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

[Greg Parker]

1. Oswald has a chat about lunch with Piper. Piper can't recall whether Lee responded that he was going "out" or "up" and Piper further claims not to have noted which. The alleged interaction between Oswald and the 6th floor crew never happened. No one actually said they SAW Oswald at that time. I believe the conversation was with the one person we know WAS up there - Jack Dougherty.

2. Oswald does go "up" to the second floor for his coke and passes Mrs Reid on the way back down. If any words are exchanged at all, it is merely small talk - something Oswald can't process because of his Asperger Syndrome - and thus is considered rude because of his non-responsiveness throughout his life.

3. Oswald goes back down and is drawn outside because of the noise and assumes the PM position. No one notices because all eyes are on the street.

4. He then re-enters and is one the people Baker sees when he looks around asking for directions.

5. Oswald is in or near the small stock room when Campbell and Reid re-enter.

6. Oswald then attempts to leave but is stopped by Barnett and asked to step aside and questioned. He flashes his library card as ID.

7. Oswald is told he can leave by Truly or his side-kick Shelley. The rabbit has been let loose for the hounds.

8. Before leaving he gives Allman directions to the phone.

9. He leaves through the docking area which is only being very loosely watched. He may have left with Buell, with Buell dropping him at the TT.

I'm gonna go back and re-read all you've written in this thread, and re-read all the relevant early statements to confirm in my mind that they fit your 9 points. So far, what I remember and have in front of me fits nicely.

Greg,

I have re-read all the relevant testimony (that I'm aware of), removed the parts that I've concluded were later fabrications (the 2nd floor Baker/Oswald encounter), and compared what's left to your list of nine assertions. It all seems to fit with the possible exception of Baker seeing Oswald inside when he was asking for directions (because this seems unnecessary).

As of now I'm using your model for my working theory

Yeah... that's the only one I wouldn't put the farm on.

[Jon G. Tidd]

FWIW, I believe the second-floor lunchroom encounter didn't happen. But I don't care. For an important reason.

I believe all the post-assassination cover-ups, lies, and fabrications, including the Warren Commission, had one purpose: to show the U.S. Government wasn't a banana republic, wasn't fractured and confused; was solid and on track.

Think about it. The leader of the Free World has been killed. There must be an explanation why this happened. The simplest reason is that a lone nut did it.

Americans like simple explanations for disturbing events. That like, that need, must be fed. At all costs.

Warren understood this. He was a man of his times. He was wrong in many ways, including some of his 1960s Supreme Court opinions, but he understood his times.

[Sandy Larsen]

FWIW, I believe the second-floor lunchroom encounter didn't happen. But I don't care. For an important reason.

I believe all the post-assassination cover-ups, lies, and fabrications, including the Warren Commission, had one purpose: to show the U.S. Government wasn't a banana republic, wasn't fractured and confused; was solid and on track.

Think about it. The leader of the Free World has been killed. There must be an explanation why this happened. The simplest reason is that a lone nut did it.

Americans like simple explanations for disturbing events. That like, that need, must be fed. At all costs.

Warren understood this. He was a man of his times. He was wrong in many ways, including some of his 1960s Supreme Court opinions, but he understood his times.

Jon,

Have you ever considered the following:

If the purpose of the conspiracy was only to eliminate Kennedy and have a patsy take the blame, then there was no reason to fake a Mexico City trip. Because Oswald's alleged motive had already been well established by his defection to Russia and his pro-Castro activities in New Orleans.

So what was the purpose of Oswald's alleged (fake) trip to Mexico City and alleged meeting with KGB assassinations chief Valeriy Kostikov? Surely it had to have been designed to lay the blame for JFK's murder at Russia's feet.

Yet, look at what happened. The coverup artists successfully isolated Lone Nut Oswald as the sole perpetrator of the crime.

So, in effect, the coverup conspiracy was at odds with the assassination conspiracy... at least in this one respect. And in this one respect the assassination conspiracy failed.

(In asking this, I assume you believe the Mexico episode was faked. I sure do.)

[Thomas Graves]

FWIW, I believe the second-floor lunchroom encounter didn't happen. But I don't care. For an important reason.

I believe all the post-assassination cover-ups, lies, and fabrications, including the Warren Commission, had one purpose: to show the U.S. Government wasn't a banana republic, wasn't fractured and confused; was solid and on track.

Think about it. The leader of the Free World has been killed. There must be an explanation why this happened. The simplest reason is that a lone nut did it.

Americans like simple explanations for disturbing events. That like, that need, must be fed. At all costs.

Warren understood this. He was a man of his times. He was wrong in many ways, including some of his 1960s Supreme Court opinions, but he understood his times.

Jon,

Have you ever considered the following:

If the purpose of the conspiracy was only to eliminate Kennedy and have a patsy take the blame, then there was no reason to fake a Mexico City trip. Because Oswald's alleged motive had already been well established by his defection to Russia and his pro-Castro activities in New Orleans.

So what was the purpose of Oswald's alleged (fake) trip to Mexico City and alleged meeting with KGB assassinations chief Valeriy Kostikov? Surely it had to have been designed to lay the blame for JFK's murder at Russia's feet.

Yet, look at what happened. The coverup artists successfully isolated Lone Nut Oswald as the sole perpetrator of the crime.

So, in effect, the coverup conspiracy was at odds with the assassination conspiracy... at least in this one respect. And in this one respect the assassination conspiracy failed.

(In asking this, I assume you believe the Mexico episode was faked. I sure do.)

Sandy,

Excellent post.

--Tommy

[Greg Parker]

FWIW, I believe the second-floor lunchroom encounter didn't happen. But I don't care. For an important reason.

I believe all the post-assassination cover-ups, lies, and fabrications, including the Warren Commission, had one purpose: to show the U.S. Government wasn't a banana republic, wasn't fractured and confused; was solid and on track.

Think about it. The leader of the Free World has been killed. There must be an explanation why this happened. The simplest reason is that a lone nut did it.

Americans like simple explanations for disturbing events. That like, that need, must be fed. At all costs.

Warren understood this. He was a man of his times. He was wrong in many ways, including some of his 1960s Supreme Court opinions, but he understood his times.

Jon,

Have you ever considered the following:

If the purpose of the conspiracy was only to eliminate Kennedy and have a patsy take the blame, then there was no reason to fake a Mexico City trip. Because Oswald's alleged motive had already been well established by his defection to Russia and his pro-Castro activities in New Orleans.

So what was the purpose of Oswald's alleged (fake) trip to Mexico City and alleged meeting with KGB assassinations chief Valeriy Kostikov? Surely it had to have been designed to lay the blame for JFK's murder at Russia's feet.

Yet, look at what happened. The coverup artists successfully isolated Lone Nut Oswald as the sole perpetrator of the crime.

So, in effect, the coverup conspiracy was at odds with the assassination conspiracy... at least in this one respect. And in this one respect the assassination conspiracy failed.

(In asking this, I assume you believe the Mexico episode was faked. I sure do.)

I agree with Tommy. Very good points.

[Richard Gilbride]

Sandy Larsen, post #101- Richard, if you will, please explain what complications for hoaxers result from Adams and Styles going down the stairs before Truly and Baker going up, without the two pairs passing each other.

The answers are found in a review of my April 2014 essay The Lunchroom Incident: A Short Proof and Long Explanation found at the old ROKC website at http://www.reopenkennedycase.net/the-2nd-floor-lunch-room-encounter-pro-and-con.html

I laid the argument out mathematically, that Truly & Baker had to have been in the lunchroom, but I had an erroneous piece of information- Styles had remembered attempting to call the passenger elevator on the way down, but Adams was firm they used the rear office door.

The mathematical argument is still valid with this route, but less obvious, and I didn't want to rehash that in Inside Job. It felt more effective, psychologically, to run through the litany of the hoaxers' best arguments and rebut them one by one.

We have to understand that Adams & Styles, in 3-inch high heels, could not have beaten Truly & Baker to the freight elevator area. You'd have to imagine the gals as faster than Wilma Rudolph & Wyomia Tyus to get them out of the warehouse unnoticed. Or imagine Truly & Baker as taking a 20-second-plus pause in the lobby, which they nor anybody else ever mentioned.

We don't have any cause to corrupt the data given us- Baker gets to the steps at 0:22, Truly's only 10 feet from the steps, it's an adrenalized situation, they rush into the warehouse, Adams & Styles leave their 4th-floor window about 0:10, etc. Not to mention Adams & Baker seeing a large black guy downstairs, at different locations.

Therefore, when Adams & Styles ran across the 2nd-floor landing, Truly & Baker had to be inside, in the vestibule & lunchroom. The hoaxers have a mental block that forbids this, because they read the testimony (III p. 225) with an extreme bias.

Truly stated, "I opened the [vestibule] door back and leaned in this way." But Belin didn't ask whether, after he leaned in, he allowed the automatic vestibule door to close. The focus of this part of the testimony was about Baker confronting Oswald.

Truly described Baker as almost directly in the lunchroom doorframe, facing Oswald, who was 2-3 feet inside the lunchroom. He could see that Baker had his gun in Oswald's gut, and he could see Oswald's facial expression.

Baker & Oswald weren't in profile to Truly's point-of-view- they weren't both 2-3 feet inside the lunchroom, they weren't both in the lunchroom doorframe. Truly was able to garner these details because he had moseyed up beside Baker, across 7-8 feet of vestibule floorspace. Letting the heavy-duty vestibule door close behind him.

The coaxers- I mean hoaxers- then throw a hissyfit when I suggest that the high heels- irrelevant to the situation, irrelevant to Baker's gestalt- got muffled by the heavy-duty door. No common sense allowed!

The Stroud document- which I also examine in my 1st lunchroom essay- involves both the A & S and T & B timelines and seals the deal, as far as T & B having to be in the lunchroom. It's what woke me out of the nightmare of their hoax mullarkey.

[James DiEugenio]

SL: So what was the purpose of Oswald's alleged (fake) trip to Mexico City and alleged meeting with KGB assassinations chief Valeriy Kostikov? Surely it had to have been designed to lay the blame for JFK's murder at Russia's feet.

Yet, look at what happened. The coverup artists successfully isolated Lone Nut Oswald as the sole perpetrator of the crime.

So, in effect, the coverup conspiracy was at odds with the assassination conspiracy... at least in this one respect. And in this one respect the assassination conspiracy failed.

I thought I talked about this before in another thread. Maybe I need to do it again.

I have written at length on Mexico City. I did it in the second edition of Destiny Betrayed. And I also did it in Reclaiming Parkland. It was cut out of that book but it will be in the trade paper reissue.

With all the info we have on this now--the declassified Lopez Report, Armstrong's one hundred page treatment in his book, John Newman's essay in Probe, and his long treatment in Oswald and the CIA, it is not accurate to look at it as the cover up artists isolated lone nut Oswald as the sole perpetrator, and the cover up conspiracy was at odds with the assassination conspiracy.

As many authors have noted, including Jim Douglass, Johnson was manipulated into an Oswald did it cover up because of the Mexico City tapes. That is, "Oswald's" alleged meetings with Kostikov and his attempt to get in the Cuban consulate as a way to get an exit visa out of the USA. And we actually have this on record with both LBJ, Hoover and Warren. In order to save the world from World War III, LBJ then spooked Russell and Warren into taking their jobs. Warren got it, as you can see from the first executive session meeting.(Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, p. 359) He then spread this fear to the WC staff at the first meeting, and they got it. (Reclaiming Parkland, pgs. 253-54) Because Liebeler told Sylvia Odio that Warren had told them that,if they gathered any evidence of conspiracy, they were to shove it under the rug. This was right before he tried to get her into bed.(Ibid, p. 254)

So, those phony MC tapes worked. Does anyone think they were made up the day of the assassination?

