Thomas Graves

This 2013 obituary from The Dallas Morning News mentions Rubenstein Foods: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dallasmorningnews/obituary.aspx?pid=162792613 Stanley Rubenstein's father, Sidney, owned Rubenstein and Son Produce Company, Inc in the early 1950's when it was sued by a Chicago company, Emulsol, for selling some bad eggs to it. It was also later involved in some legal action brought by the state of Texas. http://www.leagle.com/decision/1954885272SW2d613_1764 Darn it, Danny Arce didn't work for Jack Ruby or any of his siblings -- It's just another coincidence! --Tommy

David, On your "The JFK 100 - Mystery Man X and the Secret Service" website page, you say: "[...] the bubbletop was neither bulletproof nor bullet resitant (sic), and served only to protect occupants from the weather. Indeed, JFK had personally instructed the Secret Service to keep the bubbletop off the car throughout the motorcade unless there was rain. (5) Footnote (5) says: Warren Commission Report, p. 452. _____________________________________________________________ When one goes to page 452 of the Warren Commission Report, one does find the statement that the bubble top was neither bullet proof nor bullet resistant, but nothing about the President's ordering it to be kept off the car. Question: Were you thinking of another page in the Warren Commission Report? Sincerely, --Tommy

Martin, Unfortunately, I suppose one would be investigated if he or she walked around carrying a sign saying, "Happy Birthday, Lee Harvey Oswald!" (Before it's too late I just might walk around with a placard around my neck saying, "Hands Off Cuba! Viva Fidel!" That should make the evening news. LOL) --Tommy

Larry, Thanks for clarifying that. "Interesting stuff indeed!" --Tommy

Larry, Are you saying that (according to Anthony Summers) Remegio Arce told Reinaldo Martinez Garcia that Herminio Diaz Garcia was a shooter in Dallas, or that Reinaldo Garcia was told that Remigio Arce was a shooter? Either way, R. Arce is a person of interest, because even if he only told Reinaldo Garcia, one would wonder if R. Arce knew about Diaz Garcia's involvement before the event. The only photo of Ramigio/Remigio/Remegio/... Arce I could find is on the Sparticus "Interpen" page. He's in the third row, second from the right, wearing sunglasses: I didn't realize until yesterday that Ramigio Arce bore a strong resemblance to Oswald, at least from the side. IMHO. (Click on photo to eliminate distortion.} Thanks, --Tommy

Larry, I take it that the dedicated revolutionary who did Batista-era assassinations and who tried to assassinate Castro in 1963 and 1966 was Sandalio Herminio Diaz Garcia. Who was the other guy, the (Cuban?) guy with crime connections? I assume that one of his names was also Diaz? Or do I have it all backwards? Thanks, --Tommy

Dave, I'll give you some deep background on her before you go. You should make arrangements ahead of time. And be sure and be polite and not accusatory as you will represent all JFK researchers, and some are just rude and reflect bad on everyone who has legitimate questions. It's also important to get it on audio tape, if not audio-video - and she will agree that its important for accuracy and you don't want to misquote her. BK Also, to keep from cutting your own name off, make sure that you let the tape recorder run for about five seconds before you start talking. And make a copy for yourself before you sent the original to anybody... --Tommy

Or it was Lumpkin who asked Truly "Hey where's Oswald?" because Lumpkin was going to finger him anyway and that Oswald had left just made his task more convincing. If you look at the big picture and realize Lumpkin's Army Reserve C.O. was Jack Crichton, former WW2 European OSS Officer, who had a hand in planning the motorcade route then it becomes clear that Lumpkin might have been told ahead of time to finger Oswald. Asst. Chief Lumpkin was also in charge of all the pictures and video collected by the DPD in the investigation. What happened to "Babushka Lady's" film? Ask Lumpkin. Backyard Photos? Lumpkin. That Crichton wouldn't know Allen Dulles and Angleton is a stretch. He was in the same theater as they were and the OSS was a very close "family". So for those looking in that direction for a conspiracy, the shoe fits. Chris, I guess that makes more sense than Truly's not noticing (or noticing) that Oswald was missing 15 to 20 minutes after the assassination and then asking Bill Shelley if he'd seen him around. When Shelley said "no," why didn't Truly have someone go back upstairs, particularly to the second floor lunchroom, and look for Oswald? Had workaholic Jack Dougherty already been accounted for, or was he still upstairs like Oswald, as far as Truly knew, could have been? Had all the TSBD floors been "swept" by that time? --Tommy

Good point, Robert, I wonder if anyone went back up to the second floor lunchroom to see if Oswald was still "there." --Tommy

But Baker and Truly's WC testimony rules out their encountering someone else on the fourth floor. If Baker and Truly are trustworthy witnesses, as you keep insisting, why don't you rule out a fourth floor encounter? Are you saying they might have lied to the WC? [...] Did Truly lie? I don't know, but don't think so. He didn't have to, as if he did lie he would have seen Oswald go through the lunchroom door and would have kept Lumpkin's key role out of it. Bill, If Truly had lied and said he'd seen Oswald go through what you call "the lunchroom door," how would that have kept Lumpkin "out of it?" BK: TOMMY, THEY AREN'T NECESSARILY RELATED, JUST TWO ITEMS THAT IF TRULY'S BEHAVIOR WAS SCRIPTED, HE SHOULD HAVE SEEN OSWALD GO THROUGH THE DOOR, AND LUMPKIN'S ROLE WOULD HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED - AND I BELIEVE SUPPRESSED. As I understand it, Truly claimed that he witnessed Baker talking to Oswald (and vouched for Oswald) in the second floor lunchroom and then, about ten minutes later, noticed that Oswald was missing. Then Truly called the warehouse and got Oswald's address, phone number, and physical description. Then he told Lumpkin that Oswald was missing, and Lumpkin suggested that he tell Fritz, which Truly did. So how does Truly's telling the truth (not seeing) or lying (seeing) Oswald walk through "the lunchroom door" have anything to do with the chain of events I've just outlined, given the fact that Truly claimed that he not only witnessed Oswald in the lunchroom but vouched for him there, as well? What do you think Lumpkin would have done regarding Oswald if Truly hadn't mentioned to him that Oswald was missing? Do you think Lumpkin would have said to Truly, "Say, Roy, is your temporary employee who used to live in Russia, that Lee Harvey Oswald guy, missing by any chance?" Thank you, --Tommy PS Every time I click on your two links, I get the error message "Server Not Found -- Firefox can't find the server at www.jfkcountercoup.blogspot. I don't know what Truly would have done if Lumpkin didn't get him to go see Fritz, and I don't know what Lumpkin would have done if Truly didn't tell him about the suddenly and mysteriously missing employee who he had seen on the second floor ten minutes earlier. I don't think that Oswald was the only employee missing, as some of them, if you read their statements - reported they were not permitted back in the building after going out to see the motorcade. So Oswald couldn't have been the only missing employee. I don't know the answers, I'm just asking questions myself. And I don't know how to fix the link problem, but blogspot is run by Google and if you go through Google first you should be able to get there. But I will be leaving this subject soon, and devoting my time to the Air Force One tapes, though I hope you all keep trying to figure it out. BK And isn't my blog link posted by Ed Forum just below my biography? [emphasis added by T. Graves] Bill, When, during his WC testimony, Truly was asked if Oswald was the only person missing, Truly said that Oswald was the only one that he knew of at the time. Do you think that Truly, 11 to 13 minutes after the assassination, was aware of other TSBD employees who were also missing? It does, however, cast Truly in a bad light when he says that no complete roll call was taken that afternoon. Mr. TRULY. When I noticed this boy was missing, I told Chief Lumpkin that "We have a man here that's missing." I said, "It my not mean anything, but he isn't here." I first called down to the other warehouse and had Mr. Akin pull the application of the boy so I could get--quickly get his address in Irving and his general description, so I could be more accurate than I would be. Mr. BALL. Was he the only man missing? Mr. TRULY. The only one I noticed at that time. Now, I think there was one or two more, possibly Charles Givens, but I had seen him out in front walking up the street just before the firing of the gun. Mr. BALL. But walking which way? Mr. TRULY. The last time I saw him, he was walking across Houston Street, east on Elm. Mr. BALL. Did you make a check of your employees afterwards? Mr. TRULY. No, no; not complete. No, I just saw the group of the employees over there on the floor and I noticed this boy wasn't with them. With no thought in my mind except that I had seen him a short time before in the building, I noticed he wasn't there. Mr. BALL. What do you mean "a short time before"? Mr. TRULY. I would say 10 or 12 minutes. Mr. BALL. You mean that's when you saw him in the lunchroom? Mr. TRULY. In the lunchroom. Mr. BALL. And you noticed he wasn't over there? Mr. TRULY. Well, I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen him around and he said "No." --Tommy PS Hmmmm. Come to think of it, It is interesting that Truly didn't claim to have noticed by himself that Oswald was missing, but that he asked the mysterious Bill Shelly about Oswald's whereabouts. So, why did he ask Shelly if he'd recently seen Oswald? Because Oswald was kinda on his mind after having (allegedly) seen him a few minutes earlier in the second floor lunchroom?

