Jump to content
The Education Forum

One Last Thing Before Xmas Eve: 2nd Floor Lunch Room Encounter


Recommended Posts

I was going over the 2nd floor plan of the TSBD earlier, and something struck me as I was looking at it.

2ndfloor.jpg

In the upper left corner, we have the 2nd floor landing, with the stairs coming from the 1st floor and the stairs going to the 3rd floor shown. There is a door on each stairwell that must be opened. Roy Truly was ahead of Officer Marrion Baker, and Baker would likely have seen Truly making a hard left onto the 2nd floor landing as Baker was coming up to the 2nd floor landing; in other words, he was trying to keep up with Truly, and would have made an identical hard turn.

Now look at the diagram where it shows the vestibule door, leading to the hallway, and the lunch room door just beyond it (follow the solid line into the lunch room). As the WC apologists would have us believe, Baker, on his way to follow Truly to the 3rd floor stairwell, just happened to glance through the small window, in the upper part of the vestibule door, to catch a glimpse of Oswald in the lunch room, walking away from him.

One small problem, though. If you look again at the top of the stairs Baker was exiting, it is plain to see that, if Baker was making a hard left, in pursuit of Truly, he was not in a position for the window in the upper part of the vestibule door to line up with the lunch room door.

How could he have seen Oswald? If Oswald was just the other side of the door, why did Baker not report seeing the door still closing by means of its automatic closer?

Many of the WC apologists will say that Baker did not go directly to the 3rd floor stairwell but, rather, made a wide sweep of the 2nd floor landing, looking for bad guys. Well, there is a bit of a problem here, too, as the photo below shows.

CE%20498_360.jpg

Think the boxes are stacked only in view of the camera? I doubt it, in fact, I'll bet the mess of stacked boxes gets worse as you get into the corner, out of view to the camera's right. The corner, as the diagram shows, is a completely untravelled piece of floor, and that attracts clutter like nothing else in a warehouse.

Baker would have to be 2-3 feet to the right to get any kind of view into the lunch room and, unless he deliberately was attempting to look into the lunch room, why would he climb over a bunch of boxes? His testimony clearly states he saw Oswald quite by accident.

Once again, if Oswald had not travelled the 5 feet between the vestibule door and the lunch room door, would the vestibule door not still be in the process of closing itself, and would Baker not have stated this in his testimony?

As there was no window on the lunch room door, the diagram shows us another potential problem. See how the lunch room door is almost closed in the diagram? Think about that for a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 338
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bob,

Do you REALLY think Marrion Baker AND Roy Truly are telling a pack of lies in these 1964 TV interviews? If so....please tell us WHY you think those two men felt compelled to lie like this on national television? ....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-rcjDGNFEH_eGtobmZGdmthcW8/view

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes David, a complete fugezi.

And Bob did you actually watch my film? All that you are mentioning in your post is already in there, how from a physical p.o.v. it would be impossible to catch anyone's glimpse through that tiny window at the angle the door is and whoever would come up the stairs on to the 2nd floor landing. And that ever so silent pneumatic door, let us not forget about that!

Furthermore the news reports and other statements such as Oswald never claiming meeting Baker on the 2nd floor sink this 2nd floor BS faster than the Titanic ever did.

Any way I am not going to get dragged further in a debate that has been debunked yonks ago already,

Merry X-Mas!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going over the 2nd floor plan of the TSBD earlier, and something struck me as I was looking at it.

2ndfloor.jpg

In the upper left corner, we have the 2nd floor landing, with the stairs coming from the 1st floor and the stairs going to the 3rd floor shown. There is a door on each stairwell that must be opened. Roy Truly was ahead of Officer Marrion Baker, and Baker would likely have seen Truly making a hard left onto the 2nd floor landing as Baker was coming up to the 2nd floor landing; in other words, he was trying to keep up with Truly, and would have made an identical hard turn.

Now look at the diagram where it shows the vestibule door, leading to the hallway, and the lunch room door just beyond it (follow the solid line into the lunch room). As the WC apologists would have us believe, Baker, on his way to follow Truly to the 3rd floor stairwell, just happened to glance through the small window, in the upper part of the vestibule door, to catch a glimpse of Oswald in the lunch room, walking away from him.

One small problem, though. If you look again at the top of the stairs Baker was exiting, it is plain to see that, if Baker was making a hard left, in pursuit of Truly, he was not in a position for the window in the upper part of the vestibule door to line up with the lunch room door.

How could he have seen Oswald? If Oswald was just the other side of the door, why did Baker not report seeing the door still closing by means of its automatic closer?

Many of the WC apologists will say that Baker did not go directly to the 3rd floor stairwell but, rather, made a wide sweep of the 2nd floor landing, looking for bad guys. Well, there is a bit of a problem here, too, as the photo below shows.

CE%20498_360.jpg

Think the boxes are stacked only in view of the camera? I doubt it, in fact, I'll bet the mess of stacked boxes gets worse as you get into the corner, out of view to the camera's right. The corner, as the diagram shows, is a completely untravelled piece of floor, and that attracts clutter like nothing else in a warehouse.

Baker would have to be 2-3 feet to the right to get any kind of view into the lunch room and, unless he deliberately was attempting to look into the lunch room, why would he climb over a bunch of boxes? His testimony clearly states he saw Oswald quite by accident.

Once again, if Oswald had not travelled the 5 feet between the vestibule door and the lunch room door, would the vestibule door not still be in the process of closing itself, and would Baker not have stated this in his testimony?

As there was no window on the lunch room door, the diagram shows us another potential problem. See how the lunch room door is almost closed in the diagram? Think about that for a bit.

Unless Oswald was in the vestibule itself, not the lunchroom proper.

And the inner door was propped open, thereby explaining why Baker thought Oswald was walking away from him in the lunchroom.

You know, kinda keeping an eye out for people coming up the stairs?

No, Robert, I'm not sayin' I believe this was necessarily the case.

I'm just s-s-s-sayin'.

--Tommy, the Serious :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Thomas

If Oswald was in the vestibule keeping an eye out for people coming up the stairs, he would have heard and seen Truly before Baker arrived on the 2nd floor landing. Do you think he would have allowed himself to be seen? If the vestibule door was already closed, moving away from the window would have been quite simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes David, a complete fugezi.

And Bob did you actually watch my film? All that you are mentioning in your post is already in there, how from a physical p.o.v. it would be impossible to catch anyone's glimpse through that tiny window at the angle the door is and whoever would come up the stairs on to the 2nd floor landing. And that ever so silent pneumatic door, let us not forget about that!

Furthermore the news reports and other statements such as Oswald never claiming meeting Baker on the 2nd floor sink this 2nd floor BS faster than the Titanic ever did.

Any way I am not going to get dragged further in a debate that has been debunked yonks ago already,

Merry X-Mas!

Sorry, Bart, I got part way through your movie and it kept putting me to sleep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Thomas

If Oswald was in the vestibule keeping an eye out for people coming up the stairs, he would have heard and seen Truly before Baker arrived on the 2nd floor landing. Do you think he would have allowed himself to be seen? If the vestibule door was already closed, moving away from the window would have been quite simple.

Just thinking like a detective, Robert.

Alternate scenario:

Maybe Oswald, having come up from the first floor via the front stairs or the passenger elevator, heard them as they were coming up the stairs, came to the vestibule window with a coke in his hands to see who it was, turned away from the vestibule window when he saw it was Truly, and was seen by Baker as he walked away from the window but was still inside the vestibule.

