Robert Prudhomme

Richard

Would you mind elaborating on this "lack-of-Biffle-corroboration" thing you keep going on about?

Kent Biffle was a reporter riding far back in the motorcade, and he left the car he was riding in to find out if there was a story in Dealey Plaza. However, prior to his entering the TSBD with what he called the "first wave of officers", he went down to the Grassy Knoll to investigate why all the onlookers were pointing to it.

What does Biffle have to do with Baker?

Outside of a never ending stream of verbal abuse, and a few cheap photography tricks, what has Duncan MacRae offered to this forum?

Ian,

There isn't much that can be done with the extant images. If we could access original films and get a high resolution scan some information could be gained. but playing with what we have, is just that, playing. We can enhance gray values, but it will NOT add any information of value. There just isn't enough digital information in the images.

IMO Mr. LeDoux's work has more credibility than Duncan's for the following simple reason:

He hasn't heavily manipulated the PM images as Duncan has.

Duncan's images have little to do with the extant original. They have been altered. Contrast has been heavily increased. Areas look to have been rather crudely dodged and burned. There is no way for any viewer to know how much, unless Duncan wants to provide image metadata/exif data for us so we can determine what he did, which I doubt will be volunteered.

I don't post here often. I've looked at Duncan's images as one of his, um, fans, has posted them and made outrageous claims about what can be seen at another forum.

Manipulated images are just that. Manipulated. No valuable conclusions can be drawn from Duncan's "work".

As Mr. MacRae will tell you, Michael, "The ends justify the means."

Robert Prudhomme: In other words, WC lawyers falsified [this portion of] the testimony of Victoria Adams, and either falsified [the associated portions of] the testimonies of Lovelady and Shelley, or coerced [i.e. prepped] these two into giving false testimony.

If you can readily accept these serious offenses to have occurred [in a Government that has just murdered its sitting President], I am puzzled as to why you accept as Gospel the testimony [that in particular relates to the lunchroom incident] of Marrion Baker and Roy Truly.

Do you think the WC's lying could extend to these gentlemen, as well?

***********

Belin could not have achieved this, the perpetration of a lunchroom hoax, because there were 2 testimonies in near lock-step correspondence to doctor up. The will-call counter bump is the telltale clue that the correspondences were true accounts.

Imagine Belin attempting to insert the bump into scripts, in his office at his leisure, for dramatic realism. Not only does this run into the problem I mentioned earlier- of the stenographer, etc.- now wrapped up in the mini-conspiracy.

But the bump will be exposed as a falsehood once the hoax hypothesis fails, when it is held up against the aggregate of: the filmed interview, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, the lack of Biffle corroboration (this list is not exhaustive- we may include the Oswald-wedding-ring similarity with Baker's-sameday affidavit-omission-arrested-Oswald and the Martha Jo Stroud document)

Belin knew full well that he would have to answer to the historians of his day, when the 26 volumes were published. And if the bump had been a falsehood, and the historians had recognized and publicized that, the whole edifice could have come tumbling down. He couldn't have pulled off this sleight-of-hand, even if he had to. It is impossible in a philosophical sense- there is too much of the aggregate that could potentially pop up and expose Belin's sleight-of-hand.

So the hoaxers thus have to paint Baker as a monster- a devious player in the coverup, stretching over a 23-year-coupling of film record.

But the coverup maestro was Truly, and it was Truly who used the lunchroom incident to help keep focus away from the west elevator.

[...]

[T]he "will-call counter bump" you refer to proves nothing, as it could have occurred later as well. -- Prudhomme

Dear Robert,

If the "counter bump" occurred later, then why did both Truly and Baker say it happened right after they entered the front entrance (about 30 seconds after the assassination), when they were making their way to the elevator / stairs to go up to the roof?

Why did they both include such an insignificant event in their statements? To add an element of "realism" to their l-i-e-s?

You have both of them as bad guys, huh?

--Tommy

More distraction, Thomas.

Of course the will-call counter bump happened right after they entered the TSBD. That is not in question here. When they entered the TSBD is something that is yet to be established.

Merely repeating over and over when you believe T & B entered the TSBD is not evidence, and does not make your belief true.

We have Shelley and Lovelady telling obvious lies in their testimonies, can you not imagine Baker and Truly doing the same?

Robert Prudhomme: In other words, WC lawyers falsified [this portion of] the testimony of Victoria Adams, and either falsified [the associated portions of] the testimonies of Lovelady and Shelley, or coerced [i.e. prepped] these two into giving false testimony.

If you can readily accept these serious offenses to have occurred [in a Government that has just murdered its sitting President], I am puzzled as to why you accept as Gospel the testimony [that in particular relates to the lunchroom incident] of Marrion Baker and Roy Truly.

Do you think the WC's lying could extend to these gentlemen, as well?

***********

Belin could not have achieved this, the perpetration of a lunchroom hoax, because there were 2 testimonies in near lock-step correspondence to doctor up. The will-call counter bump is the telltale clue that the correspondences were true accounts.

Imagine Belin attempting to insert the bump into scripts, in his office at his leisure, for dramatic realism. Not only does this run into the problem I mentioned earlier- of the stenographer, etc.- now wrapped up in the mini-conspiracy.

But the bump will be exposed as a falsehood once the hoax hypothesis fails, when it is held up against the aggregate of: the filmed interview, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, the lack of Biffle corroboration (this list is not exhaustive- we may include the Oswald-wedding-ring similarity with Baker's-sameday affidavit-omission-arrested-Oswald and the Martha Jo Stroud document)

Belin knew full well that he would have to answer to the historians of his day, when the 26 volumes were published. And if the bump had been a falsehood, and the historians had recognized and publicized that, the whole edifice could have come tumbling down. He couldn't have pulled off this sleight-of-hand, even if he had to. It is impossible in a philosophical sense- there is too much of the aggregate that could potentially pop up and expose Belin's sleight-of-hand.

So the hoaxers thus have to paint Baker as a monster- a devious player in the coverup, stretching over a 23-year-coupling of film record.

But the coverup maestro was Truly, and it was Truly who used the lunchroom incident to help keep focus away from the west elevator.

Richard

Perhaps you do not quite follow what I am trying to say. I am not saying Truly and Baker did not ascend the steps together; I am saying it occurred later than we are told, and because of this, the 2nd floor lunch room encounter did not occur.

With this in mind, the "will-call counter bump" you refer to proves nothing, as it could have occurred later as well.

Baker's reenactment is not proof of an entry into the TSBD within 15-22 seconds either. No one is disputing that Baker made it close to the bottom of the steps rather quickly, what he did after Darnell panned away is what is in question. Altering Baker's story to have him running into the TSBD was as simple as adding a couple of extra seconds to his time, or however long it would hypothetically take him to go up the steps.

Would you please explain what you mean by this information below here? It is not making a lot of sense to me.

"But the bump will be exposed as a falsehood once the hoax hypothesis fails, when it is held up against the aggregate of: the filmed interview, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, the lack of Biffle corroboration (this list is not exhaustive- we may include the Oswald-wedding-ring similarity with Baker's-sameday affidavit-omission-arrested-Oswald and the Martha Jo Stroud document)"

Well, Robert, I go with Barry Ernest's information in The Girl on the Stairs, that Vickie Adams and Sandra Styles both denied several times that they'd seen Shelley & Lovelady. Support for that is found in S & L's lack of clarity as to whether and when they saw Adams on the 1st floor post-assassination. The inference is that David Belin confabulated this part of the transcript. In order to retard their descent, & thereby explain why they didn't see/hear any sign of Oswald fleeing the nest. I think that when they testified, S & L knew they were being written into the 1st-floor script and played along with the Belin confabulation.

I recall looking through some Tony Fratini photocopies this past summer at jfkassassinationforum, he had the Belin-handnotated transcripts and could show how Belin was being deceptive. I didn't download them because I had been in agreement on that for a long time; I forget the name of the thread, it was probably one that he or Colin Crow had started. It may have been in Fratini's "Arnold Rowland and the two men on the 6th floor". But he makes a convincing case, on top of what Ernest had to offer. The thread is a 90-pager or so, but a couple of pages have some big chunks of these photocopied transcripts on display, so you might key on that & that would get you through the pages much more quickly.

There's some gold at that forum, although some of it was put there by fools.

In other words, WC lawyers falsified the testimony of Victoria Adams, and either falsified the testimonies of Lovelady and Shelley, or coerced these two into giving false testimony.

If you can readily accept these serious offenses to have occurred, I am puzzled as to why you accept as Gospel the testimony of Marrion Baker and Roy Truly.

Do you not think the WC's lying could extend to these gentlemen, as well?

Here is something to think about. How many times in a 50 year period does the following happen in the space of a minute?

1. The POTUS goes by the TSBD in a limo.

2. Three rifle shots are heard in Dealey Plaza.

3. A uniformed, white helmeted motorcycle cop roars up to the curb, hops off his motorcycle and goes tearing up the steps of the TSBD.

Kind of a semi-memorable moment in time, no?

Let's assume Pauline Sanders actually did see Baker go up the steps, as the FBI stated she did in their report of 24/11/63. As she seems to be the only witness on the steps who saw Baker, do you think she just calmly said to herself "Oh my, well, you certainly don't see that every day" and quietly went back to her desk? I hardly think so. If she was anything like the women I know, she would have shared this strange sighting with her neighbours on the steps (which included Molina and Frazier) and everyone on the steps would have been talking about the cop running into the building within 30 seconds; where he was going, why he ran into the building, was it connected to the shots they heard, etc.

When Joe Molina and Buell Wesley Frazier were asked, at their appearance before the WC, if they had seen Baker enter the TSBD, don't you think it likely they might have at least offered "Well, I never actually saw the cop myself, but Pauline Sanders saw him, and everybody on the steps was talkin' about him within the next minute or so."

Well?

Robert, one alternative scenario which I actually do subscribe to.

Noises first perceived as firecrackers, not gunshots.

So no one we see on the steps at this time cares, they really have no idea and the films seem to support that notion.

Also Baker's story is partially made up. He did not speed up, at all. He carries on around the corner on his side of the street until he gets a look down Elm but he's not the dumb cop his superior made him out to be, he's actually above average. So he notices the trouble and he slows then stops, to observe, consider.

The limo takes off and there's cops nearby, he is not needed down there.

It then takes him ten to fifteen seconds to realise that those pops could have been shots and the building as good a place to check as any.

Every single person he runs past or toward has no clue what he is doing and he's just another head in a group that are all generally shifting around.

Those still looking must know something has happened because the motorcade has clearly stopped but people are only manoeuvring to see why and those we see on film have show no fear whatsoever.

So the memorable moment for, I would say, 99% of those we see in Couch and Darnell is the moment they learn those sounds were shots. That's yet to happen.

There's kids running in the street after they've all heard firecrackers and naturally, no one cares.

Crazy.

I think you've missed a couple of things here, Clive. I don't think the people on the steps and lined up on the curb were quite as unaware of something being wrong as you believe they are.

For example, Roy Lewis has quickly departed the steps, and is attempting to climb the traffic light pole, to get a better view of what is going on down below, by the time Baker makes it anywhere near the steps. And look at the people across the extension from the steps. They certainly know something is wrong.

Now, if Baker had casually strolled into the TSBD, I can see Pauline Sanders observing this and making no mention of it to the others who, miraculously, did not see a big ol' white helmeted cop stroll right in front of them. But, he did not stroll, he ran into the TSBD, according to Sanders.

You don't think between the shots, the crowd in front of them clearly being spooked and a white helmeted cop running past her would cause Pauline Sanders to ask her neighbours on the steps just what the h*ll was going on?

"Do you still believe there is recoverable gold in the vein you are prospecting? In that 1/4 - 1/2 second of film?"

LOL I just read that. I thought I was on the wrong forum for a second. I frequent a couple of prospecting forums, too.

Hi Richard

What is your opinion on Victoria Adams testifying that she and Sandra Styles saw Billy Lovelady and Bill Shelley on the first floor, as they emerged from the staircase?

"Mr. BELIN - When you got to the bottom of the first floor, did you see anyone there as you entered the first floor from the stairway?

Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Who did you see?
Miss ADAMS - Mr. Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady.
Mr. BELIN - Where did you see them on the first floor?
Miss ADAMS - Well, this is the stairs, and this is the Houston Street dock that I went out. They were approximately in this position here, so I don't know how you would describe that.
Mr. BELIN - You are looking now at a first floor plan or diagram of the Texas School Book Depository, and you have pointed to a position where you encountered Bill Lovelady and Mr. Bill Shelley?
Miss ADAMS - That's correct.
Mr. BELIN - It would be slightly east of the front of the east elevator, and probably as far south as the length of the elevator, is that correct?
Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir."

LOL I was referring to myself, James. Sometimes, in my zeal to uncover something new, I have sidetracked and hijacked a thread and only realized I have done so when someone points it out to me.

Duncan,

Are you in Scotland? Or the U.S.? Or elsewhere?

If you are located outside the U.S., please tell me this: Why do non-U.S. persons have any interest in the JFK assassination?

Hi Jon

I'm not sure how the rest of the world saw JFK but, here in Canada in the early 60's, he was seen as almost a demi-god when we all made it through the Cuban Missile Crisis alive. I was only seven at the time of the crisis, but I clearly recall my parents and aunts and uncles being riveted to our black and white TV watching the crisis unfold, and breathing a great collective sigh of relief when they realized we weren't all going to be burnt to cinders.

When JFK died, we felt we lost something great, too. Although mine never did, many public schools here sent their pupils home for the rest of the day, and my Grade 3 teacher, Mrs. Patrick, wept openly when our principal announced the news over the intercom.

How could we not have an interest in the JFK assassination? It was the end of Camelot, and the king was dead.

If you look closely, Baker crosses just behind the signal light post on his way toward the TSBD curb/front steps.

His path appears to be somewhere close to the red line I have drawn in.

If you go to this link, I have stabilized the Darnell footage (labeled Truly-Baker gif) to give you a better look at Baker crossing just behind the signal light.

https://spideroak.com/browse/share/JFKFILES/JFKVIDEOS

password: assassination

chris

Thanks for that, Chris. That is one of the clearest versions of the film I have ever seen. If only Darnell had kept his camera on the TSBD steps for two more seconds.

One thing that can be seen very plainly in this gif, and something I wish I had the skills to enlarge, is a person standing directly in front of PM, and one or two steps down. He is facing the camera, and as Baker approaches, he appears to rise up, as if he was bending over to converse with the person in front of and below him on the steps, and the approach of Baker has caught his attention.

Could this be Lovelady? The position would be about right, if Roy Lewis had just vacated this position, and was now seen by the traffic light pole, and Billy Lovelady had moved to the west side of the steps (from near the centre) to get a closer look at the commotion to the west. He appears to have on a shirt similar to Lovelady's, and what we can see of his hair resembles Lovelady's.

Any way to get a closer look at this person? (hint hint)

P.S.

Anyone with sharp eyes able to spot Bill Shelley's pompadour in this gif?

Yes, there was a more direct path but, there were onlookers in his way all around the corner, blocking the crosswalk. From all indications, there was no fence blocking the concrete island at that time. Baker parked roughly at the location of the traffic signal pole, on the concrete island, and as it was a pedestrian area joining Elm St. and the extension, it would not make sense to have it fenced.

Yes, it's a shame Darnell panned away to the left at the critical moment. Another second or two of Baker's run, and we would not be discussing when he went up the steps.

If you look just above the open door of the '62 Chev Impala at the left of Chris's still, I believe you can see Baker's motorcycle parked next to the curb. Baker would have ridden to this point and parked his motorcycle there as this was the first point, close to the TSBD, he could get next to a curb without going through a crowd of onlookers. From this point, Baker ran across the concrete island between Elm St. and the Elm St. extension, and partly crossed the Elm St. extension. As there were cars parked along the north side of the extension, he likely turned toward Houston St. while still out in the extension.

I'm all for it, and it is my hope that it serves to keep threads from being sidetracked (from the guy who is probably more guilty than anyone else of sidetracking threads).

Considering that a statement is supposed to be in the witness's own words, look at the following and tell me if I'm just paranoid, or there is a marked similarity between these four statements.

Mrs. Karan Hicks 22 H 650 (statement to FBI dated March 20, 1964): “On November 22, 1963 I left my office about 11:30 A.M. to see the Presidential Motorcade which was to pass along Elm Street in front of the building. I was with Mrs . Gloria Calvery, Apt. 120, 1023 Hurwitz Rd., Irving, Texas, Mrs. Carol Read, 6428 Silvery Moon Drive, Dallas, Texas and Miss Karen Westbrook, 6606 Atha Drive, Dallas, Texas. We walked to Elm street and stopped at a point on the north edge of Elm Street about halfway between Houston Street and the Triple Underpass. We were standing at this point when President John F. Kennedy was shot. The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first explosion. I did not immediately recognize this sound as a gunshot.”

Carol Reed 22 H 668 (statement to FBI dated March 19, 1964): "At the time President Kennedy was shot I was standing on the curb of Elm Street about mid-way between the Texas School Book Depository Building and the Elm Street Railroad overpass. I was with Mrs. Karan Hicks, 926 North Marsalis, Apt. N, Dallas; Miss Karen Westbrook, 6606 Atha, Dallas ; and Mrs. Gloria Calvary, 1023 Hurwitz, Apt. 120, Irving, Texas, at the time the President was shot.”

Mrs. Gloria Calvary 22 H 638 (statement to FBI dated March 19, 1964): “We walked to Elm Street and stopped at a point on the north side of Elm Street about halfway between Houston Street and the Triple Underpass. We were standing at this point when President John F. Kennedy was shot. The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first shot.”

Karen Westbrook 22 H 679 (statement to FBI dated March 18, 1964): “We walked to Elm Street and stopped at a point on the north edge of Elm Street about halfway between Houston Street and the Triple Underpass. We were standing at this point when President John F. Kennedy was shot. The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first explosion. I did not immediately recognize this sound as a gun shot.”

Ah, 'tweren't nothin', Sandy.

Seriously, though, I decided a few years back to start taking a hard look at many of the accepted "facts" in this case. As I said a while back, another accepted "fact" that falls apart pretty quickly, when examined closely, is the "shallow" wound in JFK's back.

How many other "facts" have been carefully fed to us by those perpetuating the coverup, decade after decade, just to make us think we've uncovered something, while all the while something else is being kept hidden?

I see what you mean now, Sandy. Yes it should have affected the density measurements, unless the "wing" was folded back while the x-ray was taken maybe?

Actually, if you look closely at the shadows on the ground in the clip above, you can see them 'bend' as they fall onto the kerb; Baker's shadow can also be seen to 'bend' as he approaches the kerb and his leg appears to raise as if he's about to step up onto it.

Good catch Ian! Though I vigorously disagree regarding Baker's stepping up on the curb. His shadow barely touches the curb by the end of the video. You need to look at the individual frames to see these two things.

The shadow of the running woman bends as she approaches the curb. You cannot see her raise a foot to step up on the curb, BUT right at the end of the video you can see that she's within inches of having to do so.

In my analysis above, I estimated that the woman was at least 13.5 feet from the steps where her path crosses Baker's. After that she takes two more steps toward the stairway by the time the video ends, at which point she has reached the curb. She travels 6 feet in those two steps. The curb is 10 feet from the stairway. Therefore, she was actually 6 + 10 = 16 feet from the stairway where she crossed Baker's path. My conservative 13.5 foot calculation is thus favorably corroborated.

So Baker was 16 feet away from the stairway as he passed it by. He didn't run to the stairway and he had no intention of doing so at that time. The video proves it. He was, however, gradually approaching the curb as he passed by the stairway. His shadow reveals this fact.

Robert P. is right.

We are stuck now with the obvious question, where did Baker go, if not up the steps immediately? I believe he did go up the steps, eventually, but it would be nice to know what became of him in the interim.

https://www.facebook.com/viralthreaddotcom/videos/629014507240395/?theater

The caption to this video reads "Nothing quite like an angry Scotsmen".

(no malice intended with this or the previous post; merely an attempt at humour to lighten things up a bit)

It's not like the group on the steps of the TSBD were not a friendly, affable bunch that didn't speak to each other. According to Buell Wesley Frazier's WC testimony, they were all chatting quite amiably before the arrival of JFK.

"Mr. BALL - Did you go out there with somebody?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. BALL - Who did you go out there with?

Mr. FRAZIER - I stayed around there pretty close to Mr. Shelley and this boy Billy Lovelady and just standing there, people talking and just talking about how pretty a day it turned out to be, because I told you earlier it was an old cloudy and misty day and then it didn't look like it was going to be a pretty day at all.

Mr. BALL - And it turned out to be a good day?

Mr. FRAZIER - Pretty sunshiny day.

Mr. BALL - Warm?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it was pretty warm.

Mr. BALL - Then let's see, there was Billy Lovelady and you were there.

Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

Mr. BALL - Anybody else you can remember?

Mr. FRAZIER - There was a lady there, a heavy-set lady who worked upstairs there whose name is Sarah something, I don't know her last name.

Mr. BALL - Were you near the steps?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I was, I was standing about, I believe, one step down from the top there."

So, this friendly old bunch was just talking and talking about what a pretty day it was, but three shots ring out at the POTUS, a white helmeted cop runs through their midst, and everyone on the steps doesn't know about the cop within a minute???

Again I say, well?

Here is something to think about. How many times in a 50 year period does the following happen in the space of a minute?

1. The POTUS goes by the TSBD in a limo.

2. Three rifle shots are heard in Dealey Plaza.

3. A uniformed, white helmeted motorcycle cop roars up to the curb, hops off his motorcycle and goes tearing up the steps of the TSBD.

Kind of a semi-memorable moment in time, no?

Let's assume Pauline Sanders actually did see Baker go up the steps, as the FBI stated she did in their report of 24/11/63. As she seems to be the only witness on the steps who saw Baker, do you think she just calmly said to herself "Oh my, well, you certainly don't see that every day" and quietly went back to her desk? I hardly think so. If she was anything like the women I know, she would have shared this strange sighting with her neighbours on the steps (which included Molina and Frazier) and everyone on the steps would have been talking about the cop running into the building within 30 seconds; where he was going, why he ran into the building, was it connected to the shots they heard, etc.

When Joe Molina and Buell Wesley Frazier were asked, at their appearance before the WC, if they had seen Baker enter the TSBD, don't you think it likely they might have at least offered "Well, I never actually saw the cop myself, but Pauline Sanders saw him, and everybody on the steps was talkin' about him within the next minute or so."

Well?

That's not what I saw in the movie.

?????