Taking seriously Oswald's front steps alibi claim

[Roger Odisio]

16 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Roger describes the difference well. The reason I have a second floor Baker encounter is the obvious: witnesses Baker, Truly, Reid, and Oswald in interrogation told of it, and there is no good reason not to believe them, or counterevidence that Oswald was not where those witnesses had him. I don’t buy that confusions or mistakes, eg of Holmes, impeach the firsthand witness testimonies, and I see no evidence or indication of the existence of a conspiracy to suborn perjury in the form of entire false narratives from those witnesses, which is necessary if one is going to deny their testimony. I don’t buy notions of witnesses (so to speak) like marionettes on strings being fed rehearsed lines to falsely tell by hypothesized but never named or identified unseen handlers, since there’s never been evidence or proof shown that that was how things were done, which I believe is best explained by that was not how things were done. No offense intended to anyone, but that’s how I see it.

Did Oswald mention a 2f lunch room encounter with Baker and Truly during his interrogation?  Which interrogation?  How do we know that since the questioning was not recorded?

When I and others say the purpose of the WC was to frame Oswald, not to figure out what happened, that frame requires a coordinated effort from top on down to gather information consistent with it.  And ignore or distort that which contradicts or does not support the frame. Including making things up that never happened.

The Baker and Truly information is a classic example.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but Baker never mentioned the encounter in his same day report. There were later versions including it which themselves had to be massaged, changing details.   

But Garner, and to a lesser extent, Adams and Styles, showed that the encounter could not have occurred as the WR says it did.  Oswald did not go down the back stairs after the shooting as the WR claims.  Their testimony was distorted, in Adams' case, and ignored in the the case other two.

Point is, you're taking a WR lie, a fabrication, and saying the incident happened in another way that in fact corroborates Oswald's innocence.  OK.  Is there another point to doing that other than to add further corroboration to Oswald's alibi?

[Sandy Larsen]

11 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

The "Shelley" references we find in Bookhout's 11/22 FBI report are, of course, just a sample of the many lies that Oswald told the authorities after LHO was arrested. Shelley confirmed that the last time he saw Oswald on Nov. 22 was prior to 12 Noon

 

Shelley lied just like he did when he testified that it took three minutes for Gloria Calvary to arrive at the TSBD steps, etc.

Evidence shows that his story kept changing, finally settling on the one he gave for the WC.

Shelley and Lovelady were both recruited by the WC to help implicate Oswald. I believe it is likely they both saw Oswald on the TSBD steps, and were told not to blab for national security reasons. And later were asked to fudge there stories, the purpose of which was to discredit Victoria Adams.

 

[Greg Doudna]

10 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

Perhaps it wasn't a "decision" but a "no-brainer".  I imagine, with all the caos and confusion and the fact that there was an assassination attempt, many people would have realized the same thing at roughly the same time.

On Oswald overhearing something said by Shelley out front

As I envision it, Gloria Calvery runs east on Elm into view of the people on the steps screaming the President was shot (she had seen it). Everyone on the front steps, who had all heard the shots but could not see the motorcade at the moment of the shots because of being inset into the front of the building and could only see forward, hears Gloria. Gloria is not screaming to the people on the steps, she is screaming to other people on Elm, but she is now in view and the people on the steps see and hear her. This is before Gloria is subsequently seen in Darnell as one of the women on a lower step climbing the steps in front of Oswald reentering the TSBD building to return to her office.

When first seeing and hearing Gloria screaming, Frazier turns to Sarah Stanton to his left, what did she say? Sarah says, she said the president has been shot. Frazier to Sarah, that's what I thought she said. As the shock is processed, Shelley next to Frazier and Sarah also just to Frazier's left, spontaneously says, "well there goes work for this afternoon!" not meant disrespectfully but like gallows humor reaction to shock, Shelley saying something or other like that just before he leaves with Lovelady who was just below him and to his right on the next step down, as they both head down the steps in the direction of the island where Gloria is surrounded with people, to see and find out more. 

As Paul B just said and few will disagree, Oswald probably left for his own reasons. But he had been out there with Shelley out front, and Shelley had said something and Oswald cited that (which Shelley would likely confirm saying if he had been asked, might have been Oswald's reasoning), as Oswald's claimed reason.

