REOPENKENNEDYCASE
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
ROKC IS NOW CLOSED AND IS READ ONLY. WE THANK THOSE WHO HAVE SUPPORTED US OVER THE LAST 14 YEARS.


Search
Display results as :
Advanced Search
Similar topics
Latest topics
Brian says...Sat 30 Dec 2023, 4:33 pmEd.Ledoux
last drinks before the bar closesSat 30 Dec 2023, 2:46 pmTony Krome
The Mystery of Dirk Thomas KunertSat 30 Dec 2023, 1:23 pmTony Krome
Vickie AdamsSat 30 Dec 2023, 1:14 pmgreg_parker
Busted again: Tex ItaliaSat 30 Dec 2023, 9:22 amEd.Ledoux
The Raleigh CallSat 30 Dec 2023, 4:33 ambarto
Was Oswald ever confronted with the physical rifle?Sat 30 Dec 2023, 12:03 amCastroSimp
Who Dat? Fri 29 Dec 2023, 10:24 pmTony Krome
Log in
Social bookmarking
Social bookmarking reddit      

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

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

11  tsbd  paine  +Lankford  Humor  David  3a  Lankford  Theory  fritz  Lifton  hosty  Weigman  Mason  prayer  doyle  3  2  frazier  9  Floor  tippit  4  Darnell  beckley  zapruder  

Like/Tweet/+1

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

+21
Mick_Purdy
Goban_Saor
bernie laverick
Vinny
Faroe Islander
Redfern
Mark A. O'Blazney
ianlloyd
Ray Mitcham
Albert Rossi
Colin_Crow
Frankie Vegas
Hasan Yusuf
John Mooney
TerryWMartin
dwdunn(akaDan)
Admin_2
gerrrycam
beowulf
StanDane
greg_parker
25 posters
Go down
avatar
Guest
Guest

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 13 Empty The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Wed 02 Apr 2014, 7:42 pm
First topic message reminder :

I want to begin by focusing on the notorious vestibule door, with the plate-glass window, that Baker first glimpsed Oswald looking through. It's WC Exhibit 498, at XVII p. 213, and even in the Warren volumes you can easily discern the fresh grain pattern in the wood. First Day Evidence, on p. 286, is even clearer.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0120a.htm

Very probably this was a new door, installed during the late 1962 overhaul, when the Sexton Grocery warehouse was remodeled to accommodate the TSBD company and several other publishers. By the way, Sexton had its offices on the 1st & 2nd floors and very likely used the same lunchroom that we all know so well. The vestibule door had an automatic closing device, and Truly had to come in and make a special affidavit about that on August 3rd (WCH VII p. 591). It took several seconds to close. This device was probably pneumatic.

This vestibule door had some weight to it. It was sturdy. It could be described as heavy-duty. Installing it was a 2-man job. In comparison, the doors to the up & down flights of stairs were downright flimsy. (Same link as above, but page 217). These stairwell doors were normally open during the course of the day, as was the lunchroom door (WCD 496, p. 32). The vestibule door closed by itself and was always in the closed position, if not in use.

The vestibule door helped muffle the sounds from the landing and stairwell, so that people in the lunchroom could eat in relative peace & quiet. The stairs were old and quite noisy and the landing floors were wood. Warehouse workers habitually came up to use the lunchroom Coke machine. And office workers also came down from the 3rd  & 4th floors, human nature being what it is, rather than wait impatiently at lunchtime for the passenger elevator. For example, Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles' run down the stairs on November 22nd wasn't their first experience on them. They instinctively knew they could head for the corner stairwell when they discovered the passenger elevator wasn't operating.

Considering the potential for irritable human traffic, the vestibule door kept disturbing sounds to a reasonable minimum. It was installed with that purpose in mind.

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

Adams & Styles watched the motorcade from their 4th-floor office window overlooking Elm Street. Adams estimated the time it took them to reach the 1st floor, after the shots, was "no longer than a minute at the most." She confirmed to author Barry Ernest that she left the window just before the limousine reached the Triple Underpass (The Girl on the Stairs p. 329).

The first point that needs to be appreciated is that Adams & Styles could not have beaten Truly & Baker to the freight elevators. Even if these women made it to the 1st floor in 60 seconds, Truly & Baker had 60 seconds to make it only as far as the will-call counter, or just a bit further into the warehouse, to see the women across the floor. And Adams & Styles continued running in front of the freight elevators for the rear door. Even the most sluggard time estimate for Truly & Baker brings them onto the warehouse floor well before Adams & Styles. And in one re-enactment they made it to the 2nd-floor lunchroom in 75 seconds.

The second point is that Adams' & Styles' supervisor, Dorothy Garner, stated for the record that after they went downstairs, she saw Truly & Baker come up. The purpose of Garner's statement was to refute the WC argument that Adams must have gone downstairs several minutes after the shots, because otherwise she should have encountered Lee Harvey Oswald fleeing down the steps. Garner's statement was given in the U.S. Attorney's office in Dallas, and they sent it to WC Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin. But he never brought it to light, since it helped refute the Commission's contention that Oswald was the 6th-floor assassin. And the statement lay buried in the National Archives in the papers of the Dallas U.S. Attorney until Barry Ernest discovered it.

We can boil the stairs down to a mathematical problem, where A & S are descending from the 4th while T & B are ascending to the 4th (and then the 5th). Yet they never interact with each other. Why is this the case? Because T & B removed themselves from the stairs for a time, and went into the lunchroom. And it is a mathematical certainty that A & S passed T & B while they were in the lunchroom.

