07-02-2018, 05:40 PM
Three years later Baker recounted his yarn for the British documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy. It took place on the Texas ranchland that he loved, and it must have been a relief to finally tell the tale in just blue jeans and a cowboy hat.
BAKER: I rode my motorcycle over to the corner of the intersection, parked it, and then ran in the building, which took me a very few seconds to do this. When I got through the front door, then the lobby of the building, I asked where the elevators or the stairs would be. And one man spoke up and said, "I'm Mr. Truly, I'm the building manager." So he said, "Come on, officer, I'll show you."
So he and I continued on to the back of the building, and up some stairs at the back of the building to the 2nd floor. As we came out of the 2nd- on the 2nd floor, I saw a- through a doorway, a window in this doorway, uh, a man- a movement. So I went over and opened up the door, and this man was walking away from it, and, uh- the next room- I later found out was the coffee room.
NARRATOR: As seen earlier by his fellow workers, Oswald was still alone in the lunchroom.
BAKER: I called to the man, and he turned around, and Mr. Truly was there beside of me, and I asked him if he knew this man or if he worked there. He said, "Yes, he does." He was calm, ordinary, you know- he didn't look excited, or anything like that.
One of the consequences of believing the hoax is that one has to believe that the accounts given above were epic fables. One has to believe that Baker & Truly confabulated, on camera, an explicit encounter with the alleged assassin- that they lied about this investigative focal point, and did so flawlessly. Plus the hoaxer has to remain in denial about the arguments thus far presented that establish the reality of the lunchroom incident.
This deranged assessment of character, 180 degrees off the mark, is reminiscent of the drug casualties of the Woodstock era. For the hippies then indulged in a narcissistic grandiosity which pretended that their collective fantasizing could alter the world around them, as in "Maybe if we think real hard, maybe we can stop this rain." Only in our case we know that the substance being abused isn't the brown acid, is it?
While the hoaxers comport themselves with pomposity amongst themselves, never once have they presented this film evidence to one of Baker's children or even a city police detective for a chance to expose his chimerical story- to emphasize the portions where Baker goes make-believe. Isn't that because a sober assessment of Baker's character reveals a man who radiates integrity? A courageous man, who raced into a building to confront a maniacal gunman, who downplayed that label?
The filmed interviews are superstrong evidence that the lunchroom incident actually happened. And the hoaxers' misdiagnosis is going to sting them for the remainder of their research careers.
BAKER: I rode my motorcycle over to the corner of the intersection, parked it, and then ran in the building, which took me a very few seconds to do this. When I got through the front door, then the lobby of the building, I asked where the elevators or the stairs would be. And one man spoke up and said, "I'm Mr. Truly, I'm the building manager." So he said, "Come on, officer, I'll show you."
So he and I continued on to the back of the building, and up some stairs at the back of the building to the 2nd floor. As we came out of the 2nd- on the 2nd floor, I saw a- through a doorway, a window in this doorway, uh, a man- a movement. So I went over and opened up the door, and this man was walking away from it, and, uh- the next room- I later found out was the coffee room.
NARRATOR: As seen earlier by his fellow workers, Oswald was still alone in the lunchroom.
BAKER: I called to the man, and he turned around, and Mr. Truly was there beside of me, and I asked him if he knew this man or if he worked there. He said, "Yes, he does." He was calm, ordinary, you know- he didn't look excited, or anything like that.
One of the consequences of believing the hoax is that one has to believe that the accounts given above were epic fables. One has to believe that Baker & Truly confabulated, on camera, an explicit encounter with the alleged assassin- that they lied about this investigative focal point, and did so flawlessly. Plus the hoaxer has to remain in denial about the arguments thus far presented that establish the reality of the lunchroom incident.
This deranged assessment of character, 180 degrees off the mark, is reminiscent of the drug casualties of the Woodstock era. For the hippies then indulged in a narcissistic grandiosity which pretended that their collective fantasizing could alter the world around them, as in "Maybe if we think real hard, maybe we can stop this rain." Only in our case we know that the substance being abused isn't the brown acid, is it?
While the hoaxers comport themselves with pomposity amongst themselves, never once have they presented this film evidence to one of Baker's children or even a city police detective for a chance to expose his chimerical story- to emphasize the portions where Baker goes make-believe. Isn't that because a sober assessment of Baker's character reveals a man who radiates integrity? A courageous man, who raced into a building to confront a maniacal gunman, who downplayed that label?
The filmed interviews are superstrong evidence that the lunchroom incident actually happened. And the hoaxers' misdiagnosis is going to sting them for the remainder of their research careers.