Anatomy of the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter

[Richard Gilbride]

Baker's testimony did go off the record 5 times. I have reproduced these for the benefit of the readers.

1) III p. 244) BELIN: I wonder if you would pick up your actions with the motorcade as it went down Main Street commencing at say, Main and Record streets.
BAKER: Well, it was the usual escort. We were traveling about somewhere around 5 to 10 miles an hour.
DULLES: There is a map right behind you.

(Discussion off the record)

BELIN: Back on the record again.
DULLES: Would you state exactly where you were riding? We know a good deal about this, the cars the way they were paced. There was a car right behind the President's car that followed, I think 6 or 7 feet right behind the President's car.
BAKER: That was the Secret Service car.

[The 1st break in the testimony does not apply to the lunchroom incident]

2) p. 254) [Belin had just covered Baker's re-enactment timings to the lunchroom, and Oswald's timing from the sniper's nest (run through with SS agent John Joe Howlett). The latter was 74 seconds.]

BELIN: Now, I want to go back to the sixth floor a minute with Mr. Dulles' question.
DULLES: Can we go off the record here one moment?

(Discussion off the record)

BELIN: On the record. Officer Baker, when you related your story earlier you said that as you ran back on the first floor you first ran to the elevator shaft, is that correct?
BAKER: That is right, sir.
BELIN: And you stopped at the east or the west elevator door?
BAKER: That would be the west.
BELIN: All right. This was on the first floor, and did you look up the elevator shaft at that time?
BAKER: Yes, sir, at that time I did.
BELIN: This was while Truly was calling for the elevator?
BAKER: Yes, sir.

[And Baker then went into greater detail about what occurred at the elevator shaft. He had not done this when he had first described his rush into the warehouse on p. 249. Truly, who testified the day before, had gone into greater detail about his time at the first-floor elevator shaft (pp. 223, 240)

What was suspicious about the 2nd break in Baker's testimony was the Mystery of the West Elevator, which assistant counsel Norman Redlich prepared a memo about shortly before the Truly-Baker testimonies.

3) p. 255) [Conclusion of the elevator shaft discussion and segue into what Baker saw in the vestibule door. As Baker was coming around the landing he caught a glimpse of Oswald in the plate-glass window "and it looked to me like he was going away."

I am familiar with the hoaxers' complaints of matching up Baker's position with being able to see Oswald- it has led me to conclude that Oswald was up near the glass and flinched away the instant he saw Baker.]

BELIN: All right. Now, you got up to floor number two at the time and you did that with the stairs.
BAKER: Yes, sir.
BELIN: At the time you got up there was there any elevator on floor number two that you can remember, if you remember? Maybe you cannot remember, I don't know.
BAKER: Evidently- now, I didn't look, evidently it wasn't because it seemed to me like the next floor up Mr. Truly said let's take the elevator.
BELIN: At some higher floor after that?
BAKER: Yes, sir.
BELIN: All right, if we can go off the record for a moment here.

(Discussion off the record)

[Hoaxers make hay here, suspecting that since Truly said let's take the elevator while on the 5th, that Baker had just met "4th floor man". But their theory doesn't hold up, not with all the numerous gaps I have detailed in my previous posts. And this inconsistency is nothing more than Baker's imprecise understanding of the TSBD layout. And it shows that his memory was not perfect. To cherrypick his statement out of context gives it a meaning it does not have.]

BELIN: Officer Baker, first of all, handing you what the court reporter has marked as Exhibit 498 [a photo of the plate-glass windowed door], I would like you to state whether or not this appears to be the door leading from the second floor hallway into the vestibule going into the lunchroom.
BAKER: Yes, sir; it does.
BELIN: Is this the door through which you glanced as you came around the stairs coming up from the first floor?
BAKER: Yes, sir.
BELIN: What did you see that caused you to turn away from going up to the third floor?
BAKER: As I came out of that stairway running, Mr. Truly had already gone around, see, and I don't know, as I came around-
DULLES: Gone around and up?
BAKER: He had already started around the bend to come to the next elevation going up, I was coming out this one on the second floor, and I don't know, I was kind of sweeping this area as I come up, I was looking from right to left and as I got to this door here I caught a glimpse of this man, just, you know, a sudden glimpse, that is all it was now, and it looked to me like he was going away from me ."

