Why the second floor lunch room encounter could not have happened

[Scott Kaiser]

Here is Barker's full interview, " we immediately turned around and went up the stairs."

I don't understand what the argument is all about, bottom line is, Baker after hearing the second shot says he entered the TSBD. They couldn't get the service elevator to work, then after hearing the third shot he turned and immediately went up the stairs to the second floor, there's no way in hell Oswald could beat Baker running down the sixth floor to the sceond and not be suspicious of just shooting at the president no one is that good not to show any signs of just firing at the president.

In the Zfilm it shows sometime between the second and third shot, so how others come up with those shots happening simultaneously is beyond me.

https://youtu.be/Yg0tnlUE1BU

[Scott Kaiser]

https://youtu.be/YOh6t-Q9Hzs

[Scott Kaiser]

Truly says the stairs in the stairway doesn't have to many steps on them, and it's hard to compare a reenactment to an adrenaline rush.

Im willing to bet it only took Baker 40 seconds or less to enter the building and run up the second flight of stairs where he encountered Oswald, so, if after the third shot Oswald could make it down to the second floor within 40 seconds or less it would be impossible for Oswald to pull it off.

I don't think Baker has any good perception of time, or, he was coached into minute and a half.

[Albert Doyle]

If you read Barry's book he has Sandy and Victoria leaving the room as the car disappears under the trestle.

He then had them measure the distance from the window, to the landing. Barry deduced that this would take about 15-30 seconds.

The idea that they would not see Oswald at that time is a bit ridiculous.

If Oswald were in the lunchroom then that would explain Adams not seeing him. It is even possible that Oswald went to the lunchroom vestibule window because he heard Adams and Styles clattering down the staircase. It makes eminent sense that Oswald was in the lunchroom where Carolyn Arnold saw him minutes earlier.

If you read about the reconstructions to get Baker up there, and how dishonest they were, and you read the latest research about where Baker was actually going when he jumped off of his cycle and what he and Truly did before they went up the stairs, the Garner document fits it like a glove.

This is too loose to have any meaning. And I think that is deliberate because if you get in to the finer detail you'll see it doesn't necessarily overturn the lunchroom encounter. For years we've been subjected to Bob Prudhomme entering cynical doubt about each and every little wrinkle in the evidence under the suggestion that it indicates veracity to the Prayer Man theory. Meanwhile what makes the most sense to me is when Baker said he suspected the Depository and wanted to get in there, and was seen running towards the entrance in the films, that means he went there. Anti-lunchroom encounter people are saying Baker ran towards the entrance that would have got him to the place he said he wanted to go but then veered off and didn't go inside even though there were witnesses who said he did go in and, more importantly, there were zero witnesses to this alleged radical change in the story. Ah ha.

What we have now is Sandy Larsen trying to take over the entire research world with the suggestion that the Darnell/Couch films show Baker veering off to the right at the last moment and therefore not going in to the Depository. Larsen and Prudhomme ignore the fact that Gloria Calvery testified that she saw Baker run in just like they ignore, I believe it was, Pauline Sanders saying the same thing. Each and every time I mention that the Baker story is well known so if he did not go inside right away it would have been noticed by someone and mentioned, there is zero response. The delay advocates simply ignore this and chalk it up to an enforced cover-up and intimidation of the witnesses (something there is also zero mention of even with the ensuing committee amnesties). Larsen never considers that Baker may have reached the edge of the camera lens in that shot and it could be distortion that makes Baker appear to veer off at the last moment. In any case, there's no doubt the source of this questioning of Baker's entry is the need to weaken the lunchroom encounter because of the need to justify Murphy. (By the way, where did Murphy go? How many people in JFK research history who had such a case-cracking claim just walked away from it and what does that tell you? Has Murphy left the planet so he doesn't have the half hour it would take to respond to the recent Davidson photo evidence? Don't you people think that is a little weird?)

For anyone to say that Baker's first day affidavit is a weak piece of evidence in this case, that person has to have some kind of agenda. There is no mention in that affidavit of seeing Oswald through a window, or being in lunchroom, or about a Coke. They were not even in a room but on a stairwell. Because we can now piece together just how it was evolved over time, and just how Dulles and Belin tried to cover it up.

