It seems appropriate to have this article, a response, here.
It has multiple refutations.
These can be applied to future iterations of the Gilbride theory.
So here is Bart on Gilbride.
"The Death of Richard Gilbride's Deluded Fantasies."
Richard Gilbride used to be a co-administrator at*ROKC. He left the forum not just for his opposing and his dated views with regards the second floor room encounter, but he also behaved in a rather irritant and alienating manner, thinking his admin/mod status could speak for all the others of the ROKC forum.
In*2014 Richard Gilbride*managed to post a few things while being at ROKC that obviously rubbed everyone else up the wrong way by moving the goalposts and also restating inexact facts and resort to made-up fairy tales. And of course like ROKC's biggest fan' Brian Doyle he has been isolating himself further and further. A few samples…..
"The lunacy in me is in taking on the cult, the true believers, those who don't think the lunchroom incident ever happened. Because those true believers are the true lunatics, who can't accept concrete evidence that their hypothesis is incorrect, even with that evidence is dropped at their feet and thoroughly explained to them"**HERE
and**I find the contentions of those who say the lunchroom event didn't happen an insult to my intelligence. What I am insulting is their reasoning power, regarding this particular facet of November 22nd- because as far as this incident goes, they have taken leave of their senses. "They" meaning Sean Murphy, Greg Parker, Lee Farley, and those who actively promote this school of thought. What they promulgate is an insult to my better judgement, and many other peoples' better judgement. It should be an insult to their better judgement.**HERE.*
Almost four years later nothing has changed. You will see while reading on.
Since leaving ROKC in 2014 he has had a huge chip on his shoulder about*ROKC*research. Once in a blue moon he starts to appear on a forum and spews his gal, which does not hold any ground whatsoever. It only appears in Gilbride's mind. Brian Doyle and his Prayer Woman beliefs fall in the exact same category, the category of being deluded and in deep denial only believing their own truth'.
A year ago Richard Gilbride was still a member at the Education forum, but the disgusting post below got him his membership revoked, like the troll Brian Doyle who posted so much drivel he became the laughing stock of the JFK Research Community.*Leaving Gilbride only the half decent Deep Politics Forum to vent. I don't count the JFK Assassination forum run by disinfo clown Duncan MacRae as a proper forum. One has to ask themselves why these deluded individuals keep at this while at the same time their memberships are being revoked. It certainly doesn't speak well for their argumentation overall, but in this case why don't we let his writings' speak for himself and you the readers/researchers can make up their own mind.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]9423[/ATTACH]
No matter how strong the evidence is, it will be denied purely due to the fact that it comes from us at ROKC. I have very little time for flat earthers, climate change and holocaust deniers and these two people are from the same pack. Doyle and Gilbride are also technically inept to such an extend that mouthing off without providing any proof is their only weapon. Oh we at ROKC mouth off big time, but that is after presenting the proof in abundance after which we are* being lied to by these fantasists. Then of course we will address your theory.
Gilbride first two essays on the second floor lunch room encounter are filled to the brim with unsupported innuendo, made-up evidence and have been demolished by various researchers (including yours truly). In 2014 at ROKC and later at the Education Forum in 2015/2016. And with his third essay' (90 pages too long) it is even worse. About half of it is used to attack me and my work and the other half is again just opinionated and unsubstantiated drivel which is nothing but a repeat from his dreadful fairy tale research' that is more than 4 years old.*And only this once he gets the special treatment (a blog post) from me. I cannot be bothered otherwise since his drivel does not deserve anyone's attention.
When he made a forum post entitled*"Death Of A Lunch Room Hoax" at the Deep Politics Forum*earlier in Feb.,* he got rebutted by Jim DiEugenio, David Josephs and Alan Ford with great ease already. But why stop there……I want my slide of the cake as well. So here we go.
Good Stuff.
