Deep Politics Forum

This is interesting! Baker's early affidavit seems critical here, so let's take a real close look at it:



First off, considering how this thing was treated during the investigatory shenanigans, there may have been something pretty unacceptable in the above. First, as DJ pointed out, it doesn't confirm the 2nd floor encounter, but it seems possible to me that with everything else going on, Baker could have left it out. More significant, though, is the guy in the "light brown jacket" on the 4th floor. That could describe either of the two Oswalds, I suppose, or someone else entirely. Lee, in the white T-shirt and gray (light brown?) jacket, or Harvey in the famous shirt, which I would call brown, but not really "light brown." On top of it all, it's probably a mistake to parse too finely the descriptions of these fleeting encounters Baker had.

Are we sure the 2nd floor encounter happened as advertised? Can we make a reasonable assumption that the man Baker saw on the 4th floor was an Oswald? Albert's theory is pretty interesting. J.A.'s is slightly different, but I'll try to run this by him when we talk.

Why in God's name would the Commission not be interested in Baker's ID-ing of a man who was close to the sniper's nest?



If Truly said that man works here why didn't the Commission run photos of the Depository employees past Truly and Baker to confirm this person's identity? Why in God's name would they leave a person who fit the location of exiting the Sniper's Nest unidentified?



It makes perfect sense that Baker didn't mention the lunch-room encounter because he had the problem of seeing the same person twice within a short period.



There's, no doubt, a sighting of two Oswald's exiting the Depository that has to be back-traced.



In my opinion, with all the egos involved, sometimes the Assassination research community can be slow to catch on.



.

You guys know my opinion about "Oswald body doubles," not going to rehash. My point at this time is "put yourself in Baker's shoes" for a minute. If Baker sees "Oswald doubles" wearing different clothes, what possible reason would Baker have that he not going to put that in his initial report? Or mention it later? To the FBI? To the HSCA? Ever?

You must ascribe a pre-existing sinister motive to Baker to keep that one under wraps. And, if Baker had a pre-existing sinister motive, why didn't he just up and shoot "whichever Oswald was the patsy" when he had the chance? He would have been a hero.

What's really happened here (IMHO) is that Baker wrote in his initial report the most unusual thing he saw (the guy on the fourth floor) and why he didn't shoot him ('cause Truly vouched for him). It was only later, after Oswald's arrest, that Baker (or someone else) decided that the lunchroom encounter with Oswald was the most unusual thing Baker saw, and the affidavit was re-written to reflect that. The second affidavit would have the benefit (from local law enforcement's POV) of putting the shooter inside the building, and the problems it caused would not be recognized until later.

I think Baker is both being honest (on/about 11/22/63) and not involved with the conspiracy. I think he saw a lot of people he didn't know, and we've heard about 2 of them. (I'm not so trusting when it comes to the "re-enactment" part of Baker's participation.)

Albert asks a good question. My follow up question to that is, which one of Baker's reports went to the WC? I'm guessing only the second one.

Drew Phipps Wrote:You guys know my opinion about "Oswald body doubles," not going to rehash.

Wait.... I've been out of the country lately and I'm not getting any younger. Are you saying that "Lee Harvey Oswald" was not impersonated by anyone who at least looked a little like him... EVER... or at least during the years 1963 or 1962? Have you changed your opinion of those biometric comparisons you made a few months ago?

You do not believe there was an LHO as patsy setup during the summer and fall months of 1963???

Quote:What's really happened here (IMHO) is that Baker wrote in his initial report the most unusual thing he saw (the guy on the fourth floor) and why he didn't shoot him ('cause Truly vouched for him). It was only later, after Oswald's arrest, that Baker (or someone else) decided that the lunchroom encounter with Oswald was the most unusual thing Baker saw, and the affidavit was re-written to reflect that. The second affidavit would have the benefit (from local law enforcement's POV) of putting the shooter inside the building, and the problems it caused would not be recognized until later.

As Albert points out, the first affidavit would have had the benefit of putting the encounter closer to the so-called "sniper's nest." Why change it?

Quote:I think Baker is both being honest (on/about 11/22/63) and not involved with the conspiracy. I think he saw a lot of people he didn't know, and we've heard about 2 of them. (I'm not so trusting when it comes to the "re-enactment" part of Baker's participation.)

This seems to be the crux of Albert's theory, so I'll wait for his response.

Quote: Albert asks a good question. My follow up question to that is, which one of Baker's reports went to the WC? I'm guessing only the second one.

You're preaching to the choir, Drew.

Quick rehash of my personal beliefs: Someone definitely impersonated him when he was in Russia. (FBI's first(?) identity theft case) There are multiple records of somebody with his name in his formative years - which might be records of two individuals with the same name, or might be a legend built for him by some intelligence organization, or might be a "marked card deck" to catch a mole, or might be someone impersonating him. (school years, shoe company(?) military service, driver's license, pay stubs, etc.) Someone was deliberately dropping his name in and around Dallas immediately before the assassination. (Rifle range, car dealership, TX. employment commission, etc)

I don't think a Dallas "impersonator" looked any more like him than, say, John T. Masen, Larry Crafard, or Michael Paine, who seem to me to be the most logical suspects (as a Dallas name dropper). Just using the name, plus a faint resemblance, plus making a memorable experience, would be enough for most ordinary people to make an association later.

As far as my biometric comparisons go, I can say that I believe that there's more than one individual in those pictures, but that still doesn't get me to John Armstrong's lifetime "body double" or "identical twin" idea. Nor do I have any reason to think that there were two "lookalikes" spotted by Officer Baker in the TSBD.

As far as your question "Why change it?", since we are supposing here, you might suppose that Baker in fact did see Oswald in the lunch room and reported that fact honestly, even when requested (or ordered) to redraft his affidavit.

Drew Phipps Wrote:Quick rehash of my personal beliefs: Someone definitely impersonated him when he was in Russia. (FBI's first(?) identity theft case) There are multiple records of somebody with his name in his formative years - which might be records of two individuals with the same name, or might be a legend built for him by some intelligence organization, or might be a "marked card deck" to catch a mole, or might be someone impersonating him. (school years, shoe company(?) military service, driver's license, pay stubs, etc.) Someone was deliberately dropping his name in and around Dallas immediately before the assassination. (Rifle range, car dealership, TX. employment commission, etc)

THANK YOU! Can you think of a simpler explanation than J.A.'s? How many times should someone be impersonated before we seek other explanations? Once? Thrice? Six times?

Quote:I don't think a Dallas "impersonator" looked any more like him than, say, John T. Masen, Larry Crafard, or Michael Paine, who seem to me to be the most logical suspects (as a Dallas name dropper). Just using the name, plus a faint resemblance, plus making a memorable experience, would be enough for most ordinary people to make an association later.

You mean, like this? ....

Quote: As far as my biometric comparisons go, I can say that I believe that there's more than one individual in those pictures, but that still doesn't get me to John Armstrong's lifetime "body double" or "identical twin" idea. Nor do I have any reason to think that there were two "lookalikes" spotted by Officer Baker in the TSBD.

Understood. Neither JA nor I believes H&L were "identical twins." Nor the "Two Marguerites." They were just similar enough to fool a few eyewitnesses. This is not rocket science!

I specifically did not mention the Mexico City trip, or whatever was going on down there, simply because there is no way that either of those pictures could be mistaken for the real guy. You really can't say that either one of these pictured guys might be mistaken for Oswald, by Sylvia Odio, or anyone else. You really trust Cuban Intelligence to disclose honestly from their files, or the CIA?

Any one of the scenarios I outlined above are "simpler" than a concerted attempt by a nefarious and wayward CIA to carry out a lifetime's worth of impersonation for no specific reason (at the beginning of the operation). It's not the number of alleged impersonations that matter. It's "simpler" (not to mention more sensible) to suppose that different people with different motives might have used Oswald's name for their own reasons, and/or that some of the witnesses have been tricked by their own memories, than to suppose that there is a 24 year sinister plan by a single shadowy conspiracy.

Drew Phipps Wrote:You guys know my opinion about "Oswald body doubles," not going to rehash. My point at this time is "put yourself in Baker's shoes" for a minute. If Baker sees "Oswald doubles" wearing different clothes, what possible reason would Baker have that he not going to put that in his initial report? Or mention it later? To the FBI? To the HSCA? Ever?

I read somewhere that Oswald had an encounter with the Dallas Police at some point prior and they knew he was a spook. When Baker gets back to the police station his report removes all mention of Oswald and simply reports an unknown employee on the 4th floor landing. We know how corrupted the assassination was. At that point it is not impossible that Baker was somehow cognizant of his double problem.

Drew Phipps Wrote:You must ascribe a pre-existing sinister motive to Baker to keep that one under wraps.

DPD is a place where no one took notes of a presidential assassin's statements. I think we can assume a collective understanding of subversion of evidence was present at the police station.

Drew Phipps Wrote:What's really happened here (IMHO) is that Baker wrote in his initial report the most unusual thing he saw (the guy on the fourth floor) and why he didn't shoot him ('cause Truly vouched for him). It was only later, after Oswald's arrest, that Baker (or someone else) decided that the lunchroom encounter with Oswald was the most unusual thing Baker saw, and the affidavit was re-written to reflect that. The second affidavit would have the benefit (from local law enforcement's POV) of putting the shooter inside the building, and the problems it caused would not be recognized until later.

DiEugenio says Oswald was within view of Baker at the station when he wrote his report.


Baker would have no reason to include details on elevators not working but then skip mention of holding his gun on a man who was right there at the station and under arrest when he wrote his report.


Even if they had decided on Oswald being the suspect there's no reason to not ID the man on the 4th floor landing. We know all the employees and we know their rate of disclosure of their doings in the subsequent years and investigations. It just plain doesn't make sense that one of those employees would experience a prime event like being confronted by Baker on his stair climb and not mention it.


The key to this is Carolyn Arnold who places Oswald in the lunch-room close to the known events. This is matched by Fritz's notes that also place Oswald in the lunch-room. Carolyn Arnold is key because she's a non-police source that corroborates Oswald being in the lunch-room where Baker, Fritz, and Oswald claimed.

Drew Phipps Wrote:I think Baker is both being honest (on/about 11/22/63) and not involved with the conspiracy. I think he saw a lot of people he didn't know, and we've heard about 2 of them. (I'm not so trusting when it comes to the "re-enactment" part of Baker's participation.)

If you reverse engineer the scene I think we can safely assume two Oswalds left the Depository. That means you have to account for those two Oswalds inside the building. We have a second example of DPD erasing Oswalds from the Depository with Roger Craig's witnessing and preferring their version. Choosing one of the two witnessings as the preferred plot. So Baker wasn't the only one to do so.


Come to think of it, isn't Fritz's delay of his notes a mirror reflection of Baker's delay? And isn't the release of the Oswald double taken out the back of the Texas Theater a contemporary example of the Dallas Police burying doubles sightings at the same time as Baker?



.

Drew Phipps Wrote:I don't think a Dallas "impersonator" looked any more like him than, say, John T. Masen, Larry Crafard, or Michael Paine, who seem to me to be the most logical suspects (as a Dallas name dropper). Just using the name, plus a faint resemblance, plus making a memorable experience, would be enough for most ordinary people to make an association later.

At the Texas Theater Bernard Haire saw 'Oswald' escorted out the back door. He never mentioned anything about the man looking similar to Lee Harvey Oswald. Haire always maintained it was Oswald. Butch Burroughs got a good look at 'Oswald' and never mentioned anything being off about his resemblance. Miss Kittrell said the men resembled each other close enough to not be able to tell the difference at first sight. TF White said it was Oswald. But the topper is Julia Postal, who was so distraught that she had to bolt from the interview crying in order to avoid admitting she also saw two Oswalds within a short period. I think Brewer also ID'ed the man he saw as Oswald.

All the evidence is showing this was a man who could pass for Lee Harvey Oswald by direct, close appearance.

Drew Phipps Wrote:I specifically did not mention the Mexico City trip, or whatever was going on down there, simply because there is no way that either of those pictures could be mistaken for the real guy. You really can't say that either one of these pictured guys might be mistaken for Oswald, by Sylvia Odio, or anyone else. You really trust Cuban Intelligence to disclose honestly from their files, or the CIA?

Any one of the scenarios I outlined above are "simpler" than a concerted attempt by a nefarious and wayward CIA to carry out a lifetime's worth of impersonation for no specific reason (at the beginning of the operation). It's not the number of alleged impersonations that matter. It's "simpler" (not to mention more sensible) to suppose that different people with different motives might have used Oswald's name for their own reasons, and/or that some of the witnesses have been tricked by their own memories, than to suppose that there is a 24 year sinister plan by a single shadowy conspiracy.

We believe the purpose of the 10-year-or-so impersonation, from the beginning, was to give a U.S. identity and birth certificate to a Russian-speaking kid so he could eventually travel to Russia and pretend he didn't understand Russian, which is pretty much what happened. The result was that "Life of the Soviet Worker," essay, which is quite a report! There is no evidence that the Oswald Project got entangled in the Kennedy plot until 1963.

Your "simpler" explanation, that many different people just happened to impersonate "Oswald" for many different reasons, sounds pretty unbelievable to me.

As for Mexico City, the people I trust most here are still Ed Lopez and Dan Hardway, and I haven't heard much from them lately (or ever) indicating they believe a mere mole hunt explains a half century of treachery from the Agency about this case.