Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Anatomy of the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter
#31
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Scott, this is why I will not reply to Doyle on this subject. His view of the issue is simply jaundiced. Bart's essay is not about whether or not Oswald is out front in the portal. It is about whether or not he was on the first floor eating his lunch as the motorcade went by the building. I don't see how anyone can misconstrue that point. Bart makes a good case he was.

Scott, I don't think you have read the essay very carefully. It really deserves that kind of reading. If you don't want to do that, then just don't comment.






Don't fall for that for a second Scott. Jim is only doing that because he knows if he dares reply he'll expose himself. Anyone who has studied knowledge of this case will see my criticisms contain some very valid points that deserve recognition. Jim is only practicing what ROKC does when confronted by evidence it doesn't like. He's ignoring it and using adjectives in order to get around answering.


Jim is being totally dishonest here. ROKC's claim to fame is Murphy's thesis. Murphy's thesis was the main source for the doubting of the lunchroom encounter. The now-disappeared Murphy entered this doubting of the lunchroom encounter exactly because he needed to weaken it because it threatened his Prayer Man theory. Anyone who claims Kamp is not promoting the anti-lunchroom encounter theory in order to bolster ROKC's Prayer Man theory is simply not being truthful. Jim is just openly ignoring that my reply to the first few paragraphs of Kamp's essay that Jim posted on his Kennedy's & King website shows several examples of Kamp trying to use his bogus anti-lunchroom encounter evidence to place Oswald in the foyer. Yet despite this undeniable proof that Kamp's efforts are an extension of his Prayer Man claims Jim insists they are not and poor innocent Kamp is only trying to show Oswald was in the Domino Room. No sale Jim. You're not being honest.


Because we are now being guided to Kamp's tunnel vision on the lunchroom encounter evidence by Jim D we are not being advised of some perfectly reasonable alternate explanations for the evidence Kamp discusses. For instance it is possible that Truly did poke his head in and see Oswald sitting eating his lunch at the table. Jim ignores that Carolyn Arnold did the exact same thing 6 minutes earlier. This true story could be the real reason why they didn't mention it in the original affidavit. If indeed Baker and Truly saw Oswald eating his lunch at the table Baker would have good reason for not exposing the precise circumstances at the police station where the preferred suspect was being held. Eventually they might have agreed upon an official story that would allow this real witnessing but adapt it to the 6th floor by having Oswald walking in to the lunchroom when seen. Another explanation is Carolyn Arnold was interviewed for the first time on the 26th. The article where Truly said Oswald was eating lunch at the table came out on the 27th - the next day. There's every possibility the reporter who wrote the story mixed stories just like Biffle did with Campbells' story. Kamp is trying to force one explanation for Truly's statement when there are many reasonable alternatives that make more sense.


Because of this preferred flawed research Jim might be leading us away from the realization that Oswald was killed to keep his being in the lunchroom from coming out under trial...
Reply
#32
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Mr. Trotter:

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on any issue in this case.

But if you are going to maintain that the second floor lunchroom occurred as the WC said it did, then how the heck did Baker write his sworn affidavit as he did?

And then why did the DPD begin to alter it that evening?

Thanks for your response Mr DiEugenio, but I do maintain my opinion. And, I believe that opinion is expressed and explained in post #28 on this thread, therefor I see no need to explain further. However, I have yet to see reliable proof that the encounter did not occur.

Larry
StudentofAssassinationResearch

Reply
#33
I think it should be clear by now that saying LHO was on the first floor is not the same as saying the person on the top of the landing in the shade is Prayer Man/Woman. Please argue this on the basis first floor vs. second floor.
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I

"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl
Reply
#34
Thanks Lauren. Doesn't take much examination to figure that the essay is not about Sean Murphy, ROKC etc. That i what I mean by jaundiced.

Its about where LHO was at the time of the motorcade passing by.

BTW, I hesitate to call it an essay since there is much more evidence than exposition in it.
Reply
#35
Mr. Trotter as per you roost 28, its pretty clear that two of the three participants do not vouch for the second floor lunchroom encounter as relayed in the WR. Namely Oswald and Baker.

One was posthumously made to go along with it, and Baker's words were twisted by the higher ups at the DPD once they centered on the ersatz gun sack, and Frazier became their witness that night.
Reply
#36
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Thanks Lauren. Doesn't take much examination to figure that its not about Sean Murphy, ROKC etc. That i what I mean by jaundiced.

Its about where LHO was at the time of the motorcade passing by.

This is clear enough. Any more posts such as the following will be deleted.

Quote:Jim is being totally dishonest here. ROKC's claim to fame is Murphy's thesis. Murphy's thesis was the main source for the doubting of the lunchroom encounter. The now-disappeared Murphy entered this doubting of the lunchroom encounter exactly because he needed to weaken it because it threatened his Prayer Man theory. Anyone who claims Kamp is not promoting the anti-lunchroom encounter theory in order to bolster ROKC's Prayer Man theory is simply not being truthful. Jim is just openly ignoring that my reply to the first few paragraphs of Kamp's essay that Jim posted on his Kennedy's & King website shows several examples of Kamp trying to use his bogus anti-lunchroom encounter evidence to place Oswald in the foyer. Yet despite this undeniable proof that Kamp's efforts are an extension of his Prayer Man claims Jim insists they are not and poor innocent Kamp is only trying to show Oswald was in the Domino Room. No sale Jim. You're not being honest.
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I

"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl
Reply
#37
Lauren Johnson Wrote:I think it should be clear by now that saying LHO was on the first floor is not the same as saying the person on the top of the landing in the shade is Prayer Man/Woman. Please argue this on the basis first floor vs. second floor.

​I am not quite sure I understand exactly what is being said in this post. All help appreciated.

Larry
StudentofAssassinationResearch

Reply
#38
Lauren Johnson Wrote:I think it should be clear by now that saying LHO was on the first floor is not the same as saying the person on the top of the landing in the shade is Prayer Man/Woman. Please argue this on the basis first floor vs. second floor.




Lauren,



My post #12 in this thread cites several instances where Kamp uses his lunchroom encounter essay to suggest Oswald was on the landing. In his first paragraph Kamp says people think Oswald walked from the foyer to the lunchroom. He is clearly referencing Campbell's witnessing which he has previously used to defend Prayer Man being Oswald.


If you view my post #12 you'll see I cite several instances where Kamp is fudging his suggestion of Oswald being on the 1st floor with his being on the landing. In his second paragraph Kamp suggests the altercation occurred on the 1st floor. I think a more honest evaluation of what Kamp is doing would make both him and Jim answer for the fact suggesting this altercation happened on the 1st floor would then validate some kind of encounter. Your restriction here helps Kamp not answer what exactly he means by that? Does he mean Baker & Truly confronted Oswald in the lobby? Does he mean Baker & Truly confronted Oswald in the Domino Room? Jim avoids answering this because he knows it damages his position. Anyone who is well-versed on this subject knows Kamp's altercation claim requires a serious follow-through with qualifying detail. Kamp doesn't offer that because he knows he won't do well connecting the dots he just ran roughshod against. That's why he doesn't explain where exactly that 1st floor altercation occurred. No, I disagree Lauren. I think a more careful look at what Kamp is doing is he is being purposely vague in order to stretch this business back to the foyer and in turn suggest it happened in sequence with Oswald coming in from the landing. In my view that's clearly what he's doing. Here's why:




In his next example Kamp cites the Biffle article where Biffle clearly writes "In a storage room on the first floor, the officer, gun drawn, spotted Oswald." Jim is not being honest when he says Kamp is just trying to say 1st floor. My post #12 shows several examples where Kamp is clearly favoring the foyer, which in turn endorses the Prayer Man theory Kamp's ROKC website promotes. As far as I know Kamp has not disclaimed his lunchroom encounter evidence on ROKC as being separate. But even if he has he is still doing the things I cited here. His repeated examples in my post #12 clearly illustrate a latitudinal tendency that places Oswald in the foyer in synch with the Prayer Man claim. I believe the drawing of an arbitrary line denying this tendency would just be a denial of the more than obvious. To force an itemized restriction on information only aids those who are using deceptive tactics to not answer for their evasive methods. To help Kamp avoid those details with the overly broad limitation of 1st or 2nd floor would be an oversimplification that aids Kamp in not answering the better Deep Political evidence. He needs to answer where exactly he means by "1st floor".


Jim is not answering the particular details of my post #12 that show some real stretches of evidence Kamp is committing. I find that rather one-sided and dishonest.
Reply
#39
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Mr. Trotter as per you roost 28, its pretty clear that two of the three participants do not vouch for the second floor lunchroom encounter as relayed in the WR. Namely Oswald and Baker.

One was posthumously made to go along with it, and Baker's words were twisted by the higher ups at the DPD once they centered on the ersatz gun sack, and Frazier became their witness that night.

​I don't know about any you roost 28, but I did not reference the WR, you did. I base my opinion on statements and testimony that I find sufficient, and if you disagree, that is fine. Admittedly I was not there at the time, were you? Without conclusive reliable evidence against the encounter, I do not see any change in my opinion, so if you wish to convince me, I would think your time can be much better spent.

Larry
StudentofAssassinationResearch

Reply
#40
Quote:One was posthumously made to go along with it, and Baker's words were twisted by the higher ups at the DPD once they centered on the ersatz gun sack, and Frazier became their witness that night.




Which doesn't answer how Biffle could overhear Truly speaking of the lunchroom encounter on Friday and Truly could tell his wife about it on Friday evening.



We are not going to ask why ROKC doesn't do a voice stress analysis of Baker's recounting the incident in the You-Tube video.




Page 10 of Kamp's essay:



Quote:After Sean Murphy's sudden departure from JFK assassination research on November 22nd 2013,ROKC core members picked up the torch in a manner of speaking, and ran with this ever since,
by going to the National Archives to look for documents and photographs, and source the
newspaper articles that reported on this particular segment of the case. Getting better quality
media, proved to be quite a challenge, and still is.


I ended up re-investigating this entire segment of this vast case.



.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Carbine on the Sixth Floor Jim DiEugenio 0 747 09-03-2020, 09:13 AM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  Death of the lunchroom hoax Richard Gilbride 45 19,319 12-03-2018, 05:07 PM
Last Post: David Josephs
  Did Dillard film American-born LEE Oswald on sixth floor? Jim Hargrove 9 5,200 12-04-2017, 05:02 AM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza Receives Grants from the National ... Bernice Moore 0 1,652 29-07-2011, 11:35 PM
Last Post: Bernice Moore
  Second safe was taken 6th floor museum Bernice Moore 7 4,389 12-05-2010, 01:05 PM
Last Post: Charles Drago
  Break in at the 6th floor museum Bernice Moore 14 4,880 11-05-2010, 07:40 PM
Last Post: Bernice Moore
  The Sixth Floor Museum and the Promotion of the Big Lie about JFK Assassination Robert Morrow 0 6,011 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:
  Ed Tatro on Lyndon Johnson's Murder of John Kennedy and Tatro's encounter with Vincent Bugliosi Robert Morrow 0 15,749 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:
  ROBERT HANSON - Anatomy of a Disinformationalist Charles Drago 0 10,573 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:
  A look at the site of jfk assassination, from the 6th floor that is... Bernice Moore 0 1,615 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)