Why the second floor lunch room encounter could not have happened

[Albert Doyle]

If you read Barry's book he has Sandy and Victoria leaving the room as the car disappears under the trestle.

He then had them measure the distance from the window, to the landing. Barry deduced that this would take about 15-30 seconds.

The idea that they would not see Oswald at that time is a bit ridiculous.

If Oswald were in the lunchroom then that would explain Adams not seeing him. It is even possible that Oswald went to the lunchroom vestibule window because he heard Adams and Styles clattering down the staircase. It makes eminent sense that Oswald was in the lunchroom where Carolyn Arnold saw him minutes earlier.

If you read about the reconstructions to get Baker up there, and how dishonest they were, and you read the latest research about where Baker was actually going when he jumped off of his cycle and what he and Truly did before they went up the stairs, the Garner document fits it like a glove.

This is too loose to have any meaning. And I think that is deliberate because if you get in to the finer detail you'll see it doesn't necessarily overturn the lunchroom encounter. For years we've been subjected to Bob Prudhomme entering cynical doubt about each and every little wrinkle in the evidence under the suggestion that it indicates veracity to the Prayer Man theory. Meanwhile what makes the most sense to me is when Baker said he suspected the Depository and wanted to get in there, and was seen running towards the entrance in the films, that means he went there. Anti-lunchroom encounter people are saying Baker ran towards the entrance that would have got him to the place he said he wanted to go but then veered off and didn't go inside even though there were witnesses who said he did go in and, more importantly, there were zero witnesses to this alleged radical change in the story. Ah ha.

What we have now is Sandy Larsen trying to take over the entire research world with the suggestion that the Darnell/Couch films show Baker veering off to the right at the last moment and therefore not going in to the Depository. Larsen and Prudhomme ignore the fact that Gloria Calvery testified that she saw Baker run in just like they ignore, I believe it was, Pauline Sanders saying the same thing. Each and every time I mention that the Baker story is well known so if he did not go inside right away it would have been noticed by someone and mentioned, there is zero response. The delay advocates simply ignore this and chalk it up to an enforced cover-up and intimidation of the witnesses (something there is also zero mention of even with the ensuing committee amnesties). Larsen never considers that Baker may have reached the edge of the camera lens in that shot and it could be distortion that makes Baker appear to veer off at the last moment. In any case, there's no doubt the source of this questioning of Baker's entry is the need to weaken the lunchroom encounter because of the need to justify Murphy. (By the way, where did Murphy go? How many people in JFK research history who had such a case-cracking claim just walked away from it and what does that tell you? Has Murphy left the planet so he doesn't have the half hour it would take to respond to the recent Davidson photo evidence? Don't you people think that is a little weird?)

For anyone to say that Baker's first day affidavit is a weak piece of evidence in this case, that person has to have some kind of agenda. There is no mention in that affidavit of seeing Oswald through a window, or being in lunchroom, or about a Coke. They were not even in a room but on a stairwell. Because we can now piece together just how it was evolved over time, and just how Dulles and Belin tried to cover it up.

Those who doubt the lunchroom encounter suggest that the failure to specifically mention it in Baker's affidavit is due to one and only one cause, that is the need to cover-up the fact it never happened. However there are other perfectly reasonable explanations for why Baker may have done that that don't involve this bizarre cover-up. He simply might have done it because the lunchroom was too far from the 6th floor and the powers that be didn't want Oswald to be confirmed by them as being too far from the Sniper's Nest. It is even possible the Dallas cops knew Oswald was spooky and avoided committing to any witnessing of location. Every time I mention that there's ample evidence of corruption of the evidence as the assassination unfolded it gets no response. We know the whole event was corrupted, like the Police description of Oswald over the radio, or avoidance of two Oswald's at the Texas Theater and his being escorted out the back by the police. These things happened before Baker wrote his affidavit, so his avoidance of the precise description of the lunchroom encounter is not unique and doesn't necessarily connote the lack of any such encounter.

The Assassination research community is currently in a sort of ROKC-induced hysteria right now where anyone with common sense is accused of being some sort of shady practicer of an unclean "agenda" when they simply point-out some common sense facts. Meanwhile when you state that Roy Truly went home that night and told his wife about the lunchroom encounter it gets ignored. Truly was independent and was not prone to whatever filtering of information went on at the police station. In fact, it might even have been Truly's telling about the encounter that led to the conspirators deciding to allow it.

The Coke would be omitted because it indicated a leisurely time period that was not conducive to Oswald running down from the 6th floor. Or even worse, the Oswald double who was dressed differently was the one with the Coke.

One of the most tragic possibilities with Baker's affidavit is that it was distorted because Baker witnessed Armstrong's doubles in the Depository. We know Roger Craig did. ROKC is in denial of Armstrong as led by Greg Parker.

I did some work on this in Reclaiming Parkland. (See pages 216-20) My work was based on Harold Weisberg's Whitewash II. And also Gary Savage's book. No ROKC influence, or Murphy, so you cannot attack me personally.

But give credit where its is due. Bart K has taken it much further and shown just what a liability that Truly was for their side also. He has shown just how many holes that story has sprung. He deserved that award he got.

I'm sorry but Bart Kamp is not a credible researcher. Kamp is the source of "Look at that ear. It's like three ears blurred sideways" when dealing with the photo science that proves Prayer Man can't be Oswald. The fact he gets taken seriously is evidence of the agenda I am trying to point-out to people who should know better. Kamp's evasion and juvenile responses are there for anyone to see. What Murphy advocates are doing is conflating the cover-up done by sympathetic right-wingers like Truly at the Depository with evidence of the lunchroom encounter being bogus. They are jumping from the holes in the story caused by the general cover-up to it being evidence the lunchroom encounter never happened. It doesn't work in my opinion.


Gordon put me on moderation until the 4th of January. Yesterday he did not resume my posting rights as promised. When I asked him why I was put on moderation in the first place he refused to cite the specific violations. He then said my "arguing" about my being on moderation might be the source of my finding myself banned. Meanwhile, Stancak, who could not answer my evidence, is being given special favoritism by Gordon even though he has yet to respond to my evidence. No one else stepped forward to protest this except Gilbride, whose post was quickly deleted. An e-mail to Gordon yesterday went unanswered. This persecution of me and my unanswered facts goes on behind the scenes in PM's no one can see. Those who don't have to answer my facts are very happy they will not be confronted by someone who can point out the serious flaws in their posts. Stancak now has no need to answer my provable facts he could not answer and Gordon will not hold him accountable for not doing so. There's one set of rules for the pro-Murphy posters and another for those who can disprove them. Gordon said he was guarding content but he has openly disallowed me from posting even further damning proof against Stancak. A more honest view of the real agenda here is the Murphy people are not objectively interested in that proof.



.