Edited Monday at 10:15 PM by Greg Doudna

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

[Shelley] leaves with Lovelady who was just below him and to his right on the next step down, as they both head down the steps in the direction of the island where Gloria is surrounded with people, to see and find out more

 

Greg, 

Darnell shows Calvary standing on one of lower steps, facing and talking to Lovelady, telling him that Kennedy had been shot. This was at ~30 seconds after the shooting.

In Shelley's first day affidavit, he said that he ran across Elm St. Ext. to the concrete island immediately after the shots, where he bumped into Calvary. Apparently, after bumping into her, they both ran back to the TSBD steps. That is when Darnell captures Calvary talking to Lovelady.

(This is something I and Tommy Graves proved many years ago.)

 

[Greg Doudna]

Second-floor lunchroom encounter

Roger O., yes although there may still not be agreement, the second-floor encounter is worth discussing and lets engage this. First the starting point for me. Its not just Baker said it happened. Its not just that Oswald also said it happened and on that floor (according to the interrogators). Its that Mrs. Reid independently verified Oswald was present on that second floor at the time of that encounter. (An objection that Geneva Hine was on the floor at the time and said she did not see Oswald does not impeach Mrs. Reid's testimony, because it only means she may have been in a restroom or had not returned to her desk until after the Mrs. Reid/Oswald encounter, or alternatively since her desk faced away from where Oswald was when Mrs. Reid saw him, it could have happened when Geneva was at her desk and she did not notice it behind her. But it does not mean what Mrs. Reid witnessed did not happen.) 

Mrs. Reid was talking about that that afternoon to her fellow employees on the second floor, and then throughout the weekend and forever after. She simply was not making that up or in on a plot to make that up. There is no reason why she would, there is no evidence she did, and it makes no sense, not to me anyway. Claims along that line strike me as just bizarre. And even the family hearsay of the Sarah Stanton family members of the Doyle interview on YouTube I believe stem from that talk of Mrs. Reid and some fellow women employees that were returning to their offices that afternoon at about that time. It got garbled in the hearsay over sixty years of Stanton family retelling, but the elements of the same story are there--the coke in his hand, the near a stairwell, the coke only without eating a lunch, how the women knew who he was and wondered why he kept to himself so much, had been curious about him, and so on--I believe stem from the hearsay of that of which Mrs. Reid told and the other employees discussed starting from the same afternoon, all stemming from Oswald having been present on the second floor when Mrs. Reid told he was.

So Mrs. Reid corroborates Baker's police report, as Truly also corroborates it, and the notion that three persons, two civilians and one random low-level working cop, with no evidence of direct kind whatsoever that any one of them were intentionally lying, let alone all three in coordination--I just go by what credible witnesses say, especially when corroborated and with no conflicting evidence of any substantial kind. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and a conspiracy by unidentified invisible handlers to suborn three separte witnesses each to perjure on that narrative scale, and keep the secret for life without it ever leaking ... all I can say is in life one has to choose sometimes between the expected and reasonable explanation that agrees with the known evidence, and a hypothetical that is truly extraordinary in the extreme which has no evidence, and that is how I see the choice here.

7 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Did Oswald mention a 2f lunch room encounter with Baker and Truly during his interrogation?  Which interrogation?  How do we know that since the questioning was not recorded?

"claims 2nd floor coke when off came in" -- Fritz's handwritten notes. Hosty's handwritten does not mention the officer but does not have Oswald denying it either, and Fritz was asking Oswald about it. Yes, since it was not recorded there is that element of uncertainty there, but that is there in the handwritten, it is in the typed-up reports, several heard him, and there's no information Oswald ever denied the encounter with the officer. I believe that may have been in the first interrogation that afternoon of Fritz, Hosty, and Bookhout but am not certain on that.

7 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

When I and others say the purpose of the WC was to frame Oswald, not to figure out what happened, that frame requires a coordinated effort from top on down to gather information consistent with it.  And ignore or distort that which contradicts or does not support the frame. Including making things up that never happened.

I don't believe the Dallas Police or FBI planned in advance to frame Oswald or had foreknowledge of the assassination. 

7 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

The Baker and Truly information is a classic example.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but Baker never mentioned the encounter in his same day report. There were later versions including it which themselves had to be massaged, changing details.   

That has been repeated and repeated so long it is believed (as you do here), but it simply isn't true. It was right there in Baker's original report that first day: he told of that encounter with Oswald on the second floor, although he doesn't say second floor. He doesn't know the building, how would he know to remember the exact floor if he didn't? Baker wrote in his report it took place on the third or fourth floor. On that basis people have been saying he was describing some different encounter with a different person (that has never been verified to occur, because there never was any different encounter).

