Oswald Leaving TSBD?

[Thomas Graves]

3 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

Thanks again, James. I can see why Patrolman Baker after only briefly speaking to Oswald could not recall if Lee was wearing a shirt or a jacket over the polo shirt underneath.

It's interesting that he's wearing his Marine Corps ring while giving the Communist "salute".

--  Tommy

Edited December 15, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Richard Price]

Don't forget, depending which testimony, stories you believe, LHO changed both his shirt and pants (they were dirty) when he went to his apartment.  The police inventory turned over to the FBI on the 22nd (i believe), includes the clothing matching the description of what he said he had on while at work.  So, the shirt he wore when captures would not resemble what he was wearing while at the TSBD earlier in the day.

[Andrej Stancak]

17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Are you aware that Officer Baker's WC testimony is significantly different from his first-day affidavit?

Officer Baker said in his WC testimony that he encountered Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom:

Mr. BAKER - As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly was ahead of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the rooms, and I caught a glimpse of this man walking away from this--I happened to see him through this window in this door. I don't know how come I saw him, but I had a glimpse of him coming down there.
Mr. DULLES - Where was he coming from, do you know?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir. All I seen of him was a glimpse of him go away from me.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do then?
Mr. BAKER - I ran on over there
Representative BOGGS -You mean where he was?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. There is a door there with a glass, it seemed to me like about a 2 by 2, something like that, and then there is another door which is 6 foot on over there, and there is a hallway over there and a hallway entering into a lunchroom, and when I got to where I could see him he was walking away from me about 20 feet away from me in the lunchroom.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do?
Mr. BAKER - I hollered at him at that time and said, "Come here." He turned and walked right straight back to me.
Mr. BELIN - Where were you at the time you hollered?
Mr. BAKER - I was standing in the hallway between this door and the second door, right at the edge of the second door.
....
Mr. BELIN - All right. Were you carrying anything in either of your hands?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; I was.
Mr. BELIN - What were you carrying?
Mr. BAKER - I had my revolver out.
Mr. BELIN - When did you take your revolver out?
Mr. BAKER - AS I was starting up the stairway.
....
Representative BOGGS -Right. What did you say to him?
Mr. BAKER - I didn't get anything out of him. Mr. Truly had come up to my side here, and I turned to Mr. Truly and I says, "Do you know this man, does he work here?" And he said yes, and I turned immediately and went on out up the stairs.
Mr. BELIN - Then you continued up the stairway?

But for his 11/22/63 affidavit, Baker claimed to have encountered a man -- not matching Oswald's description -- several floors up:

"As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket."

Dear Bill:

I experience a sort of deja vu whilst reading your recent posts. This thread turns around one specific human figure in the doorway which Mr. William Kelly found to bear unusual similarity with Lee Harvey Oswald. The thread was then joined by Sean Murphy who together with other researchers have basically refuted the veracity of Baker-Oswald second floor encounter some 90 s after the last shot. The story is more complicated than one would imagine, and also involves interpretations of Cpt. Fritz (FBI agent Bookhout's) notes, blatant discrepancies in Baker's testimonies, reasons for taking the very late testimony just before closing of Warren Commission's work, the possibility of even seeing Oswald through the window leading into a small vestibule (and another window), and other points. I would suggest that you familiarise with this research which may shake your trust in officer Baker's testimonies. I would do it just out of respect to this previous excellent research.

Reading through many posts further back in this thread may take you quite a lot of time. You can also read two compendiums of this research, one in the book by Mr. Stan Dane: Prayer Man: Out of the darkness and into the light. https://www.amazon.com/Prayer-Man-Shadows-Into-Light/dp/1944205012/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481836301&sr=8-1&keywords=Prayer+Man  ,

and another in Mr. Kemp's essay: Anatomy of second floor encounter. http://www.prayer-man.com/anatomy-of-the-second-floor-lunch-room-encounter/ .

I would be very interested to read your opinions on the second floor encounter then.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2016 by Andrej Stancak

[Bill Miller]

7 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Bill, do you really think that the shirt James has posted in the photo above matches the shirt worn by the doorway man in the right part of the photo you posted?

 

Really?