It seems that I made some typos regarding the dates of the SS report(s) concerning Mrs Robert Reid. I also forgot to add one page of these reports to my paper which resulted in me erroneously claiming she made no mention of the coke in that statement. That was wrong and I have corrected that. One thing that needs to be added is that the Secret Service Reports from early Dec. 1963 are to be treated with the utmost suspicion, some of the T.S.B.D. worker's testimonies in those reports were contradicting their very first statements to the D.P.D. and the F.B.I.
I also erroneously ascribed a radio message to Jesse Curry whereas that should have been Bill Decker instead. I corrected that as well.
These correction will be in the V.4 update of Anatomy Of The Second Lunch Room Encounter out early March.
And that is it mistake-wise from all the 90 pages, now then y'all best strap in as the person who has never before attempted to look and research*all*the evidence before and relied way too much on his own innuendo for three essays on the same subject matter is about to get a serious kicking. Of course he himself will deny this up to the hilt.
Bad stuff.
The introduction by itself is a very weak start, instead of sticking to the point he drifts off already and drags in historical quotes which have no bearing on this case whatsoever. Gilbride tries to show of his intellect, not that it works as you will see further on where he makes some really dumb mistakes which are only made because of his blindness created by his hatred for ROKC and my work.* These first few pages are pure filler. Anyone can bang together a few historic quotes and massage the whole thing together. Gilbride should have included a few of*these, it would have been more fitting to his work overall.
Then we arrive at Prayer Man, Gilbride feels the need to drag this part of the enigma into this document for a large part spread all over it. I myself make brief mention of it in the*Anatomy Of The Second Floor Lunch Room Encounter*paper I made. In this chapter it is already going horribly wrong, nothing new as the majority of this has been already posted more than two to four years ago at the Education Forum and back then it was torn to bits, not just by me but pretty much any member there in that thread. Gilbride's so called photogrammetry calculations amount to junk science and like Brian Doyle he talks the talk trying to make everyone believe that they are the experts who know how to do this, but the reality is quite the opposite, drawing a few lines on a 2d photograph amounts to bugger all, a small child can do this.
He provides no info as to what camera/lens was used by both camera men (Darnell and Wiegman), there is no way to determine the exact spot of both camera men and their distance to the front steps of the TSBD, one can only guess. It is flawed from the word get go, but this was already relayed to him two years ago on the Education Forum, but Gilbride isn't listening let alone researching just rehashing the same old fairy tale.
Nor does anyone know* whether Prayer Man stood on the top of the landing or one step down. I*speculate*he is one step down due to his stance, and the way the steps go wider. And also due to the size of Shelley/Frazier on the landing and Lovelady who stood on a lower step. There is no way of ascertaining by sight whether Prayer Man stood on the landing or one step down from either film.*The height analysis is pure conjecture, there is zero and I repeat zero evidence to back up Doyle's and Gilbride s claims. His calculations are sucked out of his thumb and presented as gospel.
Gilbride states that Lovelady stood on the top step. If there is one thing abundantly clear in Wiegman it is that Lovelady is standing one step lower below Shelley and Frazier and is leaning against the railing. This*cannot be done*while standing on the top step. Take a look at the photographs below. Now pretend to stand on the landing and imagine leaning against that railing….bit difficult to do that no? Also look how close he is to Williams who stood one or even two steps down. No way could he have stood that close to him if he were standing on the landing. And also consider that Lovelady stood behind Carl Jones as you can see in the Hughes film and as the motorcade made its way down Elm he moved slightly to the right and up the steps. Not the landing where Shelley, Frazier, Sanders and Stanton were already standing. Lovelady had a curious mind and when the shots rang out he left those steps immediately with Shelley. Lovelady can be seen lowering on the steps in Wiegman as well.
Doyle tried to lie himself out of it and it never worked, and it doesn't work this time for Gilbride either. Major fail on Gilbride's part of repeating this debunked rubbish.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]9425[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]9426[/ATTACH]
On Page 7 it gets "better", Gilbride brings in the pix used by Brian Doyle for his Prayer Woman malarky. The buttons argument was debunked by me more than a year ago. These are not buttons they are artefacts from a transfer from tape to digital, as simple as that. I wrote two articles nailing Doyle and his lies to the cross. Gilbride pretends like his nose is bleeding and present this horse shit afresh…..you'd think he would be joking but he isn't.
The Death Of Prayer Woman Part 1.*and*The Death Of Prayer Woman Part 2*deal with this BS in good detail. In case you were wondering where his latest essay's title comes from, look no further.
In the very first article it was shown that Craig Lamson and Duncan MacRae faked the detail of the Darnell image which shows Prayer Man/Lee Oswald. Gilbride is using this image and on the same page of that article is also a photograph which shows the "buttons", those buttons which appear all over the actual image. These buttons in correlation with the actual size of the image would be massive in real life. David Josephs brings a coherent argument forward at the*Education Forum*about this.
Here let me show you again in a very simple way and you can see they are all over the image. Buttons = fairy tale. Prayer Woman died a long time ago already. But like McAdams would do many years ago, even when debunked they still have a go at presenting this again at a later date. This is pure trolling.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]9427[/ATTACH]
Neither Doyle, MacRae and Gilbride possess any photography skills let alone be able to edit/manipulate/enhance/post the images. Recently Gilbride, already being a member at DPF for quite some time, had to ask the DPF members to show him how to post pix at that forum.* Gilbride's photo analytical qualities come into question again later on.
In short the entire hooey from pages 3-9 is to be avoided purely for the bad research being done and repeating already debunked stories. if you do not think I make a point then just have a look at the replies*Jim DiEugenio and David Joseph gave to Richard Gilbride*with regards this BS. Another major fail on Gilbride's account for adopting the sheer garbage produced by Brian Doyle, Duncan MacRae and Craig Lamson. When I asked Lamson, Doyle and MacRae for the EXIF data, and not meta data Doyle, they refused to pass it on as it would have shown heavy manipulation from their part. Instead the cowardly fakers ran away.
Then he asserts running woman is Gloria Calvery, there is absolutely nothing to support this, not even BWF's statement. Since he brings this in connection with Shelley and Lovelady who had already departed. Shelley and Lovelady lied about their stay on the steps for 3-4 minutes during their WC testimony. It would have invalidated the W.C. fairy tale of* 2nd floor lunch room encounter and Oswald's departure there and then, as everyone would have seen Oswald leaving the TSBD. It is impossible that this happened. Calvery to this day has not been IDed in Dealey Plaza on that day no matter how hard people try. In Shelley's first statement, before Oswald was marched in or let us even assume he gave that statement during it. He stated that he saw Gloria Calvery*after*he had left the steps. There is*no interaction*between Shelley and Lovelady and running woman at all.* It is pure guesswork. But it would have been a lot better if both these clowns actually paid attention to the very little info that is available of Gloria Calvery. In CE1381 she states.*"After President Kennedy was shot, I returned to my office. I stayed there a short time*then returned to the front entrance of the building. I remained there only two or three minutes and then came back to my office. I left my office for the day at about 1:30 PM and went home."*There is absolutely nothing about her running back, she went inside and up to her office and then came back down.
The drab is continued with Harry Dean Holmes' affidavit and WC testimony, if anyone gave the game away on Oswald's alibi it was H.D.H., he was not part of the boys club inside the DPD and surely did not get the memo to keep his mouth shut and not to volunteer any info. Holmes himself is also questionable for the fact that not one person could take responsibility handing the rifle to Oswald, as it supposedly had come through his office. The rifle that never existed in Oswald's inventory, but that is a whole different story btw.
Gilbride refers to a 4 page memo from Dec 17th, which was his report from Nov. 24th. What Gilbride does not realise is that there is a*8 pager*as well.* My position on Holmes' testimony is quite clear in my paper, Gilbride thinks different due to*his*interpretation, which no one else but another research apologist by the name of Larry R. Trotter agrees with.*Alan Ford demolishes that interpretation as well at DPF.*Click and see for yourself. But why not paste part of Holmes' WC testimony below.
