Why the second floor lunch room encounter could not have happened

[Ray Mitcham]

Whose established timeline? (With the emphasis on "established".)


Circular argument. If Baker says it's right then it must be right.

Which "additional situational events" do you mean?


If you are to take his word then take his first words.

There was no indication that any shots had been fired from the TSDB except for pigeons, allegedly, flying off the roof, which they would have done, from whichever building the shots had been fired.

Apart from Baker and Truly, there is no confirmation of the second floor encounter, and even Baker's first affidavit disagreed with his subsequent testimony.

While standing by my thoughts as posted, I see no need to explain further .However, if it is believed the encounter did not occur ,instead of questioning the conclusion that it did, maybe some eyewitnesses, on the scene, gave provable testimony that it did not, and those eyewitness accounts can be presented.

Right. Which means you can't back up what you said. Got it.

Actually sir, I can't back up what you said. In any event, I await eyewitness testimony that proves that the 2nd floor encounter did not occur. And, that burden is on those that claim the encounter did not occur. If such provable evidence is presented, so be it, but beyond that, I see no need to continue this conversation. Have a nice day.

Great response, Mr Trotter. Maybe you could show how anybody prove that something didn't happen. You only have Truly and Baker's word's (and that at the second try) for something which allegedly happened.