Ray ... Not sure which photo you are referring to?  If I go back to the last photo showing Oswald on the left and Lovelady on the right, then "No" the shirt being discussed does not match that of the plaid shirt Lovelady wore. I don't even recall ever implying this.

[Bill Miller]

4 hours ago, Richard Price said:

Don't forget, depending which testimony, stories you believe, LHO changed both his shirt and pants (they were dirty) when he went to his apartment.  The police inventory turned over to the FBI on the 22nd (i believe), includes the clothing matching the description of what he said he had on while at work.  So, the shirt he wore when captures would not resemble what he was wearing while at the TSBD earlier in the day.

Good point,- who described the shirt he wore at work?

[Bill Miller]

2 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

and another in Mr. Kemp's essay: Anatomy of second floor encounter. http://www.prayer-man.com/anatomy-of-the-second-floor-lunch-room-encounter/ .

 

Are you referring to Bart "Kamp"?

[Andrej Stancak]

1 hour ago, Bill Miller said:

Are you referring to Bart "Kamp"?

Yes. Sorry, Bart, for misspelling your name.

[Bill Miller]

55 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Yes. Sorry, Bart, for misspelling your name.

I have seen his video. So tell me about some of these blatant discrepancies attributed to Baker.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

14 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

 

Sandy,

Before we go any further - it has been no secret to anyone who has followed my history on Lancer and the Ed Forum that I whole-heartedly believe that there was a conspiracy in JFK's assassination and that Oswald was set up to be the patsy. I have spoken in Dallas on two occasions pertaining to evidence I had discovered that pointed to someone else killing the President. So when you start referring to me as a 'lone-nutter' ... you are demonstrating a certain level of ignorance about my position in this matter and that you speak not from fact, but rather from emotion. I was invited to come and look in on the forum and have said from the beginning that I am not out to convert anyone. You asked me a question pertaining to why I feel that Baker was sincere about running into the TSBD after the shots and eventually running into Oswald in the lunchroom. I added there were three films showing Officer Baker's dash to the TSBD and four witnesses who saw him go up the steps and into the building. That is pretty good evidence in support of what Baker had said concerning his actions immediately after he heard the shots. You responded saying, "I take it then that you believe Baker was honest in his WC testimony? That he actually had that encounter with Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom, as reported in the WCR?" More than once I have detailed through Baker's and others statements that what he said was true. You ignore all that and instead want to hone in on Baker's misjudging Oswald's weight and got the floor number wrong. You offer not evidence that Baker took the time to assess Oswald's weight. He made a guess because he was asked to describe the man he had met in the lunchroom during his very brief encounter. To overlook the time element involved and Baker's state of mind as he was frantically trying to work his way to the roof of the Depository ... he actually did better at guessing Lee's weight than most anyone else could have done from memory. And who really gives a hoot if get got the floor number wrong considering the previous reasons I just gave and knowing he was not familiar with the layout of the building. I must say that your trying to make something out of that is just asinine in light of the fact Baker said the event happened in the lunchroom. As far as I know the TSBD had only one lunchroom and with Truly right there to confirm the encounter and location - Baker could have screwed up and thought for what ever reason it was the 5th floor because all a rational competent investigator needed to do to know which floor it was where the encounter took place would be to inquire as to what floor the lunch-room was on in the building. If Baker wanted to mislead anyone, then he would not have mentioned him meeting the man in the lunchroom and this is why I called your position as weak as a newborn's hand-shake.

You come across as having started with a conclusion and are sifting pepper out of scat in an effort to convince yourself Baker was not reliable. Your response is a perfect example of someone over reaching due to their extreme biases. If you would have read carefully ... you would have seen where Patrolman Baker said he saw someone moving through the little window in the door. Next he enters to confront the man and when asked if it was a brown shirt or a coat the man was wearing - Baker couldn't be certain for in those few rushed moments as he was talking to the person he saw going into the lunchroom  - he was concentrating on the man's face as he spoke to Lee. I think we can agree that Truly darn sure knew what Lee Oswald looked like. If it is your modus-operandi to just go around claiming everyone independently lied because what they said doesn't sit well with you, then that is a personal problem and certainly not one I care to try to fix.

Bill,

I didn't say you are a lone nutter. I said that you were using LN-style excuses. Ones that I would fully expect from the likes of DVP.

You say that there are three films showing baker rush to the TSBD. That is not true. The films show him running across Elm Street Extension. That is not the same as a "dash to the TSBD." Fact is, the films end before Baker even reaches the sidewalk on the north side of the extension. The films show Baker veering to the right, right after passing Very Tall Man, after which he is running nearly eastward. This is proven by the fact that we see his side, not his butt, at the end of the film as compared to the woman who is running northward, whose butt, not side, we see.

There is a great deal of evidence that the second floor Baker/Oswald encounter never occurred. I get the feeling that you were not around as it was being discovered and discussed.

You say that there were four witnesses who saw Baker going inside the TSBD building. Two of these were Shelley and Lovelady, who claimed to have seen Baker run inside right after they left the entrance. I've already shown some holes in Baker's changing testimony. There are holes and changes in their testimonies as well. These are what began the movement to find out what really happened. The WC testimony of these witnesses is under fire.

You make it sound like I am the only one who questions the 2nd floor encounter. Truth is, I am only a spectator of a group of researchers who have been studying this for a long time. I became convinced that they were right by what they dug up. And that was in spite of the fact that I had no qualms about the supposed encounter.  My only contribution (a very late one) was in demonstrating that the films show Baker's initial path was not to the entrance of the TSBD. It had appeared to Robert Prudhomme that Baker was running parallel to the sidewalk, right past the TSBD entrance, and it looked to me like it was possible to prove whether or not Robert was right. So I did that analysis and it turned out that Robert was right.

You say I have extreme biases and that my MO to go around saying everybody lied. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'll use as an example this very thing we are talking about. As I said, I had no qualms with the 2nd floor encounter. I had accepted it and saw no reason to doubt it. I changed my mind after being presented with the counter arguments, many of which I confirmed to be the case. (I wanted to make sure I could trust those presenting the case, as well as their judgements in interpreting testimony.) A person with "extreme biases" wouldn't have spent all that time studying a claim that opposes what he believed. As to your other claim, that my MO is to believe everybody lies, suffice it to say that I initially believed what everybody said, as per the WR, regarding the 2nd floor encountered. So, you see, your accusations are flat out wrong.

Go ahead and believe what you want. I won't spend any more time discussing this with you.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

[deleted duplicate]

Edited December 16, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

[deleted duplicate]

Edited December 16, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Bill Miller]

13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You make it sound like I am the only one who questions the 2nd floor encounter. Truth is, I am only a spectator of a group of researchers who have been studying this for a long time. I became convinced that they were right by what they dug up. And that was in spite of the fact that I had no qualms about the supposed encounter.  My only contribution (a very late one) was in demonstrating that the films show Baker's initial path was not to the entrance of the TSBD. It had appeared to Robert Prudhomme that Baker was running parallel to the sidewalk, right past the TSBD entrance, and it looked to me like it was possible to prove whether or not Robert was right. So I did that analysis and it turned out that Robert was right.

To properly test Robert's theory over the statements of the witnesses who observed the act of Baker's run seen from various angles against these lines merely drawn onto a 2D image from a skewed line of sight without regard to perspective would be to recreate the view that you are relying on against someone walking the path Baker took and comparing the two. I might add that a group of researchers came to the same conclusion that this man was Lovelady in his red plaid shirt (in the inserts) which did not make it so or else the rump of the alleged Lovelady would not be covered and the front of his trousers exposed to the belt-line. That erred observation was accepted by other researchers and was even placed into a video claiming someone had discovered Billy Lovelady walking towards the RR yard.

 

 

As far as Baker running parallel to the sidewalk - if that observation was so, then Baker would not have ever make it to the other side of the street and up the steps as witnesses claimed unless they all had conspired to mislead the public on that point and all before any of them could have known there may be films or photos out there that would prove otherwise. To have that discovered would then lead to why this group of witnesses gave false information to law enforcement and could have brought charges down on them for conspiring to hinder and/or mislead an investigation into the murder of the President. As an Investigator first and foremost - I stand by that rationale and believe that these witnesses were sincere in their observations concerning the white helmet patrolman that they saw run to the TSBD steps and up to the top so to enter the building as Baker said he did.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Bill Miller

[Thomas Graves]

5 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

To properly test Robert's theory over the statements of the witnesses who observed the act of Baker's run seen from various angles against these lines merely drawn onto a 2D image from a skewed line of sight without regard to perspective would be to recreate the view that you are relying on against someone walking the path Baker took and comparing the two. I might add that a group of researchers came to the same conclusion that this man was Lovelady in his red plaid shirt (in the inserts) which did not make it so or else the rump of the alleged Lovelady would not be covered and the front of his trousers exposed to the belt-line. That erred observation was accepted by other researchers and was even placed into a video claiming someone had discovered Billy Lovelady walking towards the RR yard.

 

 

As far as Baker running parallel to the sidewalk - if that observation was so, then Baker would not have ever make it to the other side of the street and up the steps as witnesses claimed unless they all had conspired to mislead the public on that point and all before any of them could have known there may be films or photos out there that would prove otherwise. To have that discovered would then lead to why this group of witnesses gave false information to law enforcement and could have brought charges down on them for conspiring to hinder and/or mislead an investigation into the murder of the President. As an Investigator first and foremost - I stand by that rationale and believe that these witnesses were sincere in their observations concerning the white helmet patrolman that they saw run to the TSBD steps and up to the top so to enter the building as Baker said he did.

Dear Bill,

Would you please rephrase that bit so that I might understand it?

Thanks.

-- Tommy

 

PS  I'm kind dumb and I don't read real good.  Nor write, come to think about it, neither. 

Edited December 16, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Bill Miller]

1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dear Bill,

Would you please rephrase that bit so that I might understand it?

Thanks.

-- Tommy

 

Sorry about any confusion. I will try to explain it another way ......

Lovelady's plaid shirt was a uniform length all the way around his body. That while the fuzzy man in the photo had short hair and may be balding ... he certainly wasn't the only one in the plaza that would fit that description. That was obviously ignored when it appears to me that the man in question has the front of his pants outlined against the sweater/jacket he is wearing. That sweater/jacket in the rear drops down far lower than Lovelady's shirt would go.

Then there was the statements of both Lovelady and Shelly that they left the steps and immediately walked over to a location on the divider/island near the street light pole and stood there before moving down towards the RR Yard fence. Several people accepted that was Lovelady after it was suggested to them. Normally people will make mention someone's appearance that would tell others why they don't think it would be  anyone else ... in this case Lovelady. 

Edited December 16, 2016 by Bill Miller

[Thomas Graves]

17 minutes ago, Bill Miller said:

 

Sorry about any confusion. I will try to explain it another way ......

Lovelady's plaid shirt was a uniform length all the way around his body. That while the fuzzy man in the photo had short hair and may be balding ... he certainly wasn't the only one in the plaza that would fit that description. That was obviously ignored when it appears to me that the man in question has the front of his pants outlined against the sweater/jacket he is wearing. That sweater/jacket in the rear drops down far lower than Lovelady's shirt would go.

Then there was the statements of both Lovelady and Shelly that they left the steps and immediately walked over to a location on the divider/island near the street light pole and stood there before moving down towards the RR Yard fence. Several people accepted that was Lovelady after it was suggested to them. Normally people will make mention someone's appearance that would tell others why they don't think it would be  anyone else ... in this case Lovelady. 

 

Okay, Bill.  

Then you and I disagree.  The plaid shirt Lovelady was photographed wearing years after the assassination was probably a close approximation of, but not the same one as, the one he was wearing on 11/22/63.  I'm convinced that that's Lovelady and Shelley walking / running down (and in Shelly's case - across) Elm Street Extension in Couch. Haven't you ever wondered why neither of them are visible on the steps in Couch / Darnell?  You know, with all that excitement going on around them and down on the Grassy Knoll area?  Or do you think they ducked inside the TSBD to get a Cokie-Cola or a (gasp) Dr. Pepper?

Thanks for the explication.

-- Tommy

 

Edited December 16, 2016 by Thomas Graves