26-03-2023, 03:31 PM
It has been very obvious for a long time that the lunchroom encounter actually happened- meaning that the lunchroom hoax hypothesis is 1st-order malarkey.
Baker recognized Oswald later that afternoon in the interrogation room in the DPD Homicide Office. And he told this to Detective Marvin Johnson when he handed him his affidavit, and Johnson mentioned that in his own detective's report submitted to Chief Curry.
Oswald himself, approximately an hour earlier, told Captain Fritz he had encountered an officer in the 2nd-floor lunchroom, and so Fritz recorded in his notes that "claims 2nd floor coke when off came in".
On top of that, we have auxiliary witness sightings, just before the encounter, by Carolyn Arnold, Sarah Stanton and Jack Dougherty. And Wesley Frazier's mention of a half-eaten cheese sandwich seen on a lunchroom table from a radio interview (it's not in his book).
Because this was the first post-assassination sighting of the accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, it was one of the most reported and overreported aspects of November 22, 1963- on that day and for years to come. And a lot of mistakes got made in the recounting of that incident. Yet every single item of lunchroom-related evidence has a rational, prosaic explanation that supports the incident's reality. Everyday common sense gives us an explanation that may not have been apparent at first glance- and most of the ambiguity tied to this incident arose due to the mistakes of second-hand information.
Unprecedented obstinacy has produced a Tower of Babel within the research community, based upon an error-riddled understanding of the error-riddled evidence pertaining to the lunchroom. It was not built upon a foundation of Reason and Sober Judgment.
The hoaxers' last gasp, that Hosty's notes, scribbled on the back of one of his reports: "He went to the 2nd floor to get coca cola to eat with lunch and returned to 1st floor to eat lunch. Then went outside to watch P parade" are not substantive- there's nothing there that you can build a firm argument on. Fritz and Bookhout reported the sequence of Oswald's movements slightly differently.
If, and only if, Oswald is identified as Prayerman, there might be something to Hosty's (belatedly-discovered) notes. But simple physics 100% debunks the notion that Oswald is PrayerMan. So Hosty's notes are not gospel. And if you don't like physics, take a trip to the Sixth Floor Museum and have a look at the digital scan of the Darnell film. (I personally haven't seen this). There hasn't been a single report that the PrayerMan enhancement looks anything like Oswald.
This entire thing (lunchroom-hoax and PrayerMan) could get turned around if Jim DiEugenio and Larry Hancock stepped up to the plate. Thus far they have given a very poor accounting of themselves, as regards their ability to discern truth from fiction. They seem more concerned with their ego- "How is this going to reflect on me?" than in bringing answers that will sustain to the American public.
And I have some bad news for them. Truth is invulnerable. They won't win the praise from a future generation if they fail to step up to the plate.
Baker recognized Oswald later that afternoon in the interrogation room in the DPD Homicide Office. And he told this to Detective Marvin Johnson when he handed him his affidavit, and Johnson mentioned that in his own detective's report submitted to Chief Curry.
Oswald himself, approximately an hour earlier, told Captain Fritz he had encountered an officer in the 2nd-floor lunchroom, and so Fritz recorded in his notes that "claims 2nd floor coke when off came in".
On top of that, we have auxiliary witness sightings, just before the encounter, by Carolyn Arnold, Sarah Stanton and Jack Dougherty. And Wesley Frazier's mention of a half-eaten cheese sandwich seen on a lunchroom table from a radio interview (it's not in his book).
Because this was the first post-assassination sighting of the accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, it was one of the most reported and overreported aspects of November 22, 1963- on that day and for years to come. And a lot of mistakes got made in the recounting of that incident. Yet every single item of lunchroom-related evidence has a rational, prosaic explanation that supports the incident's reality. Everyday common sense gives us an explanation that may not have been apparent at first glance- and most of the ambiguity tied to this incident arose due to the mistakes of second-hand information.
Unprecedented obstinacy has produced a Tower of Babel within the research community, based upon an error-riddled understanding of the error-riddled evidence pertaining to the lunchroom. It was not built upon a foundation of Reason and Sober Judgment.
The hoaxers' last gasp, that Hosty's notes, scribbled on the back of one of his reports: "He went to the 2nd floor to get coca cola to eat with lunch and returned to 1st floor to eat lunch. Then went outside to watch P parade" are not substantive- there's nothing there that you can build a firm argument on. Fritz and Bookhout reported the sequence of Oswald's movements slightly differently.
If, and only if, Oswald is identified as Prayerman, there might be something to Hosty's (belatedly-discovered) notes. But simple physics 100% debunks the notion that Oswald is PrayerMan. So Hosty's notes are not gospel. And if you don't like physics, take a trip to the Sixth Floor Museum and have a look at the digital scan of the Darnell film. (I personally haven't seen this). There hasn't been a single report that the PrayerMan enhancement looks anything like Oswald.
This entire thing (lunchroom-hoax and PrayerMan) could get turned around if Jim DiEugenio and Larry Hancock stepped up to the plate. Thus far they have given a very poor accounting of themselves, as regards their ability to discern truth from fiction. They seem more concerned with their ego- "How is this going to reflect on me?" than in bringing answers that will sustain to the American public.
And I have some bad news for them. Truth is invulnerable. They won't win the praise from a future generation if they fail to step up to the plate.