09-02-2018, 06:12 PM
First, taking nothing away from the painstaking efforts of Mr. Gilbride, it's just unfortunate for him to have to build upon a shaky foundation. Truth always have the ability to stand alone. Over time even. However, with no fault due to the OP, the lies of others can not stand the test of time. All we have about an encounter in the lunchroom w/the wrongly accused is mere words. Toss in words uttered amid double-speak, multiple discussions off the record, and an assortment of outright lies, the phantom encounter was doomed from the start, nothing more than a temporary stopgap to lend a hastily contrived script concocted to frame an innocent party some time, and with any luck...
In no particular order--no further scrutiny from Mr. Murphy (Sean); the Mr. DiEugenio (Jim); Mr. Kamp (Bart); Mr. Josephs (David); Mr. Ernest (Barry), etc., and countless other researchers whose invaluable contributions on this singular issue are simply sharp, critical thinkers that know the difference between hocus-pocus and the plain simple truth)--
wouldn't have emerged on the scene to exercise their respective abilities to separate the wheat from the chaff. Lest anyone think otherwise, I admire Mr. Gilbride's efforts, and am encouraged he takes issue w/research rather than a fellow researcher. My sentiments exactly.
Moving on--sadly, which further proves my point about the phantom encounter standing upon a shaky foundation of lies comes the following (just one among many other instances of lies crumbling under closer examination) ----->
Q1: Did you lead Marrion Baker up the backstairs?
Mr. BELIN. Okay. And where was this officer at that time?
Mr. TRULY. This officer was right behind me and coming up the stairway.
By the time I reached the second floor, the officer was a little further behind me than he was on the first floor, I assume--I know.
Mr. BELIN. Was he a few feet behind you then?
Mr. TRULY. He was a few feet. It is hard for me to tell. I ran right on around to my left, started to continue on up the stairway to the third floor, and on up.
Mr. BELIN. Now when you say you ran on to your left, did you look straight ahead to see whether there was anyone in that area, or were you intent on just going upstairs?
Mr. TRULY. If there had been anybody in that area, I would have seen him on the outside. But I was content--I was trying to show the officer the pathway up, where the elevators--I mean where the stairways continued. -- Roy Truly's "truth" via his Warren Commission testimony
Q2: Or, Did you follow him up the backstairs?
"...we took the stairs, the officer ahead of me. When I reached the second-floor landing, the officer was already at the open door of the lunchroom, some twenty or twenty-five feet away. -- Roy Truly's "truth" via an interview with Leo Sauvage (author of The Oswald Affair)
Which "truth" is it, Roy Truly? Were you leading him up the stairs?, following him from behind?
Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer.
No great surprise, considering the source. Only lies, Roy Truly, need revision...the plain simple truth is able to stand all alone on its own.
Addendum: Unlike the plain simple truth, a lie cannot stand alone, nor stand the test of time. That said, I will always make every effort to respect my fellow researchers wherever they may stand on this issue, but parroting back the same hastily contrived script does not mean it's based upon truth, which is all that should really matter here, the plain simple truth...not Roy Truly's "truth" -----> see the one example--among many others--above)
Self-reminder: work on this image after Valentine's Day next week through Passover, and develop a definitive Blog Post in the Spring, continuing w/An Open Examination of the only male figure unaccounted for in Warren Commission Exhibit 1381, and why his presence is essential to establishing the truth in the JFK Assassination ----->
![[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=9332&stc=1]](https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=9332&stc=1)
*AF 1248 @ 77%
Truth stands on a solid foundation, only a lie, and the many other lies it breeds stand upon quicksand. Truth stands the test of time. A hastily contrived lie from it's inception is doomed to fail the test of time.
In no particular order--no further scrutiny from Mr. Murphy (Sean); the Mr. DiEugenio (Jim); Mr. Kamp (Bart); Mr. Josephs (David); Mr. Ernest (Barry), etc., and countless other researchers whose invaluable contributions on this singular issue are simply sharp, critical thinkers that know the difference between hocus-pocus and the plain simple truth)--
wouldn't have emerged on the scene to exercise their respective abilities to separate the wheat from the chaff. Lest anyone think otherwise, I admire Mr. Gilbride's efforts, and am encouraged he takes issue w/research rather than a fellow researcher. My sentiments exactly.
Moving on--sadly, which further proves my point about the phantom encounter standing upon a shaky foundation of lies comes the following (just one among many other instances of lies crumbling under closer examination) ----->
Q1: Did you lead Marrion Baker up the backstairs?
Mr. BELIN. Okay. And where was this officer at that time?
Mr. TRULY. This officer was right behind me and coming up the stairway.
By the time I reached the second floor, the officer was a little further behind me than he was on the first floor, I assume--I know.
Mr. BELIN. Was he a few feet behind you then?
Mr. TRULY. He was a few feet. It is hard for me to tell. I ran right on around to my left, started to continue on up the stairway to the third floor, and on up.
Mr. BELIN. Now when you say you ran on to your left, did you look straight ahead to see whether there was anyone in that area, or were you intent on just going upstairs?
Mr. TRULY. If there had been anybody in that area, I would have seen him on the outside. But I was content--I was trying to show the officer the pathway up, where the elevators--I mean where the stairways continued. -- Roy Truly's "truth" via his Warren Commission testimony
Q2: Or, Did you follow him up the backstairs?
"...we took the stairs, the officer ahead of me. When I reached the second-floor landing, the officer was already at the open door of the lunchroom, some twenty or twenty-five feet away. -- Roy Truly's "truth" via an interview with Leo Sauvage (author of The Oswald Affair)
Which "truth" is it, Roy Truly? Were you leading him up the stairs?, following him from behind?
Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer.
No great surprise, considering the source. Only lies, Roy Truly, need revision...the plain simple truth is able to stand all alone on its own.
Addendum: Unlike the plain simple truth, a lie cannot stand alone, nor stand the test of time. That said, I will always make every effort to respect my fellow researchers wherever they may stand on this issue, but parroting back the same hastily contrived script does not mean it's based upon truth, which is all that should really matter here, the plain simple truth...not Roy Truly's "truth" -----> see the one example--among many others--above)
Self-reminder: work on this image after Valentine's Day next week through Passover, and develop a definitive Blog Post in the Spring, continuing w/An Open Examination of the only male figure unaccounted for in Warren Commission Exhibit 1381, and why his presence is essential to establishing the truth in the JFK Assassination ----->
*AF 1248 @ 77%
Truth stands on a solid foundation, only a lie, and the many other lies it breeds stand upon quicksand. Truth stands the test of time. A hastily contrived lie from it's inception is doomed to fail the test of time.