Choose Search Type
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» Shirley Temple is Prayer Man According to Duncan McRae
Today at 4:12 am by steely dan

» The Eighth Naval District
Yesterday at 11:33 pm by Hasan Yusuf

» Send Lawyers Guns & Money Pt2
Yesterday at 8:08 pm by barto

» Send Lawyers Guns & Money Pt1
Yesterday at 11:58 am by barto

» JFK Assassination
Yesterday at 7:15 am by jack ferguson

» Lifton on his "new evidence"
Yesterday at 4:47 am by steely dan

» friends student exchange programs
Wed 07 Dec 2016, 12:01 pm by greg parker

» Richard Bernarbei
Tue 06 Dec 2016, 11:29 pm by barto

» The Facts about Connally's Wounds
Tue 06 Dec 2016, 11:23 am by Paul Francisco Paso

Log in

I forgot my password

Social bookmarking

Social bookmarking Digg  Social bookmarking Delicious  Social bookmarking Reddit  Social bookmarking Stumbleupon  Social bookmarking Slashdot  Social bookmarking Furl  Social bookmarking Yahoo  Social bookmarking Google  Social bookmarking Blinklist  Social bookmarking Blogmarks  Social bookmarking Technorati  

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 


Affiliates
free forum
 



The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Page 5 of 22 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 13 ... 22  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Guest on Sat 26 Apr 2014, 8:46 am

[quote="Richard Gilbride"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mXeuJOfUNM[/quote]

I'm having to assume here as I can only read the description of the YouTube video posted -- but given the fact your avatar is a photograph of a tiger and the video is of a tiger attack are you hinting that you now want to eat some of us?

This whole thing just gets fucking weirder by the second...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Guest on Sat 26 Apr 2014, 9:57 am

Goodbye wrote:
.....What the hell do you want me to do when I come up against a Trejo or a Doyle, Richard?  Go around in circles as per Ernie Lazar over at the Education Forum and create threads containing thousands of replies going over the same arguments even though you've quickly realised you're dealing with a fucking nutcase and pathological liar who is trying his best to turn you as insane as he is?

Am I instead supposed to walk away and leave them to lie and warp what I have claimed or said without setting the record straight first?

For fuck's sake. ......

Lee

I've so far resisted wading in, but Richard's using Trejo and Doyle as examples of GB's "relations" with difficult people convinces me he is coming from quite a different place than GB or I am coming from. Although I ask myself why Ernie Lazar persists, I know why.

When Trejo changed his avatar photo, my reaction was visceral. I took the trouble to research Trejo's supervisor at UT because I was curious about a person who would authorize payment of UT
funds resulting in Trejo being in proximity and on the team.

Doyle's reaction to my exposing him to the flaws in the books of Janney and Dovey Roundtree indicated he has walled off his belief system from any new evidence, but he seems more like Rob Caprio, who embraces single sourced, third party quote obtained by Dick Russell from a man described by Gary Hill as in a vegetative state, as if it was gospel truth.

GB touched on it when Trejo's personal website was hacked, the contradiction that the man works in the IT field, and I advanced it when I found that Trejo was unable to post linked sources in Wikiedia articles, despite his making thousands of edits on that site under a number of different ID's and IP #'s.

I share with GB, and as we've seen, also  with Greg, strong reaction to those who claim to be familiar with an area of research but maintain conclusions counter to core details and information a reasonable person would at least be interested in learning more about.

Much of it seems routed in the attitude partnered with the misplaced resolve.

DWD is correct in cautioning against getting sucked into a Captain Ahab mindset. It is unhealthy and
detrimental to quality of life. After all, Howard Willens lives, and he did post that pathetic response to Martin Hay's accurate review of his book. In the scheme of things, Trejo is an overcooked bake potato in a red shirt. Willens exhibits no contrition and did not publish my comment reminding him that the FBI investigated his background and reported that Willens father was the next door neighbor of Tony Accardo, but the FBI reported specifically that they did no investigation of mob lawyer Albert Jenner, who held high opinions ot the DIRECTOR and of the BUREAU.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by dwdunn(akaDan) on Sat 26 Apr 2014, 2:37 pm

greg parker wrote:
Dan wrote:The best we can do is try to provide some example that they can meaningfully admire -- maybe even cling to, along with clearing away as much bullshit as we're able to. If God were the man people say he is, this world should've been different; but it's not.

Dan, I can understand the sentiment behind your words, but it also conjures up images of our great-great grandchildren still debating this case. 

I said in a previous post that I do whatever I have to do - and that will include solving this case. I didn't say that lightly. But nor did I mean to indicate no one else can, or that it depends on me.  

I'd like to move on to other things - indeed - there was talk - not initiated by me - about doing that before all this erupted. 

I just find saying things like "The best we can do is..." a bit self-defeating. 

Unless we believe that someone somewhere somehow can solve this thing, or get the case reopened, it's just a parlor game. 

And when I say I can and will solve it - it's because I largely already have. I know I won't get universal acceptance of that. There just are no "smoking guns" (and let's face it, there are still those who say OJ was innocent). But the case I have against certain people would be enough to have them indicted, and that's good enough for me.

Will I have done this alone?  Hell no. You are right saying that others have laid a foundation and pointed the way - and in some cases, very specifically helped. I'm not after glory - just closure and the short-circuiting of any need for my children's children to have to still be at this. 

If someone beats me to it, I'll be just as happy.
Greg, you seem to have found far, far more of a personal nature -- a personal critique -- than I .......... well, I can't even say than I intended; because I wasn't thinking of you much less of a critique of you or anything about you in what I wrote to Lee. There was no intention towards you whatsoever, so I'm not sure if I should comment further, other than to say that naturally I find it funny, and a little bit psychologically revealing. I did have to read it more than twice, though, before I moved from being mystified to being amused.