[So the 3rd break occurred when they shifted gears from the elevator shaft discussion to the sighting of Oswald. It seems perfectly natural to me to relax for a bit before shifting the witness' attention onto the major impetus of the testimony, which was the sighting of Oswald. Nothing substantive, of a conspiratorial nature, can be concluded from this 3rd break]

[Alan Ford]

Baker denies identifying the wrongfully accused ---->

BELIN: We have a statement from Marvin Johnson, the officer who took your affidavit. Officer Johnson said in that statement, and I quote: "Officer Baker later identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the
man he had seen on the fourth floor of the Texas School Book Depository." Is that true, Officer
Baker? Did you identify Oswald as the man you had seen?

BAKER: No,sir. Whilst it is true that Oswald was present at the time I made that affidavit with Officer Johnson, I described the person I had encountered as I remembered him - that was -- he was a
white man, approximately 30 years old, 5'9", weighed about 165, had darkhair, and was wearing a light brown jacket. If that person had been Oswald, I would have recognized Oswald and made sure I included
that identification of the suspect in my affidavit.

At this point Baker doesn't even recognize the wrongfully accused. Why? Because no one at this point has impressed upon him he needed to help craft a phantom 2nd floor encounter with someone he didn't even recognize at this juncture. That came later, thus the four different versions of a single event. Who needs four tries to share the plain simple truth about a single event?

[Richard Gilbride]

4) p. 256) [Baker had marked his position on the 2nd-floor landing- where he was when he spotted Oswald. With a diagram for reference (Exhibit 497), after going off-the-record, Belin rehashed Baker's position during the Oswald encounter. Belin then elicited details as to what Oswald was wearing]

DULLES: And if a man were going up the stairs and then going to the lunchroom and then coming down the stairs and going to the lunchroom, he would be approximately following the same course from the time he got off the stairs and went into that room before you get to the lunchroom.
BELIN: Yes, sir.

(Discussion off the record)

BELIN: Officer Baker, you had just marked on Exhibit 497 point "B" where you thought you were at about the time you caught a glimpse of something, either through a door or through the window in the door marked 23, is that correct?
BAKER: That is correct, sir.
BELIN: Could you trace your route from point "B" to the doorway 23, if you would, sir.
BAKER: I ran straight across here and through this doorway and this is approximately where, I would say 23 here, is approximately where I looked through this lunchroom and saw a man on down here.
BELIN: All right. I am going to put an arrow at that point on Exhibit 497, and this arrow in pen, and I am going to put a "B-1" and at that arrow which is just to the left of the circle with the number 24 in it you say you then looked through the doorway and saw a man in the lunchroom, right?
BAKER: Yes, sir; walking away from me.
BELIN: Walking away from you. And then where did you move from point "B-1"?
BAKER: I moved on to this position 24 right here in this doorway.
BELIN: All right. I am going to put- you have put an "X" there, and I am going to put that on Exhibit 497 as an arrow pointing to it, with "B-2". Is this where you stood when you called to the man to come back to you?
BAKER: Yes, sir.
BELIN: Did you move from that time until the man came up to you?
BAKER: As I called, I remember moving forward a little bit and meeting him right here in this doorway.
BELIN: As you called you say you remembered moving forward and meeting him right in the doorway which would be marked with the arrow with number 24 on it on Exhibit 497, is that right?
BAKER: That is right, sir.
BELIN: After you got there, did you move until the man came up to you?
BAKER: No, sir.
BELIN: Did you notice what clothes the man was wearing as he came up to you?
BAKER: At that particular time I was looking at his face, and it seemed to me like he had a light brown jacket on and maybe some kind of white-looking shirt. Anyway, as I noticed him walking away from me, it was kind of dim in there that particular day, and it was hanging out to his side.
BELIN: Handing you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 150, would this appear to be anything that you have ever seen before?
BAKER: Yes, sir; I believe that is the shirt he had on when he came- I wouldn't be sure of that. It seemed to me like that other shirt was a littler bit darker than that whenever I saw him in the homicide office there.

[Nothing of a conspiratorial nature can be gleaned from the 4th break in the testimony. It was about getting the location of the Oswald meeting and the description of his clothing as precise as possible]

[Richard Gilbride]

5) p. 262) [After Baker recounts the tail-end of his time in the Depository, Belin shifts gears and asks about Oswald's clothing while at DPD HQ]

BELIN: In this time sequence you mentioned you were on the roof more than 5 minutes, that could be 25 or 30 or 10 or 15 or what?
BAKER: This, to my recollection, it seemed like I shouldn't have stayed up there over 10 minutes anyway, if that long.
BELIN: So you would say somewhere between 5 and 10 minutes?
BAKER: I just ran around up there looking for something; I didn't find it and then we came on down.
BELIN: Mr. Dulles, are there any more questions that you have?
DULLES: I have no more questions. Have you any questions?
BELIN: Off the record.

(Discussion off the record)

BELIN: Officer Baker, I believe you testified that you later saw Lee Harvey Oswald at the police station of the homicide office, is that correct?
BAKER: That is correct, sir.
BELIN: Was this later on that same day?
BAKER: Yes, it was.
BELIN: Would you state whether or not the man who was shown to you in the police station as Lee Harvey Oswald was or was not the same man that you saw and encountered on the second floor lunchroom of the Texas School Book Depository Building on that day?
BAKER: He was the same man.
BELIN: Is there anything about his clothes that you can remember or his dress that you haven't talked about here?
BAKER: No, sir; I can't.
DULLES: Do you recall whether or not he was wearing the same clothes, did he appear to you the same when you saw him in the police station as when you saw him in the lunchroom?
BAKER: Actually just looking at him, he looked like he didn't have the same thing on.

[This 5th break in Baker's testimony does not take one iota away from the lunchroom incident's reality. Oswald had admitted that he changed clothes at his 1st interrogation.]

[When all is said and done, Baker's testimony going off the record 5 times is just another fun fact. Nothing substantive can be concluded from this. It may or may not have been innocent, but we don't even have one firm foot for our understanding to stand on. All we do is bring our own suspicions to the reading, and these slip away like a handful of sand.

What a nothing-burger these 5 interruptions are.]

[Alan Ford]

Questions:

Why didn't Baker recognize the wrongfully accuse IF he really had encountered him earlier in the day in the 2nd floor lunch room?

Why doesn't Baker or Truly's testimony reflect encounters with James Jarman?
Harold Norman?
Bonnie Ray Williams?
These men used the same stairs as Baker and Truly, yet no Baker testimony about sticking his gun in their tummy's and asking Truly to vouch for them...remember, lest we forget, all of these men denied seeing Truly & Baker on the same stairwell they descended from the 5th floor, yet Truly and Baker contend they left Oswald and continued onward up the same set of stairs to the 5th floor, where these men had come down from.

Why doesn't there exist an actual film and/or video recording demonstrating that Baker actually went into the Texas School Book Depository via the front steps?

Why was the film depicting him running towards the TSBD suddenly cut off before the above question could be answered conclusively? Did someone/some entity need to hide Baker's sprint to the corner of Elm & Houston?

Who was the motorcycle officer in the white helmet who rode the elevator up to the 5th floor?

Weren't the elevators stuck according to Truly?

They couldn't have been because the motorcycle officer who rode the elevator up to the 5th floor did it in the same time sequence that employee Bonnie Ray Williams saw him before Mr. Williams made his way down the same stairs as Truly and Baker were supposedly coming up...yet no mention of a gun being stuck in Williams' midsection until Truly vouched for him....

Why did four people (Mr. Dougherty and the aforementioned three other employees) dispute Truly's claim that he called up for the elevators?

Why did Mrs. Reid feel compelled to tell an outright lie about a phantom 2nd floor encounter with the wrongfully accused? Why did Baker need four different versions to get his lies, err, "facts" straight?

All of these open, lingering questions point to a contrived script about a phantom 2nd floor encounter that simply did not happen.

[Richard Gilbride]

And now we all realize that Holmes vouched for Oswald coming down from the 2nd. Add that to my laundry list of complaints regarding the fractured fairy tale known as the lunchroom hoax hypothesis. And the Holmes testimony- note-aided, mind you- sends the hoax straight into deep batshit crazy.

First, let me remind you that Sean Murphy's hypothesis is not saying that the lunchroom incident was merely misinterpreted, misrelated, misreported. Nope. Sean contends it was completely make-believe. Like Bambi and Tinkerbell. When Baker was interviewed on 1964's CBS Warren Report, the story he imparted to the world was of Disneyesque proportions.

And we have seen that the hoaxers require a sizeable mini-conspiracy to sustain their hypothesis. And now, Holmes has to be painted as an intentional disinformation agent. Just like Truly, who intentionally lied to his wife on Nov. 22 and told her he'd encountered Oswald in the lunchroom.

See, there was a mini-conspiracy inside the mini-conspiracy. Truly & Holmes, the disinformation agents, were right at the center of this thing. With Tinkerbell. And Bambi. Who possibly was Badge Man. All of it hidden from us, right in plain sight, until the laser-sharp Sean Murphy brought it all into focus for us. I'm sure that's the reason they had to act as disinfo agents, since they must have known some Irish kid would come along someday and expose them all.

