Sean Murphy- wrong again!!!

[Scott Kaiser]

This lunchroom issue was discussed in great depth a year ago in the EdForum threads Great New Movie Spells Out the Case for Oswald as PrayerMan and One Last Thing Before XMas Eve: 2nd Floor Lunchroom Encounter and the critique remains the same. And Bart Kamp ignored this in his award-winning essay.

1) Every single item of lunchroom-related evidence has a mundane explanation that supports the incident's reality.

So the fact that Mr. Truly and Baker saw Oswald on the second floor, and Baker had his gun drawn on Oswald is everything but dull.

2) WC 3076, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, shows that 6 months after his testimony Baker was still confused about the TSBD floor layout, giving a strong likelihood that he was confused about it in his 1st-day affidavit.

Just because Baker may have been confused about a layout doesn't necessary mean his entire testimony should be rejected, I sure hope there's no attorney's on this thread backing this, my recommendation to you would be, through out your oath and hand back your license.

3) The 1964 filmed interview and 1986 filmed testimony contain no tangible indication that a monstrous lie about the lunchroom incident is being put forth, nor is there any indication that Baker was excessively anxious when being questioned by Bugliosi.

You do realize it was just a film don'tcha? Like my interviews, which makes my job hard to separate truth from fiction, and the only way to do that is to find as much material that will corroborate as much information as possible to back any interview. BTW... I did that too, and as I find my corroborations with other individuals, they have no idea the questions I'm asking them is to see if their information is in relation to the material I'm seeking. I want to know if their stories they're giving me is true, everything must fall in line, fall in place before I can reject it. Like the information some researcher said about Frank Sturgis and the S.F. Chronicle, this is a perfect example, the information was at John Simkim's page, some researcher who calls himself "The Realist" injects this information, and it was or is still found at some site owned by Tom Flaco, now if no one knew any better, you'd swear they're telling the truth right? That's why it's important to fact check with FOIA documents too, although, documents can be wrong, the moral of my story is, the more people saying the same thing, and if there's documents backing up their information, then it's pretty hard to discredit it right?

4) The will-call counter bump, a superfluous incident that serves no ostensible purpose in a contrived hoax narrative, is a telltale indicator that the dozen other points of correspondence in the Truly/Baker testimonies (at the elevator & in the lunchroom) actually happened.

Huh? WTF?

5) The Kent Biffle story about Oswald being seen in a 1st-floor storage room has not one whit of corroboration, and almost certainly is garbled hearsay.

Again, huh? WTF?

6) The Stroud document, coupled with a fact-based understanding of their timelines, places Adams & Styles on the stairs during the same timeframe that Truly & Baker are ascending the stairs from the elevator area. And the men had to have been in the lunchroom when the ladies passed.

Nice accusations, great theory that offers no proof, not even a shred of evidence.

And so we have an aggregate in the evidentiary record that supports the incident and not the hoax. Were there one issue only (such as interpretations of WC 3076) the hoaxers would have a debate. But there are several issues, and the fruitlesness of this school of thought is revealed by what is required to sustain it, and what it has produced:

The hoax requires a mini-conspiracy involving Truly, Baker, James Bookhout, Jeraldean Reid, James Leavelle, David Belin, and anyone else "in the know" in the DPD, FBI and Warren Commission. All of this to sustain a theory that has produced but one palpable result:

Baker's "4th floor man" vanished into thin air. This is the only tangible lead produced by this school of thought in 10-plus years. The same result as the theory that Space Aliens Abducted the Assassin. The other leads, fragile Murphyisms, are laughable- Tan Jacket Man and Ira Trantham's HSCA statement.

I invite the hoax adherents to look up Baker's children and grandchildren, show them the evidence (pro and con) and explain to them why Baker chose to participate in a hoax- a make-believe story- deeply pertinent to the murder of President Kennedy. And then sit down with a couple of Dallas cops and detectives to really drive your case home. Show the pro and con.

Hoaxers don't get it, that there was funny business going on with the elevators while Truly & Baker were on the ground floor and climbing the stairs. This is why Truly deflected attention onto Oswald in the lunchroom. And he never mentioned the elevators to the press. On top of that, power to the elevators was cut during the early minutes of the police search. And this was not mentioned in the press, nor even the Warren Report.

This hack theory- an attempted reconstruction of President Kennedy's diabolical murder- is perpetuated mainly by the bully drunkards at the ROKC forum- hooligan pseudoscholars to whom sophistry and wishful thinking outweigh any skills in math, science or Aristotelean logic. Managed by a 9th-grade dropout who spent way too many years in the bar-room, under the illusion that ethanol-laced beverages help the mind think more clearly. Ethanol. a gasoline additive, and the active ingredient in beer, wine and hard liquor.

Only an appearance by Sean Murphy himself, an admission that he's dead wrong, can rectify this hopelessly splintered situation, and I'm not holding my breath.
.

And, my reply regarding everything else after six (6,) huh? WTF? No argument here!