Why Does DVP Rattle Cages Here?

[Glenn Nall]

in my 54 years of existence, in three colleges, in the US Navy, in Manhattan and LA, and Italy, in Macon, GA, in cyber technology - I'm quite sure I've never met a man or woman who's wrong less than you are, David.

[Pat Speer]

[...]

I'm asking because it's nutty to think Marrion Baker saw anyone OTHER than Lee Oswald on 11/22/63 on the SECOND FLOOR. That's a FACT confirmed by Roy S. Truly.

Is Truly a l-i-a-r too, Tommy?

A trained observer like a police officer who mistakes a 5' 9" / 5' 10," 135-pound man for a 165-pound man is either incompetent or a prevaricator, David.

Which do you prefer?

Robert Prudhomme has recently shown that Baker didn't run up the TSBD front steps in the Darnell film, but Truly testified that he followed Baker through the front door.

To nip this argument in the bud, yes, David, I believe that Baker and Truly prevaricated about their "Oswald encounter."

--Tommy

I've read a lot regarding eyewitness testimony, Tommy, and there's nothing to your contention Baker would be less likely to misjudge a man's size than a non-police officer. Motorcycle cops are not "trained" to guess people's weight anymore than bank tellers or grease monkeys.

Are cops trained (or at least encouraged) to be good observers, Pat?

Do they have to write lots of reports about the people they have to deal with in criminal situations?

Aren't they expected to describe these people accurately in their reports?

Are you aware of your own height and weight?

When you meet someone who is significantly lighter or heavier than you, do you take notice, Pat?

If so, don't you think that Baker, looking for the sniper about a minute-and-a-half after the final shot would have been even more likely than you or I to take note of the fact that the "Oswald" he allegedly confronted in the second-floor lunch room was really only a puny 131-ish lbs?

Do you think you would have described the 5'9" - 5'10" Lee Harvey Oswald as weighing "about 165 pounds" if you had confronted him like Baker claimed he'd encountered him on 11/22/63?

--Tommy

I don't think there's a person on this forum who could be relied upon in such a situation. Baker was running into a dangerous situation. When you're racing towards a possible gunman, you don't stop to make notes on the size and shape of every person you pass along the way. Sure, you might remember there was a fat lady on the sidewalk blocking your way, but you would be unlikely to remember her height, etc. In Baker's case, he remembered he came across someone in the building whom Truly said was okay, who was about Oswald's height, but failed to accurately remember, at least at first, where he saw him, and whether he was of average build or skinny. He was probably wrong about his shirt, as well.

This isn't remotely surprising. It's a cliche, but it bears repeating. People are not camcorders.

[David Von Pein]

in my 54 years of existence, in three colleges, in the US Navy, in Manhattan and LA, and Italy, in Macon, GA, in cyber technology - I'm quite sure I've never met a man or woman who's wrong less than you are, David.

Are you sure you meant to say it that way, Glenn?

But thanks anyway.

[Glenn Nall]

So, when do you think Oswald was measured as being 5' 9 1/2" tall and weighing 131 pounds by the Dallas Police Department?

I really don't know. I'm puzzled by those figures too (69.5 inches and 131 lbs. exactly). I was looking through the WC exhibits relating to the cards that Oswald had on him when he was arrested, and I was thinking that one of those cards might have had that height and weight information on them. But I didn't find any such document or card. But I'm thinking there might be one.

But I suppose it's also possible the DPD put Oswald on a scale and also measured his height as part of the routine procedure when booking a suspect who has been arrested. (Is it routine to "weigh in" the suspects after they're arrested? I haven't the foggiest idea. But maybe they did. That info could be in the WC testimony of some DPD personnel, I suppose.)

But the whole topic about Marrion Baker seeing somebody OTHER than the real Lee Oswald on the 2nd floor is simply CTer desperation in full-fledged panic mode. Nothing more than that.

As I proved earlier, it was certainly possible for a person to stare right at Lee Harvey Oswald and guess his AGE and WEIGHT incorrectly. And Marrion L. Baker's 11/22/63 affidavit is the PROOF that that did happen. And, as fate would have it, Howard Brennan said the sixth-floor assassin was around 30 years of age and weighed about 165 to 175 pounds....perfectly matching Baker's inaccurate guesses with respect to the real Lee Harvey Oswald. And Mr. Oswald just happened to be a man whose fingerprints (and bullet shells) littered the exact same place where Brennan saw his "30-year-old, 165- to 175-pound" assassin in the window firing a rifle.

How 'bout that for coincidence?

i think the question was "when do you think Oswald was measured as being 5' 9 1/2" tall and weighing 131 pounds by the Dallas Police Department? Wasn't this the first time he'd been "booked" at the DPD?"

not "as part of what procedure do you think Oswald was measured"... nothing to do with whether or not Marion Baker saw someone else, or about CTers' desperation (although I do agree to your qualifications in this arena). the question was about Oswald's weight, since that's what you argued in the previous post - you can tell by what's at the end of the post:

How many members think Oswald weighed closer to 131 pounds than 150 pounds on 11/22/63?

I say he weighed much closer to 131. Like spot on.

Please see my new thread: "How Much Do You Think Oswald Weighed On 11/22/63?"

which is why my inquiring mind wants to know - are you asserting that he gained ~19 lbs between the time he was weighed by DPD and the time his weight was estimated at autopsy?

no need to dodge. what's your answer?

[Glenn Nall]

in my 54 years of existence, in three colleges, in the US Navy, in Manhattan and LA, and Italy, in Macon, GA, in cyber technology - I'm quite sure I've never met a man or woman who's wrong less than you are, David.

Are you sure you meant to say it that way, Glenn?

But thanks anyway.

yes, i meant to say it that way, David. exactly that way. i wanted it to reek of sarcasm, to smell of sarcasm the way wet dogs smell of "yeck" - thinking you are aware enough to detect it and know what i'm really saying. am i expecting too much, David?

[Glenn Nall]

[...]

I'm asking because it's nutty to think Marrion Baker saw anyone OTHER than Lee Oswald on 11/22/63 on the SECOND FLOOR. That's a FACT confirmed by Roy S. Truly.

Is Truly a l-i-a-r too, Tommy?

A trained observer like a police officer who mistakes a 5' 9" / 5' 10," 135-pound man for a 165-pound man is either incompetent or a prevaricator, David.

Which do you prefer?

Robert Prudhomme has recently shown that Baker didn't run up the TSBD front steps in the Darnell film, but Truly testified that he followed Baker through the front door.

To nip this argument in the bud, yes, David, I believe that Baker and Truly prevaricated about their "Oswald encounter."

--Tommy

I've read a lot regarding eyewitness testimony, Tommy, and there's nothing to your contention Baker would be less likely to misjudge a man's size than a non-police officer. Motorcycle cops are not "trained" to guess people's weight anymore than bank tellers or grease monkeys.

Are cops trained (or at least encouraged) to be good observers, Pat?

Do they have to write lots of reports about the people they have to deal with in criminal situations?

Aren't they expected to describe these people accurately in their reports?

Are you aware of your own height and weight?

When you meet someone who is significantly lighter or heavier than you, do you take notice, Pat?

If so, don't you think that Baker, looking for the sniper about a minute-and-a-half after the final shot would have been even more likely than you or I to take note of the fact that the "Oswald" he allegedly confronted in the second-floor lunch room was really only a puny 131-ish lbs?

Do you think you would have described the 5'9" - 5'10" Lee Harvey Oswald as weighing "about 165 pounds" if you had confronted him like Baker claimed he'd encountered him on 11/22/63?

--Tommy

I don't think there's a person on this forum who could be relied upon in such a situation. Baker was running into a dangerous situation. When you're racing towards a possible gunman, you don't stop to make notes on the size and shape of every person you pass along the way. Sure, you might remember there was a fat lady on the sidewalk blocking your way, but you would be unlikely to remember her height, etc. In Baker's case, he remembered he came across someone in the building whom Truly said was okay, who was about Oswald's height, but failed to accurately remember, at least at first, where he saw him, and whether he was of average build or skinny. He was probably wrong about his shirt, as well.

This isn't remotely surprising. It's a cliche, but it bears repeating. People are not camcorders.

yes, i agree - eye witness accounts are notoriously inaccurate, law enforcement or not - esp when entering a possibly armed situation. eye witness testimony in court is most often where cases fall apart these days, as far as evidentiary value goes - just look at the number of witnesses to the murder itself and how far any of that has gotten anyone, WC or Realists.

Marion Baker's not to blame for any misidentification, nor is Brennan, in my eyes. i'd say that was a pretty hectic half hour or so.

I've never heard that particular cliche, but it works for me.

[David Von Pein]

in my 54 years of existence, in three colleges, in the US Navy, in Manhattan and LA, and Italy, in Macon, GA, in cyber technology - I'm quite sure I've never met a man or woman who's wrong less than you are, David.

Are you sure you meant to say it that way, Glenn?

But thanks anyway.

yes, i meant to say it that way, David. exactly that way. i wanted it to reek of sarcasm, to smell of sarcasm the way wet dogs smell of "yeck" - thinking you are aware enough to detect it and know what i'm really saying. am i expecting too much, David?

Yeah, I figured you were in Sarcasm mode there. I'm used to it. Good job.

[David Von Pein]

I think the question was "when do you think Oswald was measured as being 5' 9 1/2" tall and weighing 131 pounds by the Dallas Police Department? Wasn't this the first time he'd been "booked" at the DPD?"

And I answered that question when I said:

"I really don't know."

Why are you acting like I never answered it?

Which is why my inquiring mind wants to know - are you asserting that he gained ~19 lbs between the time he was weighed by DPD and the time his weight was estimated at autopsy?