***********************

Bart Kamp's essay is not so much scholarship as doubletalk. It reeks of the barroom. What he does is an end-around, diverting the reader's attention with his runaway Murphyist spiel about ambiguous evidence indicating Oswald possibly was on the 1st floor during the shooting. Judiciously sidestepping the counter-arguments of his primary adversary- Gilbride- after he had come up empty when debating this topic with him on the EdForum. And DiEugenio, in his epic stupidity, has fallen for it.

What did ROKC do to you, Jim? Mail you an honorary leather trenchcoat? With a complimentary subscription to their weekly newsletter, Hokes A-Plenty?

Without Murphy's fantasies they are done, I mean stick a fork in 'em. They gambled the farm and they lost. And you are too stupid to understand this, or were you throwing up a prayer that by opening this lunchroom topic, maybe someone like me could help straighten it out?

The Australian bully method of pushing propaganda down people's throats doesn't last all that long, does it? And the amoral cesspool they wallow in isn't healthy for us kids of all ages, is it? These are the psycho Clockwork Orange Murphy cultists you've empowered with your endorsement of Kamp's essay.

I invite you to take the following reality-check test. Make a synopsis of Kamp's best arguments. Print up a copy of mine. Get a copy of Baker's 1964 and 1986 filmed interviews. Locate one of Baker's children.

Explain to him that dozens of researchers agree with Kamp that the lunchroom incident was a hoax. But there's this hardcat Gilbride who doesn't go along with them. Nobody likes him because his Mom gave him a copy of Profiles in Courage in 1964 and they're wicked jealous. Show Baker's kid the film, with particular emphasis on the portions where Baker goes make-believe.

When you are laughed out of town, have a good cry. Your credibility as a TSBD analyst is sinking as we speak, down down into the icy waters off the coast of Newfoundland. I strongly recommend that you stick to your strengths, of media analysis and foreign policy. Have a nice heapin' helping of humble pie. We don't need your demagoguery, nor picking specks out of fellow researchers' eyes, when you can't see the titanic log that is in your own.

[Alan Ford]

What Mr. Holmes actually said was this ---->

Mr. BELIN. Go ahead and repeat it.
Mr. HOLMES. See if I say it the same way?
Mr. BELIN. Yes.
Mr. HOLMES. He said when lunchtime came he was working in one of the upper floors with a Negro.
The Negro said, "Come on and let's eat lunch together."
Apparently both of them having a sack lunch. And he said, "You go ahead, send the elevator back up to me and I will come down just as soon as I am finished."
And he didn't say what he was doing. There was a commotion outside, which he later rushed downstairs to go out to see what was going on. He didn't say whether he took the stairs down. He didn't say whether he took the elevator down. But he went downstairs. and as he went out the front, it seems as though he did have a coke with him, or he stopped at the coke machine, or somebody else was trying to get a coke, but there was a coke involved.
He mentioned something about a coke. But a police officer asked him who he was, and just as he started to identify himself, his superintendent came up and said, "He is one of our men." And the policeman said, "Well, you step aside for a little bit."
Then another man rushed in past him as he started out the door, in this vestibule part of it, and flashed some kind of credential and he said, "Where is your telephone, where is your telephone, and said I am so and so, where is your telephone."
And he said, "I didn't look at the credential. I don't know who he said he was, and I just pointed to the phone and said, 'there it is,' and went on out the door."

Note the encounter with the policeman and Truly happens after he is already downstairs, preparing to exit the building when, quote, Then another man rushed in past him as he started out the door.

We know this because then another man rushed in past him wasn't part of the phantom encounter up on the 2nd floor, the same encounter Mrs. Reid outright lied about too.

[Alan Ford]

Questions:

Why didn't Baker recognize the wrongfully accuse IF he really had an encounter with him earlier in the day in the 2nd floor lunch room?

Why doesn't Baker or Truly's testimony reflect encounters with James Jarman?
Harold Norman?
Bonnie Ray Williams?
These men used the same stairs as Baker and Truly, yet no Baker testimony about sticking his gun in their tummy's and asking Truly to vouch for them...remember, lest we forget, all of these men denied seeing Truly & Baker on the same stairwell they descended from the 5th floor, yet Truly and Baker contend they left Oswald and continued onward up the same set of stairs to the 5th floor, where these men were coming down from.

Why doesn't there exist an actual film and/or video recording demonstrating that Baker actually went into the Texas School Book Depository via the front steps?

Why was the film depicting him running towards the TSBD suddenly cut off before the above question could be answered conclusively? Did someone/some entity need to hide Baker's actual sprint to the corner of Elm & Houston?

Who was the motorcycle officer in the white helmet who rode the elevator up to the 5th floor?

Weren't the elevators stuck according to Truly?

They couldn't have been because the motorcycle officer who rode the elevator up to the 5th floor did it in the same time sequence that employee Bonnie Ray Williams saw him before Mr. Williams made his way down the same stairs as Truly and Baker were supposedly coming up...yet no mention of a gun being stuck in Williams' midsection until Truly vouched for him....

Why did four people (Mr. Dougherty and the aforementioned three other employees) dispute Truly's claim that he called up for the elevators?

Why did Mrs. Reid feel compelled to tell an outright lie about a phantom 2nd floor encounter with the wrongfully accused? Why did Baker need four different versions to get his lies, err, "facts" straight?

All of these open, lingering questions point to a contrived script about a phantom 2nd floor encounter that simply did not happen.

[Alan Ford]

Fair is fair, so in fairness, because I believe the phantom 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] floor encounter was scripted in order to frame an innocent party, I'll offer an alternative narrative. A narrative that officialdom will never admit, but one nevertheless that trulynot that Trulymerits serious consideration.

The wrongfully accused, OSWALD, eats his lunch downstairs in the domino room. After eating his cheese sandwich and apple, helike so many of us during the course of a mealcraves a beverage. So, he ventures upstairs to the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] floor lunch room, where he buys a Coke.
As he is making that purchase, he suddenly hears a piercing sound…a wailing siren, thus his remarks during his interrogation that he went downstairs to determine what all of the commotion was about. By the time he got downstairs, an ambulance had just picked up an epileptic seizure victim, Jerry Belknap, and raced off to Parkland Hospital.

As the ambulance faded from view under the Triple Underpass, He stood there out in front of the main entrance of the building behind everyone else, who were oblivious to him standing there as their main focus/attention was upon the most celebrated couple in the world rounding the turn off Main Street onto Houston, heading directly towards the cheering throng spread out before them.

The wrongfully accused watches the presidential limousine turn off Houston onto Elm. Mere seconds later, shock and disbelief etched upon his face, he watches the ensuing chaos unfold around him as people run, scream , or hit the deck/duck for cover. He ventures back inside, where he is seen by the vice-president of the TSBD, O. V. Campbell standing near a storage room on the first floor.

A mere minute after that sighting, in a clam manner, he responds to a request of a local newsman with a crew-cut, Pierce Allman, directing him to a phone, before he simply walks back down the steps out onto the Dallas street. At this time, I don't know where the wrongfully accused went from there. Yet.

What I do know for sure is that Mrs. Reid lied about a phantom 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] floor encounter with the wrongfully accused; Officer "I need four tries to get my lies, err, facts' straight Baker lied; and, Roy "nothing true about him" Truly lied as well (the plain simple truth doesn't need retakes, do overs, discussions off the record, or liars creating a pretentious timeline of inconsistencies.

Now, about those still open, lingering, unasnwered questions --->

Why didn't Baker recognize the wrongfully accuse IF he really had an encounter with him earlier in the day in the 2nd floor lunch room?
If I stick a gun in anyone's tummy, I will recognize him a week later, let alone 90 minutes later. Baker didn't recognize the wrongfully accused, because Baker didn't encounter the wrongfully accused.

Why doesn't Baker or Truly's testimony reflect encounters with James Jarman?

Harold Norman?

Bonnie Ray Williams?

These men used the same stairs as Baker and Truly, yet no Baker testimony about sticking his gun in their tummy's and asking Truly to vouch for them...remember, lest we forget, all of these men denied seeing Truly & Baker on the same stairwell they descended from the 5th floor, yet Truly and Baker contend they left Oswald and continued onward up the same set of stairs to the 5th floor, where these men were coming down from.

Why doesn't there exist an actual film and/or video recording demonstrating that Baker actually went into the Texas School Book Depository via the front steps?

Why was the film depicting him running towards the TSBD suddenly cut off before the above question could be answered conclusively? Did someone/some entity need to hide Baker's actual sprint to the corner of Elm & Houston?

Who was the motorcycle officer in the white helmet who rode the elevator up to the 5th floor?

Weren't the elevators stuck according to Truly? (his lips are moving again)

They couldn't have been because the motorcycle officer who rode the elevator up to the 5th floor did it in the same time sequence that employee Bonnie Ray Williams saw him before Mr. Williams made his way down the same stairs as Truly and Baker were supposedly coming up...yet no mention of a gun being stuck in Williams' midsection until Truly vouched for him....

Why did four people (Mr. Dougherty and the aforementioned three other employees) dispute Truly's claim that he called up for the elevators? There you go again Truly Lips...

Why did Mrs. Reid feel compelled to tell an outright lie about a phantom 2nd floor encounter with the wrongfully accused? Why did Baker need four different versions to get his lies, err, "facts" straight?

All of these open, lingering questions point to a contrived script about a phantom 2nd floor encounter that simply did not happen.

[LR Trotter]

I have 3 posts right now. In this 1st post I expose two major-league gaffes in Jim DiEugenio's understanding of Marrion Baker.

On p. 10 of the EdForum thread Great New Movie Spells Out the Case for Oswald as PrayerMan, presently on p. 42 of their topics, in a December 9, 2015 post Jim writes:

"When you add in the fact that Baker was in the witness room with Oswald as he penned his affidavit, and there is no record of him even recognizing him at that time even though he had allegedly just stuck a gun in his gut, well that is a bit unusual..."

[This is not true, Jim. Because we have a record of Baker having told Marvin Johnson soon afterward that that was the guy he'd met on about the 4th floor. So you are blatantly misrepresenting Baker's affidavit omission, because Baker was quite mindful about this omission]

"...Believe me, Allen Dulles was very aware of this dichotomy. He and Belin went off the record five times with Baker and did all they could do to minimize the witness conundrum. (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 194)"

[In my 2nd post we will examine this in great detail and show that it is a nothing-burger]

On p. 1 of the EdForum thread One Last Thing Before Xmas Eve: 2nd Floor Lunchroom Encounter, presently on p. 57 of their topics, in a December 25, 2015 post Jim tells us:

"As I wrote in Reclaiming Parkland:

'...the final Commission version does not even resemble the incident that Baker described on the day of the assassination. On that day Baker executed an affidavit in which he described this encounter himself. He described going up the stairs with Truly. Then this startling passage follows:

As we reached the third or fourth floor, I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back towards me. The manager said I know that man he works here. I then turned the man loose and went on up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately thirty years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket (p. 193)

(p. 194)

In the affidavit, there is nothing about seeing Oswald through a window in the door. Nothing about the lunchroom. Nothing about a Coke. They weren't even in any room, but near a stairway. And the guy he saw does not appear to be Oswald. He was older, heavier and he was wearing a brown jacket."

[Get a grip, Jim. It was police protocol to provide only the details required- Just the facts, ma'am, as Sgt. Joe Friday would say. It was similar to what you might tell your superior officer in the Army. Baker wasn't writing a piece for the Dallas Morning News.

Was the man walking toward the stairway? Oswald, with his thinning hair, did not look older than 24? Was he not 5'9"? And Baker, who had been out to Parkland and Love Field in the meantime, couldn't have misjudged Oswald's weight? Particularly in an untucked shirt that was mistaken for a jacket?

And I will remind you that this was not just another typical day at DPD HQ. The President of the United States had just been murdered on a Dallas street, a police officer had just been murdered in Oak Cliff, apparently by the guy they just brought into the interrogation room. Something Baker would have to explain if it turned out this guy was guilty of that and Baker had missed his chance to even ID him.

Jim, your suspicions do not automatically transmute into truth.]

After careful and deliberate study, strongly enhanced by the research of Richard Gilbride, I have to conclude that LeeHarveyOswald cannot be "disappeared" from the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:31pm/12:32pm CST, nor can he be "magically appeared" on the Elm St entrance landing/steps/sidewalk at 12:30pm CST.

Eyewitness testimony affirms the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter, which to me indicates a timing problem issue with the LHO as a LoneGunmanAssassin theory. Also, the encounter reduces the viability of LHO as a Shooter theory.

As the motorcade drove past the Elm St entrance at about 12:30pm, there were multiple doorway/landing/steps area occupants, that were employed at the TSBD building, and yet there is not any reliable eyewitness testimony that affirms LHO's presence at the time. And, most of said occupants very likely would have recognized their fellow TSBD building employee.

So, at 12:30pm-12:32pm, CST, LHO was where he was, and he wasn't where he wasn't. And suppositions, no matter how often repeated, cannot alter true facts.

A conclusion? Absolutely! Evidenced based? Absolutely!