Why didn't T & B hear them? Truly said that he, Baker & Oswald were only 2 or 3 feet inside the lunchroom. The answer is that the vestibule door muffled a lot of sound, coming from Adams' & Styles' high heels clomping down the wooden stair treads and across the wooden landing. And T & B were in an intense, gun-in-the-belly situation with Oswald. Even if a little bit of noise from those high heels filtered into their eardrums, it was only high heels and they quickly brushed it off and forgot about it.

Baker estimated the lunchroom encounter took 30 seconds. The stairs were roughly L-shaped, split-level. I think it's fair to say that for someone in the lunchroom, floor "2 1/2" to floor "1 1/2" constitutes their hearing range. Half a flight of steps gets descended in about 5 seconds, with another 5 seconds for crossing the 10-foot landing. That's 15 seconds total for A & S to be in hearing range. They probably were on the 3rd-floor landing just as B & T entered the lunchroom.

Skeptics of the lunchroom incident not only have to construe Baker & Truly as liars. Since 2010, when Garner's information came out, they have to construe her as misbegotten as well- yet her statement was made with Oswald's escape in mind, not the lunchroom incident.

What the simple mathematics of this problem means is that the totality of evidence cited by the skeptics, as supporting the lunchroom episode as a non-event, is nothing more than a red herring. The disparate news stories are just that- disparate news stories, and they tell us little more than that reporters will write anything.

And etc. Bring your best arguments to the table, in favor of the non-event. Prepare for a whuppin'.  cat

Colin_Crow
Colin_Crow
Posts : 322
Join date : 2013-08-03

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 13 Empty Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Wed 14 May 2014, 11:25 pm
Redfern wrote:
Colin wrote:If Oswald was PM why could he not get to the lunchroom before B&T? I do not think it is impossible to rule out if Oswald takes the front stairs and crosses the second floor to the lunchroom. In fact this movement is more consistent with what Baker testified seeing than someone trying to avoid detection by simply ducking into the lunchroom by being alerted to the men on the stairs. The real question would be what was his motivation to do so? Just because we can't think of a logical reason doesn't exclude the possibility.

According to the WC testimonies Baker could have seen Piper or West. Their testimonies have them together at the coffee pot. Neither saw the other. Piper didnt recognise Baker as a cop. Then again it's the WC.....go figure.


 It is a very unlikely scenario and an impossible one if Oswald was seen by others downstairs at approximately the same time. 

I sense it's effectively a straightforward choice between the two situations - not unlike other aspects of the assassination.


The central issue to me concerning Baker's 'slightly retarded' black man is not that it could not have happened - it's that it flies in the face of testimony given 40 years before.
Can you tell me who has claimed to have seen Oswald "at approximately the same time"? 

As Baker testified to seeing two white men to the WC, who failed to pursue any further in 1964, the mention of a black man years later, when we know of at least one candidate  is rather moot IMHO.

Can anyone think of any white TSBD employees who were inside the building in the first minute? I'm struggling.
avatar
beowulf
Posts : 373
Join date : 2013-04-21

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 13 Empty Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Thu 15 May 2014, 12:48 am
Redfern, that's an interesting point that Baker reports that near the backstairs and elevator, he came across an older black man that Truly said worked there and slightly retarded. I wonder if that actually happened but on, say, the 3rd or 4th floor. Why would Truly vouch for him unless Baker asked and why would he ask, on ground floor?  I think someone leaned on Baker to plug in the all points description into his affidavit. After 40 years, Baker may have forgotten who he saw where (or simply confused who he saw Day One with who he saw on the multiple run throughs  did for Feds), the "slightly retarded" comment makes me think Truly vouched for Dougherty (if man actually was black, it'd be Piper or one of guys from 5th floor who went down to 4th ahead of the other two).
avatar
Redfern
Posts : 120
Join date : 2013-08-27

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 13 Empty Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Thu 15 May 2014, 1:19 am
Colin Crow wrote:
Redfern wrote:
Colin wrote:If Oswald was PM why could he not get to the lunchroom before B&T? I do not think it is impossible to rule out if Oswald takes the front stairs and crosses the second floor to the lunchroom. In fact this movement is more consistent with what Baker testified seeing than someone trying to avoid detection by simply ducking into the lunchroom by being alerted to the men on the stairs. The real question would be what was his motivation to do so? Just because we can't think of a logical reason doesn't exclude the possibility.

According to the WC testimonies Baker could have seen Piper or West. Their testimonies have them together at the coffee pot. Neither saw the other. Piper didnt recognise Baker as a cop. Then again it's the WC.....go figure.


 It is a very unlikely scenario and an impossible one if Oswald was seen by others downstairs at approximately the same time. 

I sense it's effectively a straightforward choice between the two situations - not unlike other aspects of the assassination.


The central issue to me concerning Baker's 'slightly retarded' black man is not that it could not have happened - it's that it flies in the face of testimony given 40 years before.
Can you tell me who has claimed to have seen Oswald "at approximately the same time"? 

As Baker testified to seeing two white men to the WC, who failed to pursue any further in 1964, the mention of a black man years later, when we know of at least one candidate  is rather moot IMHO.

Can anyone think of any white TSBD employees who were inside the building in the first minute? I'm struggling.
How long would Oswald take to sprint up the front stairs, across the second floor and into the lunchroom (avoiding Geneva Hine), be confronted by Baker and then run back to show Pierce Allman where the phone was? At the same time, appearing cool, calm and collected to both (as well as to Geraldean Reid if you accept that story).

It just might be physically possible, but from a conceptual viewpoint it makes no sense. If Oswald could out-run B&T to the second-floor, why could he not then - in theory - be the man walking away from the 3rd or 4th floor stairway? 