Edited January 26, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Sandy Larsen]

SL: So what was the purpose of Oswald's alleged (fake) trip to Mexico City and alleged meeting with KGB assassinations chief Valeriy Kostikov? Surely it had to have been designed to lay the blame for JFK's murder at Russia's feet.

Yet, look at what happened. The coverup artists successfully isolated Lone Nut Oswald as the sole perpetrator of the crime.

So, in effect, the coverup conspiracy was at odds with the assassination conspiracy... at least in this one respect. And in this one respect the assassination conspiracy failed.

I thought I talked about this before in another thread. Maybe I need to do it again.

I have written at length on Mexico City. I did it in the second edition of Destiny Betrayed. And I also did it in Reclaiming Parkland. It was cut out of that book but it will be in the trade paper reissue.

With all the info we have on this now--the declassified Lopez Report, Armstrong's one hundred page treatment in his book, John Newman's essay in Probe, and his long treatment in Oswald and the CIA, it is not accurate to look at it as the cover up artists isolated lone nut Oswald as the sole perpetrator, and the cover up conspiracy was at odds with the assassination conspiracy.

As many authors have noted, including Jim Douglass, Johnson was manipulated into an Oswald did it cover up because of the Mexico City tapes. That is, "Oswald's" alleged meetings with Kostikov and his attempt to get in the Cuban consulate as a way to get an exit visa out of the USA. And we actually have this on record with both LBJ, Hoover and Warren. In order to save the world from World War III, LBJ then spooked Russell and Warren into taking their jobs. Warren got it, as you can see from the first executive session meeting.(Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, p. 359) He then spread this fear to the WC staff at the first meeting, and they got it. (Reclaiming Parkland, pgs. 253-54) Because Liebeler told Sylvia Odio that Warren had told them that,if they gathered any evidence of conspiracy, they were to shove it under the rug. This was right before he tried to get her into bed.(Ibid, p. 254)

So, those phony MC tapes worked. Does anyone think they were made up the day of the assassination?

Jim,

I'm trying to figure out how what you are saying differs from what I said. Because when I read what you wrote, it sounds consistent with what I wrote.

Let me tell you, as plain as possible, what I believe. In reply please tell me, as plain as possible, what you believe.

Please keep it simple. If you want to give reasons for your beliefs or otherwise elaborate, do so after the "plain as possible" part, in its own paragraph.

Thanks

What Sandy Larsen Believes

The assassination plotters faked the Mexico City trip in order to make it appear that the assassination was a conspiracy that included Russia and Cuba. This was done in order to garner public support for war against communism and communist countries.

The Warren Commission's cover-up was designed to isolate Oswald from any connection between him and Russia or Cuba. This was done to prevent a potential WW3 and to give the public a sense that their government had everything under control.

Therefore, the WC cover-up was at odds with the assassination plot in this one respect.

In short, the assassination plotters wanted conspiracy, whereas WC cover-up did not.

[James DiEugenio]

Where I disagree is this:

Its not determined for a fact what the conspirators wanted.

The whole Kostikov/Cuba paper mache soufflé in MC very well could have been simply to scare the White House into an Oswald did it cover up, in order to protect against atomic war.

In that regard I find it interesting that the MC tapes allegedly disappeared within 24-48 hours.

[Sandy Larsen]

Where I disagree is this:

Its not determined for a fact what the conspirators wanted.

The whole Kostikov/Cuba paper mache soufflé in MC very well could have been simply to scare the White House into an Oswald did it cover up, in order to protect against atomic war.

In that regard I find it interesting that the MC tapes allegedly disappeared within 24-48 hours.

Interesting. I hadn't thought of that.

[Richard Gilbride]

"The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie- deliberate, contrived, and dishonest- but the myth- persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."

