Alistair Briggs

Look at it from a different angle... Let's first assume you are right and that everything Fritz says Oswald said isn't actually what Oswald said! First of all that on a base level makes no sense, after all, the best lies are based on truth, so even if Fritz is making some stuff up then he probably won't be making it all up. Anyway, if Fritz was making it up presumably he would do so for a reason and that reason would be to implicate Oswald in the crime... so why isn't Fritz claiming that Oswald came down from the 6th floor then as that would implicate him totally (and it's not like Oswald could deny he said that)... heck, Fritz could have said that Oswald, in a moment of weakness, and whilst alone with him, admitted he was the shooter (and it's not like Oswald could deny he said that)... also, if Fritz was making it up to implicate Oswald how come he got the story 'mixed up'? At one point he has Oswald saying he was on the first floor and went up to the 2nd floor, at another point he has him coming down to the second floor... As for secondary confirmation... well there is Baker and Truly who back up the 2nd floor encounter, there is also the fact that no one recalls seeing Oswald on the steps at the time of the shots, but how's this for 'secondary confirmation' Oswald himself saying that at the time of the shots he was 'in the building'. Oswald denies he shot the president, but there is an ideal situation for him to say, when asked where he was at the time, that he was outside of the building or that he was on the steps at the time, but no he says he was in the building. Sure, some people say 'in the building' could refer to on the steps and they are not wrong to think that, but, well, let's put it this way... ... if you were pulled in for a crime you were innocent of and, in front of a camera, you were asked where you were at the time, I bet you would make sure you would say where you were and be pretty exact with it. If Oswald was on the steps at the time of the shots, I feel he would have said exactly that. Let me ask you this then... where does the thought that Oswald was on the steps at the time of the shooting come from then? It comes really from two places 1. that Prayer Man looks like it might be him and 2. Oswald said it under interrogation. Wait a minute though, not only did Oswald say no such thing during the interrogation (irrespective of how accurate Fritz's reporting of it was), but if anything Fritz claims that Oswald said is to be discounted because Fritz made it up, then it can't be used to show that Oswald was on the steps at the time of the shooting. (can't use something as evidence that you have discounted as being evidence. lol) So what is left then? Just a (relatively) poor quality image/clip of Prayer Man who looks like it might be him... but wait no one else on the steps says that Oswald was there. So really, let's try and balance this a bit... things that point to Oswald not being on the steps at the time of the shots... no one on the steps (Frazier, Molina, Shelley, Williams, Lovelady, etc etc) admitted to seeing him there, neither did Baker/Truly admit to seeing him there, in fact no one has admitted to seeing him there period, and according to Fritz, Oswald once said he was on the first floor at the time and another time that he was on an upper floor, Oswald unequivocally, on camera, said he was in the building at the time. things that point to Oswald being on the steps at the time of the shots... an image/clip that shows an as yet unidentified man in the shadows of the doorway that, granted, looks like it might be Oswald. Regards P.S. I'm just being your opponent here and not your enemy. P.P.S just about to respond to your next comment (and I'm looking forward to it. lol)

Just as a point of clarification! Fritz doesn't claim that LHO said he was on the steps at the time... Here is two bits of text from Bugliosi's book Four Days In November - (no contentions on my part on the 'veracity' of the actual words spoke)... First is an exchange between Fritz and Oswald from his interrogation on the day of the assasination that started at approx: 3:40pm also, in a later interrogation of Oswald by Fritz (with Holmes present) starting at approx. 11am on the Sunday Whether Oswald actually said it OR it's just Fritz claiming that Oswald said it... either way at no point is it said that Oswald was on the front steps at the time of the shooting. (The only time he mentioned being on the front steps (with Shelley) was as he was leaving - after the 2nd floor encounter with Baker/Truly) Anyroads, Wait, wait, wait, WHAT? Did I read that right, Paul, are you saying that because Frazier believed Oswald when Oswald said it was curtain rods that it was because Frazier wanted to start a homosexual relationship with him? That's a non-sequitur if ever I saw one. lol And wait, wait, wait, WHAT? You find it odd that Frazier would, on meeting Oswald, want to make friends with him! You find it odd that Frazier agrees to give Oswald, who lives nearby, a lift home on a Friday after work and back in on a Monday morning! Even if Frazier was gay (and nothing wrong with that) it doesn't follow that that explains all his behaviour with regard to LHO, unless you are saying that a gay man can't be friends with another male without wanting to be bum buddies start a homosexual relationship with him... (and I really hope you aren't saying that...) Regards P.S. As a slight aside, on the point of the 'package' Oswald had... just as a point of clarification (moreso for anyone else reading), Oswald didn't just randomly turn up at Frazier's unannounced on Friday morning... Here is a relevant part of Frazier's testimony... Anyroads, Frazier may well have been gay, but that really is besides the point. Believing someone when they lie to you, wanting to be friends, and giving them lifts somewhere does not a gay person make - if it did, it would be the death knoll for the entire human race.

