Guest Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 4 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said: Bill: I see it differently. Piper was sitting next to some window in the office space area of the first floor during the shooting. He could not see anyone in the vestibule because the vestibule was separated from the open space by a wall. When Piper went back to the north of the first floor, Oswald, if he was in the vestibule, could not be seen by Piper. So, Piper may have been speaking the truth about not seeing Lee Harvey Oswald, however, this has no bearing to Oswald's presence in the vestibule/doorway. Roy Lewis's testimony is not conclusive at all: "On November 22, 1963 at approximately 12 :25,PM I stood by myself on the inside of the front entrance of the Texas School Book Depository Building to watch President John F . Kennedy come by the building in a motorcade . I heard three shots fired from somewhere above me, but was unable to see the person who fired them " "The inside of the front entrance" could be both the vestibule or one of the lower steps. Roy Lewis was interviewed two years ago, and it seems clear from that interview that he was outside, maybe somewhere around the lower east part of the doorway, or just in front of that corner. He was somehow guided by the interviewer to admit that he was the Afro-American gentleman in the lower west corner of the doorway which very likely was not the truth. Anyway, Lewis did not say that he would be standing behind the glass door during the shooting, The relevant instant in this interview starts at: 54.18. Thus, neither Piper nor Lewis provides any testimony excluding Oswald's presence in the vestibule before and in the doorway during the shooting. Now, we still have Shelley's, Arnold's and Jarman+Norman's testimonies pinning Oswald to the first floor in instants of the period from the noon onward. That is about the worst interview ever done, from a sound p.o.v., editing p.o.v. and above all from a badgering p.o.v. Last year's biggest letdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 On 2/23/2017 at 3:11 PM, Bill Miller said: Huh??? How about Oswald being seen walking towards the inner door the 2nd floor lunchroom after having just bought a coke. Please produce the document of a coke in Oswald's hand when Baker allegedly saw him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 2 hours ago, Bart Kamp said: Pure speculation Not speculation, but rather probability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 2 hours ago, Bart Kamp said: Third time Bill Miller..... Deliver or retract. I addressed Truly and Baker's meeting Oswald half way down page 60. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Bill Miller said: I addressed Truly and Baker's meeting Oswald half way down page 60. That is not what I asked! For the 4th time or is it the 5th? Losing count already. Please produce the document of "Oswald being seen walking towards the inner door the 2nd floor lunchroom after having just bought a coke. " Edited March 8, 2017 by Bart Kamp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 4 hours ago, Bill Miller said: Not speculation, but rather probability. Merely a belief nothing else. You do not seem to be well aware (a pattern emerges no?) of how the DPD was operating in those days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 19 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said: That is not what I asked! For the 4th time or is it the 5th? Losing count already. Please produce the document of "Oswald being seen walking towards the inner door the 2nd floor lunchroom after having just bought a coke. " I have not found yet who referenced Lee having bought a coke, which is trivial as far as Truly and Baker meeting Lee on the second floor in the lunchroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 10 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said: Merely a belief nothing else. You do not seem to be well aware (a pattern emerges no?) of how the DPD was operating in those days. I have read a lot about how the DPD operated in those days, but that doesn't mean that every witness was intimidated by the DPD. There are just some people who couldn't walk ten steps across a fresh fallen snow and look back over their shoulder to see their own prints and think someone must be following them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrej Stancak Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Bill: I think that there is quite a difference in our attitudes towards the Warren Commission Report. You seem to take the Report literally and consider any view which opposes the course of actions as described in the Report as unjustified. Since it has been prepared by the government and since witnesses testified under oath, all what is described in the Report should be the truth. Warren Report in your eyes may contain errors but those only result from lapses of memory, and are not reflecting any evil intention on the part of a witness or the council. A researcher having this view will stick to the Warren Report "facts" and will happily copy parts of the testimonies again and again considering them to be a proof. Basically, this attitude will only result in highlighting some omissions and discrepancies in the Report but would never question the validity of the Report itself. Researchers of this sort will never come out of the box, and will not cause any crack on the official version. Other researchers, and I belong to those, admit that there are pieces of truthful information in the Warren Report. However, this other group of researchers opines that the Report itself is a cover-up, an instrument of the Government to conceal the truth for maybe a noble or a criminal reason. The Report only elaborates on the framework document prepared by the FBI only three days after the assassination. The FBI furnished all visual evidence to the Commission, and also interviewed a number of witnesses on behalf of the Commission. As the Report aided only one preconceived version of events, it had to be twisted and information either trimmed or changed to meet the goals. Examples? Moving the back wound from the back to the neck is a good example. Saying that the rifle could be packed in a sack measuring 27 inches means ignoring the fact that the rifle, even if broken, could not fit that bag. Altering Vicki Adams' testimony and accepting her authorised and correct version was criminal. Ignoring a number of witnesses reporting shooting from the Grassy Knoll is a wishful trimming of reality. And there are many more examples, highlighted early on by the pioneers (Lane, Epstein, Sauvage, Josten, Mellen, to mention just a few). There were innocuous pieces of information in the Report and here I would not doubt their veracity at all. This may include the question to Marina about the clothing worn by Lee Harvey Oswald on the morning of assassination. Such low-voltage question would be asked, answered, and recorded. However, there were also high-voltage questions which referred to Lee Harvey Oswald's whereabouts and which needed to be in line with the lone-nut version. Only these points needed to be carefully checked and sanitised. Thus, having in the Report truthful answers to a large number of questions does not guarantee that the critical questions were also answered truthfully. Baker's second floor encounter with Lee Harvey Oswald is one of the high-voltage questions. While you assume that the Report is basically a source of truthful information (within the limits of human memory) and therefore Baker's encounter had to happen as described, other researchers assume that this is actually where the truth needed to be suppressed in the Warren Report else the preconceived lone-nut theory would collapse. It is difficult to prove that Baker's testimony was not faithful. Sean Murphy did this work in the main Prayer Man thread. It is very instructive how Baker's reports of the encounter changed, the timing of testimonies, or the Coke bit. These are the cracks in the official version which allow to say that the second floor lunchroom encounter did not happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Andrej A beautifully written and very accurate description of the entire Kennedy case. Now if only we can convince the "conspiracy is everywhere" researchers that not everything is a conspiracy, we'd bring a lot more respect to the CT community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 7 hours ago, Bill Miller said: I have not found yet who referenced Lee having bought a coke, which is trivial as far as Truly and Baker meeting Lee on the second floor in the lunchroom. Then why claim it that it actually happened. You are wasting everyone's time here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 9 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said: Then why claim it that it actually happened. You are wasting everyone's time here. There are lots of postings that can be viewed as a waste of time - some even being your own. You reference a video on Prayer Man in which you called the Newman's the "Wiegman's" and no one called the video a waste of time because you misspoke. As far as my mentioning the coke - I have read that somewhere and may have wrongly attributed it to WC testimony, which still doesn't take away from the other testimony I posted pertaining too Oswald being met on the second floor. Being a hypocrite does not make your theory correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Bill, do you not see that Baker changing his testimony from seeing a guy walking away from him and then coming towards him on the third or fourth floor, to seeing him thorough a glass window in a "vestibule" doorway on the second floor, is a major problem with his evidence? How can you rely on anything that Baker said subsequent to his first day affidavit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ray Mitcham said: Bill, do you not see that Baker changing his testimony from seeing a guy walking away from him and then coming towards him on the third or fourth floor, to seeing him thorough a glass window in a "vestibule" doorway on the second floor, is a major problem with his evidence? How can you rely on anything that Baker said subsequent to his first day affidavit? No I don't see that as a problem. I remember entering the 6th Floor Museum and calling the first floor the second floor to which Gary Mack corrected me. And as I have said before - if you take the stairs ... it takes two levels of stairs to make one floor. So yes, I could see Patrolman Baker, having never been in the TSBD before, and having his mind on scanning for a gunman could cause him to be in error by saying the third floor over the second. The important thing seems to me is that he described a set of doors that led into the Lunchroom. So unless there was a Lunchroom on the third or fourth floor that had a set of doors like those found on the second floor, then Baker guessed at which floor he was on when he said he saw a man through the glass window walking away from him before he entered the Lunchroom. Baker was certainly consistent about seeing a man walking away from him and how that man turned around and walked back towards Baker when the Patrolman called out for him to "come here". About a week or so ago, I stopped into an Insurance company and ask how to get to X-finity cable company and the lady paused and started thinking what would be the easiest way for me to get there as it was only a half-mile away from her office. She told me to go back out to the road and turn right and then stay to the left and X-finity was down three or four lights on the left. In reality I actually went two lights before turning into X-finity. The lady was trying to recall how man lights I needed to go through so to get to my destination and she was wrong, which didn't make her a xxxx - just mistaken. Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. There is a door there with a glass, it seemed to me like about a 2 by 2, something like that, and then there is another door which is 6 foot on over there, and there is a hallway over there and a hallway entering into a lunchroom, and when I got to where I could. see him he was walking away from me about 20 feet away from me in the lunchroom. Mr. BELIN - What did you do? Mr. BAKER - I hollered at him at that time and said, "Come here." He turned and walked right straight back to me. Mr. BELIN - Where were you at the time you hollered? Mr. BAKER - I was standing in the hallway between this door and the second door, right at the edge of the second door. Mr. BELIN - He walked back toward you then? Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. Baker's 11/22/63 Affidavit "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 toward me" So unless there is another Lunchroom on the third floor with a set of doors (one having a 2 x 2 foot window in it), then Baker merely got the floor number wrong. Mr. BELIN. All right. Number 23, the arrow points to the door that has the glass in it. Now, as you raced around, how far did you start up the stairs towards the third floor there? Mr. TRULY. I suppose I was up two or three steps before I realized the officer wasn't following me. Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do? Mr. TRULY. I came back to the second floor landing. Mr. BELIN. What did you see? Mr. TRULY. I heard some voices, or a voice, coming from the area of the lunchroom, or the inside vestibule, the area of 24. Mr. BELIN. All right. And I see that there appears to be on the second floor diagram, a room marked lunchroom. Mr. TRULY. That is right. Mr. BELIN. What did you do then? Mr. TRULY. I ran over and looked in this door No. 23. Mr. BELIN. Through the glass, or was the door open? Mr. TRULY. I don't know. I think I opened the door. I feel like I did. I don't remember. Mr. BELIN. It could have been open or it could have been closed, you do not remember? Mr. TRULY. The chances are it was closed. Mr. BELIN. You thought you opened it? Mr. TRULY. I think I opened it. I opened the door back and leaned in this way. Mr. BELIN. What did you see? Mr. TRULY. I saw the officer almost directly in the doorway of the lunch-room facing Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. BELIN. And where was Lee Harvey Oswald at the time you saw him? Mr. TRULY. He was at the front of the lunchroom, not very far inside he was just inside the lunchroom door. Edited March 8, 2017 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 On 3/7/2017 at 1:34 AM, Andrej Stancak said: ... Indirectly, Jarman and Norman confirmed Oswald's allegation that he saw these two gentlemen passing the first floor lunchroom. How could he know about their presence if not being in the first floor lunchroom? ... Andrej, Your points are valid, yet let's take one thing at a time. First of all -- Oswald made no such allegation. Captain Fritz put words into the dead Oswald's mouth -- that is certain to me. One cannot claim that Oswald said ANYTHING without more proof that Fritz & Co., because Oswald was murdered in the custody of Fritz & Co. Fritz took no notes. The "notes" he later provided were produced WEEKS after the events, and coordinated with Holmes, Bookhout, Hosty, Sorrels etc. Please don't argue what Oswald said on his last day on earth, if your only sources are those who failed to protect his life. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts