The 2nd-Floor Baker/Oswald Encounter Has Been Debunked

[Pat Speer]

10 hours ago, Mike Kiely said:

I take the point about confusing the floors, Michael. But Baker's first day affidavit states: "The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket." That's a fair amount of detail, and none of it matches Oswald.

I think if you were to ask most people to describe someone they saw a few hours earlier while they were in a hurry, you would get something similar. Rather than focusing on what he got wrong (assuming it was Oswald), we should focus on what he got right.

The man he saw was white... correct. Somewhere over 20 and somewhere under 40...correct. Not super skinny and not overweight...correct. With hair that was not blonde or red...correct. And wearing a light brown jacket...Okay, he was wearing a light brown long-sleeved shirt, which is close enough... 

The description so closely matches Oswald, in fact, that we can suspect he was describing the man he saw based upon his recollection of Oswald's appearance at the station...

Edited November 8, 2022 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

Mike Kiely said:

Quote

Baker's first day affidavit states: "The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket." That's a fair amount of detail, and none of it matches Oswald.

But we know for an absolute FACT that the man Marrion Baker was describing as the man he saw in the lunchroom WAS definitely Lee Oswald. There is no question about that fact. And the reason we know it was Oswald is because Roy Truly told us so:

"Lee Oswald was in there [the lunchroom]." -- R.S. Truly

And that's why the ABO CTers have to pretend that Roy Truly was a li@r and part of some kind of conspiracy and cover-up.

 

 

Edited November 8, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Ron Ege writes:

Quote

I would buy Oswald biding time in the TT until a shoe shopping/reuniting with his family rendezvous - but only if, as some have theorized, that the gun "taken" from him by the police in the TT was not his and was, in fact, a police plant.

Of course, if Oswald really was carrying a gun, an innocent explanation would be hard to come by.

I don't have time at the moment to look it up, but I recall that at least one witness at the Texas Theater suggested that the gun might have been planted on Oswald during the scuffle. And it isn't at all paranoid to suggest that the Dallas police of that era might fit up a suspect by planting evidence, particularly when the cops were arresting someone they thought had killed one of their colleagues.

Benjamin Cole writes:

Quote

IMHO, the fear was that LHO would spill that he had been a CIA asset (bad enough). Possibly, that he had been in a false flag op gone awry (terrible).

There is, of course, the ugly possibility that LHO was part of a CIA conspiracy to assassinate the President and participated as a good soldier, and then flubbed his escape. Possibly he somehow dodged getting murdered himself.

It's certainly conceivable that Oswald was eliminated for one of those reasons. But it's also conceivable that he was eliminated despite not knowing anything at all about the assassination, simply because of the risk that the lone-gunman explanation would fall apart during a trial. The fear that Oswald might blab about his intelligence connections would apply even if he had played no active role in the assassination.