Why Does DVP Rattle Cages Here?

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

Again your responses have the unique ability to ignore what the person you're responding to actually said. My doubts about the Baker encounter obviously do center around it never happening, as indicated by my 1990s-era questioning of why Baker would stop a decidedly non-suspicious-acting Oswald, or why he happened to be the only police officer concentrating initially on the TSBD, while everyone else was rushing to the knoll area. I never mentioned anything about timing.

It's laughable that someone welded so firmly to his own beliefs, and his own curious mission to destroy someone else's theory, can refer to those who disagree with him as being in cages. In over 40 years of researching this subject, I've never encountered anyone else outside firmly committed LNers that is more entrenched in his own cage/box than you.

7/23: 10:25 am I questioned the Baker/Oswald encounter back in the 1990s on Rich DellaRosa's old forum. You don't mention how or what part/s you you questioned it.

7/24: 12:57am you clarify Your arrogant "sure, you did" response to my post about questioning the Baker/Oswald encounter is characteristic of you. What is your obsession about the Baker incident anyhow? If it happened, it represents pretty good evidence that Oswald wasn't in that sixth floor window, doesn't it? What motivation would Baker have to lie, to concoct a story that critics would focus on; here we had the alleged assassin, encountered barely 90 seconds after the shooting, acting calm, cool and collected. That doesn't mean I think it happened; as I indicated, I questioned Baker's story a long time ago, primarily because it made little sense that he'd pull a gun on an employee who was doing nothing suspicious and was hardly the only one left in the building. With or without the Baker story, Oswald wasn't a shooter. Much like your anti-Harvey and Lee crusade, your vehemence about being the original skeptic on this issue seems pointless.

Your alleged reason for suspicion makes little sense. The official story is that he had his gun drawn and at the time of encountering Oswald, he did not know he was an employee until so advised by Truly. And though there certainly were others in building, they were not congregating in stairwells, landings or lunchrooms, so Baker had no opportunity to practice shoving his gun at people.

So what? Even if you did once make an off-the-cuff remark questioning the gun (for which you are apparently unable to provide evidence), you think once mentioning some ill-founded skepticism about that amounts to even a hill of beans? I did not post some evidence-free musings. I posted a theory based on a truckload of actual evidence. What you claim is akin to saying yeah, I once posted that "I think the shots came from somewhere else" to try and claim you were questioning shots from the 6th floor long before researcher X ever came up with all that evidence supporting his/her theory that the shots came from the overpass.

And your analogies get more bizarre by the day. First I'm rattling everyone else's cages, but now it seems I am actually doing that using some type of telekinesis because today you claim I am firmly entrenched in my own cage.

I will try and use this telekinesis only for good.

[Kenneth Drew]

Greg,

Again your responses have the unique ability to ignore what the person you're responding to actually said. My doubts about the Baker encounter obviously do center around it never happening, as indicated by my 1990s-era questioning of why Baker would stop a decidedly non-suspicious-acting Oswald, or why he happened to be the only police officer concentrating initially on the TSBD, while everyone else was rushing to the knoll area. I never mentioned anything about timing.

It's laughable that someone welded so firmly to his own beliefs, and his own curious mission to destroy someone else's theory, can refer to those who disagree with him as being in cages. In over 40 years of researching this subject, I've never encountered anyone else outside firmly committed LNers that is more entrenched in his own cage/box than you.

7/23: 10:25 am I questioned the Baker/Oswald encounter back in the 1990s on Rich DellaRosa's old forum. You don't mention how or what part/s you you questioned it.

7/24: 12:57am you clarify Your arrogant "sure, you did" response to my post about questioning the Baker/Oswald encounter is characteristic of you. What is your obsession about the Baker incident anyhow? If it happened, it represents pretty good evidence that Oswald wasn't in that sixth floor window, doesn't it? What motivation would Baker have to lie, to concoct a story that critics would focus on; here we had the alleged assassin, encountered barely 90 seconds after the shooting, acting calm, cool and collected. That doesn't mean I think it happened; as I indicated, I questioned Baker's story a long time ago, primarily because it made little sense that he'd pull a gun on an employee who was doing nothing suspicious and was hardly the only one left in the building. With or without the Baker story, Oswald wasn't a shooter. Much like your anti-Harvey and Lee crusade, your vehemence about being the original skeptic on this issue seems pointless.

