David Von Pein

I respectfully disagree. I see Baker taking a long stride in that last step, in order to step up onto the sidewalk. Looks to me like Baker is striding directly toward the sidewalk and the Depository (running directly into the shadow his body is casting).

You must be joking. I didn't just say "You're wrong" without saying anything else. Go to my Post #22. .... "Where on Earth did you get the "20 to 25 seconds" timing? Nobody that I know of has ever claimed that the second-floor TSBD encounter between Marrion Baker and Lee Harvey Oswald occurred as early as "20 to 25 seconds" after the assassination. It is generally accepted by almost everybody (even most conspiracy believers) that the encounter in the lunchroom took place approximately 90 seconds after the shooting, just as Officer Baker estimated in his CBS-TV interview in 1964." -- DVP

But what about Roy Truly's CORROBORATION of Baker's encounter with OSWALD (not some other unknown person) in the LUNCHROOM on the SECOND FLOOR? We have TRULY corroborating BAKER. Should I believe they BOTH lied? Why should I believe such a thing, Sandy? Why? And furthermore, WHY would they both lie about an encounter on the SECOND FLOOR? Such an encounter most certainly doesn't prove Oswald was on the SIXTH FLOOR shooting at President Kennedy 90 seconds earlier. So why on Earth would anyone create and act out such a charade, which, in effect, proves NOTHING? ~great big shrug~

I agree with everything you just said, Michael. Plus, I think one of the most intriguing parts of the GIF clip below is the fact that we can see TWO different people who appear to be looking UP toward the upper floors of the Depository -- "Stetson Hat Man" and the man in the dark suit on the far right: In addition, when looking at the full-sized version of the GIF clip presented by Sandy (1024 x 613), it looks to me as if a pretty good argument could be made for Baker's last step in that GIF clip representing a bit of a "jump up" by Baker as he goes from street level "up" one step to the higher level of the sidewalk that is right in front of the Book Depository Building. (Click the above clip to enlarge it to full size.) And if that is the case (Baker "jumping" up onto the sidewalk), that would certainly not be consistent with him continuing to run in the street toward the Dal-Tex Building.

So did I. He meant just exactly what he clearly said in Post #1. And he's dead wrong. It's okay now David... I corrected it! Ten-Four.

LOL. Bob didn't clarify a thing, Sandy. I did. But it would seem as if I'm on Sandy's Ignore list now. So Bob gets credit for the "clarification" instead of that crackpot disinfo specialist named DVP. Oh, well. Such is life.

As I knew Sandy would do (because I do not think he is a dishonest person), Sandy has changed his first post to read "90 seconds" instead of "20 to 25 seconds". But I wanted a copy of the original post, just to prove that I did not "invent" anything I attributed to Mr. Larsen, so I quickly saved Sandy's initial post in the Wayback Machine at the Archive.org website [but it's since been deleted for some unknown and spiteful reason, so I had to create a screen capture by accessing an old cached version of the post; ~sigh~]. https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KMLPwqhavWM/VxbgPVXAQGI/AAAAAAABJnQ/XMPy9w81Gskpl_k5ozECXYKqG2HqbqdpwCLcB/s1600/Edu-Forum-Post-Old-Version.png But thanks for your honesty in changing the time to "90 seconds", Sandy.

It's amazing what a fertile imagination can do when a conspiracy theorist gets ahold of a GIF clip. Remarkable. BTW, here's another of Marrion Baker's statements that Sandy Larsen is now forced to completely toss into the nearest gutter or trash can: "I, Marrion L Baker, being duly sworn say: 1. I am an officer in the Dallas Police Department. 2. On November 22, 1963, upon hearing shots I rode my motorcycle 180 to 200 feet, parked the motorcycle, and ran 45 feet to the Texas School Book Depository Building. 3. On March 20, 1964, counsel from the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy timed a re-enactment of my actions after hearing the shots on November 22, 1963. During this re-enactment, I reached the recessed door of the Texas School Book Depository Building fifteen seconds after the time of the simulated shot." -- Marrion L. Baker; August 11, 1964

So did I. He meant just exactly what he clearly said in Post #1. And he's dead wrong.

