+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Why the second floor lunch room encounter could not have happened (/thread-14350.html)
Why the second floor lunch room encounter could not have happened - Bob Prudhomme - 13-12-2015
Albert
When are you going to realize that your private opinions are not proof of anything?
Miss Garner did say she saw Truly and Baker on the 4th floor after Adams and Styles had gone downstairs, but take careful note that she did not say HOW LONG after A & S left she saw T & B come up.
Your logic can tell you anything it wants to, it still doesn't prove anything.
Why the second floor lunch room encounter could not have happened - Albert Doyle - 13-12-2015
Why would Baker and Truly not name the person walking away from the 4th floor landing? He would be a prime person of interest to the Commission after being seen walking away from a place that would be in the perfect range and timing for someone leaving the 6th floor. Why would the Commission not press Baker and Truly on the identity of this person?
"There were no strangers in the building".
Detective Marvin Johnson filled out a report later that evening saying Baker admits he saw Lee Harvey Oswald on the 4th floor.
I'm beginning to realize DiEugenio and some others are confused about the Mrs Reid Oswald witnessing, lunch-room encounter, and Cokes because they don't realize there were two Oswald's in the Depository. Think that's crazy? Check out Douglass and the Texas Theater.
.
Why the second floor lunch room encounter could not have happened - Albert Doyle - 13-12-2015
Bob: I think Gilbride is right. It is hard to imagine that in a hypothetical scene where Baker ran past the steps and never went inside that they would decide to fabricate the locked swinging gate on the front desk story. That story is too unique to be something that would be due to conspirators deciding to make their Depository story believable by fabricating it. If you contend that this locked gate incident may have happened minutes later then that means Baker would have been somewhere lingering for up to several minutes. There are no witnesses for that. Molina said Truly went in. What was Truly going in for? Don't forget you also have no witnesses for your later entry of Baker into the Depository scenario. So where are your witnesses for that? Of the two scenarios Baker's and Truly's actually have more witnessing than yours.
Why the second floor lunch room encounter could not have happened - Bob Prudhomme - 14-12-2015
Albert Doyle Wrote:Bob: I think Gilbride is right. It is hard to imagine that in a hypothetical scene where Baker ran past the steps and never went inside that they would decide to fabricate the locked swinging gate on the front desk story. That story is too unique to be something that would be due to conspirators deciding to make their Depository story believable by fabricating it. If you contend that this locked gate incident may have happened minutes later then that means Baker would have been somewhere lingering for up to several minutes. There are no witnesses for that. Molina said Truly went in. What was Truly going in for? Don't forget you also have no witnesses for your later entry of Baker into the Depository scenario. So where are your witnesses for that? Of the two scenarios Baker's and Truly's actually have more witnessing than yours.
If Truly and Baker ascended the steps at different times (ie. Truly first and Baker a couple of minutes later) they could still meet in the lobby of the TSBD and THEN make their way upstairs, running into the locked swinging gate on the way there. Simply proving the locked gate part of their testimony is true only proves they crossed the 1st floor (or a part of it) together.
Why the second floor lunch room encounter could not have happened - Albert Doyle - 14-12-2015
In my opinion the weak link in that theory is the lack of witnesses for that late arrival of Baker.
Why the second floor lunch room encounter could not have happened - Drew Phipps - 14-12-2015
You must concede that there aren't any witnesses (other than Truly and Baker) either way. The video shows Baker and Truly within a few feet of each other just outside, though.
Why the second floor lunch room encounter could not have happened - Bob Prudhomme - 14-12-2015
Albert Doyle Wrote:In my opinion the weak link in that theory is the lack of witnesses for that late arrival of Baker.
And yet, one of the only four witnesses seeing either Truly or Baker ONLY sees Truly entering the TSBD, despite Truly's claim to have entered the TSBD hard on the heels of Baker. As Drew points out, nobody on the corner OR the steps seems to have seen Baker AT ALL.
Why the second floor lunch room encounter could not have happened - Albert Doyle - 14-12-2015
Drew Phipps Wrote:You must concede that there aren't any witnesses (other than Truly and Baker) either way. The video shows Baker and Truly within a few feet of each other just outside, though.
In my opinion, and I'm not just doing this to annoy Bob, you have a cop with a need to get high up to find a shooter and a Depository manager who saw his official duty strongly in need. I'd probably go with the story Baker and Truly gave and suggest the wrinkles were caused by the problem of seeing two Oswalds. One in the lunch-room and one near the 4th floor landing. There's no rational reason for the Commission to not be interested in the identity of this person. Like in many other instances, including the Tippit shooting, they used the presumption that Oswald was guilty to avoid obvious follow-throughs like this.
Why the second floor lunch room encounter could not have happened - Drew Phipps - 14-12-2015
If you're going to posit "two Oswalds" as a reasonable answer to these two different issues, why not just posit three Oswalds? Then you solve the PM mystery, AND explain the 2nd floor/4th floor mystery!
Why the second floor lunch room encounter could not have happened - Bob Prudhomme - 14-12-2015
Anyone ever stop to think what Baker did, as described by the official story, was more than just a little out of line; considering how little information he had to work with?
Think of it, all he had to go on was that he had heard three "shots", described by witnesses much closer to their origin as sounding like firecrackers. He clearly heard these "shots" despite the fact he is on a Harley Davidson motorcycle and wearing a helmet with flaps partially covering his ears which might not have blocked the sound but most definitely would have distorted it. He then sees a flock of pigeons flying UP to the roofs of the buildings, and testifies he is unsure which building they came from. Just the fact they were flying up to the roofs, and not away from the roofs, casts very serious doubt on his "killer on the roof" story.
Without contacting his Dispatch or his superiors by radio to
1. Find out what had happened to confirm his observations
2. Obtain permission to abandon his post in the motorcade
3. At the very least, inform Dispatch he will be away from his motorcycle and away from radio communication.
Baker is supposed to have bolted from his motorcycle and ran straight to the 7th floor of the TSBD. At this point, what does he have to tell him that a crime had actually been committed?
If Baker had followed anything even CLOSE to proper procedure, he would have, instead of racing by himself to the 7th floor (without telling a soul), attempted to enlist the help of officers on the corner of Houston and Elm to seal off the entrances and exits to the TSBD. At the very least, he would have told them what he was doing, and asked them to be alert for anyone leaving the building, and to call for backup to help seal off the exits.
Seriously, was Baker so stupid he didn't think a shooter could escape by the stairs, while he and Truly were riding up on an elevator? This is why the whole "mad dash to the 2nd floor" stinks to high Heaven of being another concoction of the WC.