Your alleged reason for suspicion makes little sense. The official story is that he had his gun drawn and at the time of encountering Oswald, he did not know he was an employee until so advised by Truly. And though there certainly were others in building, they were not congregating in stairwells, landings or lunchrooms, so Baker had no opportunity to practice shoving his gun at people.

So what? Even if you did once make an off-the-cuff remark questioning the gun (for which you are apparently unable to provide evidence), you think once mentioning some ill-founded skepticism about that amounts to even a hill of beans? I did not post some evidence-free musings. I posted a theory based on a truckload of actual evidence. What you claim is akin to saying yeah, I once posted that "I think the shots came from somewhere else" to try and claim you were questioning shots from the 6th floor long before researcher X ever came up with all that evidence supporting his/her theory that the shots came from the overpass.

And your analogies get more bizarre by the day. First I'm rattling everyone else's cages, but now it seems I am actually doing that using some type of telekinesis because today you claim I am firmly entrenched in my own cage.

I will try and use this telekinesis only for good.

Sounds like a 'me too' discussion. The Oswald Baker encounter was told in 1963. It has been both questioned and answered every since that time. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether Oswald killed JFK or not. Since everyone, that is not a lone nutter, is convinced that LHO was no where near the snipers nest (overlooking the likelihood that NO shots were ever fired from there) then it doesn't matter if he was encountered in the lunch room or not. Seems as if most of this discussion centers on who mentioned it first in the 2000's, as I said, it's been a subject since 63, so whoever win's this 'contest' gets the consolation prize.

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

Again your responses have the unique ability to ignore what the person you're responding to actually said. My doubts about the Baker encounter obviously do center around it never happening, as indicated by my 1990s-era questioning of why Baker would stop a decidedly non-suspicious-acting Oswald, or why he happened to be the only police officer concentrating initially on the TSBD, while everyone else was rushing to the knoll area. I never mentioned anything about timing.

It's laughable that someone welded so firmly to his own beliefs, and his own curious mission to destroy someone else's theory, can refer to those who disagree with him as being in cages. In over 40 years of researching this subject, I've never encountered anyone else outside firmly committed LNers that is more entrenched in his own cage/box than you.

7/23: 10:25 am I questioned the Baker/Oswald encounter back in the 1990s on Rich DellaRosa's old forum. You don't mention how or what part/s you you questioned it.

7/24: 12:57am you clarify Your arrogant "sure, you did" response to my post about questioning the Baker/Oswald encounter is characteristic of you. What is your obsession about the Baker incident anyhow? If it happened, it represents pretty good evidence that Oswald wasn't in that sixth floor window, doesn't it? What motivation would Baker have to lie, to concoct a story that critics would focus on; here we had the alleged assassin, encountered barely 90 seconds after the shooting, acting calm, cool and collected. That doesn't mean I think it happened; as I indicated, I questioned Baker's story a long time ago, primarily because it made little sense that he'd pull a gun on an employee who was doing nothing suspicious and was hardly the only one left in the building. With or without the Baker story, Oswald wasn't a shooter. Much like your anti-Harvey and Lee crusade, your vehemence about being the original skeptic on this issue seems pointless.

Your alleged reason for suspicion makes little sense. The official story is that he had his gun drawn and at the time of encountering Oswald, he did not know he was an employee until so advised by Truly. And though there certainly were others in building, they were not congregating in stairwells, landings or lunchrooms, so Baker had no opportunity to practice shoving his gun at people.

So what? Even if you did once make an off-the-cuff remark questioning the gun (for which you are apparently unable to provide evidence), you think once mentioning some ill-founded skepticism about that amounts to even a hill of beans? I did not post some evidence-free musings. I posted a theory based on a truckload of actual evidence. What you claim is akin to saying yeah, I once posted that "I think the shots came from somewhere else" to try and claim you were questioning shots from the 6th floor long before researcher X ever came up with all that evidence supporting his/her theory that the shots came from the overpass.

And your analogies get more bizarre by the day. First I'm rattling everyone else's cages, but now it seems I am actually doing that using some type of telekinesis because today you claim I am firmly entrenched in my own cage.

I will try and use this telekinesis only for good.

Sounds like a 'me too' discussion. The Oswald Baker encounter was told in 1963. It has been both questioned and answered every since that time. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether Oswald killed JFK or not. Since everyone, that is not a lone nutter, is convinced that LHO was no where near the snipers nest (overlooking the likelihood that NO shots were ever fired from there) then it doesn't matter if he was encountered in the lunch room or not. Seems as if most of this discussion centers on who mentioned it first in the 2000's, as I said, it's been a subject since 63, so whoever win's this 'contest' gets the consolation prize.

It has been discussed since '63 because of the timing issue. That issue never exonerated Oswald with the President's Commission, so I think any evidence that he wasn't even there on the 2nd floor is indeed, something worth discussing. :Look, Baker, on the day it happened, said it happened on the 3rd or 4th floor and he described someone other than Oswald. This tends to point to Roy Truly giving someone else a free pass. If it was a different employee, why make this story disappear - never to be mentioned again?

If you think that has been discussed since '63, you are dead wrong.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Kenneth Drew]

Greg,

Again your responses have the unique ability to ignore what the person you're responding to actually said. My doubts about the Baker encounter obviously do center around it never happening, as indicated by my 1990s-era questioning of why Baker would stop a decidedly non-suspicious-acting Oswald, or why he happened to be the only police officer concentrating initially on the TSBD, while everyone else was rushing to the knoll area. I never mentioned anything about timing.

It's laughable that someone welded so firmly to his own beliefs, and his own curious mission to destroy someone else's theory, can refer to those who disagree with him as being in cages. In over 40 years of researching this subject, I've never encountered anyone else outside firmly committed LNers that is more entrenched in his own cage/box than you.

7/23: 10:25 am I questioned the Baker/Oswald encounter back in the 1990s on Rich DellaRosa's old forum. You don't mention how or what part/s you you questioned it.

7/24: 12:57am you clarify Your arrogant "sure, you did" response to my post about questioning the Baker/Oswald encounter is characteristic of you. What is your obsession about the Baker incident anyhow? If it happened, it represents pretty good evidence that Oswald wasn't in that sixth floor window, doesn't it? What motivation would Baker have to lie, to concoct a story that critics would focus on; here we had the alleged assassin, encountered barely 90 seconds after the shooting, acting calm, cool and collected. That doesn't mean I think it happened; as I indicated, I questioned Baker's story a long time ago, primarily because it made little sense that he'd pull a gun on an employee who was doing nothing suspicious and was hardly the only one left in the building. With or without the Baker story, Oswald wasn't a shooter. Much like your anti-Harvey and Lee crusade, your vehemence about being the original skeptic on this issue seems pointless.

Your alleged reason for suspicion makes little sense. The official story is that he had his gun drawn and at the time of encountering Oswald, he did not know he was an employee until so advised by Truly. And though there certainly were others in building, they were not congregating in stairwells, landings or lunchrooms, so Baker had no opportunity to practice shoving his gun at people.

So what? Even if you did once make an off-the-cuff remark questioning the gun (for which you are apparently unable to provide evidence), you think once mentioning some ill-founded skepticism about that amounts to even a hill of beans? I did not post some evidence-free musings. I posted a theory based on a truckload of actual evidence. What you claim is akin to saying yeah, I once posted that "I think the shots came from somewhere else" to try and claim you were questioning shots from the 6th floor long before researcher X ever came up with all that evidence supporting his/her theory that the shots came from the overpass.

And your analogies get more bizarre by the day. First I'm rattling everyone else's cages, but now it seems I am actually doing that using some type of telekinesis because today you claim I am firmly entrenched in my own cage.

I will try and use this telekinesis only for good.

Sounds like a 'me too' discussion. The Oswald Baker encounter was told in 1963. It has been both questioned and answered every since that time. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether Oswald killed JFK or not. Since everyone, that is not a lone nutter, is convinced that LHO was no where near the snipers nest (overlooking the likelihood that NO shots were ever fired from there) then it doesn't matter if he was encountered in the lunch room or not. Seems as if most of this discussion centers on who mentioned it first in the 2000's, as I said, it's been a subject since 63, so whoever win's this 'contest' gets the consolation prize.

It has been discussed since '63 because of the timing issue. That issue never exonerated Oswald with the President's Commission, so I think any evidence that he wasn't even there on the 2nd floor is indeed, something worth discussing. :Look, Baker, on the day it happened, said it happened on the 3rd or 4th floor and he described someone other than Oswald. This tends to point to Roy Truly giving someone else a free pass. If it was a different employee, why make this story disappear - never to be mentioned again?

If you think that has been discussed since '63, you are dead wrong.

:Look, Baker, on the day it happened, said it happened on the 3rd or 4th floor and he described someone other than Oswald. Not only do I not believe that, I don't think that 'interpretation' came about until during the WC hearings when they needed to cast doubt that Oswald might actually have been on the 2nd floor at the time. The original story that came out was that Baker had encountered him on the 2nd floor. That story is basically the reason that very few people originally believed that LHO was the assassin. If he was on the 2nd floor and the shooting was from the 6th, must've been someone else. Remember the purpose of the WCR was to 'prove' that LHO was the lone assassin, it had nothing to do with what the 'truth' was/is. Whatever it took.

[Greg Parker]

Kenneth,

this is page 3 of Baker's FIRST DAY statement:

He never mentioned the 3rd or 4th floor again. Moreover, Oswald was sitting right opposite him when this statement was taken. Despite that, Baker does not say "the suspect now in custody is the person I stopped." Nor does his description fit.

So you have it completely backwards. This story never saw the light of day again. Baker was kept incommunicado until they got him on board the 2nd floor lunchroom version - which is what he went with before the commission.

No one. Not Don, not Jim and not Weisberg put this forward until I did 13 or 14 years ago. There is a lot more evidence for it, but I have posted that evidence innumerable times across a number of forums, and don't have time right now to amass it all again here, particularly under the current circumstances surrounding the forum.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Kenneth Drew]

Kenneth,

this is page 3 of Baker's FIRST DAY statement:

He never mentioned the 3rd or 4th floor again. Moreover, Oswald was sitting right opposite him when this statement was taken. Despite that, Baker does not say "the suspect now in custody is the person I stopped." Nor does his description fit.

So you have it completely backwards. This story never saw the light of day again. Baker was kept incommunicado until they got him on board the 2nd floor lunchroom version - which is what he went with before the commission.

No one. Not Don, not Jim and not Weisberg put this forward until I did 13 or 14 years ago. There is a lot more evidence for it, but I have posted that evidence innumerable times across a number of forums, and don't have time right now to amass it all again here, particularly under the current circumstances surrounding the forum.

yep, you're right But my main point was that this did not just come up since the year 2000, it came up back in 63 because he had related that version and the 2nd floor version prior to 1964

Edited July 27, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[Greg Parker]

yep, you're right But my main point was that this did not just come up since the year 2000, it came up back in 63 because he had related that version and the 2nd floor version prior to 1964

Yes, Ken. He related the 3rd or 4th floor version on the day of the assassination. He then got sidelined until he got his mind right. No media interviews for Baker (unlike the rest of the DPD). When he was eventually allowed off the leash, he was right on board with the 2nd floor lunchroom bs.

My point is that NO ONE questioned the 2nd floor lunchroom story EXCEPT in terms of the timing issue (that is, critics claimed that he could not have got down from 6 to 2 in time, and was not out of breath THEREFORE, HE MUST HAVE BEEN THERE A LONGER THAN JUST A FEW SECONDS AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A SHOOTER)- lastly, and tellingly, NO ONE paid any attention to his long buried affidavit until I started talking about it. I then found a sizable amount of corroborating evidence for him (Oswald) being on the first floor at the time.

I hope I don't have to keep explaining.

In sum: up until 2001 or 02, the only criticism of the second floor lunch story was about how long it would take Oswald to get down there from 6. No one suggested that meant there was no encounter on the second floor. If anyone HAD suggested it, I believe the famous scene in Stone's movie would have looked quite different. No one gave the affidavit a second look. In fact, few in any, gave it a FIRST look. So Don and anyone else claiming they questioned if the second floor lunchroom story ever actually happened are just conflating their questioning of ASPECTS of the story with questioning the whole damn story.

[Don Jeffries]

Greg,

This is getting ridiculous. I know better than you or anyone else just what I was questioning about the Baker story. I realized, as we all did upon reading the first books on the subject, that the timing of the incident was always a plank in the critic's platform, as Oswald could not have fled from the sixth floor and appeared calm and collected, and probably drinking a coke, four floors below the sniper's nest barely ninety seconds after the shooting.

I had doubts about everything associated with this case by the 1990s, including the alleged Baker/Oswald encounter. It wasn't based exclusively on any testimony; I was simply skeptical that such an encounter seemed credible, based upon the reasons I've listed previously in this thread. I'm not claiming to be the first to doubt it happened. Evidently, you are.

You won't win any prizes for it, but if it makes you feel better, keep claiming credit for being the first to doubt Baker encountered Oswald. But you diminish your credibility further when you continue to maintain that people are mistaken about their own beliefs, and when they first espoused them. Is getting some kind or recognition for this really that important to you?

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

This is getting ridiculous. I know better than you or anyone else just what I was questioning about the Baker story. I realized, as we all did upon reading the first books on the subject, that the timing of the incident was always a plank in the critic's platform, as Oswald could not have fled from the sixth floor and appeared calm and collected, and probably drinking a coke, four floors below the sniper's nest barely ninety seconds after the shooting.

I had doubts about everything associated with this case by the 1990s, including the alleged Baker/Oswald encounter. It wasn't based exclusively on any testimony; I was simply skeptical that such an encounter seemed credible, based upon the reasons I've listed previously in this thread. I'm not claiming to be the first to doubt it happened. Evidently, you are.

You won't win any prizes for it, but if it makes you feel better, keep claiming credit for being the first to doubt Baker encountered Oswald. But you diminish your credibility further when you continue to maintain that people are mistaken about their own beliefs, and when they first espoused them. Is getting some kind or recognition for this really that important to you?

Not after any prizes or recognition. I do like things to be kept honest and factual and I have an inbuilt distaste for plagiarists.

I did ask Jim to post a link to his essay which he said proved his claim. He hasn't done it yet. How about you? Can you post link showing YOU or ANYONE else denied the 2nd floor encounter ever happened that is dated pre-2001? Can you give a citation from a book published prior to 2001 where the alleged encounter is denied to have taken place?

See... now it's more about you guys insinuating I'm trying to take credit for something I shouldn't and not being able to back up your claims.

Put up or shut up.

[Greg Parker]

Weisberg on the 2nd floor encounter, 1965:

------------------------------------------

Mr. Weisberg analyzes the Warren Report's contention that the confrontation between Officer Baker & Lee Harvey Oswald on the 2nd floor of the building just 90 seconds after the last shot was possible even if Oswald was the shooter on the 6th floor.

Mr. Weisberg writes:

"The (Warren Commission) made two trips (in reconstructing Oswald's alleged movements from the SE 6th floor corner window to the 2nd floor where he was confronted by Baker).

The 1st one 'with normal walking took (78) seconds' while the 2nd faster walk 'took (74) seconds'.

Harold Weisberg points out that one must consider Oswald would have 'had to clean & hide the rifle & then go down to the lunch room (on the 2nd floor) & 20 feet inside of it.'

The Warren Report concluded, none the less, that "Tests of all of Oswald's movements establish that (he) could have accomplished (them) in the time available to him."

Mr. Weisberg explains that even if this were true, Baker testified that Oswald appeared "calm & collected."**

**May I point out that this description is not consistent with a man who has just shot the President, crossed to the other end of the building, wiped the rifle clean of prints, hidden the weapon & then climbed down 4 flights of steps.

The officer first saw Oswald in a window of a doorway to the 2nd floor lunch room in the process of moving away from the door. That's what caught his attention & caused him to stop following Superintendent Roy Truly up the steps.

It was when Baker opened the door that he saw Oswald "calm & collected" & when Truly told him "this man works here," Baker continued up the stairs.***

***If Oswald had appeared out of breath or fearful of being confronted by the police officer in the aftermath of a crime, Baker would have taken him into custody.

Weisberg points out that the commission had no witnesses to Oswald's alleged movements from the 6th to the 2nd floor & in fact there was a witness, Jack Dougherty, positioned at the stairway on the 5th floor, who "saw no one going down the stairs."****

****The elevators were on the 5th floor at the time of the assassination & so the only way anyone could have moved from the 6th to the 2nd floor would have been down the stairs.

http://jfk50d.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/april-8-2012-whitewash-report-on-warren.html

Weisberg questioned the timing, not whether it actually happened or not. He was claiming that Oswald had been there for at least minutes, not seconds and therefore was not a shooter.

[Kenneth Drew]

yep, you're right But my main point was that this did not just come up since the year 2000, it came up back in 63 because he had related that version and the 2nd floor version prior to 1964

Yes, Ken. He related the 3rd or 4th floor version on the day of the assassination. He then got sidelined until he got his mind right. No media interviews for Baker (unlike the rest of the DPD). When he was eventually allowed off the leash, he was right on board with the 2nd floor lunchroom bs.

My point is that NO ONE questioned the 2nd floor lunchroom story EXCEPT in terms of the timing issue (that is, critics claimed that he could not have got down from 6 to 2 in time, and was not out of breath THEREFORE, HE MUST HAVE BEEN THERE A LONGER THAN JUST A FEW SECONDS AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A SHOOTER)- lastly, and tellingly, NO ONE paid any attention to his long buried affidavit until I started talking about it. I then found a sizable amount of corroborating evidence for him (Oswald) being on the first floor at the time.

I hope I don't have to keep explaining.

In sum: up until 2001 or 02, the only criticism of the second floor lunch story was about how long it would take Oswald to get down there from 6. No one suggested that meant there was no encounter on the second floor. If anyone HAD suggested it, I believe the famous scene in Stone's movie would have looked quite different. No one gave the affidavit a second look. In fact, few in any, gave it a FIRST look. So Don and anyone else claiming they questioned if the second floor lunchroom story ever actually happened are just conflating their questioning of ASPECTS of the story with questioning the whole damn story.

NO ONE paid any attention to his long buried affidavit until I started talking about it. Oh, I get it. You want credit for inventing the idea there was a conspiracy. Well, I sure don't mind you having credit for it as long as you were there back in 63-64. I guess I don't understand why one detail is more telling than many of the hundreds of other little details that indicated there was a conspiracy. Little details like someone near the TSBD smelling gunsmoke at ground level. Of course with the wind blowing from the grassy knoll toward the TSBD, that shouldn't be a 'light bulb' moment, but apparently it is. If gunsmoke came from the grassy knoll, then that might mean there was a gun fired in that area and I'm sure Marrion Baker didn't encounter LHO there. Is it important who the first person that pointed that out, is? Not to me. I have known about the discrepancies in witness testimony vs Warren Report testimonies for 50 years. It's not important who pointed out each one. It's generally accepted that JFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy to kill JFK. By definition a conspiracy is 'more than one' was involved. Nothing surprises me about how far the Warren Commission went to hide the details. So if you want credit for talking about something in the last 13 years that has been known for over 50, then ok, it's okay with me.

[Kenneth Drew]

Greg,

This is getting ridiculous. I know better than you or anyone else just what I was questioning about the Baker story. I realized, as we all did upon reading the first books on the subject, that the timing of the incident was always a plank in the critic's platform, as Oswald could not have fled from the sixth floor and appeared calm and collected, and probably drinking a coke, four floors below the sniper's nest barely ninety seconds after the shooting.

I had doubts about everything associated with this case by the 1990s, including the alleged Baker/Oswald encounter. It wasn't based exclusively on any testimony; I was simply skeptical that such an encounter seemed credible, based upon the reasons I've listed previously in this thread. I'm not claiming to be the first to doubt it happened. Evidently, you are.

You won't win any prizes for it, but if it makes you feel better, keep claiming credit for being the first to doubt Baker encountered Oswald. But you diminish your credibility further when you continue to maintain that people are mistaken about their own beliefs, and when they first espoused them. Is getting some kind or recognition for this really that important to you?

Not after any prizes or recognition. I do like things to be kept honest and factual and I have an inbuilt distaste for plagiarists.

I did ask Jim to post a link to his essay which he said proved his claim. He hasn't done it yet. How about you? Can you post link showing YOU or ANYONE else denied the 2nd floor encounter ever happened that is dated pre-2001? Can you give a citation from a book published prior to 2001 where the alleged encounter is denied to have taken place?

See... now it's more about you guys insinuating I'm trying to take credit for something I shouldn't and not being able to back up your claims.

Put up or shut up.

See... now it's more about you guys insinuating I'm trying to take credit for something I shouldn't and not being able to back up your claims. Most people aren't that interested in 'getting credit'. But I am curious as to how many forums were you posting on about the assassination back in 2000? The first Forum I was even aware of was JFK Lancer and I have no idea when it started but I feel sure it wasn't that far back. Their website says they started back in 1995, but I'm not sure if that included the Forum. I have not written any books or published any papers on the assassination. I have been following it since it happened and read the Warren Report (just the main volume) back when it was published. I recognize many things that came out in that report that did not agree with witnesses I had heard on tv. But I didn't publish any papers nor write any books about it. And don't intend to. I do find that people generally believe what their preconceived notion is regardless of what they read in a book. I have seen copies of the back yard photos where you can 'see' through the overlaid person in the photo and see images 'through' the person. I've said that on forums. If anyone wants to believe it, fine. If they do not believe it, fine. It's not my loss or gain. If I were an author and wanted credit for my thoughts, then I would write a book. I'm not interested in writing one, only reading them. Even if I read something that you published, and it's the first time I've heard it, then I might notice it, but I'm not going to make a 'record' of it so that I can quote it later. The final answer to the persons involved will never be known for sure. Most people have a good idea, but that's not going to be a huge revelation to anyone. Keep writing interesting things and I'll keep reading them.

[David Von Pein]

You [Greg Parker] won't win any prizes for it, but if it makes you feel better, keep claiming credit for being the first to doubt Baker encountered Oswald.

This is hilarity at its finest.

It's kind of like wanting to take credit for being the person who designed The Edsel.

Edited July 27, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Greg Parker]

You're being deliberately ridiculous, Ken. But you already know that.

Let me pose some questions back at you.

So it would be okay with you if someone else claimed credit for Armstrong's 2 Oswald theory?

I'm sure someone talked about the CIA framing Oswald in the past 50 years, so it's the same thing according to your reasoning, and Armstrong is being wrongly credited.

Lifton's body snatch theory?

I'm sure someone talked about the medical evidence in the past 50 years prior to Lifton, so he shouldn't be claiming any credit for his twist on it?

This whole thing started with Jimmy di making a claim that Weisberg was the first to suggest the 2nd floor encounter never happened. Are you happy for incorrect claims like that to be made? Isn't that kind of thing the thin end of the wedge, and part of the problem with this whole alleged community? I mean, where is the line being drawn? Shouldn't people be asked to substantiate their claims? Are we now and forever more, playing Rafferty's Rules with history?

Edited July 27, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

You [Greg Parker] won't win any prizes for it, but if it makes you feel better, keep claiming credit for being the first to doubt Baker encountered Oswald.

This is hilarity at its finest.

It's kind of like wanting to take credit for being the person who designed The Edsel.

Here's the Warren WC model. Start it up and it makes like an ostrich.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Greg Parker