He just remembered or estimated the floor wrong, but it was the second floor encounter with Oswald told the first day. Another reason people say it couldn't be is because he said (first day statement) that the man he encountered was wearing a light brown jacket. The reasoning is, Oswald was not wearing a light brown jacket, therefore that was not Oswald Baker encountered but someone else, and Baker was lying for the rest of his life when he said it was Oswald.

No, it was Oswald. But why then the light brown jacket description? Note first Baker never said unqualified "brown", he said only "light brown".  Well what then was Oswald  ACTUALLY wearing when Baker encountered him. Here I have researched an answer that has NEVER (I think) even been CLAIMED before, but I am certain it is correct: the gray woolen-like, flannel-like gray jacket Buell Frazier said Oswald wore from Irving to the TSBD that morning and that Frazier and other TSBD employees indicated Oswald would sometimes wear during workdays as well.

Even though that is as plain as day in the on-the-record Warren Commission testimony from Frazier, has been all along--a non-162 gray wool-like, flannel-like jacket routinely worn by Oswald to the TSBD and specifically the morning of Nov 22--you will not find even acknowledgement of THAT jacket's EXISTENCE anywhere previous--its not in the Warren Commission's report in their own writing, its not in Posner, its not in Bugliosi, and you won't find it anywhere on David von Pein's site. 

Its only right there in front of everyone's faces in the Warren Commission testimony of Buell Frazier all along. But no one noticed it. I do not believe I am exaggerating on that (willing to be shown wrong if someone did notice a non-162 gray jacket worn by Oswald on Nov 22, but I have looked and not found any prior mention or discussion of it, apart from Frazier right out in detail and in the open in his Warren Commission testimony, apart from that I mean).

To me that is what Oswald WAS wearing when Baker encountered Oswald at gunpoint that day on the second floor.

Baker said Oswald was wearing a jacket: that part is right.

Then the color Baker gave was mistaken. The color of the old non-162 gray wool-like, flannel-like jacket Oswald was wearing was, by most witness account's, gray. 

Then the question is why would Baker call the color of an actually gray jacket "light brown"? Not whether he did, but why? That he did is fact, but the question is to explain that fact.

I believe I found the answer to that question, which is part of an unpublished paper I have been researching, but will give here the essential point on that. I did some research on human color perception, and more specifically reasons and mechanisms by which gray can be seen as some different color. I found in that literature that gray can sometimes be seen by humans as light brown associated with poor lighting conditions. I don't know the technical reasons why, only that it is a phenomenon. Then I reread Marrion Baker's testimony to the Warren Commission and he said in passing how he remembered poor or dim lighting in that second-floor lunchroom.

7 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

But Garner, and to a lesser extent, Adams and Styles, showed that the encounter could not have occurred as the WR says it did.  Oswald did not go down the back stairs after the shooting as the WR claims.  Their testimony was distorted, in Adams' case, and ignored in the the case other two.

Irrelevant. You are referring to what the WR's interpretation was. Not the issue. The issue is what does the evidence say happened.

I keep repeating but Howard Roffman in an early book gave an argument that the Warren Commission misinterpreted the direction Oswald was going through the door when Baker saw the movement of Oswald that he considered suspicious. Quoting Roffman, Presumed Guilty (1976): 

“It should be noted that the [Warren] Report never mentions Baker’s position at the time he saw Oswald in the vestibule. Instead, it prints a floor plan of the second floor and notes Baker’s position ‘when he observed Oswald in lunchroom.’ This location, as indicated in the Report, was immediately outside the vestibule door. The reader of the Report is left with the impression that Baker saw Oswald in the vestibule as well from this position. However, Baker testified explicitly that he first caught a glimpse of the man in the vestibule from the stairs and, upon running to the vestibule door, saw Oswald in the lunchroom. The Report’s failure to point out Baker’s position is significant.