Marrion Baker's comments to Barry Ernest seem to have replaced the two white men with the single black man. It is hardly a minor issue because, as you say, no white TSBD employees admitted to being at the rear of the first floor in the first minute. Obviously, these men could have been accomplices, or even assassins, should the estimated time-scale have been longer.
Colin_Crow
Colin_Crow
Posts : 322
Join date : 2013-08-03

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 13 Empty Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Thu 15 May 2014, 1:33 am
If Oswald and Baker part ways at the front door, Baker follows Truly at a trot towards the west elevator. They bump into the swinging door near Truly's office wait for 10 seconds or so while Truly calls for the elevator. Then decide to climb the stairs. Oswald could cover the same distance, no wait for anything and arrive in time to be seen by Baker. As I said, not impossible just no reason to do that that we can tell. 

As for Geneva Hine, you need to check her movements after the shots. She was in the corridor and knocking on a door from memory. She would not have neccessarily seen him.

As for meeting Allman at the exit.....how long after the shots did that happen? He went from the corner, talked to the Newman's then peeked over the fence before going to the TSBD. Under 3 minutes is fine to encounter an exiting Oswald.

But then, according to Frazier, Oswald left by the back door apparently. Go figure.
StanDane
StanDane
Posts : 3644
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 70
https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 13 Empty Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Thu 15 May 2014, 2:39 am
terlin wrote:As for my take on the second floor encounter:
It may have happened / it may not have happened.

There is no scenario I can see where the point is germaine to the case other than in some small academic sense.
I agree Terry, but as I see it, without the second floor encounter, there is no case against Oswald. He was on the first floor, at the TSBD entrance. You simply cannot do everything they said he did and then be seen on the first floor so shortly after the shots. They had to take that first floor encounter and shim it up higher in the building to manufacture a story that was theoretically plausible. Even with that, I know, they botched it royally, as Bill Kelly and others have shown. But without the second floor encounter, what would the WC have? Absolutely nothing. They would have had to conjure up some other magic fill-in-the-blank explanation, like Oswald rappelling down one of the elevator shafts to the first floor and being seen rubbing his hands when Baker came busting in, and weeks later, the pair of gloves he used to do this are "found" in the basement by a slightly retarded employee, etc. One thing those bastards didn't lack was imagination. 
 
The second floor encounter may have happened in some form or fashion, but because it's such a vital part of the WC fiction, I don't believe it did. 
TerryWMartin
TerryWMartin
Posts : 1000
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 72
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA
http://martianpublishing.com

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 13 Empty Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Thu 15 May 2014, 3:39 am
Stan Dane wrote:
Oswald rappelling down one of the elevator shafts to the first floor and being seen rubbing his hands when Baker came busting in, and weeks later, the pair of gloves he used to do this are "found" in the basement by a slightly retarded employee, etc.

Stan,

I like that scenario.

The only problem with it, as far as I can see, is that it makes more sense than the version we have been given by the WC.

Like you said: "The second floor encounter may have happened in some form or fashion, but because it's such a vital part of the WC fiction, I don't believe it did."

_________________
If God had intended Man to do anything except copulate, He would have given us brains. 
                          - - - Ignatz Verbotham
StanDane
StanDane
Posts : 3644
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 70
https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 13 Empty Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Thu 15 May 2014, 4:00 am
terlin wrote:I like that scenario.

The only problem with it, as far as I can see, is that it makes more sense than the version we have been given by the WC.
Very Happy  So true!
avatar
Redfern
Posts : 120
Join date : 2013-08-27

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 13 Empty Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Thu 15 May 2014, 4:51 am
beowulf wrote:Redfern, that's an interesting point that Baker reports that near the backstairs and elevator, he came across an older black man that Truly said worked there and slightly retarded. I wonder if that actually happened but on, say, the 3rd or 4th floor. Why would Truly vouch for him unless Baker asked and why would he ask, on ground floor?  I think someone leaned on Baker to plug in the all points description into his affidavit. After 40 years, Baker may have forgotten who he saw where (or simply confused who he saw Day One with who he saw on the multiple run throughs  did for Feds), the "slightly retarded" comment makes me think Truly vouched for Dougherty (if man actually was black, it'd be Piper or one of guys from 5th floor who went down to 4th ahead of the other two).

Why wouldn't they lean on Baker to identify Oswald?

Baker's affidavit taken after 4.00 did not ID Oswald even although he saw and heard him. The affidavits taken from TSBD employees Arce, BRW and Dougherty between 2.00 and 2.40 mentioned Oswald.

It is obvious that DPD were only interested in one solution from the outset. 

I reckon Baker did not trust Truly and thought he had intercepted a suspect. He gave the description to Sawyer in the TSBD.  

Who else could have seen enough of the sniper to warrant the broadcast of such a description?
avatar
beowulf
Posts : 373
Join date : 2013-04-21

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 13 Empty Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Thu 15 May 2014, 5:28 am
Why wouldn't they lean on Baker to identify Oswald?

I'm sure they did, wasn't he and his lineup ID of Oswald (which never happened) the first witness listed on LHO's criminal complaint?  For all we know, the Baker affidavit was compromise between the truth and the party line.
I take your point though. If Baker committed the first perjury, any thereafter should be easier for him to take-- why not go ahead and ID Oswald in a lineup?  Of course, Baker did end up perjuring himself to Warren Commission so its hard to know what to take of his at face value.

Baker giving the witness description to Inspector Sawyer makes sense. Especially if he turned in one description and Sawyer then broadcast another. Surprised)
Just kidding, that would be the most logical way to explain where Sawyer got the description. You have to wonder why Baker wasn't publicly identified as the source.
Hasan Yusuf
Hasan Yusuf
Posts : 1899
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 35
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 13 Empty Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Thu 15 May 2014, 7:43 am
terlin wrote:Hasan,

You're too fast for me. I didn't get a chance to read Richard's new insulting post before you deleted it. And - I am sure you know - a day without an insulting post from Richard is like a day without sunshine and since it is raining here, I supposed... Oh, well, I guess I will just have to imagine what nonsense he was spouting.

