Robert Prudhomme

Read the posts.

Dear Mr. Graves

I don't recall asking for your opinion.

Bob

Already have. *YAWN*

As I said, Richard, when you find some real evidence.......

Hi Sandy

As you seem to be the studious type, I know that, eventually, you will see something crossed out in this statement. It reads as following:

"I saw a man standing in the lunch room, drinking a Coke."

Many researchers have seen this, and immediately assumed Baker had written "drinking a Coke" and then changed his mind. However, if you look at the handwriting of the initialled "MLB" (Marrion L. Baker) beside this crossing out, you will see the capital "M" differs distinctly from the capital "M" in Marrion at the beginning of the statement.

This is because this statement, given to our old friends the FBI, was taken by SA Richard J. Burnett, and the text of the statement was plainly written by Burnett, and signed by Baker.

Therefore, the correction by Baker was a mistake made by Burnett. The question is, why did so many people think Oswald was holding or drinking a Coke?

Regardless, I think Mr. Gilbride is asking a lot of us, to put all of our faith in Baker's testimony written almost a year after the assassination; especially when it contradicts his first day statement.

I've always wondered which is correct, 22/11/63 or 11/22/63? I see it written both ways and it drives me nuts.

Would someone care to refresh my memory on why a SEPTEMBER 23 affidavit would be considered evidence? That would have been 10 months AFTER the assassination...certainly not a FRESH recollection, by ANY stretch of the definition. And September 23 would have been ONE DAY before the WCR was given to the President, and FOUR days before the release of the report to the public. [i'm assuming September 23, 1964 because September 23, 1963 would have been two months PRIOR TO the assassination.]

When I read that, my brain processed it as November 23. I suspect Robert's did the same. And I have a feeling that that is what Richard Gilbride meant to write.

Hi Sandy

No, Richard is referring to the handwritten statement of Marrion Baker, dated 23/09/64.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_3076.pdf

Edit: Did it again. I first wrote the date as 23/11/64 LOL

Would someone care to refresh my memory on why a SEPTEMBER 23 affidavit would be considered evidence? That would have been 10 months AFTER the assassination...certainly not a FRESH recollection, by ANY stretch of the definition. And September 23 would have been ONE DAY before the WCR was given to the President, and FOUR days before the release of the report to the public. [i'm assuming September 23, 1964 because September 23, 1963 would have been two months PRIOR TO the assassination.]

LOL You're right, Mark. I read that too quickly and saw Nov. 23 (day after assassination) instead of Sept. 23.

Wow. Here is the problem with the hoaxers, which they repeatedly fail to address:

There is an aggregate of lunchroom-related evidence- the filmed interviews, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, the will-call counter bump, the Martha Jo Stroud document, the lack of corroboration for Biffle's story- which has to be contorted in order to be construed as supporting the hoax. Construed from its face-value, common-sense meaning. I have discussed these in depth (excepting the Stroud doc, for lack of time) in posts #148 & #160 on pp. 10-11 of the thread Great New Movie Spells Out the Case for Oswald as Prayer Man.

Until the hoaxers can find some way to overcome the weight of this aggregate, it is pointless to introduce ambiguous items such as the 1st-day affidavit and 10 FBI routes taken when re-constructing Oswald's sniper's nest escape. Every such item must be viewed through the lens of the incident's reality.

There is no way to overcome the weight of this aggregate, short of doing violence to the evidence listed, of doing violence to probability theory. That is why I am firm on this. And the situation has not been helped by the hoaxers' failure to produce a position paper for their argument.

And please, look at the fruits produced by thinking this way- Tan Jacket Man, Ira Trantham, Spooky, Breakfast at Tiffany's (my new slogan for the Baker-Oswald front landing encounter). These ephemeral fruits are supported only by wishful thinking. These ephemeral fruits are a very good indicator of the brittleness of the hoax hypothesis- it does not yield tangible results.

It should raise an eyebrow that a dyed-in-the-wool LNer such as David von Pein, and a dyed-in-the-wool CTer such as Richard Gilbride, are united in their efforts to derail this hoax cattle-train before it gathers more victims. His insights are not mine, and they are quite good, and the desired result is the same- we want truth, not wishful thinking.

Anyone is welcome to analyse my pieces on this subject- The Lunchroom Incident: A Short Proof and Long Explanation and pp. 26-36 of Inside Job. And consider the thought that went into arranging the argument as it is laid out.

This is a politically-charged topic, and breaking through this impasse will likely require someone breaking off from the herd at ROKC- someone who has the moxie to stand up to that abusive herd and assert their voice. Someone who gives a hoot about where JFK research will be in 5 years. Because the hoaxers would have us tent outside Langley, clamoring for that one piece of paper still being withheld about "3rd or 4th floor man".

1. The filmed interviews. Proves nothing, except some people can lie to a camera.

2. The Sept. 23 affidavit. Right about the time the coverup was gaining definition. Of course, no one has ever conveniently backdated an affidavit either.

3. The will-call counter bump. Could have happened, but also could have happened much later. Might indicate Truly and Baker went upstairs, but does nothing to support a 2nd floor lunch room encounter.

4. The Stroud document. Confirms, via Dorothy Garner, that Baker and Truly came up to the 4th floor, but does not state when, or how long after Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles descended from 4th floor. Does NOT confirm 2nd floor lunch room encounter in any way at all, or that Oswald descended from 6th floor.

5. Biffle's story. Once again, please explain to us why you believe this would support the 2nd floor lunch room encounter.

Why don't you try to find some real evidence, Richard?

Here is a passage from Buell Wesley Frazier's WC testimony, just to confuse things a little more. Is the woman he speaks of Gloria Calvery?

Frazier talks as though he doesn't know who the woman is.

"Mr. BALL - You didn't see the President's car at the time you heard the sound?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I didn't.

Mr. BALL - But you stood right there, did you?

Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Stood right where I was.

Mr. BALL - And Mr. Shelley was still standing there?

Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

Mr. BALL - And also Billy Lovelady?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - The three of you didn't go any place?

Mr. FRAZIER - I believe Billy and them walked down toward that direction but I didn't. I just stood where I was. I hadn't moved at all.

Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody after that come into the Building while you were there?

Mr. FRAZIER - You mean somebody other that didn't work there?

Mr. BALL - A police officer.

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I stood there a few minutes, you know, and some people who worked there; you know normally started to go back into the Building because a lot of us didn't eat our lunch, and so we stared back into the Building and it wasn't but just a few minutes that there were a lot of police officers and so forth all over the Building there.

Mr. BALL - Then you went back into the Building, did you?

Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

Mr. BALL - And before you went back into the Building no police officer came up the steps and into the building?

Mr. FRAZIER - Not that I know. They could walk by the way and I was standing there talking to somebody else and didn't see it.

Mr. BALL - Did anybody say anything about what had happened, did you hear anybody say anything about the President had been shot?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; right before I went back, some girl who had walked down a little bit further where I was standing on the steps, and somebody come back and said somebody had shot President Kennedy.

Mr. BALL - Do you know who it was who told you that?

Mr. FRAZIER - Sir?

Mr. BALL - Do you know who the girl was who told you that?

Mr. FRAZIER - She didn't tell me right directly but she just came back and more or less in a low kind of hollering she just told several people.

Mr. BALL - Then you went back into the Building, did you?

Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

Mr. BALL - And police officers came in there?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I would say by the time, you know some of us went back in, and it wasn't just a few minutes, I say there were several."

Or is he simply dodging Ball's questions about her?

Here is a passage from Buell Wesley Frazier's WC testimony, just to confuse things a little more. Is the woman he speaks of Gloria Calvery?

"Mr. BALL - You didn't see the President's car at the time you heard the sound?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. BALL - But you stood right there, did you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Stood right where I was.
Mr. BALL - And Mr. Shelley was still standing there?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - And also Billy Lovelady?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - The three of you didn't go any place?
Mr. FRAZIER - I believe Billy and them walked down toward that direction but I didn't. I just stood where I was. I hadn't moved at all.
Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody after that come into the Building while you were there?
Mr. FRAZIER - You mean somebody other that didn't work there?
Mr. BALL - A police officer.
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I stood there a few minutes, you know, and some people who worked there; you know normally started to go back into the Building because a lot of us didn't eat our lunch, and so we stared back into the Building and it wasn't but just a few minutes that there were a lot of police officers and so forth all over the Building there.
Mr. BALL - Then you went back into the Building, did you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - And before you went back into the Building no police officer came up the steps and into the building?
Mr. FRAZIER - Not that I know. They could walk by the way and I was standing there talking to somebody else and didn't see it.
Mr. BALL - Did anybody say anything about what had happened, did you hear anybody say anything about the President had been shot?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; right before I went back, some girl who had walked down a little bit further where I was standing on the steps, and somebody come back and said somebody had shot President Kennedy.
Mr. BALL - Do you know who it was who told you that?
Mr. FRAZIER - Sir?
Mr. BALL - Do you know who the girl was who told you that?
Mr. FRAZIER - She didn't tell me right directly but she just came back and more or less in a low kind of hollering she just told several people.
Mr. BALL - Then you went back into the Building, did you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - And police officers came in there?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I would say by the time, you know some of us went back in, and it wasn't just a few minutes, I say there were several."

I wonder when it was decided to drop the Coke in Oswald's hand from the script?

I guess it would have been possible for Oswald to hear Baker and Truly coming up the stairs through the closed vestibule door, as you point out in your edited post.

This would point to an extremely thin and not very soundproofed vestibule door, though.

You should offer this idea to Richard Gilbride. He does not believe Truly and Baker could have heard Adams and Styles coming down the stairs and through the second floor landing, as he believes the vestibule door closed behind Truly during the lunch room encounter. He also does not believe Adams and Styles could have heard the brief but heated discussion in the second floor lunch room, through the closed vestibule door, as they passed through the second floor landing.

Hi Thomas

If Oswald was in the vestibule keeping an eye out for people coming up the stairs, he would have heard and seen Truly before Baker arrived on the 2nd floor landing. Do you think he would have allowed himself to be seen? If the vestibule door was already closed, moving away from the window would have been quite simple.

bumped, just in case Thomas did not see I had responded to him

Yes David, a complete fugezi.

And Bob did you actually watch my film? All that you are mentioning in your post is already in there, how from a physical p.o.v. it would be impossible to catch anyone's glimpse through that tiny window at the angle the door is and whoever would come up the stairs on to the 2nd floor landing. And that ever so silent pneumatic door, let us not forget about that!

Furthermore the news reports and other statements such as Oswald never claiming meeting Baker on the 2nd floor sink this 2nd floor BS faster than the Titanic ever did.

Any way I am not going to get dragged further in a debate that has been debunked yonks ago already,

Merry X-Mas!

Sorry, Bart, I got part way through your movie and it kept putting me to sleep.

Hi Thomas

If Oswald was in the vestibule keeping an eye out for people coming up the stairs, he would have heard and seen Truly before Baker arrived on the 2nd floor landing. Do you think he would have allowed himself to be seen? If the vestibule door was already closed, moving away from the window would have been quite simple.

I was going over the 2nd floor plan of the TSBD earlier, and something struck me as I was looking at it.

In the upper left corner, we have the 2nd floor landing, with the stairs coming from the 1st floor and the stairs going to the 3rd floor shown. There is a door on each stairwell that must be opened. Roy Truly was ahead of Officer Marrion Baker, and Baker would likely have seen Truly making a hard left onto the 2nd floor landing as Baker was coming up to the 2nd floor landing; in other words, he was trying to keep up with Truly, and would have made an identical hard turn.

Now look at the diagram where it shows the vestibule door, leading to the hallway, and the lunch room door just beyond it (follow the solid line into the lunch room). As the WC apologists would have us believe, Baker, on his way to follow Truly to the 3rd floor stairwell, just happened to glance through the small window, in the upper part of the vestibule door, to catch a glimpse of Oswald in the lunch room, walking away from him.

One small problem, though. If you look again at the top of the stairs Baker was exiting, it is plain to see that, if Baker was making a hard left, in pursuit of Truly, he was not in a position for the window in the upper part of the vestibule door to line up with the lunch room door.

How could he have seen Oswald? If Oswald was just the other side of the door, why did Baker not report seeing the door still closing by means of its automatic closer?

Many of the WC apologists will say that Baker did not go directly to the 3rd floor stairwell but, rather, made a wide sweep of the 2nd floor landing, looking for bad guys. Well, there is a bit of a problem here, too, as the photo below shows.

Think the boxes are stacked only in view of the camera? I doubt it, in fact, I'll bet the mess of stacked boxes gets worse as you get into the corner, out of view to the camera's right. The corner, as the diagram shows, is a completely untravelled piece of floor, and that attracts clutter like nothing else in a warehouse.

Baker would have to be 2-3 feet to the right to get any kind of view into the lunch room and, unless he deliberately was attempting to look into the lunch room, why would he climb over a bunch of boxes? His testimony clearly states he saw Oswald quite by accident.

Once again, if Oswald had not travelled the 5 feet between the vestibule door and the lunch room door, would the vestibule door not still be in the process of closing itself, and would Baker not have stated this in his testimony?

As there was no window on the lunch room door, the diagram shows us another potential problem. See how the lunch room door is almost closed in the diagram? Think about that for a bit.

I'll buy that the guy in the office is Lovelady, as well as the guy smoking outside, but the guy in the Alyea film? I don't know, he has the short hair cut but his face doesn't quite look like Lovelady, and he looks younger.

I knew you'd bring that up, Cliff. You've been arguing this again and again with LNers and CTers alike on this forum for 11 years.

Vincent Salandria has been making the exact same point for over 50 years.

Care to enlighten us as to what part of Salandria's argument is "open to interpretation"?

I guess that's what I mean by open to interpretation.

So by this rationale if enough people argue that the earth is flat then the shape of the globe is "open to interpretation"?

To me, the point of this thread was looking for an "A-ha" moment.

Here is the greatest "a-ha" moment in the history of the case.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WCTandAS.html

Gaeton Fonzi:

<quote on>

Although a description of Kennedy’s clothing was in the [Warren] Report, the discrepancy between the location of the bullet holes in them and the reported location of the wounds was never discussed or explained.

And there was a very obvious discrepancy: The hole in the back of the jacket was 5-3/8 inches below the top of the collar and 1¾ inches to the right of the center back seam of the coat. Traces of copper were found in the margins of the hole and the cloth fibers were pushed inward. “Although the precise size of the bullet could not be determined from the hole, it was consistent with having been made by a 6.5-millimeter bullet,” said the Report.

The shirt worn by the President also contained a hole in the back about 5¾ inches below the top of the collar and 1-1/8 inches to the right of the middle. It, too, had the characteristics of a bullet entrance hole.

Both these holes are in locations that seem obviously inconsistent with the wound described in the Commission’s autopsy report — placed below the back of the right ear — and illustrated in exhibit 385, which Dr. Humes had prepared.

“Well,” said Specter, when asked about this in his City Hall office last month, “that difference is accounted for because the President was waving his arm.” He got up from his desk and attempted to have his explanation demonstrated. “Wave your arm a few times,” he said, “wave at the crowd. Well, see if the bullet goes in here, the jacket gets hunched up. If you take this point right here and then you strip the coat down, it comes out at a lower point. Well, not too much lower on your example, but the jacket rides up.”

If the jacket were “hunched up,” wouldn’t there have been two holes as a result of the doubling over of the cloth?

“No, not necessarily. It . . . it wouldn’t be doubled over. When you sit in the car it could be doubled over at most any point, but the probabilities are that . . . aaah . . . that it gets . . . that . . . aaah . . . this . . . this is about the way a jacket rides up. You sit back . . . sit back now . . . all right now . . . if . . . usually, as your jacket lies there, the doubling up is right here, but if . . . but if you have a bullet hit you right about here, which is where I had it, where your jacket sits . . . it’s not . . . it’s not . . . it ordinarily doesn’t crease that far back.”

What about the shirt?

“Same thing.”

So there is no real inconsistency between the Commission’s location of the wound and the holes in the clothing?

“No, not at all. That gave us a lot of concern. First time we lined up the shirt . . . after all, we lined up the shirt . . . and the hole in the shirt is right about, right about the knot of the tie, came right about here in a slit in the front . . .”

But where did it go in the back?

“Well, the back hole, when the shirt is laid down, comes . . . aaah . . . well, I forget exactly where it came, but it certainly wasn’t higher, enough higher to . . . aaah . . . understand the . . . aah . . . the angle of decline which . . .”

Was it lower? Was it lower than the slit in the front?

“Well, I think that . . . that if you took the shirt without allowing for it’s being pulled up, that it would either have been in line or somewhat lower.”

Somewhat lower?

“Perhaps. I . . . I don’t want to say because I don’t really remember. I got to take a look at that shirt.”

<quote off>

The SBT busted!

With an assist from Salandria, Fonzi offcially debunked the SBT right up in Arlen Specter's face.

This Fonzi v. Specter face-off was an event all people interested in Historical Justice should celebrate, not ignore.

As much as I don't believe in the SBT, making this thread another one of the thousands about T3 isn't going to convince someone there was a conspiracy.

That depends on whether this someone has already developed Pet Theories about the case.

You cannot convince someone on a point of fact if the survival of their Pet Theories requires them to remain unconvinced.

I'll give you two examples -- David Von Pein and Pat Speer.

I've pressed Pat Speer on this subject to the point where he recently claimed that T1 is "well down the back."

This is incredibly absurd, truly egregious. C7/T1 is the lower margin of the base of the neck -- how the hell could T1 be "well down the back"?

So the top of the back is well down the back -- is that your idea of "open to interpretation," Brian?

David Von Pein is my favorite guy to discuss this with.

We've never argued.

We are in absolute agreement on a salient point: due to JFK's visible shirt collar in Croft 3, the jacket was only bunched up "a little bit."

Now, David Von Pein isn't going to be convinced of a conspiracy, and Pat Speer won't concede the T3 back wound.

These horses were lead to water but won't drink.

Other horses will. After all, I'm not the only one to cite the clothing evidence in this thread...

I agree with you 100%, Cliff, and sympathize with the total lack of interest shown by researchers in this matter. After reading one of your posts a couple of years ago, a friend and I replicated the SBT scenario. We tried it with and without a suit jacket on and with the JFK "dummy" having his head facing forward, his head turned slightly to the right and his head turned extremely to the right.

In none of these experiments did raising the right arm to wave cause the back of the suit OR the back of the shirt to bunch up significantly, disproving the SBT.

It should also be noted that turning the head to the extreme right does not cause the trachea (windpipe), at the level of JFK's throat wound, to move from its location in the centre of the anterior neck.

Hey Bob,

I agree with you in principle. I also like the word you chose: Forced. Indeed, let's not forget that Mantik's critics are quick to point out, although it is irrelevant, that David is not a diagnostic radiologist.* -- Yet when I point out that Pat Speer lacks any credentials or experience in these fields I am accused of unfairly dismissing his views.

* The critics allude to this lack of a specific credential as somehow negatively impacting Mantik's ability to properly interpret x-rays, but never explain how, notwithstanding his related qualifications as a physicist, a Board Certified Radiation Oncologist, and a practicing medical doctor with many decades of experience reading and interpreting x-rays.

Quite frankly, Greg, I find it rather amusing, as it is all they have to work with.

Now that I have conceded the possibility that Shelley crossed paths with Baker near the traffic light, Thomas, and possibly ran into Gloria Calvery a little further down by the concrete column, we should examine how this affects the outcome of the "developing theory" you claim I am working on, which I actually am.

I believe we are still attempting to answer the question: Did Shelley and Lovelady OR just Shelley OR just Lovelady leave the steps of the TSBD, immediately after the last shot, and walk down the Elm St, extension to the rail yards; returning to the TSBD a few minutes later and re-entering the building through a door near the rear elevators?

To do so, let's ask some simple questions.

1. Does this new revelation prove that Shelley AND Lovelady left the steps together?

No, not at all. All this would establish is that Shelley crossed the extension and ran into Calvery at the corner of the park.

2. Does this new revelation prove that Shelley and Lovelady OR just Shelley OR just Lovelady walked down to the rail yards?

No, not at all. Following his meeting with Calvery at the corner of the park, Shelley could have gone back inside the building, just as he stated in his first day statement. Without evidence to the contrary, we must assume he went back via the front entrance.

Greg:

I think as adduced by Milicent Cranor, the number of witnesses who saw cerebellum in Dallas was seven. It was in her review of Bugliosi.

She is very detail oriented and accurate.

I believe David cites nine MD's in his e-book, but let me double check.

I just spoke with Mili on the phone and she is checking. However, she said, in any event the sworn testimony of the Chief Neurosurgeon, Kemp Clark, who had more credentials than all the rest put together--and who got the best look at the back of the head--is alone worth more than 50 others. He told the WC that he saw cerebellum.

She is sending me more material on this issue later today. I will post it when I receive it.

Hi Greg

This game we have been forced into, in which only highly educated neurosurgeons with years of medical experience are allowed to name the general location of a large gaping head wound, makes a mockery of the power of human observation.

Even with horribly mangled head wounds one encounters, hunting deer with soft point or hollow point bullets, it only takes five seconds for an experienced hunter to pinpoint the entrance and exit wounds, and to know if they are on the back, front, sides or top of the head.

Clint Hill was the first back of head witness. He had the entire ride from Dealey Plaza to Parkland Memorial Hospital to view JFK's head wound, and this is what he had to say about it to the Warren Commission:

"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."

He doesn't specify parietal, occipital, temporal of frontal. In layman's terms, he tells us the back of JFK's head was blown off, plain and simple, and that the back of his head was lying on the rear seat. Considering JFK was leaning forward and supposedly shot in the back of the head, with the resultant explosion in the front of the head spreading debris forward, finding the rear of the head in the back seat is, by itself, quite miraculous.

I would be hard pressed to call BS if he told me that story in a bar.

Another view:

Did Shelley get just past the tree, and spot Gloria Calvery by the concrete column? It would make sense, psychologically, for her to flee what she had seen, only to stop once she had the concrete column between her and the assassination; making something of a barrier between her and the horror she had witnessed.

Perhaps the tail end of the Darnell clip, when Darnell pans back to the left, should be studied more closely.

Hi Thomas

Just looking at the Altgens 6 photo again.

The almost obscured woman you pointed out as a possible candidate for Gloria Calvery, just barely seen behind the lady marked as # 2, would not have very far to get to get to the "corner of the park", if such a point was defined by the concrete column seen again in this photo.

The comparative photo below shows the distance a bit better but, it is still difficult to get a good idea of the distance involved.