Mr. BELIN. By the way, where did this policeman stop him when he was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting?
Mr.HOLMES. He said it was in the vestibule.
Mr. BELIN. He said he was in the vestibule?
Mr. HOLMES. Or approaching the door to the vestibule. He was just coming, apparently, and I have never been in there myself. Apparently there is two sets of doors, and he had come out to this*front part.
Mr. BELIN. Did he state it was on what floor?
Mr. HOLMES.*First floor. The front entrance to the first floor.
As simple as that Gilbride's wishful fairy tales are torn up again. So the first 12 pages are completely worthless and why should we stop there. On page 13 the*THE WILL-CALL COUNTER BUMP chapter is put forward. Since I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that both Truly and Baker never went in as fast as they claimed this chapter can also be dismissed.*The 13 points of concurrence are also utterly worthless, David Josephs takes care of this already*(post #2), no need for me to add anything.* So that is 15 pages that can be skipped due to the terrible work put forward by Richard Gilbride.
And it is getting worse, let me quote from page 19.
"Yet no other document even loosely correlates the existence of a "3rd or 4th*floor" man, and do not wait up nights hoping that something supportive will turn up*among the documents-yet-to-be-released. The chances are nil.*"3rd or 4th floor" man has been utterly useless as a tool to help decipher what went*on, just after the assassination, inside the Texas School Book Depository. All we can*infer is- if he ever existed at all- he vanished into thin air. This empty result adds*nothing contributory to the crime scene investigation, certainly nothing better than*what the commonly-held assertion gives us- that Baker was simply confused about*the TSBD floor layout when he composed his affidavit."*
Ah yes Baker was just so confused, he went up two short flights of stairs and was already confused about what floor he was on, sure…… Had Baker thought that the shipping dept. on the first floor was the ground floor then he would have mistaken the 2nd floor for the 1st and not 3rd or 4th, but Gilbride wants everyone to believe that Baker's first affidavit has no real meaning yet it is paramount in showing that there was no second floor lunch room encounter at all. That document by itself is a major cliff hanger. Gilbride keeps pushing this terrible scenario again and again, and this was also debunked at the Education forum as utter hogwash.
On page 21 he cannot believe the amount of people that are supposedly involved with this encounter lie, what Gilbride omits is that
1/ there is no mention of a second floor encounter on the 22nd, the first public outing is at around lunch time on the 23rd (almost 24 hrs after Oswald's arrest) and
2/ that quite a few statements are taken on the 24th after Oswald has been given a set of wings…….. Gilbride thinks that by not presenting the evidence in the right context and dragging in philosophy makes his argument stand tall, the opposite is more true.
So far up to this point of this essay' everything mentioned can be skipped, it offers very little or no value at all, it solely contains Richard Gilbride's personal innuendo.
The Stroud Document is also equally dismissed with again Gilbride's apologising for how Adams and Styles could not have seen Baker and Truly while coming down swiftly wearing high heels on creaky wooden stairs. Truly allegedly heard Baker talking while the door was closed, but neither of them were hearing Adams and Styles clacking with their heels and making their way down those stairs. Dorothy Garner heard them descending while out of sight to her. An absolute stinker of an excuse. The ladies were already outside before Baker and Truly even attempted to go in and up. As simple as that. Gilbride ought to he ashamed producing this type of dross.
The arrows showing the alleged route on the 1st floor diagram are wrong,*as per testimony*they went diagonally through the shipping dept.
On page 25 Gilbride claims "Baker first caught a glimpse of Oswald somewhere between 50-60 seconds after the head shots." Oh really? And the evidence for that is where exactly? Ah yes only in Gilbride's head……that glimpse that got no mention until a few days before his W.C. testimony…. The timing aspect was a mess from day one, but Richard Gilbride and his fairy tales make matters a lot worse.
On the same page he claims "The November 27th Secret*Service re-enactment film, at the 23 ½ minute mark, shows it closing unaided in only*1.8 seconds."
See for yourself that this is rubbish, the film below (starts at the point of opening the door) and Barry Ernest's testing in 1968 (3 seconds) shows it took longer that 1.8 seconds. Baker who only followed him by a few feet managed to open the door and have it closed in a few seconds and stop Oswald while Truly was just a few feet ahead and was on the 2nd or 3rd step up the stairs towards the 3rd floor. Pull the other one sunshine!
Gilbride again wants to apologise for the Baker and Truly encounter which never happened in the first place.
*
On page 26 Gilbride shows the Gary Murr drawing I put forward with my paper (he borrows a lot of graphics from my piece without properly crediting anyone!) and names it the vestibule.
Vestibule:*a*passage,*hall,*or*antechamber*between*the*outer*door*and*the*interior*parts*of*a*house*or*building.
On that same page he slanders Sean Murphy again without providing any linkage to it. Insiders know that Murphy got in contact with Sandra Styles and got some contradictory statements compared to what Barry Ernest presented in his book The Girl On The Stairs. There was some debate about this, but nothing like Gilbride dares to present, he is economical with the truth again. Gilbride's hatred for Sean Murphy is more than evident. He acts like a sore loser who was outgunned and above all outclassed years ago.
Pages 27-30 are about the filmed interviews, the B&W ones for CBS and the biggest turd known to mankind The Trial Of LHO, held in London during the 70's. Defence council Spence looks so weak with his questioning it is utterly laughable. The witnesses have all been instructed and coached by Vince Bugliosi (another filthy denier….) what to say. A fab example is*Harold Norman's testimony, just count the times how many times he glances towards Bugliosi when questioning becomes a tad tough. With the CBS interviews it isn't much better.*Jim DiEugenio and Jerry Policoff*wrote excellent articles on how CBS conducted itself with these interviews and the JFK Assassination overall.
So that is 30 pages without anything of real value, my suggestion: skip the lot!
Pages 31-40 are about Baker's first statement, his FBI statement from Sept. 1964 and so on.
Again Gilbride makes a few serious mistakes.
1/ If we are to believe that Baker and Truly raced up those stairs then how comes there were*several people*inside the lobby? We know that Roy Edward Lewis was inside the vestibule and that Otis Williams had left the steps to go inside up too the 4th floor (yup using those same wooden stairs…). Other than that everyone was still outside. That by itself already indicates a much later arrival than has been presented.
2/ Then Richard Gilbride dismisses all newspaper reports for*being brought up by overexcited*newspaper reporters hungry for details, and even remembered incorrectly by*the protagonists. This is how he classes journalism. You think that is a bad case of generalising then wait a little for another nugget further down.
3/ Gilbride digs into Baker's first statement while padding himself on the back for doing, superfluous, research while complaining the Murphyites don't do this, first of all the derogatory word has no impact and he ought to know that this started decades before Sean Murphy got involved and I personally have taken it much much further than a any forum poster. Of course we not do superfluous research. It's a complete waste of time and proves nothing nor does it debunk anything what has already been questioned before. (pages 31/39).
This is going from bad to worse for Richard Gilbride since all of these 39 pages fall completely flat from a research p.o.v. It is only HIS opinion, and we all know the saying when it comes to opinions…..
Then we finally reach the real juice: "Anatomy Of A Cherry Picker" and with that he means me and my paper. Thank you Richard, I looked through all the available evidence.* Something he failed to do with his two earlier essays which resembled Swiss cheese. One could pick holes in these two bodies of work and conclude that they were rightfully ignored by the overwhelming majority of the JFK research community. for all these years. And only after my paper was released and awarded* by Lancer and DPUK , combined with that huge chip on his shoulder did he get his finger out and produced this hit piece.
Before I utterly destroy this typed up excrement on the second half of his essay' I should mention that it was my sole intention to collect everything available about this so called encounter to present a bigger picture. One thing that stood out were the huge amount of contradictions in statements, testimonies and newspaper reports. Which requires a lot more than your mundane explanation Richard!
He starts of with that I*failed to address my counter-arguments against the*lunchroom hoax hypothesis at the Education Forum, this is a lie, his dated beliefs were argued against at The Education Forum two years back. As a matter of fact his points were nullified by not just me, but also others.
See this*thread at The Education Forum.* Greg Parker on page 8 of that thread summed it up nicely then, and it is even more than applicable now.
"Fact: Baker wrote 3rd or 4th floor. Your*opinion*is that he was confused
Fact: Baker described a 165 pound 30 year old wearing a light tan jacket. Your*opinion*is that he was mistaken
Fact: Oswald allegedly claimed to buy one coke: your*opinion*is that he bought two.
Fact: Mrs. Reid stated Oswald wore a white t-shirt. Your*opinion*is she was mistaken
Fact: The re-enactments were done over and over again until they could make the timing work. Your*opinion*is that they was done over and over to "refresh" Baker's memory
Fact: The will-call counter "bump" is a change to the original story given which was that Truly was already inside. Your*opinion*that it was just additional information is an opinion you're entitled to. You are also entitled to the opinion that there is no elephant in the room.
It's always instructive when someone whose opinions are not attracting any support of note, will start claiming that the support of other positions is merely due to sycophancy.*Ouch-B.K.
As Terry*(Martin-B.K.)*said, people have long smelled something foul regarding the 2nd floor encounter. You are so tied up in trying to extract some sort of revenge, that you are actually falling back on Warren Commission apologist type arguments. Not bad coming from someone who believes the MJ12 garbage was what got Kennedy killed."
Terry Martin and Ed Ledoux post excellent rebuttals and I myself have made a few posts,*see for yourself*and especially look at Page 16.
In this so called essay of his he writes"Kamp could not provide any*substantive answers to my complaints." Nothing more than a terrible lie, click on the link and check that page and the following ones out and see for yourself and you can conclude that Richard Gilbride is lying. When a researcher' has to resort to lying then I am more or less done communicating with them in any shape or form, I only make an exception here since there are 50 odd pages attacking me and the work I have produced.
Then Gilbride's assumptions get the better of him and he fails in a rather spectacular fashion while addressing Truly's deleted testimony. In the Sept 2017 release of my paper (V.3) I said that we tried to get hold of it and also wondered why the testimony was withheld, nothing else. Gilbride on the other hand scribbles down a fairy tale even Hans Christian Anderson would be jealous of. In the end this deleted testimony was nothing else than someone else reciting his testimony, there was nothing deleted about it all. For that the "blame" lies with either NARA or the WC. You will see in the V.4 update.
Then he questions why I wondered why Baker had not called the observation of a possible shooter in, which anyone with half a grain of common sense would wonder aloud since that would be*proper*police procedure no? Not according to Dick Gilbride……* My second question was why Baker did not seal off the building, I should have asked why did he not seal the front entrance and call others in? What cop goes inside a building with a gun man still inside on his own when several buddies are about dancing' behind the picket fence and the rail road yards. Baker was no Rambo, far from it.
We now know that Baker was standing between the TSBD and the Dal Tex building as became apparent during his WC testimony (and was eventually led to saying it was the TSBD) plus the Darnell film shows Baker veering to the right.
Then he posts two newspaper articles from Nov 24th and 25th which have no bearing since the lunch room encounter did not publicly exist until Nov 23rd around lunch time. And a ten year old child could come up with a handful more of those articles from after the 23rd repeating the fakery created by the D.P.D.
