Why the second floor lunch room encounter could not have happened

[Albert Doyle]

There are many people there who have been convinced by some very interesting film and gif work that Baker did not head directly for the entrance to the TSBD once he jumped off his motorcycle. This would delay his entry inside even more. Which would explain Posner's question about why Sandy and Victoria did not see him. But the supervisor did. (You ignore that and say, well heck, why didn't anyone say anything about it. Was the film faked?)

I think it is possible that the veer to the right at the very end of Baker's run is caused by lens distortion since it occurs as the camera is pulled away and Baker is at the edge of the lens field. Are you talking about the 'expert' Sandy Larsen Jim? I mean, come on.

Baker's story is part of the assassination gospel. If he indeed did not go inside and lingered outside you would think somebody would have spoken up and mentioned it since it radically conflicted with the official timeline. What Larsen and Prudhomme do is wave their wands over the stew pot and chant hocus pocus. Suddenly the delay and the lack of witnessing for it becomes evidence that it was so damning to the official story that it had to be covered-up exactly because of its danger. Jim, all they are doing is doubling down on the original thin air they offered. In the meantime they could be betting the whole farm on an illusion caused by lens edge distortion.

If you want to ignore Baker's first day affidavit and make up silly excuses why it is so opposed to what he said later, then that is fine. For you. And if you want to say, as a blanket statement, Bart is not credible--and leave out the many pages of evidence he supplies that goes to the heart of the matter, much of it never being in the adduced record, that is fine also. For you. Just remember two things though: 1.) It was Hancock, Conway and Wexler who gave him that award. Not any of those people you have a blood feud with, like Stan Dane; and 2.) The validity of the Second Floor encounter is not reliant on Prayer Man being Oswald. I brought up the former in Reclaiming Parkland, not the latter.

I totally disagree. It is obvious to me that the direct impetus and cause of the dire need to eliminate the lunchroom encounter is because of the obvious implausibility of getting Oswald from the front step to the lunchroom and not being out of breath.

Hancock is the person who credited Andrej Stancak with doing good work in his imaginary-fabricated Prayer Man graphics. When I argued the true facts to Stancak on the Education Forum he was literally unable to answer them. Stancak's excuse that he did not have the time to do the extensive presentation he was planning is just his excuse. My post contained visible evidence that did not need any such lengthy preparation to respond to. Hancock stayed silent during all of this and has not asked Stancak to respond to my evidence. The honest measure of those who honor Bart Kamp is how much scrutiny do they apply to his information and has any of them made Kamp answer my Prayer Man science? The honest answer to those questions is no on all counts so it can be accurately said that those who honor Kamp are directly the same people who never hold him accountable to our evidence.

I am not ignoring Baker's affidavit. I have given several plausible (non-silly) reasons why he might have omitted the direct facts. It is those reasons that are being ignored. Truly did not omit the truth when he told his wife that night and I have yet to see anyone honestly respond to that whenever I mention it. Not to mention Pauline Sanders and Gloria Calvery. Oswald going from Arnold's 12:25 in the lunchroom to the front step and back up to the lunchroom doesn't wash. What makes more sense is Oswald never left the lunchroom.

As for Kamp, go to the Amazon review section for Dane's book and look at his asinine responses versus seriously argued evidence. ROKC was recently dropped by its web-host due to serious internet conduct violations.

For you to smear Bart with PM over the second floor encounter is one more indication of your ongoing Blood Feud with ROKC, which you seem intent on infesting this forum with.

Jim, it is somewhat laughable to accuse anyone of "smearing" ROKC seeing how they operate and what they are well known for amongst the research community. I don't understand you Jim. You very credibly specialize in exposing the flaws of various dubious researchers and do so to a devastating extent. However you then turn around and refrain from doing that with a group (ROKC) that is generally banned from most credible forums exactly because of their uncredible research and conduct.

The source of this recent lunchroom encounter-doubting is directly from Murphy and ROKC's advocacy of it. I find it less than sincere to assert otherwise.

What you call "infesting" is actually a well-reasoned and proof-backed scientific case that Prayer Man can't be Oswald. The post Stancak could not answer proved that Prayer Man had his shoulders squared with the landing in Wiegman. Stancak himself said "If Prayer Man had his shoulders squared then his forearm and shoulder would have to be illuminated by sun". When we look at Wiegman we see Prayer Man is squared but is also totally in shade. The only way that could happen (and Stancak admits this) is if Prayer Man were standing up on the landing. Once you prove Prayer Man is on the landing then you have to honor Stancak's own words when he said on the Education Forum "If Prayer Man is standing on the landing then he is too short to be Oswald". Jim, the reason Stancak could not answer my last post is because he realized I had argued him to this point.

I think it is a violation of research ethics to ignore good controversy-solving proof. I have discovered even further proof that has been unfairly consigned to the "Bear Pit". When you juxtapose the Darnell-Willis 8-Murray photos you can see that reporter Evans is standing on the step in a position that overlaps Prayer Man. Reporter Evans is completely bathed in bright sun. This is incontrovertible photo analysis proof that if Prayer Man were on the step, as Stancak claims, then he too would have at least part of himself bathed in that same sunlight. It proves Prayer Man is on the landing on an easy to understand photographic basis. Gordon has placed me on moderation without explanation so I can't show this proof to the community. By the way, your man Kamp backed out of the Prayer Man discussion when I appeared even though he had taunted me and called me a coward previously for not showing up.