Vanessa Loney

Hi Bob Imagination, plus Truly's testimony, Baker's testimony, Oswald's reported comments and from what we can see on Weigman. Do you think that is not Truly in Weigman? The man is standing where Truly (and others) said he stood and he does what Truly said he did (mostly) and he has a Truly-like look about him. How can he not be Truly? So, Bob, how are you going to get those 2 gents, Baker and Truly, into the TSBD as per their testimonies and from what we can see in Weigman. Did they do a lap of the TSBD and come back in the front door?

PS Bob, no need to worry about the spelling issue. I think some of us on here are speaking the Queen's English (as it is meant to be spoke) and some others are using an obscure dialect found only in the Americas.

I could be a doppelganger. I'm not sure. I lose count of how many of me there are. Que?

Hi Bob But that still leaves us with the problem of Truly. He testified he ran up the steps behind Baker. We can see in Weigman that Truly turns and goes after Baker towards the TSBD steps. In your scenario if Baker ran around the side of the TSBD and got in by the back entrance did Truly run after him all that way?

Yep, the guy is talking about someone other than Lovelady who is visible in other shots - i.e. PM. I agree this entire paragraph definitely indicates that he’s talking about both men, Oswald and Lovelady, being in the doorway together. That cannot be a Doorman discussion as it was never argued that both men appeared together in Altgens 6 (or any other film). In fact any appearance by Oswald and Lovelady together completely disproves the Doorman theory. The other issue of interest here (actually all of it is good) is this bit. “The shirt appears reddish in Hughes’ film, but the whole of that picture by Hughes has a reddish tint, and it was taken at a great distance.” (spelling corrected by me for clarity). Personally speaking I cannot identify anyone in Hughes wearing a reddish shirt in the PM position. In fact, as far as I can see PM cannot be seen in Hughes at all due to shadows and a burn mark/splodge right where we would expect to see PM. So was Bernabei looking at a different version of Hughes to the one we have today? And if so, what happened to the version he was looking at? Is that Mr Parker I see back on here? Welcome back, Mr P. J

Wow, that's amazing. Thanks Barto. How does Bernabei already know that "Ozwald" was standing in the doorway? Where did he get that from?

Hi Kathy - which one is 2060? I'm only up to comment # 2054.

PS Sorry Bob, forgot to address your last issue. It's a good question why they just didn't say they saw Baker on the steps going into the building? It would have made a lot more sense and everyone's testimony would have been consistent. But back on the thread SM posted an early press clipping showing Fritz (?) saying that as Baker rushed into the building Oswald rushed out. There are other early press clippings with a similar story. SM also posted evidence that Baker's story evolved over time and that there seemed to be some push back on his part about where he was supposed to have encountered Oswald. I'm obviously just speculating here because I don't have the answer. But the plotters have two sources of potential trouble which could completely destroy the issue of Oswald's involvement ie Baker himself and witnesses on the steps seeing Baker talk to PM. They appear to be having problems with Baker and let's just say for the sake of argument that BWF did initially tell the police that he was on the steps with Oswald and saw the policeman rush up the steps and talk to Oswald or talk to someone. Can they have Baker deny that he saw and spoke to Oswald on the steps but still have BWF saying Baker came up the steps and spoke to someone (even if that person wasn't Oswald)? If BWF maintains that Baker spoke to someone on the steps doesn't that make Baker's position harder? Much easier if that encounter goes away completely for BWF and for Baker gets moved to the 2nd floor lunchroom. I'm afraid that's the best I can do. Would be happy to hear anyone else's views on this.

Hi Bob, yes I'm with you on all that. The point I was making was that if Baker was really heading to Houston why not ride his motorbike all the way instead of getting off at the pavement and running towards the TSBD steps? I agree with you about the testimony of those on the steps and near the steps - it's all contradictory including the fact that they didn't see Baker. But rather than concluding that Baker didn't go up those steps I'm concluding that there was a specific reason for them not seeing Baker or PM on the steps. I have to ask, if Baker didn't get into the TSBD by the front steps what evidence is there for any other way he might have got into the building? We have Oswald, Baker and Truly all confirming that Baker went up the steps. Do we have anyone saying they saw Baker go into the TSBD any other way? The point I'm making about the open gates is that if Baker just wanted to get into the TSBD he could have tried that entrance as it was closer. But I think he went straight for the TSBD steps because he wanted to get into the taller building with roof access because he thought the shots were coming from the roof of the TSBD. But maybe I'm stretching the point here. Happy for you to go over the Gloria Calvary issue again.

