Page 2 of 23 FirstFirst 1234512 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 230

Thread: Anatomy of the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter

  1. Default

    There goes Jim ignoring all the facts, accusing people who insist on those alternate possibilities being honestly recognized as having a sinister (and non-defined) agenda, and once again offering what is basically rhetoric, or even propaganda to push through Kamp's evidence-cooking.



    Jim continues to stubbornly ignore that the conspiracy was an ongoing thing from before Oswald even woke up that morning, so Baker's not mentioning the specific lunchroom location is not the condemning evidence he so indirectly tip toes around.



    Jim asks us to believe that with all the confirmed Dallas Police Department covert involvement at the Texas Theater that none of that existed at the Police Station after Oswald was arrested and brought there and that Baker was a clean boy scout who would honestly report all that happened faithfully - even though you had a full set of Dallas PD that just escorted a CIA double out the back door of the Texas Theater a short while earlier. He gives no weight to the fact one of the media reports said Baker confronted Oswald sitting and eating his lunch at the table. Since Oswald was seen doing that by Carolyn Arnold 6 1/2 minutes earlier there is every possibility that Oswald's lunch was still laid out on the table and that even though Baker confronted Oswald by the lunchroom door that Baker and Truly saw his lunch spread out on the table and knew he had been in there eating it the whole time. What Jim DiEugenio and his new brain partner Bart Kamp do is stand all the known motives for Dallas Police misreporting on their head and make Baker's omission a sign of the event never happening instead of the obvious need to prevent an alibi for Oswald that it almost certainly was. I wonder if Jim approves of Bart's attacking Carolyn Arnold and bringing his real story-interpreter Greg Parker in to tell us what Carolyn was really thinking? Maybe there's a Lancer award waiting for Greg too?


    Common sense tells you if you transpose the Gestapo level of covert police corruption at the Texas Theater to the Police Station that Baker's blurring the lunchroom encounter to a vague 3rd or 4th floor stairwell removes the problem of Oswald obviously being seen eating lunch in the lunchroom during the shooting and not possibly being close enough to the Sniper's Nest to even be considered as a shooter. Another thing Jim ignores is how faithful to the conspiracy the Oswald who was captured remained. A profiling of this loyalty makes it very likely that this Oswald followed covert instructions to not be seen by the Secret Service during the motorcade and stayed in the lunchroom accordingly. This Oswald would need to be kept from the 6th floor in order not to interfere with his being set-up. The lunchroom where Carolyn Arnold saw him makes very much sense in this light. Both the amount of covert control and loyalty of the patsy make his being on the landing highly unlikely.


    What Bart never considers is that Fritz's notes were being kept to a certain spacing in order to maintain evenly-spaced columns. I very much think that Fritz wrote "Claims 2nd floor Coke when officer came in to 1st floor". The next line is a shorthand summation of (Where he just) "Had lunch". In this case the delay in reporting the lunchroom encounter was merely so the conspirators could get the official story together and make sure the lunchroom encounter didn't prohibit it. You guys have it backwards and in this true context its lack of mention was actually proof of its realness and need to cover-up its exoneration of Oswald.



    When you point-out to Jim that Kamp needs to deny Armstrong to make his clumsy manipulations work Jim ignores it and accuses you of having an 'agenda'...This is a primitive, far inferior examination of the evidence that blindly misses most of the higher intrigue in order to force the real agenda here...

  2. Default

    Just to show the rubbish research Jim is putting his stamp of approval on, here is just the opening part of Kamp's essay as posted on the Kennedy's and King website:




    If the 2nd-floor lunchroom encounter did not happen,

    then was Oswald encountered somewhere else?


    Some researchers think Oswald walked up the stairs inside the first floor vestibule, went through the corridor on the second floor, passed the door, moving from right to left, and got his coke. This is possible, but the news reports and statements, which come in various guises, show Oswald was encountered on the first floor instead, while trying to leave the building. It is even possible that Baker never saw Oswald until he was brought in while Baker was giving the affidavit taken by Marvin Johnson.





