notes that have Oswald encountering Baker have it happening BEFORE lunch! So the witness who saw Oswald on the second floor BEFORE lunch actually corroborates the Baker/Oswald encounter! All the lawyers had to do, if they chose to, was to say that this witness was mistaken about her seeing Oswald there before the shooting. Or they could just remove that from her testimony.

But, as I said, a more knowledgeable person could hypothesize this better.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Well that's a good point, David. Why didn't the WC's fabricated story have the Oswald/Baker encounter occur on, say, the fifth floor instead of the second?

Right off, I'd wonder if Baker even had enough time to get to the fifth floor. Didn't the reconstruction show that Baker just barely made it to the second floor?

Well, Sandy, yes, but if the whole "Encounter With Oswald" was just MADE UP in the first place, then obviously Baker's time to get to the FIFTH floor for a "fake" encounter with LHO would have been increased. And then, correspondingly, the reconstructed time of Oswald's "fake" trip to the fifth floor would have been slowed down, in order for him to have gone down just one flight of stairs, whereas Baker & Truly managed to climb 5 flights in about the same amount of time.

Point being: since the whole damn thing is fake and phony from the get-go (per many Internet CTers, that is), then the "reconstructions" could easily have been "faked" too. And, in fact, many CTers I've talked to DO think that both Marrion Baker's reconstructed time AND John Howlett's (Oswald's stand-in) re-enactment time were phonied up by the Warren Commission. They think the WC deliberately slowed down Baker and sped up Howlett/(Oswald) in order for the timing to work out perfectly for a second-floor meeting. But in reality, exactly the opposite is the truth with respect to the timelines of the re-enactments. Baker testified that he likely took LONGER to get to the 2nd floor on Nov. 22 than in his March '64 reconstruction; while Howlett was moving way slower (a "normal walking pace" and a "fast walk") than Oswald was probably moving on the 22nd.

 

Quote

Also, what about the coke? It appears that the coke was an important factor in Baker/Oswald story. I don't know the facts well enough to make this argument, but maybe there were reports of Oswald having a coke in his hand when he was caught. If so, the story would sound awfully suspicious if it said that Baker encountered Oswald on the fifth floor as he was rushing away from the snipers nest with a coke in his hand. You mean Oswald took all those shots at Kennedy, took the time to hide the gun, and then grabbed a bottle of coke as he tried to get away?

Well, many CTers do think Oswald had a Coke in his hands when confronted by Baker (based on Baker's statement that he signed on September 23, 1964). But, you see, a lot of Internet CTers these days can't use that argument any longer to support some kind of an encounter on the SECOND floor, because those CTers have decided to totally WIPE OUT the 2nd-floor meeting altogether. It's gone. It doesn't exist, per those conspiracists. So they've got to start from scratch (I guess).

BTW, this 9/23/64 statement (which was initialed and signed by Marrion Baker) is yet another piece of evidence to support the notion that a Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter occurred on the second floor of the TSBD on November 22. And this 9/23/64 statement signed by Roy Truly is another piece of "second floor" evidence as well.

A lot of conspiracy theorists, naturally, are of the opinion that those two "late arriving" statements/affidavits with the names of Baker and Truly on them are merely two additional pieces of phony/manufactured evidence to help frame the deceased Mr. Oswald. I, of course, think those CTers are full of beans.

I talk a lot about Oswald, Baker, Truly, And The Coke (and those September '64 statements provided by Baker and Truly) in this article (and this one too).
 

Quote

There are more knowledgeable people than I who could hypothesize on this. Regardless, I don't think the second floor lunchroom was a terrible choice. After all it did put Oswald way in the back of the building, far from the front entrance.

And I just thought of yet another person who has been called a l-i-a-r by many CTers concerning this "Second Floor" topic --- Mrs. Robert A. Reid, who said she saw Oswald in the second-floor offices (with a bottle of Coke in his hand) just after the assassination.

 

Quote

Hey, here's something: Maybe the WC thought they could get a witness on the second floor to testify that she saw Oswald there near the time of the encounter. Come to think of it, there was a witness who saw Oswald there BEFORE the shooting, right? Well the interrogation notes that have Oswald encountering Baker have it happening BEFORE lunch! So the witness who saw Oswald on the second floor BEFORE lunch actually corroborates the Baker/Oswald encounter! All the lawyers had to do, if they chose to, was to say that this witness was mistaken about her seeing Oswald there before the shooting. Or they could just remove that from her testimony.

But, as I said, a more knowledgeable person could hypothesize this better.

I think you're referring to Carolyn Arnold. She's the witness who supposedly saw Oswald sitting in the lunchroom on the second floor before the assassination. Problem being: She seems to have changed her story a time or two over the years. Plus, she never said anything about seeing Oswald on the second floor until 1978. So, I'd handle her tale with a grain or two of salt.

 

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Andrej,

For accuracy's sake.

Stairs.gif

Chris:

I am not sure what do you want to say. You took my 2016 model which I then stopped using because I felt I could not make high-quality overlays. The reason was the absence of realistic dimensions of the doorway at that time. I was on a project for some 5 months and have estimated various dimensions solely based on photographs. For instance, the height of the doorway was estimated by counting the number of bricks on the western wall and multiplying this figure by the size of a standard US brick. The depth of the doorway was estimated to be 3'6'' but in reality, it was 3'9''. 

For this reason, the outer doorway in my 2016 model does not align perfectly, however, the inner part of the doorway seems to hold well. More importantly, the body height of Prayer Man has been estimated correctly with his head 5'2'' above the top landing and the connecting line touching the top of his head pointing to Frazier's chin. Prayer man's head is just a tiny bit above your blue 5' line, which is just fine. More importantly, the article defined the landmarks which any fitting of Prayer Man's figure needs to observe, such as his head crossing the aluminum frame, his right elbow at a certain distance from the red brick column (or "touching" the head of the man below) , etc.

After completing this model, I stopped my work as I felt that some inaccuracies in alignments of my model and Darnell can only be resolved with modelling the doorway with realistic measures. The realistic model was available maybe about in summer 2017, and you can find some overlays of this model in my January 2018 article on thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com. However, even this model uses a slightly wrong depth of the doorway (3'8'') because the true dimension of the depth of top landing popped up only after publishing the article. You can see a revision comment in my January 31 article to this effect. I then embarked on reconstruction of Altgens6 and simultaneously worked on a realistic figure of Lee Oswald. Both projects are close to finishing, however,  due to my job duties I cannot find a single day, not even a weekend, to be able to resume and finish - and one day would not suffice anyway. 

Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we even know if Oswald ever prayed?

If I had been Oswald the one time I definitely would have prayed was when the cops marched me into that basement and Will Fritz immediately got out of the way.

Of course there wasn't much time to pray beyond "Dear Lord," or maybe "Lord no, not Jack..."

 

 

 

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...