Why the second floor lunch room encounter could not have happened

[LR Trotter]

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.

Without much doubt, there appears to be ample evidence that more than one person was identified as LeeHarveyOswald near the time, as well as place(s), of the murders of JFK, and JDT, and the wounding of JBC. And, photographic evidence exists that more than one person may have caused mistaken identities, whether by an actual mistake, or planned, or both. A conclusion shared by many, along with those, including myself, that fail to be able to embrace the "Harvey and Lee" scenario.

[Richard Gilbride]

I encourage people seriously interested in the hoax issue to also study the EdForum thread One Last Thing Before XMas Eve: 2nd Floor Lunchroom Encounter. Besides cleaning everyone's clock on that thread, I remind you that previously I have

1) initiated a thread critical of the hoax at the 1st ROKC forum, right in the middle of that rattlesnake nest, when I was an administrator there

2) produced in 2014 a 13-page essay The Lunchroom Incident: A Short Proof and Long Explanation

3) invested 11 pages in my 2015 mega-essay Inside Job to further discuss the shortcomings of the hoax

And I call out especially Jim DiEugenio and Larry Hancock for endorsing the hoaxers. This is tin-foil hat stuff, a demonstrable falsehood. Please re-think your position. You have a chance to renounce these flakes. It might be painful, like a mammoth extricating itself from the LaBrea Tar Pits, but would help restore some sanity to the research community, rather than further embarrassment. I like and respect you guys, but this endorsement stains your legacy. Historians 20 years from now will condemn you on this, and for myself I will continue criticizing the hoaxers relentlessly.

Allow me to digress, and share an experience that may help you come to your senses. In 1979 my professor in atomic physics took us through how Wernher Heisenberg derived his famous Uncertainty Principle- the bedrock equation of quantum mechanics- while isolated on a cabin on the coast of Germany. There were 3 or 4 distinct mathematical phases in the progression toward his final equation. At each phase he had alternative explanations, but he listened to what the mathematics was telling him, and recognized that he could perform legitimate operations that led to simplifications. His final expression was as much about the limits of what language and what an experiment were able to tell us, as it was about the properties of matter and time. These properties would always have an inherent ambiguity- an extremely small but quantifiable ambiguity. And Heisenberg's equation, as a system of thought, has directly produced lasers & semiconductors & more- specific tangible results.

Not only in science, but also extending to a Sherlock Holmes mystery, or JFK research, any simplifying principle should and must lead to substantive, tangible results. But the lunchroom hoax produces only a complete dead-end - Baker's "4th floor man" vanished into thin air. That should raise suspicions that the hoax is fake, an artificial construct. No better than asserting, say, that what Baker was really trying to tell us was that "3rd or 4th floor man" was dematerializing in a Star Trek transponder beam.

I own Whitewash II and the other pertinent books and none of them even remotely suggest that a hoax occurred. This pernicious theory has become popular because there is so much ambiguity inherent in journalism & police work & in police talk over any given length of time. And the lunchroom, because it was where THE sighting of THE Lee Harvey Oswald took place, was the subject of a lot of journalism and a lot of police work and police talk and hence a lot of ambiguity. But the cascade of ambiguity does not necessitate
a hoax conclusion.

There is a fitting parallel here with the moon-landing hoaxers- skepticism about an astronaut being able to survive passage through the Van Allen radiation belts has led to flags fluttering in the lunar breeze, shadow anomalies, Neil Armstrong lying about walking on the moon, etc. - a cottage industry of "evidence" to support the tin-foil hat brigade that contends that the moon landings were hoaxed. We have a similar contingent in the JFK research community, populated mainly by the drug & alcohol casualties at ROKC.

Don't get me wrong. Bart Kamp fully deserves his JFK Lancer award. He did a stellar job presenting the hoaxers' case. No other hoaxer had ever even bothered to put together a position paper. But more than any "New Frontier" toward uncovering truth, this recognition speaks for the petty politics that has dominated the public face of the research community for as long as I can remember.

When, for example, has Duke Lane ever been granted a speaker's slot at Lancer? Not since Jones Harris has a guy pounded the Dallas pavement finding out answers. Time and again for 20-25 years and he deserves a lifetime achievement award. He would take you to the task and wasn't actively posting when the PrayerMan theory got posted, uncontested.

And Brian Doyle aka Albert Doyle deserves some kind of formal recognition for his PrayerMan disassembly. He singlehandedly transformed our understanding of the TSBD landing, yet has been scorned by much of the community since he busted their elaborate daydreams. A roar of common sense, who doesn't need a lick of support because he has the courage of his convictions, and he's put up with neverending taunts from the PrayerMan jackals.

I simply do not have much time & energy for posting at this juncture in my life. I have a court hearing to prepare for on Feb 21st- a contractor owes me a bundle of money from 2 years ago. And I am nearly flat broke and have to move at the end of the month, and will be without internet service soon. I have to get in gear for the spring building-trade season. So I don't anticipate much more than sporadic posting for a while. But I like what I see here at Deep Politics and look forward to a long relationship.

[LR Trotter]

Relegated to the "BearPit" is a discussion thread of substance.::

[Albert Doyle]

And I call out especially Jim DiEugenio and Larry Hancock for endorsing the hoaxers. This is tin-foil hat stuff, a demonstrable falsehood. Please re-think your position. You have a chance to renounce these flakes. It might be painful, like a mammoth extricating itself from the LaBrea Tar Pits, but would help restore some sanity to the research community, rather than further embarrassment. I like and respect you guys, but this endorsement stains your legacy. Historians 20 years from now will condemn you on this, and for myself I will continue criticizing the hoaxers relentlessly.

Won't happen Richard. The hoaxers are taking advantage of a void caused by the original corruption in the case. That void causes any and all assassination matters to be avoided under the premise that it is only giving attention to nutty conspiracy theory and therefore is automatically dealt with under the assumption that it has already been answered by the official story. This void allows fantasy research groups like ROKC to hack the evidence and assert basically anything they can force with their overactive imaginations. This is guided by a rather brute suggestion that anyone who challenges them is somehow a CT subversive and part of the cover-up being waged against these brave heroes. The community is so desperate for conspiracy evidence that it is willing to overlook the obvious degenerate yahoo status of those hooligans and dares insult the intelligence of general JFK research by giving them formal awards usually granted to more serious researchers. Anyone who takes Bart Kamp seriously is a fool, but I guess if Ralph Cinque can get major faces on his website's member tiles anything is possible. No, Richard, if those historians were out there they would protest now. ROKC has discovered, if you are being ignored anyway, then there's unlimited opportunity to cook up fantasy speculation and sell it as real. These groups have discovered that once you use bully tactics to corner the market with your name brand you won't be held accountable for the real truths you helped not be pursued. All it takes is careful marginalizing of more reasonable observers. It's just rank tabloid research that is now superseding credible research.

Don't get me wrong. Bart Kamp fully deserves his JFK Lancer award. He did a stellar job presenting the hoaxers' case. No other hoaxer had ever even bothered to put together a position paper. But more than any "New Frontier" toward uncovering truth, this recognition speaks for the petty politics that has dominated the public face of the research community for as long as I can remember.

Kamp is being given a popularity award by people who allow themselves the privilege of not credibly accounting for their reasoning or justification. These people are seriously not paying attention to the credible details of Kamp's material. They have compromised the credibility of their groups and awards by recognizing what is probably one of the most risible hacks to ever get as far as he has in the serious research world. ROKC is good at manipulating community opinion because of the extent of research it does. What it does is offer a vast load of claims and technical detail, each example of which contains no serious substantial evidence, and then refers to it as real and credible. They are more a propaganda group than anything. They have Jim shilling for them without ever feeling the need to account for that technical detail. It is my opinion that Jim sees a commonality between himself and ROKC in providing new content to fill the pages of their conspiracy sites. However the price of that approach is ROKC has introduced a sort of mob research that is now pushing out more credible observers. Lancer has reduced the credibility level of the community to giving a gold star to Johnny because he made such a good effort. It's really embarrassing, and those institutions are now using some pretty shameful practices to avoid accounting for it.

And Brian Doyle aka Albert Doyle deserves some kind of formal recognition for his PrayerMan disassembly. He singlehandedly transformed our understanding of the TSBD landing, yet has been scorned by much of the community since he busted their elaborate daydreams. A roar of common sense, who doesn't need a lick of support because he has the courage of his convictions, and he's put up with neverending taunts from the PrayerMan jackals.

Will never happen. The community is willing to destroy its entire credibility rather than admit it persecuted the person who was in the right and therefore showed its incompetency. The narcotic of Lee Harvey Oswald being in the portal at the time of the shooting is too strong a temptation for these minds and they will not give it up - even when they are shown the clear image of a woman's face on Prayer Man's body. This is one of the most extreme textbook examples of cognitive dissonance I have ever seen. Gordon cried to the mob "Who shall I save?" and the mob responded 'Bart Kamp'..."

I simply do not have much time & energy for posting at this juncture in my life. I have a court hearing to prepare for on Feb 21st- a contractor owes me a bundle of money from 2 years ago. And I am nearly flat broke and have to move at the end of the month, and will be without internet service soon. I have to get in gear for the spring building-trade season. So I don't anticipate much more than sporadic posting for a while. But I like what I see here at Deep Politics and look forward to a long relationship.

I wish you would post in the "Bear Pit" thread this topic has been restricted to. I have found some serious reinforcing new evidence that was so damning to the knuckleheads that the coward and crook Gordon banned me rather than allow it to be posted. And none of the noble membership complained. When you have a majority that is in the wrong it is very convenient to have a corrupted moderator.



.

[Albert Doyle]

There's probably a perfectly reasonable explanation for Baker saying he saw Oswald on the 3rd or 4th floor. Baker probably thought the front steps of the Depository took him from the street level first floor to the second floor. Therefore he thought the front entrance was the second floor. When he climbed the stairs from the elevators to the lunchroom he thought he was going from the second to the third floor. This could be an easily explained thing that doesn't involve any imaginary explanations from Murphy or ROKC. Therefore there is no omission of the lunchroom encounter in Baker's same day affidavit.

[LR Trotter]

There's probably a perfectly reasonable explanation for Baker saying he saw Oswald on the 3rd or 4th floor. Baker probably thought the front steps of the Depository took him from the street level first floor to the second floor. Therefore he thought the front entrance was the second floor. When he climbed the stairs from the elevators to the lunchroom he thought he was going from the second to the third floor. This could be an easily explained thing that doesn't involve any imaginary explanations from Murphy or ROKC. Therefore there is no omission of the lunchroom encounter in Baker's same day affidavit.

Actually quite likely to mistake the 1st floor for the 2nd. How would he know that you did not go downstairs to the 1st floor, considering the level of the landing? To indicate the floor difference eliminates the lunchroom encounter, is a shallow indication at best.

[LR Trotter]

[size=12]Why couldn't the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter have happened? LeeHarveyOswald said it happened. RoySansomTruly said it happened. DPD Officer MarrionLewisBaker said it happened. Has anyone who was in or within view of the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:32pm, CST on 11/22/'63 testified or stated that it did not happen?[/SIZE]

[Albert Doyle]

Larsen is on the Education Forum saying the two men seen walking down the Elm St extension are definitely not Lovelady and Shelley. Larsen forgets that it was he himself that matched the stripes in Lovelady's plaid shirt to those on the man walking down the extension. When Bill Miller juxtaposed a photo of Shelley next to the man walking down the extension in Darnell/Couch you could see the hair and head lined up for a positive identification of Shelley. The two men are definitely Lovelady and Shelley. There's no point in discussing evidence on the Education Forum because Gordon is too stupid to referee anything credibly and, like Duncan, once confirming evidence shows up incompetents like Larsen are preferred and protected over confirming evidence. Gordon is stupid, and when you have a stupid moderator they prefer members that don't challenge them or make them look like the incompetent moderators they are. Gordon is a criminal and needs to be removed as soon as possible in order to restore the credibility of the Education Forum. What these websites do is find a moderator who is willing to babysit the site and stick with him out of convenience. Gordon probably collects the dues on the Education Forum so whoever would have say tolerates his criminality for expediency. Gordon is a crook who censors people with the better evidence while claiming he is moderating according to quality of information. That's why, like the coward he is, he refused to justify his moderation against me via the actual material. Stancak is now safe to not answer. Cowards.


What an outright fraud Gordon is because he uses his bully power to tell people he is very sensitive about content but then turns around and lets Larsen get away with such drastic goofs in his own material with no pressure what so ever from the phony Gordon who is really there to protect his friends.

[LR Trotter]

Apparently I have missed something, and I am prone to do so, But, I have trouble trying to reconcile what I see relative to WHS and BNL walking towards the RR track area, and what appears to be BNL still on a lower step of the TSBD entrance portal at or near the same time. All help appreciated.

[Albert Doyle]

Larsen juxtaposed an image of Lovelady in his plaid shirt with the faint plaid seen on the man walking up the Elm St extension. The stripes matched. The reason they matched is because it is Lovelady in his plaid shirt seen walking down the extension in Couch/Darnell. Miller juxtaposed an image of Shelley next to the other man and you can see a similar haircut and head shape between the two. The other man is definitely Shelley. The Education Forum is being forced to endure Larsen's incompetency.