Robert Prudhomme

I'm having difficulty with the 2nd floor lunch room encounter. Baker's testimony, and Belin's questioning, seem to leave a very important (to me, anyways) detail without clarification.

We know, with a fair amount of certainty, that the door opening into the vestibule from the 2nd floor stair landing was closed when Baker caught a glimpse of Oswald through the window in that door. Baker then ran to this vestibule door, opened it and saw Oswald through the lunch room doorway approximately twenty feet into the lunch room.

My question is: Did the lunch room door also have a window in it, and was that door closed when Baker saw Oswald twenty feet into the lunch room?

Baker's testimony would almost suggest a closed lunch room door:

"Mr. BAKER - He had already started around the bend to come to the next elevation going up, I was coming out this one on the second floor, and I don't know, I was kind of sweeping this area as I come up, I was looking from right to left and as I got to this door here I caught a glimpse of this man, just, you know, a sudden glimpse, that is all it was now, and it looked to me like he was going away from me.

Mr. BELIN - All right. Then what did you do?

Mr. BAKER - I ran on up here and opened this door and when I got this door opened I could see him walking on down.

Mr. DULLES - Had he meanwhile gone on through the door ahead of you?

Mr. BAKER - I can't say whether he had gone on through that door or not. All I did was catch a glance at him, and evidently he was--this door might have been, you know, closing and almost shut at that time.

Mr. BELIN - You are pointing by "this door" to the door on Exhibit 498?

Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir."

Robert,

I think Baker simply misunderstands Dulles's question ("Had he meanwhile gone on through the door ahead of you?") and speaks to the wrong door.

Belin, realising Baker's error, eliminates the ambiguity by relating Baker's answer to Exhibit 498, which shows the landing door rather than the lunchroom door.

Yes, I see it now. I found a copy of CE498 and it showed the vestibule door, though whether Baker was trying to describe the vestibule door or the lunch room door, it is hard to say.

I may be mistaken but, I thought I read in someone's testimony or statement that both the lunch room door and the vestibule door were closed when Baker claimed to follow Oswald to the lunch room.

I'm having difficulty with the 2nd floor lunch room encounter. Baker's testimony, and Belin's questioning, seem to leave a very important (to me, anyways) detail without clarification.

We know, with a fair amount of certainty, that the door opening into the vestibule from the 2nd floor stair landing was closed when Baker caught a glimpse of Oswald through the window in that door. Baker then ran to this vestibule door, opened it and saw Oswald through the lunch room doorway approximately twenty feet into the lunch room.

My question is: Did the lunch room door also have a window in it, and was that door closed when Baker saw Oswald twenty feet into the lunch room?

Baker's testimony would almost suggest a closed lunch room door:

"Mr. BAKER - He had already started around the bend to come to the next elevation going up, I was coming out this one on the second floor, and I don't know, I was kind of sweeping this area as I come up, I was looking from right to left and as I got to this door here I caught a glimpse of this man, just, you know, a sudden glimpse, that is all it was now, and it looked to me like he was going away from me.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Then what did you do?
Mr. BAKER - I ran on up here and opened this door and when I got this door opened I could see him walking on down.
Mr. DULLES - Had he meanwhile gone on through the door ahead of you?
Mr. BAKER - I can't say whether he had gone on through that door or not. All I did was catch a glance at him, and evidently he was--this door might have been, you know, closing and almost shut at that time.

Mr. BELIN - You are pointing by "this door" to the door on Exhibit 498?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir."

Welcome back Sean! Getting a little worried there, almost sent a search party out looking for you!

Excellent post, by the way. You definitely have a "nose" for this case and you leave all of us waiting for your next post with bated breath.

Once again, welcome back. Hate to say it but, things were gettin' pretty damn dull around here without you.

Quote from Paul Brancato:

"As long as the banksters control money and thus control our elected government and our courts, we will continue to be at their mercy.

Just my two cents."

"I think I made a mistake." ~~Alan Greenspan, understatement of the century~~

Better yet, do they comprehend the subject? A certain segment of the population may believe there was a conspiracy but, for their limited understanding of the assassination (mostly derived from exaggerations seen in Oliver Stone's movie), they might as well profess a belief in Santa Claus.

I myself must admit that real understanding of the conspiracy only began for me about five years ago; despite my "gut" feeling for decades that LHO was not alone.

I think you are correct in saying that today's generation is too self absorbed in their electronic paradise to want to put in the time and effort to learn the depth of the truth in the assassination and cover up. Then again, maybe this is the way it has always been.

I'm sure those involved in the cover up have relied heavily on the average person's desire to be mollified by the myth that "all is well in America, except for the odd lone nut".

