14-09-2015, 08:38 PM
(This post was last modified: 14-09-2015, 08:58 PM by Drew Phipps.)
You guys know my opinion about "Oswald body doubles," not going to rehash. My point at this time is "put yourself in Baker's shoes" for a minute. If Baker sees "Oswald doubles" wearing different clothes, what possible reason would Baker have that he not going to put that in his initial report? Or mention it later? To the FBI? To the HSCA? Ever?
You must ascribe a pre-existing sinister motive to Baker to keep that one under wraps. And, if Baker had a pre-existing sinister motive, why didn't he just up and shoot "whichever Oswald was the patsy" when he had the chance? He would have been a hero.
What's really happened here (IMHO) is that Baker wrote in his initial report the most unusual thing he saw (the guy on the fourth floor) and why he didn't shoot him ('cause Truly vouched for him). It was only later, after Oswald's arrest, that Baker (or someone else) decided that the lunchroom encounter with Oswald was the most unusual thing Baker saw, and the affidavit was re-written to reflect that. The second affidavit would have the benefit (from local law enforcement's POV) of putting the shooter inside the building, and the problems it caused would not be recognized until later.
I think Baker is both being honest (on/about 11/22/63) and not involved with the conspiracy. I think he saw a lot of people he didn't know, and we've heard about 2 of them. (I'm not so trusting when it comes to the "re-enactment" part of Baker's participation.)
Albert asks a good question. My follow up question to that is, which one of Baker's reports went to the WC? I'm guessing only the second one.
You must ascribe a pre-existing sinister motive to Baker to keep that one under wraps. And, if Baker had a pre-existing sinister motive, why didn't he just up and shoot "whichever Oswald was the patsy" when he had the chance? He would have been a hero.
What's really happened here (IMHO) is that Baker wrote in his initial report the most unusual thing he saw (the guy on the fourth floor) and why he didn't shoot him ('cause Truly vouched for him). It was only later, after Oswald's arrest, that Baker (or someone else) decided that the lunchroom encounter with Oswald was the most unusual thing Baker saw, and the affidavit was re-written to reflect that. The second affidavit would have the benefit (from local law enforcement's POV) of putting the shooter inside the building, and the problems it caused would not be recognized until later.
I think Baker is both being honest (on/about 11/22/63) and not involved with the conspiracy. I think he saw a lot of people he didn't know, and we've heard about 2 of them. (I'm not so trusting when it comes to the "re-enactment" part of Baker's participation.)
Albert asks a good question. My follow up question to that is, which one of Baker's reports went to the WC? I'm guessing only the second one.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."