Richard Gilbride Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 What I have been contending is that- Oswald was PrayerMan. He went up the lobby stairs. He entered the central offices, while Geneva Hine was down the hall knocking on SouthWestern Publishing's door. Oswald then positioned himself at the plate-glass window of the vestibule door, looking out at the 2nd-floor landing. Truly arrived there moments later, but we don't know whether or not he noticed Oswald. The instant Oswald spotted Baker, he headed into the lunchroom. Baker found this suspicious and went right after him. ****************** The hoaxers cannot give an adequate explanation as to why their hypothesis has produced only brittle results- Tan Jacket Man, Ira Trantham's HSCA memory (which was horrific), Spooky (Baker's 1st-day affidavit's "3rd or 4th floor" man), and Breakfast at Tiffany's (an imagined Baker-Oswald interaction on the front landing, which has no evidentiary support). This is because the hoax is a chimera. The hoaxers refuse to acknowledge that for every single item of lunchroom-related evidence that seemingly speaks for a hoax, there is a readily-available mundane explanation that speaks for the incident's reality. This is because truth is found in the commonplace, not in the ornate. An extraordinary claim, such as the hoax, requires extraordinary proof. The hoaxers refuse to acknowledge that there is an aggregate of evidence- the filmed interviews, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, the will-call counter bump, the lack of corroboration for Biffle's story, the Martha Jo Stroud document- every one of which has a face-value, common-sense interpretation that speaks for the incident's reality. Every one of which has to be contorted in extremis in order to construe it as speaking for the hoax. Like in a Sherlock Holmes or Agatha Christie detective mystery, the reader is initially presented with ambiguous clues. What this aggregate does is resolve this ambiguity- the hoax is rendered so highly improbable that it is essentially impossible. And anything that seemed ambiguous at first must now be interpreted through the lens of the incident's reality. The research community, largely through the sophistry of the ROKC forum, has been calcified by this school of thought- which has produced no fruit- for too many years. The hoaxers have engendered a situation where objective truth is discerned based upon tribal allegiances. Feelings are not facts, and as passionately as they might argue for a hoax, the fact remains is that its solutions do not work. You may put the following in an envelope marked DO NOT OPEN UNTIL 2020- I guarantee that no objectively-verifiable evidence will come forward supporting the lunchroom hoax hypothesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now