Ed LeDoux

The Beckley Bunch 

Questioning answers of residency.
https://www.spreaker.com/user/thelonegunman/ep-161-the-beckley-bunch-w-ed-ledoux

 

Coming into the final stretch, and its Bart for the win.

Cheers, Ed

So Bart, 

Ochus her 'boss' said he was with her outside....

but none of her fellow co-workers did?

Interesting.

And again I'll ask, who ate lunch with her?

Again TIA,

Ed

 

PS, 

Ochus Campbell is the guy who saw Lee in the first floor storeroom, but later doesn't know Oswald from adam.

Yeah that guy.

So to sum up your ad hominem attack Lance,

you have nothing to refute the evidence.

PM exists.

Thanks counselor

Cheers, Ed

 

PS, thanks to Bart Kamp and
Thanks to Malcolm Blunt

And Marrion Baker said he was wearing what exactly?

"Mr. BAKER - At that particular time I was looking at his face, and it seemed to me like he had a light brown jacket on and maybe some kind of white-looking shirt.
Anyway, as I noticed him walking away from me, it was kind of dim in there that particular day, and it was hanging out to his side."

 

Looks like someone didn't get the memo

Cheers,

Ed

The second floor encounter never happened.

What happened was Roy Truly and Marion Baker robbed Lee of his alibi.

You have proved this beyond a reasonable doubt.

Great work Bart!

Cheers, Ed

Was Mrs Reid seen outside by her coworkers?

Who ate lunch with her?

TIA, 

Ed

Lance said....

"You're pretending to have a level of scientific certainty that you simply can't have from the available evidence"

My Response in Bold.

I THINK YOU WANT ABSOLUTE PROOF,  AND ALSO A LEGAL CERTAINTY   

"In pure mathematics , however, there is said to be a proof for the existence of absolute truth. A common tactic in mathematical proofs is the use of reductio ad absurdum , in which the statement to be proved is denied as a premise, and then that premise is shown to lead to a contradiction."

 

HOW ABOUT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT COUNSELOR?

Numerous TSBD employees were on the front steps at the time of the assassination or in the immediate vicinity.  Not everyone recalled everyone else, but their recollections were quite good and paint a solid picture.  Not one person recalled Oswald standing in full view where Prayer Person is standing.
NOT ONE PERSON RECALLED MOLINA WHOM STOOD IN THE GROUP SINCE 12:15!
NOT ONE PERSON NAMED ANY OF THE COLORED MEN ON THE STEPS, ROY LEWIS ETC.
SO SAYING A PERSON WHOM JUST STEPPED OUT ABOUT THE TIME THE CHARISMATIC PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JOHN FITGERALD KENNEDY AND ADMIRED JACKIE BOUVIER KENNEDY, VICE PRESIDENT AND TEXAN LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON AND HIS VERY POPULAR WIFE LADY BIRD ALONG WITH TEXAS' JOHN CONNELLY AND WIFE NELLIE WERE ASSURED NOT TO NOTICE THE LEAST FAMOUS PERSON IN THE WORLD-AT LEAST TILL 3PM-ONE NEWLY HIRED WAREHOUSE WORKER NOT PERSONALLY KNOWN TO BUT A FEW, A SCRAWNY LEE OSWALD. I DOUBT HIGHLY THEY WOULD, ASK ROY LEWIS.
  Does it seem plausible that not one person said “Gee, I seem to recall the guy you folks think is the assassin standing right there on the steps with us.  Maybe you should look into that, huh?”  But wait, there’s more … 
SURE, THEN THEY WOULD BE RIDICULED AND SAID THEY WERE MISTAKEN AND OR THAT WAS AFTERWARDS OR THEY NEED PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OR SO MANY THINGS LIKE PERHAPS THEY WERE HIS LOOK OUT OR EVEN ACCOMPLICE.
BUT DONT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT ASK BUELL WESLEY FRAIZER.
2.  Of all the photos and films taken that day – or that might have been taken that day – Prayer Person appears in precisely one.
WRONG HE IS CLEARLY SEEN IN TWO FILMS WIEGMAN AND DARNELL AND IN TINA TOWNERS FILM THOUGH ONLY FAINT GLIMPSES CAN BE MADE OUT 
It is pure happenstance that there aren’t 15 photos in which Prayer Person is clearly identifiable.
WE HAVE MULTIPLE FRAMES FROM SEVERAL CAMERAS SO YOUR PREMISE IS FAULTY
And in that one photo Prayer Person conveniently appears as such an amorphous blob in the deep shadows that debate continues as to whether said blob is a man or a woman.
CLEAR FRAMES SHOW A WHITE MALE WAREHOUSE WORKER, YOU DO THE MATH
Prayer Person could be literally anyone – but, voila, it’s Oswald!  But wait, there’s more … 
NO IT CAN NOT BE "ANYONE" FAULTY PREMISE #2

FAULTY PREMISE #3
3.  What conceivable assassination conspiracy would have allowed the patsy who was supposed to be on the sixth floor shooting the President to be standing in full view on the front steps? 
FRAME JOBS ARE NOT PRE PLANNED
ARE YOU SAYING EVERY PERSON EXONERATED BY THE INNOCENCE PROJECT WAS PART OF A VAST PREPLANNED CONSPIRACY? I HIGHLY DOUBT IT BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
Nevertheless, to Prayer Person advocates, items 1-3 are no hindrance at all (precisely because Conspiracy Logic is essentially anti-logic). 
YOU HAVE STARTED WITH FAULTY LOGIC AND TRIED TO BUILD ON IT. 
DO ANY OF YOUR PHOTOS OR FILMS SHOW ANYONE IN THE SIXTH FLOOR WINDOW BEFORE OR IMMEDIATELY AFTER? YOU DONT? WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR VAST CONSPIRACY THAT IT COULDN'T EVEN LURE LEE TO BE LOOKING OUT THIS WINDOW.
But the notion of Oswald inserting Jarman and Norman into his Domino Room Alibi?  Oh, please, that’s completely off the scale of plausibility!  
The only plausible explanation - put it in stone - is that Oswald was eating lunch in the domino room. 
THAT IS CONFIRMED. LEE WAS EATING IN THE DOMINO ROOM. 
JARMAN SAID "SOMEONE" WAS IN THERE.
JARMAN WAS WALKING AROUND FIRST FLOOR EATING AND DID NOT STAY IN THE LUNCHROOM.
LEE COULD SEE THE BOYS RETURNING TO REAR DOCK STEPS FROM DOMINO ROOM 
THE MOST PLAUSIBLE AND VERIFIABLE.
THIS BY ALL ACOUNTS IS ALSO HIS ALIBI.
CONFIRMED IN HOSTY AND BOOKOUT/FRITZS NOTES.
Of all the aspects of conspiracy theorizing that I regard as laughable, the notion that the TSBD was teeming with conspirators and accessories from Roy Truly to Eddie Piper and everyone in between, while innocent young Oswald was placidly eating a cheese sandwich in the domino room, is one I regard as so self-evidently absurd that I can’t believe intelligent people are even discussing it.
ARE YOU JUST AN IGNORANT ONE BECAUSE YOU ARE DISCUSSING IT AND WRONGLY TOO.

