Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions

[David G. Healy]

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions

Question #11

Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend

the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two

semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the

xxxxx listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most

of the 'answers'.

*reposted with authors permission -- author: Ben Holmes...*

But first, an important note:

**********************************************************************

Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk) who's

only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message

threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.

These trolls include (but are not limited to):

**22 trolls who post regularly to alt.conspiracy.jfk** names removed -dgh

Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply

deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or

simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill

files.

source: alt.conspiracy.jfk

**********************************************************************

11. Why did Baker come up with so many different versions of meeting up with

Oswald, and why did the WC dishonestly move Baker's time of arrival back so far,

and the alleged assassin up so much? They did so by false statements, why was

this needed?

eof

[Duke Lane]

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions

Question #11

...

11. Why did Baker come up with so many different versions of meeting up with Oswald, and why did the WC dishonestly move Baker's time of arrival back so far, and the alleged assassin up so much? They did so by false statements, why was this needed?

Without delving into the question about whether statements were fabricated or for what purpose, the larger question is: what did they miss that made timing the lunchroom encounter even vaguely important? It's been staring us in the face for 44+ years, and only once - and then only just very recently - have I ever seen this addressed, even obliquely.