Why the second floor lunch room encounter could not have happened

[LR Trotter]

Is there another reliable evidenced based timeline?

Whose established timeline? (With the emphasis on "established".)


Circular argument. If Baker says it's right then it must be right.

Which "additional situational events" do you mean?

Why would I not take his word for the event as it occurred? Him being human and all, and having to enter a building that is indicated to be occupied by a person that has just shot at the POTUS, I would think it would be necessary to review the event and gather his thoughts and recollection.

If you are to take his word then take his first words.

There was no indication that any shots had been fired from the TSDB except for pigeons, allegedly, flying off the roof, which they would have done, from whichever building the shots had been fired.

Apart from Baker and Truly, there is no confirmation of the second floor encounter, and even Baker's first affidavit disagreed with his subsequent testimony.

While standing by my thoughts as posted, I see no need to explain further .However, if it is believed the encounter did not occur ,instead of questioning the conclusion that it did, maybe some eyewitnesses, on the scene, gave provable testimony that it did not, and those eyewitness accounts can be presented.

Right. Which means you can't back up what you said. Got it.

Actually sir, I can't back up what you said. In any event, I await eyewitness testimony that proves that the 2nd floor encounter did not occur. And, that burden is on those that claim the encounter did not occur. If such provable evidence is presented, so be it, but beyond that, I see no need to continue this conversation. Have a nice day.

[Albert Doyle]

Ray is a welcomed ROKC member. What he offers is a direct transposition of the parsing semantics specialized in by Bart Kamp over on Greg Parker's website. But you can see how he and Jim D achieve that level of brainwashing by ignoring all that reasonably counters it. Ray ignores the content of my post because it doesn't allow him to practice the forced illusion that Kamp has gotten the community to buy. What you are seeing here are ROKC evidence-cookers who offer things like "but he said officer and didn't specify Baker". When you point-out that Baker was established as being the only officer in the area who it could be Jim and Ray ignore you and then start referring to you negatively in their ROKC proxying.


What is happening here is like Fetzer and Cinque prevailing and convincing a lesser skilled and lazy community anxious to find new evidence against the Commission that Doorway Man was actually a good theory and then getting those who impose themselves as research website authorities to go along with it and marginalize those who can refute that garbage theory under the guise of site rules. Those less involved researchers then give the nod to people like Jim D without ever having entered anything credible on the subject themselves. This intellectual delinquency has led to a monstrously uncredible troll group suddenly gaining credibility and being taken seriously. It is unbelievable that what we have happening here is like Fetzer and Cinque now getting automatic moderator-enforced license because some self-appointed research 'authorities' simply give Jim automatic approval without checking his facts.


What Ray is doing here is very similar to Fetzer's MO. It is just a suggestive emphasis on sophist contrivance while accenting words and attacking shadows in the evidence that are cooked-up by ROKC-like hocus pocus that has zero evidence behind it. If you look at what Kamp offers it is just a repetition of this wishful insertion of realness into his forced doubt until it is repeated so many times that it is then referred to as the better interpretation, but as Ray shows here it is achieved by the dishonest ignoring of that which counters it. For some reason the Darnell Film has a distortion that shows Baker veering off before running up the steps. This film quirk has now become the basis for more years of ROKC bullshit gumming up the community with Jim D's full encouragement and those who criticize Jim being punished by unaccountable moderators.


Thanks to Jim we now have what can only be seen as Fetzer and Cinque running the community and being the deciding factor in who is allowed to post. Corrupted moderators like Gordon use Jim's opinion as guidance in their censorship. Jim plays them like a fiddle and the unaccounted for result is the nightmarish travesty of a clown like Kamp getting 'Excellence In Research' awards with those who support it saying things like "but his lunchroom stuff is completely independent research". What you are seeing here is a take-over of the community by a lesser skilled mob that practices a form of tabloid-type research in order to bolster anti-Warren Commission claims, as Gilbride posted and was then censored by that same mob and its watchdog moderators. The lack of challenge of those posters and automatic approval by friends has led to a dangerous level of bad research being indirectly approved by the community. The community is frittering into a popularity club that is willing to pass off faulty claims in order to keep superficial interest going in the assassination. It is violating the higher standard of rigor it used to define itself by. ROKC operates by a very simple method of assuming that since the Commission corrupted the evidence there is unlimited opportunity to insert any kind of fantastic meaning into that void. It does it to the maximum result in order to gain notariety for unskilled "researchers" like Bart Kamp and Andrej Stancak. Unscrutinizing moderators see this mob and react to their industriousness and volume of research. They see the majority like it so they judge accordingly and thereby accept some of the worst garbage research to ever be introduced to the community. Because of the non-involvement of the community the ROKC mob's posts have quietly become the norm and those offering the better wisdom are disparaged. When Stan Dane spoke of me in his video he simply said I was banned and skipped over me. Like Ray and Jim he never addressed my evidence because he knew he couldn't. What this shows is the mob directly uses this unfair moderation as justification of its doings. They work off each other and they have not accounted for the bad evidence they have introduced.

Right. Which means you can't back up what you said. Got it.

He says while ignoring my post...

[Ray Mitcham]

Whose established timeline? (With the emphasis on "established".)


Circular argument. If Baker says it's right then it must be right.

Which "additional situational events" do you mean?


If you are to take his word then take his first words.

There was no indication that any shots had been fired from the TSDB except for pigeons, allegedly, flying off the roof, which they would have done, from whichever building the shots had been fired.

Apart from Baker and Truly, there is no confirmation of the second floor encounter, and even Baker's first affidavit disagreed with his subsequent testimony.

While standing by my thoughts as posted, I see no need to explain further .However, if it is believed the encounter did not occur ,instead of questioning the conclusion that it did, maybe some eyewitnesses, on the scene, gave provable testimony that it did not, and those eyewitness accounts can be presented.

Right. Which means you can't back up what you said. Got it.

Actually sir, I can't back up what you said. In any event, I await eyewitness testimony that proves that the 2nd floor encounter did not occur. And, that burden is on those that claim the encounter did not occur. If such provable evidence is presented, so be it, but beyond that, I see no need to continue this conversation. Have a nice day.

Great response, Mr Trotter. Maybe you could show how anybody prove that something didn't happen. You only have Truly and Baker's word's (and that at the second try) for something which allegedly happened.

[Albert Doyle]

Great response, Mr Trotter. Maybe you could show how anybody prove that something didn't happen. You only have Truly and Baker's word's (and that at the second try) for something which allegedly happened.

This is false and Ray is being allowed to get away with it.



Miller showed that Ochus Campbell saw Baker and Truly run in the building. They quietly ignore it like Ray is doing here because they know it refutes their dishonest spin. Community moderators have helped Ray ignore this information and they don't account for it.



Miller also showed that Piper and West saw Baker & Truly enter right in line with Campbell's witnessing. The anti-lunchroom encounter people deal with this obvious evidence like Ray does above. They aggressively turn on their attacking of the evidence overblowing specks and concentrating on disingenuous interpretation of words while ignoring the obvious. Their spin is conspicuously dependent on the suggestion that the Warren Commission should have presented exactly accurate facts. They ignore that the Commission had a motive in muddying the evidence in the Depository in order to divert from Oswald being exonerated by being in the lunchroom. Or perhaps in order to cover-up the Oswald doubles.


These people deal from the position of standing on nothing but ROKC-generated, speculation-driven wishful thinking but then have the nerve to speak in a tone of implied authority and accusation of failing to meet their standards...This is how ROKC manages to convert years-worth of evidence-free speculation and evidence contrivance into a solid case people are heckled for not answering...When you point-out that no one saw the allegedly delaying Baker lingering outside they simply ignore you...

[Jim DiEugenio]

Doyle: Jim D says how could Baker not recognize the man sitting across from him in the police station? A smarter detective would realize it was exactly because Baker saw the suspect there that he fudged the lunchroom encounter because he knew it vindicated Oswald.


The above has to rank with some of the unintentional humor of Tracy Parnell over at EF.

The absolute certainty with which Doyle says people are "wrong" and then declares their statements "false" is somewhat Ayn Randish. Then he comes up with an absolute laugh riot like above.

[Albert Doyle]

Doyle: Jim D says how could Baker not recognize the man sitting across from him in the police station? A smarter detective would realize it was exactly because Baker saw the suspect there that he fudged the lunchroom encounter because he knew it vindicated Oswald.


The above has to rank with some of the unintentional humor of Tracy Parnell over at EF.

That's ridicule Jim, that's obviously being used to flagrantly dodge lengthy posts that I've made here and their content. You're just proving my point. You're calling to the mob.



Jim, your regular research shows you are much smarter than this. I take what you are doing here to be deliberate playing dumb in order to avoid answering things you know might refute you.



Are you saying Baker was perfectly clean and was not corrupted by the ongoing conspiracy that was documented as going on the whole time during his encounter with Oswald and during his police station activities?



Sorry, Jim but my post deserves a better more respectful answer. Your position is clearly disingenuous and if you were more honest you would attempt to answer the credible points I've made...I'm still waiting for someone to honestly answer the significance of Truly telling his wife about the lunchroom encounter on Friday night...



.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Oh no, here we go again with the etiquette lectures.

From the guy who has become a combination Sen. Joe McCarthy/Roy Cohn with ROKC.

The idea that he is trying to convey about Baker attributes so many conditions to him at that time that it is ludicrous. The bag story is not going to develop until about four o'clock. Frazier will not be called in till about seven.

BTW, here is a sample of Bill Miller's logic:

The long and the short of it is that Oswald said he was on the second floor when the police officer met him. Elsewhere Lee said he went up to the second floor to get a coke. Truly and Baker both said they met Oswald on the 2nd floor.


My understanding it the coke machine was on the second floor. It is possible that Oswald went down to the first floor with his coke after his meeting with Baker, but that would have been well after their meeting on the second floor.


There is absolutely no doubt what-so-ever in my mind that Baker and Truly told the truth about meeting Lee on the second floor.

And that is that. Sort of like saying, hey its his rifle, the rifle was found on the sixth floor, and we have Givens on that issue.

[Jim DiEugenio]

And BTW, to show how simple minded and formulaic--almost robotic-- Doyle is on this issue.

There is corroboration for what Holmes says about the first floor.

Secondly, its an admission against interest. In other words, he is not supporting the official story, he is undermining it.

[Albert Doyle]

And BTW, to show how simple minded and formulaic--almost robotic-- Doyle is on this issue.

There is corroboration for what Holmes says about the first floor.

Secondly, its an admission against interest. In other words, he is not supporting the official story, he is undermining it.

It doesn't work that way Jim. Your sychophants might let you get away with that because they are really running a friends club while citing strict site rules in order to escape admitting they were wrong, however we already pointed-out to you why Holmes can't be used as a witness in this issue. This is what you do Jim. You ignore the counter-argument, impugn its offerers in favor of ROKC, and then refer to it again even though you never answered why Harry Holmes should ever be referred to as a witness, or why he should be referred to when he was 1000 feet away at the time? You're avoiding answering why Holmes should be corroborated by anything or anybody if his testimony was never acceptable in the first place? Your argument style would never be allowed in here on any other issue. In fact you yourself would be the first person to shoot it down if someone else tried it.


I'm failing to see why we are talking about Holmes' testimony at all when we have established it was ridiculously inadmissible for the two main reasons that he was a government infiltrator and perjurer (proven by yourself), and the fact he was 1000 feet away and on the other side of the Plaza at the time???

[Albert Doyle]

Oh no, here we go again with the etiquette lectures.

From the guy who has become a combination Sen. Joe McCarthy/Roy Cohn with ROKC.

Umm, if I'm not mistaken you were the one who popped up in order to get any Prayer Man discussion shut down for site etiquette reasons even though you yourself never participated in any discussion of the factual evidence.



If you care to notice, Jim, ROKC is banned from this site because of its uncredible offerings and crude methods. If you are trying to pose ROKC as a poor unfairly-treated group fighting for the truth you are going to have a hard sell. If anything you are talking to one of the worst victims of unaccountable community tribunal here. There's no excuse for me being banned from the Education Forum. I'm sure part of the justification Gordon used was your opinion of me.

The idea that he is trying to convey about Baker attributes so many conditions to him at that time that it is ludicrous. The bag story is not going to develop until about four o'clock. Frazier will not be called in till about seven.

BTW, here is a sample of Bill Miller's logic:

The long and the short of it is that Oswald said he was on the second floor when the police officer met him. Elsewhere Lee said he went up to the second floor to get a coke. Truly and Baker both said they met Oswald on the 2nd floor.


My understanding it the coke machine was on the second floor. It is possible that Oswald went down to the first floor with his coke after his meeting with Baker, but that would have been well after their meeting on the second floor.


There is absolutely no doubt what-so-ever in my mind that Baker and Truly told the truth about meeting Lee on the second floor.

And that is that. Sort of like saying, hey its his rifle, the rifle was found on the sixth floor, and we have Givens on that issue.

You're not answering the point Jim. By the way, I don't see anything outrageous with what Miller says there and I totally agree with it. You are using the ROKC method of referring to your implied doubt as a solid platform from which to destroy posters like Miller and their offerings but remember you are talking about a group that says using the word "officer" instead of Baker dismisses the witnessing. A group that uses Holmes' testimony even though he was a government liar and was 1000 feet away at the time. A group that never stops to consider that Campbell's entry to the lobby could have easily been 2 1/2 minutes after the shots and therefore he witnessed Mrs Reid's Oswald after he had come downstairs. This Oswald may have hid in the storage room because he knew he was a CIA double and needed to lay low while Harvey was being framed. All this answer shows is that the anti-lunchroom encounter people need to ignore Piper and West's confirmation of Baker & Truly coming in right in synch with Campbell's witnessing. They need to categorically ignore Truly's telling his wife about Oswald being in the lunchroom on friday night. They need to make Carolyn Arnold and her witnessing disappear and when she gets too obvious send evidence-fixer Greg Parker in to tell us what Arnold was really thinking.



That dog don't hunt Jim...