Thank you Larry. You're right it can be clearly seen in this picture of the tramps. It's a big screened gate area. Although I have to say the gate looks open to me. https://www.google.com.au/search?q=jfk+assassination+three+tramps+photo&biw=1177&bih=549&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=pb5EVdjoEeSzmAXGqYGwAw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#imgrc=vVGPFyBTERACBM%253A%3BZXsReiQeA19SQM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.prouty.org%252Ftramps1.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.abovetopsecret.com%252Fforum%252Fthread2065%252Fpg1%3B480%3B360 I guess that raises the question of whether Baker could have known whether the gate was open or not when he was making his run? My view is that he was heading to the TSBD steps because, as he noted in various statements and testimony, he believed the shots came from the roof of the TSBD. That's why he continued up to the roof once he got into the building despite possibly passing some actual bona fide suspects on his way to the roof. Thanks for your views.

Thanks for posting that blow up of the annex. That sure looks like an entrance of some kind to me (even though it is not on any of the maps or diagrams). We can see where the TSBD brickwork ends and the annex begins. It must have been demolished later on. Apologies, I'm confused with that last bit. I thought you meant Baker could have really been heading towards Houston and was going to go past the TSBD steps and not up them.

Pardon my ignorance, Bob and Ray but isn't the modern day building missing the loading dock area? I agree most of the maps of the floors of the TSBD show only one entrance on Elm in the main building but in the annex area there is another door at the side. And if that's not a doorway to the annex on Couch what is it? This is the best picture I can find so far. If that doesn't work it's at www.citiesgallery.com https://www.google.com.au/search?q=tsbd+toronto&biw=1301&bih=590&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=51ZEVdCgKcHlmAWDt4H4Aw&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#tbm=isch&q=texas+school+book+despository+map&imgrc=SUfzcqsuyg3aFM%253A%3BHp6EctKbJcFstM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fboingboing.net%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2011%252F08%252FiHmgcp41O3s_Tjb2rWbUkxI_AAAAAAAAA4M_6U-WvAK3dpk_s1600_texas-school-book-depository-dallas-replica-landmark.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.citiesgallery.com%252Ftexas-school-book-depository%252F%3B369%3B380 A really key question about Baker and his intentions is: if he was really on his way past the TSBD to Houston St then why did he get off his bike in Elm St, leave it there and run towards the TSBD entrance? Why not just ride on down the street to his destination on Houston (or around the back of the TSBD) and then get off? It would have been a lot quicker than running to Houston. Thanks for your thoughts.

James, Just following up on my queries about why Greg and Tommy were banned/suspended from EF given they did not appear to break any EF rules in their last comments? I would appreciate a response when you have a moment. Also as you have not responded to my private message request for a right of reply to the Forum Rules thread after it was locked I would like to emphasise my support for Larry Hancock's idea of a separate area for documented research. I think it's an excellent idea and hopefully would go some way towards distinguishing the real research on here from the chat about various theories. That way the serious reader can more easily find the information that is documented and evidence-based.

Hi Bob If we look at this piece of the film (if the link doesn't work it's "Couch Film shows Baker Running to TSBD" on youtube) then we can see Baker runs past the first entrance to the TSBD that is closer to him than the eastern (?) entrance. So he could have gone in that first entrance but went further down the street to the eastern entrance for some reason. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIdbO3S2J6o Also if we look at comment #72 back on this thread Baker is running in from the left at an angle to the TSBD steps rather than running straight down the street which we might expect if he was heading past the entrance. He crosses the road to get to the footpath.

Hi Bob. I thought we had discussed those and the conclusion was that, as you note, no-one on the steps seemed to have seen Baker enter the TSBD. Which is a good and valid point about the strange testimony of those on the steps that day who didn't see a couple of people who were within touching distance. But I didn't think we'd come to any agreement about what exactly happened after the Weigman film moves from the steps. My own view is that given all of SM's evidence of Oswald being on the steps and Baker's evolving statements about what happened is that the Baker/Oswald encounter happened on those steps and that is why no-one 'saw' Baker or Prayer Man. It was much easier if they saw 'nothing' than to even go there. Otherwise why wouldn't BWF just say "Yes the police officer ran up the steps and went into the building" and btw "He didn't talk to the guy I didn't see, standing right in front of him, on the doorstep". But. for the sake of argument, let's say we didn't have all that evidence then I would still wonder what could have deflected Baker from going up those steps. He's in full flight in the Weigman film - his momentum and direction seem pretty focussed on those steps. What would have stopped him? Thanks for your views.

Excellent! I hope he graces us with his presence again. Since the last time I spoke with him, I have collected quite a few questions I would dearly love to put to him. Excellent! I hope he graces us with his presence again. Since the last time I spoke with him, I have collected quite a few questions I would dearly love to put to him. Hi Bob Just in case Sean Murphy doesn't come back why don't you post your questions here and the rest of us can have a go at answering them?

James, thanks for the update on Invision. I hope it gets sorted out soon. I was not aware I had insulted the administration. Apologies if I have. Who did I insult and how?

James, it appears that the posts on this thread relating to Lovelady and Altgens still have not been removed. That is almost 2 weeks since it was first requested. Why is it that Greg Parker's posts disappear in a flash (even when they haven't broken any rules) yet despite my repeated requests and your assurances this Lovelady/Altgens nonsense, which as far as I'm aware no respected researcher in the community actually believes in, is still on this thread? I'm sorry if that sounds rude but are we really not allowed to say that the emperor has no clothes on this forum?

James, thanks for doing that. But I suspect that if Mr Murphy had wanted to engage with the EF he would have done so long ago. Perhaps it's now up to the rest of the research community to carry forward Mr Murphy's research rather than rely on him to do all the heavy lifting again. There is a push to move ahead with Mr Murphy's research and that push has been lead by Greg Parker. If you are really interested in pursuing the Prayer Man thread then the best thing you could do would be to lift the ban on Mr Parker. As I've stated a number of times now ROKC is not disputing the rules of EF around language or rudeness. We are disputing the uneven application of those rules. Since his return to the EF Mr Parker has not used any foul language apart from the word 'xxxxe'. In the posts that you have banned him for he did not swear, be rude or dispute the rules of the forum and neither did Mr Graves. They did not break any rules of this forum so why have the two of them been banned and suspended, respectively? I would really appreciate an answer to this question James. It goes to the issue of bias. If Greg and Tommy did not break the rules why have they been banned?

With that kind of endorsement, I have also waited for the return of Greg Parker, a longtime Education Forum member. When Greg returned several weeks ago, I felt the time was right for me to become a member and support this thread and contribute anywhere else I could. I felt a research renaissance was beginning here and I wanted to be a part of it in some small way. Now, I am distressed over the events and issues that have caused Greg to leave. There are many things I find troubling about his departure, but I consider it inappropriate to question or criticize the administration here so I won't do that. I will just say that my short stint as an active member here has ended. I'll go back to being a lurker, something that's probably the best fit for me anyhow. I sincerely hope that good, constructive research once again becomes the hallmark at The Education Forum. Good luck and thanks. Dear Mr Sorensen I'm very sorry to hear that you feel compelled to stop commenting on here. You have made a great contribution to this thread and your input has been greatly appreciated by me, at least. Totally endorse your comments though. If Sean Murphy and Greg Parker would both come back on here wouldn't that be great.

James - Respectfully, if Mr Parker and Mr Graves have not violated the Forum rules on language or rudeness what have they been banned for?

Thanks for your response James. I appreciate your comments about what happened to the previous Ed Forum and how you don't want to head down that path again. I am not arguing for rudeness or infighting. I am arguing for the fair application of the rules, lack of bias and for evidence-based research to be more strongly supported by this site. From what I saw of Mr Parker's and Mr Graves' recent comments there was nothing to justify banning or suspension on the grounds of rudeness or bad language. Mr Parker was not disputing the rules and Mr Graves only comment was 'hear, hear'. I would like to ask again what have they done to merit their current banning/suspensions? From his most recent post on the PM thread it looks as though we have now lost Randy Sorensen due to this issue. I think that this is a great shame as his comments were always fact-based and contributed substantially to the progress of the Prayer Man thread. In the short time I have been on EF there have been a number of clear attempts to disrupt threads by posters who were not even on topic let alone making a rational argument. And if the current state of affairs on the PM thread continues it looks as though they have successfully killed that thread. A thread which may be the most important one that EF ever has. Is that really the outcome you want James?

Hi John - I perfectly agree it's for the management team of EF to make these decisions. I have never disputed that and believe I've always behaved courteously and appropriately to management.

Hi John - haven't met you before so, nice to meet you. I'm not sure if your message was in response to mine or not but can I say I am not arguing for rudeness. I am arguing for the fair application of the rules and for evidence-based research. I saw nothing in Mr Parker's or Mr Graves' recent comments that merited banning or suspension along the lines of rudeness. The point Mr Parker has made is that plenty of other posters have used expletives worse than his and yet they were not banned.

We usually allow folk to express their opinion on JFK matters, but also allow others to criticize. This is supposed to be done with civility. So what I see you saying is that if someone has new research, but is, as you say, robust in his/her debate, that this should be allowed because of the research? I disagree. BUT, I also disagree with some other folk who react to the robusity(is that a word?), and continually justify their position by an explanation of why they responded in the manner they did, and somehow, it is supposed to let the audience believe it was a natural outcome because they were so put upon. Additionally, we also have a few Here Pot, Here Kettle folk who probably don't even see that they do the same things the people they fault do, but it is very evident from the outside lookin' in. I don't know anything about any agenda. I believe James is frustrated. We are trying to provide a Forum for discussion, and we get people who feel entitled to disregard rules. We have made mistakes, and we are trying to correct them. I don't know what else to say. This forum is supposed to be an archive, so the information here can be available to the future generations. That is why it is important to have the back and forth, and to discuss a myriad of theories whether they have much merit, or are lacking in substance. People may judge the rightness or incorrectness of a position by what someone wrote here. We think that important enough to try to present something that researchers of the future can use. We want it preserved in more of an historical sense, and all of this makes it difficult. We usually allow folk to express their opinion on JFK matters, but also allow others to criticize. This is supposed to be done with civility. So what I see you saying is that if someone has new research, but is, as you say, robust in his/her debate, that this should be allowed because of the research? I disagree. BUT, I also disagree with some other folk who react to the robusity(is that a word?), and continually justify their position by an explanation of why they responded in the manner they did, and somehow, it is supposed to let the audience believe it was a natural outcome because they were so put upon. Additionally, we also have a few Here Pot, Here Kettle folk who probably don't even see that they do the same things the people they fault do, but it is very evident from the outside lookin' in. I don't know anything about any agenda. I believe James is frustrated. We are trying to provide a Forum for discussion, and we get people who feel entitled to disregard rules. We have made mistakes, and we are trying to correct them. I don't know what else to say. This forum is supposed to be an archive, so the information here can be available to the future generations. That is why it is important to have the back and forth, and to discuss a myriad of theories whether they have much merit, or are lacking in substance. People may judge the rightness or incorrectness of a position by what someone wrote here. We think that important enough to try to present something that researchers of the future can use. We want it preserved in more of an historical sense, and all of this makes it difficult. Thanks for your response Kathy. This is what I do not understand about EF. You are prepared to ban posters due to colourful language but you allow all sorts of unsubstantiated claims to be made on here. I assume that some of you are educators. Would you seriously allow any of your students to get away with some of the nonsense that gets spouted on here? Nonsense that I cannot even name and posters that I cannot name for fear that I too will be banned or suspended. As you have recently done again to Mr Parker and Mr Graves. Can I ask what they did this time to merit this? James has acknowledged that Mr Parker has been more courteous and others have been less so to him. What has he done to merit banning this time? You want the EF to be an archive for researchers but you are not providing any sort of peer review role on the issue of quality except where it comes to bad language. Truly Kathy, if you want to preserve something for the use of future researchers then I suggest you focus more on the content and less on the style. EF have a warning points system on here. Why don't you use it to award warning points to those who are making baseless claims that discredit the whole research community? If free speech is your concern then why draw the line at colourful language but not baseless nonsense? In regards to James and my previous banning and suspension I did not raise it again to complain about it. I raised it to demonstrate evidence of bias on here which is what my post was all about. There appears to be a bias against ROKCers and particularly against Mr Parker who cannot say xxxxe on here without getting banned, compared to other members who can maintain the earth is flat without providing any evidence for it at all and are allowed to continue ad nauseum. Where are your priorities? As for Mr Milch's comments about women - how about the one referring to strippers and their tassels. Hardly suitable for a public forum. I've also been in discussions with JG about the comments on Altgens 6 being removed from the Prayer Man thread and put on the Altgens thread. And yet they are still there after more than a week. But Mr Parker's comments disappear without a trace in a matter of minutes. I do not mean to be rude to either you or James, Kathy but really where do want to take EF? Do you want it to be a place for collaborative research that many of us can contribute to or do you want it to be a place where those who may have an agenda to discredit the assassination research community are allowed free reign?