Very good Don, that's exactly it......to make a point, I'm in no way supporting Easterling's overall story which has many problems. There are two or three points in it that are also

strangely consistent with things we do know. Easterling did not seem to be the type who would be all that creative, and as I recall, Hurt found him and dug out the story.

Hurt also has some fascinating stuff in the book about the dented Hull that Bill would enjoy and also demonstrated it would have been easy to stash any real weapon in one of the big

wooden book containers that nobody ever searched.

There are several things in his book that were interesting although Easterling's story itself finally got to the point of nonsense.....ending up exactly counter to his first information and

implicating Castro.

-- just one more exercise in high strangeness...

I read Hurt's book when it first came out and thought Easterling's story a bit preposterous, though if only partially true it could explain how Oswald got around after leaving New Orleans.

Then there's the story of somebody biting the lip of the shell casing to dent it, and leave his mark so to speak.

The Havana Bar must have been some kinda joint. it reminds me somewhat of the bar in JKToole's "Confederacy of Dunces," - whose protagonist is harassed for being a communist by a cop named Martello, making me think that JKT was making fun of Oswald, and having grown up in that neighborhood, knew something more than what he was telling.

CE 543 is only dented on one side of the neck of the casing. If the dent was the result of someone biting it, I should think there would be a matching dent on the opposite side of the neck.

Has anyone seen Sean Murphy lately?

Is that the best you can come up with, Dave? A man asks you a serious question, he expects you to answer, not resort to childish taunts.

Unless, of course, David Von Pein has NO answers.

I ask you direct questions and you dodge the direct questions. Nothing to see here, folks; David Von Pein has NO answers.

As I said, David Von Pain has NO answers.

How do you explain the fact that all of these "mistaken" back-of-head wound witnesses, and there were a LOT of them (I shall post each and every one of their interviews if you'd like, David), placed a large gaping wound in pretty much the same spot; that being the right rear of JFK's head?

Was it:

a) mass delusion?

mass hypnosis?

c) mass hallucination?

or.......

d) a CONSPIRACY?

Has anyone ever thought it odd that when the Sniper's Nest and the rifle were found, the DPD quit looking for other shooters? How did they know it was only one assassin?

David Von Pein has NO answers.

How many times do I need to repeat my belief on this point, Bob? Will an 11th time suffice? .....

At the end of the day and in the final analysis, the autopsy photographs and X-rays trump ALL witnesses.

BTW, the Zapruder Film most certainly trumps Tom Robinson and the other "BOH" witnesses too. Tell me, Bob, where is the big hole in the BACK of Kennedy's head in this Z-Film footage?

Can you not or will you not answer the questions?

What can I tell ya, Bob? These pictures trump the witnesses (Robinson and all others). You really think these are fakes? .....

Yes, Dave, the photos and x-rays are, indeed, fakes.

Now, in response to my question, how could an experienced mortician describe a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head if it was not there?

Would you like me to post the HSCA interview with Tom Robinson, just to refresh your memory?

*bump*

David

Thomas E. Robinson was interviewed by HSCA staff in the late 70's. He was, as we all know, one of the morticians who prepared JFK's body following the autopsy. As we also know, he described seeing a 3" hole in the back of JFK's head, caused by a bullet.

He was not in a rush, as JFK was dead, and he prepared a piece of rubber to fill in the 3" hole. He likely had the best look at this large gaping wound, in the rear of JFK's head, of anyone following the assassination.

With this knowledge in mind, please explain for everyone how Mr. Robinson could have made such a mistake, or if you believe he was lying.

What can I tell ya, Bob? These pictures trump the witnesses (Robinson and all others). You really think these are fakes? .....

Yes, Dave, the photos and x-rays are, indeed, fakes.

Now, in response to my question, how could an experienced mortician describe a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head if it was not there?

Would you like me to post the HSCA interview with Tom Robinson, just to refresh your memory?

*bump*

What can I tell ya, Bob? These pictures trump the witnesses (Robinson and all others). You really think these are fakes? .....

Yes, Dave, the photos and x-rays are, indeed, fakes.

Now, in response to my question, how could an experienced mortician describe a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head if it was not there?

Would you like me to post the HSCA interview with Tom Robinson, just to refresh your memory?

Blah blah blah...so why did Hill and a few dozen other people say JFK had a large hole in the back right part of his head?

Robert, that is still the #1 head-scratcher for me in this whole case. It is by far this case's #1 "mystery", without doubt. And I don't have the precise answer. I have postulated a possible resolution to that mystery--and yes, it aligns with Vince Bugliosi's and Michael Baden's theory on this matter. But given what we see in the autopsy photos and X-rays--which are not fakes--this explanation makes the most sense to me (although it's still not 100% satisfying, I'll readily admit).

Quoting from pages 407 and 408 of Bugliosi's book:

"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. "That's why we have autopsies, photographs, and X-rays to determine things like this. 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. But clearly, from the autopsy X-rays and photographs and the observations of the autopsy surgeons, the exit wound and defect was not in the occipital area. There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of his head." "

I don't think it is a mystery at all. The mortician, Tom Robinson, clearly described a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head. He had all of the time in the world to look at it and helped fashion a piece of rubber to span the hole.

The interview with Tom Robinson, conducted by the HSCA in 1978, was suppressed until the ARRB uncovered it in 1992. This is common knowledge.

Why do you think this interview was suppressed?

Do you think Tom Robinson was mistaken? or lying?

Blah blah blah...so why did Hill and a few dozen other people say JFK had a large hole in the back right part of his head?

You know what's fun about living on the West Coast? It's only 10:00 here; must be 1:00 AM where you are, eh?

And I just KNOW you're too stubborn to just walk away and go to bed.

Blah blah blah...so why did Hill and a few dozen other people say JFK had a large hole in the back right part of his head?

If you don't like it, Dave, you could always just leave the forum. Everything and everybody here seems to disgust you; how can you stand being here?

Didn't I explain that already, Bobby? Even with the Govt. shutdown, I'm still chained to the Langley desk. I have no choice. The CIA Disinfo must continue to flow no matter what. ~sigh~

But, in reality ("CIA Disinfo" kidding aside), I like to post the actual facts and sources of information for at least a few interested people to see and read on conspiracy-oriented forums like this one.

That way, the LN vs. CT playing field is leveled at least a tad bit. Somebody should provide SOME degree of balance in the arguments, don't you think? Why should the incredibly silly "OSWALD DIDN'T SHOOT ANYBODY" debaters win by default?

Sorry, Dave, but you don't make any sense. What can the CT community possibly "win"? It's not like the case is about to be re-opened or anything.

I don't understand why you try so hard or why you stalk this forum for twelve hours a day. The WC decided in your favour; what are you trying to prove?

P.S. For anyone who believes JFK was shot from behind, I give you this excerpt from the Warren Commission testimony of Clinton J. Hill, Secret Service:

"Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?

Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head."

Quote from Tom Purvis:

"To a relatively high degree of probability, the "dent" as well as the additional scrape marks along the cartridge case which are claimed to have been created by the "follower", are in fact the result of a Short Stroke.

In a Short Stroke, the bolt is not brought back sufficiently for the ejector release to activate, and the empty casing is not ejectecd, and thus when one goes forward with the bolt, they are in fact driving the empty casing forward towards the chamber again.

However, the bullet nose of the next round in the magazine housing has risen, and thus the empty casing is actually driven forward over the casing rim of the next live round below it which has risen at a slight angle. This action can force the empty casing to incur additional scrape marks from the casing rim below it.

This action causes the empty casing to literally "scrape" over the casing of the live round below it, giving it scrape marks somewhat similar to that created by the follower, and when the forward nose of the casing comes to the beginning of the chamber area, it encounters the bullet nose of the live round below it.

Which, in virtually every single instance, will dent the lip of the empty casing, provided that the bolt is actually operated with a rapid as well as sufficient force.

Which, by the way, may have some bearing on exactly why there was some 5.6 to 5.9 seconds delay between the first shot and the second shot.

Had the FBI/aka Robert Frazier given evidence of a "Short Stroke" in the shooting sequence, then most likely there is absolutely no "shooter" who would have considered that three shots were made within the WC's fairy tale less than 6-second shooting scenario.

Hope that helps some.

Tom"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice try, but, utter nonsense as usual, Tom.

As the bolt is drawn back, holding the rim of the spent shell in the bullet extractor, the face of the bolt is actually riding on the next live cartridge in the magazine below. The face of the bolt is much greater in diameter than the rim of the spent cartridge. The bolt keeps the next live cartridge in place in the magazine and does not allow it to rise up UNTIL the bolt is fully retracted. The spent cartridge will be ejected well before the bolt is fully retracted.

To say that the spent cartridge can come in contact with the next live cartridge in the magazine shows either lack of knowledge of bolt action rifles OR a deliberate intent to mislead.

Calling someone a "JFK conspiracy advocate" is even worse.

Oh, for Pete sake. Does this semantics silliness have an end? Or is today "Let's Nitpick Everything To Death" day here at the Simkin forum?

If you don't like it, Dave, you could always just leave the forum. Everything and everybody here seems to disgust you; how can you stand being here?

**yawn**

The DVP story. The man who doesn't label people, calls others CTers.

Bring on the KFC!

"I could carve a better man out of a banana."

Kurt Vonnegut

**yawn**