I have seen your posts on the teeth and it makes interesting reading. It has to be noted though it is a very limited number of pics that even show here teeth and the quality isn't always the best to make the best comparisons. It has to be also noted that the look of teeth can change over time for different reasons. About the 'nose' (looking more 'bulbous' I do have something on that topic that I will come back to in the P.S..) I think though a good way to look at how different people can look in photos should be tested on photos that you know for sure are the same person. If you can find people who you know are the same person and their teeth or nose look different in different photos then why can't it be the same for Marguriete. Re: living in two places simultaneously... well I think someone else pointed out the 'answer' to that, in fact below it is 'explained'... Just to point something out (although I'm not saying that this is the case) but it is possible for a person to be 'registered' as living in two places at the same time, if for example they are moving and they move into a new place before either selling their last place, or the lease is up... it's also possible that a person could be listed in a phonebook as being at two different locations if their database when updated with the new place doesn't remove the last place (and the last place isn't 'rectified' until the 'new' people get them to update it). Of course don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that any of that proves there wasn't 2 margarites. It's just that a lot of the 'prove' that is offered up to say there was 2 could, and I repeat, and bold, could be explained another way. Regards P.S. regarding the nose... here are two photos, How similar do the noses look?

Sandy, See when I said; The * means it was an 'aside', but more importantly there was the qualifying word 'could' - it 'could' make a difference - not that it 'does' make the difference. Anyway, & A wrinkle on the front doesn't necessarily mean that she is slouching, there could be other reasons, But for point of moving on, let's say she was slouching a bit and I don't disagree that he looks like he is standing quite erect. A wee experiment... Find a mirror hanging on the wall and stand in front of it, pull your chest in, neck up, chin out, and position yourself so that the top of your head is in line with the top of the mirror - then relax your chest, neck down, chin in and you will notice that the top of the head drops down a bit. Try it again, but this time only bend your knees forward ever so slightly (slightly enough that if you were wearing trousers that weren't tight, it wouldn't be noticed) and again the head will drop down a bit. Try it again with your legs together and then separate your legs slightly and the head will go down... ... the point is there could be any number of things that could cause the height seen to be different from their actual height... ... on the point of 'actual height', how accurate is that anyway? If you ask someone how tall they are they will give you a response but how do you know it is correct? I mean that person might have measured themselves once years ago and what they measured then is the height they would tell someone - what if they were wearing shoes at the time, what if they inadvertently stood proud or inadvertently slouch. How accurate is that measurement in the first place... and when they give their height, say, for their passport, is that being measured at the time by someone (if so how accurate do they do it) and if not then the person is just giving what they think their height is. There are so many factors to consider that it becomes somewhat impossible to take a photo of a person and work out their height really - although it's not futile to do it, but the result is always going to be a 'guestimate' with a certain amount of margin error that has to be noted. When comparing the tall man to the woman, then we are starting on the premise that he is 6ft tall, or 5ft 11 and those may or may not be accurate to start with, but if in the photo he is doing something/anything that makes his relative height higher or lower then that will skew the results of measurements. There has to be a margin of error factored in, if that margin of error was as little as only 3% either way - then for someone who is 6ft could appear to be (relatively) anywhere between 5ft 10 and 6ft 2... Anyroads, when It's a very good point. We can 'argue' the variable till the cows come home, but there is probably not going to be settled to everyone's satisfaction. I agree with it on the point that it is quite possible that this is the same Marguerite at least as far as the height issue is concerned. (bolded to point out the important qualification. ) Regards P.S. More to follow

Just caught this before I headed out... Quite close measurements to mine then, to the top of her hair I had 5ft 6 and to bottom of hair 5ft 3, yours is somewhere in the middle. Good stuff.

If he is 5ft11... To the top of her hair - 66.5625 inches To the bottom of her hair - 63.0155 inches In the photo it seems her hair is (for want of a better word) 'permed up' which would make her look taller. In real terms then of her height I would go for the measurement to the bottom of the hair. *There are another couple of things about that photo that could make a difference either way imo. She, as it is her wedding day and she is proud, would have stood quite proud (shoulders down, neck up, chin out) and that could 'relatively' add an extra inch to her height. He, because he is taller, could be doing the opposite (neck down, chin in) and that could 'relatively' lose an inch of his height, also he could have his knees slightly bent which would lose some height off him. Reagards P.S. If somebody showed me that photo blindly and told me the man was 6ft and asked me to say how tall the woman was I would say she looked about 5ft 7 and I would thus be surprised if they then said, no, she is actually 5ft 3. As surprising as that would be to me, from doing the measurements (however crudely) and considering other aspects that may cause a 'height difference' it is no surprise now to say she is 5ft 3. (Hope that makes sense)

No worries, my image representation wasn't meant to be to scale or even accurate, just to illustrate the different options 'relatively'. *Not sure I ever said 'one is 1' from the other. lol But yeah, visually it can be hard to see what kind of gap between people there is depending on the line of sight.

Sandy, The way I look at it is there was one starting point and only two feasible ultimate end points, but that doesn't go on the assumption that he would directly be going to either from the start point because anything could have caused him to change his mind, initially he might have been planning to head to the east side, for either of the reasons you gave, something could have happened to change his mind... I have no issue with that being a possibility. He might have planned to run towards the corner, he might have planned to run towards the dal-tex building, perhaps the reason he was running in the first place was he had to post a letter in the mailbox (lol). There are certainly possibilities. Just about to read your last (second) post - I won't quote it all. 10-4 Yep we will go with that. From what is seen in the clip DSL doesn't cross the blue line, but the path she is on would cross it later. The good thing is we are in agreement (the 5 points) generally on what we are seeing regarding the 3 woman. I can visualise how Baker could avoid all three of the ladies by changing course. Obviously our view is stopped, both by the end of the clip and just before that by Suit Man... my visual interpretation is that there are the following ways Baker could run and not crash in to anyone; a. between running woman and PL b. between PL and DSL c. between DSL and LSL (personally I don't think there is enough room there so would discount it) d. to the 'right' of LSL No matter which one of those is picked Baker would have to, as you have previously mentioned, change his course. Slight bone of contention is that Baker is running. If Baker was walking he could stop quickly and change his course quickly and 'side-step' anyone that was in his way. The faster he is going the harder it would be to stop quickly and change his course and 'side-step' anyone. It's possible of course, after what we see of Baker in the clip, he slows down and then can 'side-step' to his hearts content, but if he does keep running he would have to (imo) at least change his course to be going 'to the right'' of LSL. From where you have placed his last foot, making his next step further from the blue line (ie if moving the blue line further away from the gray line) it would make a much bigger change of course... I wouldn't say an impossible change of course, but... A couple of 'experiments' to do (sadly, I confess I did genuinely try these out before writing this. lol) Experiment 1.If you were to go outside just now to a road where there is a curb (as reference to a straight line), be a few steps away from the curb, draw a line parallel to the curb or use something (plank of wood) that can be placed parallel to the curb, angle yourself towards it similar to what Bakers angle is in the clip, from your standing position move your right foot on that angle on to the line (first step) and then (second step) bring your left foot round so that it lands on the line (parralel to the curb). Experiment 2. Same as Experiment 1 except (second step) bring your left foot round so that it lands further away from the line ... it's possible to do but not a 'comfortable' move to do. That is just from a standing position though. If repeated when running the likeliehood is that it would result in, at best, stumbling all over the place, and, at worst, 'falling over'. *(Please don't try it running as it may end up in broken bones. ) Sandy, I think those experiments rule out 'd. to the 'right' of LSL and I think c. is ruled out as not enough room to move between them. So either a. between running woman and PL or b. between PL and DSL are better avenues to investigate. (although if Baker stopped his run abruptly, then it's anyone's guess. lol) Anyroads, I think we can agree that at some point Baker did enter the TSBD - the question is as to when that happened. The contention seems to be whether it was 30 seconds after the shots or 3 minutes after the shots. As previously mentioned, I am of the opinion that Baker entered the TSBD after 30 seconds, and that is the time he is seen running across the road. Noted, it does look to me that his run will not take him directly to the steps but my feeling is that he will 'course correct' that... from watching the clip, just focusing on Bakers run (and setting aside for the moment his 'final- step' and what may happen after it), it looks to me that as Baker makes his run he is looking down the road, and experience tells me that doing so would mean his run 'drifts' off in the opposite direction (not by much mind you) - a person trying to run in a straight line when looking to their left will drift to the right. Also it looks to me that Baker moves more to the right as he passes Truly. Both of those things lead me to think that Baker has been diverted further to the right than what his original plan was - if so then his original plan would have been to be further left than where he ended up... That's how I read his run (as I said though, that was setting aside his 'final step' and what may happen after it)... to me it looks like his original planned destination was the TSBD door but two things made his path divert further to the right. NB, even if that was his originally planned destination, what you have put forward, Sandy, could still stand. Regards P.S. I'm soon to be heading out to play my ritual Friday night game of football (soccer). Lots of running and swerving and avoiding the other players involved. Later on when I'm back, I have a bit more to add on this subject in a kind of 'looking at it all from a different angle'.

I just tried to do a measurement of their relative heights, and my answer surprised me very much, so rather than say what my result was I will say how I did it and let others see if the way I did it was wrong, and either way what answer they would get on their relative heights. 1. I measured in centimetres the man from the point of his heel on his left foot to the top of his head. 2. I measured in centimetres the woman from the point of her heel on her left foot to the top of her hair (NB her shoes no doubt have a heel on them, so to pick her actual heel, that is to say, just below the ankle, is relatively fair as from that point to the top of her head wouldn't change significantly if the footwear changed) 3. I measured in centimetres the woman from the point of her heel on her left foot to the top of her head (ie at point below where the hair starts) Starting with the premise that the man is 6ft tall; 6ft = 72 inches. Divide the 72 inches by his measured height in centimetres, to get the answer of 1cm is equivalent to ?inches. Take that answer and multiply it by the height in measurement of the woman to get her height in inches. Interested to hear what others work out by doing such a measurement? Regards

Just in furtherance on that photo, and with no contentions on my part, here is the link to the article by Peter Vronsky about that photo. http://www.russianbooks.org/oswald/discrep.htm Regards

The next thing to ponder is if there is anything that could cause a problem with the hypothesised run of Baker (small red line in image in previous post) (blue line in following pic) from the point of his 'last step' onwards. This part may be of interest. For ease of reference I shall call them 'Purse Lady', 'Dark Skirt Lady' & 'Light Skirt Lady'. Focus on those three ladies in Sandy's gif below. 1. PL is standing (with at least one foot) between the grey and blue line and does not seem to move from that point. 2. Running Woman (red line) runs directly in front of PL. 3. DSL's path takes her across the blue line in to a position between the grey and blue line and she turns her head and (possibly) looks at LSL 4. LSL as she is walking towards the blue line turns round just in time to avoid bumping in to DSL. and seems to catch the eye of DSL 5. LSL seems to stop (look at her head before and after Suit Man walks by) Considering that at the point of Baker's last seen movement the theory is that he will land on the blue line and move onwards on the blue line that is 'parralel' (NB:1) to the curb, and considering that Baker is running at the time, does the position of Dark Skirt Lady, Light Skirt Lady and, in particular, Purse Lady not cause a problem? Regards (NB1) The blue line should, perhaps, as Sandy said earlier, be less parralel to the curb and more pointed towards it, like this,

... I'm glad that I got it right. No real big difference in it really. One doesn't need to be a statistician to explain it, simple logic suffices... If one sees a duck flying, it is logical to assume that the duck is on a journey from one place to another, it is also logical to assume that the duck would take the shortest and most direct route. It is logical then to say that the duck wouldn't change course - with the caveat unless it had reason to do so. 'Extrapolating' that to be about Baker... If one sees Baker running, it is logical to assume that Baker is on a journey from one place to another, it is also logical to assume that Baker would take the shortest and most direct route. It is logical then to say that Baker wouldn't change course - with the caveat unless he had reason to do so. Here is a quick something I knocked up to act as a visual to the explanation that follows. The orange dot represents where Baker 'parked' his motorcycle. The blue lines represent the shortest and most direct routes to either of the places that Baker could conceivably be headed. The red line represents Bakers path according to Sandy's gif. If it's logical to assume that there would be no change in course unless there was a reason for it. If Baker planned to run to the Dal-Tex entrance why wouldn't he go in the most straight direction? At the point of leaving his motorcycle there is just the same amount of people 'blocking' him in that direction as there was 'blocking' him in the direction that he can be seen running. In general terms it appears that Baker ends up running past more people in the clip than he would have done had he set off directly to the Dal-Tex. The logical inference then is that Baker's initial intention was to run towards the TSBD entrance, what then would cause his deviation away from there and in the direction towards the Dal-Tex (as per the red line above)? Regards

Oh goodness no, Michael, not at all. Not bad form at all. I for one very much appreciate your input, and i'm sure Bill would agree.

Mike, I am totally with you on the 'Observations can be helpful in finding truths and eliminating non truths', and I agree that one 'can't eliminate a point or possibility that has not been considered'. Couple of things from your post that I would like to make mention of (I have bolded them above)... "LHO said he was on the steps at the time" I have seen that said by people many times. I have also seen it said that at the time of the shots LHO was out front with Shelley. The thing is I have never actually seen where LHO said those things. There are two things I have seen about where LHO was at the time of the shots - each came from a different 'interrogation' of LHO (more details here) 1) "I was having lunch about that time on the first floor," 2) He said that before he could finish what he was doing, all the commotion surrounding the assasination took place, so he said, "I just went on downstairs" to "see what it was all about." The part about 'being out front with Shelley' can be found in the same interrogation, and not long after the 'I was having lunch about that time on the first floor' Although none of that necessarily stops Prayer Man being Oswald it has to be noted that twice when asked where he was at the time of the shots Oswald didn't say he was on the steps at the time; once he said he was on the 1st floor eating lunch and then went up to the 2nd floor, and the second time he said he was on a higher floor and went down to the 2nd floor. And the only time he made mention of being out front with Shelley was at the point he was leaving the building (after the 2nd floor encounter, not before). As I said, that doesn't necessarily preclude Prayer Man being Oswald. As you say it does look like it might be him, and it does look like Prayer Man looks like he is chatting with Frazier. And I am with you on the believe that Frazier was unaware of anyone standing in that position is odd... With the consideration that Oswald didn't actually say he was out front at the time of the steps it might just give another view on things. ... "No one would be able to put a gun in my car, and tell me it was curtain rods, without me knowing better or at least being suspicious." I agree with that, but would add the caveat that it would be only if they turned up 'blind' on the Friday morning with the package. That's not what happened though, and as such, from the point of view of Frazier, he would have no reason to not know better or no reason to be a bit suspicious on the Friday morning, because of what his expectation would be - his expectation on the Friday morning would be that Oswald would have a package with him and that package would contain cutrain roads... Normally Frazier would only give Oswald a lift home (to the Paines) on a Friday after work, and only give him a lift back in to work on a Monday morning. On the Thursday (the day before the assassination) Oswald asked Frazier for a lift home that day, Frazier was actually a bit 'surprised' at such a deviation from the normal routine and actually asked Oswald why, that was when Oswald told him that it was to pick up curtain rods for his apartment. Frazier gave Oswald a lift home (to the Paines on the Thursday after work). On the Friday morning Frazier would expect Oswald to be bringing a package with him and he would expect that package to be 'curtain rods'... Here is a relevant part of Frazier's testimony... Regards

Pat, I too don't see that as being unnatural or suspicious, as you said, perhaps the first floor was out of Dr Pepper or Oswald simply was in the mood for the 'real thing'. I've seen some people make the claim that it was a Dr Pepper Oswald had and they use that as evidence that the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter with Baker/Truly didn't happen because Oswald wouldn't have needed to go up there because Dr Pepper was only available on the first floor. Personally I don't think that, it is my opinion that the 2nd floor incident did happen and that Oswald did indeed have a Coca-cola... Just on this subject, here is two bits of text from Bugliosi's book Four Days In November - no contentions on my part on the 'veracity' of the actual words spoke... First is an exchange between Fritz and Oswald from his interrogation on the day of the assasination that started at approx: 3:40pm also, in a later interrogation of Oswald by Fritz (with Holmes present) starting at approx. 11am on the Sunday Regards

No worries, everything you said above that I understand what you are saying. Always happy to have details. Btw, I don't think that Baker would collide with 'running woman', I think she is far enough ahead for Baker to avoid her. Interesting to hear that you believe you drew the blue line a little too parallel to the gray line - ok - I will factor that in on my viewing - the blue line should be aimed a little more towards the sidewalk, but not a lot. I took a screen shot at the point where most of the lines are off to the right of the clip, and crudely drew in a blue line that was aimed a little more towards the sidewalk.Is something like this what you mean? Or more than that? Or less than that?