I don't know Ian. i guess if you eliminate Oswald as the Sixth Floor sniper, if he wasn't a "stranger," you'd have to look at all of the other employees, not just the floor laying crew or other book order boys like Oswald and JED, but those who worked for the sub-contractors and book publishers, as well as those who delivered books to the TSBD and were there on occasion. Dougherty was described as a former vet, but one who was slow and with a low IQ. I think he lived with his parents and was assisted in his testimony, though we don't know much more about him. At least I don't There is also the possibility the Sixth Floor sniper was a cop, as that would explain why he was in no hurry to leave and that the plan was to just blend in with those searching the building after it was sealed. Most everybody though, wants to chase Ozzie the Rabbit, and gets distracted from even attempting to identify the real gunman, who we know wore a white shirt, was between 25-30 years old, and had a bald spot on the top of his head, and was armed with a rifle. The cop who "discovered" the Sniper's Nest, also passed two men descending the steps when he was going up. Who were they? BK Bill, I think I read that Dougherty's handicap was emotional in nature, not low intelligence per se. Didn't Truly say that he was a good worker (i.e., not slow)? Does the Army take people who are "slow and with a low IQ?" --Tommy

But Baker and Truly's WC testimony rules out their encountering someone else on the fourth floor. If Baker and Truly are trustworthy witnesses, as you keep insisting, why don't you rule out a fourth floor encounter? Are you saying they might have lied to the WC? [...] Did Truly lie? I don't know, but don't think so. He didn't have to, as if he did lie he would have seen Oswald go through the lunchroom door and would have kept Lumpkin's key role out of it. Bill, Although I suspect that Truly was one of the bad guys, I find his reasons for reporting Oswald missing plausible. As he alluded in his WC testimony, it was the combination of the fact that Oswald must have been (at least subconsciously) "on his mind" (having vouched for him just ten minutes earlier) with the fact that Oswald was was apparently the only one "missing." If Truly had lied and said he'd seen Oswald go through what you call "the lunchroom door," how would that have kept Lumpkin "out of it?" As I understand it, Truly claimed that he witnessed Baker talking to Oswald (and vouched for Oswald) in the second floor lunchroom and then, about ten minutes later, noticed that Oswald was missing. Then Truly called the warehouse and got Oswald's address, phone number, and physical description. Then he told Lumpkin that Oswald was missing, and Lumpkin suggested that he tell Fritz, which Truly did. So how does Truly's telling the truth (not seeing) or lying (seeing) Oswald walk through "the lunchroom door" have anything to do with the chain of events I've just outlined, given the fact that Truly claimed that he not only witnessed Oswald in the lunchroom but vouched for him there, as well? What do you think Lumpkin would have done regarding Oswald if Truly hadn't mentioned to him that Oswald was missing? Do you think Lumpkin would have said to Truly, "Say, Roy, is your temporary employee who used to live in Russia, that Lee Harvey Oswald guy, missing by any chance?" Thank you, --Tommy PS Every time I click on your two links, I get the error message "Server Not Found -- Firefox can't find the server at www.jfkcountercoup.blogspot.

Good point, Bjorn. It's hard to "walk away" from stairways that are as enclosed as those on the third floor. The third and fourth floors are so different that if the encounter did happen on one of them, Baker could have remembered which one it was by simply revisiting both of them before making his affidavit. --Tommy