Those who doubt the lunchroom encounter suggest that the failure to specifically mention it in Baker's affidavit is due to one and only one cause, that is the need to cover-up the fact it never happened. However there are other perfectly reasonable explanations for why Baker may have done that that don't involve this bizarre cover-up. He simply might have done it because the lunchroom was too far from the 6th floor and the powers that be didn't want Oswald to be confirmed by them as being too far from the Sniper's Nest. It is even possible the Dallas cops knew Oswald was spooky and avoided committing to any witnessing of location. Every time I mention that there's ample evidence of corruption of the evidence as the assassination unfolded it gets no response. We know the whole event was corrupted, like the Police description of Oswald over the radio, or avoidance of two Oswald's at the Texas Theater and his being escorted out the back by the police. These things happened before Baker wrote his affidavit, so his avoidance of the precise description of the lunchroom encounter is not unique and doesn't necessarily connote the lack of any such encounter.

The Assassination research community is currently in a sort of ROKC-induced hysteria right now where anyone with common sense is accused of being some sort of shady practicer of an unclean "agenda" when they simply point-out some common sense facts. Meanwhile when you state that Roy Truly went home that night and told his wife about the lunchroom encounter it gets ignored. Truly was independent and was not prone to whatever filtering of information went on at the police station. In fact, it might even have been Truly's telling about the encounter that led to the conspirators deciding to allow it.

The Coke would be omitted because it indicated a leisurely time period that was not conducive to Oswald running down from the 6th floor. Or even worse, the Oswald double who was dressed differently was the one with the Coke.

One of the most tragic possibilities with Baker's affidavit is that it was distorted because Baker witnessed Armstrong's doubles in the Depository. We know Roger Craig did. ROKC is in denial of Armstrong as led by Greg Parker.

I did some work on this in Reclaiming Parkland. (See pages 216-20) My work was based on Harold Weisberg's Whitewash II. And also Gary Savage's book. No ROKC influence, or Murphy, so you cannot attack me personally.

But give credit where its is due. Bart K has taken it much further and shown just what a liability that Truly was for their side also. He has shown just how many holes that story has sprung. He deserved that award he got.

I'm sorry but Bart Kamp is not a credible researcher. Kamp is the source of "Look at that ear. It's like three ears blurred sideways" when dealing with the photo science that proves Prayer Man can't be Oswald. The fact he gets taken seriously is evidence of the agenda I am trying to point-out to people who should know better. Kamp's evasion and juvenile responses are there for anyone to see. What Murphy advocates are doing is conflating the cover-up done by sympathetic right-wingers like Truly at the Depository with evidence of the lunchroom encounter being bogus. They are jumping from the holes in the story caused by the general cover-up to it being evidence the lunchroom encounter never happened. It doesn't work in my opinion.


Gordon put me on moderation until the 4th of January. Yesterday he did not resume my posting rights as promised. When I asked him why I was put on moderation in the first place he refused to cite the specific violations. He then said my "arguing" about my being on moderation might be the source of my finding myself banned. Meanwhile, Stancak, who could not answer my evidence, is being given special favoritism by Gordon even though he has yet to respond to my evidence. No one else stepped forward to protest this except Gilbride, whose post was quickly deleted. An e-mail to Gordon yesterday went unanswered. This persecution of me and my unanswered facts goes on behind the scenes in PM's no one can see. Those who don't have to answer my facts are very happy they will not be confronted by someone who can point out the serious flaws in their posts. Stancak now has no need to answer my provable facts he could not answer and Gordon will not hold him accountable for not doing so. There's one set of rules for the pro-Murphy posters and another for those who can disprove them. Gordon said he was guarding content but he has openly disallowed me from posting even further damning proof against Stancak. A more honest view of the real agenda here is the Murphy people are not objectively interested in that proof.



.

[Tracy Riddle]

I've never seen any good reasons to question the Baker-Oswald encounter, personally. Never have understood how researchers get stuck on these issues that are not provable and only create a bigger mess of the situation.

Tracy,

I thought you would've figured it out by now, didn't you know? Everybody's a liar. Reseachers have to discredit everyone and everything in order to prove their theory.

And,

For the record, I never claimed to be a researcher, I only claim to find things others overlooked.

When did I say everybody is a liar? There has never been any researcher that I've agreed with 100%. That doesn't mean they're lying.
My problem with you has been your attention-seeking behavior on other threads.

[Scott Kaiser]

I've never seen any good reasons to question the Baker-Oswald encounter, personally. Never have understood how researchers get stuck on these issues that are not provable and only create a bigger mess of the situation.

Tracy,

I thought you would've figured it out by now, didn't you know? Everybody's a liar. Reseachers have to discredit everyone and everything in order to prove their theory.

And,

For the record, I never claimed to be a researcher, I only claim to find things others overlooked.

When did I say everybody is a liar? There has never been any researcher that I've agreed with 100%. That doesn't mean they're lying.
My problem with you has been your attention-seeking behavior on other threads.

There's a difference between behavior and being blunt, you're confusing yourself for someone being brutally honest compared to an a******.

[Jim DiEugenio]

"If Oswald were in the lunchroom then that would explain Adams not seeing him."

Which lunchroom? Are you speaking of the location of the second floor vending machines?

"This is too loose to have any meaning." (Note the irony.)

Only if you have not read the very long thread over at EF. There are many people there who have been convinced by some very interesting film and gif work that Baker did not head directly for the entrance to the TSBD once he jumped off his motorcycle. This would delay his entry inside even more. Which would explain Posner's question about why Sandy and Victoria did not see him. But the supervisor did. (You ignore that and say, well heck, why didn't anyone say anything about it. Was the film faked?) If you are not aware of all the questions concerning the validity of the WC reconstructions of Baker entering the building and going up the stairs, and the alleged assassin hiding the rifle and coming own the stairs, then I refer you to, among other examples, Harold Weisberg's Whitewash. (pgs. 85-89)

If you want to ignore Baker's first day affidavit and make up silly excuses why it is so opposed to what he said later, then that is fine. For you. And if you want to say, as a blanket statement, Bart is not credible--and leave out the many pages of evidence he supplies that goes to the heart of the matter, much of it never being in the adduced record, that is fine also. For you. Just remember two things though: 1.) It was Hancock, Conway and Wexler who gave him that award. Not any of those people you have a blood feud with, like Stan Dane; and 2.) The validity of the Second Floor encounter is not reliant on Prayer Man being Oswald. I brought up the former in Reclaiming Parkland, not the latter.

For you to smear Bart with PM over the second floor encounter is one more indication of your ongoing Blood Feud with ROKC, which you seem intent on infesting this forum with.

[Albert Doyle]

There are many people there who have been convinced by some very interesting film and gif work that Baker did not head directly for the entrance to the TSBD once he jumped off his motorcycle. This would delay his entry inside even more. Which would explain Posner's question about why Sandy and Victoria did not see him. But the supervisor did. (You ignore that and say, well heck, why didn't anyone say anything about it. Was the film faked?)

I think it is possible that the veer to the right at the very end of Baker's run is caused by lens distortion since it occurs as the camera is pulled away and Baker is at the edge of the lens field. Are you talking about the 'expert' Sandy Larsen Jim? I mean, come on.

Baker's story is part of the assassination gospel. If he indeed did not go inside and lingered outside you would think somebody would have spoken up and mentioned it since it radically conflicted with the official timeline. What Larsen and Prudhomme do is wave their wands over the stew pot and chant hocus pocus. Suddenly the delay and the lack of witnessing for it becomes evidence that it was so damning to the official story that it had to be covered-up exactly because of its danger. Jim, all they are doing is doubling down on the original thin air they offered. In the meantime they could be betting the whole farm on an illusion caused by lens edge distortion.

If you want to ignore Baker's first day affidavit and make up silly excuses why it is so opposed to what he said later, then that is fine. For you. And if you want to say, as a blanket statement, Bart is not credible--and leave out the many pages of evidence he supplies that goes to the heart of the matter, much of it never being in the adduced record, that is fine also. For you. Just remember two things though: 1.) It was Hancock, Conway and Wexler who gave him that award. Not any of those people you have a blood feud with, like Stan Dane; and 2.) The validity of the Second Floor encounter is not reliant on Prayer Man being Oswald. I brought up the former in Reclaiming Parkland, not the latter.

I totally disagree. It is obvious to me that the direct impetus and cause of the dire need to eliminate the lunchroom encounter is because of the obvious implausibility of getting Oswald from the front step to the lunchroom and not being out of breath.

Hancock is the person who credited Andrej Stancak with doing good work in his imaginary-fabricated Prayer Man graphics. When I argued the true facts to Stancak on the Education Forum he was literally unable to answer them. Stancak's excuse that he did not have the time to do the extensive presentation he was planning is just his excuse. My post contained visible evidence that did not need any such lengthy preparation to respond to. Hancock stayed silent during all of this and has not asked Stancak to respond to my evidence. The honest measure of those who honor Bart Kamp is how much scrutiny do they apply to his information and has any of them made Kamp answer my Prayer Man science? The honest answer to those questions is no on all counts so it can be accurately said that those who honor Kamp are directly the same people who never hold him accountable to our evidence.

I am not ignoring Baker's affidavit. I have given several plausible (non-silly) reasons why he might have omitted the direct facts. It is those reasons that are being ignored. Truly did not omit the truth when he told his wife that night and I have yet to see anyone honestly respond to that whenever I mention it. Not to mention Pauline Sanders and Gloria Calvery. Oswald going from Arnold's 12:25 in the lunchroom to the front step and back up to the lunchroom doesn't wash. What makes more sense is Oswald never left the lunchroom.

As for Kamp, go to the Amazon review section for Dane's book and look at his asinine responses versus seriously argued evidence. ROKC was recently dropped by its web-host due to serious internet conduct violations.

For you to smear Bart with PM over the second floor encounter is one more indication of your ongoing Blood Feud with ROKC, which you seem intent on infesting this forum with.

Jim, it is somewhat laughable to accuse anyone of "smearing" ROKC seeing how they operate and what they are well known for amongst the research community. I don't understand you Jim. You very credibly specialize in exposing the flaws of various dubious researchers and do so to a devastating extent. However you then turn around and refrain from doing that with a group (ROKC) that is generally banned from most credible forums exactly because of their uncredible research and conduct.

The source of this recent lunchroom encounter-doubting is directly from Murphy and ROKC's advocacy of it. I find it less than sincere to assert otherwise.

What you call "infesting" is actually a well-reasoned and proof-backed scientific case that Prayer Man can't be Oswald. The post Stancak could not answer proved that Prayer Man had his shoulders squared with the landing in Wiegman. Stancak himself said "If Prayer Man had his shoulders squared then his forearm and shoulder would have to be illuminated by sun". When we look at Wiegman we see Prayer Man is squared but is also totally in shade. The only way that could happen (and Stancak admits this) is if Prayer Man were standing up on the landing. Once you prove Prayer Man is on the landing then you have to honor Stancak's own words when he said on the Education Forum "If Prayer Man is standing on the landing then he is too short to be Oswald". Jim, the reason Stancak could not answer my last post is because he realized I had argued him to this point.

I think it is a violation of research ethics to ignore good controversy-solving proof. I have discovered even further proof that has been unfairly consigned to the "Bear Pit". When you juxtapose the Darnell-Willis 8-Murray photos you can see that reporter Evans is standing on the step in a position that overlaps Prayer Man. Reporter Evans is completely bathed in bright sun. This is incontrovertible photo analysis proof that if Prayer Man were on the step, as Stancak claims, then he too would have at least part of himself bathed in that same sunlight. It proves Prayer Man is on the landing on an easy to understand photographic basis. Gordon has placed me on moderation without explanation so I can't show this proof to the community. By the way, your man Kamp backed out of the Prayer Man discussion when I appeared even though he had taunted me and called me a coward previously for not showing up.

[Jim DiEugenio]

You ignored the first point.

Lens distortion to explain what happens in the film of Baker? Hmm

There is simply no way to reconcile Baker's first day affidavit with his later story. Both Dulles and Belin knew about this point. And neither of them confronted Baker with it. Wht they did was to try and help him paper over discrepancies. This even included the compelling fact that although Baker was in the same witness room with Oswald at the time he made out his affidavit, reportedly sitting opposite him in a small room, he did not recognize him as the guy who he just pulled a gun on a few hours previous. Did Baker pull his gun on several people that day?

Bringing up Andrej in relation to this dispute in order to attack Larry Hancock, this proves my point. First of all, that award is decided upon by Larry, Debra Conway and Wexler. Not just Larry. But you now say its discounted because Larry liked something Andrej said on the PM thread? Wow. So therefore, since Andrej disagrees with you on PM, then Larry's credibility on the second floor work of Bart is somehow compromised? Repeat: wow!

As I said, I did not get my section in RP about this issue from anyone at ROKC. I did it on my own through Weisberg, Savage and the first day affidavit itself. Which was available online through Dallas Archives.

As per the ROKC forum and web site, it has strengths and weaknesses. As most forums do. I never like to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[Albert Doyle]

Baker probably lied or altered his lunchroom encounter in his first affidavit. One of the possible reasons he did so was because the lunchroom was too far from the Sniper's Nest. In any case Truly told his wife about the incident that night. It intrigues the bejeezus out of me that Baker possibly altered the lunchroom encounter because he ran in to both Oswald's and had to discount one of them so he excluded the one who was further away from the Sniper's Nest.


My point was that Larry credits ROKC members blindly without seeing their flaws. He credited Stancak's computer graphics without noting that they were completely fabricated crap that Stancak wasn't able to answer the flaws of when I pointed them out. Larry would have more credibility to me if he pointed-out to Kamp that the affidavit not mentioning the lunchroom encounter doesn't necessarily mean the encounter didn't happen. We are past the point of Andrej disagreeing with me. I refuted him and he couldn't answer. That is usually considered "refuted" and not "disagreeing". Larry is being as incautious with Kamp as he was with Stancak.


I would love to take Murphy on directly on this. There is no other major claim like Murphy's in Assassination history that was simply abandoned by its proposer. That should tell people enough.