Robert Prudhomme Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 (edited) Robert Prudhomme: In other words, WC lawyers falsified [this portion of] the testimony of Victoria Adams, and either falsified [the associated portions of] the testimonies of Lovelady and Shelley, or coerced [i.e. prepped] these two into giving false testimony. If you can readily accept these serious offenses to have occurred [in a Government that has just murdered its sitting President], I am puzzled as to why you accept as Gospel the testimony [that in particular relates to the lunchroom incident] of Marrion Baker and Roy Truly. Do you think the WC's lying could extend to these gentlemen, as well? *********** Belin could not have achieved this, the perpetration of a lunchroom hoax, because there were 2 testimonies in near lock-step correspondence to doctor up. The will-call counter bump is the telltale clue that the correspondences were true accounts. Imagine Belin attempting to insert the bump into scripts, in his office at his leisure, for dramatic realism. Not only does this run into the problem I mentioned earlier- of the stenographer, etc.- now wrapped up in the mini-conspiracy. But the bump will be exposed as a falsehood once the hoax hypothesis fails, when it is held up against the aggregate of: the filmed interview, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, the lack of Biffle corroboration (this list is not exhaustive- we may include the Oswald-wedding-ring similarity with Baker's-sameday affidavit-omission-arrested-Oswald and the Martha Jo Stroud document) Belin knew full well that he would have to answer to the historians of his day, when the 26 volumes were published. And if the bump had been a falsehood, and the historians had recognized and publicized that, the whole edifice could have come tumbling down. He couldn't have pulled off this sleight-of-hand, even if he had to. It is impossible in a philosophical sense- there is too much of the aggregate that could potentially pop up and expose Belin's sleight-of-hand. So the hoaxers thus have to paint Baker as a monster- a devious player in the coverup, stretching over a 23-year-coupling of film record. But the coverup maestro was Truly, and it was Truly who used the lunchroom incident to help keep focus away from the west elevator. Richard Perhaps you do not quite follow what I am trying to say. I am not saying Truly and Baker did not ascend the steps together; I am saying it occurred later than we are told, and because of this, the 2nd floor lunch room encounter did not occur. With this in mind, the "will-call counter bump" you refer to proves nothing, as it could have occurred later as well. Baker's reenactment is not proof of an entry into the TSBD within 15-22 seconds either. No one is disputing that Baker made it close to the bottom of the steps rather quickly, what he did after Darnell panned away is what is in question. Altering Baker's story to have him running into the TSBD was as simple as adding a couple of extra seconds to his time, or however long it would hypothetically take him to go up the steps. Would you please explain what you mean by this information below here? It is not making a lot of sense to me. "But the bump will be exposed as a falsehood once the hoax hypothesis fails, when it is held up against the aggregate of: the filmed interview, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, the lack of Biffle corroboration (this list is not exhaustive- we may include the Oswald-wedding-ring similarity with Baker's-sameday affidavit-omission-arrested-Oswald and the Martha Jo Stroud document)" Edited December 18, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 (edited) [...] For some reason, Baker's mad dash to the TSBD entrance was interrupted, prompting him to very quickly take a right turn to apparently go elsewhere. -- Larsen [emphasis added] Like up a different part of the stairs than he first though he was going to go up (as indicated by the side-stepping, pivoting, and left arm-waving of Tall Suited Guy (whom I'm more and more inclined to believe was O. V. Campbell)? At least you admit that Baker was running towards the TSBD entrance, Sandy. That's a step in the right direction (pardon the pun). What positive proof do we have that Baker went "elsewhere"? The fact that Frazier and Molina didn't notice him doesn't mean that he couldn't have run behind them up those steps.. Do you lend no credence whatsoever to Pauline Sander's statement to the FBI? --T. Graves Baker's distraction from more-immediately entering the TSBD may have lasted 20 or more seconds for all we know. -- Larsen As long as two or three minutes like Robert Prudhomme seems to believe? Your 20 seconds sounds a lot more reasonable. (No, I'm not saying he stopped for 20 seconds) -- T. Graves --Tommy Edited December 18, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 (edited) Robert Prudhomme: In other words, WC lawyers falsified [this portion of] the testimony of Victoria Adams, and either falsified [the associated portions of] the testimonies of Lovelady and Shelley, or coerced [i.e. prepped] these two into giving false testimony. If you can readily accept these serious offenses to have occurred [in a Government that has just murdered its sitting President], I am puzzled as to why you accept as Gospel the testimony [that in particular relates to the lunchroom incident] of Marrion Baker and Roy Truly. Do you think the WC's lying could extend to these gentlemen, as well? *********** Belin could not have achieved this, the perpetration of a lunchroom hoax, because there were 2 testimonies in near lock-step correspondence to doctor up. The will-call counter bump is the telltale clue that the correspondences were true accounts. Imagine Belin attempting to insert the bump into scripts, in his office at his leisure, for dramatic realism. Not only does this run into the problem I mentioned earlier- of the stenographer, etc.