Pat, Where I am (Glasgow, Scotland), nowadays most soft drinks come in plastic bottles, ranging in size from 250ml up to 2litres (occassionally more). In days gone buy one of the most popular choice of fizzy drink was a 750ml one that came in a glass bottle (they are still available these days but not to the same extent as before as they have been somewhat superceeded by the plastic bottles). There was a wide choice of drink available in glass bottles, such as lemonade, orangeade, limeade, raspberryade, ginger beer, cola, Irn Bru, Tizer, American Cream Soda... The generic term applying to the glass bottles would be 'ginger'. The following conversation could be typical; "Am awa to the shops, ye want sumting?" "Aye, get us a bottle a ginger" "Whit kind?" "Limeade wid hit the spot" (We are a mad lot us Glaswegians. lol) There is mostly only 3 types of cola available over here, Coca-Cola, Pesi Cola and Barrs Cola and normally they are just referred to as Coke, Pepsi, Cola respectively. We do have Dr Pepper over here, but it's not the most popular of drinks, don't know why, maybe it's because it's so misunderstood. Anyroads, A few years back someone. (I think it was Bugliosi), in an incredibly desperate attempt at slamming the door on Oswald's innocence, claimed Oswald's drinking a coke was proof of his guilt--because Oswald would normally drink Dr. Pepper. Well, this was lame from the get-go. I agree that claiming Oswald drinking a coke was proof of his guilt because Oswald would normally drink Dr Pepper is lame from the get-go. Like you, I think many people drink things interchangably (I know I do - I swap between Coke, Irn Bru, Pepsi and Dr Pepper - mostly depending on which one is on offer at the time). But yeah, even if Oswald in the main preferred Dr Pepper, drinking a coke wouldn't be proof of anything... It's more than possible that Oswald was drinking a Dr Pepper... I wonder if a casual viewer would particularly know the difference between a Dr Pepper bottle and a Coca-Cole bottle really? (I know there has been a couple of threads here that have discussed the difference of the bottle shapes/sizes etc, I don't think I could tell much of a difference while glancing at someone drinking one.) One thing that just sprang to my mind there was that (and I could be wrong on this) but was the vending machine in the second floor lunchroom not a Coca-Cola one, whilst the one on the first floor was a Dr Pepper one? (Not sure if that necessarily means those were the only drinks available in each one or not). Of course if 'coke' is used as a generic term for all types, then its use would include meaning Coca-Cola too. How many of the witnesses would call it Coca-Cola (if it was that) instead of just calling it 'coke'... I don't know. Interesting topic all the same. Regards

Ok, following you so far... and I just put my mouse pointer on the intersection of the red and blue line... With where the mouse pointer is on the intersection of the red and blue line, the blue line extending to the right (as we look at it) denotes the line that Baker will continue to run on? Is that correct? Regards

Ok, let's just say that I can see the shadow beside the runinng woman's left shoe. It looks to me that his right foot is following his shadow, and that when his right foot lands on the ground (which we can't see because of 'Suit Man') it will land pretty much at the point his shadow rises on the curb and because of that it appears to me that Baker looks like, at worst, he is on a collission course with 'red-line' woman, and, at best, will just avoid her on her left hand side. I don't see how his right foot will land on the blue line that is parralel with the grey line... and even if on his last step seen his right foot will land on that blue line, I don't quite understand how his left foot on his next step can also land on the blue path because of his forward momentum. Regards

Bill, To be fair, Sandy is correct with what he says, insulting and labeling people is not a good way to get at the truth. Earlier on Sandy felt he was being insulted and felt that he had been labeled as 'crazy'. I totally see how that could have caused offence to him. Having said that, Sandy did retort in kind and threw back an insult by saying that Michael didn't have the mental capacity to understand complicated matters, and then challenged him to a IQ comparison. In fairness to Sandy, he did delete that comment - one hopes because he realised how crazy it was. *Of course there is no way of knowing exactly what the deleted comment actually said unless someone was canny enough to take a screen shot of it. lol

No contentions on my part here. I just came across this image and thought it may be of some relevance. Regards.

Sandy, I see what you are saying and I understand it mostly. I get what you are saying that when Baker "is first running across the street, he is pretty much running in the direction of his shadow" , and I get that the (red-line) woman is "running to the postal box that is to the right of the TSBD steps". And I reckon you have " placed the grey line correctly". To start with, to me, it does look like Baker is running towards the same thing the red-line woman is running too - (the mailbox) to the right hand side of the steps... What I don't see yet though is Bakers shadow bends when it crosses the gray line What I see is as Bakers shadow moves towards the grey line, I see 'red-line' woman's left shoe rise... From my many viewings of the clip it appears that during Baker's last step his shadow runs almost parralel to the red line, to me it looks like Baker's foot will land on his shadow (alas, that dude in the suit blocks the view)... it appears to me that Baker looks like, at worst, he is on a collission course with 'red-line' woman, and, at best, will just avoid her on her left hand side. On the last step we see Baker making, is his forward foot not his right foot? To me it looks like the right foot. Thus his next step would be forward on to his left foot... I can see how with that and with his forward momentum Baker could avoid the red line woman on her right hand side (which would be consistent with him NOT running to the steps)... If Baker' is 6ft from the curb, and his shadow is rising the edge of the curb, with the momentum of running forward will his next step not take him over the curb? (or at least closer to it?)... I'm just not fully understanding the part of the blue line that runs almost parralel to the grey line (starting from the point where Bakers trailing leg is hidden by the 'tall-guy'). I don't see how that part of the blue line can be Baker's path; if it is indeed his right foot, and on his last step seen his right foot will land on the blue line, I don't quite understand how his left foot on his next step can also land on the blue path because of his forward momentum. *If the end of the blue line was moved up to the grey line (or actually) just above it, I could buy in to that being Baker's path (and that would still have Baker heading NOT to the steps and also avoiding the red line woman to her right hand side. Sandy, honestly, I'm not trying to be argumentative on this point, I am trying to perhaps help you out a bit. (It's just that I see something of a problem with the part of the blue line that runs parallel to the grey line being Baker's path, and I don't feel you have noticed what that problem might be. ) Regards.

Interview (with Truly) story written by Roy Bode a 16 year old student on trip to Dallas, days after Truly & Brennan & a policeman (Baker?) testified to the WC. "The man was standing on the wall of a monument near Elm Street." "He looked toward the building and saw the killer aiming the rifle." "The shots were fired and he ran across the street where a policeman and I were standing" "He yelled to us that the man was on the fourth floor and told us what kind of clothes he was wearing" "I understand he later identified Oswald as the killer at police headquarters." It's certainly an intriguing piece. Personally, I don't see it being the biggest issue; I feel that, in the main, Truly is relating information that he would have learned after the fact, and either Truly has conflated a couple of points, or the interviewer has done so, or the editor has done so... don't get me wrong, I do see what is 'objectionable' about it though. It has been noted. It's certainly an intriguing piece. Regards

Cheers Bart, much appreciated. P.S. I have bookmarked your 'Anatomy of the second floor lunch room encounter' and will get round to reading it.

As Bart says, neither Frazier or Molina saw Baker... From the WC testimony of Molina. Mr. BALL. Did you see Mr. Truly go into the building? Mr. MOLINA. Yes. Mr. BALL. Where were you when you saw him go into the building? Mr. MOLINA. I was right in the entrance. Mr. BALL. Did you see a police officer with him? Mr. MOLINA. I didn't see a police officer. I don't recall seeing a police officer but I did see him go inside. Mr. BALL. Did you see a white-helmeted police officer any time there in the entrance? Mr. MOLINA. Well, of course, there might have been one after they secured the building, you know. Mr. BALL. No, I mean when Truly went in; did you see Truly actually go into the building? Mr. MOLINA. I saw him go in. Mr. BALL. Where were you standing? Mr. MOLINA. Right at the front door; right at the front door. Mr. BALL. Outside the front door? Mr. MOLINA. Yes, outside the front door I was standing; the door was right behind me. Mr. BALL. Were you standing on the steps? Mr. MOLINA. Yes, on the uppermost step. Mr. BALL. You actually saw Truly go Mr. MOLINA. Yeah. Mr. BALL. You were still standing there? Mr. MOLINA. Yes. Mr. BALL. How long was it after you heard the shots? Mr. MOLINA. Oh, I would venture to say maybe 20 or 30 seconds afterwards. From the WC testimony of Frazier. 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. Bart, can you please point me in the direction of Sanders... and can you point me in the direction of 'Truly talked to Brennan'? Thanks