“The circumstances surrounding the lunchroom encounter indicate that Oswald entered the lunchroom not by the vestibule door from without, as he would have had he descended from the sixth floor, but through a hallway leading into the vestibule. The outer vestibule door is closed automatically by a closing mechanism on the door. When Truly arrived on the second floor, he did not see Oswald entering the vestibule. For the Commission’s case to be valid, Oswald must have entered the vestibule through the first door before Truly arrived. Baker reached the second floor immediately after Truly and caught a fleeting glimpse of Oswald in the vestibule through a small window in the outer door …  In fact, the door had to be completely closed for Baker to see anything through the door window… 

“Baker’s and Truly’s observations are not at all consistent with Oswald’s having entered the vestibule through the first door. Had Oswald done this, he could have been inside the lunchroom well before the automatic mechanism closed the vestibule door. Truly’s testimony that he saw no one entering the vestibule indicates either that Oswald was already in the vestibule at this time or was approaching it from another source. However, had Oswald already entered the vestibule when Truly arrived on the second floor, it is doubtful that he [Oswald] would have remained there long enough for Baker to see him seconds later. Likewise, the fact that neither man [Truly, Baker] saw the mechanically closed door in motion is cogent evidence that Oswald did not enter the vestibule through that door … 

“Had Oswald descended from the sixth floor, his path through the vestibule into the lunchroom would have been confined to the north wall of the vestibule. Yet the line of sight from Baker’s position at the steps does not include any area near the north wall. From the steps, Baker could have seen only one area in the vestibule—the southeast portion. The only way Oswald could have been in this area on his way to the lunchroom is if he entered the vestibule through the southernmost door … Oswald could not have entered the vestibule in this manner had he just descended from the sixth floor. The only way he could have gotten to the southern door is from the first floor up through either a large office space or an adjacent corridor. As the Report concedes, Oswald told police he had eaten his lunch on the first floor and gone up to the second to purchase a coke when he encountered an officer…”

In agreement with this argument on that, the reconstruction is Oswald got there by coming up from the first floor by the southeast stairwell connecting the first to the second floor, and from there crossed the second floor to the lunchroom area intending to go out to the northwest stairwell and back down the northwest stairs to the first floor, then exit the building at the rear. That intention was interrupted when Oswald saw the officer through the glass in the door just as he was about to open the door outward. He retreated quickly but Baker saw the movement and at gunpoint accosted Oswald in the lunchroom until Truly told him Oswald worked there and was OK.

I do not see any testimony of Victoria Adams or Sandra Styles as of sufficient weight to prove Baker, Truly, and Mrs. Reid were lying about Oswald's presence and the Baker encounter with Oswald. How could it? I am not aware that there is even a contradiction from Adams or Styles to the lunchroom encounter as reconstructed here.

7 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Point is, you're taking a WR lie, a fabrication, and saying the incident happened in another way that in fact corroborates Oswald's innocence.  OK.  Is there another point to doing that other than to add further corroboration to Oswald's alibi?

No I am not taking a WR lie or fabrication. The WR's interpretation or commentary play no role in the argument I have outlined of which I am aware; that is all irrelevant. What is relevant are facts and evidence. Neither the Dallas Police, the FBI, nor the later Warren Commission invented the Baker Oswald encounter. The participants and witnesses in that encounter originated telling of the encounter because it happened, is how it originated. Yes there is another point than what you suggest: foundational establishment of facts of timeline, location, and movements, facts of the case, as accurately as possible. 

 

Edited Monday at 10:45 PM by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

 

 

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Greg, 

Darnell shows Calvary standing on one of lower steps, facing and talking to Lovelady, telling him that Kennedy had been shot. This was at ~30 seconds after the shooting.

In Shelley's first day affidavit, he said that he ran across Elm St. Ext. to the concrete island immediately after the shots, where he bumped into Calvary. Apparently, after bumping into her, they both ran back to the TSBD steps. That is when Darnell captures Calvary talking to Lovelady.

(This is something I and Tommy Graves proved many years ago.)

Shelley, Lovelady, and Gloria Calvery

First, I agree with you on one thing--as you and Graves did argue and establish convincingly in my view on an old thread--the identification of the particular woman on the front steps in Darnell as Gloria Calvery. I thought that was completely convincing and an achievement in establishing that as a fact (I have put the link to your 2019 argument on that at the end below).

BUT, I disagree with your second fact claimed, that Lovelady is on the steps there. The man you are calling Lovelady is unambiguously certainly not Lovelady to my eyes. His bald head does not look the same, and he looks like he is wearing a long light-colored coat whereas the real photos of Lovelady from the ca. 30 seconds earlier earlier Altgens6 and Wiegman show Lovelady in checkered shirt and not wearing a long coat at all.

I understand why some--I think a minority but some--have interpreted that as Lovelady, the main reason is the location of that man in Darnell is the same location as, without dispute, Lovelady was visibly standing in the earlier photos. But though it is the same location, the men are clearly different (certainly to my eyes).