--Tommy, the Serious :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

Do you REALLY think Marrion Baker AND Roy Truly are telling a pack of lies in these 1964 TV interviews? If so....please tell us WHY you think those two men felt compelled to lie like this on national television? ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZRdbkNPuck

Wow! Who knew it was against the law to lie on NATIONAL television? Round every politician in the US and lock 'em up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

Do you REALLY think Marrion Baker AND Roy Truly are telling a pack of lies in these 1964 TV interviews? If so....please tell us WHY you think those two men felt compelled to lie like this on national television? ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZRdbkNPuck

Btw, David... this is an appeal to incredulity. A logical fallacy - which is one of many logical fallacies you employ, but quite obviously one of your favorites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the whole Baker/Truly "encounter" was nothing but a lie in the first place, then why in hell didn't the Twins Of Deception named Baker & Truly make their lie a much better one by saying they had encountered Oswald on the SIXTH FLOOR?

For Pete sake, even Oswald HIMSELF confirmed the second-floor encounter (WR; Pages 600 and 619).

But I guess both Fritz and Bookhout were liars too, huh?

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lunchroom incident either happened, or it did not happen. Thanks to the multi-year efforts of Sean Murphy & Greg Parker, a school of thought has emerged that contends that the incident was hoaxed.

They refuse to acknowledge that every item of evidence relating to the lunchroom incident has a mundane explanation, readily available, that supports the incident's reality.

They refuse to acknowledge that there is a set of items, an aggregate- the filmed interviews, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, the will-call counter bump, the lack of corroboration for Biffle's news story, the Martha Jo Stroud document- and every item of this aggregate has to be contorted, beyond common sense, in order to be construed as supporting the hoax.

Even if the researcher successfully un-contorts one of these items, there are four more to justify, and all of them must be justified in order to support a hoax interpretation, i.e. its chances are infinitesmal (if that).

Which means that you, the researcher, must evaluate this Bakerview problem through the lens of the lunchroom incident's reality.

Sean Murphy & Greg Parker are zealots in regards to this issue. They cannot and will not be reasoned with. To admit defeat would entail a loss of their sycophants, and an extreme loss of face. After all, they are the co-discoverers and marketers of this pernicious school of thought.

They might seem progressive, but are actually regressive. In this arena they are sophists extraordinaire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus, Richard, as I said in my last post, if Baker & Truly were just going to MAKE UP an "encounter" with the person they were trying to frame for JFK's assassination, they would have made the encounter occur on the sixth floor, not the second floor (which was four floors away from the Floor Of Death).

Placing Oswald on the SECOND floor 90 seconds after the murder doesn't do anything to make LHO the patsy in JFK's killing. In fact, most CTers utilize that exact argument to try and get Oswald OFF the hook--not ONTO the hook. Those CTers will tell me -- Well, Dave, we know Oswald must be innocent--because there's no way he could have gotten down from the sixth floor to the second floor in only 90 seconds.

But now, the CTers in the "Baker & Truly Lied About The Lunchroom Encounter" club can never use the above argument ever again, because they think B&T just invented the 2nd-floor incident from whole cloth.

And another oft-heard theory that many CTers must now dump by the roadside is the "Bag Is Too Short" theory. Many Internet CTers now want to pretend that Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle just MADE UP the paper bag story. But it doesn't bother those CTers that Frazier & Randle decided to make their MAKE-BELIEVE BAG too short to hold Oswald's rifle (even though, of course, Buell & Linnie COULD have made their imaginary bag ANY length they wanted to make it).

But such massive illogic regarding the Baker/Truly encounter and the paper bag never even faze a veteran Internet CTer. They'll just pretend the logic gaps don't even exist. Go figure.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I wrote in Reclaiming Parkland:

"...the final Commission version does not even resemble the incident that Baker described on the day of the assassination. On that day Baker executed an affidavit in which he described this encounter himself. He described going up the stairs with Truly. Then this startling passage follows:

​As we reached the third or fourth floor, I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back towards me. The manager said I know that man he works here. I then turned the man loose and went on up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately thirty years old, 5' 9', 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light thrown jacket. (p. 193)

(p. 194)

"In the affidavit, there is nothing about seeing Oswald through a window in the door. Nothing about the lunchroom. Nothing about a Coke. They weren't even in any room, but near a stairway. And the guy he saw does not appear to be Oswald. He was older, heavier and he was wearing a brown jacket."

And let us not leave out that Baker signed this affidavit not once but twice. And further he made out the handwritten version in the witness room--with Oswald sitting about five feet away from him. He almost had to fall over him to walk out.

And you are going to say that he never once asked this guy, "Didn't I stick a gun in your stomach in the lunchroom of the TSBD earlier today?"

Can you imagine at that phony baloney trial in London if that ingenue Spence had waited for Bugliosi to go ahead and take Baker through his paces. He then stood up and looked at Bugliosi, and said something, like "Vince, you are about to be taken to school." Walked over to the witness, put this affidavit in front of Baker, asked him if he recognized it, waited until he said yes, and then turned, walked over to the prosecutor and started reading it right in front of Bugliosi.

I would have paid a lot of money to have been there for that. When Lee Oswald really would have had a defense.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As usual, James DiEugenio doesn't have the slightest idea how to properly evaluate the sum total of the evidence connected with the various sub-topics associated with the JFK murder case. In this particular instance, Jim has decided that Marrion Baker told a bunch of lies in his Warren Commission testimony and in his 1964 CBS-TV interview.

And Jim believes Officer Baker lied about the lunchroom encounter even though Jim knows about Roy Truly's 11/23/63 affidavit, wherein Truly confirms that both he and Officer Baker saw "Lee Oswald" in the second-floor lunchroom within just a couple of minutes of the assassination.

So now Jim has no choice but to believe that BOTH Marrion L. Baker AND Roy S. Truly were big fat liars when it comes to the topic of their lunchroom encounter with Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963.

Roy-Truly-Affidavit.gif

DiEugenio probably thinks the above affidavit filled out by Depository Superintendent Roy S. Truly is totally worthless and completely bogus due to the date that is on it -- November 23rd. Jimmy thinks that the fix was in by that time. So that means that anything Roy Truly said on the 23rd must have been the result of coaching by patsy-framing members of the DPD and FBI. Right, James?

As far as Baker saying "Nothing about a Coke" in his 11/22/63 affidavit, that's easy to explain, which I do, RIGHT HERE.

Re: this comment made by DiEugenio....

"And the guy [Marrion Baker] saw does not appear to be Oswald. He was older, heavier and he was wearing a brown jacket."

....as I told Hank Sienzant recently:

"I like to keep this "Assassination Arguments Part 1000" page handy whenever somebody tells me that it would have been utterly impossible for any witness to think Lee Oswald weighed as much as 165 pounds." -- DVP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GARRY PUFFER SAID:

A guy who weighs 141 pounds would never be said to weigh 165.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Tell that to Marrion L. Baker of the Dallas Police Department, Garry....

"The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds." -- M.L. Baker; November 22, 1963

Let me guess, Garry --- Marrion Baker wasn't really describing the real Lee Harvey Oswald when he said the man he stopped at gunpoint in the Depository's second-floor lunchroom weighed "165 pounds", right? You think Baker was either lying or he was describing somebody besides Oswald (despite the fact Roy Truly, who was right there in the lunchroom with Baker during the encounter, confirmed it was Lee Oswald). Right?

Let's hear the CTers' lame, rip-roaring, half-baked excuse for totally dismissing these words written by Roy Truly on 11/23/63:

"The officer and I went through the shipping department to the freight elevator. We then started up the stairway. We hit the second floor landing, the officer stuck his head into the lunch room area where there are Coke and candy machines. Lee Oswald was in there. The officer had his gun on Oswald and asked me if he was an employee. I answered yes." -- Roy S. Truly; November 23, 1963

http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx11OYBTDZ9DDNL&cdMsgNo=1022&cdPage=41&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3S6UAIF5802TL#Mx11OYBTDZ9DDNL

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...