12-04-2017, 05:02 AM
Doesn't take much to set him off on this does it?
Anyone can check the last few pages of the thread. Miller was presenting arguments about the width of the figure not the height. Which I think has been around since the start. I know because I made that criticism at the start, PM was too husky.
Miller does buy the second floor lunch encounter en toto. I do not see that relating to the PM issue. To me its separate and distinct. And I think Bart's work on that is good. Lancer gave him an award for that. And we will be excerpting some of his latest essay on that issue.
Miller sees no problem with the first day Baker affidavit. Repeat: that is shocking to me. I don't see how anyone can reconcile that evidence with what the WC came up with. In fact, in Reclaiming Parkland, the original edition, I made my arguments against the encounter largely based on that affidavit. To me, it simply makes no sense for anyone to try and compare that affidavit with the WC lunchroom encounter and say there are no problems with it. But the clincher is the later witness room meeting with Oswald sitting across from Baker. Baker is writing his affidavit right opposite Oswald. And he doesn't recognize him.
What makes that even better is this: Dulles knew about it. And he tried to give Baker an out by saying that Baker was only there a few seconds.
LOL. :
:
As per me and the ROKC, I have no idea what in tarnation Doyle is talking about. I don't go there. I have been there maybe once or twice in the last six months. And the reason for that is I was looking for a dialogue between Reitzes and a doctor that was housed at their old site. I do not plan on doing anything on PM until the first generation or original is recovered. And if that evidence says its not Oswald, fine, we will print it. If it says it is Oswald, we will print that also. I don' t have a dog in this fight. I mean what is this? Guilt by (non) association.
The one good thing about it, as I said, is that Frazier's credibility has come into question a bit. Which I consider a good development, since I have some problems with his story. And anyone who reads RP can see that.
Anyone can check the last few pages of the thread. Miller was presenting arguments about the width of the figure not the height. Which I think has been around since the start. I know because I made that criticism at the start, PM was too husky.
Miller does buy the second floor lunch encounter en toto. I do not see that relating to the PM issue. To me its separate and distinct. And I think Bart's work on that is good. Lancer gave him an award for that. And we will be excerpting some of his latest essay on that issue.
Miller sees no problem with the first day Baker affidavit. Repeat: that is shocking to me. I don't see how anyone can reconcile that evidence with what the WC came up with. In fact, in Reclaiming Parkland, the original edition, I made my arguments against the encounter largely based on that affidavit. To me, it simply makes no sense for anyone to try and compare that affidavit with the WC lunchroom encounter and say there are no problems with it. But the clincher is the later witness room meeting with Oswald sitting across from Baker. Baker is writing his affidavit right opposite Oswald. And he doesn't recognize him.
What makes that even better is this: Dulles knew about it. And he tried to give Baker an out by saying that Baker was only there a few seconds.
LOL. :
:As per me and the ROKC, I have no idea what in tarnation Doyle is talking about. I don't go there. I have been there maybe once or twice in the last six months. And the reason for that is I was looking for a dialogue between Reitzes and a doctor that was housed at their old site. I do not plan on doing anything on PM until the first generation or original is recovered. And if that evidence says its not Oswald, fine, we will print it. If it says it is Oswald, we will print that also. I don' t have a dog in this fight. I mean what is this? Guilt by (non) association.
The one good thing about it, as I said, is that Frazier's credibility has come into question a bit. Which I consider a good development, since I have some problems with his story. And anyone who reads RP can see that.