Anatomy of the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter

[LR Trotter]

While linking along, in an effort to determine the accuracy of my usually quite busy confusion gauge, I clicked on Kennedysandking.com.

When there, I located the BartKamp essay, Anatomy Of The Second Floor Lunch Room Encounter (excerpts).

After reading what I consider an introduction to the essay excerpts, that appears to be done by JimDiEugenio, I then read the statement, "The current updated version of the complete essay can be read here."

And, by clicking on the link supplying"here", as expected, I was taken to the as described complete essay, which as of 12:30pm CDT on 09/08/2017 contained a TSBD doorway film still/picture from 11/22/'63, at about 12:30pm CST on page 29, that had numbers 1, 2, and 3, above 3 images.

Barely, if at all, visible, in shadow, the image under the number 1, was said to be identified on page 28 by the comment, "in case you are wondering who is below no.1, that is Prayer Man who is Lee Oswald".

But, again, "as edited" comes to mind, so does it mean a reproduced version? Or, is it as applied to mean excerpts?

In any event, it appears to me, even though reading "excerpts", and/or an "edited version" of said essay, the supplied link, just under the introduction to the "excerpts", when clicked, connected​ to the as described "complete essay".

So, in an effort to try and correctly ascertain the specific meaning of "as edited" as applied, and when viewing excerpts, on Kennedysandking.com, I discovered the link to the as described complete essay, which compelled me to post again about the subject, although in a more appropriate thread.

Therefor, posted here, due to the connection to the complete essay, which advocates, as then seen on pages 28 and 29, the LeeOswald as PrayerMan Theory.

Said theory, FWIW, to me continues to be beyond belief, lacking adequate proof, and actually the evidence reliably indicates to me that the difficult to identify image is that of a female, then employed at the TSBD building.

Simply stated, although it is my conclusion that proclaiming that something in the article is not included "as edited" in a specific location, version, and/or excerpts, could be somewhat valid, I also conclude it to be ambiguous as presented.

However, placing a ​connecting link to the as described "current version of the complete essay" with and/or among the introduction to "excerpts", in my conclusion, tends to question the degree of validity of proclaiming that something in the article is not included "as edited".

Additionally, due to verbal attack, name calling and group association accusations, and as well being accused of "switching versions", by the claimed "editor", I have to conclude I should have the right to post this subject matter, in this thread.

For the record, this post is not about the LeeOswald as PrayerMan Theory. It is in regards to "excerpts","versions","as edited",and "proclamation". And, of course, ​links.
::

Egads !! (learned that one from Jabba Jim Fetzer ) Methoughts I were be reading Shakespeare here. That you, Billy Bard ?

Is there a specific criticism of the posted conclusions, Mr O'Blazney? Or, is it as it appears to me Mr O'Blazney, a criticism aimed strictly at the poster? In any event, another post that causes me to review DPF rules, as well as researching the correctly applied definition of a"Troll/Troller".

Why, yes, Mr. Trotter, student of JFK assassination, there IS a specific criticism of your posted conclusions…………. what the heck are you talking about? Am i the only one who is confused with your strange sentences? Is it just me? You were much more understandable years ago, I don't know what the heck you mean these days. But, does anyone? Strange Times.

Edited quoted post, paragraph 11.

Beyond rewording paragraph 11, Mr O'Blazney, I don't believe I can "enhance understanding" of the post. And, if the edited paragraph 11 doesn't help it's understanding, I can only suggest a review of the thread to possibly achieve enhanced understanding of the subject matter. That is what us students do, but I cannot and should not attempt to speak for the ​teachers.