  From my experience as a lawyer,
IS THIS AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITY OR DID YOU HELP OSWALD IN THIS CASE.
this is the sort of explanation people resort to when they are truly (or maybe Truly) desperate. 

YOURS SMACKS OF DESPERATION.
OURS IS DOCUMENTED.
MAYBE START BY READING THE BOOK COUNSELOR.
Or perhaps this was just some citizen seeking a bit of shade who had no connection with the TSBD at all and meant nothing to any of them. 
SORRY FAULTY LOGIC, NO ONE WORMED THEIR WAY UP THROUGH EMPLOYEES.
CAN YOU NAME ANY STRANGERS WHOM DID.
OR POINT OUT ANY STRANGER ON THE STEPS.
REMEMBER ALL EMPLOYEES WERE ASKED ABOUT STRANGERS AND ONLY DANNY ARCE RESPONDED YES.
I forget who it was now, but one of the employees allowed an older man who was having some sort of difficulty to go into the building to get a drink or use the restroom.  That would be my educated guess - that this individual was not mentioned because he or she was of no significance to anyone, which seems far more plausible than the sinister speculation. 
YET ARCE DID.
NEXT.

Do I know Oswald wasn't outside watching the P. parade to a level of ontological certainty?  Of course not. 
WHY NOT. BECAUSE YOU DONT ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE GIVEN YOU. 
THAT IS ON YOU COUNSELOR.
I can't know to a level of ontological certainty that he wasn't having his way with a nubile young secretary in the basement or eating a banana on the roof either.  
DO YOU RANDOMLY ASSIST CLIENTS THIS WAY OR DO YOU SEEK EVIDENCE TO ABSOLVE THEM?
ASKING FOR A FRIEND FROM MENSA.
But, yeah, I think I can objectively claim that the conclusion Oswald was upstairs shooting the President is approximately 500,000 times more likely than the conclusion he was outside watching the P. parade.
WARREN COMMISSION TRIED AND FAILED BUT BE MY GUEST.



Cheers, Ed Ledoux 
CEO Maui Film

 

Bransford didnt crash, the Helo didnt crash, and neither were over water, they were in the pass, over LAnD.

Please review the evidence.

Cheers, Ed

:p

Thanks to Bart.

http://www.prayer-man.com/marina-oswald-its-lee/

Add the below and the game is in checkmate.

So here I will show you a note made by Jim Hosty no one else has seen before or even bothered to share or simply overlooked it . It comes from the National Archives and it was Malcolm who found it. Who else as hardly anyone spends any real time at the National Archives in Washington than Malcolm!

Written on the backside of a D.P.D. affidavit sheet of paper, Hosty outlines what Oswald’s movements were and what Lee said.

“He went to 2nd floor to get coca cola to eat with lunch and returned to 1st floor to eat lunch. Then went outside to watch P. parade.” 

Questions for Andrej:

Do you feel vindicated?

How do the prior claims by authorities interrogating Lee that he 'had not watched parade' stack up now?

Who would know Lee's profile and figure better than his wife? (His Mother, but I couldn't place that call.)

Cheers!

Ed

Can we get the complete list of banned members?

It is the only way to know if you're culpable.

Please list along side all views and topics these banned member are associated with.

Then we can be certain no chicanery slips these hallowed halls, or internet server.

Cheers, Ed 

What is it that they say about your first instinct,... someone did not get that message it appears.

Sarah would be exiting when she encounters Lee with "Coke" in hand.

This would likely take place at the front of the building rather than the rear.

Most likely near the second floor lobby where front stairs are located. 

This would require Lee to either make his way through the office (Reid) or through the hallway with his cola.

It seems quite possible to have Lee performing all the actions he was clamed to do post assassination but pre-assassination. The spin comes when Lee is arrested.

I find the interview Brian attempted worthwhile from several aspects. He just needs to work on his "leading questions" style, as that is unprofessional. He stumbles into the Coke bit, and this suffocates any life left in the second floor lunchroom encounter. Bravo Brian.

That by default supports Lee, his alibi, and his being PRAYER MAN.

A dynamic erosion of the Dallas authority's and commission's story.

Great work on straightening this out Bart. Andrej continues to sort this out beautifully too. 

Both are on my recommendation list for Lancer.

Carry On!!

Cheers, Ed

Since Richard Gilbride has reopened the case of the lunchroom encounters being hoaxed I will give his comments a final reply.

Gilbride made several claims. None have been supported.

He tried to, by shear volume, try to match Bart Kamp's essay on the second floor encounter. This was soundly rejected.

As I read Bart's reply to Dick it reminds me of this very thread.

Richard Gilbride said: "Not to mention Adams & Baker seeing a large black guy downstairs, at different locations."

I replied that large black men were at various locations downstairs

Richard Gilbride responds:

" .....lots of black men...."

Here Richard distorts my words, I did not say "lots"

I said there were large black men downstairs at various locations.

Gilbride confuses what I said, or intentionally misconstrued it to his liking rather thsn what could easily quoted.

Either is indicative of his changing things to suit his needs.

Then he tangentially instructs me on numbers of black men... but actually misses Roy being inside even as a footnote. And if three descend from the 5th floor then this alone gums up his Only West and Piper pipe dream, and would force him to accept the Truly Baker entry timing is a sham.

But will get more into that later.

 

Here is Bart's reply

http://www.prayer-man.com/the-death-of-richard-gilbrides-deluded-fantasies/

 

The Death of Richard Gilbride’s Deluded Fantasies.

 

Richard Gilbride used to be a co-administrator at ROKC. He left the forum not just for his opposing and his dated views with regards the second floor room encounter, but he also behaved in a rather irritant and alienating manner, thinking his admin/mod status could speak for all the others of the ROKC forum.

In 2014 Richard Gilbride managed to post a few things while being at ROKC that obviously rubbed everyone else up the wrong way by moving the goalposts and also restating inexact facts and resort to made-up fairy tales. And of course like ROKC’s biggest ‘fan’ Brian Doyle he has been isolating himself further and further. A few samples…..

“The lunacy in me is in taking on the cult, the true believers, those who don’t think the lunchroom incident ever happened. Because those true believers are the true lunatics, who can’t accept concrete evidence that their hypothesis is incorrect, even with that evidence is dropped at their feet and thoroughly explained to them”  HERE

and  I find the contentions of those who say the lunchroom event didn’t happen an insult to my intelligence. What I am insulting is their reasoning power, regarding this particular facet of November 22nd- because as far as this incident goes, they have taken leave of their senses. “They” meaning Sean Murphy, Greg Parker, Lee Farley, and those who actively promote this school of thought. What they promulgate is an insult to my better judgement, and many other peoples’ better judgement. It should be an insult to their better judgement.  HERE.

Almost four years later nothing has changed. You will see while reading on.

