Oswald Leaving TSBD?

[William Kelly]

Okay Tommy, I got it, the second floor lunchroom encounter doesn't exonerate Oswald as all of the serious analysis conclude, and it could have been fabricated by some really stupid bad guys.

I'm working on something else that's very important at the moment, but I also think its important to look at this from every conceivable angle, and Sean and you and Robert and Richard and others have given me some new perspectives, but I'm trying to figure out how it really happened, and it only happened one way, and if something is fabricated, it didn't happen that way.

I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just not convinced that however much of a bad guy he was, Roy Truly didn't make up the encounter with Oswald, and neither did Baker or Reid, and if you want to move it from the second floor to the front door to satisfy a theory, go ahead and move it, that doesn't change my goals of identifying new evidence, documents and witnesses and putting in the last few missing pieces to the Dealey Plaza puzzle.

I consider what you and Sean and the others have to say about all this worthwhile and I take the time to read it and respond to it because I do, otherwise I wouldn't waste my time.

Now I am more frustrated by not being able to find a photo of the pay phone(s) or a diagram of the first floor of the TSBD that shows where it or they are located.

Was there one or more pay phones on the first floor?

Oswald knew where they were because he directed some reporters to them and Shelly said he last saw Oswald standing near the phone(s) as if he was waiting for a call.

Where were they and why isn't there any photos of them?

Bill,

Given the fact that the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter doesn't necessarily exonerate Oswald, it could have been fabricated by some pretty smart bad guys....

Tommy, I thought you weren't going to argue about this anymore?

So the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter doesn't necessarily exonerate Oswald and could have been fabricated by some pretty SMART bad guys who want you to believe that Oswald - in the ninety seconds after he shot and killed the President, rearranged the boxes in the Sniper's Nest, ran across fifty yards of the sixth floor, hid the rifle among the boxes, ran down four flights (300 feet) of steps so quickly and quietly that Doughery on the fifth floor landing didn't see him, the girls running down the steps from the fourth floor didn't see him, their supervisor on the fourth floor landing didn't see him, and hearing Truly and Baker coming up the steps from the first floor he quickly ducked into the Second Floor lunchroom and hid behind the door without Truly seeing him but Baker does - and checks him out and finds him cool, calm and not out of breath or hyper, and after being cleared by Truly, he proceeds to buy a Coke since he is in the lunchroom anyway.

And this is a story that the Smart Guys have devised but need to get four people to lie about and is fabricated in order to hide the fact that Oswald was standing at the front door all this time? Even though if Oswald was on the front steps he could have still had the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter?

Our perspective of what really happen should change as we gather more information, and I learn something new about the assassination every day, but its really hard to get by the fact that if Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed lunchroom door 90 seconds after the last shot, which logic and reason dictate that he entered the lunchroom through the office door, the one he left by, and his purpose for being there was to buy a Coke, and not to flee a murder scene after just killing someone.

Since we know the official version of events is wrong, I know its fun to speculate on whose lying and what was made up, and we know the names of the Smart Bad Guys who wrote the Second Floor Lunchroom narrative for the Warren Report - Alfred Goldberg - and probably assisted by his mentor Adolph Winnaker, both seasoned Pentagon Historians, but from where I sit - they too were changing their story on the fly as they obtained new information, right up to the day they released the Warren Report.

Edited October 10, 2013 by William Kelly

[Sean Murphy]

....

Now I am more frustrated by not being able to find a photo of the pay phone(s) or a diagram of the first floor of the TSBD that shows where it or they are located.

Was there one or more pay phones on the first floor?

Oswald knew where they were because he directed some reporters to them and Shelly said he last saw Oswald standing near the phone(s) as if he was waiting for a call.

Where were they and why isn't there any photos of them?

Bill,

In case you have not seen this,

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10755&relPageId=4

there is a section in the 1/29/64 investigation report by SA Roger Warner that mentions his interview with James Powell (Army Intelligence). Powell told Warner he entered the TSBD and observed Pierce Allman using a phone in the lobby of the building and that it was near a desk.

FWIW, I have seen two photos of the lobby and neither shows a phone, at least that I can detect. Perhaps there is an area of the lobby that is not visible in either photo.

I have to believe that Powell knew what the lobby was, and was not confusing it with the phone near the column in the middle of the first floor.

Richard,

Warner's gloss on what Powell said is in error, as is made clear from the first-person statement that Powell himself gave:

Edited October 10, 2013 by Sean Murphy

[Richard Hocking]

....

