Deep Politics Forum

This is an excerpt from pp. 27-30 of DEATH OF THE LUNCHROOM HOAX. I will be posting other sections from time to time. Can someone kindly send me information on how to post pictures at this Deep Politics site? Thank you.

THE FILMED INTERVIEWS

When we examine the filmed interviews we need to bear in mind that the hoaxers are not contending that the lunchroom incident was misreported or misinterpreted. The suspect timing of the incident is not the question here. Because the hoaxers are contending that the lunchroom incident was completely make-believe, like Bambi and Tinkerbell.

When Baker and Truly rendered their accounts on 1964's CBS Warren Report, the tale they imparted was of Disneyesque proportions. And they managed this without any detectable trace that they were engaged in a whopper of a lie- fabricating an event which had never occurred- deeply pertinent to the murder of the recently-slain President. They did this with a deadpan delivery for a national television audience without one day of professional actor's training.

BAKER: As I entered the building there, I asked, uh, some of the people that were standing around there where the stairs or elevator was. And, uh, there was a man that spoke up and said he was the building manager and he'd show me. We couldn't get the service elevator working and, uh, he said, "Well, we'll use the stairs" and he turned around and lead me on up the stairs. And, uh, as we approached the 2nd floor, he- uh, continued on around towards the 3rd floor. And I kinda- I kinda looked off to my right over through a doorway and saw a image of a man walking away through that doorway.

Uh, and when I got to the doorway- he was on down there a little bit- and I hollered at him, and asked him to come back. And, uh- so as he approached me- uh, this building manager, who was Mr. Truly- later I found out his name- and, uh, I turned around and asked him if the man worked for him. And if he knew him. And he said, "Yes, he worked for me. And I know him." And, uh, at that time- uh, the man never did say anything- I never did say anything further to him. Uh, I turned around and went on up the stairs to the 3rd floor.


TRULY: I realized he didn't know the layout of the building, so I ran in with him. It was just a matter of a few seconds after the 3rd shot. And we ran across the shipping floor, stopped at the elevator.

We ran on up the 1st flight to the 2nd floor. And the officer looked in the snack bar adjacent to our office.

The officer with me had a gun in his hand and, uh, he drew the gun, uh, towards the, uh, middle of Oswald. And he looked probably a little startled like anybody else would if you just put a gun in your stomach all at once, which I thought was natural.


Part 1 of 3

In 1986 Baker had to refresh his fairytale in front of a packed courtroom and seasoned trial attorney Vincent Bugliosi. This performance was for the TV documentary On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald, and once again Baker rendered his monstrous lies without a hitch. Not even a bead of nervous sweat was palpable, and it is a shame this promising star of stage and screen squandered his talents on police work.

BUGLIOSI: All right. Exhibit H. Mr. Baker, now on the easel, Mr. Baker, is a floor plan of purportedly the 2nd floor of the Book Depository building. Do you recognize this floor plan as being the 2nd floor?
BAKER: Yes, I do.
BUGLIOSI: With your pointer would you indicate to the jury what happened when you reached the 2nd-floor landing?
BAKER: Right here, on the 2nd-floor landing, as I came out of the stairways, there was a door facing. And through this window in the door, I saw a movement. And then I went over and opened the door and I saw this man walking away from me.
BUGLIOSI: What did you say to him, if anything?
BAKER: I called to him and said, 'Come here.' He turned around and started walking back towards me.
BUGLIOSI: OK. With Mr. Truly at your side?
BAKER: Yes, sir, Mr. Truly was at my side.
BUGLIOSI: That's the superintendent of the building?
BAKER: Yes, sir, it is.
BUGLIOSI: Did you ask him who the man was?
BAKER: Yes, sir, I did.
BUGLIOSI: And he told you it was Lee Oswald?
BAKER: Yes, sir.
BUGLIOSI: Did he appear out of breath?
BAKER: No, sir.
BUGLIOSI: Do you recall how he was dressed?
BAKER: No, sir.
BUGLIOSI: Mr. Baker, other than Lee Harvey Oswald, did you see any one else at all on the 2nd floor?
BAKER: No, sir.

Part 2 of 3

Three years later Baker recounted his yarn for the British documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy. It took place on the Texas ranchland that he loved, and it must have been a relief to finally tell the tale in just blue jeans and a cowboy hat.

BAKER: I rode my motorcycle over to the corner of the intersection, parked it, and then ran in the building, which took me a very few seconds to do this. When I got through the front door, then the lobby of the building, I asked where the elevators or the stairs would be. And one man spoke up and said, "I'm Mr. Truly, I'm the building manager." So he said, "Come on, officer, I'll show you."

So he and I continued on to the back of the building, and up some stairs at the back of the building to the 2nd floor. As we came out of the 2nd- on the 2nd floor, I saw a- through a doorway, a window in this doorway, uh, a man- a movement. So I went over and opened up the door, and this man was walking away from it, and, uh- the next room- I later found out was the coffee room.

NARRATOR: As seen earlier by his fellow workers, Oswald was still alone in the lunchroom.

BAKER: I called to the man, and he turned around, and Mr. Truly was there beside of me, and I asked him if he knew this man or if he worked there. He said, "Yes, he does." He was calm, ordinary, you know- he didn't look excited, or anything like that.


One of the consequences of believing the hoax is that one has to believe that the accounts given above were epic fables. One has to believe that Baker & Truly confabulated, on camera, an explicit encounter with the alleged assassin- that they lied about this investigative focal point, and did so flawlessly. Plus the hoaxer has to remain in denial about the arguments thus far presented that establish the reality of the lunchroom incident.

This deranged assessment of character, 180 degrees off the mark, is reminiscent of the drug casualties of the Woodstock era. For the hippies then indulged in a narcissistic grandiosity which pretended that their collective fantasizing could alter the world around them, as in "Maybe if we think real hard, maybe we can stop this rain." Only in our case we know that the substance being abused isn't the brown acid, is it?

While the hoaxers comport themselves with pomposity amongst themselves, never once have they presented this film evidence to one of Baker's children or even a city police detective for a chance to expose his chimerical story- to emphasize the portions where Baker goes make-believe. Isn't that because a sober assessment of Baker's character reveals a man who radiates integrity? A courageous man, who raced into a building to confront a maniacal gunman, who downplayed that label?

The filmed interviews are superstrong evidence that the lunchroom incident actually happened. And the hoaxers' misdiagnosis is going to sting them for the remainder of their research careers.

Richard,

Whether or not the lunchroom encounter happened, this evidence you produce has little or no weight for rather obvious reasons.

We know that CBS rehearsed witnesses and had them repeat their testimony until they produced the result CBS wanted in 1964. We know this due to Gayle Nix Jackson's testimony, and also through Mark Lane's book, A Citizen Dissents. He and his film producer were allowed to see some of the outtakes from the 1964 show, and they were shocked at the techniques employed. CBS then decided that one day was enough and closed down the screening room forever.

As per the London trial, I guess you did not read my book. I devote an entire chapter, chapter 3, to all the contradictions and BS that went unchallenged by Spence. I mean how about Harold Norman for one? How about Cecil Kirk for another? What about Petty for a third? If the defense is not going to call anyone out, then why not give him a snowjob?

I hope you don't plan on flooding the board with these kinds of threads? IMO they belong in just one place.

This is what I wrote:

"Whether or not the lunchroom encounter happened..."

And you know.....

Jim,

I highly recommend that you first read carefully through my essay before responding. Please extend me that common courtesy.

Your response tells me that you have not paused to consider the complaints I've detailed at the end of this Filmed Interviews section.

You tell me "We know that CBS rehearsed witnesses..." but offer not one shred of evidence that these particular Baker & Truly interviews were rehearsed. And even if they were, what of that? Wouldn't it be simply to get people prepared to be on film- in the studio- and hopefully not waste on-air time?

The burden of proof is on you hoaxers- to present some kind of evidence that these particular Baker & Truly interviews were confabulations.

If you are so personally convinced that Baker & Truly were confabulating their stories, why don't you make a Voice Stress Analysis to give your suspicions some oomph? Just because you are suspicious doesn't automatically make your suspicions transmutate into truth. Just because a whole bunch of people are suspicious doesn't make their suspicions automatically transmutate into truth.

What on earth does Spence's ill-prepared defense have to do with what Baker described to Bugliosi as regards the lunchroom encounter? Nothing! This is your regressive m.o. kicking in, of guilt-by-association- i.e. Spence was sloppy, therefore Baker lied.

Why don't you seize the opportunity and bring this film evidence to one of Baker's children
or a Dallas police detective, even a Long Beach police detective, and present your lunchroom hoax spin to them?

What are you afraid of?

Discovering that your precious hoax theory is a delusion?

Richard:

Can you please calm down a moment and think of what I am really saying. Its obvious you did not read my book about that London trial

If Spence would have been really prepared do you not think he would have done what any good defense lawyer would have?

For instance after Bugliosi asked Norman about forever hearing the sound of the cartridges ejecting above him, should not have Spence said "Mr. Norman, forget about the rest of your life. You couldn't remember that noise for four days!" (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 55)

Spence then should have read him his first statement to the FBI on November 26th. Where there is no mention of those sounds. And further there is nothing in the record prior to that about them. His new story did not emerge until December 2nd, under the influence of Elmer Moore of the Secret Service, who we know today was putting together the cover up in Dallas, at Dealey Plaza, the TSBD and at Parkland Hospital. (ibid, pgs. 166-69)

And so with Baker. After Bugliosi put him through his paces about his WC testimony, should not Spence have read Baker his first day affidavit which contradicts it? Its the wrong floor, there is no mention of a lunchroom or a coke, and its the wrong description.

Should not Spence then have asked him, "Now Mr. Baker, when you made out this affidavit you were in a witness room with Oswald. Why did you not lean over and say words to the effect: I am the guy who stuck that gun in your stomach this morning. Can you tell me your name so I can fill out this affidavit more accurately?"

That is what defense lawyers who know the evidence do. Spence did not do it and we never got to see how Baker would have answered under cross examination.

Also I do not see how it benefits your argument to use smearing type terms like hoaxsters etc. I also do not understand your argument about who bears the burden of proof. When you have the original statements and the later statements contradict those earlier ones, then its on the witness to explain why he changed his story. But that never happened of course since we know what the WC was up to.

The ongoing reference to those who disagree with Mr. G as "HOAXSTERS" has to stop....

The opposite of your POV Richard is not a HOAX... what you are trying to foster on unsuspecting readers is a version of junk science that disregards the realities of light and how images are digitized.

You are calling me a hoaxster... and my argument that the evidence supports the conclusion the 2nd floor encounter never happened... a hoax...

It seems to me now that we've asked you to calm down - you may be so married to your work's conclusion you've stopped considering other thoughts.... or the actual evidence...

Have you any real sense of how many witnesses' statements were written for them, or explained to them, or altered after the waiving of a review and signing...??
A good example is BLEDSOE describing the shirt Oswald changed into BEFORE he goes to the theater and after he takes this supposed bus ride... she was given the shirt's description and used it despite it not being the shirt he was wearing at the time... ooops. Add to that McWatters admitting it was not Oswald and we see BLEDSOE for the lead witness she was...

So please don't pretend I don't have a significant enough understanding of the material to have any kind of discussion you'd like... nothing I present here is a HOAX Richard... and for someone who has spent so much time around this case, you not seeing the HOAX perpetrated by the DPD, FBI, CIA, SS, I&NS and a handful of other acronyms... yet just not here in this one case.... is beyond understanding.



Another Case in point Jim brought up
Here's a hoax for you... Norman claiming to hear shells and the working of the bolt...

Norman was about 10 feet from the muzzle of that rifle if it had been fired from the 6th floor window. A muzzle blast produces 125-150 decibels ...

Do you have any idea what 125dB at 10 feet would do to your ears? How long they would be ringing with an inability to hear anything... and yet this happens 2 more times and after each time Norman not only can claim to hear these clinks and clanks but make the comment that MAYBE the shots are coming from just above...

Richard, it doesn't pass the smell test... All three of these men would have had a terrible time hearing anything if a rifle went off 3 times within 15 feet of their ears... remember, the muzzle was supposedly outside the window...

These men where right at the windows directly beneath - or were they? This is Hughes and Weaver as the limo turns the corner... where are our 3 men? All in the window to the east?





Maybe it was just another case of the authorities filling in the blanks...


Mr. NORMAN. I believe it was his right arm, and I can't remember what the exact time was but I know I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know, slumped or something, and then another shot and I believe Jarman or someone told me, he said, "I believe someone is shooting at the President," and I think I made a statement "It is someone shooting at the President, and I believe it came from up above us." [/FONT]Well, I couldn't see at all during the time but I know I heard a third shot fired, and I could also hear something sounded like the shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the rifle, it sounded as though it was to me.

[/FONT]Mr. BALL. I want to call your attention to one part of the statement and I will ask you if you told him that: [/FONT]
"Just after the President passed by, I heard a shot and several seconds later I heard two more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I could also hear the bolt action of the rifle. I also saw some dust fall from the ceiling of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the shots was directly above me." [/FONT]
Did you make that statement to the Secret Service man? [/FONT]
Mr. NORMAN. I don't remember making a statement that I knew the shots came from directly above us.[/FONT] I didn't make that statement. And I don't remember saying I heard several seconds later. I merely told him that I heard three shots because I didn't have any idea what time it was. [/FONT]

Jim,

I have not been impressed with the excerpts you've posted on forums from Reclaiming Parkland and these pertain to Baker. You've gone off the rails in recent years and I cannot empathize with your take on Baker. But I did like your previous effort very much, which I read while recuperating from congestive heart failure.

As regards Baker's affidavit, please see my comments in Death of the Lunchroom Hoax, starting mid-page 31 through beginning p. 33, and mid-page 86.

About 6 law enforcement personnel had piled into that small interrogation room at the back of Homicide, with Oswald, while Baker was composing his affidavit. Yet you want to crucify him for getting TSBD details inaccurate. How would you like it if 7 people piled into your study while you were composing a critical chapter wrap-up to Destiny Betrayed? From memory? About some building you had been in one-time only?

And you are daydreaming if you think Spence would have had any kind of case whatsoever cross-examining Baker about this 5/10 minute timeframe finishing up his affidavit. i.e. "Mr. Baker, how come you didn't drop your pen and interrupt these lawmen?"
You tell me, "This is what defense lawyers who know the evidence do." Baloney! Spence had nothing to gripe about. You assume he didn't know this small room was over-crowded. You assume that he didn't know that Baker, just after filling out his affidavit, told Marvin Johnson about the identity of the suspect they'd brought in.

And this affidavit misconstruction on your part is central to the Murphyites' argument that the lunchroom encounter was a hoax.

What an unbelievably sophomoric disregard for Baker's circumstances. You're off the reservation here, and you get overly-sensitive about "smear" terms like hoaxster. Should I amend that to huckster?

Political correctness is destroying freedom of speech. I'll soon be banned from this forum for hate speech for claiming there are major-league factual errors in Bart Kamp's essay.