But since you've put me in a good mood, I'll hazard some replies.

Greg wrote:Dan, I can understand the sentiment behind your words, but it also conjures up images of our great-great grandchildren still debating this case.
I was not referencing "this case" -- the John F. Kennedy murder case. My response to Lee mostly involved the frustrations and head-spinning that goes with involvement in forums, and also to some extent research in general. (Are you fishing for me to say critical things about how people are obsessed with "JFK" to the exclusion of pretty much everything else? I accept that for what it is, since nothing can be done about it. People will just miss out on Stan's musical selections, or even to something I'm fairly proud of myself.

Greg further wrote:I said in a previous post that I do whatever I have to do - and that will include solving this case. I didn't say that lightly. But nor did I mean to indicate no one else can, or that it depends on me.
Lee suggested that he felt punch-drunk and exhausted, that too many fights take their toll. I've been there and frankly am never too far from being there again. The comment was directly to Lee, and indirectly to anyone else who has gotten so bound up in "all this" (forums, research) that they can't extricate themselves from it (for the good of their own mental health), in large part because they think "so much depends on me." I literally have no idea why you'd think I was in any way referring to you specifically.

Greg additionally wrote:I'd like to move on to other things - indeed - there was talk - not initiated by me - about doing that before all this erupted.
I'm not sure what you mean by "other things" or "all this (erupted)." I assume you mean the forum discussions moving on from this "Lunchroom" thread as a single depository for a variety of discussions, and all that's associated with it (everything that occurred bringing it about)? That's fine with me. But that's more up to Richard and Lee at this point, and if they're going to continue to raise issues that they and others feel like commenting on, I think it's much better to get it all out in the open than, let's say, hide it away in "In-House Issues." I have a very specific reason for being opposed to that proposed alternative anyway, which I'll share privately with you and Hasan unless circumstances result that allow me to address it publicly (which I would prefer). At any rate, I myself have finally started moving on again with my own blog-work; I was ironically in the midst of that when I found your reply after checking in and found I once again needed to reply in this thread.

Greg morever wrote:I just find saying things like "The best we can do is..." a bit self-defeating.

Unless we believe that someone somewhere somehow can solve this thing, or get the case reopened, it's just a parlor game.
I don't agree with that last part. While I was writing my reply to Lee I had to resist my tendency to keep running on and on (talking about for instance Albert Camus' ideas about having "solidarity with the vanquished [in history]"). Maybe it's my reading of history, or my "artist's soul," but some time ago I had to come to the realization that "success" is not necessarily measured in one's own lifetime. So solving "this thing" by "someone somewhere somehow" is definitely hoped for and believed in here; I just acknowledge that it may not happen until our generation is gone (i.e., "somewhen"). The same way I acknowledge that what I've had to say about John the Baptist or Robert Kennedy's murder may not be considered of any significance until after I'm gone.

But of course you're specifically referring to the John Kennedy murder case, apparently under the impression that I was too. So I doubt that any further comment would help, especially since it would probably take me about 5 pages to spell out and "explain myself." But whatever may result, I don't think what people are doing "here" (involved in this kind of research) is "just a parlor game." If it is, then I among others are wasting still more time and should hit the door ourselves. I don't think that's what you meant anyway, so I'll stop wondering which of us is the real pessimist here.

Greg finally wrote:And when I say I can and will solve it - it's because I largely already have. I know I won't get universal acceptance of that. There just are no "smoking guns" (and let's face it, there are still those who say OJ was innocent). But the case I have against certain people would be enough to have them indicted, and that's good enough for me.

Will I have done this alone?  Hell no. You are right saying that others have laid a foundation and pointed the way - and in some cases, very specifically helped. I'm not after glory - just closure and the short-circuiting of any need for my children's children to have to still be at this.

If someone beats me to it, I'll be just as happy.
You seem to have a lot of confidence for someone who's not a science OR history major. It's good enough for me too, Greg, and I'm only taking you at your word. Since I'm fairly sure your comments are the result of a misunderstanding about what I had to say and who I was directing it to (Lee Farley), I feel happy to be spared of having to spend still more time writing about how you'd be less confident and positive if you were in the United States where the current Supreme Court is ensuring the success of plutocracy and doing away with the concept of civil rights for non-white persons.

In closing, I do think I need to go on record for more clarification purposes.

For the record #1: the phrase "If God were the man people say he is" is not actually plagiarized, but it is a paraphrase from Gabriel Garcia-Marquez's The Autumn of the Patriarch. The General (the Patriarch of the title) was impotent: at a party at the presidential palace he was talking to a Bishop; the General unbuttoned his fly and pulled out his penis, saying, "If God is the man you say he is, let him bring this monster back to life." For some reason I always thought that was funny.

For the record #2: I do not see myself as the Owl Jolson in a negative comparison with you as the Simple Simon stutterer, Greg. (In case that was a further issue you thought might be referencing criticism of you) Laughing  thanks for the laughs by the way, take care

dwdunn(akaDan)

Posts : 304
Join date : 2013-06-22
Age : 53
Location : among the hills of southern Indiana, USA

View user profile http://xefdisposable.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by greg parker on Sat 26 Apr 2014, 3:46 pm

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:
greg parker wrote:
Dan wrote:The best we can do is try to provide some example that they can meaningfully admire -- maybe even cling to, along with clearing away as much bullshit as we're able to. If God were the man people say he is, this world should've been different; but it's not.

Dan, I can understand the sentiment behind your words, but it also conjures up images of our great-great grandchildren still debating this case. 

I said in a previous post that I do whatever I have to do - and that will include solving this case. I didn't say that lightly. But nor did I mean to indicate no one else can, or that it depends on me.  

I'd like to move on to other things - indeed - there was talk - not initiated by me - about doing that before all this erupted. 

I just find saying things like "The best we can do is..." a bit self-defeating. 