Over a period of several years, I've come across tons of video and audio material from a variety of sources, including other "collectors", Internet searches, VHS tapes, DVDs, MP3s, and the JFK Library website (which has virtually every word ever spoken in public by JFK on MP3 audio files now, and available for free; and those files at the JFK Library are all in the "Public Domain", which makes me happy). Absolutely. (Most of my files are stored in the .WMV format, however.) In fact, I've recently discovered an outstanding (free) site for doing just that type of thing -- Google Drive. It allows large files to be shared without dumbing down the quality of the file to 240p or 360p. The HQ version gets retained, unlike most YouTube downloading devices. If you've got a particular program in mind, just give me a shout. I can provide the HQ raw file, no problem.

Should I take that as an official apology, Bob, after you made a mistake when you accused me of being "confused" earlier?

Can't you read, Bob? That's not what I'm talking about at all. I just posted the relevant (wholly wrong) quote written by Sandy on this matter. And Sandy wasn't ONLY talking about Baker's time to get to the TSBD's front door. Here's what Sandy said.... "The official story has long held that police officer Marrion L. Baker found Oswald in the second story lunchroom of the Texas Schoolbook Depository (TSBD) within 20 to 25 seconds of the shooting." -- Sandy Larsen

Oh, for Pete sake. Get real, Sandy. The Darnell film doesn't come close to providing "irrefutable" evidence that Baker bypassed the Book Depository and was headed for the Dal-Tex Building instead. The film clip stops short of showing Baker actually reaching the Depository's front steps. So your "irrefutable" evidence is nothing but pure speculation and amateur photographic (film) interpretation on your part. I, on the other hand, have Marrion Baker's own words and testimony, which make it clear that he immediately ran into the Book Depository after the shooting. And Baker's own signed affidavit, which he filled out on the day of the assassination itself, also bears out the fact that he went straight to the Depository after jumping off of his police motorcycle: "I decided the shots had come from the building on the northwest corner of Elm and Houston. This building is used by the Board of Education for book storage. I jumped off my motor and ran inside the building." -- Marrion L. Baker (Via Affidavit); November 22, 1963 And, by the way, Sandy, this statement you made in your thread-starting post is not accurate at all: "The official story has long held that police officer Marrion L. Baker found Oswald in the second story lunchroom of the Texas Schoolbook Depository (TSBD) within 20 to 25 seconds of the shooting." -- S. Larsen Where on Earth did you get the "20 to 25 seconds" timing? Nobody that I know of has ever claimed that the second-floor TSBD encounter between Marrion Baker and Lee Harvey Oswald occurred as early as "20 to 25 seconds" after the assassination. It is generally accepted by almost everybody (even most conspiracy believers) that the encounter in the lunchroom took place approximately 90 seconds after the shooting, just as Officer Baker estimated in his CBS-TV interview in 1964.

The utter desperation of conspiracy theorists is astounding, as Sandy Larsen's ludicrous claim regarding Police Officer Marrion L. Baker in this thread clearly demonstrates. Sandy thinks Baker told one lie after another FOR DECADES ON END after the assassination. Now, all Sandy needs to do is to logically and reasonably tell us Why Marrion Baker would want to tell a bunch of lies about his movements on November 22, 1963. Was he paid very handsomely for lying so much, Sandy? Or did the FBI threaten Baker's life if he didn't go along with the "LN" story? Here's the proof that Sandy Larsen is dead wrong ----> MARRION BAKER INTERVIEW (1964)

Video Update.... New stuff added to my sites since November 2015:

FWIW.... CBS-TV audio excerpt.... Dan Rather describes the Zapruder Film: https://app.box.com/s/1a0mhnrp3fc77lb470de

David Healy, FYI.... The "Vince" I was referring to in my Post #129 isn't Vince Bugliosi. It's Palamara.

I don't agree with Vince there either, David. It was way better than "halfway decent". It was excellent.

