Anatomy of the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter

[Jim DiEugenio]

At KennedysandKing.com we have posted an excerpt from Bart Kamp's very long essay, actually a pamphlet, which examines the encounter with a lot of new evidence and analysis. His work won an award at JFK Lancer last year. Personally, I think its is well deserved.

As I write in my intro, this whole Baker/Truly/Oswald meet up is beginning to look more and more like a WC shibboleth which the first generation critics managed to let slide by, sort of like the ersatz "fact" that Oswald ordered the (wrong) rifle.

Bart really did a lot of new research on this and summoned a multiplicity of new sources. Al Rossi did a nice job of excerpting the essay. I think its provocative and unique work. It asks the implicit question: did the WC get anything right?

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kenne...r-excerpts

[Albert Doyle]

Jim:


I have to predicate my post here by saying I admire your good research. It is literally some of the best out there and we are privileged that you post here. Without your input we would lack some of the most elucidating information available in research community. Your eye for detail is unsurpassed and I applaud it. Your line on the assassination is so good that you can often skip reading bogus publications and just read your refutation of them instead.


Having said that, you are making a serious mistake backing Bart Kamp and his credulous "research". Your endorsement of Mr Kamp is such an egregious error in judgment that it seriously compromises your other good works and more importantly misleads the community and contributes to an acceptance of bad information by those who defer to your judgment. Make no mistake, Kamp is proffering this skewed information in order to bolster the Prayer Man theory. Proof of this is shown on his Prayer Man Facebook page where the second article is about his recent essay on the lunchroom encounter. The only reason Kamp is going headlong on the lunchroom encounter is to weaken evidence that conflicts with his Prayer Man claim. Because of your endorsement Jim, lesser attentive community members who defer to your opinion have authorized and rewarded one of the most ridiculous and visibly uncredible researchers to get as far as he has in the community. All because members are anxious to endorse Murphy. It's a real mistake.


The first generation critics were some smart people who were directly in touch with the original evidence. I think Jim is trying to overlook that he is now placing what can only be fairly described as a tabloid clown, Bart Kamp, and his wishful revision of the evidence before some of the best brains in the business. Jim is not telling you that when confronted by some very good counter-arguments, that correctly interpret what evidence Kamp is ignoring, Jim ignores those arguments and re-enters his same Kamp-favoring submissions. In my opinion, that cannot be done while retaining credibility - especially when endorsing an otherwise obviously uncredible entity like Kamp. Common sense should advise anyone intelligently scrutinizing Kamp's offerings and his overall method. This should be obvious to anyone of wise understanding. In its zeal to expose the given Warren Commission deception and conspiracy sometimes the community goes too far in its need to believe. I think it has done that with the lunchroom encounter. Worse than that I can now see this sect as moving to confirm Kamp as the accepted CT norm and those who criticize him as being the uncredible minority. This is being guided by disingenuous citation of community acclaim and awards while conveniently ignoring serious counter-evidence that overturns Kamp's specious assertions. Mention the right names and approvals and you can quietly side-step the refuting evidence. This corrupting of the normally-accepted community standard should speak for itself in displaying the danger of Kamp and his ROKC offerings. We are close to a mob situation in the community now directly because Murphy and ROKC. If you look at Jim's serious stuff you'll see a total cessation of his normal critical practices when it comes to this issue and that camp. There's a conspicuous Jekyll and Hyde nature to this where Jim's normal talents are not applied to the offerings of this group. What ROKC ignores speaks more than what they say and the community should demand to be allowed to preserve its common sense and good research practices. Murphy is sexy and very tempting, but alas it is bogus and needs to be confirmed as such by the more sensible community...



.

[Jim DiEugenio]

As anyone who reads the excerpt can see, Al Rossi kept the source materials intact just as Bart did. Which is actually better than a footnote.

Everything in the excerpt is dutifully annotated, with the actual exhibit right there so the viewer can read it. Which is one of the reasons we posted it.

I invite everyone to read it, with unshuttered eyes. As I said, its really provocative and Bart did a lot of searching for archival sources in a lot of places that I did not even know existed.

That is research. So let us dump the character assassination--we don't need Fox News here.

The JFK case should not be lowered to that Bill O'Reilly level. Its much too important.

If Bart is right then Oswald really was on the first floor. Its quite exculpatory. Why anyone on our side would object to new evidence for that escapes me.

[Scott Kaiser]

If Bart is right then Oswald really was on the first floor. Its quite exculpatory. Why anyone on our side would object to new evidence for that escapes me.

Hmmm?

Seems like Bart's moms knows it all too.

[Albert Doyle]

So let us dump the character assassination--we don't need Fox News here.

No Jim. Let's drop the disingenuous sound bites and answer the valid counter-arguments you've been ignoring while shilling for a group that is generally banned on most credible Assassination research sites. ROKC uses a very specific trick of denying Armstrong in order to force their Oswald witnessing to be one and only one Oswald, therefore committing him to one place and one witnessing and therefore one pro-Murphy interpretation. While negatively referring to people who correctly call ROKC on this, your normally-applied level of scrutiny is noticeably missing with this subject and I think it puts you on the wrong side. Jim should read the ROKC site sometime if he's accusing me of being FOX-like. I find that accusation to be quite dishonest and an example of the true source of the politicizing of the issue and attempts to make more cautious critics look like right-wingers and therefore Lone-Nutters without ever honestly addressing the facts.


Still waiting for Jim to answer the counter-arguments before going to straight name-calling.



Smart people will suss Jim's disingenuousness in his saying "1st floor" instead of the "front steps" he is really saying without saying it directly.



No sacred cows here...

[Scott Kaiser]

Smart people will suss Jim's disingenuousness in his saying "1st floor" instead of the "front steps" he is really saying without saying it directly.

Albert, you mean to tell me that you're presenting an argument of which you believe is the definition to Jim's statement which Jim says Oswald is on the "first floor," according to Bart. However, the first floor could be anywhere within the (first floor) premises, but to you what Jim is really saying, as per your interpretation it means the "front steps." Even if you don't have all the facts from Jim, and his reasoning behind the statement? But, the evidence to which Jim displays speaks for them self so to say?

Below, is merely an example, nothing more than comparing the two statements, an ingenuous representation of two very similar cases presented before a body of judges.

It's kinda like me saying, and you may quote me on this "On January 19, 1977 the prosecuting attorney said he could not determine a successful means of prosecuting Edwin Kaiser, because he was unable to determine where the venue should be held. (Now, that's funny!) However, the truth is outlined at the top of this document shown only in the book dated February 11, 1977. (Forgive me if I don't post the document here, I'm just merely comparing our two analysis.) "On January 19, 1977, Miami [instructed] matter to be closed" as venue could not be determined. Is this how the United States Government releases their assassins? This cable was dated four days [after] my father was killed. The CIA had successfully retrieved my father's briefcase."

[Scott Kaiser]

Aw geez, I almost forgot, what is it I'm saying here? Na, forget it. I didn't mean to compare.

[Scott Kaiser]

[FONT=&amp]"Marrion Baker's first day affidavit, where the officer does not even mention the episode or Oswald or Truly. Even though, as he wrote the affidavit, Oswald was sitting across from him in the rather small witness room. In other words, after he had just stuck a gun in his stomach, Baker didn't recognize him."

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]"Bart Kamp goes much further than that in his analysis."[/FONT]

God, lets hope so, because if all I need to do to win some award is twist what words are said around, present some smoke and mirrors and say something was not said in the affidavit simply because in my affidavit I was focused on "what I wanted to say, and not what you wanted to hear." Houston, we have a problem.

[Albert Doyle]

The polarizing is done by those who think they have enough momentum in the community to go with their rhetoric and not answer facts. Because the degree of non-truth that is being endorsed here and the method by which it is being pushed are so detrimental to the credible research community what Jim is doing is tantamount to ROKC-proxying. Jim is acting just like a defense lawyer who dares not let his client take the stand, hence we see the DiEugenio 23 skidoo when it comes to owning up to evidence. May Jim always be remembered for his good works before he decided to commit research credibility suicide by adopting a notorious troll group in a bizarre shift from his usual excellence...




.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Scott:

In Baker's first day affidavit, there is no mention at all of a lunchroom, a soda machine, of Oswald, or of Truly. In fact, the incident at that time happened on a stairwell.

And what makes that extraordinary is that, as I said, when Baker composed this affidavit, he was sitting in the same small witness room as Oswald was.

I had serious problems with this and I expressed them in my book, Reclaiming Parkland.

But Bart has gone much further than I did in this regard.

And I like the way he begins the excerpt with the challenge that he knows he will be asked: OK, if you say it did not happen then where the heck was Oswald at the time?

He then accumulates a whole battery of evidence to demonstrate he was on the first floor. If you come to it without an agenda, its pretty compelling if you ask me.