Sorry, terlin. He was basically saying that Greg, Lee, and Sean Murphy were Snake oil salesman who were trying to sell the lunchroom encounter to researchers, and was saying some bullshit about "pissing in the wind." Perhaps it would be best if I only delete "his" insulting posts upon the request of members.
avatar
Guest
Guest

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 13 Empty Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Thu 15 May 2014, 7:45 am
Lee Farley, the proof that Roy Truly was inside the vestibule and nearly inside the lunchroom is at WC III, p. 225:

TRULY (talking about the vestibule door): I think I opened it. I opened the door back and leaned in this way.
BELIN: What did you see?
TRULY: I saw the officer almost directly in the doorway facing Lee Harvey Oswald.
BELIN: And where was Lee Harvey Oswald at the time you saw him?
TRULY: He was at the front of the lunchroom, not very far inside- he was just inside the lunchroom door.
BELIN: All right.
TRULY: 2 or 3 feet, possibly.

...

BELIN: ... How far was the officer's gun from Lee Harvey Oswald when he asked the question?
TRULY: It would be hard for me to say, but it seemed to me like it was almost touching him..

I could see most of him, because I was looking in the room at an angle, and they were this way... I noticed nothing in either hand...

BELIN: Did you see any expression on his face? Or weren't you paying attention?
TRULY: He didn't seem to be excited or overly afraid or anything. He might have been a bit startled, like I might have been if somebody confronted me. But i cannot recall any change in expression of any kind on his face.

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

To repeat what I said on page 1 of this thread, Truly said he "saw the officer almost directly in the doorway of the lunchroom facing Lee Harvey Oswald." Belin never bothered to specifically ask whether, after Truly leaned in, he stepped in and allowed the vestibule door to close. That detail mattered little or nothing to the testimony, which was about Baker confronting Oswald.

If Truly stayed frozen in time, leaning in and watching the Baker/Oswald interaction, how could he see Oswald's facial expression and the fact that Baker had his gun in Oswald's gut? They weren't in profile to Truly's POV, because if they were, Baker & Oswald would both be 2-3 feet inside the lunchroom. This wasn't what Truly described- he described Baker just inside the doorframe, facing Oswald, who was 2-3 feet inside the lunchroom. The details Truly was able to garner came from him moseying up to them.

Baker, at III p. 258, estimated the time from when he first glimpsed Oswald to the time he left him was "approximately maybe 30 seconds, something like that." This is ballpark stuff, as Adams estimate of her own time (a minute at the most) shows. And we have to give Truly something in the neighborhood of 20 seconds, standing in the vestibule with the door closed. Roughly speaking, if Adams had been only 10 seconds faster, we wouldn't be having this discussion. She made it downstairs quite quickly, but not as quickly as she imagined. And my personal estimate of Baker's spotting of Oswald is at 65 seconds, 10 seconds faster than the re-enactment.

Honestly, Lee, do you ever consider the reality of the lunchroom incident? Or just automatically toss it out? Because it seems to me your objectivity deserts you on this issue. It gets lost in the glitter and glory of hypothesizing itself. Do you really truly believe the hoaxers could convince DA Craig Watkins on this? Because it doesn't look to me that they could get past David Von Pein. The weakness of the hoax hypothesis is reflected in the potpourri of hypotheses as to what occurred after Baker entered the building. And I will reiterate my own and Bill Kelley's bullet points later this evening.
TerryWMartin
TerryWMartin
Posts : 1000
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 72
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA
http://martianpublishing.com

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 13 Empty Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Thu 15 May 2014, 8:29 am
Richard,

Your interpretation of Truly's statement does not constitute proof.

You assume Truly had to step inside the vestibule and allow the door to close.

You say "Belin never bothered to specifically ask whether, after Truly leaned in, he stepped in and allowed the vestibule door to close. That detail mattered little or nothing to the testimony, which was about Baker confronting Oswald."

To go from that unasked question to assume that's what went down is anything but proof.

You ask "how could he see Oswald's facial expression and the fact that Baker had his gun in Oswald's gut?" but you seem to have misread the testimony. He never said the gun was in Lee's gut. What he said was:

BELIN: ... How far was the officer's gun from Lee Harvey Oswald when he asked the question?
TRULY: It would be hard for me to say, but it seemed to me like it was almost touching him..

"Seemed to me" could very easily have been Truly's assumption from his POV, which did not necessarily mean he had to come inside the room and get a different perspective. If he had he assuredly would have not said it "seemed" the gun was almost touching Lee, he would have stated it as a fact that he had witnessed. But he did no such thing.

"The details Truly was able to garner came from him moseying up to them." As I mentioned this is not necessarily so and seems to be an erroneous assumption given that Truly did not specify he saw the position of the gun.

Baker's estimate of 30 seconds may be what you're going to roll with but I can only shake my head. Here an officer is racing to the roof to find the President's killer and stops for a leisurely thirty seconds holding his gun on a stranger in a lunchroom doorway without more quickly asking for ID or asking Truly if he knows the fellow. Why waste thirty seconds on this scene? May as well have stopped for coffee and doughnuts, huh?

Do you really think all of this stuff through or are you "lost in the glitter and glory of hypothesizing itself" as you so quaintly put it?

I'm looking forward to your bullet points this evening. I certainly hope it is a shade better than this slim pickin's.

This is the trap people fall into when they try and use the WC itself to disprove (or prove) any hypothesis.


Last edited by terlin on Thu 15 May 2014, 8:31 am; edited 1 time in total

_________________
If God had intended Man to do anything except copulate, He would have given us brains. 
                          - - - Ignatz Verbotham
StanDane
StanDane
Posts : 3644
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 70
https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 13 Empty Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Thu 15 May 2014, 8:31 am
BAKER - As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly was ahead of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the rooms, and I caught a glimpse of this man walking away from this--I happened to see him through this window in this door. I don't know how come I saw him, but I had a glimpse of him coming down there.

Since we're going to read from the WC and swear by every word, I find "I don't know how come I saw him" a curious thing to say. Why not just say you saw this guy while scanning? Why add anything else, like you don't know how come you saw him? I don't know why I see the tree outside my window. It's just there when I look that way.


Last edited by Stan Dane on Thu 15 May 2014, 8:35 am; edited 1 time in total
Hasan Yusuf
Hasan Yusuf
Posts : 1899
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 35
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 13 Empty Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Thu 15 May 2014, 8:34 am
The fact is that Gilbride hasn't got a clue what proof is.
TerryWMartin
TerryWMartin
Posts : 1000
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 72
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA
http://martianpublishing.com

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 13 Empty Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Thu 15 May 2014, 8:44 am
Stan Dane wrote:BAKER - As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly was ahead of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the rooms, and I caught a glimpse of this man walking away from this--I happened to see him through this window in this door. I don't know how come I saw him, but I had a glimpse of him coming down there.

Since we're going to read from the WC and swear by every word, I find "I don't know how come I saw him" a curious thing to say. Why not just say you saw this guy while scanning? Why add anything else, like you don't know how come you saw him? I don't know why I see the tree outside my window. It's just there when I look that way.

More interesting is the next part of the sentence: "but I had a glimpse of him coming down there."

Who was "coming down"? Was this perhaps when Baker was coming down later?


_________________
If God had intended Man to do anything except copulate, He would have given us brains. 
                          - - - Ignatz Verbotham
StanDane
StanDane
Posts : 3644
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 70
https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 13 Empty Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Thu 15 May 2014, 8:48 am
terlin wrote:
Stan Dane wrote:BAKER - As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly was ahead of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the rooms, and I caught a glimpse of this man walking away from this--I happened to see him through this window in this door. I don't know how come I saw him, but I had a glimpse of him coming down there.

Since we're going to read from the WC and swear by every word, I find "I don't know how come I saw him" a curious thing to say. Why not just say you saw this guy while scanning? Why add anything else, like you don't know how come you saw him? I don't know why I see the tree outside my window. It's just there when I look that way.

More interesting is the next part of the sentence: "but I had a glimpse of him coming down there."

Who was "coming down"? Was this perhaps when Baker was coming down later?

Ha! Maybe he was so coached by then (March 1964) that he had a Freudian slip moment, because everyone knew that Oswald had come down from the sixth floor, right?
greg_parker
greg_parker
Admin
Posts : 8325
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 65
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 13 Empty Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Thu 15 May 2014, 9:04 am
Honestly, Lee, do you ever consider the reality of the lunchroom incident? Or just automatically toss it out? Because it seems to me your objectivity deserts you on this issue. It gets lost in the glitter and glory of hypothesizing itself. Do you really truly believe the hoaxers could convince DA Craig Watkins on this? Because it doesn't look to me that they could get past David Von Pein. The weakness of the hoax hypothesis is reflected in the potpourri of hypotheses as to what occurred after Baker entered the building. And I will reiterate my own and Bill Kelley's bullet points later this evening.
Richard, if there were anything at all to the lunchroom story, the basic elements (at a minimum) would have been in place from the outset. As Sean amply demonstrated, there were many variations on those basic elements placed on public record. 

The encounter was on the first floor
The encounter was on the 3rd or 4th floor
The encounter was on the stairs
Oswald was standing by the coke machine
Oswald was sitting eating lunch
Oswald was drinking a coke
Oswald wasn't drinking a coke

And probably more that I've forgotten.

That the official basic elements AS WE HAVE COME TO KNOW THEM from the WCR were MIA for so long in the lead up the WC says it all.

As for a "potpourri of hypotheses"  - by your logic the assassination never happened because the potpourri of hypotheses  that exists from LN to "driver did it" and everything in between, rule it out as ever having happened. Richard's Law.

Terry (and others) I know, say it doesn't matter. In fact, I have said as much to Bill because either way, Oswald never shot anyone. So at the level of Oswald's innocence, we are all in accord.

It matters to me only insofar as it exemplifies the lengths that powerful people will go to to maintain power or obtain more of it.  I hate being lied to. I hate abuse of power. It is on those levels it matters to me. 

You and Bill are free to believe whatever you want. But as Bill is fond of saying "history only happened one way". Certainly didn't happen the 501 one ways we see in the records. While the two of you follow the official version, the rest of us can follow the bouncing ball showing the metamorphosis of that hybrid creation.

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


"So what’s an independent-minded populist like me to do? I’ve had to grovel in promoting myself on social media, even begging for Amazon reviews and Goodreads ratings, to no avail." 
Don Jeffries

"I've been aware of Greg Parker's work for years, and strongly recommend it." Peter Dale Scott

https://gregrparker.com
avatar
Guest
Guest

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 13 Empty Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Thu 15 May 2014, 9:05 am
Richard Gilbride wrote:Lee Farley, the proof that Roy Truly was inside the vestibule and nearly inside the lunchroom is at WC III, p. 225:

TRULY (talking about the vestibule door): I think I opened it. I opened the door back and leaned in this way.
BELIN: What did you see?
TRULY: I saw the officer almost directly in the doorway facing Lee Harvey Oswald.
BELIN: And where was Lee Harvey Oswald at the time you saw him?
TRULY: He was at the front of the lunchroom, not very far inside- he was just inside the lunchroom door.
BELIN: All right.
TRULY: 2 or 3 feet, possibly.