Gilbride then continues to attack every single piece concerning this case and cherry picks his way through it all, what he fails to realise (not a first…) is that I post everything that is available! Gilbride calls that a blunder and even starts stating the bloody obvious.* I post all matters whether it supports my conclusions or not, but again his anger and his blindness prevents him from seeing that massive lump of wood swinging in front of his eyes, like the first two essays this third* essay is becoming an utter joke and I wonder why I bother refuting this worthless crap and I am only halfway this hbit piece!
And it goes on and on in Gilbride's minuscule world. So instead of wasting more time, I will post a few more utter rubbish remarks. I have work to do besides tearing Gilbride's essay a new one so I am going to be a tad more selective.
Page 48.*Does*he realize that Sean Murphy would be acclaimed in Ireland if there was even a*remote chance that his theory was true? But it's a clunker, and he quit the research*community because he can't handle failure.*Gilbride has no knowledge or evidence for this, again his grudge against Sean Murphy takes the upper hand and spite takes the upper hand.
Page 49. Gilbride is reaching big time as to Brennan's encounter with Truly in Roy Bode's interview and screws up so bad it had me rolling with laughter as he himself directly refutes that so called super fast entry by Baker and Truly. "The truth was that Brennan didn't leave his wall perch until nearly 2 ½ minutes after*the shooting."**
Page 50*Truly tried to account himself in bravery and knew full well he was taking large*liberties with the facts for this 16-year-old reporter.*Pure fiction! Gilbride deals with these matters, as they only exist in his head and nowhere else.
Page 52 He positions Roy Lewis outside instead of behind the glass, and uses Larry Rivera's 2016 conference for this as evidence. I suggest you check that talk out, it is so wrong and badly put together that you will not thank me for wasting your time.
Page 53 He denies that Holmes was referring to the vestibule on the first floor, again scroll up and see what Holmes' testimony says.
*
Page 69 contains a photographic still from the Cook film and this image shows Carolyn Arnold and two other ladies, whose ID has not been established at all. They are not Reid and Adams. This wishful rubbish was posted at the Duncan MacRae disinfo forum and never shown to have any substance to it whatsoever. I know as I worked on this with Linda Giovanna Zambanini. This is good research? He also lambasts me for not using footnotes, anyone else can see the interactive links to documents/pix and videos and besides plenty of material is inserted. That I overlooked one page of an affidavit is for Gilbride to have a go at me, yet his own footnotes are rubbish to use. What layman could possible use the non interactive notes at the bottom nor is there any further reference where to go to check up on his claims. Pot…kettle….geddit?
On page 70 he fantasises ("most probably" HA) about Oswald using the corridor instead of taking the alleged route through the second floor office which supposedly happened after the fake encounter in the lunch room, you couldn't make this crap up but Richard Gilbride just does. Gilbride further claims that "Shelley- even though he denied this- had seen Oswald*leave the building via the front landing." and refers to his own essay to this as a footnote. How corrupted is this? Very, since there is no evidence Shelley saw him leave again this is just in Gilbride's mind. Oswald said that he spoke with Shelley and asked if he could leave since no further work was going to be done that day. Shelley denied this. Even though this happened there is nothing that points that Shelley*actually saw*Oswald leave via the front entrance or even stood there*after*the assassination, Shelley was busy assisting the law enforcement officers in the building and*not standing on the front steps*another mistake by Gilbride. Billy Lovelady did see him leave after Oswald was stopped at the front door and Truly had vouched for him.
It's getting boring, I know as I have to plough through this tripe!
Again, on page 71, he brings up Holmes' testimony and tries to twist and turn it into his favour, yet fails again.
Pages 72-74 deal with Kent Biffle and him overhearing what Truly had said and pretends that the NYHT article quoting Ochus Campbell are coming from the same source, this is nothing short of misleading, a damn lie! He produces no evidence to back this up besides his deluded dream-like scenario. A very dirty game is being played here by Gilbride and it doesn't work. And it goes on about the other newspaper reports using the same deplorable tactic and generalising that newspaper reports*overall are inaccurate and lead to Chinese whispers, if you ask me Gilbride has had a hefty dose of them himself.
Carolyn Arnold is next on pages 76-78, and Gilbride's presumptions are dead wrong. I will let the reader decide about this since I have rewritten that chapter for the V4 of the Anatomy Of The Second Floor Lunch Room Encounter paper, and he could not have read it by the time he wrote this* and it is even more detrimental to Carolyn Arnold's statements. You will see soon for yourself.
Then we move to Oswald's alibi at the bottom of page 78. Pay attention to the following:*"He lied because he needed to protect his*assignment to the 2nd-floor lunchroom. He did not want even to begin to expose the*plot he had participated in. He knew full well that the 6th floor of the Depository was*a key sniping position in the ambush of Kennedy. Saying he was on the ground floor*at the time would buffer him from any suggestion that he was anywhere near being*"upstairs in the building."**Is there any evidence available besides Gilbride's delusions and lies? Of course not. Utter bunk!
Gilbride asserts that Fritz took notes only when Bookhout arrived, but there is no evidence for this and on top of that the notes are not contemporary (he speaks of the deceased') and in my second paper Anatomy Of LHO's Interrogations I bring plenty of evidence that Fritz took no notes*at that time! It looks like Jim Hosty was the only one taking some notes at that interrogation.*He then starts to misinterpret the notes to such an effect that I start to wonder whether Gilbride actually has studied the material carefully. Bookhout's and Hosty's joint report clearly states:*"claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola*for*his lunch.OSWALD claimed to be on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed*this building. After hearing what had happened, he said that because of all the confusion there would be no work performed that afternoon so he decided to go home."*Bookhout's solo report after Oswald was snuffed was a complete joke and made to fix Oswald as the solo killer of the President and encountered by Baker/Truly. There are some questionable bits that they directly contradict his first joint report. I point all this out in my paper.
Then at the bottom of page 81 (almost there thank fuck) he has the audacity to say "But what Bart*forgets is that Shelley returned to the landing in time to vouch to Officer Welcome
Barnett that Oswald was all right, that he worked there." This is another lie, Shelley was nowhere to be seen outside from his return from the rail road yards until leaving the TSBD at about 13:30 and seen escorting Garcia and Williams to the police car. Shelley was busy helping the law inside the building, as per his statement. And Barnett was not checking people, according to De. Chief Lumpkin it was Eric Kaminski.
Then this "essay" descends into deeper chaos by going into the bus ride, the bus ride by itself has been disproved by*Ed Ledoux who has turned this fake story into mincemeat, enough already.
Page 86 contains the following whopper:*"Any newspaper reader is fully aware that any article potentially contains*misinformation, from the journalist or the interviewee. It is only an adjunct source*for arriving at the historical truth- particularly in this instance when there are so*many other sources of information available. And in this case the newspapers*contained actual disinformation." For a second I thought Gilbride meant his own writing as it is so succinctly*described here, but no*"all newspaper reports potentially contain*misinformation."**Can this essay be any more dross?
From thereon it descends this "essay" descends deeper into the abyss with Richard Gilbride's conclusions. I think I have spent enough time laying out the mistakes, the lies and the make believe scenarios by him that I cannot stomach this piece any longer.
Among all (former) ROKC staffers there is a broad consensus that the second floor lunch room encounter did not happen, but we disagree on some of the details. Merely due to lack of additional info but what Gilbride puts forward we and other people who are not members of ROKC unanimously agree that he is nothing more than a sore loser stuck in beliefs that can only maintained with innuendo and lies. Richard Gilbride is a bully and a fraud of which John McAdams could only be most proud. His 'hit piece' misses on every occasion, but a couple of mistakes for which I am thankful for as he took the time to go through it all. But he could have saved himself a lot of time writing his third essay since the whole thing could have been dealt with less than half a page of A4.
Enough already. ~Bart Kamp
I concur,
*Full article with links:
http://www.prayer-man.com/the-death-of-r...fantasies/
Cheers, Ed
:[/QUOTE]
: