Furthering the Lunchroom Evidence

[Richard Gilbride]

I have a new essay available at my website at https://www.jfkinsidejob.com/furthering-...-evidence/ which is part of a batch of 5 essays I've added- 3 old, 1 brand-new, 1 re-worked. I've included-

The Elevator Escape Theory (2009)

The Piper of Potemkin Village (2010)

This May Shock and Amaze Ya (2011)

A Candle Burned on a Table (2011/2019)

Furthering the Lunchroom Evidence (2019)


This brand-new essay focuses on Marvin Johnson's report and on the 2018 interview of Rosa Daniel, Sarah Stanton's daughter-in-law, by Brian Doyle. To quote from page 6:

"Baker recognized Oswald and told this to Marvin Johnson- which is all the proof the researcher needs to know that the 2nd-floor lunchroom encounter is fact, not fiction."

**********************

I am halfway through a re-work of an essay on James Powell, and hope to have that ready in a couple weeks.

[Mark Russo]

Richard, your link above is not working. I believe it works if you remove the "s" from "https".

Something about expired https certificate.

[Richard Gilbride]

Thanks, Mark- I wasn't sure whether I'd been cyber-attacked.

http://www.jfkinsidejob.com

[Richard Gilbride]

"No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth." - Plato

273 views by mid-Saturday and the silence is deafening.

Even simpler than how the truth was expressed in my essay, it boils down to "Baker recognized Oswald, therefore the lunchroom encounter actually happened." And may I remind you that no one in the history of this research community has worked harder on this issue than myself; you might re-read some of my material from the perspective of someone hoping to convey historical truth to misguided researchers.

How ironic that the egomania of adherents to the false hoax hypothesis now impedes a constructive explanation for Lee Harvey Oswald's innocence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToQhVV7WpLk

[Richard Gilbride]

Proponents of the lunchroom hoax have never addressed Marvin Johnson's report, not to my knowledge. In it Baker is credited- twice- with recognizing Lee Harvey Oswald. The guy who he described in his affidavit as "walking away from the stairway."

There's no ambiguity regarding that recognition. It proves that the lunchroom encounter actually happened.

And the entire litany of hoax mis-interpretations of ambiguous evidence is adequately explained in Death of the Lunchroom Hoax.
I'll let you in on a little secret. I had Jim DiEugenio and Larry Hancock- endorsers of the hoax- specifically in mind when I wrote the 1st paragraph of the 2nd page:

"The Murphyites' widespread and pernicious beliefs have metastasized into the highest echelons of so-called assassination experts, many of whom are so entrenched from so many years in their misbegotten position, that they have grown constitutionally incapable of admitting their error, of even processing the information that shows their mistake. This stems from their emotional and intellectual immaturity, common character defects in a community that is rife with epic stupidity."

DiEugenio and Hancock have made a colossal mistake mis-interpreting the lunchroom evidence, and are too immature to own up to it. They're more interested in "How's this going to reflect on me?" than in the future of the community's scholarship. There's no saving face on this issue, and this lunkhead error will sting them for the remainder of their careers.

[Ray Mitcham]

From Gary Savage's book, "First day evidence"
"OFFICER E"
It had been a long escort. We had lot of people all the way. There were no problems, just a heavy crowd and a lot of yelling and cheering, and the motors were getting hot.When you follow the lead, you do a lot of starting and stopping, trying to hold an interval. I was glad it was almost over.
The crowd was real heavy, down on the end of the downtown area, but just past Dealey Plaza, it would open up and we would be on the freeway and just a few minutes from the Trade Mart. The front of the motorcade started blocking up in the crowd in those last turns coming off Main and turning onto Elm. Back on Houston where we were, we were just about stopped and moving real slow when we could move.
A little past halfway down Houston (between Main and Elm) I heard the first shot. I could tell it came from somewhere in front of me and high. As I looked up I noticed all the pigeons flushed off the top of the building on the corner ahead of me. And in the same period I heard the second shot, and then the third one. I couldn't see just where the shots came from but I knew they were from a high powered rifle. I hunt a lot, and had just got back from hunting. There was no mistaking that there were three shots, that's for sure. Though I didn't see exactly where the shots came from. I knew in my own mind they probably came from the corner building as the sound was right and because of the pigeons. So i headed there, got off my motor and entered the building (the Texas School Depository) It tooma while because of the crowd; they had started moving in every direction.
 The man who said he was the building superintendent was outside and met me at the door and went in with me. Shortly after I entered the building, I confronted Oswald. The man who identified himself as the superintendent said that Oswald was alright, that he was employed there. We left Oswald there, and the supervisor showed me the way upstairs. We couldn'tt get anyone to send the elevator down. In giving the place a quick check, I found nothing out of the ordinary, so started back down to see what had happened. Not knowing for sure what had happened. I was limited in what I could legally do.
The investigator from Washington contacted me for my recollection of what had happened, but I guess they weren't interested in what I said.

