Home
Portal
Events
ROKC Wiki
Gallery
Search
Register
Log in
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
GuestGuest
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'.
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'.
- GuestGuest
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Fri 16 May 2014, 8:18 pm
Richard Gilbride wrote:Lee Farley,
The challenge for you will be to read through the bullet points again, then read Baker's 30-second estimate, and ask yourself what unspoken pregnant pauses occurred during that time in the lunchroom- that potentially stretch it to 35 or even 40 seconds. Because seen next to the bullet points, Baker's estimate is ballpark-flexible enough to allow the event (A & S walking by) to happen. No need to be constrained by the literal-exact import of testimony here- Baker didn't have a stopwatch with him.
I need no challenge from you.
You keep purposefully confusing the two events (one that you claim lasted thirty seconds and one that lasted fifteen) and my parody of your nonsense demonstrates perfectly the absurdity of your position.
Each and every post that has appeared from you over the last few days has shown how increasingly corrupt you yourself have become in trying desperately to cheat your way through all of this.
I'd need to resign from work to find the time to expose every fraudulent point you have made.
One minute you want to generate points of corroboration between Baker and Truly's testimonies by using their literal words. Once you have been shown up as a charlatan you then want to "interpret" their words by inventing things that weren't said.
Now you want to add pregnant pauses into proceedings to bolster your thirty second Baker-Oswald encounter. By all means add as many as you like -- it will add further comedic value to my next satirical look at your Twilight Zone script. With the additional five seconds we can have them sat down chatting.
The alleged Baker-Oswald encounter is not the issue. It never was. The focus is on Truly. It's one thing for a policeman to start racing up a building with an unarmed civilian in front of him on a narrow set of stairs whilst hunting a Presidential assassin -- it's quite another for that armed officer to ditch his civilian and let him continue on up those stairs on his own because he becomes entranced by the movement of someone in a lunchroom on the second floor. The story is absolute crap and if true we have on our hands an Officer who is so inept and so dangerous to himself and others that he's be out of place in the Keystone Cops.
Pregnant pauses will not dig you out of the mess you have created for yourself. You have allowed 15 seconds for Truly, Baker and Oswald to be isolated away from any and all sound emanating from those rickety stairs so you can get Styles and Adams past undetected. You tried to psychologically prime your argument by spending an exorbitant amount of time explaining the amazing attributes of the vestibule door and you were then deceitful about the position of Roy Truly once he had opened that magic door and you moved him into the lunchroom when he could not have been.
Now you don't want to have to use the literal translation of the testimony concerning what happened when Truly got to the door because it completely disproves your conclusion. You will have to go to the planet Jupiter to make your timings work here. Truly opened the vestibule door, leaned in, was asked if Oswald worked there, he answered yes, and they "immediately" left.
You are clinging to the side of the cliff by your bleeding fingernails and you know no one is coming to help you.
You can build as many pregnant pauses into Baker asking Truly if Oswald worked there and Truly answering yes. You have to, don't you, Richard? You need them to allow fifteen seconds to elapse from the closing of the vestibule door to it being opened again.
Here, I'll throw you a lifeline. The vestibule door closes. Baker asks Truly if Oswald works there. Truly gives a pregnant pause whilst studying Oswald's face. Baker screams "Does this man work, here? Yes or no?" Truly's eyes are rolling. Is it Lee or Harvey? They look the same but different. Is he wearing a shirt? Beads of sweat appear on Truly's brow. He can't see past Baker's massive helmeted head. He moves 2-3 feet inside the lunchroom brushing Baker aside. Meanwhile, Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles move through the stairs outside the vestibule door. "Is that the sound of heels?", asks Truly. "Pay it no mind" shouts Baker, "your eardrums are oversensitive." "Does he work here." Pregnant pause. "Yes, yes, yes. He works here. He works here."
Does that help? There's still a few seconds to play around with but I'm sure we could fill them with something else that didn't happen. We have tons of testimony we can "reinterpret."
P.S. I want to be rest assured that what I have already done with your first point out of your "bullet pointed" list I can also do with the majority of the others. You can apologise all you want about being "inexact" but your entire presentation is "inexact" and I simply do not have the time or the inclination to go through it all.
Especially when the person who is apologising about being "inexact" then shifts the goalposts and creates a whole new methodology to cover what I would call systematic cherry picking and manipulation of the evidence to be purposefully deceitful.
