Why the second floor lunch room encounter could not have happened

[Albert Doyle]

That situation only exists because of a moderator who openly censors people who offer the better information. What is preferred on the Education Forum is endless chasing of windmills in the direction of Murphy and ROKC. People who offer firm proof are vilified and subjected to dirty tricks. When you challenge that corruption you are accused of not being respectful. That alleged lack of respect is then used as an excuse to put you on moderation, even though your internet-leading evidence has gone unanswered by the opposition. That's intellectually dishonest and the people who then don't have to answer for their failings are not going to protest it.

[LR Trotter]

Anti-lunchroom encounter posters are getting away with saying "Out Front With Shelley" conclusively means Oswald was out front during the shooting. These people are liars because they damned well know the context of Fritz's notes places Oswald on the 1st or 2nd floor lunchroom during the shots. The same place Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald minutes earlier.

The "scribbled notes" of DPD Captain Will Fritz would be, at best, "very questionable evidence" for me if I were on a jury trying to decide guilt or innocence of anyone near/or in, the TSBD building at 12:30pm, CST, on 11/22/1963. In any event, the "this case is cinched" comment came very, very early. I do not wish to opine about WF's competence, but it appears as though "some mistakes" occured on 11/22/'63 through 11/24/'63 in regards to "his prisoner". I do not know the origin of "said mistakes", but they "did occur".

[Albert Doyle]

A good detective would see FBI tried to push Carolyn Arnold's true witnessing time of 12:25 back to 12:15. This indicates Oswald was most-likely in the lunchroom at the time of the shooting as he told Fritz.

[Ray Mitcham]

Ray Mitcham is over on the Education Forum saying Baker's 1st day affidavit eliminates the lunchroom encounter. However he never mentions or responds to Truly's telling his wife of the lunchroom encounter that evening. The ROKC zealots just ignore evidence that counters their bs. While calling my efforts "infesting" DiEugenio never once responded to my mention of Truly confirming the lunchroom encounter the night it happened to his wife or how it affects the ROKC 'research' he credits.

Ray is a fool yet he is allowed to post regressive crap freely.

Sorry, Albert/Buttons but you are on my ignore list as I don't like arguing with idiots.

[Albert Doyle]

When the first photo analysis expert gets hold of Darnell he will confirm they are buttons (or fasteners). Then you will disappear like you always do.


By the way, you ignored Truly telling his wife about the lunchroom encounter that night or how it affects your offerings. Is there a reason why you are not answering that and how it relates to what is posted on the EF? You are trying to say Baker's affidavit eliminates the lunchroom encounter. When I ask you to respond to the significance of Truly telling his wife that night you ignore it.

[Ray Mitcham]

When the first photo analysis expert gets hold of Darnell he will confirm they are buttons (or fasteners). Then you will disappear like you always do.


By the way, you ignored Truly telling his wife about the lunchroom encounter that night or how it affects your offerings. Is there a reason why you are not answering that and how it relates to what is posted on the EF? You are trying to say Baker's affidavit eliminates the lunchroom encounter. When I ask you to respond to the significance of Truly telling his wife that night you ignore it.

See my previous answer.

[Albert Doyle]

Translation: Won't answer evidence that disproves him. You have a right to ignore the Truly evidence for what reason again?



You're a perfect example of what I'm talking about Ray and your type of researcher is currently hijacking the community with an attitude and doesn't feel any need to respond to valid evidence.

[Albert Doyle]

Truly telling his wife about the lunchroom encounter was posted on the Education Forum but now I can't find it.


Does anyone know the source for that? HSCA perhaps?


Apparently the source was Philadelphia newspapers (either the Bulletin, or the Inquirer)... The reporter again, based on recollectionhad apparently called the Truly residence, his intention being to speak to Roy Truly, but he (Truly) wasn't in; and so he ended up on the phone with Mrs. Truly.

And so he (the journalist) reported what she told him (admittedly hearsay) of what her husband had (very recently, in the last day or so) told her.



.

[Albert Doyle]

When discussing the lunchroom encounter Bart Kamp wrote:

Truly already fingered Oswald that day with his Nov 22 FBI statement and after a chat with Fritz in the bookstore.

This was in relation to the Philadelphia reporter who called Mrs Truly and got her to say Roy Truly told her about the lunchroom encounter the evening of the assassination.


What Kamp doesn't account for is this is evidence that Truly was openly talking about the lunchroom encounter that day on the 22nd. He also says Truly communicated with Fritz about it on the 22nd. What Kamp ignores is that this is evidence that the information discussed in the Fritz notes originated on the 22nd and was not fabricated days later as the anti-lunchroom encounter advocates contend. That information a) Discusses the lunchroom encounter with Baker and b) Has Oswald himself saying he was either in the Domino Room or lunchroom during the shooting. Right where Carolyn Arnold saw him minutes earlier.


What this statement above establishes is that everybody else, including Truly, were talking about the lunchroom encounter on the 22nd and only Baker, who was under the control of the corrupted Dallas Police Station that was setting up Tippit at the time, wasn't. What this means is those who deny the lunchroom encounter are ignoring this proof of it being discussed on the 22nd and trying to have everything depend on the Baker affidavit.

[Albert Doyle]

What Kamp is really saying without saying it directly is that the lunchroom encounter never happened as illustrated by Baker's affidavit. He is implying that the story of the encounter originated somewhere around Truly's FBI statement and his chat with Fritz. So the logic is they invented the lunchroom encounter on the 22nd somewhere around the time of Fritz's chat with Truly. But why would they then have Baker's statement on record placing Oswald on the 3rd or 4th floor and change it to the lunchroom? Why would they just not stick with Baker's 3rd or 4th floor? Why would they draw suspicion on their own lies by making a record of conflicting stories?


The reason ROKC is desperate to deny the lunchroom encounter is because they are aware that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald at 12:25 and that it doesn't make sense he would go from the lunchroom down to the front steps and back up to the lunchroom in 6 minutes.

Wasn't there a 2nd source for Oswald saying he was in the lunchroom/Domino Room in his interview at the police station?


The research community has gotten weird because Murphy is nothing less than Cinque II but you have mainstream researchers falling for this crap while endorsing ROKC and getting nasty about it. Meanwhile logic like the above gets ignored. After a period posts will be made saying "I am 100% certain the lunchroom encounter didn't happen". The logic for which will be a repetition of ROKC bs that ignores the above. The obvious answer to the question above is that Oswald was still alive when Kamp claims they concocted the lunchroom encounter. They were worried that Oswald would simply mention that he was in the lunchroom when confronted by Baker. In other words they knew it was true and their denial of it would cause problems by making it look like they were trying to hide something. When Truly told his wife about the lunchroom encounter that night he was simply telling the truth. Or you can listen to Bart Kamp and Greg Parker.