    All Kamp offers above is a suggestive straw-man and nothing else. First of all, Kamp insists on calling the front entrance lobby a "vestibule". He does that because he's trying to condition the reader to think that when the real vestibule covering the lunchroom door is mentioned that it is referring to the front entrance foyer. This is the dishonest level of deception that Kamp uses to push across his Prayer Man arguments and Jim prints it straight without seeing what Kamp is doing. And these ARE Prayer Man arguments trying to put Oswald on the landing during the assassination. It's the whole purpose of the need to eliminate the lunchroom encounter because its offerers know it makes the Prayer Man theory unlikely.

    The reason this is a straw-man is because Kamp tries to force all possibilities to his one scenario above of Oswald walking up and to the lunchroom. Kamp ignores that there are some people who credibly think none of what he suggests happened and Oswald was in the lunchroom the whole time. Typical of Kamp, what he knows threatens his theory just gets left out and not mentioned. This is a deceptive tactic because Kamp is using his interpretation of the evidence to say Oswald was spotted by the front entrance, inferring that this walk up the steps and to the lunchroom had to occur because these sightings occurred. Except that Kamp leaves out another possibility. That the 1st floor sightings did not occur or did not occur as he is interpreting them.



    Bob Considine of the Hearst Press, for example, was told that Oswald had been questioned inside the building “almost before the smoke from the assassin’s gun had disappeared.” That hardly sounds like an encounter on the second floor does it? It points more to an altercation on the first floor, just where Oswald had claimed to be.

    Smart people will see there is nothing in Kamp's begging quote that excludes this description from being the lunchroom encounter. Kamp seems to beg fate by using the word "altercation", since an altercation is exactly what happened when Baker held his gun at Oswald in the lunchroom. Considine is obviously referring to the lunchroom encounter as described. Mr Kamp seems to exist in a reality of his own that Jim DiEugenio courts. He forgets that any such altercation happening in the foyer would have been witnessed by many people.

    Kamp is lying here. Oswald never said he was on the 1st floor in the context Kamp is begging for here. If anything he said he was in the 2nd floor lunchroom, the same place Carolyn Arnold had spotted him 6 minutes before.



    Various newspapers made reference to this so-called first floor encounter instead of the second floor lunch room encounter.
    Roy Truly was overheard by Kent Biffle, who reported in the November 23 edition of the Dallas Morning News:In a storage room on the first floor, the officer, gun drawn, spotted Oswald. ‘Does this man work here?’, the officer reportedly asked Truly. Truly, who said he had interviewed and had hired Oswald a couple of months earlier reportedly told the policeman that Oswald was a worker.”



    Here is where Kamp really exposes his flagrant level of deception. Biffle is obviously mixing Ochus Campbell's story with Truly's lunchroom encounter. But the most outstanding example of Kamp's deception is his ignoring that Campbell clearly said he saw Truly and Baker run in to the building before he saw Oswald in the storage room. This twisted distortion ignores that Campbell established that Baker and Truly were well on their way before he went in and saw Oswald in the storage closet. So it separates the grilling of Oswald and Truly confirming he was an employee from Campbell's witnessing and establishes the two were separate events and therefore could not be one story as Biffle misreported. This correct context not only confirms the lunchroom encounter Kamp is doubting, but also suggests Campbell probably went in well after Truly and encountered Mrs Reid's Oswald after he came to the lobby. Kamp never allows this possibility because his ROKC group denies Armstrong's theory.

    Another thing Kamp ignores is if Biffle got this story on Friday then he would have a record of Truly mentioning the lunchroom encounter in public on Friday.




    Biffle mentions overhearing Truly again in the Dallas Morning News, edition from November 21, 2000:
    “Hours dragged by. The building superintendent showed up with some papers in his hand. I listened as he told detectives about Lee Oswald failing to show up at a roll call. My impression is there was an earlier roll call but it was inconclusive inasmuch as several employees were missing. This time, however, all were accounted for but Oswald. I jotted down all the Oswald information. The description and address came from company records already examined by the superintendent. The superintendent would recall later that he and a policeman met Oswald as they charged into the building after the shots were fired.
    What Kamp is doing is deliberately misconstruing the story of the same reporter who misreported it the first time. There is absolutely nothing in the above quote to preclude the lunchroom as being the location where they confronted Oswald. This is obviously just Kamp fishing for suggestive meaning where none exists and trying to sell it as proof.




    Ochus Campbell, the vice president of the TSBD, stated in the New York Herald Tribune on November 22:
    “Shortly after the shooting we raced back into the building. We had been outside watching the parade. We saw him (Oswald) in a small storage room on the ground floor. Then we noticed he was gone.” Mr. Campbell added: “Of course he and the others were on their lunch hour but he did not have permission to leave the building and we haven’t seen him since.”




    Since Campbell separated seeing Truly and Baker running in to the building from his own encounter we can assume the two happened with a time separation in between. The way this should be interpreted is Truly and Baker were confronting Oswald in the lunchroom 90 seconds after the shots, so Campbell's witnessing had to be after that. OR HAD TO BE A SECOND OSWALD.


    Kamp and DiEugenio insult the intelligence of better researchers by not considering that the Oswald allegedly seen by Campbell was possibly the Oswald seen by Roger Craig. The reason Kamp doesn't mention this possibility is because he is seeking the narrowest, most deceptive route to confirming the Prayer Man evidence. Kamp omits this because it creates the possibility that Campbell's evidence isn't evidence of Oswald being Prayer Man at all but is instead good confirmation of Armstrong and therefore keeps the lunchroom encounter intact and possibly explains why it wasn't mentioned at first.



    .
    Last edited by Albert Doyle; 04-16-2017 at 06:14 AM.

  3. #13

    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.
    Okay Jim, fair enough, forgive me if I used the words, smoke & mirrors, sometimes, I catch myself saying the darnest things not knowing what I'm saying. Interesting enough, this fellow Bart must've presented some amazing stuff. I mean, what really makes this extraordinary is that he starts off by saying "with the challenge that he knows he will be asked:"

    Amazing really, I would love to read a "whole battery of evidence."

    However, may I point out you have offered no proof here as of yet? Silly me, I mean could you possible offer three, (3) simple ingredients that makes up his excerpt? If you can't provide three, (3) could you please provide two, (2), and if you can't provide two, (2) one, (1) will do, thanks.

    By the way, what's the "same small witness room" where Barker was sitting when he had his gun into Oswald's gut? Where is that room in the Library? I didn't know there was a witness room in the Library? And, according to this affidavit the only small witness room I'm familiar with is the one at the DPD. Now, Barker couldn't possibly be speaking about that room could he?

    Does anyone have a layout of the Library that shows a "witness room"? Heck, I just want to be wrong about all this, that's all. May be, that's the reason Barker never mentions Oswald and his encounter in his first, but does in his second? Just trying to understand this, that's all.

    I would think that with all the adrenaline and other signs that comes with the job and what just happened, the President of the United States, and a police officer has just been killed how would that effect ones ability of thinking? That is, if you're human, and to human is to error. Imagine having to relive that day. Could you get it right?
    Last edited by Scott Kaiser; 04-16-2017 at 02:10 PM.

  4. #14

    Default

    Roy Truly was overheard by Kent Biffle, who reported in the November 23 edition of the Dallas Morning News: In a storage room on the first floor, the officer, gun drawn, spotted Oswald. ‘Does this man work here?’, the officer reportedly asked Truly. Truly, who said he had interviewed and had hired Oswald a couple of months earlier reportedly told the policeman that Oswald was a worker.”
    This is the most distortion if I've ever read. I'm ever so sorry for using the words smoke and mirrors.

    This person said this, I know because that person told me. Horse shit!

  5. #15

    Default

    Read the articular again Jim, the journalist didn't get his story straight. Not the other way around.

  6. Default

    Scott,

    I have no idea what you are talking about.

    The witness room was at the DPD headquarters. That is where Baker saw Oswald, and its right in the WC with Baker's testimony. Allen Dulles was aware of it and tried to discount it.

    I mean you do read this stuff don't you? I mean even when its quoted? Just to find out if its accurate?

    Kent Biffle said the same thing twice, once the day after the assassination, and once in 2000. And he is backed up by Campbell.

    And I guess you missed this from the Gary Savage book: “Shortly after I entered the building I confronted Oswald. The man who said he was the building superintendent said that Oswald was all right, that he was an employee there. We left Oswald there, and the supervisor showed me the way upstairs.”

    That is from Baker himself.

    Here is the first day FBI report: “OSWALD stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola ‘for his lunch. OSWALD claimed to’ be on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed by his building.”

    And I will stop there, because I am only about 1/9 of the way through the article. Which apparently you did not read very closely.

    As I say on the EF to Tommy Graves, if you don't have anything to say, then just don't say anything. Instead read what is in front of you without spin.

  7. Default

    And I guess you missed this from the Gary Savage book: “Shortly after I entered the building I confronted Oswald. The man who said he was the building superintendent said that Oswald was all right, that he was an employee there. We left Oswald there, and the supervisor showed me the way upstairs.”

    That is from Baker himself.


    Jim is pimping ROKC propaganda here. Any sensible person can see that all Savage is quoting here is a condensation of Baker confronting Oswald in the lunchroom. Jim is a great promoter of ROKC and its agenda, so he doesn't remind the reader that for Baker to have confronted Oswald with Truly in the lobby, like he is suggesting, would have required many people to witness it. Jim also doesn't remind the reader of the practical problem of the storage room being far in the other direction from the wooden entry gate to the front desk that Baker and Truly claimed to head to. When Jim is confronted with these serious conflicts like a good defense lawyer he simply ignores them and responds by referring to you negatively. Jim ignores that the above quote mirrors other quotes from Baker where he specifically said "We then left the lunchroom and the supervisor showed me the way upstairs."


    Make no mistake, this brainwashing-type re-contexting of quotes is being done in order to put Oswald on the front steps. None of it has any credibility what so ever. It's main purpose is to give pseudo-analysts fodder for their assassination mills...

  8. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim DiEugenio View Post
    Scott,

    I have no idea what you are talking about.

    The witness room was at the DPD headquarters. That is where Baker saw Oswald, and its right in the WC with Baker's testimony. Allen Dulles was aware of it and tried to discount it.

    I mean you do read this stuff don't you? I mean even when its quoted? Just to find out if its accurate?

    Kent Biffle said the same thing twice, once the day after the assassination, and once in 2000. And he is backed up by Campbell.

    And I guess you missed this from the Gary Savage book: “Shortly after I entered the building I confronted Oswald. The man who said he was the building superintendent said that Oswald was all right, that he was an employee there. We left Oswald there, and the supervisor showed me the way upstairs.”

    That is from Baker himself.

    Here is the first day FBI report: “OSWALD stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola ‘for his lunch. OSWALD claimed to’ be on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed by his building.”

    And I will stop there, because I am only about 1/9 of the way through the article. Which apparently you did not read very closely.

    As I say on the EF to Tommy Graves, if you don't have anything to say, then just don't say anything. Instead read what is in front of you without spin.

    I understand, I know if I were wrong, I'd just accept it, say I was wrong rather than searching for an excuse. But, that's just me. I wonder Jim, sense you give credence to new material, have you found any flaws in mine? You know, like Mr. Best thought he found, or, shall I continue? You see Jim, at the end of the day, I have doubt who was really involved in Kennedy's assassination, and that's because my father was killed, make no mistake, I said "doubt" but... I also have proof, you have to ask yourself, what was Kaiser killed over, you'll find the answers. I did, and to think, the Miami Beach Police Department tried to sell me bullshit, I suppose when you have the CIA in-charge of things there's nothing you can do, but, with evidence, facts, witness testimony, and CIA's screw ups, yes, remember I said to human is to error? They can't redact everything, and oh boy, I can't wait to expose it.

  9. #19

    Default

    ^Edited.

  10. Default

    Scott, I appreciate your helping Jim divert and not answer my direct, coherent challenges...

Posting Permissions

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