Unless we believe that someone somewhere somehow can solve this thing, or get the case reopened, it's just a parlor game. 

And when I say I can and will solve it - it's because I largely already have. I know I won't get universal acceptance of that. There just are no "smoking guns" (and let's face it, there are still those who say OJ was innocent). But the case I have against certain people would be enough to have them indicted, and that's good enough for me.

Will I have done this alone?  Hell no. You are right saying that others have laid a foundation and pointed the way - and in some cases, very specifically helped. I'm not after glory - just closure and the short-circuiting of any need for my children's children to have to still be at this. 

If someone beats me to it, I'll be just as happy.
Greg, you seem to have found far, far more of a personal nature -- a personal critique -- than I .......... well, I can't even say than I intended; because I wasn't thinking of you much less of a critique of you or anything about you in what I wrote to Lee. There was no intention towards you whatsoever, so I'm not sure if I should comment further, other than to say that naturally I find it funny, and a little bit psychologically revealing. I did have to read it more than twice, though, before I moved from being mystified to being amused.

But since you've put me in a good mood, I'll hazard some replies.

Greg wrote:Dan, I can understand the sentiment behind your words, but it also conjures up images of our great-great grandchildren still debating this case.
I was not referencing "this case" -- the John F. Kennedy murder case. My response to Lee mostly involved the frustrations and head-spinning that goes with involvement in forums, and also to some extent research in general. (Are you fishing for me to say critical things about how people are obsessed with "JFK" to the exclusion of pretty much everything else? I accept that for what it is, since nothing can be done about it. People will just miss out on Stan's musical selections, or even to something I'm fairly proud of myself.

Greg further wrote:I said in a previous post that I do whatever I have to do - and that will include solving this case. I didn't say that lightly. But nor did I mean to indicate no one else can, or that it depends on me.
Lee suggested that he felt punch-drunk and exhausted, that too many fights take their toll. I've been there and frankly am never too far from being there again. The comment was directly to Lee, and indirectly to anyone else who has gotten so bound up in "all this" (forums, research) that they can't extricate themselves from it (for the good of their own mental health), in large part because they think "so much depends on me." I literally have no idea why you'd think I was in any way referring to you specifically.

Greg additionally wrote:I'd like to move on to other things - indeed - there was talk - not initiated by me - about doing that before all this erupted.
I'm not sure what you mean by "other things" or "all this (erupted)." I assume you mean the forum discussions moving on from this "Lunchroom" thread as a single depository for a variety of discussions, and all that's associated with it (everything that occurred bringing it about)? That's fine with me. But that's more up to Richard and Lee at this point, and if they're going to continue to raise issues that they and others feel like commenting on, I think it's much better to get it all out in the open than, let's say, hide it away in "In-House Issues." I have a very specific reason for being opposed to that proposed alternative anyway, which I'll share privately with you and Hasan unless circumstances result that allow me to address it publicly (which I would prefer). At any rate, I myself have finally started moving on again with my own blog-work; I was ironically in the midst of that when I found your reply after checking in and found I once again needed to reply in this thread.

Greg morever wrote:I just find saying things like "The best we can do is..." a bit self-defeating.

Unless we believe that someone somewhere somehow can solve this thing, or get the case reopened, it's just a parlor game.
I don't agree with that last part. While I was writing my reply to Lee I had to resist my tendency to keep running on and on (talking about for instance Albert Camus' ideas about having "solidarity with the vanquished [in history]"). Maybe it's my reading of history, or my "artist's soul," but some time ago I had to come to the realization that "success" is not necessarily measured in one's own lifetime. So solving "this thing" by "someone somewhere somehow" is definitely hoped for and believed in here; I just acknowledge that it may not happen until our generation is gone (i.e., "somewhen"). The same way I acknowledge that what I've had to say about John the Baptist or Robert Kennedy's murder may not be considered of any significance until after I'm gone.

But of course you're specifically referring to the John Kennedy murder case, apparently under the impression that I was too. So I doubt that any further comment would help, especially since it would probably take me about 5 pages to spell out and "explain myself." But whatever may result, I don't think what people are doing "here" (involved in this kind of research) is "just a parlor game." If it is, then I among others are wasting still more time and should hit the door ourselves. I don't think that's what you meant anyway, so I'll stop wondering which of us is the real pessimist here.

Greg finally wrote:And when I say I can and will solve it - it's because I largely already have. I know I won't get universal acceptance of that. There just are no "smoking guns" (and let's face it, there are still those who say OJ was innocent). But the case I have against certain people would be enough to have them indicted, and that's good enough for me.

Will I have done this alone?  Hell no. You are right saying that others have laid a foundation and pointed the way - and in some cases, very specifically helped. I'm not after glory - just closure and the short-circuiting of any need for my children's children to have to still be at this.

If someone beats me to it, I'll be just as happy.
You seem to have a lot of confidence for someone who's not a science OR history major. It's good enough for me too, Greg, and I'm only taking you at your word. Since I'm fairly sure your comments are the result of a misunderstanding about what I had to say and who I was directing it to (Lee Farley), I feel happy to be spared of having to spend still more time writing about how you'd be less confident and positive if you were in the United States where the current Supreme Court is ensuring the success of plutocracy and doing away with the concept of civil rights for non-white persons.

In closing, I do think I need to go on record for more clarification purposes.

For the record #1: the phrase "If God were the man people say he is" is not actually plagiarized, but it is a paraphrase from Gabriel Garcia-Marquez's The Autumn of the Patriarch. The General (the Patriarch of the title) was impotent: at a party at the presidential palace he was talking to a Bishop; the General unbuttoned his fly and pulled out his penis, saying, "If God is the man you say he is, let him bring this monster back to life." For some reason I always thought that was funny.

