Sandy Larsen

DVP, Here is a GIF that shows that Baker's shadow rising up the curb occurs, not during his final step that is parallel with the curb, but rather at the end of the step prior to that. Note that my blue line at that point in time does indicate that Baker is still approaching the sidewalk/curb. In the very first frame of this clip, you can see Baker's head just above very Tall Man's left shoulder. This is just before Baker's right foot lands on the pavement with his body still moving forward, at an angle relative to the curb. It is his very next step that is pretty much parallel to the curb. Click to enlarge!

Chris, Let me explain why I believe Baker was never very close to the man you identify as Truly. First look and the clip here. Accept for the moment that the blue line does indeed represent the path of Baker's footsteps. It is clear that Truly is several feet away from the line. In fact, we can see his shadow rising up the curb and onto the sidewalk. Whereas when Baker was nearest Truly, his shadow was several feet from hitting the sidewalk. So not only was Truly farther to the west (away from the blue line) than Baker, he was also much closer to the sidewalk than Baker was. Click to enlarge! My remaining task now is to convince you that the blue line does indeed represent the path of Baker's feet. Well, I'm in luck here. Because it turns out that, at the point in time when Baker was nearest Truly, Baker's toe touching the ground can be seen. In my original post I identified it in this still: I know it's hard to see that that is Bakers foot (and toe) in the still. But single step through the animated GIF yourself and you will be convinced it is. My blue line in the animated GIF lands right on top of that point, where Baker's toe is touching the ground. Therefore, I conclude, Baker was never close to Truly in his mad dash. There's another reason I believe Baker was never close to Truly. And that is because my blue-line of Baker's path shows that he was following the crosswalk... at least the way the crosswalk is painted today. (I believe he was a couple feet outside the crosswalk, but following its direction. Unless the crosswalk was wider back in his day.) And yet, judging by the direction of Truly's shadow, he appears to be standing straight out from the west half (west wall, actually) of the TSBD entrance. (The people's shadows coincidentally point in lines roughly perpendicular to the sidewalk and face of the building.) The two were never near each other.

Another thing I want to reiterate is the fact that, at the end of the clip, we see the butts and backs-of-heads of those facing or running toward the sidewalk. But not so with Baker. Instead we actually see his face! The right side of his face. And we see the side of his body, not his back side. Don't look at the people far from Baker, but close to him. (For a fair and accurate comparison.) The young woman whose footsteps I trace with a red line. (You can see her on the very right when the camera pans to the right.) Also the woman in all black following behind her. They are headed for the sidewalk. And we see their butts and backs-of-heads. Also the very tall man, who at this time is facing both Baker and the sidewalk... we see the back of his head and his butt. Yet with Baker we see the only the right side of his face and the right side of his body. With this in mind, I just don't understand how anybody can believe Baker is running anywhere close to toward-the-sidewalk at this point of the clip. Click to enlarge!

I want to reiterate a point here. To anybody who still thinks Baker was initially headed toward the TSBD entrance. Please look at the clip below. The blue line that I drew crosses through the points where Baker's feet touch the ground. Follow the video through to the end and see where the blue line is headed. It is headed to the RIGHT of the TSBD entrance. I challenge anybody to show us a path, on the ground, connecting Baker's footsteps, that points in the direction of any part of the TSBD entrance. I don't think it can be done, which is why I don't believe Baker's destination was ever the TSBD entrance. I realize that you will have to estimate the landing of some footsteps that are hidden behind other people. But no matter where you estimate, if your path leads to the TSBD entrance, I am confident I can prove your estimates are wrong. BTW, the blue line in this video is BEFORE Baker began turning to his right. Click to enlarge! Truth is, Baker was following the crosswalk, as shown here. He was on the far left side of the crosswalk, to be sure, and I think a little outside the crosswalk. But his direction was almost exactly that of the crosswalk. Which ends up on the right side of the TSBD entrance.

This version of Ray's video works a lot better for me. But are the frames supposed to be large at first and than pop down to a smaller size for the bulk of the video? If not, then I guess I have a codec problem on my PC.

I don't know what you're trying to post here, Ray, but it's not working for me. Not well, anyway.

Chris, I don't think anybody can draw any further conclusions from this GIF because it runs too fast. Plus it could be bigger, though that isn't a problem for me because I can increase the size with my browser. Also, why not do what I did and draw a lines attaching each footstep that can be made out? I think you will see that Baker isn't as close to Truly as you believe him to be. But if you're right, I'd like to see it. I want to look at the file carefully with my GIF single-step player. Unfortunately I can't figure out how to save the file to my PC. I just keep being taken to PhotoBucket.

Why don't you post a link to it here, Paul?

That's right, Paul. I was just looking for Baker's 11/22 affidavit, and came across a Jim DiEugenio post that presents it perfectly IMO. Here it is:

David, I'm glad you ask about Baker's shadow hitting the face of the curb and rising to the top. The reason I'm glad is because I have now put more thought into it and realize I had made an erroneous conclusion earlier. My line of thought before was as follows: You're walking toward a vertical curb. The tip of your shadow precisely follows that movement. The tip of your shadow touches the base of the curb. You move just a tiny faction of an inch closer and the tip of your shadow is then on the top of the the curb. You see, I was thinking that if you had a birds-eye view of your shadow, you would see it move seamlessly and continuously from street level to sidewalk level as you walked toward the sidewalk. Having studied it carefully, I now realize that what I said would be true only if the face of the curb had the same angle as the angle of the sun. The shadow will "gap up" quickly only if the sun is high. Here is the formula indicating how far up a shadow will move on a vertical surface as an object moves horizontally toward it: y = x tan(Θ) where: x is the horizontal distance the person moves toward the curb. y is how far up the curb the shadow will move as a result. Θ is the angle of the sun, with zero degrees being horizon level and 90 degrees being straight overhead. (I derived this formula using simple geometry and trigonometry. You can easily double-check my work if you want.) On the video we can see Bakers shadow rise to the top of the curb. Let's assume the curb is 7 inches in height. Let's further assume that the angle of the sun is 45 degrees. (At 45 degrees, the length of the shadow is equal to the height of the object.) Plugging these into the formula, we have 7 = x tan(45) The tangent of 45 degrees is one, so solving for x we get 7 inches. So we know that Baker moved (roughly) 7 inches closer to the curb. But when did this occur? I just looked at the animated GIF with a single-step viewer and found that Baker moved this 7 inches within two frames right after his right foot hit the pavement. (This is where we see his toe poking out from behind the very tall man.) None of this 7 inch travel occurs during Baker's final step. So this shadow issue has no effect on my analysis. It just means that Baker was still rounding the corner as per my blue line in the animated GIF. It's actually a pretty good confirmation of my blue line, because if you look at it carefully you will see that it continues to curve right up to Baker's final step. Having said all that... Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Baker's shadow stopped right where we last see it... barely at the top of the curb. It's possible that it went a little higher up onto the sidewalk after the end of the video clip. It's also possible that it dropped a little. But what we do know is that the shadow position didn't change much during Baker's final step.. We know this because: We can pretty closely approximate where Baker's left foot is about to land in the end, and doing so indicates that he is at that point running close to parallel with the curb. We can compare the direction Baker is running with the direction the two nearby ladies are running. The two ladies are running toward the sidewalk, and we see their behinds. We don't see Baker's behind at all... we see a side view of him. His path is perpendicular to the paths of the ladies running to the sidewalk. And therefore his path is close to parallel with the curb. And if that were enough, we can observe the Very Tall Man as Baker races past him. Very Tall Man is clearly maintaining his position such that he continues to face Baker as he passes by. Maybe because he's curious as to where Baker is going. Or maybe because he's making sure Baker doesn't run into him. Regardless, we see him looking in the direction of the sidewalk as Baker takes that last step. We know that because -- just as with the ladies -- we see his behind at that very moment. We see everybody's butt with the exception of Baker's... because Baker is the only one not facing the direction of the sidewalk. He is facing the Houston/Elm intersection.

The difference being, of course, that if Mr. Myers has drawn a line onto a photo or diagram, he has already done the photogrammetry work to verify that the angles are accurate. Do you think Sandy did that kind of work prior to drawing in all his lines? Let's ask --- Did you, Sandy? There are no such angles involved in the path lines that I drew, David. I merely connected points at which Baker's toes can be seen to touch the ground. What I did is not affected by perspective or focal length.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22511&page=16 Starts about post #228 if interested. Post #254 also. The rest is up to you. chris Thanks Chris. Your link is when we first discussed this. Back then I didn't know many of the fundamentals, like the layout of Dealey Plaza, from where Baker was running, etc. At the time I saw only a closeup of Baker making his last steps. To me (and others) it looked like he was running parallel to the curb in front of the TSBD. You showed me that Baker was actually running perpendicular to the curb! It was in my subsequent study of the clip that I realized Baker changed course, from perpendicular to parallel. I found that I could prove it, and I promised that I would. And finally now, I found the time to do so. I know now that some people have trouble seeing what I (and others) can see. I don't know how to make them see what looks obvious to me. I suppose I could do what Tom Neal suggested, and do a mapping so that the footsteps could be viewed from an overhead position. But I suspect if I did that, many or most of these same people would merely question my mapping. So I am not inclined to do that.

Michael Walton: I tend to agree with your commentary, but skipping all the "optical" details, the main point I would like to make is this--we must look at this crime from the standpoint of "what was planned" versus "what actually happened" as a consequence of mistakes made in its execution. If JFK's murder was carefully pre-planned (and I think it was); and if that plan involved Oswald-as-scapegoat (and I think it did), then what can be called--for want of a better term--the "fatal intersection" between Oswald and Kennedy was integral to the original design of the plot. In other words, it cannot possibly be viewed as coincidence that a returned defector--one of a half doze such persons in a nation of almost 200 million--ended up being employed on the President's parade route. If so, then it was planned in advance to create the (false) appearance that President Kennedy was shot by an assassin who was located in the Texas School Book Depository. To that end, a so-called "sniper's nest" was set up, and the "assassin's rifle" was placed nearby. (Exactly how that was arranged is besides the point, for the purposes of this post). If this--in principle, anyway--was the was this scheme was supposed to work, then I see no reason--none at all--to have a police officer run into the wrong building. That's what the Dal-Tex building would appear to be--an incorrect destination if (and I stress "if") --what I have just described was the original design of this scheme. To have the officer heading into the wrong building would have been a whopper of an error. For these reasons, I am reluctant to enter into, and then attempt to descend, into this "rabbit hole", which I believe to be (a) incorrect and (b ) (largely) irrelevant. The DPD radio transmissions--as well as the behavior of Baker--makes eminently clear that the TSBD was the pre-planned location of the pre-selected scapegoat. (See Ch. 14 of B.E.) Personally, I think Officer Marion Baker was a bit of a dope, but that is besides the point. From his earliest statements (11/22 and 11/23) there was never any question as to his destination--based on what he himself said. What changed--over the first 24 hours--was his "probable cause" for running into that building. (First, he "decided" that the shots came from there; later, it was "pigeons flying". etc. Also: don't forget what Baker himself said--according to Truly's testimony--after the lunchroom encounter, and as the two of them ascended the stairs to the roof. This is in the testimony of Roy Truly: "We must be careful. This man can blow your head off." (From memory). I'm sorry, but IMHO, I don't believe that the Dal-Tex building played any role whatsoever in terms of the frame-up of Oswald. DSL David, Thank you for your analysis. I agree with much of what you say, that the TSBD and Oswald were pre-selected parts of the assassination plot. But I strongly believe that the analysis of Baker's path I present here conclusively shows that the intended destination of his "mad dash" was not the inside of the TSBD. (Not to say that he didn't subsequently enter the TSBD.) His part in the cover up story was therefore a later add-on. BTW, I never meant to say or imply that the Dal-Tex building was Baker's destination. I posed that only as an off-the-cuff question.

Your silly blue line is worthless and meaningless. You can't start drawing lines on photos or films and expect to extract perfect three-dimensional information, which is something Dale Myers has been trying to drill into the heads of you know-it-all conspiracy hobbyists for years: "Photogrammetry describes how three-dimensional spatial relationships can be extracted from two-dimensional photographs or images. Without taking into account these relationships, accurate interpretations of two-dimensional images are impossible. In short, you cannot simply draw or overlay lines on a two-dimensional image and extract three-dimensional information." -- Dale K. Myers David, First, I want to apologize for my earlier knee-jerk response (where I said, "You are respectfully blind.") Your constant disagreeing with me got the better of me. I actually value a lot of your posts because I want to be made aware when there is a problem with a CTer's POV, including when it it my own. You are right, of course. Photo analysis is something the needs to be approached very carefully and is something best left to experts. However that doesn't mean that simple analyses cannot be made by people who aren't experts but who do understand the tricks that can be played by perspective, focal length, etc. In my analysis I chose to focus on where the feet of Baker (and the young woman) touch the ground. There is nothing ambiguous or that can be misinterpreted about these points. I then connected these points with a smooth line. Had Baker been walking, the straight-line may not have perfectly represent his path. But he was running fast and momentum would have prevented him from varying directions appreciably from my smooth line. Estimated locations of his foot-landings behind others are in support of my smooth line. Only the very last footstep is up to any kind of interpretation. But 1) knowing the location of this step is not necessary in showing that Baker was not headed for the TSBD entrance, and 2) I'm confident the any impartial interpretation of the final step would indicate that Baker's direction at that point would be roughly parallel to the curb. That Baker was running roughly parallel with the curb is verified by the fact that we see him from his side (and not his BACK side), whereas we see the BACK side of the nearby woman who is undoubtedly running toward the sidewalk. (And there is second nearby woman walking to the sidewalk whose back side we see.) This is the clincher to the argument if you ask me. As for Baker's distance from the curb/sidewalk at that point, it is easy to see in this clip where Baker's shadow hits the face of the curb and quickly rises to the top of the curb. (Remember, the gray line I drew represents the base of the curb.) When that happens, we know that Baker is a distance from the curb that is equal to the length of his shadow. I haven't done a careful measurement, but on my monitor, with its aspect ratio, I can see that that the lengths of people's shadows are roughly the same as their heights. And so I conclude that Baker is roughly six feet away from the curb/sidewalk at the end of the clip.

Well, first off, there is no "first-day" affidavit by Depository Superintendent Roy S. Truly. He didn't fill out his affidavit until the next day (November 23). So does that mean I should think it is not an accurate statement by Mr. Truly? Is that it, Sandy? It's certainly true that Officer Baker doesn't mention the "lunchroom" or "second floor" or "pulling a gun on Oswald" in his 11/22/63 affidavit, but if we compare the two affidavits — BAKER'S and TRULY'S — the reasonable conclusion to reach, despite Baker's error about the event occurring on either the "third or fourth floor", is that Baker and Truly are describing the exact same encounter. LOL, yeah, sure. The exact same encounters that were completely different. It's funny how Baker, a trained cop, couldn't get a single thing right. Oh wait... he did say the encounter was with a guy. Check! Close enough for government work. Another reason we can pretty much KNOW that Baker and Truly are describing the exact same encounter with Oswald in their respective Nov. '63 affidavits is because each man described just ONE single encounter with ONE single man during their trek through the building on 11/22/63. And if you want to believe that Baker really DID encounter a person on the "third or fourth floor" of the TSBD, then what possible reason would there be for anybody (including Roy S. Truly) to want to lie and change the location of the encounter to the SECOND floor, which is two additional floors further away from the sixth floor where the crime was committed? Does that make a lick of sense? It sure doesn't to me. There are numerous problems with this alleged encounter. Too many to discuss here, and already been discussed to death.

I respectfully disagree. I see Baker taking a long stride in that last step, in order to step up onto the sidewalk. Looks to me like Baker is striding directly toward the sidewalk and the Depository (running directly into the shadow his body is casting). You are respectfully blind. Not only is Baker six feet from the sidewalk, he is taking a big step parallel to its edge... thus maintaining his six-foot distance from it. Follow my blue line. Tom Neal, maybe you're mapping to an overhead view is necessary after all.

You must be joking. I didn't just say "You're wrong" without saying anything else. Go to my Post #22. .... "Where on Earth did you get the "20 to 25 seconds" timing? Nobody that I know of has ever claimed that the second-floor TSBD encounter between Marrion Baker and Lee Harvey Oswald occurred as early as "20 to 25 seconds" after the assassination. It is generally accepted by almost everybody (even most conspiracy believers) that the encounter in the lunchroom took place approximately 90 seconds after the shooting, just as Officer Baker estimated in his CBS-TV interview in 1964." -- DVP You ASKED me where I got the 20-25 sec figure... Bob EXPLAINED to me where I got it. But the main difference is that Bob has my best interests at heart. He wanted to save me some embarrassment. But I don't blame you for your reaction (for example, making sure my error lives on forever) because I know there are plenty of CTers out to embarrass you at the drop of a hat.

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

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

Mike, First, I am not saying that Baker's intention was originally to go to the Dal-Tex building, and that he changed his mind and went to the TSBD after all. Although it is possible he did that, that is not what my post is about. My post is also not stating that Baker went to the Dal-Tex building. Though it does mention that possibility. What my post is about is that Baker's initial intention wasn't to enter the TSBD. And this is contrary to the official story. What is the significance of this? The short answer is this: The official story is that Baker entered the TSBD very quickly and found Oswald in the second-story lunchroom. If it turns out this is not true, this means that the story was manufactured as part of the cover-up. And if it was manufactured, there must be a good reason for it being manufactured. If a researcher discovers the reason for it being manufactured, then a part of the cover-up puzzle will be solved. I happen to believe that the lunchroom encounter between between Oswald and Baker never happened. I believe that the encounter was manufactured in order to place Oswald away from the front entrance during the shooting. I don't know if I'm right, but if I am then it would be useful to prove that the second-floor Oswald/Baker encounter never occurred. My understanding is that the timing for Baker to arrive at the TSBD and find Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom is tight. (Anybody... correct me if I am wrong. Or right.) If I am right about that, then clearly a delay in Baker's arrival in the TSBD could spell trouble for the official story. That is a weak spot I am trying to exploit.

LOL. Bob didn't clarify a thing, Sandy. I did. No you didn't. You just said I was flat wrong. Bob pointed out that the 20 to 25 seconds was Baker's estimate to get to the front door. It was Bob's effort that I learned from. But it would seem as if I'm on Sandy's Ignore list now. So Bob gets credit for the "clarification" instead of that crackpot disinfo specialist named DVP. I never put anybody on my ignore list. So you shouldn't be there. I can see your posts so I assume everything is okay. Oh, well. Such is life.

It's amazing what a fertile imagination can do when a conspiracy theorist gets ahold of a GIF clip. Remarkable. BTW, here's another of Marrion Baker's statements that Sandy Larsen is now forced to completely toss into the nearest gutter or trash can: "I, Marrion L Baker, being duly sworn say: 1. I am an officer in the Dallas Police Department. 2. On November 22, 1963, upon hearing shots I rode my motorcycle 180 to 200 feet, parked the motorcycle, and ran 45 feet to the Texas School Book Depository Building. 3. On March 20, 1964, counsel from the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy timed a re-enactment of my actions after hearing the shots on November 22, 1963. During this re-enactment, I reached the recessed door of the Texas School Book Depository Building fifteen seconds after the time of the simulated shot." -- Marrion L. Baker; August 11, 1964 David, In officer Baker's early statements he gives no account whatsoever of pulling a gun on Oswald, or even seeing him in the second floor lunchroom. There are many other problems with this alleged lunchroom encounter. I don't believe it ever took place. Baker's actions in the Darnell clip support what I believe. So I reported those actions here. I follow the evidence wherever it leads me. Sometime I even reverse my position. Unlike with you, I am not stuck on an inflexible, dogmatic ideology.

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

There were people standing in the street. To reach the Dal-Tex by motorcycle, he would have had to force his way through the onlookers. The concrete island is the first place he could have contacted the curb without going through onlookers. The same logic could be applied to the TSBD. Why did he go all the way to the concrete island, if he intended to ascend the steps of the TSBD, instead of just parking at the steps? Good counter-point.