Since leaving ROKC in 2014 he has had a huge chip on his shoulder about ROKC research. Once in a blue moon he starts to appear on a forum and spews his gal, which does not hold any ground whatsoever. It only appears in Gilbride’s mind. Brian Doyle and his Prayer Woman beliefs fall in the exact same category, the category of being deluded and in deep denial only believing their own ‘truth’.

A year ago Richard Gilbride was still a member at the Education forum, but the disgusting post below got him his membership revoked, like the xxxxx Brian Doyle who posted so much drivel he became the laughing stock of the JFK Research Community. Leaving Gilbride only the half decent Deep Politics Forum to vent. I don’t count the JFK Assassination forum run by disinfo clown Duncan MacRae as a proper forum. One has to ask themselves why these deluded individuals keep at this while at the same time their memberships are being revoked. It certainly doesn’t speak well for their argumentation overall, but in this case why don’t we let his ‘writings’ speak for himself and you the readers/researchers can make up their own mind.

No matter how strong the evidence is, it will be denied purely due to the fact that it comes from us at ROKC. I have very little time for flat earthers, climate change and holocaust deniers and these two people are from the same pack. Doyle and Gilbride are also technically inept to such an extend that mouthing off without providing any proof is their only weapon. Oh we at ROKC mouth off big time, but that is after presenting the proof in abundance after which we are  being lied to by these fantasists. Then of course we will address your xxxx.

Gilbride first two essays on the second floor lunch room encounter are filled to the brim with unsupported innuendo, made-up ‘evidence and have been demolished by various researchers (including yours truly). In 2014 at ROKC and later at the Education Forum in 2015/2016. And with his third ‘essay’ (90 pages too long) it is even worse. About half of it is used to attack me and my work and the other half is again just opinionated and unsubstantiated drivel which is nothing but a repeat from his dreadful fairy tale ‘research’ that is more than 4 years old. And only this once he gets the special treatment (a blog post) from me. I cannot be bothered otherwise since his crap does not deserve anyone’s attention.

When he made a forum post entitled “Death Of A Lunch Room Hoax” at the Deep Politics Forum earlier in Feb.,  he got rebutted by Jim DiEugenio, David Josephs and Alan Ford with great ease already. But why stop there……I want my slide of the cake as well. So here we go.

Good Stuff.

It seems that I made some typos regarding the dates of the SS report(s) concerning Mrs Robert Reid. I also forgot to add one page of these reports to my paper which resulted in me erroneously claiming she made no mention of the coke in that statement. That was wrong and I have corrected that. One thing that needs to be added is that the Secret Service Reports from early Dec. 1963 are to be treated with the utmost suspicion, some of the T.S.B.D. worker’s testimonies in those reports were contradicting their very first statements to the D.P.D. and the F.B.I.

I also erroneously ascribed a radio message to Jesse Curry whereas that should have been Bill Decker instead. I corrected that as well.

These correction will be in the V.4 update of Anatomy Of The Second Lunch Room Encounter out early March.

And that is it mistake-wise from all the 90 pages, now then y’all best strap in as the person who has never before attempted to look and research all the evidence before and relied way too much on his own innuendo for three essays on the same subject matter is about to get a serious kicking. Of course he himself will deny this up to the hilt.

Bad stuff.

The introduction by itself is a very weak start, instead of sticking to the point he drifts off already and drags in historical quotes which have no bearing on this case whatsoever. Gilbride tries to show of his intellect, not that it works as you will see further on where he makes some really dumb mistakes which are only made because of his blindness created by his hatred for ROKC and my work.  These first few pages are pure filler. Anyone can bang together a few historic quotes and massage the whole thing together. Gilbride should have included a few of these, it would have been more fitting to his work overall.

Then we arrive at Prayer Man, Gilbride feels the need to drag this part of the enigma into this document for a large part spread all over it. I myself make brief mention of it in the Anatomy Of The Second Floor Lunch Room Encounter paper I made. In this chapter it is already going horribly wrong, nothing new as the majority of this has been already posted more than two to four years ago at the Education Forum and back then it was torn to bits, not just by me but pretty much any member there in that thread. Gilbride’s so called photogrammetry calculations amount to junk science and like Brian Doyle he talks the talk trying to make everyone believe that they are the experts who know how to do this, but the reality is quite the opposite, drawing a few lines on a 2d photograph amounts to bugger all, a small child can do this.

He provides no info as to what camera/lens was used by both camera men (Darnell and Wiegman), there is no way to determine the exact spot of both camera men and their distance to the front steps of the TSBD, one can only guess. It is flawed from the word get go, but this was already relayed to him two years ago on the Education Forum, but Gilbride isn’t listening let alone researching just rehashing the same old fairy tale.

Nor does anyone know  whether Prayer Man stood on the top of the landing or one step down. I speculate he is one step down due to his stance, and the way the steps go wider. And also due to the size of Shelley/Frazier on the landing and Lovelady who stood on a lower step. There is no way of ascertaining by sight whether Prayer Man stood on the landing or one step down from either film. The height analysis is pure conjecture, there is zero and I repeat zero evidence to back up Doyle’s and Gilbride ‘s claims. His calculations are sucked out of his thumb and presented as gospel.

Gilbride states that Lovelady stood on the top step. If there is one thing abundantly clear in Wiegman it is that Lovelady is standing one step lower below Shelley and Frazier and is leaning against the railing. This cannot be done while standing on the top step. Take a look at the photographs below. Now pretend to stand on the landing and imagine leaning against that railing….bit difficult to do that no? Also look how close he is to Williams who stood one or even two steps down. No way could he have stood that close to him if he were standing on the landing. And also consider that Lovelady stood behind Carl Jones as you can see in the Hughes film and as the motorcade made its way down Elm he moved slightly to the right and up the steps. Not the landing where Shelley, Frazier, Sanders and Stanton were already standing. Lovelady had a curious mind and when the shots rang out he left those steps immediately with Shelley. Lovelady can be seen lowering on the steps in Wiegman as well.

Doyle tried to lie himself out of it and it never worked, and it doesn’t work this time for Gilbride either. Major fail on Gilbride’s part of repeating this debunked rubbish.

Click to enlarge

 

On Page 7 it gets “better”, Gilbride brings in the pix used by Brian Doyle for his Prayer Woman malarky. The buttons argument was debunked by me more than a year ago. These are not buttons they are artefacts from a transfer from tape to digital, as simple as that. I wrote two articles nailing Doyle and his lies to the cross. Gilbride pretends like his nose is bleeding and present this horse xxxx afresh…..you’d think he would be joking but he isn’t.

The Death Of Prayer Woman Part 1. and The Death Of Prayer Woman Part 2 deal with this BS in good detail. In case you were wondering where his latest essay’s title comes from, look no further.

In the very first article it was shown that Craig Lamson and Duncan MacRae faked the detail of the Darnell image which shows Prayer Man/Lee Oswald. Gilbride is using this image and on the same page of that article is also a photograph which shows the “buttons”, those buttons which appear all over the actual image. These buttons in correlation with the actual size of the image would be massive in real life. David Josephs brings a coherent argument forward at the Education Forum about this.

Here let me show you again in a very simple way and you can see they are all over the image. Buttons = fairy tale. Prayer Woman died a long time ago already. But like McAdams would do many years ago, even when debunked they still have a go at presenting this again at a later date. This is pure trolling.

Neither Doyle, MacRae and Gilbride possess any photography skills let alone be able to edit/manipulate/enhance/post the images. Recently Gilbride, already being a member at DPF for quite some time, had to ask the DPF members to show him how to post pix at that forum.  Gilbride’s photo analytical qualities come into question again later on.

In short the entire hooey from pages 3-9 is to be avoided purely for the bad research being done and repeating already debunked stories. if you do not think I make a point then just have a look at the replies Jim DiEugenio and David Joseph gave to Richard Gilbride with regards this BS. Another major fail on Gilbride’s account for adopting the sheer garbage produced by Brian Doyle, Duncan MacRae and Craig Lamson. When I asked Lamson, Doyle and MacRae for the EXIF data, and not meta data Doyle, they refused to pass it on as it would have shown heavy manipulation from their part. Instead the cowardly fakers ran away.

Then he asserts running woman is Gloria Calvery, there is absolutely nothing to support this, not even BWF’s statement. Since he brings this in connection with Shelley and Lovelady who had already departed. Shelley and Lovelady lied about their stay on the steps for 3-4 minutes during their WC testimony. It would have invalidated the W.C. fairy tale of  2nd floor lunch room encounter and Oswald’s departure there and then, as everyone would have seen Oswald leaving the TSBD. It is impossible that this happened. Calvery to this day has not been IDed in Dealey Plaza on that day no matter how hard people try. In Shelley’s first statement, before Oswald was marched in or let us even assume he gave that statement during it. He stated that he saw Gloria Calvery after he had left the steps. There is no interaction between Shelley and Lovelady and running woman at all.  It is pure guesswork. But it would have been a lot better if both these clowns actually paid attention to the very little info that is available of Gloria Calvery. In CE1381 she states. “After President Kennedy was shot, I returned to my office. I stayed there a short time then returned to the front entrance of the building. I remained there only two or three minutes and then came back to my office. I left my office for the day at about 1:30 PM and went home.” There is absolutely nothing about her running back, she went inside and up to her office and then came back down.

The drab is continued with Harry Dean Holmes’ affidavit and WC testimony, if anyone gave the game away on Oswald’s alibi it was H.D.H., he was not part of the boys club inside the DPD and surely did not get the memo to keep his mouth shut and not to volunteer any info. Holmes himself is also questionable for the fact that not one person could take responsibility handing the rifle to Oswald, as it supposedly had come through his office. The rifle that never existed in Oswald’s inventory, but that is a whole different story btw.

Gilbride refers to a 4 page memo from Dec 17th, which was his report from Nov. 24th. What Gilbride does not realise is that there is a 8 pager as well.  My position on Holmes’ testimony is quite clear in my paper, Gilbride thinks different due to his interpretation, which no one else but another research apologist by the name of Larry R. Trotter agrees with. Alan Ford demolishes that interpretation as well at DPF. Click and see for yourself. But why do I not paste part of Holmes’ WC testimony below.

Mr. BELIN. By the way, where did this policeman stop him when he was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting?
Mr.HOLMES. He said it was in the vestibule.
Mr. BELIN. He said he was in the vestibule?
Mr. HOLMES. Or approaching the door to the vestibule. He was just coming, apparently, and I have never been in there myself. Apparently there is two sets of doors, and he had come out to this front part.
Mr. BELIN. Did he state it was on what floor?
Mr. HOLMES. First floor. The front entrance to the first floor.

As simple as that Gilbride’s wishful fairy tales are torn up again. So the first 12 pages are completely worthless and why should we stop there. On page 13 the THE WILL-CALL COUNTER BUMP chapter is put forward. Since I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that both Truly and Baker never went in as fast as they claimed this chapter can also be dismissed. The 13 points of concurrence are also utterly worthless, David Josephs takes care of this already (post #2), no need for me to add anything.  So that is 15 pages that can be skipped due to the terrible work put forward by Richard Gilbride.

And it is getting worse, let me quote from page 19.

“Yet no other document even loosely correlates the existence of a “3rd or 4th floor” man, and do not wait up nights hoping that something supportive will turn up among the documents-yet-to-be-released. The chances are nil. “3rd or 4th floor” man has been utterly useless as a tool to help decipher what went on, just after the assassination, inside the Texas School Book Depository. All we can infer is- if he ever existed at all- he vanished into thin air. This empty result adds nothing contributory to the crime scene investigation, certainly nothing better than what the commonly-held assertion gives us- that Baker was simply confused about the TSBD floor layout when he composed his affidavit.”

Ah yes Baker was just so confused, he went up two short flights of stairs and was already confused about what floor he was on, sure…… Had Baker thought that the shipping dept. on the first floor was the ground floor then he would have mistaken the 2nd floor for the 1st and not 3rd or 4th, but Gilbride wants everyone to believe that Baker’s first affidavit has no real meaning yet it is paramount in showing that there was no second floor lunch room encounter at all. That document by itself is a major cliff hanger. Gilbride keeps pushing this terrible scenario again and again, and this was also debunked at the Education forum as utter hogwash.

On page 21 he cannot believe the amount of people that are supposedly involved with this encounter lie, what Gilbride omits is that

1/ there is no mention of a second floor encounter on the 22nd, the first public outing is at around lunch time on the 23rd (almost 24 hrs after Oswald’s arrest) and

2/ that quite a few statements are taken on the 24th after Oswald has been given a set of wings…….. Gilbride thinks that by not presenting the evidence in the right context and dragging in philosophy makes his argument stand tall, the opposite is more true.

So far up to this point of this ‘essay’ everything mentioned can be skipped, it offers very little or no value at all, it solely contains Richard Gilbride’s personal innuendo.

The Stroud Document is also equally dismissed with again Gilbride’s apologising for how Adams and Styles could not have seen Baker and Truly while coming down swiftly wearing high heels on creaky wooden stairs. Truly allegedly heard Baker talking while the door was closed, but neither of them were hearing Adams and Styles clacking with their heels and making their way down those stairs. Dorothy Garner heard them descending while out of sight to her. An absolute stinker of an excuse. The ladies were already outside before Baker and Truly even attempted to go in and up. As simple as that. Gilbride ought to he ashamed producing this type of dross.

The arrows showing the alleged route on the 1st floor diagram are wrong, as per testimony they went diagonally through the shipping dept.

On page 25 Gilbride claims “Baker first caught a glimpse of Oswald somewhere between 50-60 seconds after the head shots.” Oh really? And the evidence for that is where exactly? Ah yes only in Gilbride’s head……that glimpse that got no mention until a few days before his W.C. testimony…. The timing aspect was a mess from day one, but Richard Gilbride and his fairy tales make matters a lot worse.

On the same page he claims “The November 27th Secret Service re-enactment film, at the 23 ½ minute mark, shows it closing unaided in only 1.8 seconds.”

See for yourself that this is rubbish, the film below (starts at the point of opening the door) and Barry Ernest’s testing in 1968 (3 seconds) shows it took longer that 1.8 seconds. Baker who only followed him by a few feet managed to open the door and have it closed in a few seconds and stop Oswald while Truly was just a few feet ahead and was on the 2nd or 3rd step up the stairs towards the 3rd floor. Pull the other one sunshine!

Gilbride again wants to apologise for the Baker and Truly encounter which never happened in the first place.

 

On page 26 Gilbride shows the Gary Murr drawing I put forward with my paper (he borrows a lot of graphics from my piece without properly crediting anyone!) and names it the vestibule.

Vestibule: a passage, hall, or antechamber between the outer door and the interior parts of a house or building.

On that same page he slanders Sean Murphy again without providing any linkage to it. Insiders know that Murphy got in contact with Sandra Styles and got some contradictory statements compared to what Barry Ernest presented in his book The Girl On The Stairs. There was some debate about this, but nothing like Gilbride dares to present, he is economical with the truth again. Gilbride’s hatred for Sean Murphy is more than evident. He acts like a sore loser who was outgunned and above all outclassed years ago.

Pages 27-30 are about the filmed interviews, the B&W ones for CBS and the biggest turd known to mankind The Trial Of LHO, held in London during the 70’s. Defence council Spence looks so weak with his questioning it is utterly laughable. The witnesses have all been instructed and coached by Vince Bugliosi (another filthy denier….) what to say. A fab example is Harold Norman’s testimony, just count the times how many times he glances towards Bugliosi when questioning becomes a tad tough. With the CBS interviews it isn’t much better. Jim DiEugenio and Jerry Policoff wrote excellent articles on how CBS conducted itself with these interviews and the JFK Assassination overall.

So that is 30 pages without anything of real value, my suggestion: skip the lot!

Pages 31-40 are about Baker’s first statement, his FBI statement from Sept. 1964 and so on.

Again Gilbride makes a few serious mistakes.

1/ If we are to believe that Baker and Truly raced up those stairs then how comes there were several people inside the lobby? We know that Roy Edward Lewis was inside the vestibule and that Otis Williams had left the steps to go inside up too the 4th floor (yup using those same wooden stairs…). Other than that everyone was still outside. That by itself already indicates a much later arrival than has been presented.

2/ Then Richard Gilbride dismisses all newspaper reports for being brought up by overexcited newspaper reporters hungry for details, and even remembered incorrectly by the protagonists. This is how he classes journalism. You think that is a bad case of generalising then wait a little for another nugget further down.

3/ Gilbride digs into Baker’s first statement while padding himself on the back for doing, superfluous, research while complaining the Murphyites don’t do this, first of all the derogatory word has no impact and he ought to know that this started decades before Sean Murphy got involved and I personally have taken it much much further than a any forum poster. Of course we not do superfluous research. It’s a complete waste of time and proves nothing nor does it debunk anything what has already been questioned before. (pages 31/39).

This is going from bad to worse for Richard Gilbride since all of these 39 pages fall completely flat from a research p.o.v. It is only HIS opinion, and we all know the saying when it comes to opinions…..

Then we finally reach the real juice: “Anatomy Of A Cherry Picker” and with that he means me and my paper. Thank you Richard, I looked through all the available evidence.  Something he failed to do with his two earlier essays which resembled Swiss cheese. One could pick holes in these two bodies of work and conclude that they were rightfully ignored by the overwhelming majority of the JFK research community. for all these years. And only after my paper was released and awarded  by Lancer and DPUK , combined with that huge chip on his shoulder did he get his finger out and produced this (s)hit piece.

Before I utterly destroy this typed up excrement on the second half of his ‘essay’ I should mention that it was my sole intention to collect everything available about this so called encounter to present a bigger picture. One thing that stood out were the huge amount of contradictions in statements, testimonies and newspaper reports. Which requires a lot more than your mundane explanation Richard!

He starts of with that I failed to address my counter-arguments against the lunchroom hoax hypothesis at the Education Forum, this is a lie, his dated beliefs were argued against at The Education Forum two years back. As a matter of fact his points were nullified by not just me, but also others.

See this thread at The Education Forum.  Greg Parker on page 8 of that thread summed it up nicely then, and it is even more than applicable now.

“Fact: Baker wrote 3rd or 4th floor. Your opinion is that he was confused

Fact: Baker described a 165 pound 30 year old wearing a light tan jacket. Your opinion is that he was mistaken

Fact: Oswald allegedly claimed to buy one coke: your opinion is that he bought two.

Fact: Mrs. Reid stated Oswald wore a white t-shirt. Your opinion is she was mistaken

Fact: The re-enactments were done over and over again until they could make the timing work. Your opinion is that they was done over and over to “refresh” Baker’s memory

Fact: The will-call counter “bump” is a change to the original story given which was that Truly was already inside. Your opinion that it was just additional information is an opinion you’re entitled to. You are also entitled to the opinion that there is no elephant in the room.

It’s always instructive when someone whose opinions are not attracting any support of note, will start claiming that the support of other positions is merely due to sycophancy. Ouch-B.K.

As Terry (Martin-B.K.) said, people have long smelled something foul regarding the 2nd floor encounter. You are so tied up in trying to extract some sort of revenge, that you are actually falling back on Warren Commission apologist type arguments. Not bad coming from someone who believes the MJ12 garbage was what got Kennedy killed.”

Terry Martin and Ed Ledoux post excellent rebuttals and I myself have made a few posts, see for yourself and especially look at Page 16.

In this so called essay of his he writes“Kamp could not provide any substantive answers to my complaints.” Nothing more than a terrible lie, click on the link and check that page and the following ones out and see for yourself and you can conclude that Richard Gilbride is lying. When a ‘researcher’ has to resort to lying then I am more or less done communicating with them in any shape or form, I only make an exception here since there are 50 odd pages attacking me and the work I have produced.

Then Gilbride’s assumptions get the better of him and he fails in a rather spectacular fashion while addressing Truly’s deleted testimony. In the Sept 2017 release of my paper (V.3) I said that we tried to get hold of it and also wondered why the testimony was withheld, nothing else. Gilbride on the other hand scribbles down a fairy tale even Hans Christian Anderson would be jealous of. In the end this deleted testimony was nothing else than someone else reciting his testimony, there was nothing deleted about it all. For that the “blame” lies with either NARA or the WC. You will see in the V.4 update.

Then he questions why I wondered why Baker had not called the observation of a possible shooter in, which anyone with half a grain of common sense would wonder aloud since that would be proper police procedure no? Not according to Dick Gilbride……  My second question was why Baker did not seal off the building, I should have asked why did he not seal the front entrance and call others in? What cop goes inside a building with a gun man still inside on his own when several buddies are about ‘dancing’ behind the picket fence and the rail road yards. Baker was no Rambo, far from it.

We now know that Baker was standing between the TSBD and the Dal Tex building as became apparent during his WC testimony (and was eventually led to saying it was the TSBD) plus the Darnell film shows Baker veering to the right.

