Page 5 of 26 FirstFirst ... 234567815 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 256

Thread: Anatomy of the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter

  1. #41

    Default

    Albert, Jim says this @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.
    He does not accept the "jaundiced" views of Murphy and ROKC. He just said it. He's just saying Oswald was on the first floor at the time of the shooting.
    "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

  2. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lauren Johnson View Post
    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:



    Page 28 - Kamp's Essay:



    In addition, I have discovered that Shelley (underneath No. 3) moved more central, gradually, to follow Lovelady (No. 2) in an enlargement of the Wiegman film. This image is just before the
    shooting had ended. In case you are wondering who is below No. 1, that is Prayer man who is Lee Oswald. More about this in part 4.


    Jim is being dishonest. This is PROOF that Kamp is using his essay to bolster the Prayer Man claim.

  3. #43

    Default

    Jim is being dishonest. This is PROOF that Kamp is using his essay to bolster the Prayer Man claim.
    It doesn't matter what Kamp is doing. Jim is not arguing that LHO is on the front porch.
    "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

  4. #44

    Default

    That doesn't make sense Lauren. On page 29 of Kamp's essay Kamp shows the Wiegman shot. He puts a number 1 above Prayer Man and on the previous page says:


    In case you are wondering who is below No. 1, that is Prayer man who is Lee Oswald.


    Jim said:


    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.


    As my proof shows in the essay Jim links, Bart very specifically says, in the middle of his attempt to spin the evidence away from the lunchroom encounter with misquotes, deliberate ripping of context, omission of evidence, and overemphasis of conflicts in the evidence that are almost certainly explained by other reasons, that Prayer Man is Oswald. I'm failing to understand how, by the regular meaning of words, openly saying Prayer Man is Oswald is somehow "not about whether or not Oswald is out front in the portal" as Jim advises?


    Ah, how can Bart be making the case that Oswald was eating lunch on the 1st floor (somewhere) and be claiming he was Prayer Man on the landing at the same time?



    Jim???

  5. Default

    You are the one who is being dishonest.

    We published "excerpts" from it. You do know what an excerpt is eh?

    You had to go fishing from an extremely long pamphlet in order to mix up the issue.

    So what the heck are you saying in your latest Roy Cohn/ Joe McCarthy incarnation?

    That someone has made you the Grand Inquisitor or Torquemada? And whoever did that has given you the right of divine intervention to go ahead and condemn anyone for even being associated with someone who thinks differently than you do on this issue? Is that what you are saying? What utter pomposity. Don't make me puke.

    I should have known something was up with you with your utterly hapless defense of Peter Janney.

  6. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim DiEugenio View Post
    You are the one who is being dishonest.

    We published "excerpts" from it. You do know what an excerpt is eh?

    You had to go fishing from an extremely long pamphlet in order to mix up the issue.

    So what the heck are you saying in your latest Roy Cohn/ Joe McCarthy incarnation?

    That someone has made you the Grand Inquisitor or Torquemada? And whoever did that has given you the right of divine intervention to go ahead and condemn anyone for even being associated with someone who thinks differently than you do on this issue? Is that what you are saying? What utter pomposity. Don't make me puke.

    I should have known something was up with you with your utterly hapless defense of Peter Janney.


    Thanks Jim.


    You're not seriously trying to suggest that I violated some kind of (yet again undefined) rule or ethic by actually reading and quoting the real contents of Bart's essay that you praised on Kennedy's & King?


    You praised the essay and claimed it did not attempt to put Oswald on the front steps. On pages 28 and 29 Kamp is showing a large image of the Wiegman frame with a number one over Prayer Man. On page 28 Kamp indexes that image with the caption:


    In case you are wondering who is below No. 1, that is Prayer man who is Lee Oswald.

    Jim, Bart's essay, whether excerpted or not, very much openly tries to put Oswald out front on the landing. Oh, by the way, you gave no answer to the serious flaws in the excerpted parts I exposed in post #12.


    I'm curious for an answer over how Kamp could be just trying to show Oswald was eating lunch on the 1st floor, as you chastised before, and be Oswald out on the front steps at the same time?



    Oh, and thank you for bringing Janney up as well in the same vein...



    Nobody is above facts and correct argument no matter what their assassination community politics are...

  7. Default

    That is not what I said.

    You are deliberately misquoting what I did with the excerpt to fulfill your own bizarre agenda.

    Three sentences out of a 124 pages is enough for you to jump up and scream in your best Cohn/McCarthy imitation: "You sir are not worthy to be wearing that uniform of an officer."

    Anyway, for anyone else who is not so afflicted, I advise you to read the excerpt, and then if it interests you, go ahead and click through tot he long version.

    It will be interesting for most objective people, like Larry Hancock. It would seem to me that Bart makes the case Oswald was on the first floor.

    The next part of this Bart will take on is the interrogation of Oswald. That should be interesting also.

    Finally, Bart is scheduled to be on Len Osanic's Black Op Radio this week.

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim DiEugenio View Post
    That is not what I said.

    You are deliberately misquoting what I did with the excerpt to fulfill your own bizarre agenda.

    Three sentences out of a 124 pages is enough for you to jump up and scream in your best Cohn/McCarthy imitation: "You sir are not worthy to be wearing that uniform of an officer."

    Anyway, for anyone else who is not so afflicted, I advise you to read the excerpt, and then if it interests you, go ahead and click through tot he long version.

    It will be interesting for most objective people, like Larry Hancock. It would seem to me that Bart makes the case Oswald was on the first floor.

    The next part of this Bart will take on is the interrogation of Oswald. That should be interesting also.

    Finally, Bart is scheduled to be on Len Osanic's Black Op Radio this week.

    Thanks, Jim. Looking forward to Bart's turn on BOR. Fascinating conclusions/speculations.

  9. #49

    Default

    My fellow comrades, friends, allies and foes, as well as my secret admire enemies. Who really gives a shit where Oswald was? Front porch, first floor, second floor coke room, witness room or in the bathroom taking a dump after he ate his lunch. Bottom-line, Oswald was NOT on the sixth floor at the time of shooting.

    Argument settled now?

    The End,

  10. #50

    Default

    Jim,


    There's no doubt that Kamp's showing a photo of Prayer Man in Wiegman and captioning the figure as "Lee Harvey Oswald" does legitimately expose his true intentions in his essay. How could it not?



    The question once again goes unanswered by Jim "How can Kamp only be arguing Oswald was eating lunch on the 1st floor and be claiming he is Prayer Man out on the landing at the same time?"



    How is that misquoting? My only agenda here is finding the truth and clearing the muddy waters Murphy really managed to convince a lot of people to believe.



    Meanwhile I'm up to page 70 in Kamp's essay. So far I conclude that Kamp is doing his best to force all meanings towards the 1st floor in order to push Oswald closer to the landing, as he openly claims on page 28. Before I said to put a voice stress analysis on Truly and Baker's talks on You-Tube. When I watched those links on Kamp's essay it seemed to me that their expressions were those of people knowing there was another story to what they were saying. This could have been caused by their awareness that JFK's assassination was a set-up and government job. There's a basic thing Kamp ignores. Baker's affidavit tried to put Oswald closer to the Sniper's Nest. So instead of being evidence of the lunchroom encounter not happening, it might simply be evidence of the conspirators trying to avoid evidence of Oswald's innocence. This is reasonable and Kamp doesn't mention it because his only agenda is forcing Oswald closer to the landing as he openly shows on page 28 despite the incorrect denials. Also, it looks like Marvin Johnson did confirm that Baker ID'ed Oswald at the Police Station if I'm not mistaken.



    After 70 pages I am leaning towards Oswald being in the lunchroom the whole time. Carolyn Arnold said Oswald was sitting and eating lunch at the table at around 12:24. It therefore doesn't make sense for him to be eating lunch in the 1st floor Domino Room as he told the interrogators. If Harvey was being guided by Intel to stay out of the way of possible Secret Service apprehension then the 2nd floor makes more sense than the 1st floor because it would be less accessible for visibility. It makes pre-eminent sense that if Oswald was eating his lunch in the lunchroom at 12:24 that he continued to do so up until he was seen by Baker & Truly 6 minutes later. I think Kamp is avoiding the obvious suggestion here that Oswald was in the lunchroom the whole time and that was the source for the evidence problems. Another dumb thing Kamp does is never consider Oswald was in the lunchroom vestibule window because he heard Truly shout for the elevator and therefore there's a very plausible reason for Oswald being seen by Baker. Oswald got up from where he was sitting with his lunch wrappers on the table and looked out the window. Also, the angle of the vestibule door window might reflect like a mirror allowing Baker to see glimpses of movement in the lunchroom.


    Here's the evidence Kamp should be paying attention to:



    Fritz’s WC testimony:Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the
    second floor?
    Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told
    me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe
    told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw
    him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man
    and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.
    Mr. BALL. Did you question Oswald about that?
    Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the officer stopped him all right.
    Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he was doing in the lunchroom?
    Mr. FRITZ. He said he was having his lunch. He had a cheese sandwich and a Coca-Cola.
    Mr. BALL. Did he tell you he was up there to get a Coca-Cola?
    Mr. FRITZ. He said he had a Coca-Cola.


    Fritz is obviously describing a person who was eating a cheese sandwich and a Coke in the 2nd floor lunchroom as witnessed by Carolyn Arnold. You guys need to learn how to read evidence. Fritz does not corroborate Oswald's coming up to get a Coke when spurred. Instead he gives the answer you would expect from someone who had been told Oswald was eating lunch in the 2nd floor lunchroom at the time. Bingo...


    Kamp glorifies Murphy by saying he left the community on November 22 2013. What I see is a charlatan getting out on a good day in order to avoid accounting for his bs...



    .
    Last edited by Albert Doyle; 04-18-2017 at 07:23 PM.

Posting Permissions

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