Who on Earth could officer E have been?
Any guesses? Marion Baker anyone?

Review of Gary Savage's book.
5.0 out of 5 starsthe evidence that would have sent Oswald to the chair
9 December 2009
Format: Hardcover
For serious students of the JFK assassination this book is a 'must have'.


There is so much to commend this wonderful publication that it really is very difficult to know where to start. Perhaps it would be best to kick-off with the author and his 'source'.
Gary Savage wrote this book in conjunction with his uncle R. W. (Rusty) Livingston. Rusty served with the Dallas Police Department for twenty-three years beginning in 1951. On the evening of JFK's murder Rusty was working in the Crime Scene Search Section of the Identification Bureau. He helped process much of the evidence developed by the DPD. Fortunately for Savage and history, Rusty had maintained reference copies of everything that he worked on. That `everything' is here present in book form as fresh as the day that it was culled from the crime scenes.


It's all here - the backyard photographs, the spy camera, the finger prints, plenty of documents and much, much more.


The book also features the full rebuttal of the `acoustics evidence' that was used to `sex-up' the 1978 HSCA report with the tantalising "..probability of 95% or better, that there was a fourth shot from the grassy knoll". The rebuttal was prepared by James C. Bowles who was best placed to refute the claim.


Wonderful book!

[Richard Gilbride]

Ray,

This thread is about Marvin Johnson's report- one of the basic pieces of Baker evidence, which proponents of the lunchroom hoax have never addressed. I covered Officer E in Death of the Lunchroom Hoax, which apparently you did not bother to read, or forgot about.

p. 34: "The hoaxers want to infer from Officer E that Baker met Oswald somewhere near the front lobby, but to do so they need to ignore Baker's obvious haphazard recounting of his itinerary inside. It was a story he'd told numerous times and he knew that Bowles was familiar with it anyways. And he interjected the statement about the freight elevator as an afterthought, realizing he'd forgotten to include it when he began this condensed retelling of his pursuit inside the Depository. This Bowles interview, upon analysis, turns into a nothing-burger."

Ray, when Baker confronted Oswald he pulled a gun on him. It doesn't make sense that that would happen in the crowded lobby, and none of the witnesses ever came forward. When you cherry-pick an item of evidence like Officer E's account, out of context, you imbue it with a meaning it doesn't normally have. This account is just another example which has led hoaxers to a massive case of cognitive dissonance.

I invite you, or any of the proponents of the lunchroom hoax, to put together a few paragraphs that show how Marvin Johnson's report correlates with the hoax. If you lived in the truth, it would formulate bit by bit off your tongue.

But you don't live in the truth. You live in the deception of Sean Murphy's fantasies.

[Richard Gilbride]

There is a telling parallel between the lunchroom hoaxers' neglect of Marvin Johnson and the PrayerMan zealots' neglect of a height analysis. Ignoring these central arguments has transformed them into the Achilles' heel for each belief system.

Sean Murphy used employees' recollections of their whereabouts to conclude that PrayerMan couldn't have been anyone but Oswald. Assuming these recollections were perfect, and ignoring the need for a height analysis.

But every intellectually honest height analysis places PrayerMan at the front of the landing, a full head shorter than Wesley Frazier. And a digital scan will prove what has already been determined, that the blurry figure is a woman clerk.

So thousands of man-hours have been invested in determining the location of a woman clerk. What a profound waste of time.

Similarly, the Murphyites have collected gobs of ambiguous accounts of the 2nd-floor lunchroom encounter, assuming these ambiguities perfectly described a hoax, and were not merely mis-reported second-hand information.

But they completely ignored one of the central pieces of Baker evidence- Marvin Johnson's report- which immediately explains the ambiguities in Baker's own affidavit. And attests that Baker recognized Oswald from their encounter at the Depository.

Sean Murphy- off and running with a hypothesis, completely ignoring central arguments which refute it. Can you see the effects of alcohol abuse on Murphy's ability to discern these issues?

God willing, these issues will resolve themselves in the near future. And there are going to be winners and losers, and hurt feelings.

One thing we will learn is that in JFK research, as in all walks of life, boozers are losers.

Stick with the winners, folks.

[Richard Gilbride]

The Murphyites attained popularity through a Bolshevik politicization of the truth- censoring the opposition, ostracizing dissent, and relentlessly propagandizing a sophomoric analysis that confabulates the evidentiary record to fit it to a predetermined conclusion.

And despite every Bolshevik privilege accorded them, the Murphyites have displayed a miserable inability to show how Marvin Johnson's after-action report correlates with their lunchroom hoax hypothesis.

Johnson's report is one of the major pieces of Baker evidence, and not one person can incorporate it into the hoax scenario. The Murphyites' only recourse is to ignore it. And marginalize their skeptics. And raise their pitchforks and torches in delusional grandiosity.

[Richard Gilbride]

None of the Murphyites have stepped forward to respond to the evidence presented in Marvin Johnson's report. This report shows definitvely that their complaints about the inaccuracies in Baker's affidavit- which they've built their whole lunchroom hoax around- amount to no more than sophomoric cherry-picking. The man described as "walking away from the stairway" is the same man Baker recognized in that small interrogation room. And even the inaccuracies occurred after 6 lawmen barged into that room and interrupted Baker's train of thought.

The Murphyites could contact Ian Griggs, via hoax-friendly UK Dealey Plaza, and ask him to weigh in on this. Griggs is a retired detective and one of the most solid and respected JFK researchers ever to come down the pike. Are they afraid of his professional opinion?

They will find from him that I have been correct about the reality of the lunchroom encounter all these years. And that their underhanded Bolshevik tactics cannot save them here.

Sean Murphy's legion of fair-weather followers were fooled by his base of knowledge about the JFK case, but like him, they lack the analytical skills to separate fact from fiction. His deluded hypothesizing succeeded in wasting his followers' most precious resource- their time.

And for pointing out his obvious alcohol-abuse problem, I received a 2-week suspension from the Education Forum. Which became, without warning, a 2-years and counting ban. The EdForum's Bolshevik administrator, James Gordon, was more appalled by my blunt characterization than Murphy's profound sin of wasting thousands of hours of peoples' lives. This Bolshevik is more interested in attracting gullible followers to Murphy's faulty theories than he is with resolving JFK truth. That's why he eliminated Murphy's leading critic from the discussion.

Recently he opened a thread about banned EdForum members. He says that they can't be mentioned by name. Nor can their work be mentioned. (That includes mention of my website.) When asked to provide a list of banned members, he says he can't do that right now.

This Bolshevik demagogue, James Gordon, lives in the once-proud nation of England, which has no protected right to free speech. And he tailors the discussion about a murdered American president so that it will fit his own personal biases. These biases have extended every allowance for the propagation of Murphy's delusional hypotheses. Logic is not required, only cheerleading for Murphy's brilliance.

Brilliant researchers are a dime a dozen in JFK research. Correct research is what counts.

James Gordon's day of reckoning will come when the 6th-floor digital scan of PrayerMan becomes widespread knowledge and a finger-pointing howler. This issue will expose his ineptitude. He'll attempt to put a bit of "English" on the community's reaction to shield himself from public humiliation.