Another very good CBS JFK special was made in 1992 -- "Who Killed JFK?: Facts, Not Fiction". Unfortunately, I haven't been able to make that program available on any of my websites. Sample Amazon reviews for the "Facts, Not Fiction" program: "Probably the most sound and focused of the JFK assassination videos. Like a good lawyer, this show cuts through the bull and just lays out the details in a good sound package. This is a great place to start even if you are determined to go running around for the rest of your life chasing phantoms. Too bad there isn't a DVD edition yet." -- An Anonymous Reviewer; May 26, 2003 "As a teacher of Senior High students, we spend a large amount of time on the Kennedy assassination. This video is the best supplement I have during our studies. CBS lives up to their great reputation in presenting the FACTS....and some things for my students to think about! I would highly recommend!!!" -- Randy Durr; November 9, 2001 "2.5 stars. This is a halfway decent video but is tarnished by its overt Warren Commission bias, courtesy of CBS' Dan Rather. There is some nice vintage footage included, as well as some primary witnesses (such as Jean Hill). I wouldn't call this one essential but I would call it slick. I did like the inclusion of LBJ's comments to Walter Cronkite (that were banned by Johnson at the time) stating that others other than Oswald may have been involved." -- Vince Palamara; January 13, 2006

It'd be nice if people would stop misrepresenting what the WC said. Even CBS kept saying the Commission had locked itself into a 5.6-second shooting timeline....even with Page 111 of the WCR staring them in the face, which has these words printed on it: "The evidence is inconclusive as to whether it was the first, second, or third shot which missed." http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0068a.htm

Related Discussion (re: the media's early mistakes).... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/05/jfk-assassination-media-errors.html

No. Of course not. The pictures show JFK. No one else. That, too, was established by the HSCA's Photo Panel. And, yes, the "other" BOH witnesses were wrong too. And, FWIW, Clint Hill is on record on numerous occasions saying the wound was actually above JFK's right ear---as opposed to being in the very BACK of the head. And what about the Z-Film, Ray? It shows the wound just where the photos do---the right side of the head above the ear. Is it fake too? There are also the Elm Street witnesses who place the wound just where we see it in the pics and the Z-Film..... ----

And 7 HSCA 41 is something I'm supposed to totally ignore, right Ray? "The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- 7 HSCA 41 And the Z-Film is fake too, right Ray?

Why can't you read, Ray? Within my "verbal diarrhea", I answered your question (repeated again below). (As if you didn't know the answer already. Geez. What the heck did you think I was going to say?) "I still wonder how so many medical professionals could ALL get it totally wrong. But there is BETTER evidence that proves (beyond a reasonable doubt, IMO) that those "BOH wound" witnesses WERE, indeed, incorrect when they claimed the only large wound on the head of John F. Kennedy was located in the occipital area (far-right-rear) of his head. And that "better evidence" is the photographic record of JFK's head wounds, including the autopsy photos, the autopsy X-rays, and the Zapruder Film." -- DVP; May 21, 2009

JOHN CANAL SAID: He [DVP] posted once that it always bothered him that there were so many BOH wound witnesses...but, evidently, after he read RH ["Reclaiming History"] he threw all those (about 30 total) witnesses, including the autopsists under the bus...certain, I guess, that they were either lying or hallucinating. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: And those "BOH" witnesses do still bother me to a large degree. It's still the #1 "mystery" (in my mind) in the entire case. I still wonder how so many medical professionals could ALL get it totally wrong. But there is BETTER evidence that proves (beyond a reasonable doubt, IMO) that those "BOH wound" witnesses WERE, indeed, incorrect when they claimed the only large wound on the head of John F. Kennedy was located in the occipital area (far-right-rear) of his head. And that "better evidence" is the photographic record of JFK's head wounds, including the autopsy photos, the autopsy X-rays, and the Zapruder Film. In fact, author Vincent Bugliosi places quite a bit of confidence in the Zapruder Film when it comes to specifically locating the large (exit) wound in JFK's head. Such as when Vince says this in his book: "Lest anyone still has any doubt as to the location of the large exit wound in the head...the Zapruder film itself couldn't possibly provide better demonstrative evidence. The film proves conclusively, and beyond all doubt, where the exit wound was. Zapruder frame 313 and frame 328 clearly show that the large, gaping exit wound was to the RIGHT FRONT of the president's head. THE BACK OF HIS HEAD SHOWS NO SUCH LARGE WOUND AND CLEARLY IS COMPLETELY INTACT." [bugliosi's emphasis.] -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 410 of "Reclaiming History" MORE THOUGHTS ABOUT THE PARKLAND WITNESSES: I have also wondered why very, very few of the Parkland Hospital witnesses said they saw the large exit wound on the right side of JFK's head (which is an exit wound that we positively KNOW was there when JFK was in the emergency room at Parkland)? Even if Jackie Kennedy closed up the flap of scalp on the right side of the President's head (which I think is quite possible), I would still think that a lot more people at Parkland would have been able to see the outline or at least SOME portion of the gaping RIGHT-FRONT exit wound, which is the wound that was causing (IMO) the large amount of "pooling" of blood toward the right-rear of JFK's head (which is what I believe to be the best explanation [to date] for how those Parkland witnesses could have all been mistaken about the location of the wound). But I've never been totally pleased with that "pooling" explanation, mainly because I'm wondering why nobody at Parkland claimed to see TWO wounds on the right side of the President's head: 1.) The place where the blood and brain tissue was "pooling" (the right-rear; which was mistaken for an actual HOLE in the President's head). and: 2.) The actual exit wound itself, located in the Right/Front/Top area of JFK's head, which is an exit-wound location that is confirmed in several different ways -- e.g., the Zapruder Film, the autopsy photos, the autopsy report, and the autopsy doctors' remarks about the exit wound location in post-1963 interviews, including these firm and unambiguous comments made by Dr. James Humes on CBS-TV in 1967: "The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head." -- Dr. Humes; June 1967 BTW, I was a believer in the "Blood Pooling" theory before I ever read Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book. So it wasn't Mr. Bugliosi or Dr. Baden who convinced me that this is probably the best explanation for the Parkland witnesses' BOH observations. In fact, before reading Vince's book, I was truly hoping that VB would drop a bombshell on me and come up with something different and, frankly, BETTER, to explain away those BOH witnesses. But, alas, Vince doesn't have any better explanation than the "pooling" theory described by Dr. Baden in the book excerpt shown below: "Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were wrong," [baden] told me. "Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the head"." -- Pages 407-408 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi In 2006, I was theorizing the exact same thing: "If I were to hazard a guess as to why (and how) so many different observers could all see the same (wrong) thing regarding JFK's head wound, I'd say it's possibly due to the fact that the massive amount of blood coming from the President's large wound on the right side of his head was pooling toward the BACK of his head while he was resting flat on his back on the hospital stretcher, creating the incorrect impression to the observers that the wound was located where the greatest amount of blood was seen." -- DVP; December 10, 2006 JOHN CANAL SAID: What gets me is that in RH, Bugliosi used the HSCA's Baden as his number-one source and even DVP has admitted that Baden was wrong on at least two issues. Go figure. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Well, for heaven's sake, John C., not everybody is 100% right ALL of the time. Take yourself, for example. I think you are right when you say that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President Kennedy. But I sure as heck think you're 100% wrong about some of the other things that you believe regarding this case -- such as your unique "BOH" beliefs and your belief that the 6.5 mm. "object" was planted on an X-ray, and your belief that Dr. Burkley "ordered" the autopsy doctors to "understate" the true condition of JFK's head wounds. Another "Not Always Right" example would be Vincent Bugliosi. I've discovered multiple errors in Vince's JFK book (factual errors too, not just minor typos). But, oddly enough, when those factual errors that I've noticed in Bugliosi's book are corrected, it actually bolsters VB's lone-assassin conclusions, instead of weakening his LN case. I found that to be quite interesting. This is especially true regarding a portion of VB's book when he's discussing the amount of metal (bullet) fragments that were left inside Governor John Connally's body after he was operated on. David Von Pein May 21, 2009