...

BELIN: ... How far was the officer's gun from Lee Harvey Oswald when he asked the question?
TRULY: It would be hard for me to say, but it seemed to me like it was almost touching him..

I could see most of him, because I was looking in the room at an angle, and they were this way... I noticed nothing in either hand...

BELIN: Did you see any expression on his face? Or weren't you paying attention?
TRULY: He didn't seem to be excited or overly afraid or anything. He might have been a bit startled, like I might have been if somebody confronted me. But i cannot recall any change in expression of any kind on his face.

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

To repeat what I said on page 1 of this thread, Truly said he "saw the officer almost directly in the doorway of the lunchroom facing Lee Harvey Oswald." Belin never bothered to specifically ask whether, after Truly leaned in, he stepped in and allowed the vestibule door to close. That detail mattered little or nothing to the testimony, which was about Baker confronting Oswald.

If Truly stayed frozen in time, leaning in and watching the Baker/Oswald interaction, how could he see Oswald's facial expression and the fact that Baker had his gun in Oswald's gut? They weren't in profile to Truly's POV, because if they were, Baker & Oswald would both be 2-3 feet inside the lunchroom. This wasn't what Truly described- he described Baker just inside the doorframe, facing Oswald, who was 2-3 feet inside the lunchroom. The details Truly was able to garner came from him moseying up to them.

Baker, at III p. 258, estimated the time from when he first glimpsed Oswald to the time he left him was "approximately maybe 30 seconds, something like that." This is ballpark stuff, as Adams estimate of her own time (a minute at the most) shows. And we have to give Truly something in the neighborhood of 20 seconds, standing in the vestibule with the door closed. Roughly speaking, if Adams had been only 10 seconds faster, we wouldn't be having this discussion. She made it downstairs quite quickly, but not as quickly as she imagined. And my personal estimate of Baker's spotting of Oswald is at 65 seconds, 10 seconds faster than the re-enactment.

Honestly, Lee, do you ever consider the reality of the lunchroom incident? Or just automatically toss it out? Because it seems to me your objectivity deserts you on this issue. It gets lost in the glitter and glory of hypothesizing itself. Do you really truly believe the hoaxers could convince DA Craig Watkins on this? Because it doesn't look to me that they could get past David Von Pein. The weakness of the hoax hypothesis is reflected in the potpourri of hypotheses as to what occurred after Baker entered the building. And I will reiterate my own and Bill Kelley's bullet points later this evening.

You are talking shit.

In your original post that started this thread you wrote the following: 

"We can boil the stairs down to a mathematical problem, where A & S are descending from the 4th while T & B are ascending to the 4th (and then the 5th). Yet they never interact with each other. Why is this the case? Because T & B removed themselves from the stairs for a time, and went into the lunchroom. And it is a mathematical certainty that A & S passed T & B while they were in the lunchroom."


"Why didn't T & B hear them? Truly said that he, Baker & Oswald were only 2 or 3 feet inside the lunchroom."


"Baker estimated the lunchroom encounter took 30 seconds."


"I think it's fair to say that for someone in the lunchroom, floor "2 1/2" to floor "1 1/2" constitutes their hearing range."


"That's 15 seconds total for A & S to be in hearing range. They probably were on the 3rd-floor landing just as B & T entered the lunchroom."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your entire original argument was based upon all three men being in the damn lunchroom.  It's written in black and white.  Anyone here can go and read it and see what you said.

Let us take one of the quotes listed above from your original post:

"Why didn't T & B hear them? Truly said that he, Baker & Oswald were only 2 or 3 feet inside the lunchroom."

And let's compare it to what you have written today:

"They weren't in profile to Truly's POV, because if they were, Baker & Oswald would both be 2-3 feet inside the lunchroom. This wasn't what Truly described- he described Baker just inside the doorframe, facing Oswald, who was 2-3 feet inside the lunchroom."

For fuck's sake.  You need to get your story straight because you're just making a fool out of yourself.  Were you lying on purpose in your original post?

You have accused me of sophistry.  Some sort of joke I take it?  You accused me of putting words in your mouth.  Really?

The entire first half of your original post is a detailed description of this heavy duty, two man lift, magic door.  Priming your argument from the get-go that this door would muffle sounds from two women running down rickety creaky wooden stairs in heels on the proviso that it was closed and the three men were 2-3 feet inside the lunchroom for 15-30 seconds.  

Yet you have no evidence that the door was closed.  

Your star witness claimed he leaned in and looked into the lunchroom from an angle.  

You lie that the three of them were a minimum of 2 feet inside the lunchroom and so can therefore claim the vestibule door was closed and to top it all off you state that they were all in there for a minimum of 15 seconds.

Utter nonsense.  The lot of it.  

The testimony from Truly has an event occurring that would have taken less than five seconds.  He runs to the vestibule door, opens it (still in earshot of noise from the stairs), he has 2-3 seconds to wait for the door to close behind him yet he looks in at an angle, sees B&O and is asked if Oswald works there.  Truly says "yes" and they immediately head off again.  Even in this Twilight Zone episode you've manufactured from the cutting room floor of Rod Serling's office there is no way you can come close to attributing 15 seconds to Baker asking if Oswald worked there and Truly vouching for him.

What kind of fucked up mathematics are you using here?

