Why the second floor lunch room encounter could not have happened

[LR Trotter]

Even if DPD Officer M Baker veered slightly off course near the TSBD entrance steps, it appears quite possibly he could have been avoiding another person, likely a female TSBD building employee, who was walking into his faster running path. He may, or may not have known exactly where an entrance to the building was, so even if he checked around the corner, he was only steps away from the doorway stairway, and would easily have been able to enter the building in accordance with his stated time frame. Consideration should be given to the fact that Officer Baker was reacting, and responding, to shots being fired at or near the POTUS JFK motorcade as it had just passed the TSBD and Dal-Tex buildings. And, bravely I might add. Also, there has been no evidence presented that he crossed Houston St, which had to occur if he had entered the Dal-Tex building. At best a non-issue, and unfortunately a much discussed and/or debated said issue.

[Albert Doyle]

This issue only proves the deleterious nature of Murphy and ROKC. The Education Forum has daily loads of fantasy speculation over a theory that is almost certainly complete bullshit. In a case where Baker almost certainly ran straight in to the building we now have to listen to what are basically internet hacks spinning evidence against the obvious. Uncredible posters like Sandy Larsen and Ray Mitcham now have what is equal to syndication and DiEugenio is referring to Bart Kamp as a serious source from which he anxiously awaits new publications.



.

[Albert Doyle]

DiEugenio never answered for Davidson's metadata.



In the Bear Pit I have posted visual images that prove why Stancak is wrong. No one is bothering to point this out to Stancak.

[Albert Doyle]

Bart Kamp is always just about to come out with a new important work. He's so full of it. If you remember he did the same thing with his video on Murphy's theory. Upon release it was just more of the same spun rubbish. Anyone who takes Kamp seriously is a fool.




If you did a voice stress analysis of Baker and Truly in their video telling of the lunchroom encounter I bet they would pass.


Frazier probably didn't mention seeing Baker because he was laying off saying anything after the little conference he had in his father's hospital room with Dallas PD.


Kamp has no witnesses to Baker radically differing from his official account by lingering outside and running past the front steps and that's anyone with any common sense needs to know.

[LR Trotter]

:hock::I would imagine that BWF could have easily missed DPD Officer M Baker's entrance to the TSBD. Especially if MB's stairway climb was on the east side of the railing, and BWF had his attention focused towards the west from the doorway. But, even if not, with the ensuing chaos at the time, with assassin(s) escaping as well, many situational events could, and would, have been missed.

[Albert Doyle]

What ROKC does is spin all evidence in favor of their preferred contrarian evidence hacking, repeating it so many times that it then becomes reality and can then be referenced as fact. Shame on researchers who enable that Parker-led den of cranks because it fills the pages of CT websites. Truth is Baker probably ran right up the steps and encountered Oswald in the lunchroom just like he said.

[LR Trotter]

::​Quite far too often on open forums, an opposing viewpoint "over" response occurs, and then a followup by a tag teammate that "over" responds to his tag teammate's previous "over" response. And, quite often without said tag teammates allowing for a reply in between the tag team "over" response{s}, although the "over" responses create an illusion of an opposing reply with a more advanced point of view, even without such reply. If and when a reply does occur, said reply can expect at least two opposing viewpoint "over" responses by the "teammates".

[LR Trotter]

What ROKC does is spin all evidence in favor of their preferred contrarian evidence hacking, repeating it so many times that it then becomes reality and can then be referenced as fact. Shame on researchers who enable that Parker-led den of cranks because it fills the pages of CT websites. Truth is Baker probably ran right up the steps and encountered Oswald in the lunchroom just like he said.

A not so slow evidence cooking method, is to self quote a reference to a self expressed opinion pursued as a fact based hypothesis.::

[Albert Doyle]

I just wanted to mention David Josephs is over on the Education Forum backing Sandy Larsen's anti-lunchroom encounter material.


In my opinion his material does not disprove the lunchroom encounter. No matter how many times I post that Roger Craig's second Oswald in the Depository probably accounts for the discrepancies the anti-lunchroom encounter people are calling conclusive evidence it gets ignored and the same old ROKC/Murphy material is re-posted as fact. Like Prayer Man, the anti-lunchroom encounter theory is just CTers trying to spin evidence to give themselves something to fill their conspiracy evidence concessions with rather than a determination of truth. These people are guilty of tabloidizing the assassination research world and mis-leading the public on the truth behind the assassination.

Oswald was right where Carolyn Arnold saw him minutes earlier. Unless of course you want to honor Greg Parker's telling original witnesses where they were wrong and what they actually witnessed.

[LR Trotter]

Hopefully, if and/or when I disagree with a statement, I indicate that the statement is incorrect due to an incorrect and/or misreading of certain evidence, but without saying someone is lying. As well, it is my hope that if and/or when I wish to indicate someone's story is a lie, I do so to their face, or at least in a manner for said person to respond directly, or possibly indirectly from a reliable source. To imply that "lunchroom encounter" participants and/or eyewitnesses regarding a 53+ year old event are lying, is an implication without merit, regardless of whomever that was not there, that makes such implication.