Page 9 of 23 FirstFirst ... 678910111219 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 230

Thread: Anatomy of the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter

  1. Default And again...


    And again, additional evidence of the occurrence and timing of the 2nd floor lunch room encounter involving TSBD building employee LeeHarveyOswald, TSBD building supervisor RoySansomTruly, and DPD Officer MarrionLewisBaker.

    Larry
    StudentofAssassinationResearch


  2. Default

    That 2014 Lunchroom Incident essay is finally posted in the ESSAYS section of my website at http://www.jfkinsidejob.com My apologies for the delay. Unbeknownst to me my webmaster had moved to Vermont to pursue a master's degree, but forgot to inform his co-workers about my web account.

    This essay shows that the Stroud document places Adams & Styles on the stairs during the same timeframe that Truly & Baker are ascending the stairs from the elevator area. Since neither pair saw the other, the men had to have been in the lunchroom when the ladies passed.

    To further outline my argument devastating to Sean Murphy's lunchroom hoax theory-

    2) Every single item of lunchroom-related evidence has a mundane explanation that supports the incident's reality. A key example- hoaxers decry Baker's omission of seeing his suspect enter the room while writing his affidavit, but ignore the fact that Baker was mindful of this omission and confided it to homicide detective Marvin Johnson soon afterward.

    3) WC 3076, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, shows that 6 months after his testimony Baker was still confused about the TSBD floor layout. He initially described the lunchroom as on the "second or third floor" but upon reflection crossed out "or third floor"- giving a strong likelihood he was confused about the TSBD floor layout in his 1st-day affidavit.

    4) The 1964 filmed CBS interview and 1986 filmed testimony display no tangible indication that a monstrous lie about the lunchroom incident is being put forth, nor is there any indication that Baker was excessively nervous when being questioned by top-flight trial attorney Vincent Bugliosi.

    5) The will-call counter bump, a superfluous incident that serves no ostensible purpose in a contrived hoax narrative, is a telltale indicator that the dozen other points of correspondence in the Truly/Baker testimonies (at the elevator & in the lunchroom) actually happened

    6) The Kent Biffle newspaper story about Oswald being seen in a 1st-floor storage room has not one whit of corroboration, and is almost certainly garbled hearsay.

    7) The hoax theory flunks the test of Occam's Razor. A sizeable mini-conspiracy is required to sustain it, including Truly, Baker, James Bookhout, David Belin, James Leavelle, Jeraldean Reid, and anyone else "in the know" at the TSBD, DPD, FBI and Warren Commission.

    8) This contrived, artificial theory yields nothing. It has not produced a single substantive, tangible​ result, despite more than a decade of searching for one.

    9) Truly confided to his wife that same evening that he'd encountered Oswald in the lunchroom. The apparent source for this is a Philadelphia-based news report.


    This is so far over the top it's embarrassing. It calls into question the hoaxers' ability to process rational information. How can their position be considered correct, if such an extensive counter-argument's bullet points can be assembled against it?

    There is nothing in their argument that necessitates their peculiar interpretation of the lunchroom-related evidence. Theirs is merely a collection of ambiguous police reports & anecdotes and newspaper stories. And their explanation for this ambiguity? That the event was make-believe. They leap to this conclusion without even considering alternative explanations.

    There is a classic Twilight Zone episode that helps illustrate how tragically far off the mark their interpretation is. In To Serve Man, the aliens finally arrive and they present humanity with a book of this title. But its contents are hieroglyphics that nobody can make sense of. Yet the aliens are friendly and evidently they've arrived to help serve us and share their technology.

    Near the end of the episode, as the lead scientist is boarding a ramp into their spaceship, for a journey to their home planet, his assistant suddenly bursts through the crowd. "We've decoded the book!" she yells.

    "Great! What's it say?"

    "It's a cookbook!!"

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

    One of us cannot be wrong. Either the lunchroom incident happened, or it did not happen. And the theory that it was just a hoax does not survive the combined forces of Reason and Sober Judgment.

    Its failure exposes, among many other things, the pigheadedness that pervades the JFK research community. The lack of maturity, both emotional and intellectual. And the underhandedness that its followers will resort to in order to promote this irrational belief.