From all I have been able to figure, I believe the best candidate for who that is is Molina. After some people went down from the front steps to go out onto Elm or go to the GK or wherever, there was some "spreading out" movement of persons remaining on the steps as more space was opened up by the people who had left, for more comfortable spacing. If you were in a crowded situation jammed close next to someone and then some people on your other side moved away, you would not stay jammed so close to the first person because it would just seem a little strange or uncomfortable, in a way that does not when it actually is a crowded situation. When Shelley left, Sarah Stanton, a big woman, moved more comfortably into the place he had been standing. When Lovelady left, Molina who had been somewhere to the east on the steps is, I believe, seen in Darnell at about where Lovelady had formerly been. From the one or two photos of Molina on Bart Kamp's website I think Molina is the best guess who it was, but in my view it is excluded that it was Lovelady.

Then although it looks like Gloria Calvery going up the steps (headed for inside the TSBD), and the figure whom I believe is likely to be Molina looking forward from the steps which you interpret as them speaking to each other because facing each other, I do not think Gloria Calvery at that moment in the Darnell images is talking to anyone, nor anyone to her. She is simply climbing stairs to go into the TSBD. Molina is simply like others, staring forward into space, looking out toward the Triple Underpass in the distance maybe, mentally processing the shock of what has just happened. His not engaged in conversation with Gloria Calvery.

Both Shelley and Lovelady DO refer to conversations or being close to Gloria telling that the president had been shot, but I interpret that as having occurred before Darnell, before Gloria began climbing the steps to go inside and back to her office inside. 

In Shelley's first-day affidavit, I agree it has seemed puzzling that Shelley says he went out to the island in front, then returned to inside the building, with no mention of going around the building with Lovelady of all his later statements and testimony. Rather than Shelley making a witting lie in witting falsely changing his story on that, or suborned to do so, I just interpret that as Shelley was truthful in his first-day statement but just left out how he got back into the building--not by a return through the front steps, but as he later told and as Lovelady told and as I believe the Darnell film directly corroborates on film, by way of running around to the side, toward the railroad tracks, then back in to the TSBD through the rear. That is, his more developed later stories from later days forward fill out and do not represent actual repudiation of his earliest statement but a fuller telling of the true picture. How I read that.

Both Shelley's and Lovelady's testimony supports what I believe is confirmed on film in Darnell, that they ran west from the out-front near-the-island (per Shelley) general location of Gloria Calvery's arriving screaming about the president having been shot, and I imagine a picture of people crowding around her, including Shelley and Lovelady, asking her what she saw exactly, pressing her for information--Gloria had just seen it, and most of the others had only heard shots without seeing what had happened to JFK. 

I agree there is one puzzling point of objection on the two fast-walking men in Darnell (are they actually running?--more like rapid walking?). The one man I believe is identifiable as Lovelady on photographic grounds alone because of the way it looks like him, his checked shirt, his distinctive hair appearance and profile. Unless my eyes are fooling me, I see Lovelady there. But the man who is more or less walking fast or running near or alongside of Lovelady, who logically ought to be Shelley and seems to match the general profile appearance of Shelley, is nevertheless puzzling because he appears noticeably taller than Lovelady, and apparently that was not so in reality. Was Lovelady running in a street, and Shelley running on a raised-pavement parallel sidewalk, only illusorily appearing to be taller for that reason?

So there are both my agreements and disagreements with your picture. And again, credit to you for your part in the brilliant and correct photo identification of Gloria Calvery in Darnell, that was good. 

For any who have not seen that establishnment of photo identification of Gloria Calvery in Darnell, here it is: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25790-the-identification-of-gloria-calvery-in-zapruder-and-darnell/.

Edited yesterday at 02:04 AM by Greg Doudna

[Sandy Larsen]

Officer Baker said in his first-day statement that he encountered a man on the third or fourth floor, and that the man was in the hallway.

Baker may have gotten the floor wrong, but surely he would have remembered that the man he encountered was in the hallway... not the second floor lunchroom.

And there's a lot more evidence beside this indicating that the second floor encounter was fabricated.

The WC lied about Oswald's alibi. I don't know why it's hard to believe that they lied about this too. I don't know why it's hard to believe that the WC/FBI had to get a number of people to lie to make their fake narrative fly. I think that that is to be expected.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

The man you are calling Lovelady [in Darnell] is unambiguously certainly not Lovelady to my eyes. His bald head does not look the same.