Now I am more frustrated by not being able to find a photo of the pay phone(s) or a diagram of the first floor of the TSBD that shows where it or they are located.

Was there one or more pay phones on the first floor?

Oswald knew where they were because he directed some reporters to them and Shelly said he last saw Oswald standing near the phone(s) as if he was waiting for a call.

Where were they and why isn't there any photos of them?

Bill,

In case you have not seen this,

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10755&relPageId=4

there is a section in the 1/29/64 investigation report by SA Roger Warner that mentions his interview with James Powell (Army Intelligence). Powell told Warner he entered the TSBD and observed Pierce Allman using a phone in the lobby of the building and that it was near a desk.

FWIW, I have seen two photos of the lobby and neither shows a phone, at least that I can detect. Perhaps there is an area of the lobby that is not visible in either photo.

I have to believe that Powell knew what the lobby was, and was not confusing it with the phone near the column in the middle of the first floor.

Richard,

Warner's gloss on what Powell said is in error, as is made clear from the first-person statement that Powell himself gave:

So Powell was mis-quoted by Warner.

Thanks for the correction Sean.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I'm having difficulty with the 2nd floor lunch room encounter. Baker's testimony, and Belin's questioning, seem to leave a very important (to me, anyways) detail without clarification.

We know, with a fair amount of certainty, that the door opening into the vestibule from the 2nd floor stair landing was closed when Baker caught a glimpse of Oswald through the window in that door. Baker then ran to this vestibule door, opened it and saw Oswald through the lunch room doorway approximately twenty feet into the lunch room.

My question is: Did the lunch room door also have a window in it, and was that door closed when Baker saw Oswald twenty feet into the lunch room?

Baker's testimony would almost suggest a closed lunch room door:

"Mr. BAKER - He had already started around the bend to come to the next elevation going up, I was coming out this one on the second floor, and I don't know, I was kind of sweeping this area as I come up, I was looking from right to left and as I got to this door here I caught a glimpse of this man, just, you know, a sudden glimpse, that is all it was now, and it looked to me like he was going away from me.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Then what did you do?
Mr. BAKER - I ran on up here and opened this door and when I got this door opened I could see him walking on down.
Mr. DULLES - Had he meanwhile gone on through the door ahead of you?
Mr. BAKER - I can't say whether he had gone on through that door or not. All I did was catch a glance at him, and evidently he was--this door might have been, you know, closing and almost shut at that time.

Mr. BELIN - You are pointing by "this door" to the door on Exhibit 498?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir."

[Sean Murphy]

I'm having difficulty with the 2nd floor lunch room encounter. Baker's testimony, and Belin's questioning, seem to leave a very important (to me, anyways) detail without clarification.

We know, with a fair amount of certainty, that the door opening into the vestibule from the 2nd floor stair landing was closed when Baker caught a glimpse of Oswald through the window in that door. Baker then ran to this vestibule door, opened it and saw Oswald through the lunch room doorway approximately twenty feet into the lunch room.

My question is: Did the lunch room door also have a window in it, and was that door closed when Baker saw Oswald twenty feet into the lunch room?

Baker's testimony would almost suggest a closed lunch room door:

"Mr. BAKER - He had already started around the bend to come to the next elevation going up, I was coming out this one on the second floor, and I don't know, I was kind of sweeping this area as I come up, I was looking from right to left and as I got to this door here I caught a glimpse of this man, just, you know, a sudden glimpse, that is all it was now, and it looked to me like he was going away from me.

Mr. BELIN - All right. Then what did you do?

Mr. BAKER - I ran on up here and opened this door and when I got this door opened I could see him walking on down.

Mr. DULLES - Had he meanwhile gone on through the door ahead of you?

Mr. BAKER - I can't say whether he had gone on through that door or not. All I did was catch a glance at him, and evidently he was--this door might have been, you know, closing and almost shut at that time.

Mr. BELIN - You are pointing by "this door" to the door on Exhibit 498?

Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir."

Robert,

I think Baker simply misunderstands Dulles's question ("Had he meanwhile gone on through the door ahead of you?") and speaks to the wrong door.

Belin, realising Baker's error, eliminates the ambiguity by relating Baker's answer to Exhibit 498, which shows the landing door rather than the lunchroom door.

[William Kelly]

....

Now I am more frustrated by not being able to find a photo of the pay phone(s) or a diagram of the first floor of the TSBD that shows where it or they are located.

Was there one or more pay phones on the first floor?

Oswald knew where they were because he directed some reporters to them and Shelly said he last saw Oswald standing near the phone(s) as if he was waiting for a call.

Where were they and why isn't there any photos of them?

Bill,

In case you have not seen this,

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10755&relPageId=4

there is a section in the 1/29/64 investigation report by SA Roger Warner that mentions his interview with James Powell (Army Intelligence). Powell told Warner he entered the TSBD and observed Pierce Allman using a phone in the lobby of the building and that it was near a desk.

FWIW, I have seen two photos of the lobby and neither shows a phone, at least that I can detect. Perhaps there is an area of the lobby that is not visible in either photo.

I have to believe that Powell knew what the lobby was, and was not confusing it with the phone near the column in the middle of the first floor.

Thanks Richard,

I had seen Powell's statement but not Fords.

It seems like rather than a pay phone on the wall, as I imagined, there may have been a reception desk in the lobby with a regular phone on it, though i'm not sure about this.

BK

[William Kelly]

Jeraldean Reid's 11/23 affidavit is an impressive document, for it manages with great economy to tick every box Roy Truly and the FBI so very badly needed ticked:

1. Just as Jeraldean entered the office area, she noticed Oswald coming through the back door into the office area
2. This back door was located near the lunchroom and the rear stairway
3. The encounter was unmistakeably post-assassination because Jeraldean said something to Lee about the President's being shot
4. Lee had a coke in his hand
5. She saw Lee walk out of the office just after their paths had crossed.

The last item here--

--is of particular note for it will become weirdly muddled in Jeraldean's WC testimony.

There, she and Belin will go on an elaborate and silly detour as to the possible routes Oswald might have taken just after passing Reid near her desk.

For some reason, Jeraldean now has to refrain from telling us authoritatively that Lee, having mumbled something, "walked on out of the office".

And yet she must take pains to eliminate the possibility that the door through which he walked on out of the office might have been the back door through which he had just come in:

Mr. BELIN. Did Lee Harvey Oswald walk past you?

Mrs. REID. Yes; he did.

Mr. BELIN. Kept on walking in the same direction?

Mrs. REID. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. How far did you see him go?

Mrs. REID. I didn't turn around to look. He went on straight, he did not go on past the back door because I was facing that way. What he did after that---

Mr. BELIN. But you know he did not go out the same back door he came in?

Mrs. REID. No; he did not.

But where exactly was Jeraldean so that she could rule the possibility out of Oswald's having left by the back door?

Let's look at the layout of the floor, with Oswald's alleged post-shooting route from the sixth floor drawn in:

The natural assumption would be that Jeraldean was at her desk.

But she explicitly rules that idea out:

I met him by the time I passed my desk several feet and I told him, I said, "Oh, the President has been shot, but maybe they didn't hit him."

Why did she pass her desk?

Where was she going?

Did she keep walking and leave the office area through the same back door which Oswald had just entered?

Did she perhaps want to recover from the shock of the shooting by making a beeline for the ladies' room?

But her own testimony rules all this out.

For she makes a point of keeping herself in the office space long enough to rule out the possibility that Oswald could have turned tail and gone out the back door at some point after Reid herself had left it.

Thus we are left with the very strange image of Jeraldean Reid standing frozen in space several feet away from her desk, facing resolutely west and not going anywhere.

Why is she fudging the issue of her actions after the Oswald exchange?

Because she needs to do two irreconcilable things:

a ) Be in the office for a long enough time to rule out Oswald's having exited the office via the back door

b ) Sustain the impression that she is herself perfectly positioned to exit the office by the back door.

The reason for b?

Geneva Hine, who is about to reenter the office--via the corridor and through the back door.

This schematic drawing of the second floor mistates the location of Baker when he first saw Oswald.

The drawing has a line that follows the route Truly took from the bottom of the stairs to the third floor to the lunchroom door.

Baker was at the top of the steps - when he first noticed Oswald through the door "that may have been closing" in fact, had to be in the process of closing or having just closed if Oswald in fact went through that door.

And the large room to the far left - west of the building is the restrooms, where Reid may have been headed when she past her desk and Oswald going the other way, and where I believe Oswald may have been before entering the lunchroom.

Now I need a schematic drawing of the first floor showing where in the lobby the public phone(s) was located.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I'm having difficulty with the 2nd floor lunch room encounter. Baker's testimony, and Belin's questioning, seem to leave a very important (to me, anyways) detail without clarification.

We know, with a fair amount of certainty, that the door opening into the vestibule from the 2nd floor stair landing was closed when Baker caught a glimpse of Oswald through the window in that door. Baker then ran to this vestibule door, opened it and saw Oswald through the lunch room doorway approximately twenty feet into the lunch room.

My question is: Did the lunch room door also have a window in it, and was that door closed when Baker saw Oswald twenty feet into the lunch room?

Baker's testimony would almost suggest a closed lunch room door:

"Mr. BAKER - He had already started around the bend to come to the next elevation going up, I was coming out this one on the second floor, and I don't know, I was kind of sweeping this area as I come up, I was looking from right to left and as I got to this door here I caught a glimpse of this man, just, you know, a sudden glimpse, that is all it was now, and it looked to me like he was going away from me.

Mr. BELIN - All right. Then what did you do?

Mr. BAKER - I ran on up here and opened this door and when I got this door opened I could see him walking on down.

Mr. DULLES - Had he meanwhile gone on through the door ahead of you?

Mr. BAKER - I can't say whether he had gone on through that door or not. All I did was catch a glance at him, and evidently he was--this door might have been, you know, closing and almost shut at that time.

Mr. BELIN - You are pointing by "this door" to the door on Exhibit 498?

Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir."

Robert,

I think Baker simply misunderstands Dulles's question ("Had he meanwhile gone on through the door ahead of you?") and speaks to the wrong door.

Belin, realising Baker's error, eliminates the ambiguity by relating Baker's answer to Exhibit 498, which shows the landing door rather than the lunchroom door.

Yes, I see it now. I found a copy of CE498 and it showed the vestibule door, though whether Baker was trying to describe the vestibule door or the lunch room door, it is hard to say.

I may be mistaken but, I thought I read in someone's testimony or statement that both the lunch room door and the vestibule door were closed when Baker claimed to follow Oswald to the lunch room.

[William Kelly]

I'm having difficulty with the 2nd floor lunch room encounter. Baker's testimony, and Belin's questioning, seem to leave a very important (to me, anyways) detail without clarification.

We know, with a fair amount of certainty, that the door opening into the vestibule from the 2nd floor stair landing was closed when Baker caught a glimpse of Oswald through the window in that door. Baker then ran to this vestibule door, opened it and saw Oswald through the lunch room doorway approximately twenty feet into the lunch room.

My question is: Did the lunch room door also have a window in it, and was that door closed when Baker saw Oswald twenty feet into the lunch room?

Baker's testimony would almost suggest a closed lunch room door:

"Mr. BAKER - He had already started around the bend to come to the next elevation going up, I was coming out this one on the second floor, and I don't know, I was kind of sweeping this area as I come up, I was looking from right to left and as I got to this door here I caught a glimpse of this man, just, you know, a sudden glimpse, that is all it was now, and it looked to me like he was going away from me.

Mr. BELIN - All right. Then what did you do?

Mr. BAKER - I ran on up here and opened this door and when I got this door opened I could see him walking on down.

Mr. DULLES - Had he meanwhile gone on through the door ahead of you?

Mr. BAKER - I can't say whether he had gone on through that door or not. All I did was catch a glance at him, and evidently he was--this door might have been, you know, closing and almost shut at that time.

Mr. BELIN - You are pointing by "this door" to the door on Exhibit 498?

Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir."

Robert,

I think Baker simply misunderstands Dulles's question ("Had he meanwhile gone on through the door ahead of you?") and speaks to the wrong door.

Belin, realising Baker's error, eliminates the ambiguity by relating Baker's answer to Exhibit 498, which shows the landing door rather than the lunchroom door.

Yes, I see it now. I found a copy of CE498 and it showed the vestibule door, though whether Baker was trying to describe the vestibule door or the lunch room door, it is hard to say.

I may be mistaken but, I thought I read in someone's testimony or statement that both the lunch room door and the vestibule door were closed when Baker claimed to follow Oswald to the lunch room.

Both doors that led to the vestibule were closed and kept closed by automatic closing devices while the lunchroom door itself was generally kept open and fastened to the wall, as can be seen in the photos and as it was on the day of the assassintion.

[Chris Newton]

Hey Bill,

In that same document posted above Powell states that "...upon entering the Texas School Book Depository, observed Mr. Pierce Allman using a phone in the lobby of the building". He further reports seeing only 2 men, Allman and an unidentified tall white male (whom he specifically would not ID as Oswald), "...near a desk in the Lobby and Mr. Allman was using a telephone". Allman states in the same report that he was on the phone about 25 minutes.

I find it plausible that Oswald encountered two entirely different individuals, who could be the guys who were in fact impersonating Secret Service Agents. They may have been the guys Ford failed to ID coming down the stairs and they might be the men Victoria Adams encountered on the first floor. It seems that one of the things the commission altered was the fact that Victoria Adams did not know the men she encountered on the first floor, i.e. she did not identify them as Shelley and Lovelady.

[Steve Mcdonagh]

Well then, you have to answer my questions - who made up this story and how come they didn't get it right?

It wasn't sufficiently plausible to the Secret Service when they re-enacted it, and wasn't sufficiently plausible for the Warren Commission lawyers when they called Truly back to ask him if the door had an automatic closing device, and it wasn't sufficiently plausible to Goldberg who had the FBI get additional sworn statements from Truly and Baker on the night before they released the Warren Report, and it wasn't sufficiently plausible to Howard Roffman, a young college student who wrote all about it in "Presumed Guilty," and it wasn't sufficiently plausible to Sylvia Meagher or me or anyone who has looked at the situation even remotely.

It wasn't sufficiently plausible to the 80% of the people who don't believe the Warren Report.

If "Prayer Man" is Oswald, that doesn't prove the second floor encounter is fiction, as Sean contends, I think if Oswald is "Prayer Man" then that gives more weight to the second floor encounter, and Oswald's innocence.

And what if the whole second floor lunchroom encounter - that exonerates Oswald, was made up, and is one big lie? What are you going to do about it?

What can you do with it?

Where are you going to go with it?

Argue about it on Internet forums?

Is that the goal?

I'm sorry you're so frustrated, Bill.

All I've been trying to do is show how the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter, whether it happened or whether it was just a fabricated story, did not necessarily exonerate Oswald. You think it obviously exonerates Oswald and therefore couldn't have been fabricated, because only idiotic bad guys would have been so stupid as to fabricate a story that actually exonerated Oswald. I'm saying it didn't necessarily exonerate Oswald, so it very well could have been fabricated by non-idiotic bad guys.

I'm finished arguing with you on this. My head is sore from beating it against the wall.

Sincerely,

--Tommy

Tommy I think you are right!

The story worked and it has done its job for fifty years regardless of any imperfections it has.

Bill makes some good points with his reasoning of how a second floor encounter may have played out but I find his comments and insistence that the second floor encounter exonerates Oswald misguided. It doesn’t exonerate Oswald. It never has exonerated Oswald and it never will exonerate Oswald and if it did, could or would then Oswald would surely already be exonerated?

The thing that bothers me about this whole second floor encounter is not that Truly is (or is not) sufficiently leading Baker (a gun toting professional law enforcement officer) up the stairs in search of at least one (could be more for all they knew) gun toting assassin(s) and misses Oswald supposedly going through, walking by or just hanging around a second floor vestibule door; but why was Truly leading Baker at all?

1. Why would Baker allow a civilian to sufficiently lead him (a gun toting cop) up the stairs in search of possible assassins?
2. Why would Truly wish to put his life in danger by sufficiently leading a gun toting cop up the stairs looking for assassins?

The reason I suspect is because it simply did not happen like that. I have serious issues believing that the unarmed Truly is charging up the stairs ahead of an armed professional policeman (Baker) in any way shape or form. I also have difficulty believing that Truly (after first supposedly vouching for Oswald) later becomes suspicious of him to such an extent that he has to alert the DPD?

In my opinion if anyone is susceptible to leading (or having their story enhanced) then surely an apparently unassuming Truly becoming both hero and detective in the same day is a viable candidate. Is Truly the lynchpin of the second floor encounter?

Regards - Steve

Edited October 10, 2013 by Steve Mcdonagh

[Thomas Graves]

Well then, you have to answer my questions - who made up this story and how come they didn't get it right?

It wasn't sufficiently plausible to the Secret Service when they re-enacted it, and wasn't sufficiently plausible for the Warren Commission lawyers when they called Truly back to ask him if the door had an automatic closing device, and it wasn't sufficiently plausible to Goldberg who had the FBI get additional sworn statements from Truly and Baker on the night before they released the Warren Report, and it wasn't sufficiently plausible to Howard Roffman, a young college student who wrote all about it in "Presumed Guilty," and it wasn't sufficiently plausible to Sylvia Meagher or me or anyone who has looked at the situation even remotely.

It wasn't sufficiently plausible to the 80% of the people who don't believe the Warren Report.

If "Prayer Man" is Oswald, that doesn't prove the second floor encounter is fiction, as Sean contends, I think if Oswald is "Prayer Man" then that gives more weight to the second floor encounter, and Oswald's innocence.

And what if the whole second floor lunchroom encounter - that exonerates Oswald, was made up, and is one big lie? What are you going to do about it?

What can you do with it?

Where are you going to go with it?

Argue about it on Internet forums?

Is that the goal?

I'm sorry you're so frustrated, Bill.

All I've been trying to do is show how the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter, whether it happened or whether it was just a fabricated story, did not necessarily exonerate Oswald. You think it obviously exonerates Oswald and therefore couldn't have been fabricated, because only idiotic bad guys would have been so stupid as to fabricate a story that actually exonerated Oswald. I'm saying it didn't necessarily exonerate Oswald, so it very well could have been fabricated by non-idiotic bad guys.

I'm finished arguing with you on this. My head is sore from beating it against the wall.

Sincerely,

--Tommy

Tommy I think you are right!

The story worked and it has done its job for fifty years regardless of any imperfections it has.

Bill makes some good points with his reasoning of how a second floor encounter may have played out but I find his comments and insistence that the second floor encounter exonerates Oswald misguided. It doesn’t exonerate Oswald. It never has exonerated Oswald and it never will exonerate Oswald and if it did, could or would then Oswald would surely already be exonerated?

The thing that bothers me about this whole second floor encounter is not that Truly is (or is not) sufficiently leading Baker (a gun toting professional law enforcement officer) up the stairs in search of at least one (could be more for all they knew) gun toting assassin(s) and misses Oswald supposedly going through, walking by or just hanging around a second floor vestibule door; but why was Truly leading Baker at all?

1. Why would Baker allow a civilian to sufficiently lead him (a gun toting cop) up the stairs in search of possible assassins?
2. Why would Truly wish to put his life in danger by sufficiently leading a gun toting cop up the stairs looking for assassins?

The reason I suspect is because it simply did not happen like that. I have serious issues believing that the unarmed Truly is charging up the stairs ahead of an armed professional policeman (Baker) in any way shape or form. I also have difficulty believing that Truly (after first supposedly vouching for Oswald) later becomes suspicious of him to such an extent that he has to alert the DPD?

In my opinion if anyone is susceptible to leading (or having their story enhanced) then surely an apparently unassuming Truly becoming both hero and detective in the same day is a viable candidate. Is Truly the lynchpin of the second floor encounter?

Regards - Steve

(emphasis added by T. Graves)

Steve,

Good question. Why was the unarmed Truly (allegedly) leading Baker at all in such a dangerous situation?

It would have made more sense for Truly to walk right behind Officer Baker and tell him when to turn right or left, and when to go straight ahead.

--Tommy

PS Here's an uncropped photo showing the windowed vestibule door, a pillar next to a little table, and the west freight elevator in the left background:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce742.jpg

And here's a photo of the north west corner of the second floor, showing the same pillar with its distinctive little table outside the lunchroom vestibule (which is off to the left out-of-view). Note the open door with its stairs going up to the third floor visible in the right background. The door with its stairs coming up from the first floor is not visible in this photo, but it is just below and to the right of the "Stair Way"sign. So, in this photo we are looking at the area through which Truly and Baker would have walked, from left to right, while on the second floor, and we see the pillar that would have been somewhat between them and the windowed vestibule door when they arrived, right under the sign, on the second floor:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce743.jpg

The same photo showing a bit more:

http://assassinationindallas.wordpress.com/2011/01/08/yes-he-works-here/

Edited October 11, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Robin Unger]

What floor is this on ?

[Thomas Graves]

What floor is this on ?

[photo deleted to conserve bandwidth]

Robin,

First floor shipping department? Note rolls of wrapping paper in right background.

--Tommy

Edited October 10, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Sean Murphy]

What floor is this on ?

Robin, that's the first floor.

This is the counter at which Baker and Truly said they bumped into one another as they rushed to get to the rear of the building.

And that's the phone in the background.