    For to criticize the hoax belief guarantees that you will be targeted for scorn and ridicule- by the Clockwork Orange cyber-bullies who propagate this mullarkey. Censored, deleted, and ignored by the gatekeepers who shepherd the information flow about President Kennedy's murder- just like the good ole boys on the Warren Commission did, obfuscating the truth.

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

    Central to understanding just what happened inside the Depository is this unassailable fact- during the early minutes of the police search, power was cut to the passenger & freight elevators. And this is not mentioned in the Warren Report.

    Nor is it mentioned in any newspapers, that I am aware of. The newspaper archive that has been uncovered has been the true golden nugget of the hoax research. The rest of it is fool's gold.

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim DiEugenio View Post
    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.
    Well said, Mr. DiEugenio, especially noting the odd inconsistencies with Officer Baker: his initial affidavit void of scripted lingo that would come later; and, of course, his lack of response to someone he had supposedly challenged amid an encounter less than an hour before.

    One would think it reasonable if he had at least growled something along these lines...

    Baker: "Why you lying son of a witch! I should have known it was you all along...lying sack of smit. I oughta slap that smirk off your face boy".

    Of course, that didn't happen because for all Baker knew at that time was Mr. Oswald was just another witness brought in for questioning. Thus his lack of response. Prior to the script all Mr. Oswald meant to Officer Baker was he was much younger than the 30 year old, 165lbs individual he encountered on the 3rd or 4th floor.

    Mr. Worrell's sighting, from his vantage point outside of the building less than a minute later of this same individual clad in the same brown coat running away from the scene further buttresses Officer Baker's encounter with this individual instead of Mr. Oswald. Sadly, the real culprits in this case have gotten away with murder, leaving three men dead in their wake as they made their hasty flee from justice (President Kennedy; Mr. Oswald; and Officer JD Tippit).
    Last edited by Alan Ford; 07-09-2017 at 09:59 PM.
    "A Lie Believed By Everybody Is Not The Truth"--unknown



    .

  4. Default an excellent presentation...

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Gilbride View Post
    That 2014 Lunchroom Incident essay is finally posted in the ESSAYS section of my website at http://www.jfkinsidejob.com My apologies for the delay. Unbeknownst to me my webmaster had moved to Vermont to pursue a master's degree, but forgot to inform his co-workers about my web account.

    This essay shows that the Stroud document places Adams & Styles on the stairs during the same timeframe that Truly & Baker are ascending the stairs from the elevator area. Since neither pair saw the other, the men had to have been in the lunchroom when the ladies passed.

    To further outline my argument devastating to Sean Murphy's lunchroom hoax theory-

    2) Every single item of lunchroom-related evidence has a mundane explanation that supports the incident's reality. A key example- hoaxers decry Baker's omission of seeing his suspect enter the room while writing his affidavit, but ignore the fact that Baker was mindful of this omission and confided it to homicide detective Marvin Johnson soon afterward.

    3) WC 3076, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, shows that 6 months after his testimony Baker was still confused about the TSBD floor layout. He initially described the lunchroom as on the "second or third floor" but upon reflection crossed out "or third floor"- giving a strong likelihood he was confused about the TSBD floor layout in his 1st-day affidavit.

    4) The 1964 filmed CBS interview and 1986 filmed testimony display no tangible indication that a monstrous lie about the lunchroom incident is being put forth, nor is there any indication that Baker was excessively nervous when being questioned by top-flight trial attorney Vincent Bugliosi.

    5) The will-call counter bump, a superfluous incident that serves no ostensible purpose in a contrived hoax narrative, is a telltale indicator that the dozen other points of correspondence in the Truly/Baker testimonies (at the elevator & in the lunchroom) actually happened

    6) The Kent Biffle newspaper story about Oswald being seen in a 1st-floor storage room has not one whit of corroboration, and is almost certainly garbled hearsay.

    7) The hoax theory flunks the test of Occam's Razor. A sizeable mini-conspiracy is required to sustain it, including Truly, Baker, James Bookhout, David Belin, James Leavelle, Jeraldean Reid, and anyone else "in the know" at the TSBD, DPD, FBI and Warren Commission.

    8) This contrived, artificial theory yields nothing. It has not produced a single substantive, tangible​ result, despite more than a decade of searching for one.

    9) Truly confided to his wife that same evening that he'd encountered Oswald in the lunchroom. The apparent source for this is a Philadelphia-based news report.


    This is so far over the top it's embarrassing. It calls into question the hoaxers' ability to process rational information. How can their position be considered correct, if such an extensive counter-argument's bullet points can be assembled against it?

    There is nothing in their argument that necessitates their peculiar interpretation of the lunchroom-related evidence. Theirs is merely a collection of ambiguous police reports & anecdotes and newspaper stories. And their explanation for this ambiguity? That the event was make-believe. They leap to this conclusion without even considering alternative explanations.

    There is a classic Twilight Zone episode that helps illustrate how tragically far off the mark their interpretation is. In To Serve Man, the aliens finally arrive and they present humanity with a book of this title. But its contents are hieroglyphics that nobody can make sense of. Yet the aliens are friendly and evidently they've arrived to help serve us and share their technology.

    Near the end of the episode, as the lead scientist is boarding a ramp into their spaceship, for a journey to their home planet, his assistant suddenly bursts through the crowd. "We've decoded the book!" she yells.

    "Great! What's it say?"

    "It's a cookbook!!"

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

    One of us cannot be wrong. Either the lunchroom incident happened, or it did not happen. And the theory that it was just a hoax does not survive the combined forces of Reason and Sober Judgment.

    Its failure exposes, among many other things, the pigheadedness that pervades the JFK research community. The lack of maturity, both emotional and intellectual. And the underhandedness that its followers will resort to in order to promote this irrational belief.

    For to criticize the hoax belief guarantees that you will be targeted for scorn and ridicule- by the Clockwork Orange cyber-bullies who propagate this mullarkey. Censored, deleted, and ignored by the gatekeepers who shepherd the information flow about President Kennedy's murder- just like the good ole boys on the Warren Commission did, obfuscating the truth.

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

    Central to understanding just what happened inside the Depository is this unassailable fact- during the early minutes of the police search, power was cut to the passenger & freight elevators. And this is not mentioned in the Warren Report.

    Nor is it mentioned in any newspapers, that I am aware of. The newspaper archive that has been uncovered has been the true golden nugget of the hoax research. The rest of it is fool's gold.

    Mr Gillbride has offered an excellent presentation with sound reasoning, especially meaningful to those of us that remember 11/22/'63.
    Last edited by LR Trotter; 07-10-2017 at 12:15 PM.

    Larry
    StudentofAssassinationResearch


  5. Default Brief Question for Mr. Gilbride

    In respect to the following quote, Mr. Gilbride, ---->

    "Central to understanding just what happened inside the Depository is this unassailable fact- during the early minutes of the police search, power was cut to the passenger & freight elevators. And this is not mentioned in the Warren Report."

    Do you have a definitive time frame on just when the power was cut?

    The reason I'm asking is because some building employees are leaving the impression that they were able to return upstairs to their offices via elevator.

    One example, courtesy of Mary Ferrell's insightful database, can be read here ----> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....8#relPageId=24

    Not sure if you are able to post, and may be simply reading along in "Guest" mode, but all the same, if you have some time on your hands, feel free to email me an answer... a1anfordataoldotcom

    Central to my inquiry is how could some people gain access to the elevators with such ease, while Officer Baker and Mr. Truly who were ahead of these folks in their mad dash inside unable to secure either elevator...Could it have been because an elevator pursuit would have left out the 2nd floor encounter?

    a definitive time frame establishing precisely when the power was cut would help us get some answers to what really transpired that afternoon and in what order. Thanks for listening, Mr. Gilbride, enjoy your day.
    "A Lie Believed By Everybody Is Not The Truth"--unknown



    .

  6. Default

    All of my information on the elevators' power shut-off is contained in my 2015 mega-essay Inside Job in the subsection Frazier & the Elevator Power from pp. 40-51. The time question is analysed in the first 4 pages of that subsection.

    The mega-essay is at my website jfkinsidejob.com

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Gilbride View Post
    All of my information on the elevators' power shut-off is contained in my 2015 mega-essay Inside Job in the subsection Frazier & the Elevator Power from pp. 40-51. The time question is analysed in the first 4 pages of that subsection.

    The mega-essay is at my website jfkinsidejob.com
    Some very interesting conclusions here.
    Last edited by Mark A. O'Blazney; 07-19-2017 at 05:13 AM.

  8. Default Follow Up Question for Mr. Gilbride

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Gilbride View Post
    All of my information on the elevators' power shut-off is contained in my 2015 mega-essay Inside Job in the subsection Frazier & the Elevator Power from pp. 40-51. The time question is analysed in the first 4 pages of that subsection.

    The mega-essay is at my website jfkinsidejob.com
    Good afternoon, Mr. Gilbride

    Appreciate you posting the whereabouts of your work/research, and when ample time permits, I'll venture over and read through your material.

    Just curious, taking my recent thread "Mrs. Reid's Mad Dash" in consideration, particularly the Addendum piece, Are you at least concerned that Mrs. Reid's phantom encounter up on the 2nd floor with the wrongfully accused couldn't have happened the way her Warren Commission statement asserts?

    How could Mrs. Reid be in two places all at once?

    When one compares what she said in her WC statement to timing & sequence factors, she has some explaining to do.

    Moreover, How many women are capable of running up two flights of stairs with heels on? without injuring themselves on steps in need of critical repair?

    Again, thanks for posting your research for later review. Enjoy your day sir.
    "A Lie Believed By Everybody Is Not The Truth"--unknown



    .

  9. Default

    Mark O'Blazney,

    Thank you for editing your recent reply. Because the question of Oswald's guilt is irrelevant to the question of the power shut-off. And I have been on that issue in a big way since about 2011.

    Somebody needs to approach Frazier about this issue, but not in an accusatory manner. He was only a 19-year-old kid at the time and came from a troubled home life.

    He won't live forever, and needs assurance that coming clean on this would be like getting into a life boat.

    Speaking of needs to approach, Lancer should get Amos Euins to a conference ASAP. He's been living in Dallas and Mesquite most of his life, and we probably haven't heard from him because nobody has ever asked him. He's soon to be 70.

    Just had to put that out there, don't want to be hijacking this lunchroom thread.

  10. Default

    Alan Ford,

    If I remember right, David Belin & his trusty stopwatch clocked Jeraldean at 2 minutes flat, on 3 occasions, reaching the spot where she allegedly passed a mumbling Oswald in a t-shirt & with a Coke heading through her office and for the lobby stairs. It has struck me as creating an artificial reality stamp via his stopwatch. Kind of like the artificial reality stamp he gave when he questioned Slim Givens, when he concluded that odd & suspect testimony with, effectively, "We haven't talked about this before, Mr. Givens, have we?"

    But Jeraldean's shaky account doesn't mean Geneva Hine is 100% gospel. She missed stuff like all witnesses do, like even semi-photographic mind Arnold Rowland did. So a researcher shouldn't go building his sand castles completely around the entirety of the account of one witness.

    After the alleged Jeraldean encounter, Oswald near-intercepted WFAA's Pierce Allman at the bottom of the lobby stairs, and directed him to a phone. So whatever WC reason for Jeraldean's shaky testimony, we researchers have an independent witness to Oswald at the tail-end of walking his building path from the lunchroom to the outside steps.

    Postal Inspector Harry Holmes. who took notes of Oswald's Nov. 24 interrogation, testfied that Oswald said that when "all this commotion started, I just went on downstairs." Allman's SS interview at WCD 354 shows that he encountered with Oswald in the lobby.

    So again, it's not required to determine the exact reason for Jeraldean's phantom account. It doesn't necessarily mean the lunchroom event was make-believe. Her account just adds more fuel to the conclusion that the lunchroom incident was mis-related. Probably several details that spoke for Oswald's innocence.

    Unfortunately the stranglehold Sean Murphy has on too many unseasoned researchers is holding them back from reality-based detective work. And they're afraid to break out of the gangthink club, they might get scorned & ridiculed like me.

    How terrifying, to have to think for yourself. How lazy, to not.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •