11-04-2015, 08:25 PM
Bob Prudhomme Wrote:" I would counter to find a single person who said Baker never went in to the Depository."
That has got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever read on this forum. You actually mean to tell me that if no one on the steps said they did NOT see Baker enter the TSBD, that is some kind of proof that Baker DID enter the TSBD?
What colour is the sky in your world?
Not good enough Bob. That would make sense in the wishing it to be Oswald world but not in the high standard assassination evidence world where people recognize that the Baker in the Depository claim is a cornerstone of assassination history so therefore if people witnessed it to not be true that no one speaking out is not likely. It just doesn't wash. Saying no one speaking out is proof of intimidation is an assumption based on speculation. I think you're struggling with your inability to answer to your own methods. The sword cuts both ways. You lose your cool too quickly by crossing the 'stupid' line when asked to live up to your own logic. In the end your method works against you just as much as for you. I think Baker went in. Are you suggesting they conspired and said "OK, now let's say we encountered somebody on the 4th floor landing"? Pretty detailed for a hoax. And a clever ruse to not mention who it was in their complex plan. I've got a pretty good idea of where the sky is Bob, thanks. The grand conspiracy card is a solve-all for people with weak evidence. I think you're trying to force the Baker theory in order to bolster an equally weak Prayer Man theory. Frankly I don't think it's a sound investigation method if we are citing site standards.
Who relayed the lunchroom door window information to Baker and told him to make his claim sound credible by including it? You also seem to be ignoring the fact that if they did formulate this grand conspiracy that putting him in the lunchroom, that he didn't have time to get to, works against that.