Of course not, Glenn. And I have never once suggested anything that silly.

LHO's autopsy report (CE1981) estimates his weight at 150 pounds. That figure is very likely not a correct one. But so what? It's just an estimate for the paperwork that was done. Perhaps Oswald looked a little heavier to the coroner who was doing the autopsy. I don't know. And it matters very little (if at all) in the long run.

But I will say this....

If Oswald did weigh only 131 pounds on Nov. 22 when he was arrested, then the "150 pounds" estimate we find in the autopsy report would serve as just one additional item to indicate that different people who were looking at the real Lee Oswald were making inaccurate (i.e., too heavy) guesses as to Oswald's weight. We know Marrion Baker guessed incorrectly in a "too heavy" manner. And we can see that the person who estimated LHO's weight at his autopsy did the same thing --- he thought Oswald weighed more than he really did.

Edited July 13, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Glenn Nall]

if it could very well be wrong, then why did you use it to correct Thomas?

his simple claim was that O weighed 131-132 lbs. you argued that he was shown to weigh ~150, which, since you've been proven to be wrong, you say "it's just an estimate" - yet it was good enough for you to tell Thomas he was wrong.

Now that you're put in the corner,

DVP said "that figure could very well be wrong" -

but when you wanted to show Thomas that he was wrong, it was quite good enough for you:

DVP said: "And btw, Oswald's weight at his autopsy was estimated at "150 pounds". Not 131-132 lbs."

very good.

[Glenn Nall]

in my 54 years of existence, in three colleges, in the US Navy, in Manhattan and LA, and Italy, in Macon, GA, in cyber technology - I'm quite sure I've never met a man or woman who's wrong less than you are, David.

Are you sure you meant to say it that way, Glenn?

But thanks anyway.

yes, i meant to say it that way, David. exactly that way. i wanted it to reek of sarcasm, to smell of sarcasm the way wet dogs smell of "yeck" - thinking you are aware enough to detect it and know what i'm really saying. am i expecting too much, David?

Yeah, I figured you were in Sarcasm mode there. I'm used to it. Good job.

you missed it and you know it.

[David Von Pein]

You missed it and you know it.

Yeah, sure, Glenn. That's why I utilized the "wink" and "smiley" icons in my post. Because I knew you must've been dead serious.

Good job, Glenn. Nothing slips by you.

Edited July 13, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

If it could very well be wrong, then why did you use it to correct Thomas?

When I said "And btw, Oswald's weight at his autopsy was estimated at "150 pounds". Not 131-132 lbs.", it was a direct response to this comment by Tommy....

"Oswald weighed only 131 or 132 pounds at autopsy."

....which looked to me as if Tommy was incorrectly asserting that THE AUTOPSY REPORT ITSELF said that LHO weighed 131-132, since Tommy used the words "at autopsy" in his comment.

But, again, the main point I've been stressing is that MORE THAN ONE PERSON who saw the real Lee Oswald in Nov. '63 incorrectly thought Oswald weighed more than he really weighed.

Are you going to deny that fact, Glenn? Even with the autopsy estimate AND Marrion Baker's 11/22 affidavit staring you in the face? Not to mention Brennan, who we all know DID see Lee Oswald shooting at the President (even though no CTer on the Internet would ever have the guts to admit that obvious fact).

So that really makes three different people who estimated Oswald's weight at between 150 and 175 pounds. And I have no doubt at all that those three persons were each looking at the real Lee Oswald when they made those estimates.

Edited July 13, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Glenn Nall]

no, i have not had anything to say about your arguments about who ID'd who. I was simply drawing attention to another of your contradictions and your inability to admit when you're wrong.

which brings me back to my original question: IF Oswald's weight at his autopsy was estimated at "150 pounds". Not 131-132 lbs. AND he was weighed at his last arrest date at 131 lbs (on a scale, presumably) AND you assert that 3 people estimate him at between 150 and 175 pounds - how DO you propose he gained 20 pounds in that short amount of time?

that sounds like a pretty fair question to me. is it not?

and my second question was (implied) - why bother correcting the man if that 150 pounds "could easily have been wrong," "was just an estimate", and "not mattering in the long run"... just something to do, split hairs with someone...? (hence the title of this thread...)

[Michael Cross]

Interesting thread. Just as the title suggests, DVP has managed to get everyone chasing LHO's weight . . . off topic and already documented.

[Glenn Nall]

Interesting thread. Just as the title suggests, DVP has managed to get everyone chasing LHO's weight . . . off topic and already documented.

yep.

i'm really trying to chase his addiction to contradiction, and not the weight per se - i could care less about who saw LHO where at 12.45 or how much he weighed - it has such little bearing if it can't be decided upon - but i'm admittedly just as guilty of falling into the dammit-why-cant-you-admit-youre-wrong well as anyone else.

but i'm getting better. progress, not perfection.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Glenn Nall