- now wrapped up in the mini-conspiracy. But the bump will be exposed as a falsehood once the hoax hypothesis fails, when it is held up against the aggregate of: the filmed interview, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, the lack of Biffle corroboration (this list is not exhaustive- we may include the Oswald-wedding-ring similarity with Baker's-sameday affidavit-omission-arrested-Oswald and the Martha Jo Stroud document) Belin knew full well that he would have to answer to the historians of his day, when the 26 volumes were published. And if the bump had been a falsehood, and the historians had recognized and publicized that, the whole edifice could have come tumbling down. He couldn't have pulled off this sleight-of-hand, even if he had to. It is impossible in a philosophical sense- there is too much of the aggregate that could potentially pop up and expose Belin's sleight-of-hand. So the hoaxers thus have to paint Baker as a monster- a devious player in the coverup, stretching over a 23-year-coupling of film record. But the coverup maestro was Truly, and it was Truly who used the lunchroom incident to help keep focus away from the west elevator. [...] [T]he "will-call counter bump" you refer to proves nothing, as it could have occurred later as well. -- Prudhomme Dear Robert, If the "counter bump" occurred later, then why did both Truly and Baker say it happened right after they entered the front entrance (about 30 seconds after the assassination), when they were making their way to the elevator / stairs to go up to the roof? Why did they both include such an insignificant event in their statements? To add an element of "realism" to their l-i-e-s? You have both of them as bad guys, huh? --Tommy Edited December 18, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Robert Prudhomme: In other words, WC lawyers falsified [this portion of] the testimony of Victoria Adams, and either falsified [the associated portions of] the testimonies of Lovelady and Shelley, or coerced [i.e. prepped] these two into giving false testimony. If you can readily accept these serious offenses to have occurred [in a Government that has just murdered its sitting President], I am puzzled as to why you accept as Gospel the testimony [that in particular relates to the lunchroom incident] of Marrion Baker and Roy Truly. Do you think the WC's lying could extend to these gentlemen, as well? *********** Belin could not have achieved this, the perpetration of a lunchroom hoax, because there were 2 testimonies in near lock-step correspondence to doctor up. The will-call counter bump is the telltale clue that the correspondences were true accounts. Imagine Belin attempting to insert the bump into scripts, in his office at his leisure, for dramatic realism. Not only does this run into the problem I mentioned earlier- of the stenographer, etc.- now wrapped up in the mini-conspiracy. But the bump will be exposed as a falsehood once the hoax hypothesis fails, when it is held up against the aggregate of: the filmed interview, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, the lack of Biffle corroboration (this list is not exhaustive- we may include the Oswald-wedding-ring similarity with Baker's-sameday affidavit-omission-arrested-Oswald and the Martha Jo Stroud document) Belin knew full well that he would have to answer to the historians of his day, when the 26 volumes were published. And if the bump had been a falsehood, and the historians had recognized and publicized that, the whole edifice could have come tumbling down. He couldn't have pulled off this sleight-of-hand, even if he had to. It is impossible in a philosophical sense- there is too much of the aggregate that could potentially pop up and expose Belin's sleight-of-hand. So the hoaxers thus have to paint Baker as a monster- a devious player in the coverup, stretching over a 23-year-coupling of film record. But the coverup maestro was Truly, and it was Truly who used the lunchroom incident to help keep focus away from the west elevator. [...] [T]he "will-call counter bump" you refer to proves nothing, as it could have occurred later as well. -- Prudhomme Dear Robert, If the "counter bump" occurred later, then why did both Truly and Baker say it happened right after they entered the front entrance (about 30 seconds after the assassination), when they were making their way to the elevator / stairs to go up to the roof? Why did they both include such an insignificant event in their statements? To add an element of "realism" to their l-i-e-s? You have both of them as bad guys, huh? --Tommy More distraction, Thomas. Of course the will-call counter bump happened right after they entered the TSBD. That is not in question here. When they entered the TSBD is something that is yet to be established. Merely repeating over and over when you believe T & B entered the TSBD is not evidence, and does not make your belief true. We have Shelley and Lovelady telling obvious lies in their testimonies, can you not imagine Baker and Truly doing the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Cross Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Jim has never been the same since John Mcadams annihilated him with facts vs factiods in a lengthy radio debate...... Wow! I can't believe that you believe that. What I heard as I listened to the debate was DiEugenio bringing up difficult-after-difficult-to-explain problems with the WC story, and McAdams replying with "that's another a CTer factoid" followed by WC doctrine, but NO explanation for the difficult-to-explain WC problem. That you believe the way you do on the debate makes *me* wonder if you have LNer tendencies. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) Before now I've been agnostic about your inclinations... you just seemed to disagree with a lot of people. DiEugenio was out of his depth with his lack of knowledge of the actual unimpeachable facts of the case. Factoids are not facts, and until he learns this, he will always be a fiction writer and debater. Jim DiEugenio. Wow. The author of some of the most well researched and documented books available. Books FILLED WITH FACTS. Thanks for outing yourself Duncan. That explains a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 (edited) Jim has never been the same since John Mcadams annihilated him with facts vs factiods in a lengthy radio debate...... Wow! I can't believe that you believe that. What I heard as I listened to the debate was DiEugenio bringing up difficult-after-difficult-to-explain problems with the WC story, and McAdams replying with "that's another a CTer factoid" followed by WC doctrine, but NO explanation for the difficult-to-explain WC problem. That you believe the way you do on the debate makes *me* wonder if you have LNer tendencies. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) Before now I've been agnostic about your inclinations... you just seemed to disagree with a lot of people. DiEugenio was out of his depth with his lack of knowledge of the actual unimpeachable facts of the case. Factoids are not facts, and until he learns this, he will always be a fiction writer and debater. Jim DiEugenio. Wow. The author of some of the most well researched and documented books available. Books FILLED WITH FACTS. Thanks for outing yourself Duncan. That explains a lot. It seems to me that Jim DiEugenio never saw a JFK assassination conspiracy theory he didn't love. Except for maybe The Aliens did it, or the Secret Service guy with the machine gun blew JFK's brains out by mistake, or Greer turned around and shot JFK. But that's about it. --Tommy Edited December 18, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Cross Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Jim DiEugenio. Wow. The author of some of the most well researched and documented books available. Books FILLED WITH FACTS. Thanks for outing yourself Duncan. That explains a lot. "Some" being the operative word. So Michael, does that mean that you class Jim DiEugenio as a Master Debater? Cute. And apparently typical. It means that your dismissal of Jim reveals you as a charlatan. As does your manipulation of the prayer man images, your deceptive outlines, really, from what is obvious, everything about you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Cross Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Jim has never been the same since John Mcadams annihilated him with facts vs factiods in a lengthy radio debate...... Wow! I can't believe that you believe that. What I heard as I listened to the debate was DiEugenio bringing up difficult-after-difficult-to-explain problems with the WC story, and McAdams replying with "that's another a CTer factoid" followed by WC doctrine, but NO explanation for the difficult-to-explain WC problem. That you believe the way you do on the debate makes *me* wonder if you have LNer tendencies. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) Before now I've been agnostic about your inclinations... you just seemed to disagree with a lot of people. DiEugenio was out of his depth with his lack of knowledge of the actual unimpeachable facts of the case. Factoids are not facts, and until he learns this, he will always be a fiction writer and debater. Jim DiEugenio. Wow. The author of some of the most well researched and documented books available. Books FILLED WITH FACTS. Thanks for outing yourself Duncan. That explains a lot. It seems to me that Jim DiEugenio never saw a JFK assassination conspiracy theory he didn't love. Except for maybe The Aliens did it, or the Secret Service guy with the machine gun blew JFK's brains out by mistake, or Greer turned around and shot JFK. But that's about it. --Tommy It seems to me you're making a broad generalization. Easy, and worthless. Point out a theory that Jim promotes that you find to be ludicrous. Put some thought behind your empty words, "Tommy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Cross Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Unqualified. Just a quick observation: You know nothing about me, so making that assertion, again, shows that you talk out of your, well orifice. I have a BFA in photography Duncan. I've spent countless hours in darkrooms, and in digital lightrooms. Your crude alteration of the prayer man images, cranking contrast and dodging/burning as you see fit, then leading the viewer with your outline of areas of manipulated gray tones was just that, crude. Meaningless too. Empty. And your shallow attacks on me, rather than trying to refute what I've written are a classic misdirection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Lloyd Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Michael, With such qualifications, I'd be very interested to see any work you have done, or would do, on the "Prayer Man/Person" images (and, obviously, any others), as, I'm sure, so would many other members. It's great to have someone with such skill sets on the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Cross Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Ian, There isn't much that can be done with the extant images. If we could access original films and get a high resolution scan some information could be gained. but playing with what we have, is just that, playing. We can enhance gray values, but it will NOT add any information of value. There just isn't enough digital information in the images. IMO Mr. LeDoux's work has more credibility than Duncan's for the following simple reason: He hasn't heavily manipulated the PM images as Duncan has. Duncan's images have little to do with the extant original. They have been altered. Contrast has been heavily increased. Areas look to have been rather crudely dodged and burned. There is no way for any viewer to know how much, unless Duncan wants to provide image metadata/exif data for us so we can determine what he did, which I doubt will be volunteered. I don't post here often. I've looked at Duncan's images as one of his, um, fans, has posted them and made outrageous claims about what can be seen at another forum. Manipulated images are just that. Manipulated. No valuable conclusions can be drawn from Duncan's "work". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Ian, There isn't much that can be done with the extant images. If we could access original films and get a high resolution scan some information could be gained. but playing with what we have, is just that, playing. We can enhance gray values, but it will NOT add any information of value. There just isn't enough digital information in the images. IMO Mr. LeDoux's work has more credibility than Duncan's for the following simple reason: He hasn't heavily manipulated the PM images as Duncan has. Duncan's images have little to do with the extant original. They have been altered. Contrast has been heavily increased. Areas look to have been rather crudely dodged and burned. There is no way for any viewer to know how much, unless Duncan wants to provide image metadata/exif data for us so we can determine what he did, which I doubt will be volunteered. I don't post here often. I've looked at Duncan's images as one of his, um, fans, has posted them and made outrageous claims about what can be seen at another forum. Manipulated images are just that. Manipulated. No valuable conclusions can be drawn from Duncan's "work". As Mr. MacRae will tell you, Michael, "The ends justify the means." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Outside of a never ending stream of verbal abuse, and a few cheap photography tricks, what has Duncan MacRae offered to this forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 (edited) Robert Prudhomme: In other words, WC lawyers falsified [this portion of] the testimony of Victoria Adams, and either falsified [the associated portions of] the testimonies of Lovelady and Shelley, or coerced [i.e. prepped] these two into giving false testimony. If you can readily accept these serious offenses to have occurred [in a Government that has just murdered its sitting President], I am puzzled as to why you accept as Gospel the testimony [that in particular relates to the lunchroom incident] of Marrion Baker and Roy Truly. Do you think the WC's lying could extend to these gentlemen, as well? *********** Belin could not have achieved this, the perpetration of a lunchroom hoax, because there were 2 testimonies in near lock-step correspondence to doctor up. The will-call counter bump is the telltale clue that the correspondences were true accounts. Imagine Belin attempting to insert the bump into scripts, in his office at his leisure, for dramatic realism. Not only does this run into the problem I mentioned earlier- of the stenographer, etc.- now wrapped up in the mini-conspiracy. But the bump will be exposed as a falsehood once the hoax hypothesis fails, when it is held up against the aggregate of: the filmed interview, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, the lack of Biffle corroboration (this list is not exhaustive- we may include the Oswald-wedding-ring similarity with Baker's-sameday affidavit-omission-arrested-Oswald and the Martha Jo Stroud document) Belin knew full well that he would have to answer to the historians of his day, when the 26 volumes were published. And if the bump had been a falsehood, and the historians had recognized and publicized that, the whole edifice could have come tumbling down. He couldn't have pulled off this sleight-of-hand, even if he had to. It is impossible in a philosophical sense- there is too much of the aggregate that could potentially pop up and expose Belin's sleight-of-hand. So the hoaxers thus have to paint Baker as a monster- a devious player in the coverup, stretching over a 23-year-coupling of film record. But the coverup maestro was Truly, and it was Truly who used the lunchroom incident to help keep focus away from the west elevator. [...] [T]he "will-call counter bump" you refer to proves nothing, as it could have occurred later as well. -- Prudhomme Dear Robert, If the "counter bump" occurred later, then why did both Truly and Baker say it happened right after they entered the front entrance (about 30 seconds after the assassination), when they were making their way to the elevator / stairs to go up to the roof? Why did they both include such an insignificant event in their statements? To add an element of "realism" to their l-i-e-s? You have both of them as bad guys, huh? --Tommy More distraction, Thomas. Of course the will-call counter bump happened right after they entered the TSBD. That is not in question here. When they entered the TSBD is something that is yet to be established. Merely repeating over and over when you believe T & B entered the TSBD is not evidence, and does not make your belief true. We have Shelley and Lovelady telling obvious lies in their testimonies, can you not imagine Baker and Truly doing the same? More false argument and rhetorical questions, Robert. Of course you missed, or more likely chose to ignore, the "(about 30 seconds after the assassination)" in my post, above. Frazier's and Molina's saying they didn't see Baker run up the steps doesn't prove that he didn't do so. Frazier and Molina could have been distracted by something else and / or Baker might have run behind them. Pauline Sander's statement to the FBI says Baker did run up the steps and enter the TSBD. By the way, what were the names of the policemen you think Baker conferred with down at the intersection of Elm and Houston? Whoever they were, did they ever say anything about Baker's running up to them to ask them some questions about where the shots had come from? Baker became pretty famous for running into the "correct" building and looking for the assassin(s), didn't he? If Baker had run down to the policemen at the intersection and the policemen had confirmed Baker's suspicions that the sniper had fired from an upper floor or the roof of the TSBD, don't you think those policemen would have wanted to get on the record as having told Baker look for the sniper in that building? ("We were right! We were right, but that dummy Baker let him get away!") Wouldn't Baker's running up to them like that have stuck in their minds, especially since by the time they made their statements (if any), the "official" story was that someone (Oswald?) had shot the President from a 6th floor "sniper's perch" in the TSBD? Don't you think it strange that, given these circumstances, the policeman or policemen whom you seem to think Baker ran down to 1 ) thought it was too insignificant to relay to the authorities (in statements or reports), or 2 ) somehow forgot all about Baker's running up to them? --Tommy Edited January 13, 2016 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Gilbride Posted December 19, 2015 Share Posted December 19, 2015 (edited) Sandy, The bump and lack-of-Biffle-corroboration have to be contorted in extremis in order to be able to fit into the "supports-the-hoax" column. Post #160 explains this. Post #148 explains why the Sept. 23rd affidavit also cannot be construed as favoring the hoax, without concocting an interpretation- sort of like anthropomorphisizing your cat- to ladle on top of its face-value. It's fine with me if you want to look for a needle in the haystack, but I'm contending there ain't no haystack there. Hey, maybe Baker suddenly remembered he'd forgotten to mail a letter, and was too embarrassed about that in his re-enactment to duplicate that. (smash ice cream cone against forehead) Robert, Please re-read post #262. To repeat, whatever Baker did immediately off-camera, it must add up to 20ish seconds in order to allow Adams to run out of the warehouse unnoticed. Then you might re-read pp. 26-29 of Inside Job. (Sigh) And Belin, attempting to confabulate a hoax, would have been exposed almost-immediately by a Mark Lane, who would have raised an uproar over the hoax's logical problems. (Sigh) (insert marshmallows into ear canals) Tommy, You make great rebuttals in #278, #279 and #293, and I couldn't have said it any better myself. Sandy and Robert, IMO, are hackin' fer gold dat just ain't dere, 'n dey dunno dat. They are drawing conclusions about Baker that aren't supported by what the evidence supports, e.g. a 15-second reconstruction, a mad dash to the freight elevators- nor can they rebut your objection to their flight-of-fancy, that some snippet of eyewitness support should have arisen to help corroborate their "flight-of-fancy". It is as if Baker disappears into a 20ish second portal of time. IMO painting Baker as a bad guy, even a belated bad guy, is the fatal mis-step here. Reading him the wrong way heads to piles & piles of confusion. Again, I refer to the "results" produced by the hoax hypothesis- Tan Jacket Man, Ira Trantham, Spooky ("3rd or 4th floor man"). That's sophistry, not detective work. (balance tinsel from eyeglasses) Edited December 19, 2015 by Richard Gilbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now