Why the second floor lunch room encounter could not have happened

[Albert Doyle]

I'm beginning to realize the context of the Commission's statement from Miss Garner was to make it look like Styles and Adams went down too late to see Oswald coming down the stairs. Read the Garner statement. It is the Commission's attempt to get around answering the stairway timing by making it look like Baker and Truly came up immediately after Styles and Adams descended. This would mean the ladies descended too late to have caught Oswald. The Commission tries to head this off in very undetailed fashion, therefore avoiding having to answer for the obvious conflicts any real examination would have incurred. Such as Barry Ernest's investigation.

[Albert Doyle]

If the water cooler was on the 2nd floor then Baker did technically locate his encounter on the second floor in his original description. Some CTers admit the evidence was corrupted but then take Baker's omission straight and without question and use it as evidence of Prayer Man being in the portal. They don't admit the possibility that Baker's omission was evidence of Dallas police corruption of the evidence and trying to put Oswald closer to the Sniper's Nest. They probably dropped this ruse and admitted the lunch-room encounter after they realized they were busted by Carolyn Arnold's witnessing. Also, maybe Oswald himself had said he was in the lunch-room or domino room in his police station statements. Maybe Truly talked and too many people heard it. In any case it is fairly obvious the simple explanation is they dropped this attempt to place Oswald closer to the 6th floor and went with the true account as it became obvious they weren't going to get away with it and its cover-up would become incriminating. It seems to me there is good evidence that Baker was gotten to because the conspirators realized his witnessing of Oswald with a Coke in the lunch-room was damaging to their Lone Nut set-up and needed to be prevented. This live interference is not far-fetched because we know there was active spookery going on with the wallets at Tippit's shooting and at the theater with Oswald doubles. There's nothing untowards about this and it fits in a simple (legitimate) Occam's Razor way.

[Albert Doyle]

Truly would be ahead of Baker for the simple fact that Baker didn't know where to go in the Depository.

[Albert Doyle]

It has become popular to announce "I am 100% certain the Baker-Oswald lunchroom encounter never happened". Unfortunately, in my opinion it probably did.


The Baker affidavit is very weak justification for this claim and most likely resulted from the fact the conspirators were aware early that Oswald being in the lunchroom was not conducive to his being on the 6th floor shooting JFK. Baker simply covered-up the lunchroom encounter because it placed Oswald too far from the Sniper's Nest.


There's an unhealthy movement occurring out in the CT world where Murphy has mesmerized the CT community with his bogus Prayer Man theory and persons who were mainstream CTers are now buying-in to its various offshoots including the lunchroom encounter never happening.


These persons have very strong feelings and hold grudges but they forget that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in the lunchroom just prior to the shooting. Oswald also allegedly placed himself there in his statement to Fritz. They also forget Truly told his wife about the encounter that evening.


This Murphy hocus pocus has now led to the strengthening and acceptance of ROKC and its 'researchers' without those who facilitate it accounting for its negative impact on JFK research integrity.


Time for some hard truth and sanity guys...

[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.

[Albert Doyle]

It is dishonest to ignore the countervailing evidence in my opinion. Murphy has unleashed a form of zealotry in the community where his proponents go after those who show alternate proof and seek to annihilate them from the community. It is really quite silly in my opinion.

[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.

[Scott Kaiser]

His slow down is perfectly timed to the woman's approach. It occurs perfectly in synch with Lovelady's passing Shelley.

I can see a perceptible turn towards her in anticipation just as she approaches and return to forward walking right in perfect synch with the realization she isn't stopping.

It's why he slows down and Lovelady moves ahead because he was looking at her seeing if he could talk to her.

I can see a pull-up of the head and turn of his head towards her plain as day.

My interpretation is "Find out what happened from her". "She's not stopping". "Well, we're going there anyway".

Albert, whatever you are smoking, I'll take a fricking pound of it, as it must be some GOOD stuff.

I don't have the money for a pound, but if I could get a hit or two off of it I'd be satisfied.

[Jim DiEugenio]

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 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.

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.

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.

[Tracy Riddle]

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 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.

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.

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.

It seems to me that if Baker was going to lie about it, it would have been more damning to say he saw Oswald running down the stairs, or running out of the stairwell. Not see him acting calmly in the lunchroom.