14-01-2017, 06:26 PM
Over on ROKC Greg is doing one of his evidence hacking routines in order to get around Carolyn Arnold. When ROKC has a problem with evidence they simply figure out why all the people who were actually there were wrong or were lying and revise the evidence to make Murphy fit. Greg is correcting Carolyn Arnold and telling her why her story can't be true.
Carolyn Arnold probably stayed behind longer in order to spend less time outside because she was pregnant. Greg has no evidence that Arnold didn't know the motorcade was delayed. In any case she was insistent to Golz that she left at 12:25. If you give her a minute to get out of the building it would put her Oswald sighting at around 12:24. Greg is trying to get around the obvious and has nerve trying to rework the evidence around what the people who were actually there insisted on. Despite Carolyn Arnold insisting to Golz she never saw Oswald in the foyer, Greg is correcting her and telling her she did. ROKC says Arnold was pressured to change her story but Golz said it was the first time Arnold had seen her FBI report. Nice try ROKC, but Golz witnessed Arnold's fresh reaction to seeing her FBI report for the first time and reacting to the incorrect information. Greg simply ignores that Arnold was responding to the passage in the FBI report that described what time she left the 2nd floor and saw Oswald. Greg does one of his usual spins and tries to say Arnold confused the time when she couldn't get back into the building with the time she left work. But Golz was very clear Arnold was correcting the wrong time FBI had inserted that said what time she left the 2nd floor. Also Arnold couldn't get back into the building well after the assassination, which occurred at 12:30 not 12:25.
Upon re-reading Douglass it becomes clear to me that FBI fabricated Arnold's foyer sighting of Oswald in order to avoid the lunchroom encounter. The foyer sighting Arnold complained about to Golz was substituted for the lunchroom encounter. Clear evidence of FBI trying to avoid something it knew was true. What Greg is doing is backing the FBI lie and ignoring what it was clearly designed to get around.
For goodness' sake it is even possible Oswald WAS sitting at the lunchroom table and it had to be changed because it obviously exonerated him and placed him where Arnold had seen him minutes earlier. It is possible that was the reason for the omission in Baker's affidavit.
Greg self-servingly fails to compute that Oswald was a CIA operative and was probably ordered to stay out of the way. The 2nd floor lunchroom was a good place to do that and being an op Oswald would not consider himself an ordinary worker. Greg ignores that the day of the motorcade was not an ordinary day and no salesmen in suits would be in there to protest. What all these Murphy-ites fail to realize is all the weirdness with the testimonies originated from the problem of Oswald being in the lunchroom and therefore not being in the Sniper's Nest. Baker's affidavit tried to put Oswald closer to the Sniper's Nest for the reasons above.
It is amazing to see mainstream researchers acting like silly Nellies and ignoring you or holding personal grudges against you because they don't want to admit these basic facts. It's embarrassing.
.
Carolyn Arnold probably stayed behind longer in order to spend less time outside because she was pregnant. Greg has no evidence that Arnold didn't know the motorcade was delayed. In any case she was insistent to Golz that she left at 12:25. If you give her a minute to get out of the building it would put her Oswald sighting at around 12:24. Greg is trying to get around the obvious and has nerve trying to rework the evidence around what the people who were actually there insisted on. Despite Carolyn Arnold insisting to Golz she never saw Oswald in the foyer, Greg is correcting her and telling her she did. ROKC says Arnold was pressured to change her story but Golz said it was the first time Arnold had seen her FBI report. Nice try ROKC, but Golz witnessed Arnold's fresh reaction to seeing her FBI report for the first time and reacting to the incorrect information. Greg simply ignores that Arnold was responding to the passage in the FBI report that described what time she left the 2nd floor and saw Oswald. Greg does one of his usual spins and tries to say Arnold confused the time when she couldn't get back into the building with the time she left work. But Golz was very clear Arnold was correcting the wrong time FBI had inserted that said what time she left the 2nd floor. Also Arnold couldn't get back into the building well after the assassination, which occurred at 12:30 not 12:25.
Upon re-reading Douglass it becomes clear to me that FBI fabricated Arnold's foyer sighting of Oswald in order to avoid the lunchroom encounter. The foyer sighting Arnold complained about to Golz was substituted for the lunchroom encounter. Clear evidence of FBI trying to avoid something it knew was true. What Greg is doing is backing the FBI lie and ignoring what it was clearly designed to get around.
For goodness' sake it is even possible Oswald WAS sitting at the lunchroom table and it had to be changed because it obviously exonerated him and placed him where Arnold had seen him minutes earlier. It is possible that was the reason for the omission in Baker's affidavit.
Greg self-servingly fails to compute that Oswald was a CIA operative and was probably ordered to stay out of the way. The 2nd floor lunchroom was a good place to do that and being an op Oswald would not consider himself an ordinary worker. Greg ignores that the day of the motorcade was not an ordinary day and no salesmen in suits would be in there to protest. What all these Murphy-ites fail to realize is all the weirdness with the testimonies originated from the problem of Oswald being in the lunchroom and therefore not being in the Sniper's Nest. Baker's affidavit tried to put Oswald closer to the Sniper's Nest for the reasons above.
It is amazing to see mainstream researchers acting like silly Nellies and ignoring you or holding personal grudges against you because they don't want to admit these basic facts. It's embarrassing.
.