Here is the Truly testimony again for you to have a long hard gaze at:

Mr. TRULY. When I reached there, the officer had his gun pointing at Oswald. The officer turned this way and said, “This man work here?” And I said, “Yes.”
Mr. BELIN. And then what happened?
Mr. TRULY. Then we left Lee Harvey Oswald immediately and continued to run up the stairways until we reached-the 5th floor.

And here is the Baker testimony again:

Representative BOGGS. Right.  What did you say to him?
Mr. BAKER. I didn’t get anything out of him. Mr. Truly had come up to my side here, and I turned to Mr. Truly and I says, “Do you know this man, does he work here?” And he said yes, and I turned immediately and went on out up the stairs.

You do know what the word "immediately" means, don't you?  At once.

You have to get Truly, Baker and Oswald behind the vestibule door.  You have to allow the door to close.  Then you have to time fifteen seconds for this question and answer to happen.  And the capper is you have to lie and move them all three feet inside the lunchroom.

The only sophist around these here parts right now is you.

Let's not get into all the other shit you wrote such as:

"Even if a little bit of noise from those high heels filtered into their eardrums, it was only high heels and they quickly brushed it off and forgot about it."

I don't come to this forum to read fiction.


Last edited by Hello Goodbye on Thu 15 May 2014, 10:07 am; edited 1 time in total
TerryWMartin
TerryWMartin
Posts : 1000
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 72
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA
http://martianpublishing.com

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 13 Empty Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Thu 15 May 2014, 9:17 am
Nicely done, Lee.

Will you be sticking around for popcorn and the promised bullet list later this evening? Or have you had your fill of this sophist humor?

_________________
If God had intended Man to do anything except copulate, He would have given us brains. 
                          - - - Ignatz Verbotham
TerryWMartin
TerryWMartin
Posts : 1000
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 72
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA
http://martianpublishing.com

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 13 Empty Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Thu 15 May 2014, 9:31 am
Stan Dane wrote:Ha! Maybe he was so coached by then (March 1964) that he had a Freudian slip moment, because everyone knew that Oswald had come down from the sixth floor, right?

Yes, overcoaching can have that affect. Ask any actor and they'll tell you the performance becomes "flat" from it... and of course, those despicable Freudian slips.  Poor Baker!


greg parker wrote:Terry (and others) I know, say it doesn't matter. In fact, I have said as much to Bill because either way, Oswald never shot anyone. So at the level of Oswald's innocence, we are all in accord.

It matters to me only insofar as it exemplifies the lengths that powerful people will go to to maintain power or obtain more of it.  I hate being lied to. I hate abuse of power. It is on those levels it matters to me. 

You and Bill are free to believe whatever you want. But as Bill is fond of saying "history only happened one way". Certainly didn't happen the 501 one ways we see in the records. While the two of you follow the official version, the rest of us can follow the bouncing ball showing the metamorphosis of that hybrid creation.

I agree with Greg insofar as we should never have been lied to in the first place. Investigating the heck out of this issue to show it is so completely bogus is a worthwhile endeavor, even if it has no material effect on the case itself.

And some people are going to cling to the event no matter what. But I can live with that.

_________________
If God had intended Man to do anything except copulate, He would have given us brains. 
                          - - - Ignatz Verbotham
avatar
Guest
Guest

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 13 Empty Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Thu 15 May 2014, 9:44 am
terlin wrote:
Stan Dane wrote:Ha! Maybe he was so coached by then (March 1964) that he had a Freudian slip moment, because everyone knew that Oswald had come down from the sixth floor, right?

Yes, overcoaching can have that affect. Ask any actor and they'll tell you the performance becomes "flat" from it... and of course, those despicable Freudian slips.  Poor Baker!


greg parker wrote:Terry (and others) I know, say it doesn't matter. In fact, I have said as much to Bill because either way, Oswald never shot anyone. So at the level of Oswald's innocence, we are all in accord.

It matters to me only insofar as it exemplifies the lengths that powerful people will go to to maintain power or obtain more of it.  I hate being lied to. I hate abuse of power. It is on those levels it matters to me. 

You and Bill are free to believe whatever you want. But as Bill is fond of saying "history only happened one way". Certainly didn't happen the 501 one ways we see in the records. While the two of you follow the official version, the rest of us can follow the bouncing ball showing the metamorphosis of that hybrid creation.

I agree with Greg insofar as we should never have been lied to in the first place. Investigating the heck out of this issue to show it is so completely bogus is a worthwhile endeavor, even if it has no material effect on the case itself.

And some people are going to cling to the event no matter what. But I can live with that.
Nothing should be sacred in this case and everything should be up to discussion if we believe we've been lied to.
avatar
Guest
Guest

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 13 Empty Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Thu 15 May 2014, 10:03 am
terlin wrote:Nicely done, Lee.

Will you be sticking around for popcorn and the promised bullet list later this evening? Or have you had your fill of this sophist humor?

I think I'll skip it, Terry.
greg_parker
greg_parker
Admin
Posts : 8325
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 65
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 13 Empty Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Thu 15 May 2014, 10:05 am
Paul Klein wrote:
terlin wrote:
Stan Dane wrote:Ha! Maybe he was so coached by then (March 1964) that he had a Freudian slip moment, because everyone knew that Oswald had come down from the sixth floor, right?

Yes, overcoaching can have that affect. Ask any actor and they'll tell you the performance becomes "flat" from it... and of course, those despicable Freudian slips.  Poor Baker!


greg parker wrote:Terry (and others) I know, say it doesn't matter. In fact, I have said as much to Bill because either way, Oswald never shot anyone. So at the level of Oswald's innocence, we are all in accord.

It matters to me only insofar as it exemplifies the lengths that powerful people will go to to maintain power or obtain more of it.  I hate being lied to. I hate abuse of power. It is on those levels it matters to me. 

You and Bill are free to believe whatever you want. But as Bill is fond of saying "history only happened one way". Certainly didn't happen the 501 one ways we see in the records. While the two of you follow the official version, the rest of us can follow the bouncing ball showing the metamorphosis of that hybrid creation.

I agree with Greg insofar as we should never have been lied to in the first place. Investigating the heck out of this issue to show it is so completely bogus is a worthwhile endeavor, even if it has no material effect on the case itself.

And some people are going to cling to the event no matter what. But I can live with that.
Nothing should be sacred in this case and everything should be up to discussion if we believe we've been lied to.
Paul,

my basic position is this: if it can be determined what did (or didn't) happen with any degree of reasonable certainty, then it should be.

If you've determined it can't be determined (I'm channeling Chaney here... just go with it), then you let it go.

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


"So what’s an independent-minded populist like me to do? I’ve had to grovel in promoting myself on social media, even begging for Amazon reviews and Goodreads ratings, to no avail." 
Don Jeffries

"I've been aware of Greg Parker's work for years, and strongly recommend it." Peter Dale Scott

https://gregrparker.com
avatar
Guest
Guest

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 13 Empty Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Thu 15 May 2014, 10:22 am
Mr. TRULY. I heard a policeman in this area along here make a remark, “Oh, goddam,” or something like that. I just remember that. It wasn’t a motorcycle policeman. It was one of the Dallas policeman, I think-words to that effect.
I wouldn’t know him. I just remember there was a policeman standing along in this area about ‘7, 8, or 10 feet from me.
But as I came back here, and everybody was screaming and hollering, just moments later I saw a young motorcycle policeman run up to the building, up the steps to the entrance of bur building. He ran right by me. And he was pushing people out of the way. He pushed a number of people out of the way before he got to me. I saw him coming through, I believe. As he ran up the stairway-I mean up the steps, I was almost to the steps, I ran up and caught up with him. I believe I caught up with him inside the lobby of the building, or possibly the front steps. I don’t remember that close. But I remember it occurred to me that this man wants on top of the building. He doesn’t know the plan of the floor. And that is-that just popped in my mind, and I ran in with him. As we got in the lobby, almost on the inside of the first floor. this policeman asked me where the stairway is. And I said, “This way”. And I ran diagonally across to the northwest corner of the building.
avatar
Guest
Guest

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 13 Empty Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Thu 15 May 2014, 10:46 am
Points trumping the lunchroom hoax hypothesis:

- Baker was a straight-up cop. He was a hunter. He took individual initiative in breaking off from the motorcade and racing into the TSBD in search of a gunman. His integrity shows in the CBS Warren Report series (Part 6, if memory serves) and the London trial.

- There are 7 points of correspondence between the Baker & Truly testimonies as regards their trip from the front lobby to the freight elevators, and 7 points of correspondence as regards what happened in the lunchroom.

1) Truly caught up with Baker inside the front lobby (III pp. 221, 249)
2) While inside the front lobby, Baker asked Truly where the stairs were (221, 249)
3) Truly ran into swinging door at will-call counter and Baker bumped into him (222, 249)
4) Truly pressed call button and freight elevator did not come down (223, 254)
5) T & B looked up the elevator shaft (223, 254)
6) They saw that the elevators were stuck upstairs (240, 254)
7) Truly yelled up the shaft twice (223, 249)

1) Truly led way up the stairs (224, 250)
2) B & O were just inside lunchroom door (225, 250)
3) Baker was facing Oswald (225, 250)
4) Baker asked 'Does he work here?' and Truly says 'Yes' (225, 251)
5) Baker left immediately (225, 251)
6) Oswald was calm & collected (225, 252)
7) Oswald had no change of expression as Baker's gun was close to him (225, 252)


- Truly was called back on August 3rd to execute an affidavit solely in regard to the question of whether the vestibule door had an automatic closing device. Now, Truly hadn't seen Oswald go through that door, and Baker hadn't seen the door in the process of closing- meaning that Oswald came from the direction of the central offices.

If the lunchroom saga was a hoax, why didn't the master scriptwriter tell Truly that he should have seen Oswald go through the door?

- Military historian Alfred Goldberg called the FBI the day after finishing writing the Warren Report- and the day before its publication- to get Baker & Truly to rehash the lunchroom incident one further time. Why would he even bother contacting them if he was scriptwriting a hoax?

- Had Adams & Styles trained for this event 1000 times, on their best day they couldn't have escaped Truly & Baker's notice by the time A & S got to the corner of the east elevator. Redfern is fishing at present for a plausible reason that would stall T & B in the front lobby. None is in the evidence. Only because people at ReOpenKennedyCase hate Richard will Redfern's reason, should he find one, be heartily approved, flimsy as it will prove to be. But these people know in their hearts that Richard speaks the truth. They do not like his arrogance because he does his homework. Well.

- Dorothy Garner gave a statement to a high-octane law office that confirms that T & B arrived upstairs after A & S descended, allowing the lunchroom problem to be reduced to a problem in physics. It becomes a long tube with a bulge in it (the lunchroom) and a ball that only ascends (T & B) and a ball that only descends (A & S). They don't bump into each other because one ball goes into the bulge.

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

What surprises me most is that so many people have fallen for the lunchroom hoax story. That does not reflect well on the promoters, in my opinion, as regards their legacy in research. Someone like Vince Salandria, in his prime, would tear their arguments to shreds in no time flat. The Sophists were in love with endless possibilities, without resolution. I prefer resolution.
Sponsored content

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 13 Empty Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

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