14-09-2015, 02:34 PM
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.
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.
HarveyandLee.net
Chief Justice Earl Warren: "Full disclosure was not possible for reasons of national security." – 1964
CIA accountant James B. Wilcott: Oswald received "a full-time salary for agent work for doing CIA operational work." – 1978
HSCA counsel Robert Tanenbaum: “Lee Harvey Oswald was a contract employee of the CIA and the FBI.†– 1996
Chief Justice Earl Warren: "Full disclosure was not possible for reasons of national security." – 1964
CIA accountant James B. Wilcott: Oswald received "a full-time salary for agent work for doing CIA operational work." – 1978
HSCA counsel Robert Tanenbaum: “Lee Harvey Oswald was a contract employee of the CIA and the FBI.†– 1996