-John F. Kennedy, commencement address to Yale University, June 11, 1962

Greg Parker, post #96- In short, [Oswald] followed his natural route of going up and buying a coke and coming back down to have it with his lunch IN THE DOMINO room. The purchase of the coke happened BEFORE the assassination- and that is when he was seen by Reid.

...they brought Baker's encounter down to the 2nd floor lunchroom and claimed it was Oswald and they changed Reid's sighting from a pre-assassination one to a post-assassination one. Voila! Mission accomplished! This was the whole reason for the confusion about the coke.

The confusion about the coke is also resolved by postulating that Oswald purchased two cokes- one for his domino-room lunch and one just after being confronted by Baker. But Greg's scenario shanghais Reid into the lunchroom-hoax mini-conspiracy, and by extension Leavelle & Belin & who-knows-who-else, as he turns her affidavit topsy-turvy in order to make the hoax hypothesis work.

These shenanigans stink of artificiality, and they service a hypothesis that yields ephemeral results, which have no empirical substantiation. Even if one discards Tan Jacket Man and Ira Trantham as laughable, Baker's confusion ("3rd or 4th floor") does not automatically transmutate into an encounter with a flesh-and-blood person there. Nor is there even a hint from film or circumstances that Baker & Prayerman had any interaction on the front landing.

Yet Greg holds onto the lunchroom-hoax the way Norman Bates shows devotion to his mother in Psycho. Neither rhyme nor reason can shake his tenacious determination that her Aussified remains must live on.

Consider when I point out that:

1) every single item of lunchroom-related evidence has a mundane explanation that supports the incident's reality, no answer is given.

2) the Sept. 23rd affidavit shows Baker's continuing confusion with the TSBD floor layout, and cannot be construed as supportive of a hoax, and no answer is given.

3) the 1964 filmed interview shows Baker as a modest man with integrity. His fellow officers called him "MommaSon" and referred to him as "dopey". Yet Greg wants to paint him as a coverup monster, more clever than any professional actors of the day, telling a whopper about the lunchroom with a complete deadpan delivery.

4) the will-call counter bump, a superfluous incident that serves no ostensible purpose in a contrived hoax narrative, is a telltale indicator that other points of correspondence (at the elevator & in the lunchroom) in the Baker/Truly testimonies actually happened. But because this detail did not come out until the testimonies (which were preceded by 2 re-enactments), Greg ignores its pertinence. Neglecting that numerous other details about the elevator area & lunchroom were refreshed with the help of the re-enactments. Neglecting that numerous other details about Baker's time in the Depository weren't elaborated on until the testimonies. Greg would have us discount any detail that doesn't fit into his conception of a hoax-supportive deadline.

5) the Biffle story has not one whit of corroboration, nothing that substantiates it as supporting a hoax, and no answer is given.

6) the Stroud document, coupled with a fact-based understanding of their timelines, places Adams & Styles on the stairs during the same timeframe that Truly & Baker are ascending the stairs from the elevator area. And the men had to have been in the lunchroom when the ladies passed. Yet Greg mis-reads Truly's vestibule-area testimony so as to maintain that this is impossible and thereby enable the hoax.

Greg Parker's obstinacy in the face of a cascade of reasoned criticism does not bode well for his grip on reality as regards other JFK matters. His is an immature hypothesis supported only by wishful thinking, sophistic spinning and ad hominum attacks. He and Sean Murphy co-founded and co-advertised this misbegotten school of thought and they have an enormous emotional investment in pretending that it is true. And their efforts have involved recruiting new followers to "get on board" and thereby help confirm the validity of this fruitless, regressive way of thinking. Because they do not have the courage of their convictions and this insecurity requires sycophants.

The result has been a collective dementia that favors mullarkey over hard-nosed logical connections. That favors sophistry, and barroom bulls***, over answers that will sustain.

The hoax hypothesis doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Its adherents are forced to ignore the uncomfortable fact that all of the pertinent evidence can be interpreted as supportive of the lunchroom incident's reality. And they are forced to ignore that for 5 items- an aggregate of evidence- the clarity is so well-defined that only a contortion of common sense allows any interpretation supporting a hoax.

Were there only one item, they might have a case. But there are 5. And probability theory tells us the hoaxers' chances of being correct are infinitesmal, ultramicroscopic. Their position is a demonstrable falsehood.

[Terry Martin]

Richard, methinks you protesteth too much.

I had serious doubts about the second floor encounter long before I even heard of Greg Parker or Sean Murphy. It stank to high heaven along with almost everything in the WC volumes; the story was a late-comer to the party as was most of the "findings" of the commission.

You state with some degree of certainty that there are 5 whopping pieces of theory that "sink the hoax". Bugliosi had 50+ pieces of evidence that supposedly sank any possibility of Oswald's innocence. Those 50+ points he listed are all lies and very easily proven to be unfounded. Why the hell should a measly 5 pieces of malarkey (or "mullarkey") matter against examination of the testimonies?

The collective dementia, as far as I see it, are the people who cannot let go of the garbage fostered by the Warren Commission and start to look at the case logically.

Your presentation was full of holes two years ago and the flaws have not been plugged yet.

But, carry on, please. Show me something other than blind acceptance of Baker's later testimony, ignorance of physics, and "collective dementia" that deems sophistry superior to logic.

Bring something new to the table.

[Greg Parker]

We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."

Good quote Richard.

Let's see how your take stacks up

Fact: Baker wrote 3rd or 4th floor. Your opinion is that he was confused

Fact: Baker described a 165 pound 30 year old wearing a light tan jacket. Your opinion is that he was mistaken

Fact: Oswald allegedly claimed to buy one coke: your opinion is that he bought two.

Fact: Mrs. Reid stated Oswald wore a white t-shirt. Your opinion is she was mistaken

Fact: The re-enactments were done over and over again until they could make the timing work. Your opinion is that they was done over and over to "refresh" Baker's memory

Fact: The will-call counter "bump" is a change to the original story given which was that Truly was already inside. Your opinion that it was just additional information is an opinion you're entitled to. You are also entitled to the opinion that there is no elephant in the room.

It's always instructive when someone whose opinions are not attracting any support of note, will start claiming that the support of other positions is merely due to sycophancy.

As Terry said, people have long smelled something foul regarding the 2nd floor encounter. You are so tied up in trying to extract some sort of revenge, that you are actually falling back on Warren Commission apologist type arguments. Not bad coming from someone who believes the MJ12 garbage was what got Kennedy killed.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Greg Parker

[Terry Martin]

Perhaps John Barleycorn is your problem as you seem to mention it repeatedly.

I don't drink so you will have to come up with some better personal attack than that, Richard.

"Because it sure looks to me that you are under the influence when you both read & reply to these posts. Doing so is a profound waste of your time and my time." Right back at you, big guy. Under no influences and time is what you make of it. It's only wasted if you do not use it constructively.

As for the thread at the old ROKC forum, I believe it was archived due to the degree of mudslinging that ensued. A follow up to that thread is still available at http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t838-an-alternative-lunchroom-encounter-scenario which might answer some of your questions about alternatives and variations on the theme.

I do not need to detail counter-arguments to your 5 items. If you had read the response properly, I was addressing your claim that 5 items was of some substantial importance, which they are not as noted by Bugliosi's 50.

If you are going to debate, Richard, please try to read what you are debating before you post. Otherwise you waste everyone's time.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Terry Martin

[Richard Gilbride]

My apologies to you Terry. I don't drink either (20-plus years) and assumed you did from reading a post from you at the present ROKC forum about Australian wines.

But I don't think we're getting anywhere, other than talking past each other, and if you want to carry on believing the 5 items I presented favor a hoax, as opposed to the incident's reality, I can't do much about that. Either one or the other happened. As far as waste of time, I would contend the hoax hypothesis is the real waste- I guarantee there will be no objective-verifiable fruits from that line of thinking.

You offend me when you insult my understanding of physics. You may enjoy an essay of mine from 1998, up at jfkinsidejob.com, that should change your mind.