Then he posts two newspaper articles from Nov 24th and 25th which have no bearing since the lunch room encounter did not publicly exist until Nov 23rd around lunch time. And a ten year old child could come up with a handful more of those articles from after the 23rd repeating the fakery created by the D.P.D.

Gilbride then continues to attack every single piece concerning this case and cherry picks his way through it all, what he fails to realise (not a first…) is that I post everything that is available! Gilbride calls that a blunder and even starts stating the bloody obvious.  I post all matters whether it supports my conclusions or not, but again his anger and his blindness prevents him from seeing that massive lump of wood swinging in front of his eyes, like the first two essays this third  essay is becoming an utter joke and I wonder why I bother refuting this worthless crap and I am only halfway this xxxxty hit piece!

And it goes on and on in Gilbride’s minuscule world. So instead of wasting more time, I will post a few more utter rubbish remarks. I have work to do besides tearing Gilbride’s essay a new one so I am going to be a tad more selective.

Page 48. Does he realize that Sean Murphy would be acclaimed in Ireland if there was even a remote chance that his theory was true? But it’s a clunker, and he quit the research community because he can’t handle failure. Gilbride has no knowledge or evidence for this, again his grudge against Sean Murphy takes the upper hand and spite takes the upper hand.

Page 49. Gilbride is reaching big time as to Brennan’s encounter with Truly in Roy Bode’s interview and screws up so bad it had me rolling with laughter as he himself directly refutes that so called super fast entry by Baker and Truly. “The truth was that Brennan didn’t leave his wall perch until nearly 2 ½ minutes after the shooting.” 

Page 50 Truly tried to account himself in bravery and knew full well he was taking large liberties with the facts for this 16-year-old reporter. Pure fiction! Gilbride deals with these matters, as they only exist in his head and nowhere else.

Page 52 He positions Roy Lewis outside instead of behind the glass, and uses Larry Rivera’s 2016 conference for this as evidence. I suggest you check that talk out, it is so wrong and badly put together that you will not thank me for wasting your time.

Page 53 He denies that Holmes was referring to the vestibule on the first floor, again scroll up and see what Holmes’ testimony says.

 

Page 69 contains a photographic still from the Cook film and this image shows Carolyn Arnold and two other ladies, whose ID has not been established at all. They are not Reid and Adams. This wishful rubbish was posted at the Duncan MacRae disinfo forum and never shown to have any substance to it whatsoever. I know as I worked on this with Linda Giovanna Zambanini. This is good research? He also lambasts me for not using footnotes, anyone else can see the interactive links to documents/pix and videos and besides plenty of material is inserted. That I overlooked one page of an affidavit is for Gilbride to have a go at me, yet his own footnotes are rubbish to use. What layman could possible use the non interactive notes at the bottom nor is there any further reference where to go to check up on his claims. Pot…kettle….geddit?

On page 70 he fantasises (“most probably” HA) about Oswald using the corridor instead of taking the alleged route through the second floor office which supposedly happened after the fake encounter in the lunch room, you couldn’t make this crap up but Richard Gilbride just does. Gilbride further claims that “Shelley- even though he denied this- had seen Oswald leave the building via the front landing.” and refers to his own essay to this as a footnote. How corrupted is this? Very, since there is no evidence Shelley saw him leave again this is just in Gilbride’s mind. Oswald said that he spoke with Shelley and asked if he could leave since no further work was going to be done that day. Shelley denied this. Even though this happened there is nothing that points that Shelley actually saw Oswald leave via the front entrance or even stood there after the assassination, Shelley was busy assisting the law enforcement officers in the building and not standing on the front steps another mistake by Gilbride. Billy Lovelady did see him leave after Oswald was stopped at the front door and Truly had vouched for him.

It’s getting boring, I know as I have to plough through this tripe!

Again, on page 71, he brings up Holmes’ testimony and tries to twist and turn it into his favour, yet fails again.

Pages 72-74 deal with Kent Biffle and him overhearing what Truly had said and pretends that the NYHT article quoting Ochus Campbell are coming from the same source, this is nothing short of misleading, a damn lie! He produces no evidence to back this up besides his deluded dream-like scenario. A very dirty game is being played here by Gilbride and it doesn’t work. And it goes on about the other newspaper reports using the same deplorable tactic and generalising that newspaper reports overall are inaccurate and lead to Chinese whispers, if you ask me Gilbride has had a hefty dose of them himself.

Carolyn Arnold is next on pages 76-78, and Gilbride’s presumptions are dead wrong. I will let the reader decide about this since I have rewritten that chapter for the V4 of the Anatomy Of The Second Floor Lunch Room Encounter paper, and he could not have read it by the time he wrote this  and it is even more detrimental to Carolyn Arnold’s statements. You will see soon for yourself.

Then we move to Oswald’s alibi at the bottom of page 78. Pay attention to the following: “He lied because he needed to protect his assignment to the 2nd-floor lunchroom. He did not want even to begin to expose the plot he had participated in. He knew full well that the 6th floor of the Depository was a key sniping position in the ambush of Kennedy. Saying he was on the ground floor at the time would buffer him from any suggestion that he was anywhere near being “upstairs in the building.”  Is there any evidence available besides Gilbride’s delusions and lies? Of course not. Utter bunk!

Gilbride asserts that Fritz took notes only when Bookhout arrived, but there is no evidence for this and on top of that the notes are not contemporary (he speaks of ‘the deceased’) and in my second paper Anatomy Of LHO’s Interrogations I bring plenty of evidence that Fritz took no notes at that time! It looks like Jim Hosty was the only one taking some notes at that interrogation. He then starts to misinterpret the notes to such an effect that I start to wonder whether Gilbride actually has studied the material carefully. Bookhout’s and Hosty’s joint report clearly states: “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. After hearing what had happened, he said that because of all the confusion there would be no work performed that afternoon so he decided to go home.” Bookhout’s solo report after Oswald was snuffed was a complete joke and made to fix Oswald as the solo killer of the President and encountered by Baker/Truly. There are some questionable bits that they directly contradict his first joint report. I point all this out in my paper.

Then at the bottom of page 81 (almost there thank xxxx) he has the audacity to say “But what Bart forgets is that Shelley returned to the landing in time to vouch to Officer Welcome
Barnett that Oswald was all right, that he worked there.” This is another lie, Shelley was nowhere to be seen outside from his return from the rail road yards until leaving the TSBD at about 13:30 and seen escorting Garcia and Williams to the police car. Shelley was busy helping the law inside the building, as per his statement. And Barnett was not checking people, according to De. Chief Lumpkin it was Eric Kaminski.

Then this “essay” descends into deeper chaos by going into the bus ride, the bus ride by itself has been disproved by Ed Ledoux who has turned this fake story into mincemeat, enough already.

Page 86 contains the following whopper: “Any newspaper reader is fully aware that any article potentially contains misinformation, from the journalist or the interviewee. It is only an adjunct source for arriving at the historical truth- particularly in this instance when there are so many other sources of information available. And in this case the newspapers contained actual disinformation.” For a second I thought Gilbride meant his own writing as it is so succinctly described here, but no “all newspaper reports potentially contain misinformation.”  Can this essay be any more xxxx?

From thereon it descends this ”essay” descends deeper into the abyss with Richard Gilbride’s conclusions. I think I have spent enough time laying out the mistakes, the lies and the make believe scenarios by him that I cannot stomach this piece any longer.

Among all (former) ROKC staffers there is a broad consensus that the second floor lunch room encounter did not happen, but we disagree on some of the details. Merely due to lack of additional info but what Gilbride puts forward we and other people who are not members of ROKC unanimously agree that he is nothing more than a sore loser stuck in beliefs that can only maintained with innuendo and lies. Richard Gilbride is a bully and a fraud of which John McAdams could only be most proud. His hit piece misses on every occasion, but a couple of mistakes for which I am thankful for as he took the time to go through it all. But he could have saved himself a lot of time writing his third essay since the whole thing could have been dealt with less than half a page of A4.

Enough already.

Cheers, Ed

 

 

 

On 12/27/2017 at 3:49 PM, Michael Walton said:

One thing that's on my mind about this and Ron Bulman did a nice job of bringing up is - if Baker was way back in the parade, it would have taken him a little bit more time to have arrived where he stopped, dismounted, and run over to go into the building as seen in the film.  Also, Truly seems to be just standing there as Baker runs by him so it's not like Truly suddenly starts galloping behind him.

With Ron's "30 seconds here and 20 seconds there" post above, could more time have elapsed than what the witnesses are stating?  Another thing too is people do misrememeber things.  For example, Truly said that he thought the car slowed down considerably at the corner to avoid the curb but if you watch the Towner and Bell films, both films prove him wrong (I know Chris D will disagree with me but that's on another thread to discuss).

I'm genuinely interested in this and am not agreeing nor disagreeing with anyone here.

Study all Truly's statements, interviews and films of him.

He distorts every detail, from limo turns to ceiling heights to stairway steps to timing to reasons for his actions, all to help prove Oswald guilty of a crime Lee could not and did not commit.

Only DVP would ask why Lee lied, when he was telling the truth, yet claim everyone else telling bold faced lies is credible as long as it implicates Lee.

So DVP thinks Truly and Baker wouldnt lie as they might be interviewed on television some time in the future... interesting concept, false but interesting.

They lied because they thought they were going to be rewarded, and never challenged. The movement of the vestibule encounter to an isolated second floor lunch area gave them insulation from inquiry.  But they were overheard on the day and papers published it. Bart and I found the accounts in newspapers that do not support the later version Truly and Baker told

Davey tries to dig his way out of a hole.

Baker never claimed to know which building he believed shots had eminated from. Claiming pigeons flying up behind them was his only clue.

He may have ran towards the Daltex first as he does not make for TSBD entrance but is aiming for corner of H and E.

No film shows Baker enter the TSBD, but does show him veering towards corner.

When getting off bike he hears radio reports ... does Baker use radio to call dispatch and get back up officers to join, or tell dispatch where he is and what he saw, and he is going in a building after a suspected gunman...

No.

Does he complete his building survey, Yes. Then he returns to motor and relays his info about the TSBD... NO!

AND THIS SHOULD STAND OUT LIKE A turd ON A CLEAN WHITE RUG!

He supposedly ran out and went on his merry way, never sharing his bit till his affidavit with Johnson?

Great police work?? , or like Baker's radio transmissions dead air?

My money is on latter

Truly sent the hounds after Lee, this after having just seen the boy by his own admission.

Truly was truly evil. But Davey will claim him a saint... typical rewrite of actual history.

Yet, only after Baker leaves is it that Oswald is a threat. So Truly immediately must get on phone to Aiken and quickly tells cops about a boy named Lee he just saw minute before but is missing, even though Truly makes no attempt to locate Lee. Truly could have used the buildings PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM but did not. He sent the hounds.

The sham roll call was not to find Lee or see who was missing, but to collect names and addresses of those present for later interviews by DPD.

The coke is a joke.

...yes of course thirsty warehousemen swallow down dry cheese sandwiches without a drink .... passing up the soda machine on way down stairs only to choke down bread and cheese unaided.

Nah, as Lee related he got the soda to drink WITH lunch not after, during or some Von Penian belief, but before heading to domino room to eat and 'drink' ... what normal folk do at lunch.

David what do you do for lunch?

Cheers, Ed

On Monday, May 01, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Thomas Graves said:

Ed,

Did you show her any photos / frames and ask her if she could identify herself in them?

10 to 15 feet from JFK when he was first hit?  Wouldn't that put the limo closer to the TSBD during first shot than is generally assumed?

--  Tommy

Or

It could put her farther down elm than was thought.

Since she is not the lady with a knit capped infant we can safely say the location on Don Roberdeau's plat marked Hawkins is in error.

Peggy was not near the tree.

She stated she was at the end of a line of people.

Cheers 

Ed 

I did send Peggy photos, those posted here and others.
She said the photos are not her.
Meaning she has not been located in them.
Son would be 4yrs old, standing beside her, not a baby being held.
She moved at the first shot.

She did not go towards Bakers bike, she might have been able to hear it.
She went back, away from Elm Street, directly after the shot sounded and Kennedy slums, she knew it was a shot and not a backfire, or firecracker.
She went back towards the TSBD and got behind the wall/abutment.
She waited.
When she thought there were no more shots she then walked towards the TSBD.
She had to step out into the Elm Extension as the sidewalk was full of people,
she went behind them, out into the street, and there was a motorcycle there on ELM EXTENSION
she stopped and heard a report that was of a nature, did not mention TSBD, she said she thought it was safe to enter the Depository.
She went around the motorcycle and to the front entrance
She does not recall any police on her way to the third floor.
Only after being inside did the police enter, she saw them from the offices door and she saw them searching.

(recall this was a motorcade and cops were at the intersections with motors/ bikes/trikes)
So if she mentions a policeman in her FBI statement it could be referencing just such a officer. (Smith, etc.)
Or it could be Baker she mentioned on the way in as being out front.
Recall also the "FRONT" of the TSBD runs from corner of Houston St. down Elm Extension to the end of the TSBD Annex.

I believe she might have overheard the Curry report from Baker's motorcycle radio
I believe she had to of gone around and also listened to Harkness' trike radio and its position when he parked at the end of Elm Extension and talked to those in the Railroad Yard/car park /Fence area and was pointed to Amos Euins, whom he put on his trike and took him to the TSBD front entrance.
His trike was parked where Peggy would be walking up Elm Extension.

So the officer she mentions in the FBI report could be officer Smith only down the Elm Extension as he searches the bushes,
or it could be Harkness as he parked on Elm Ext. and located witnesses in the car park.

Cheers, Ed

 

 

 

Peggy Bibler was born in 1934 and was kind enough to speak to me about her family history.
She is the daughter of Ewing Bibler and Irene (Eulla Belle) Danley.

She is also a living witness to history.

She related to me she was living in Mesquite Texas in 1963 and her husband, John Henry Hawkins, worked as a textbook salesman for Mr. Wilson at Allyn and Bacon in Dallas at the Texas School Book Depository. She had driven to Dallas for the first time alone. She had planned to watch the President from her husbands office windows on the third floor of the TSBD.
She was up there on the third floor and decided since the sidewalk was empty to take up a spot directly out front of the TSBD as she knew the motorcade would pass in front of her and her son only 4 years old John Benjamin Hawkins. They watched as the limo was 10 -15 feet away the shots rang out.
She knew gunshots having grown up around them.
She did not think they came from the TSBD.
She saw the president slump and that was indicative that he had been hit.
She instinctively took her son behind the retaining wall for safety.
Then she was listening and heard a radio report from the policeman's motorcycle at the curb.
The report was of a nature that she felt it safe to go inside the TSBD.
She felt it was a report calling for police to search Railroad yards.
So she went in the TSBD and was locked in for around an hour before having to sign out, so to speak, or give her name and address. The police came and got her statement later.
She doesn't recall having to show id just stated her details for the police officer.
She was let go after about an hour in which time she would she police going passed the doorway and when she stuck her head out she would she heavily armed police about.

Peggy said she did not think Lee Oswald shot from the TSBD.
She doesn't know where or how many shots were fired but she does know what she heard and did.
Going back into the TSBD being vivid in her mind with her son as that was a safe place where she felt shots had not come from. Of course later that is exactly what she was told happened.

Her husband sold text books and traveled around the state sometimes out of state for business
and he knew Lee Oswald. Knew him by name, and face. John liked to know everyone's names. He said Lee would load his car with books for his sale routes.
Lee was a nice employee according to Peggy.

The limo had gone past with Jackie and JFK and the Governor,
Peggy was the closest to the president when the shots happened. 10-15 feet
Standing on Elm sidewalk next to the curb.
She saw JFK fall into Jackie's lap.
She knew he was shot, she took son backwards towards the TSBD and got behind an abutment.
She said they would claim that was location of the shot.
She did not see any shots hit anyone but Kennedy before she reacted.
She said she was standing at the very end of the line of the people.
She said she saw the pictures and warren report, wasn't holding son, she thought he was standing beside her.
Only thing she knows about policeman was the motorcycle was parked in front of TSBD and she paused by motorcycle and heard the report which she felt safe to enter the TSBD.
She agreed the radio report was likely about railroad and didn't mention the TSBD and felt safe to re-enter.
She was trapped and locked in the TSBD. Saw from the office police well armed searching the building.
She understands policeman, as her son John Benjamin Hawkins became a city policeman in Arkansas.
Son doesn't recall the event, as he was too young to have an impression.
Its been a lot of years but she tells her brush with history like it happened yesterday

She said if Oswald wasn't working at the TSBD it could have happened any where along the parade as all the large buildings had unlocked attics.
It just happened, she says, that Lee worked there at the TSBD, and they claimed that was the location where shots had came from.

That's all. For now.
Cheers, Ed

 

Now we need a better or another photo?

Like Wiegman AND Darnell are just not enough.

Prayer Man's shirt just isn't clear enough to examine the tag and see if its 100 percent cotton...

Thanks Bill, if we need your help, say to use that coin for the upcoming super bowl toss, we'll let you know.

When it comes to securing a better frame, again hold your quarter, we got it covered as serious researchers.

Still waiting that Sasquatch documentation, (pictures?) you said you would have by now.
And while you've been a squatchin we found Lee, documented his alibi, and how that was used against him.  
Please try and catch up. Perhaps by reading Prayer Man: Out Of the Shadows and Into the Light by Stan Dane.
Then you'll be speaking from an informed opinion and we won't have to answer already answered questions like you ask about Lee's attire.

Cheers, Ed

PS I hear Bill Kelly has an unused copy of the PM book and he has no idea where Lee was during the shooting either. (See a pattern?)

That is the proverbial we I believe Bill uses to try and bolster a failed argument.

Another frame showing the shirt,
Cheers!

 

So glad Prayer Man is being researched but someone saying things such as Prayer Man's shoulders are squared after being out of square (?)
without showing any photogrammetry to base this claim on is where the research turns to snake oil salesmanship rather than a prognosis.
Opinions are one thing but when the person whom says certain things are fact without a fact to back it up are wasting your time not with opinion but disinformation.

The height of a person leaning against a wall is shorter than the same person standing erect. This is a fact. A leaning man will be shorter than his actual height.
If Prayer Man were TALLER than what Lee could possibly be standing erect then you have impugned Prayer Man as Lee.
But then you can't see his tippy toes can you... ?
 
But stumbling about with a premise that a short PM disqualifies it as Lee is a faulty one.  
And a wastage.

It goes back to the other faulty premise that it was a woman and thus short.
Also the buttons, and other faulty arguments, like purses, or a woman's face.

I had to destroy this as being complete bunk.


The two repeating images of "faces" circled in yellow by me, prove the unsuitability of the gif, the frames being used and the waste of time immense.

But please do continue the Prayer Man research.  I enjoy the flat earth being returned to its curved self at the end of every day.
Cheers, Ed


 

I don't believe we should cater this to one posters argument.
I don't believe the burden of proof has been sustained for one to even conjecture the person in
the corner is anything but a male, wearing a work type shirt, with male type features.
Long neck lines and sideburns aside, the only evidence pointed to is others mistaking foreheads for faces on the etch-a-sketch.

I looked at what was posted and provenance of the DIDP clip.
It would not be worth the kind of study we are after.
If it was then we can all go home.

Its not.

We would need a 3rd gen copy to study with any confidence the sort of minutia a Brian or Duncan would ultimately bring.

As it stands with what is presented it is Prayer Man.

Cheers, ED


 

Thanks to Patrick Lewis @ London Room, London Public Library for aiding in the research of this article.
Cheers! Ed

And here is the article in the London EVENING Free Press for 11/23/1963, and Ed Hicks said as Oswald was leaving the bldg he was stopped and questioned. How did they know it was Oswald and he worked there? Because Roy Truly stepped up and vouched for Lee. This could not be later when Truly and Baker are on the roof. This was as Baker enters

The Sydney Morning Herald (11/23/63) reported that “Oswald walked through the door of the warehouse and was stopped by a policeman. Oswald told the policeman that ‘I work here’, and when another employee confirmed that he did, the policeman let Oswald walk away.”

Detective Ed Hicks told the London Free Press (11/23/63) that "Oswald apparently came out the front door of the red bricked warehouse. A policeman asked him where he was going. He said he wanted to see what the excitement was all about.”
Page 57 Prayer Man, Stan Dane.
Hicks was not at the interrogation and would not know of Oswald's claim.

What he reported meshes nicely with what Oswald told Holmes.

Postal Inspector Harry Holmes sat in on the November 24 interrogation, took notes, and testified that Oswald had stated that “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…” (VII p. 302)

Mundane explanation to follow I'm sure.
Now one might be thinking these mundane explanations are excuses and equal apologies.
And if they are apologies then that makes one an apologist.
Add to the equation that these are really Warren Commission explanations, mundane or not, then that would make one an Warren Commission apologist. The maths are straightforward.

Cheers~Ed