Bill, I think he was out of breath from running a bit more than 50 feet. From his 1998 full text, unedited interview with Joe Bill Patoski: Pierce Allman: "As the car sped off, that's when the Secret Service man from the back had vaulted over and pushed Jackie back in the seat, she was trying to come up, and that's when the body assumed that grotesque position we saw on the way to Parkland. Then I ran across the street, spoke to the Newmans and said, 'Stop!' And why we were running that direction, I couldn't tell you. It was just sort of a flow. I stopped and said, 'Are you ok?' He said, 'Yeah, but they got the president. They blew the side of his head in.' I remember thinking, 'I've got to get to a telephone.' But we continued up the little hill there -- I won't say 'knoll' -- the little hill..." Bill: "That's all right." Pierce Allman: "And Bob Jackson from the Times-Herald was running behind me. And why we went up there, I don't know, except there was just sort of a movement up there. And then I turned around, ran back down the hill, ran up the sidewalk, went into the depository building, asked the guy where the phone was, went inside, got on the phone, called the station, and had trouble getting through." --Tommy Questions for everyone: Earlier in this full text, unedited 1998 interview with Joe Bill Patoski, Allman said that he and his sidekick Terry Ford were standing near Howard Brennan during the assassination. Are there any photographs or films showing Allman or Ford near Brennan at the time? In the full text, unedited interview with Patoski, Allman says something which I find to be very confusing. In relaying what he'd told the Secret Service when they tried to get him to ID Oswald as the guy he'd asked about the telephone, Allman says: "I said, 'Guys, this is going to be power of suggestion. All I can remember is White Male, and about this height, and the whole thing, not the dark hair, the gestures, and whatever.'" [emphasis added] Question: Is the "not" a typo? And if not, what does he mean by "not the dark hair?" (Compare this to what he is quoted as saying in the highly-edited version for the Texas Monthly magazine: "I said, ‘Guys, this is going to be power of suggestion. All I can remember is white male with dark hair, and slender, and his gesture toward the phone.’") In the youtube video, Allman tells another radio man,"Frank," that one witness saw a man with a gun at a second floor window, and another witness saw a man with a gun at a fourth floor window. Allman said that both he and the police had spoken with both witnesses. Does anyone know the identity of these two witnesses? In a November 1963 live phone interview in the youtube video, Allman said that the limousine was in the middle of the street, had just passed him, and only about ten feet from him when the shooting started. Thoughts, anyone? expanded and bumped

Reporter Pierce Allman's sidekick, Terry Ford, told the Secret Service that a guy (Oswald?) inside the front entrance (in the lobby area?) of the TSBD directed them to a phone "inside a room" which was "directly ahead" of them. Therefore, I think the phone Allman used was the one that's visible, in the background by a pillar, in the photo of the first floor that Robin Unger posted in post # 1033 in the Oswald Leaving the TSBD? thread. Another factor arguing against the phone's being in the lobby is that If it had been in the lobby, lots of background noise (people talking, people shouting, sirens, etc) would be heard in Allman's live reporting to his radio station. But it isn't, which suggests that the phone was situated relatively far from the front entrance and the lobby. See page three for what Terry Ford told the Secret Service: http://jfk.hood.edu/...rce/Item 03.pdf --Tommy

Bill, I think he was out of breath from running a bit more than 50 feet. From his 1998 full text, unedited interview with Joe Bill Patoski: Pierce Allman: "As the car sped off, that's when the Secret Service man from the back had vaulted over and pushed Jackie back in the seat, she was trying to come up, and that's when the body assumed that grotesque position we saw on the way to Parkland. Then I ran across the street, spoke to the Newmans and said, 'Stop!' And why we were running that direction, I couldn't tell you. It was just sort of a flow. I stopped and said, 'Are you ok?' He said, 'Yeah, but they got the president. They blew the side of his head in.' I remember thinking, 'I've got to get to a telephone.' But we continued up the little hill there -- I won't say 'knoll' -- the little hill..." Bill: "That's all right." Pierce Allman: "And Bob Jackson from the Times-Herald was running behind me. And why we went up there, I don't know, except there was just sort of a movement up there. And then I turned around, ran back down the hill, ran up the sidewalk, went into the depository building, asked the guy where the phone was, went inside, got on the phone, called the station, and had trouble getting through." --Tommy Questions for everyone: Earlier in this full text, unedited 1998 interview with Joe Bill Patoski, Allman said that he and his sidekick Terry Ford were standing near Howard Brennan during the assassination. Are there any photographs or films showing Allman or Ford near Brennan at the time? In the full text, unedited interview with Patoski, Allman says something which I find to be very confusing. In relaying what he'd told the Secret Service when they tried to get him to ID Oswald as the guy he'd asked about the telephone, Allman says: "I said, 'Guys, this is going to be power of suggestion. All I can remember is White Male, and about this height, and the whole thing, not the dark hair, the gestures, and whatever.'" [emphasis added] Question: Is the "not" a typo? And if not, what does he mean by "not the dark hair?" (Compare this to what he is quoted as saying in the highly-edited version for the Texas Monthly magazine: "I said, ‘Guys, this is going to be power of suggestion. All I can remember is white male with dark hair, and slender, and his gesture toward the phone.’") In the youtube video, Allman tells another radio man,"Frank," that one witness saw a man with a gun at a second floor window, and another witness saw a man with a gun at a fourth floor window. Allman said that both he and the police had spoken with both witnesses. Does anyone know the identity of these two witnesses? In a November 1963 live phone interview in the youtube video, Allman said that the limousine was in the middle of the street, had just passed him, and only about ten feet from him when the shooting started. Thoughts, anyone?

Sean, Photographer Malcolm Couch talked about a motorcycle's backfiring on Main Street in his WC testimony: Mr. BELIN - Do you remember where you vehicle was by the time you heard the third shot? Mr. COUCH - I would say we were about 50 feet from making - or maybe 60 feet - from making the left-hand turn onto Elm. Mr. BELIN - Did you hear more than three shots? Mr. COUCH - No. Mr. BELIN - Had you heard any noises, what you'd describe like a motorcycle backfiring or firecrackers, prior to the time that you made your turn north on Houston? Mr. COUCH - Well, way uptown on Main Street, a motorcycle did backfire right behind us - and we all jumped and had a good laugh over it. And the three shots sounded, at first - the impression was that this was another motorcycle backfiring. (It's interesting that Belin would ask him that question.) --Tommy

Thanks to Bernice and Martin for those photos and diagrams, as they help explain a lot. Also note there are FOUR doors in the rear - two in the back by the loading dock and two side doors to the north side. Can anyone read what it says next to the two north side doors? Did the guy who ran down the embankment and get into the Rambler Station wagon exit through one of these doors? As for your question Jim, I don't know why anyone would want or need to rearrange the book carton's in the sniper's nest. This was done within minutes of the last shot, so if it wasn't done by the shooter himself, it was done by an acomplice. Some of the boxes that we know were moved are the ones visible in the Powell/Dillard photos and seen by Brennen, who when shown photos said that the boxes were in a different position from when he saw the shooter in the window. Can someone come up with a good reason to move the boxes around? BK (emphasis added by T. Graves) To create a "sniper's nest" after the fact in order to incriminate Oswald? --Tommy

Robin, First floor shipping department? Note rolls of wrapping paper in right background. --Tommy

I'm sorry you're so frustrated, Bill. All I've been trying to do is show how the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter, whether it happened or whether it was just a fabricated story, did not necessarily exonerate Oswald. You think it obviously exonerates Oswald and therefore couldn't have been fabricated, because only idiotic bad guys would have been so stupid as to fabricate a story that actually exonerated Oswald. I'm saying it didn't necessarily exonerate Oswald, so it very well could have been fabricated by non-idiotic bad guys. I'm finished arguing with you on this. My head is sore from beating it against the wall. Sincerely, --Tommy Tommy I think you are right! The story worked and it has done its job for fifty years regardless of any imperfections it has. Bill makes some good points with his reasoning of how a second floor encounter may have played out but I find his comments and insistence that the second floor encounter exonerates Oswald misguided. It doesn’t exonerate Oswald. It never has exonerated Oswald and it never will exonerate Oswald and if it did, could or would then Oswald would surely already be exonerated? The thing that bothers me about this whole second floor encounter is not that Truly is (or is not) sufficiently leading Baker (a gun toting professional law enforcement officer) up the stairs in search of at least one (could be more for all they knew) gun toting assassin(s) and misses Oswald supposedly going through, walking by or just hanging around a second floor vestibule door; but why was Truly leading Baker at all? Why would Baker allow a civilian to sufficiently lead him (a gun toting cop) up the stairs in search of possible assassins? Why would Truly wish to put his life in danger by sufficiently leading a gun toting cop up the stairs looking for assassins? The reason I suspect is because it simply did not happen like that. I have serious issues believing that the unarmed Truly is charging up the stairs ahead of an armed professional policeman (Baker) in any way shape or form. I also have difficulty believing that Truly (after first supposedly vouching for Oswald) later becomes suspicious of him to such an extent that he has to alert the DPD? In my opinion if anyone is susceptible to leading (or having their story enhanced) then surely an apparently unassuming Truly becoming both hero and detective in the same day is a viable candidate. Is Truly the lynchpin of the second floor encounter? Regards - Steve (emphasis added by T. Graves) Steve, Good question. Why was the unarmed Truly (allegedly) leading Baker at all in such a dangerous situation? It would have made more sense for Truly to walk right behind Officer Baker and tell him when to turn right or left, and when to go straight ahead. --Tommy PS Here's an uncropped photo showing the windowed vestibule door, a pillar next to a little table, and the west freight elevator in the left background: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce742.jpg And here's a photo of the north west corner of the second floor, showing the same pillar with its distinctive little table outside the lunchroom vestibule (which is off to the left out-of-view). Note the open door with its stairs going up to the third floor visible in the right background. The door with its stairs coming up from the first floor is not visible in this photo, but it is just below and to the right of the "Stair Way"sign. So, in this photo we are looking at the area through which Truly and Baker would have walked, from left to right, while on the second floor, and we see the pillar that would have been somewhat between them and the windowed vestibule door when they arrived, right under the sign, on the second floor: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce743.jpg The same photo showing a bit more: http://assassinationindallas.wordpress.com/2011/01/08/yes-he-works-here/

Bill, Given the fact that the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter doesn't necessarily exonerate Oswald, it could have been fabricated by some pretty smart bad guys. I hope you find some photos of the TSBD "payphones." Maybe there weren't any "payphones" there of the sort we're used to, but instead just regular-looking phones for which you were supposed to give a dime to some secretary? Just an idea. Maybe Buell Wesley Frazier would remember. Or Gary Mack. --Tommy

I'm sorry you're so frustrated, Bill. All I've been trying to do is show how the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter, whether it happened or whether it was just a fabricated story, did not necessarily exonerate Oswald. You think it obviously exonerates Oswald and therefore couldn't have been fabricated, because only idiotic bad guys would have been so stupid as to fabricate a story that actually exonerated Oswald. I'm saying it didn't necessarily exonerate Oswald, so it very well could have been fabricated by non-idiotic bad guys. I'm finished arguing with you on this. My head is sore from beating it against the wall. Sincerely, --Tommy

Bill, In his WC testimony, Baker said that the windowed vestibule door might still have been in the act of closing when he caught a glimpse of Oswald through its window. If so, I guess the story would be that 1) Oswald ducked into the vestibule, 2) Truly hit the landing, 3) Oswald watched Truly start to go up the stairs to the third floor, 4) Oswald then started to leave through that windowed vestibule door, 5) Oswald heard Baker coming up the stairway, 6) Oswald ducked back into the vestibule, and 7) Baker caught a glimpse of Oswald through the vestibule door's window. --Tommy Tommy, if you have read Roffman or my article on The Doors of Perception, or if you could go there and see for yourself - as the Secret Service did and the Warren Commission lawyers could have done, but instead called Truly back for a second sworn testimony at the Post Office Annex just across the plaza from the TSBD, and asked him only one question - does the 2nd floor lunchroom door that Baker saw Oswald through the window of - have an automatic closing device? And the answer was yes. And if you took basic geometry in high school or if you draw a square on a piece of paper to represent the two by two foot square window of the door in question, and then move the right side towards you to represent the door opening or in the process of closing - you will see that basic geometry dictates that even if the door was open a few inches - the size of the window would decrease and you wouldn't be able to see anything through the window - therefore - the door had to be totally closed - slammed shut for Baker to see anything through that window. So when Baker testified before the Warren Commission - do you think they they tried to get him and Truly to say that either one of them saw the door open, even just a little bit? Or do you think they got Truly and Baker and Reid to totally lie an concoct the whole event? I think Baker's repeated statements - including years later at the London trial - he made it very clear that the first time he saw Oswald was through the window of the door - a fleeting glance, and for him to have done that the door, by scientific certainty - had to be closed - and in the reenactment, they discovered that when someone went through that door, and made a left to go into the lunchroom, by the time the door was shut - the person who went through the door was out of view of the window. David Belin pressed Truly on the matter - and went off the record more than once with both Baker and Truly and asked Truly on how come he didn't see Oswald go through the door as he should have if he had gone through the door before Baker saw him, - I think Belin asked him if he was looking at his shoes or not paying attention and tried to get something out of Truly that would explain why he didn't see Oswald go through that door as he should have - 20 feet in front of him. And Baker stuck to his guns - saw him first through the window - the first thing out of his mouth at the London trial, but the defense attorney didn't follow up on it and instead brought up the man in the doorway instead, and then concentrated on Oswald's cool and calm attitude. But the basic fact is that Baker could not have seen Oswald through the window of the door if the door was open at all. It had to be closed shut. Sure, Baker said maybe I missed the door closing, but he didn't see it moving, the only thing he saw moving was the man on the other side of the window, and for him to have seen anything through the window the door had to be closed, which means that Oswald didn't go through it, and alas, there's another door on the other side, and that's the door Oswald actually leaves by. So they were going to fit a round peg in a square hole - even though Truly didn't see Oswald go through the door, as he should have if he did, Baker only saw him through the closed door, Dougherty didn't see Oswald run past him on the fifth floor, as he should have, the secretaries didn't see anybody when they ran down the steps, as they should have seen Oswald or anyone if they were on the rickety old steps at the same time, and their boss didn't see anybody run past the fourth floor where she was standing by the steps. So either all of these people just missed each other like a Keystone Cops comedy - or the more believable truth of the matter is that Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed door as he slowly walked past on the way from the office to the lunchroom, just as he claimed during his interrogation. I believe Baker saw Oswald through that window - and if that happened, then science and geometry dictate that the door must have been closed, and Oswald got to that location from the offices and not the stairs. That's my take, and I've put a lot of time and effort into arriving at that conclusion, and the only way out is for Oswald to have ran even faster than 90 seconds past all those who we know in fact used those stairs and arrived beyond the door and closed it before Truly and Baker arrived and then walk in front of the window for Baker to see him. You can believe that, or you can see that it is entirely more than likely that Oswald didn't come down those stairs or go through that door, but was where he said he was at the time of the shooting - on the first floor - and he went up the front steps and through the offices and Baker saw him through the window of the closed door as he waltzed past, cool and calm, not having shot and killed anyone or having run 300 feet down four flights of stairs and barely making it into the lunchroom without Truly seeing him and Baker just catching a glimpse of him through the window as the door closed. Any theory as to what happened must take all the facts into consideration and not just the facts that support a particular theory. If Baker saw Oswald through the door window, the door was shut, and if Baker told the Warren Commission that the door may have been closing, that's what they wanted to here, but the Secret Service and the Warren Commission lawyers who called Truly back to testify about the door, and Goldberg, the author of the Warren Report narrative on this part of the investigation, who had the FBI get additional sworn statements from both Truly and Baker on the eve of the release of their report, knew better. Bill, I'm not arguing that Oswald actually descended the stairs from the sixth floor, entered the vestibule of the second floor lunchroom, and was noticed there by Baker. I'm arguing that this story was an imperfect but sufficiently plausible way (for fifty years) to make him disappear from the front steps and place him significantly closer to the sixth floor sniper's nest. --Tommy PS If you'll look at the photo in post number 870, this thread, you'll see that the vestibule door's window is pretty darn big. Seems to me that if the door was still open an inch or two (in the act of closing), it wouldn't have made much difference in Baker's ability to catch a glimpse of Oswald through that window. Here's another photo of that vestibule door. I'm talking about the top photo. (The bottom photo shows the door at the other end of the lunchroom.) Note: Posting the photos here seems to "squash" everything vertically. To see the original, go to the History Matters website. Warren Commission Hearings. Volume XVII. Page 212. The window looks even bigger there. If Oswald was on the front steps, then he was on the first floor at the time of the assassination, as he said he was. The top photo appears to be a view from the top of the back steps as Truly and Baker would see the door as they arrived at the top of the steps. Baker saw Oswald through that window - and it is my contention - and I believe it to be scientifically accurate, that if you open that door even a little bit, the window changes shape from the square shape to a funnel like rectangle shape - same length but thinner sideways - but if only open a few inches you can no longer see through the window. But say the door was open a little bit - even almost closed when Baker saw Oswald through it, - if it was a movie and you stopped the moving film and backed it up - and Oswald backed up and was going through the completely open door, Oswald would be on this side of the open door, and Truly would be at the top of the steps - and he couldn't help but see Oswald go through that door, and he didn't. The second picture is what you see of the lunchroom from that door - and is the scene of what Baker saw after his attention was drawn and he got closer and saw Oswald "walking away" from him through the completely closed door window - Oswald heading towards that Coke machine. Then Baker opened the door and ordered Oswald to stop, and Baker stayed where he was - standing at the open door with his gun drawn as Oswald turned around and walked back towards him. Truly, having noticed Baker wasn't behind him as he proceeded up the stairs to the third floor, turned around and came back and looked over Baker's shoulders and when Baker asked if this man worked here, Truly said yes, and they both moved on. If this scenario is being written by the conspirators who killed Kennedy and were framing Oswald - now is the time to kill Oswald - but instead - Oswald bought his Coke and walked out the door he came in and went through the office and past Mrs. Reid, who had just arrived there, which she timed three times with David Belin, - two minutes after the last shot, thirty seconds after Baker and Truly were timed getting there. Truly testified that after he left Baker on the front steps he didn't see him again to get their stories straight, and told the Warren Commission he didn't know that Baker first saw Oswald through the window - until weeks later, when its significance became apparent. If you are arguing what Sean is saying - that all these little details were made up as part of a story to frame Oswald to hide the fact that he was on the front steps, well I want to know who made up this story? And why didn't they get it right, so that Oswald not only was closer to the back stairs, but that it was sufficiently plausible that he actually went through that door, came down the steps and did all the things they claim he did? Even if Oswald is "Prayer Man," then that makes the second floor lunchroom encounter even more plausible than the Warren Report because it is photographic proof Oswald was on the first floor and had to go up the front steps in order for Baker - 90 seconds later - to see him through the door window, as Baker swore he did. If those who claim the second floor lunchroom encounter was made up and everyone lied about it to hide a more damning truth, that truth can't be the fact that Oswald is "Prayer Man." Whether Oswald is "Prayer Man" or not, I think that all of what we know indicates he was on the first or second floor at the time of the shooting and is not the Sixth Floor Sniper, did not kill JFK, did not hide the rifle and run down the stairs and go through that door. And therefore, instead of chasing Ozzie the Rabbit - the Patsy, why aren't we trying to identify the real Sixth Floor Sniper, and figure out who he was and how he got there and got out of there clean? (red emphasis added by T. Graves) Yes Bill, that's what I'm saying. I don't know who fabricated the changing stories. Sorry. And it was sufficiently plausible. For fifty years. --Tommy PS Why didn't they make it sufficiently plausible that Oswald went through which door? And came down which steps?

Bill, In his WC testimony, Baker said that the windowed vestibule door might still have been in the act of closing when he caught a glimpse of Oswald through its window. If so, I guess the story would be that 1) Oswald ducked into the vestibule, 2) Truly hit the landing, 3) Oswald watched Truly start to go up the stairs to the third floor, 4) Oswald then started to leave through that windowed vestibule door, 5) Oswald heard Baker coming up the stairway, 6) Oswald ducked back into the vestibule, and 7) Baker caught a glimpse of Oswald through the vestibule door's window. --Tommy [...] ... if you took basic geometry in high school or if you draw a square on a piece of paper to represent the two by two foot square window of the door in question, and then move the right side towards you to represent the door opening or in the process of closing - you will see that basic geometry dictates that even if the door was open a few inches - the size of the window would decrease and you wouldn't be able to see anything through the window - therefore - the door had to be totally closed - slammed shut for Baker to see anything through that window. [...] Bill, I'm arguing that this story was an imperfect but sufficiently plausible way (for fifty years) to make him disappear from the front steps and place him significantly closer to the sixth floor sniper's nest. If you'll look at the photo in post number 870, this thread, you'll see that the vestibule door's window is pretty darn big. Seems to me that if the door was still open an inch or two (in the act of closing), it wouldn't have made much difference in Baker's ability to catch a glimpse of Oswald through that window. Here's another photo of that vestibule door. I'm talking about the top photo. (The bottom photo shows the door with what looks like a tiny window at the other end of the lunchroom.) This is from the History Matters website. Warren Commission Hearings. Volume XVII. Page 213. "Clicking" on the photo enlarges it and puts everything in proper proportion. --Tommy

Bill, In his WC testimony, Baker said that the windowed vestibule door might still have been in the act of closing when he caught a glimpse of Oswald through its window. If so, I guess the story would be that 1) Oswald ducked into the vestibule, 2) Truly hit the landing, 3) Oswald watched Truly start to go up the stairs to the third floor, 4) Oswald then started to leave through that windowed vestibule door, 5) Oswald heard Baker coming up the stairway, 6) Oswald ducked back into the vestibule, and 7) Baker caught a glimpse of Oswald through the vestibule door's window. --Tommy