Anatomy of the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter

[LR Trotter]

That is not what I said.

You are deliberately misquoting what I did with the excerpt to fulfill your own bizarre agenda.

Three sentences out of a 124 pages is enough for you to jump up and scream in your best Cohn/McCarthy imitation: "You sir are not worthy to be wearing that uniform of an officer."

Anyway, for anyone else who is not so afflicted, I advise you to read the excerpt, and then if it interests you, go ahead and click through tot he long version.

It will be interesting for most objective people, like Larry Hancock. It would seem to me that Bart makes the case Oswald was on the first floor.

The next part of this Bart will take on is the interrogation of Oswald. That should be interesting also.

Finally, Bart is scheduled to be on Len Osanic's Black Op Radio this week.

Thanks, Jim. Looking forward to Bart's turn on BOR. Fascinating conclusions/speculations.

Mark, thanks. And I hope that in all the huffing and puffing the point of the issue is not lost. When I wrote Reclaiming Parkland, way back over four years ago, I talked about this on BOR. I said that the more I contemplated it, the reason the second floor lunchroom incident was fabricated was two fold:

1.) To detract from the guy Baker said he saw in his affidavit--who might be the guy Worrell said he saw running out the back of the TSBD, and

2.) To transfer Oswald from the first floor to the second. It was hard enough to buy the fact that Oswald flew down from the sixth floor to the second in such a short time. But to think he went all the way down to the first floor? See, and that would make it easier to understand why no one saw him get a coke--if he did such a thing. Because he could have gone up the stairway that went only from the first to the second floor. Therefore, if you were framing Oswald, this would be an important step, since it was a twofer.

This is why I think Kamp's work is important. And all this mindless venom being passed around detracts from this important evidence. And probable conclusions. Which I suspected to the the case back in 2013.

​Excuse me Mr DiEugenio, but I do not consider anything I have posted to be "huffing and puffing", nor do I believe my comments qualify as "mindless venom being passed around"! If any of my expressed thoughts and/or opinions are proven wrong, so be it, and I gladly take that chance. However, my disagreeing with you does not justify your comments. I try to be, and hopefully am successful at being, polite and respectful when posting, and much prefer to not post anything that I would not express verbally and in person.