For the record #2: I do not see myself as the Owl Jolson in a negative comparison with you as the Simple Simon stutterer, Greg. (In case that was a further issue you thought might be referencing criticism of you) Laughing  thanks for the laughs by the way, take care
Dan, I wasn't taking anything you said personally. I will flag with you if I ever actually do take anything you say personally. Just saying that certain generalized statements can come across as self-defeating. I jump on ANYTHING I see as being in that light. I see that attitude of "we will never" know" or not in our lifetime" and my immediate reaction is to try and nip it in the bud. 

I get that forums and those who from time to time inhabit them, can be a bitch. And I 100% agree that Lee is doing himself no good service in being "half in" when he is by his own words, feeling punch-drunk from it all. 

Yes, it was my assumption that you were referring to the JFK case in the quoted comments. That is the main topic here and in other forums Lee had been to. 

Yes, I have a lot of belief in my ability as a researcher. In other ways, in other areas, I have a lot of shortcomings. I know my strengths and limitations. I didn't mean for that to be offensive to anyone. I said what I mean, and I mean what I said. No more, no less.    

You don't have to believe that I have, or will solve this case. I'd prefer you to be skeptical and try and punch holes in what I put out. My book is heavily cited for that reason - to make it easy for those interested, to check my information. If it stands up, so much the better. But really... you think scientists and historians are our only hope?

Scientists? 

Like those who come up with 500 variations on the meaning of the acoustic evidence, the autopsy report, the filmic record, and the ballistics?

Historians?
Like the plagiarist, and inventor of quotes, Stephen Ambrose?

Like Dalek, who contorted and twisted and lied about the oral history of  Barbara Gamarekian in order to prop up the lies of Mimi Alford?

Like Manchester, who said at the start of his book he would start with a clean slate and let the evidence lead where it may - and then launches immediately into painting a portrait of Oswald as Lone Nut - in fact using negative language about him from the get-go?  

The Owl Jolson cartoon was a hoot and I did not watch it matching characters to participants here. Sorry. 

Okay - Ahoy! And back to the Great White Whale hunt.

Or maybe I'll just harpoon that elephant hiding under a lampshade in the corner... 

ps I don't know for certain why we have such misunderstandings in our communications, but I suspect at least one of us over-thinks the situation.

Can't be me. I'm too godamn perfect.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3448
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by dwdunn(akaDan) on Sat 26 Apr 2014, 4:12 pm

greg parker wrote:

I get that forums and those who from time to time inhabit them, can be a bitch. And I 100% agree that Lee is doing himself no good service in being "half in" when he is by his own words, feeling punch-drunk from it all. 

Yes, it was my assumption that you were referring to the JFK case in the quoted comments. That is the main topic here and in other forums Lee had been to. 

Yes, I have a lot of belief in my ability as a researcher. In other ways, in other areas, I have a lot of shortcomings. I know my strengths and limitations. I didn't mean for that to be offensive to anyone. I said what I mean, and I mean what I said. No more, no less.    

You don't have to believe that I have, or will solve this case. I'd prefer you to be skeptical and try and punch holes in what I put out. My book is heavily cited for that reason - to make it easy for those interested, to check my information. If it stands up, so much the better. But really... you think scientists and historians are our only hope?

Scientists? 

Like those who come up with 500 variations on the meaning of the acoustic evidence, the autopsy report, the filmic record, and the ballistics?

Historians?
Like the plagiarist, and inventor of quotes, Stephen Ambrose?

Like Dalek, who contorted and twisted and lied about the oral history of  Barbara Gamarekian in order to prop up the lies of Mimi Alford?

Like Manchester, who said at the start of his book he would start with a clean slate and let the evidence lead where it may - and then launches immediately into painting a portrait of Oswald as Lone Nut - in fact using negative language about him from the get-go?  

The Owl Jolson cartoon was a hoot and I did not watch it matching characters to participants here. Sorry. 

Okay - Ahoy! And back to the Great White Whale hunt.

Or maybe I'll just harpoon that elephant hiding under a lampshade in the corner... 

ps I don't know for certain why we have such misunderstandings in our communications, but I suspect at least one of us over-thinks the situation.

Can't be me. I'm too godamn perfect.
Wow. Gilbride makes derogatory and typically superior comment about Walt Brown being merely a history major as opposed to a science major; I make stupid comment referencing that, and off you go.

I make similar stupid comment referencing the cartoon and you take that seriously also. "Sorry."

You deny taking things personally, and yet your tone reveals otherwise, again.

I have no idea what voices whose messages you're listening to, but obviously not mine. I would guess possibly mr. ianlloyd, who has previously made know the standards he would like to see followed regarding what should and should not be discussed. And now trying to get this thread moved off to the no-man's land. Hide what is critical of Josephs or Jeffries or DPF, and hide this as well. Quieter is better, I suppose. I guess that's what's wanted.

You have no need to "flag" me on anything, boss. You aren't my boss.

dwdunn(akaDan)

Posts : 304
Join date : 2013-06-22
Age : 53
Location : among the hills of southern Indiana, USA

View user profile http://xefdisposable.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by greg parker on Sat 26 Apr 2014, 5:16 pm

Wow is right, Dan.

Let's start with this. When I say I'll flag you, I mean I will say so (that I am taking something you said personally) in my reply (unless of course, my reply itself is making that abundantly clear). How does that get taken as an indication of some sort of employer/employee relationship? Or is that another joke that's going over my head?

I don't, as a general rule, take things personally that were not directed at me. But any perceived negativity about never knowing what happened is a red flag to a bull. I can't let it pass without addressing it. If my perception about it was wrong, I unreservedly apologize. What did not happen, was me having any sense that you were referencing me in those comments. 

That brings us to what I may take personally - that is, comments directed to me as in a direct reply. Had I actually read RG's comments about historians, I may have got "it" - and yes - not taken you quite as seriously - but taking something seriously is not always a good indicator that it was taken as an affront. I believe people have the right to believe whatever and whoever they want to believe. That doesn't mean it can't be addressed - especially when having nothing to tell me that your comment was no more than an oblique reference to a post I hadn't read. 

Insert humorously appropriate picture/video here which may or may not contain traces of irony, nuts, transparencies, wheatgerm and glucose. 

p.s. I was actually going to put up a video of Clarence Henry -- until I realized that the name of his song was not "I don't know why I like you, but I do" The real song title is just going a tad too far.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3448
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Terry W. Martin on Sat 26 Apr 2014, 7:19 pm

Perhaps this thread should be retitled "The Breakfast Club Revisited". It does not seem to be moving the investigation along appreciably but it is having a wonderful bonding effect for the members and general readership.

As Mel Gibson's character in Signs said, "Everyone's getting a little tense, we should all just eat some fruit" or something like that. There was a comment several posts back (I think, I went back to try and find it but it's presence escapes me... if it wasn't just my imagination) that many people take comments one way when they were meant another, or they take it personally when such was not intended. This thread has become a perfect example, if any such were needed. Greg and Dan have both demonstrated this perfectly. (Oh, language, thou art a fickle beast!)

I am anxiously awaiting Greg's book to tell us what he has discovered on the case - that which convinces him of the truth of it - even more than most of the books I have read over the years that promised to do the same thing (and fail miserably) because I have followed a lot of his thinking in these forums. I'm not certain but I think the result will be pretty nifty.

But that's just me, I suppose, as others (like Richard) feel it is more important to beat on their chest to prove the second floor encounter really DID happen!! (As if it really has any sort of bearing on the case to begin with IMO - though many believe it does.)

I have been involved with a lot of different forums going back for far too many years to count and this one has more going for it than most I have seen. It has a seriously dedicated researcher and a bevy of mates to support and challenge his research and something that none other has been able to produce: Stan Dane's wit. (creator of the Canadian White Tail wearing fez genus.)

That said, let's wrap up the bonding, have a group hug, and get back to work.

Unless, of course, there is someone else who needs to get something off their chest. I, also, would like to have this thing (i.e. JFK case) wrapped up before we put my great-grandchildren through this same excruciating torture.

Cheers!  cheers

Terry W. Martin

Posts : 690
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 65
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

View user profile http://martianpublishing.com

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Sun 27 Apr 2014, 12:40 am

"I'm having to assume here as I can only read the description of the YouTube video posted -- but given the fact your avatar is a photograph of a tiger and the video is of a tiger attack are you hinting that you now want to eat some of us?"

I think he needs to go get himself some professional psychiatric help.

Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1784
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Guest on Sun 27 Apr 2014, 11:26 am

Hasan, I invite you to show some table manners, rather than the ad hominems you delight in lately. You read me wrong time and time again. My arrogance in the post about Walt Brown's idea about the Powell photo being taken earlier shows I took the time to check with some simple calculations, something he should have done, before putting that idea out. That's what scientific training will give you. And you, sir, as a benefit, will never have to spend 10 minutes of research contemplating whether Brown's idea was correct.

The lunacy in me is in taking on the cult, the true believers, those who don't think the lunchroom incident ever happened. Because those true believers are the true lunatics, who can't accept concrete evidence that their hypothesis is incorrect, even with that evidence is dropped at their feet and thoroughly explained to them.

This is as poisonous a belief system as the single-bullet theory and the casket-switch theory. It needs a thorough dressing down. We can't be afraid of using critical analysis to take hypotheses and "rake them through the coals." And that's what's coming for the lunchroom non-event hypothesis. And Sean Murphy's west elevator postulate, which is included in my essay. Probably this post will push your buttons? And earn a further insult from you? I've been through numerous battles over the years and don't intimidate easily. I've earned my stripes. Don't over-rate yours. Show some respect.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Terry W. Martin on Sun 27 Apr 2014, 12:47 pm

Richard Gilbride wrote:Hasan, I invite you to show some table manners, rather than the ad hominems you delight in lately. You read me wrong time and time again. My arrogance in the post about Walt Brown's idea about the Powell photo being taken earlier shows I took the time to check with some simple calculations, something he should have done, before putting that idea out. That's what scientific training will give you. And you,  sir, as a benefit, will never have to spend 10 minutes of research contemplating whether Brown's idea was correct.

The lunacy in me is in taking on the cult, the true believers, those who don't think the lunchroom incident ever happened. Because those true believers are the true lunatics, who can't accept concrete evidence that their hypothesis is incorrect, even with that evidence is dropped at their feet and thoroughly explained to them.

This is as poisonous a belief system as the single-bullet theory and the casket-switch theory. It needs a thorough dressing down. We can't be afraid of using critical analysis to take hypotheses and "rake them through the coals." And that's what's coming for the lunchroom non-event hypothesis. And Sean Murphy's west elevator postulate, which is included in my essay. Probably this post will push your buttons? And earn a further insult from you? I've been through numerous battles over the years and don't intimidate easily. I've earned my stripes. Don't over-rate yours. Show some respect.

Richard, no disrespect meant here but you seem to be dishing as much of what you're accusing others of doing.

Rather than command that others show you some respect, why don't you earn it by practicing what you are preaching. From what I have seen from you lately, your comments certainly haven't warranted any respect from me. (I will not speak for others.)

Specificity is marvelous and boasting is something far less. You mentioned your wonderful degrees - philosophy was one, I believe? - but I have yet to see much of any of that in your posts.

Hopefully, that will improve. Perhaps when your proof is revealed we may all, indeed, bow at your feet. Until then, try acting a little less of a know-it-all.

Thanks.

Terry W. Martin

Posts : 690
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 65
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

View user profile http://martianpublishing.com

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Redfern on Sun 27 Apr 2014, 5:19 pm

Richard Gilbride wrote:Hasan, I invite you to show some table manners, rather than the ad hominems you delight in lately. You read me wrong time and time again. My arrogance in the post about Walt Brown's idea about the Powell photo being taken earlier shows I took the time to check with some simple calculations, something he should have done, before putting that idea out. That's what scientific training will give you. And you,  sir, as a benefit, will never have to spend 10 minutes of research contemplating whether Brown's idea was correct.

The lunacy in me is in taking on the cult, the true believers, those who don't think the lunchroom incident ever happened. Because those true believers are the true lunatics, who can't accept concrete evidence that their hypothesis is incorrect, even with that evidence is dropped at their feet and thoroughly explained to them.

This is as poisonous a belief system as the single-bullet theory and the casket-switch theory. It needs a thorough dressing down. We can't be afraid of using critical analysis to take hypotheses and "rake them through the coals." And that's what's coming for the lunchroom non-event hypothesis. And Sean Murphy's west elevator postulate, which is included in my essay. Probably this post will push your buttons? And earn a further insult from you? I've been through numerous battles over the years and don't intimidate easily. I've earned my stripes. Don't over-rate yours. Show some respect.

Forming the view that Oswald was deep inside the TSBD entrance as the shots rang out no more adheres to a ‘belief system’ than concluding he was in the second-floor lunchroom or on the sixth-floor firing bullets.

Arguably, it is considerably less of a belief system because the latter two scenarios have become ingrained in the consciousnesses of many researchers and students over the past half century and there is naturally much resistance to having these challenged.

It is a trifle unfair to blame people for not accepting ‘concrete evidence’ that the second floor lunchroom encounter is an indisputable fact when this evidence has not as yet been presented.

Sean Murphy’s case that Oswald was the figure known as ‘Prayer Man’ is in no way dependent on the choreography within the building in the few minutes following the assassination. It is perfectly possible to accept that Oswald was Prayer Man while disagreeing with his arguments concerning elevator movements and the like.

As someone who is more of an observer of than a participant in the debates that surround the assassination of President Kennedy, it strikes me as surprising how many researchers have ignored the possibility that several TSBD employees were participants in the crime.

Redfern

Posts : 83
Join date : 2013-08-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Terry W. Martin on Sun 27 Apr 2014, 9:57 pm

Redfern wrote:As someone who is more of an observer of than a participant in the debates that surround the assassination of President Kennedy, it strikes me as surprising how many researchers have ignored the possibility that several TSBD employees were participants in the crime.

Nicely said, Redfern.

Most researchers seem to ignore that possibility. Just as most researchers seem to think Oswald was only at the TSBD for a lousy paycheck.

Is it not possible that those questionable persons in the TSBD were the very reason Oswald was there to begin with? If those being watched were smart enough to figure that part out, of course they would be active in setting him up for the crime.

In the world of intelligence, disinformation underlies every picture we can see of the operation and it is why nothing seems to jibe properly...

Does that make sense, or am I rambling again? (maybe I better check to see if I have taken my pills)

Terry W. Martin

Posts : 690
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 65
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

View user profile http://martianpublishing.com

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Redfern on Sun 27 Apr 2014, 10:29 pm

terlin wrote:
Redfern wrote:As someone who is more of an observer of than a participant in the debates that surround the assassination of President Kennedy, it strikes me as surprising how many researchers have ignored the possibility that several TSBD employees were participants in the crime.

Nicely said, Redfern.

Most researchers seem to ignore that possibility. Just as most researchers seem to think Oswald was only at the TSBD for a lousy paycheck.

Is it not possible that those questionable persons in the TSBD were the very reason Oswald was there to begin with? If those being watched were smart enough to figure that part out, of course they would be active in setting him up for the crime.

In the world of intelligence, disinformation underlies every picture we can see of the operation and it is why nothing seems to jibe properly...

Does that make sense, or am I rambling again? (maybe I better check to see if I have taken my pills)

The case that Oswald was an informer for some government agency seems by far the most plausible explanation.

I doubt very much that people inside the TSBD would set Oswald up on their own volition. This was orchestrated at a much higher level.

Redfern

Posts : 83
Join date : 2013-08-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Mon 28 Apr 2014, 12:56 am

Richard, no disrespect meant here but you seem to be dishing as much of what you're accusing others of doing.

Rather than command that others show you some respect, why don't you earn it by practicing what you are preaching. From what I have seen from you lately, your comments certainly haven't warranted any respect from me. (I will not speak for others.)

Specificity is marvelous and boasting is something far less. You mentioned your wonderful degrees - philosophy was one, I believe? - but I have yet to see much of any of that in your posts.

Hopefully, that will improve. Perhaps when your proof is revealed we may all, indeed, bow at your feet. Until then, try acting a little less of a know-it-all.

Thanks.


Well said, terlin. Gilbride can stick his demand that I show some respect to him where I told him to stick his You Tube videos. How much of an egotistical maniac is this prick? He now insults Greg and others by writing;

"The lunacy in me is in taking on the cult, the true believers, those who don't think the lunchroom incident ever happened. Because those true believers are the true lunatics, who can't accept concrete evidence that their hypothesis is incorrect, even with that evidence is dropped at their feet and thoroughly explained to them" "

He then actually has the audacity to write;

"Probably this post will push your buttons? And earn a further insult from you?"

Yeah, no kidding. When you act like a condescending prick towards the forum owner and others, you will cop it because you DESERVE IT. If poor Gilbride is upset with me, might I suggest he stop being disrespectful towards those who don't believe in the lunchroom encounter, and not to EVER reply to me. As for his accusation that I take delight in abusing him, he can go fuck himself. I take no pleasure in doing so. I only do it because he DESERVES IT.

Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1784
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by greg parker on Mon 28 Apr 2014, 9:03 am

Mr T and Red, your instincts are pretty damn good.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3448
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Ray Mitcham on Mon 28 Apr 2014, 4:43 pm

Redfern wrote:
terlin wrote:
Redfern wrote:As someone who is more of an observer of than a participant in the debates that surround the assassination of President Kennedy, it strikes me as surprising how many researchers have ignored the possibility that several TSBD employees were participants in the crime.

Nicely said, Redfern.

Most researchers seem to ignore that possibility. Just as most researchers seem to think Oswald was only at the TSBD for a lousy paycheck.

Is it not possible that those questionable persons in the TSBD were the very reason Oswald was there to begin with? If those being watched were smart enough to figure that part out, of course they would be active in setting him up for the crime.

In the world of intelligence, disinformation underlies every picture we can see of the operation and it is why nothing seems to jibe properly...

Does that make sense, or am I rambling again? (maybe I better check to see if I have taken my pills)

The case that Oswald was an informer for some government agency seems by far the most plausible explanation.

I doubt very much that people inside the TSBD would set Oswald up on their own volition. This was orchestrated at a much higher level.
Where did I read that Oswald was possibly working for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms? The firearms part would certainly tie in with the number of weapons allegedly found in the DPD.

Ray Mitcham

Posts : 24
Join date : 2012-07-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by beowulf on Tue 29 Apr 2014, 6:27 am

There was no Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (BATF) in 1963-- at least not with that name. This organization (which started out as the Prohibition Bureau) gets reorganized and bounced between the Treasury Dept and Justice Dept every 20 years or so, since 2003 its actually been split up.  Half in Justice and called Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the other half still in Treasury and called Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (govt gets bigger and the names get longer). In 1963 it was in Treasury and called the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the IRS.  Sorry for the digression, but the  way the US Govt is organized with no rhyme or reason fascinates me.

beowulf

Posts : 364
Join date : 2013-04-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by beowulf on Tue 29 Apr 2014, 6:55 am

Interesting back and forth at EF between Larry Hancock and Bill Kelly about the Stroud letter. Bill asks a good question, are there any Garner interviews available?
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21152&page=2#entry286491

beowulf

Posts : 364
Join date : 2013-04-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Terry W. Martin on Tue 29 Apr 2014, 9:48 am

beowulf wrote:Interesting back and forth at EF between Larry Hancock and Bill Kelly about the Stroud letter. Bill asks a good question, are there any Garner interviews available?
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21152&page=2#entry286491

Beowulf,

Thanks for the link, an interesting discussion. I do not know if there are any Garner interviews anywhere but I did notice a link in that thread to another thread - Oswald Leaving the TSBD?

At that point in the thread, Sean is talking about the dating of the statements by Truly, Baker, and Fritz. The statements could be taken to mean that Truly and Baker were descending when they ran into a fellow on the fourth floor though it is most often is taken to mean the pair was ascending. But perhaps that is cleared up elsewhere.

Then Sean says "Was Oswald set up as the sixth floor shooter by the murderers of President Kennedy? I think it's highly doubtful. The framing of Oswald as triggerman seems to have been the priority of the 'investigating' authorities not the conspirators themselves.
     "I reckon Truly, Reid & Campbell were innocent parties who were subjected to massive pressure to play ball with the Oswald Alone conclusion that was decided upon within hours of the assassination."

I would agree with the first part of that, but Truly being an "innocent party"? That's gonna take some thinking.

Terry W. Martin

Posts : 690
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 65
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

View user profile http://martianpublishing.com

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by greg parker on Tue 29 Apr 2014, 10:49 am

terlin wrote:
beowulf wrote:Interesting back and forth at EF between Larry Hancock and Bill Kelly about the Stroud letter. Bill asks a good question, are there any Garner interviews available?
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21152&page=2#entry286491

Beowulf,

Thanks for the link, an interesting discussion. I do not know if there are any Garner interviews anywhere but I did notice a link in that thread to another thread - Oswald Leaving the TSBD?

At that point in the thread, Sean is talking about the dating of the statements by Truly, Baker, and Fritz. The statements could be taken to mean that Truly and Baker were descending when they ran into a fellow on the fourth floor though it is most often is taken to mean the pair was ascending. But perhaps that is cleared up elsewhere.

Then Sean says "Was Oswald set up as the sixth floor shooter by the murderers of President Kennedy? I think it's highly doubtful. The framing of Oswald as triggerman seems to have been the priority of the 'investigating' authorities not the conspirators themselves.
     "I reckon Truly, Reid & Campbell were innocent parties who were subjected to massive pressure to play ball with the Oswald Alone conclusion that was decided upon within hours of the assassination."

I would agree with the first part of that, but Truly being an "innocent party"? That's gonna take some thinking.
The descending part, and his defense of Truly are two areas where Sean and I diverge. Truly was the inside man, and there is sufficient evidence now to back this up (imo - obviously not Sean's), let alone anything anyone might come up with in the future. Sean is open to persuasion however, and is among the most honest and principled of researchers. If what anyone may come up with in the future doesn't sway him on this, I don't know what it would take.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3448
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by beowulf on Tue 29 Apr 2014, 12:31 pm

Depending on the day of the week, I agree with Sean or Greg. I think the heart of the matter is how did Officer Baker get to the 5th floor?

If Baker ran past Oswald at front door and took the elevator up (as Sean argues) then Truly seems clean.

If  Baker ran past Oswald at front door but met someone on the 3rd or 4th floor (as Greg argues-- reflecting Baker's day 1 affidavit) then  Truly seem dirty. 1. It was only on Truly's say-so that  3rd/4th floor suspect was freed.  2.  Its hard to believe a building manager (especially one as old as Truly) would be running up stairs ahead of cop towards a suspected gunman unless his job was running interference.

beowulf

Posts : 364
Join date : 2013-04-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Guest on Tue 29 Apr 2014, 1:00 pm

beowulf wrote:Depending on the day of the week, I agree with Sean or Greg. I think the heart of the matter is how did Officer Baker get to the 5th floor?

If Baker ran past Oswald at front door and took the elevator up (as Sean argues) then Truly seems clean.

If  Baker ran past Oswald at front door but met someone on the 3rd or 4th floor (as Greg argues-- reflecting Baker's day 1 affidavit) then  Truly seem dirty. 1. It was only on Truly's say-so that  3rd/4th floor suspect was freed.  2.  Its hard to believe a building manager (especially one as old as Truly) would be running up stairs ahead of cop towards a suspected gunman unless his job was running interference.
I always thought it odd that Truly was ahead of Baker. He offered to do this after the elevators didn't come down. They eventually did and whoever brought them down may have gotten away with murder. Bumping into Oswald on the 2nd diverts attention from the lifts and the only way we know they did bump into Oswald is through Truly who identified him.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by greg parker on Tue 29 Apr 2014, 1:19 pm

beowulf wrote wrote:Depending on the day of the week, I agree with Sean or Greg. I think the heart of the matter is how did Officer Baker get to the 5th floor?

If Baker ran past Oswald at front door and took the elevator up (as Sean argues) then Truly seems clean.

If  Baker ran past Oswald at front door but met someone on the 3rd or 4th floor (as Greg argues-- reflecting Baker's day 1 affidavit) then  Truly seem dirty. 1. It was only on Truly's say-so that  3rd/4th floor suspect was freed.  2.  Its hard to believe a building manager (especially one as old as Truly) would be running up stairs ahead of cop towards a suspected gunman unless his job was running interference.

Paul Klein wrote wrote:I always thought it odd that Truly was ahead of Baker. He offered to do this after the elevators didn't come down. They eventually did and whoever brought them down may have gotten away with murder. Bumping into Oswald on the 2nd diverts attention from the lifts and the only way we know they did bump into Oswald is through Truly who identified him.


What day of the week is it right now, Mr B?

Truly told the commission he ran ahead because he was "trying to show the officer the pathway up." Really? A cop can't find his way up alone, and Truly has no fear of running smack bang into a fleeing assassin?

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3448
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Colin Crow on Tue 29 Apr 2014, 1:26 pm

Paul Klein wrote:
beowulf wrote:Depending on the day of the week, I agree with Sean or Greg. I think the heart of the matter is how did Officer Baker get to the 5th floor?

If Baker ran past Oswald at front door and took the elevator up (as Sean argues) then Truly seems clean.

If  Baker ran past Oswald at front door but met someone on the 3rd or 4th floor (as Greg argues-- reflecting Baker's day 1 affidavit) then  Truly seem dirty. 1. It was only on Truly's say-so that  3rd/4th floor suspect was freed.  2.  Its hard to believe a building manager (especially one as old as Truly) would be running up stairs ahead of cop towards a suspected gunman unless his job was running interference.
I always thought it odd that Truly was ahead of Baker. He offered to do this after the elevators didn't come down. They eventually did and whoever brought them down may have gotten away with murder. Bumping into Oswald on the 2nd diverts attention from the lifts and the only way we know they did bump into Oswald is through Truly who identified him.
The senario as presented by the final WC version has issues. If Truly is leading the way up to the second floor it is presumably to facilitate Baker getting to the roof asap. The stairway was discontinuous and one can argue that Tuly leading Baker makes some sense ( for the first floor or so anyway) as Baker is unfamiliar with the stairs. However we are expected to believe that Baker does not follow Truly at the top of the stairs and wanders some distance to the right of the pillar. This allows him to see Oswald walk from right to left through the window in the vestibule door. Why this was deemed suspicious by the roof-focussed Baker, who knows.
 
As an aside Truly is truly brave. charging upstairs with a guntoting cop in trail. They already had one collision at the swinging door. Not to mention him leading the way upward, likely towards a similarly gun-toting assassin.
 
The WC version has Oswald charging down the stairs and ducking into the vestibule to avoid detection. There can be no case mounted for a lunchroom alibi senario if there are no witnesses so let's no go there. How stupid of Oswald to avoid detection by whoever is running up the stairs by waiting at the door and then going into the lunchroom allowing himself to be seen by someone who should not have seen him if rushing up the stairs!
 
I would suggest that if Oswald was PM it was not impossible for him to have taken the front stairs around the time Baker and Truly charge towards the elevators. It is not impossible for him to have crossed the second floor and be seen by Baker through the window. In this senario Oswald would be unaware that the men took the stairs instead of the elevator. If Oswald was PM, what possible motivation could he have for going back into the building and to the vestibule door? Let's open our minds.

Colin Crow

Posts : 214
Join date : 2013-08-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Colin Crow on Tue 29 Apr 2014, 1:34 pm

beowulf wrote:Depending on the day of the week, I agree with Sean or Greg. I think the heart of the matter is how did Officer Baker get to the 5th floor?

If Baker ran past Oswald at front door and took the elevator up (as Sean argues) then Truly seems clean.

If  Baker ran past Oswald at front door but met someone on the 3rd or 4th floor (as Greg argues-- reflecting Baker's day 1 affidavit) then  Truly seem dirty. 1. It was only on Truly's say-so that  3rd/4th floor suspect was freed.  2.  Its hard to believe a building manager (especially one as old as Truly) would be running up stairs ahead of cop towards a suspected gunman unless his job was running interference.
 
Encountering a suspect on the 4th floor seems unlikely given the number of women employees in the vicinity. Anyone say Garner for instance? Also i believe the room in the South west corner did not have a solid wall and the staircase would be visible to the two women (?) at that position. I think this point was discovered by Tony Fratini and was discussed on Duncan's forum.

Colin Crow

Posts : 214
Join date : 2013-08-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Post by Sponsored content Today at 8:57 am


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 22 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 13 ... 22  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum