17-04-2017, 08:40 PM
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Scott, this is why I will not reply to Doyle on this subject. His view of the issue is simply jaundiced. Bart's essay is not about whether or not Oswald is out front in the portal. It is about whether or not he was on the first floor eating his lunch as the motorcade went by the building. I don't see how anyone can misconstrue that point. Bart makes a good case he was.
Scott, I don't think you have read the essay very carefully. It really deserves that kind of reading. If you don't want to do that, then just don't comment.
Don't fall for that for a second Scott. Jim is only doing that because he knows if he dares reply he'll expose himself. Anyone who has studied knowledge of this case will see my criticisms contain some very valid points that deserve recognition. Jim is only practicing what ROKC does when confronted by evidence it doesn't like. He's ignoring it and using adjectives in order to get around answering.
Jim is being totally dishonest here. ROKC's claim to fame is Murphy's thesis. Murphy's thesis was the main source for the doubting of the lunchroom encounter. The now-disappeared Murphy entered this doubting of the lunchroom encounter exactly because he needed to weaken it because it threatened his Prayer Man theory. Anyone who claims Kamp is not promoting the anti-lunchroom encounter theory in order to bolster ROKC's Prayer Man theory is simply not being truthful. Jim is just openly ignoring that my reply to the first few paragraphs of Kamp's essay that Jim posted on his Kennedy's & King website shows several examples of Kamp trying to use his bogus anti-lunchroom encounter evidence to place Oswald in the foyer. Yet despite this undeniable proof that Kamp's efforts are an extension of his Prayer Man claims Jim insists they are not and poor innocent Kamp is only trying to show Oswald was in the Domino Room. No sale Jim. You're not being honest.
Because we are now being guided to Kamp's tunnel vision on the lunchroom encounter evidence by Jim D we are not being advised of some perfectly reasonable alternate explanations for the evidence Kamp discusses. For instance it is possible that Truly did poke his head in and see Oswald sitting eating his lunch at the table. Jim ignores that Carolyn Arnold did the exact same thing 6 minutes earlier. This true story could be the real reason why they didn't mention it in the original affidavit. If indeed Baker and Truly saw Oswald eating his lunch at the table Baker would have good reason for not exposing the precise circumstances at the police station where the preferred suspect was being held. Eventually they might have agreed upon an official story that would allow this real witnessing but adapt it to the 6th floor by having Oswald walking in to the lunchroom when seen. Another explanation is Carolyn Arnold was interviewed for the first time on the 26th. The article where Truly said Oswald was eating lunch at the table came out on the 27th - the next day. There's every possibility the reporter who wrote the story mixed stories just like Biffle did with Campbells' story. Kamp is trying to force one explanation for Truly's statement when there are many reasonable alternatives that make more sense.
Because of this preferred flawed research Jim might be leading us away from the realization that Oswald was killed to keep his being in the lunchroom from coming out under trial...