13-05-2017, 09:00 AM
Richard Gilbride Wrote:I am disappointed, but not surprised, to see Jim DiEugenio's endorsement of the lunchroom hoax research essayed by Bart Kamp. This is a big mistake, Jim, that you fortunately partake of with several other JFK heavyweights. All of you are on the wrong side of history.
The hoax is a sophist construction that yields nothing. Worse than that, this pernicious theory points its gullible followers directly away from the solution to what happened, just after the assassination, inside the Texas School Book Depository. It is skewed thinking, not right-angled thinking, and serves only to increase the degenerate element in the research community.
I am a man of my word, and promise a definitive disassembly of Kamp's essay. I have a ton of work commitments and probably won't be able to deliver that until the deep of next winter. But plain and simple, as I have stated several times over the past few years, the hoax is a demonstrable falsehood. Believers in the reality of the lunchroom incident should relax, and rest assured that they live in the truth.
All you need to add, Jim, if you wish to give your new website readers a fair & balanced perspective, is to add something along the lines of:
"Veteran researcher Richard Gilbride has studied the lunchroom evidence in great depth for many years, and is thoroughly convinced that the hoax methodology is flawed and that the lunchroom incident actually happened. Samples of his thinking may be found in pp. 26-36 of the essay Inside Job at his website, and on the Education Forum thread One Last Thing Before Xmas: 2nd Floor Lunchroom Encounter."
Being a TSBD specialist is a lot like what I do for a living, house painting. Everyone's an expert- until there's a crisis.
By the way, I am still banned at the EdForum. I was informed by administrator James Gordon in mid-December, after a post insinuating that Sean Murphy has a drinking problem, that my posting privileges would be suspended until "sometime in January". I made 2 appeals to a moderator back then, but was still not reinstated. And so James Gordon has achieved censorship of a leading Murphy critic, and has tailored the discussion to a pro-Murphy bias. In that regard, it is noteworthy that Gordon's homeland of England has no protected right to free speech.
***********************************************
"4th floor man" is a sophist derivation from Baker's initial recounting at DPD Headquarters late afternoon on November 22nd- it can be cogently argued, to the contrary, that he never existed. That Baker was simply confused about the TSBD floor layout, since it was a building he had never been in before.
But it is an empirically-derived fact that the west freight elevator came downstairs by 12:32. Right in time for the appearance of James Worrell's brown-suit man. There isn't a contrary argument to the arrival downstairs of the west freight elevator by 12:32.
To maintain that brown-suit man came down the elevator and snuck out the back to be seen by James Worrell, connects the witnessing of brown-suit man with an empirically-derived fact. But to maintain that brown-suit man was "4th floor man" connects him with a sophist derivation- it isn't necessarily true that 4th-floor man existed at all. But it is necessarily true that the elevator came downstairs by 12:32.
And so it still cannot be maintained that the hoax hypothesis has produced any substantive, tangible leads in its 10+ years of existence. As a school of thought it is a fruitless tree. "Ye shall know them by their fruits"- and this tree has been barren precisely because it is artificial.
It is as if Sean Murphy planted a plastic tree in the backyard, Greg Parker watered it, and Bart Kamp has now tilled its soil with fertilizer. Aren't you now adding a plastic pear, Jim, by contending that Baker encountered Worrell's brown-suit man on the 4th floor?
*************************************************
We will never know the exact reason why Baker, when composing his affidavit, didn't mention that Oswald was brought in & seated in the same small interrogation room. Baker did mention this shortly afterward to homicide detective Marvin Johnson, did he not? And look at Johnson's description of the place of the Oswald sighting- "On about the 4th floor Officer Baker apprehended a man that was walking away from the stairway on that floor."
It can be cogently argued that Baker, unfamiliar with the TSBD and just back from Parkland & Love Field, thought he had run up the entranceway stairs to the 2nd floor, and so thought that the split-level corner stairs brought him up to "about​ the 4th."
Baker had just learned about the President's death, and Tippit's murder, and saw a welt on the eye of the suspect they brought in. Not just another day at the office, was it? Surreal with tension there, I would say. Maybe a good time to keep your cards close to your chest.
We have a similar example in this JFK case- we don't know the exact psychological reason why Oswald left his wedding ring on Marina's dresser that morning. Almost certainly, this is an indicator he was connected in some way with an assassination plot. But only the skewed thinking of a sophist would leap to the conclusion that this ring episode means he was an assassin.
***********************************************
Thanks to Albert Doyle, Larry Trotter, and Scott Kaiser for holding the fort, and please keep the faith if I seem to be missing in action. I'm in almost 100% agreement with what you guys have posted on this thread.
Out of the blue, I received a new book in mid-February from an old friend from my Lancer days. I told him I'd give him feedback and write a review- it's eaten up about 80 hours of spare time set aside for JFK stuff. It's a dense, Harvey & Lee spinoff and I've been making notes as I go. Some of it improves on John Armstrong- there's geneological discoveries, dual military enlistment proofs, signature analysis that was right in the Warren volumes but got missed- but big chunks of it has no worth that I can see. I'm almost done, about 50 pages to go.
With that done, I'll be able to turn my attention to disassembling Bart Kamp's essay. That this fool is even taken seriously reflects very poorly on the state of the intelligentsia in the JFK research community. Generally speaking, they lack the gift of discernment, which sobriety bestows in good time.
Ethanol, a gasoline additive, is the active ingredient ingredient in beer, wine and hard liquor.
Yes, Mr. Gilbride;
Mssrs. Doyle, Trotter and Kaiser have certainly "held the fort" here, and shall keep alive the 'flame of faith' during your future 'missing moments' at this forum.
Godspeed, Onward & All Hail !!!