 

A picture of Lovelady in bright lighting has been posted. The hair on the top of his is very thin and you can see his scalp on top. His scalp would be even more visible out in bright, overhead sunlight, thus making it look like a receding hairline... as is seen in the man talking to Gloria Calvary in Darnell.

 

[David Von Pein]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Officer Baker said in his first-day statement that he encountered a man on the third or fourth floor, and that the man was in the hallway.

Baker may have gotten the floor wrong, but surely he would have remembered that the man he encountered was in the hallway... not the second floor lunchroom.

Incorrect.

Marrion Baker never used the word "hallway" in his 11/22 affidavit [HERE]. He said "I saw a man walking away from the stairway". And, technically, Oswald was walking "away" from the "stairway" when Baker first saw him.

"Why can't conspiracists accept Marrion Baker's "third or fourth floor" statement for what it so clearly is — a simple and honest mistake made by a police officer who was in a chaotic and frantic situation within minutes of the President having just been shot, and who was not paying close attention at all to what floor he was standing on when he pointed his gun at Lee Harvey Oswald's stomach in the lunchroom on November 22, 1963?" -- DVP; December 2017

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Second-Floor Lunchroom Encounter

 

Edited yesterday at 01:32 AM by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

I do not think Gloria Calvery at that moment in the Darnell images is talking to anyone.

 

Oh come on Greg. Calvary and the man (Lovelady) are very close to each other and are facing each other. Calvary is motionless, as opposed to climbing the steps. Certainly she would turn around and face the street if she weren't talking to the man. For a moment, Lovelady's head drops down. It appears that he is bending over... surely to better hear Calvary.

Why else would Calvary just stand there facing the man, if not to speak to him?

This is a no-brainer.

 

[Greg Doudna]

17 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oh come on Greg. Calvary and the man (Lovelady) are very close to each other and are facing each other. Calvary is motionless, as opposed to climbing the steps. Certainly she would turn around and face the street if she weren't talking to the man. For a moment, Lovelady's head drops down. It appears that he is bending over... surely to better hear Calvary.

Why else would Calvary just stand there facing the man, if not to speak to him?

This is a no-brainer.

I interpret all those women (four or five to my eyes) facing toward the glass doors at the top of the steps as they are climbing those steps to go into the building to return to their offices. I do not interpret those women including Gloria Calvery as standing still having conversations but in motion going up the steps.

Gloria's screaming and shouting down on Elm that the president was shot I believe has already happened by the time she is seen in Darnell going up the steps to reenter the building. Lovelady did refer to asking Gloria Calvery questions but I believe that happened out on Elm in front of the people on the steps, not while Gloria Calvery was herself on the steps on her way into the building as seen in Darnell. 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Then although it looks like Gloria Calvery going up the steps...

 

Calvary is not going up the steps, though her office-mate (girl in all white next to her) is. If you single-step through the video, you can see Calvary's office-mate pulling on her arm, trying to get her to go up with her.

 

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

And again, credit to you for your part in the brilliant and correct photo identification of Gloria Calvery in Darnell, that was good. 

 

Thank you Greg.

 

[David Von Pein]

On 10/13/2024 at 3:10 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

I think Greg is wrong about the supposed second-floor Oswald/Baker encounter. Many, including myself, believe that it never occurred...

I think it's kind of interesting to take notice of the fact that the late Vincent Bugliosi, who wrote the book excerpt pictured below, evidently had no idea at all that today's 21st Century Conspiracy Theorists have invented a brand-new theory regarding the "Second-Floor Lunchroom Encounter". With that ridiculous "new" fantasy theory being, of course: The Lunchroom Encounter Never Happened At All.

Edited yesterday at 02:27 AM by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Officer Baker said in his first-day statement that he encountered a man on the third or fourth floor, and that the man was in the hallway.

 

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Incorrect.

Marrion Baker never used the word "hallway" in his 11/22 affidavit

 

You are nitpicking... Baker said the man was walking away from the stairwell, which means he was in the hallway.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I do not interpret those women including Gloria Calvery as standing still... but in motion going up the steps.

 

It is clear in Darnell that Calvary was standing still. In contrast, her office mate was walking up the steps. In fact, one can see that Calvary's office mate was pulling on her arm, trying to get her to go up the steps with her.

I've probably studied this part of the film more than anybody else. I used a program that allowed me to singles-step through the film forward and backward so that I could easily see changes frame-to-frame.

Calvary wasn't going up the steps.