Colin_Crow- Posts : 322
Join date : 2013-08-03
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Fri 16 May 2014, 9:28 pm
Just trying to get my head around How far Truly would be ahead of Baker after they split at the landing. If Baker was immediately behind Truly it is about 8 steps to the door from the stairs. It is much less to the next flight up. Baker has to see movement and then get to the door open the door and a few steps to the lunchroom door.
Truly has maybe 4-5 steps to to stairs and starts to go up. He hears Baker presumably call to Oswald who has moved about 20 feet from the time he was seen and Truly decides to go back. Yet Truly claimed he was only 2-3 steps up the stairs. This would seem an underestimate if Truly was still blindly rushing up the stairs. It would seem more realistic that he was closer to half way up the flight.
In the meantime, Oswald strolls most of the way back to a now stationary Baker. Truly is coming back to the door in this time. Only once Baker knows Truly has opened the door and returned asks him is Oswald works there.
Could we all agree that Truly's estimate of just 2-3 steps up the stairs seems unlikely?
Truly has maybe 4-5 steps to to stairs and starts to go up. He hears Baker presumably call to Oswald who has moved about 20 feet from the time he was seen and Truly decides to go back. Yet Truly claimed he was only 2-3 steps up the stairs. This would seem an underestimate if Truly was still blindly rushing up the stairs. It would seem more realistic that he was closer to half way up the flight.
In the meantime, Oswald strolls most of the way back to a now stationary Baker. Truly is coming back to the door in this time. Only once Baker knows Truly has opened the door and returned asks him is Oswald works there.
Could we all agree that Truly's estimate of just 2-3 steps up the stairs seems unlikely?
- GuestGuest
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Fri 16 May 2014, 9:42 pm
Colin Crow wrote:
Could we all agree that Truly's estimate of just 2-3 steps up the stairs seems unlikely?
If the lunchroom encounter as described took place then, yes, 2-3 steps ahead is not only unlikely but completely impossible given what we are asked to believe happened later. It would mean Truly was only a second or two behind Baker whilst Baker departed for the lunchroom and puts to bed any idea that the Baker-Oswald event took anywhere near 35 seconds.
If the lunchroom encounter didn't happen, and I seriously doubt it did, then it's all just a bunch of hooey.
greg_parkerAdmin- Posts : 8332
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 66
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia 
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Fri 16 May 2014, 9:45 pm
Richard, unfortunately for you, your attempts to paint this place in the same light as some here have painted the H & L theorists - that is as a mindless cult led by a Cult Leader whose word is Holy Writ, fails at every level.Richard Gilbride wrote:All apologies for my inexact language in my first post, as regards placement of Truly, and my inexact interpretation of Truly's not-quite-clearly-recalling he met up with Baker in the front lobby. The key points are that from Truly's Point-of-View, in order to perceive details of Oswald's facial expression and hands and Baker poking his gun at Oswald's gut, Truly had to have been very near Baker and very near the lunchroom doorframe. And that T & B didn't meet up inside the warehouse, for example.
Too often the testimony is over-sifted to give meanings that aren't there. For instance, Baker apparently asked where the stairs were when inside the front lobby. Well, Truly could have replied, "Turn right, officer, they're two feet that way." A literal interpretation of Baker's testimony on this yields nonsense. So the researcher justifiably interprets Baker's question as really having been "How do I get to the roof?" or "Where are the stairs to the roof?"
But an essay helps clear up the inexact language made in posting. I have seen little or no feedback regarding exact portions of the essay that are in dispute. Only ridicule, which ReOpenKennedyCase excels at.
The tribe here is so far gone, so utterly brainwashed- it is as if NASA handed me a piece of moon rock, and I brought it to a ReOpenKennedyCaser, and said 'This is what the moon is made of." And that member would reply, "No way. It doesn't smell like cheese."
I'll be contacting a building contractor soon, maybe John Armstrong, to get a facility constructed in the Outback to house all you "green-cheesers". I've already enlisted the butterfly-net brigade to round you all up. Expect them next time you go food shopping.
Just doing my part to help make Earth safe and sane again.
We are not rallied around any single all-encompassing theory and nor am I anything like Armstrong.
There are a range of beliefs on display here and I do not have a small army roaming the net proselyting on my behalf regarding my own theories. Nor do I wish to stifle dissent. We are not even united on this one small part of the case. We are truly united only in wanting to get a resolution to it.
On this, take a bow. I thought I was the genius who came up with it. But you are right. I did some searching and this is a post Don made in 1998 - about 2 years before I even started doing any research:I searched my files but couldn't find the original download of the 1st mention of the lunchroom incident being a hoax. The guy's name as I recall was Don Willis at McAdams' forum. Whatever became of him? I wonder whether he may have been a disinformation agent. If he was he sure got his job don
Obviously in an embryonic stage -- but clearly there.DW wrote:a) Only Hosty took notes on that 1st interrogation. The subject of the
lunchroom came up, but Hosty recorded no encounter between LHO & a
cop being discussed. Fritz & Bookhout did NOT takes notes then
b) In his testimony, Hosty sticks by his 1st report
c) In his book, " " " " " "
d) Fellow agent Bookhout signed off on Hosty's 1st report as to
its completeness
e) Baker's 11/22 statement put the encounter on the stairway, said
the man CAME TO HIM at the stairway. He did not follow anyone into
a lunchroom
f) Victoria Adams & Sandra Styles stated that they saw no one--LHO,
Baker or Truly--on the stairs
g) On 11/23, Truly now puts the encounter in the lunchroom--ie, Adams
& Styles are being taken quite seriously....
Not only was there no Coke, there was no lunchroom, perhaps no
encounter at all, if Adams, Styles, Molina, Shelley, Piper, Hine, etc.
are correct. It was just a story to "place" LHO in the TSBD at the
right time (for patsyhood).... He wasn't there.
dw
I know my interest came about in around 2001 or 2002 when I first read Baker's statement. Sometime beginning in about 2003 or 2004, I did have numerous discussions with Don about it, but we had independently developed different ideas by then... and IRRC, in our discussions, he made clear didn't buy into any 4th floor encounter among other aspects. I can confirm it was Don who first raised the issue of the news accounts per Truly and Campbell in the DMN and NYTH.
_________________
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
- greg_parkerAdmin
- Posts : 8332
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 66
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Fri 16 May 2014, 9:59 pm
Colin, no surprise I guess that I agree with Lee.Colin Crow wrote:Just trying to get my head around How far Truly would be ahead of Baker after they split at the landing. If Baker was immediately behind Truly it is about 8 steps to the door from the stairs. It is much less to the next flight up. Baker has to see movement and then get to the door open the door and a few steps to the lunchroom door.
Truly has maybe 4-5 steps to to stairs and starts to go up. He hears Baker presumably call to Oswald who has moved about 20 feet from the time he was seen and Truly decides to go back. Yet Truly claimed he was only 2-3 steps up the stairs. This would seem an underestimate if Truly was still blindly rushing up the stairs. It would seem more realistic that he was closer to half way up the flight.
In the meantime, Oswald strolls most of the way back to a now stationary Baker. Truly is coming back to the door in this time. Only once Baker knows Truly has opened the door and returned asks him is Oswald works there.
Could we all agree that Truly's estimate of just 2-3 steps up the stairs seems unlikely?
This reminds me of Bill Kelly's heavy lifting to prove that the 2nd floor encounter couldn't have happened they way they said.
I just don't see any merit in agreeing/disagreeing with scenarios or timings that arise from a story that I am convinced by the evidence was bogus all along.
But as with Bill, I don't mind that you do this work - it leads to the same outcome. Oswald couldn't be the shooter. For me though, it's like arguing over whether God is a loving God or a cruel and warped bastard. It's immaterial to an atheist who has long ago dismissed God as a myth, so any debates about the nature of God are meaningless to me.
_________________
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
- Colin_Crow
- Posts : 322
Join date : 2013-08-03
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Fri 16 May 2014, 10:03 pm
Richard did send me a copy of his essay recently. I have a response in preparation and am about half way through. I'll post as soon as I can finish.
Meanwhile, can someone clarify a detail regarding the operation of the west elevator? Did both gates need to be closed to call the elevator or only the carriage gates? Could the elevator be called with the external gates open?
Meanwhile, can someone clarify a detail regarding the operation of the west elevator? Did both gates need to be closed to call the elevator or only the carriage gates? Could the elevator be called with the external gates open?
- Colin_Crow
- Posts : 322
Join date : 2013-08-03
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Fri 16 May 2014, 10:08 pm
No problem Greg. I am currently reworking things with Adams and Styles included now. I have half the study done and I don't know how the second part will work out. Some surprising stuff I'm finding working out the logistics though. One thing I found was that if Baker was just inside the front door the stairs were not likely visible to him at that time. Another is that the freight elevators moved slower than the time provided by Lovelady.greg parker wrote:Colin, no surprise I guess that I agree with Lee.Colin Crow wrote:Just trying to get my head around How far Truly would be ahead of Baker after they split at the landing. If Baker was immediately behind Truly it is about 8 steps to the door from the stairs. It is much less to the next flight up. Baker has to see movement and then get to the door open the door and a few steps to the lunchroom door.
Truly has maybe 4-5 steps to to stairs and starts to go up. He hears Baker presumably call to Oswald who has moved about 20 feet from the time he was seen and Truly decides to go back. Yet Truly claimed he was only 2-3 steps up the stairs. This would seem an underestimate if Truly was still blindly rushing up the stairs. It would seem more realistic that he was closer to half way up the flight.
In the meantime, Oswald strolls most of the way back to a now stationary Baker. Truly is coming back to the door in this time. Only once Baker knows Truly has opened the door and returned asks him is Oswald works there.
Could we all agree that Truly's estimate of just 2-3 steps up the stairs seems unlikely?
This reminds me of Bill Kelly's heavy lifting to prove that the 2nd floor encounter couldn't have happened they way they said.
I just don't see any merit in agreeing/disagreeing with scenarios or timings that arise from a story that I am convinced by the evidence was bogus all along.
But as with Bill, I don't mind that you do this work - it leads to the same outcome. Oswald couldn't be the shooter. For me though, it's like arguing over whether God is a loving God or a cruel and warped bastard. It's immaterial to an atheist who has long ago dismissed God as a myth, so any debates about the nature of God are meaningless to me.
- GuestGuest
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Fri 16 May 2014, 10:19 pm
Colin Crow wrote:No problem Greg. I am currently reworking things with Adams and Styles included now. I have half the study done and I don't know how the second part will work out. Some surprising stuff I'm finding working out the logistics though. One thing I found was that if Baker was just inside the front door the stairs were not likely visible to him at that time. Another is that the freight elevators moved slower than the time provided by Lovelady.greg parker wrote:Colin, no surprise I guess that I agree with Lee.Colin Crow wrote:Just trying to get my head around How far Truly would be ahead of Baker after they split at the landing. If Baker was immediately behind Truly it is about 8 steps to the door from the stairs. It is much less to the next flight up. Baker has to see movement and then get to the door open the door and a few steps to the lunchroom door.
Truly has maybe 4-5 steps to to stairs and starts to go up. He hears Baker presumably call to Oswald who has moved about 20 feet from the time he was seen and Truly decides to go back. Yet Truly claimed he was only 2-3 steps up the stairs. This would seem an underestimate if Truly was still blindly rushing up the stairs. It would seem more realistic that he was closer to half way up the flight.
In the meantime, Oswald strolls most of the way back to a now stationary Baker. Truly is coming back to the door in this time. Only once Baker knows Truly has opened the door and returned asks him is Oswald works there.
Could we all agree that Truly's estimate of just 2-3 steps up the stairs seems unlikely?
This reminds me of Bill Kelly's heavy lifting to prove that the 2nd floor encounter couldn't have happened they way they said.
I just don't see any merit in agreeing/disagreeing with scenarios or timings that arise from a story that I am convinced by the evidence was bogus all along.
But as with Bill, I don't mind that you do this work - it leads to the same outcome. Oswald couldn't be the shooter. For me though, it's like arguing over whether God is a loving God or a cruel and warped bastard. It's immaterial to an atheist who has long ago dismissed God as a myth, so any debates about the nature of God are meaningless to me.
Colin,
I'm really interested in reading what you have come up with.
I don't know the answer to your question about the elevator gates but as you're aware I'm really interested to find out whether it was possible for T&B to look up those elevator shafts and see all the way up to the fifth floor.
A question I do have that you may be able to save me some work on is concerning when Baker first entered the building. When he says there were a group of people stood there when he asked where the stairs were who has been identified as being part of that group? This is especially important given that in Truly's early FBI statement he makes a point of stating that when he entered the lobby with Baker they "saw no one there." Which is the oddest portion of his entirely odd statement.
Who is on record as being part of the group that were asked where the stairs were?
- greg_parkerAdmin
- Posts : 8332
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 66
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Fri 16 May 2014, 10:27 pm
I know this is directed at Colin, so forgive me jumping in. Colin may well have an answer, but I long ago gave up on it. What I wanted to say was that Linda may be able to demonstrate there were others. That's part of the hold up, as I understand it - a though check of other film/photos and what they may show.Hello Goodbye wrote:Colin Crow wrote:No problem Greg. I am currently reworking things with Adams and Styles included now. I have half the study done and I don't know how the second part will work out. Some surprising stuff I'm finding working out the logistics though. One thing I found was that if Baker was just inside the front door the stairs were not likely visible to him at that time. Another is that the freight elevators moved slower than the time provided by Lovelady.greg parker wrote:Colin, no surprise I guess that I agree with Lee.Colin Crow wrote:Just trying to get my head around How far Truly would be ahead of Baker after they split at the landing. If Baker was immediately behind Truly it is about 8 steps to the door from the stairs. It is much less to the next flight up. Baker has to see movement and then get to the door open the door and a few steps to the lunchroom door.
Truly has maybe 4-5 steps to to stairs and starts to go up. He hears Baker presumably call to Oswald who has moved about 20 feet from the time he was seen and Truly decides to go back. Yet Truly claimed he was only 2-3 steps up the stairs. This would seem an underestimate if Truly was still blindly rushing up the stairs. It would seem more realistic that he was closer to half way up the flight.
In the meantime, Oswald strolls most of the way back to a now stationary Baker. Truly is coming back to the door in this time. Only once Baker knows Truly has opened the door and returned asks him is Oswald works there.
Could we all agree that Truly's estimate of just 2-3 steps up the stairs seems unlikely?
This reminds me of Bill Kelly's heavy lifting to prove that the 2nd floor encounter couldn't have happened they way they said.
I just don't see any merit in agreeing/disagreeing with scenarios or timings that arise from a story that I am convinced by the evidence was bogus all along.
But as with Bill, I don't mind that you do this work - it leads to the same outcome. Oswald couldn't be the shooter. For me though, it's like arguing over whether God is a loving God or a cruel and warped bastard. It's immaterial to an atheist who has long ago dismissed God as a myth, so any debates about the nature of God are meaningless to me.
Colin,
I'm really interested in reading what you have come up with.
I don't know the answer to your question about the elevator gates but as you're aware I'm really interested to find out whether it was possible for T&B to look up those elevator shafts and see all the way up to the fifth floor.
A question I do have that you may be able to save me some work on is concerning when Baker first entered the building. When he says there were a group of people stood there when he asked where the stairs were who has been identified as being part of that group? This is especially important given that in Truly's early FBI statement he makes a point of stating that when he entered the lobby with Baker they "saw no one there." Which is the oddest portion of his entirely odd statement.
Who is on record as being part of the group that were asked where the stairs were?
_________________
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
- Colin_Crow
- Posts : 322
Join date : 2013-08-03
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Fri 16 May 2014, 10:35 pm
Lee,
I did touch on this point in the response to Richard, albeit briefly. The movie footage that shows PM and Baker charging to the steps also shows a woman in a light coat going up the steps before Baker arrives. He must only be a few seconds from going inside. He does say that people had already entered when he got there. To me, PM is a prime candidate to go inside before Baker given his position. Maybe this woman entered also. I think Baker asked about the stairs once and that Truly likely heard the request as he caught up with Baker and responded accordingly. I do not believe Truly when he says they were the only ones inside.
Does anyone know the time and circumstance of this picture. I think it was a screen cap from movie footage.
I did touch on this point in the response to Richard, albeit briefly. The movie footage that shows PM and Baker charging to the steps also shows a woman in a light coat going up the steps before Baker arrives. He must only be a few seconds from going inside. He does say that people had already entered when he got there. To me, PM is a prime candidate to go inside before Baker given his position. Maybe this woman entered also. I think Baker asked about the stairs once and that Truly likely heard the request as he caught up with Baker and responded accordingly. I do not believe Truly when he says they were the only ones inside.
Does anyone know the time and circumstance of this picture. I think it was a screen cap from movie footage.
- ianlloyd
- Posts : 151
Join date : 2010-03-18
Two encounters?
Fri 16 May 2014, 10:37 pm
Just a thought...could there
have been 2 B&T encounters?
The
first did occur on the 2nd floor with Oswald but
was dismissed by B&T since Baker thought that the assassins were high up,
possibly on the roof, and he didn't think someone would have got that far down
the building and got a coke in the short time that had elapsed, looking so calm
and collected, added to which, Truly vouched for him.
The
second did happen on the 3rd or 4th floor as
Baker initially described with a man 165lbs, dark hair wearing a brown jacket?
Baker
then pretty much removed the Oswald encounter from his mind as he really didn't
think it was relevant for the reasons given above and, when he made his initial
statement, he was relating to the 3rd/4th floor encounter only.
Of
course, as the story evolved, one of these encounters had to be binned - the
3rd/4th floor encounter, leaving the Oswald encounter, hence, Oswald ending up
being described as 165lbs with dark hair wearing a brown jacket. Then, on the
23rd when he made his statement to the SS, he started getting them both mixed
up, hence the deleted "...drinking a coke..."???
TerryWMartin- Posts : 1000
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 72
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA
I am done with the Gilbride creature
Fri 16 May 2014, 11:09 pm
Richard Gilbride wrote:But an essay helps clear up the inexact language made in posting. I have seen little or no feedback regarding exact portions of the essay that are in dispute. Only ridicule, which ReOpenKennedyCase excels at.
Moving the goal posts, setting up straw men... This sort of stuff is so very similar to debates I have seen attempted with DvP (and his ilk) in other places.
The only reason this Gilbride can see "little or no feedback regarding exact portions" of his writing is that he has not bothered reading. People have done so and it has readily visible to anyone who would look. The Gilbride has not, merely excused his rhetoric as "inexact" and then continued restating his case - already shown to be full of holes - and added ad hominem attacks to his dwindling repertoire.
There is nothing substantive in his latest rantings that he has not previously stated. He just keeps repeating the same garbage.
He accused the creator of the "no 2nd floor encounter" as a disinformation agent. Who was it that first said Oswald was not a shooter? Perhaps they were disinformation agents as well.
And the WC being BS, is the suggestion that it was wrong also disinformation?
The Gilbride has displayed a complete and utter grasp of intelligent discourse. He should return his philosophy degree - if he really has one - and go back to his handlers with a hearty "mission unaccomplished".
He claimed he was going to prove his stand. When that didn't work, he pouts and whines and continues spouting as though repitition will win the day.
I will not read or respond to any more of his drivel. My time is too short to waste.
_________________
If God had intended Man to do anything except copulate, He would have given us brains.
- - - Ignatz Verbotham
- GuestGuest
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Fri 16 May 2014, 11:27 pm
I don't think he is being serious, terlin. He is probably having a laugh taking the piss out of the forum. I've always enjoyed his contributions here when I was a lurker and admired his insight and knowledge on the subject. He was always interesting to read.terlin wrote:Richard Gilbride wrote:But an essay helps clear up the inexact language made in posting. I have seen little or no feedback regarding exact portions of the essay that are in dispute. Only ridicule, which ReOpenKennedyCase excels at.
Moving the goal posts, setting up straw men... This sort of stuff is so very similar to debates I have seen attempted with DvP (and his ilk) in other places.
The only reason this Gilbride can see "little or no feedback regarding exact portions" of his writing is that he has not bothered reading. People have done so and it has readily visible to anyone who would look. The Gilbride has not, merely excused his rhetoric as "inexact" and then continued restating his case - already shown to be full of holes - and added ad hominem attacks to his dwindling repertoire.
There is nothing substantive in his latest rantings that he has not previously stated. He just keeps repeating the same garbage.
He accused the creator of the "no 2nd floor encounter" as a disinformation agent. Who was it that first said Oswald was not a shooter? Perhaps they were disinformation agents as well.
And the WC being BS, is the suggestion that it was wrong also disinformation?
The Gilbride has displayed a complete and utter grasp of intelligent discourse. He should return his philosophy degree - if he really has one - and go back to his handlers with a hearty "mission unaccomplished".
He claimed he was going to prove his stand. When that didn't work, he pouts and whines and continues spouting as though repitition will win the day.
I will not read or respond to any more of his drivel. My time is too short to waste.
Hopefully this is just a short episode and normal programming will resume shortly.
Hasan Yusuf- Posts : 1899
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 35
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Fri 16 May 2014, 11:49 pm
Paul Klein wrote:Hopefully this is just a short episode and normal programming will resume shortly.
I doubt that very much.
- GuestGuest
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Fri 16 May 2014, 11:54 pm
My current position on the alleged pneumatic device on the vestibule door.
Earlier in the thread I asked a perfectly reasonable question concerning whether the vestibule door on the second floor had a self-closing device.
I though it was interesting that this was discussed as a given by most people who were discussing this part of the case.
Once I raised the question and received some answers I immediately remembered that I had been through the whole debate before many years ago.
The evidence IMHO is still lacking.
What we currently have is:
a) Photographs of the door with the mechanism in place
b) Film of a reenactment showing a small pneumatic device and the door self closing
What we are absent is:
a) Exact dates of when the photographs were taken
b) Exact dates of the film
More significantly for me is the absence of any report based upon the multiple timed reenactments that were supposed to have been performed in the days following the assassination that mention this pneumatic self-closing device. If it existed then it would have had a massive bearing upon the alleged lunchroom encounter and the timings involved -- yet I can find sod all that details it's existence and the impact it had on any of the alleged reenactments that took place in any report.
The FBI and SS timed everything that they needed to in order to try proving Oswald was the assassin. They timed every step they felt was important. We are supposed to believe they completed detailed reenactments of the Baker-Oswald encounter - yet we have absolutely no mention of a self closing door and its impact on what could and couldn't have happened given whether it was open, closing or closed?
Gilbride exclaimed some sort of victory regarding this after the photos and film stills were posted. "Hooray", he shouted. "I guessed right."
He'd make a very entertaining Jeopardy contestant but he makes for a inept researcher. I guess when someone states that forming conclusions is more important than following the evidence then we can truly understand what we are dealing with.
My mind is not made up about the existence of a pneumatic door device on 11/22/63. The absence of any mention of it anywhere other than a Johnny-come-lately affidavit in September 1964 and it appearing in photos and film taken after the assassination does not fill me with confidence.
Anyone who has studied this case long enough will understand that my skepticism is well founded.
Until something more substantial is found I'm on the fence.
Earlier in the thread I asked a perfectly reasonable question concerning whether the vestibule door on the second floor had a self-closing device.
I though it was interesting that this was discussed as a given by most people who were discussing this part of the case.
Once I raised the question and received some answers I immediately remembered that I had been through the whole debate before many years ago.
The evidence IMHO is still lacking.
What we currently have is:
a) Photographs of the door with the mechanism in place
b) Film of a reenactment showing a small pneumatic device and the door self closing
What we are absent is:
a) Exact dates of when the photographs were taken
b) Exact dates of the film
More significantly for me is the absence of any report based upon the multiple timed reenactments that were supposed to have been performed in the days following the assassination that mention this pneumatic self-closing device. If it existed then it would have had a massive bearing upon the alleged lunchroom encounter and the timings involved -- yet I can find sod all that details it's existence and the impact it had on any of the alleged reenactments that took place in any report.
The FBI and SS timed everything that they needed to in order to try proving Oswald was the assassin. They timed every step they felt was important. We are supposed to believe they completed detailed reenactments of the Baker-Oswald encounter - yet we have absolutely no mention of a self closing door and its impact on what could and couldn't have happened given whether it was open, closing or closed?
Gilbride exclaimed some sort of victory regarding this after the photos and film stills were posted. "Hooray", he shouted. "I guessed right."
He'd make a very entertaining Jeopardy contestant but he makes for a inept researcher. I guess when someone states that forming conclusions is more important than following the evidence then we can truly understand what we are dealing with.
My mind is not made up about the existence of a pneumatic door device on 11/22/63. The absence of any mention of it anywhere other than a Johnny-come-lately affidavit in September 1964 and it appearing in photos and film taken after the assassination does not fill me with confidence.
Anyone who has studied this case long enough will understand that my skepticism is well founded.
Until something more substantial is found I'm on the fence.
- Colin_Crow
- Posts : 322
Join date : 2013-08-03
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Sat 17 May 2014, 12:25 am
Lee, the best I can find is the SS movie was taken late November/early December 63. Of course if it was taken before 22 November 63 it might be a good indicator of conspiracy. 
- GuestGuest
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Sat 17 May 2014, 12:26 am
So this whole vestibule door encounter potentially hinges on a hinge. You guys are fucking hardcore.Hello Goodbye wrote:My current position on the alleged pneumatic device on the vestibule door.
Earlier in the thread I asked a perfectly reasonable question concerning whether the vestibule door on the second had a self-closing device.
I though it was interesting that this was discussed as a given by most people who were discussing this part of the case.
Once I raised the question and received some answers I immediately remembered that I had been through the whole debate before many years ago.
The evidence IMHO is still lacking.
What we currently have is:
a) Photographs of the door with the mechanism in place
b) Film of a reenactment showing a small pneumatic device and the door self closing
What we are absent is:
a) Exact dates of when the photographs were taken
b) Exact dates of the film
More significantly for me is the absence of any report based upon the multiple timed reenactments that were supposed to have been performed in the days following the assassination that mention this pneumatic self-closing device. If it existed then it would have had a massive bearing upon the alleged lunchroom encounter and the timings involved -- yet I can find sod all that details it's existence and the impact it had on any of the alleged reenactments that took place in any report.
The FBI and SS timed everything that they needed to in order to try proving Oswald was the assassin. They timed every step they felt was important. We are supposed to believe they completed detailed reenactments of the Baker-Oswald encounter - yet we have absolutely no mention of a self closing door and its impact on what could and couldn't have happened given whether it was open, closing or closed?
Gilbride exclaimed some sort of victory regarding this after the photos and film stills were posted. "Hooray", he shouted. "I guessed right."
He'd make a very entertaining Jeopardy contestant but he makes for a inept researcher. I guess when someone states that forming conclusions is more important than following the evidence then we can truly understand what we are dealing with.
My mind is not made up about the existence of a pneumatic door device on 11/22/63. The absence of any mention of it anywhere other than a Johnny-come-lately affidavit in September 1964 and it appearing in photos and film taken after the assassination does not fill me with confidence.
Anyone who has studied this case long enough will understand that my skepticism is well founded.
Until something more substantial is found I'm on the fence.
- Colin_Crow
- Posts : 322
Join date : 2013-08-03
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Sat 17 May 2014, 12:51 am
Something I put together a while back FWIW.
- GuestGuest
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Sat 17 May 2014, 1:17 am
Roy Truly quote from an interview with Leo Sauvage included in newspaper article attached below. I do not know the exact date of the interview but Sauvage and his contemporaries Thomas Buchanan and Joachim Joesten were quick off the blocks criticising events in Dallas. I will do my best to find out. In the article where does Roy Truly say Baker was situated when the were ascending the stairs and how different a version do we have from his testimony?
EDIT: I believe Leo Savauge's interview with Roy Truly was in February 1964. The month before Truly and Baker appeared before the Warren Commission.
EDIT 2: Need to find corroboration that interview was in February, '64.
Anyone trying to prop this shit up needs their heads testing.
EDIT: I believe Leo Savauge's interview with Roy Truly was in February 1964. The month before Truly and Baker appeared before the Warren Commission.
EDIT 2: Need to find corroboration that interview was in February, '64.
Anyone trying to prop this shit up needs their heads testing.
- GuestGuest
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Sat 17 May 2014, 1:41 am
Here we have Truly say Baker went ahead of him which makes rather more sense. Lee, do you know when we first learn about it being the other way around? It would be good to get dates on all this.Hello Goodbye wrote:Roy Truly quote from an interview with Leo Sauvage included in newspaper article attached below. I do not know the exact date of the interview but Sauvage and his contemporaries Thomas Buchanan and Joachim Joesten were quick off the blocks criticising events in Dallas. I will do my best to find out. In the article where does Roy Truly say Baker was situated when the were ascending the stairs and how different a version do we have from his official statements and testimony?
Here is some more from Leo Sauvage that might be interesting to all this:
Part of the Oswald Affair
1. Did Oswald Have an Alibi?
Though there have been a number of interesting official variations concerning certain quite important details, it is now an undisputed fact that Lee Oswald was in the second-floor lunchroom of the Texas School Book Depository on Elm Street a very short time after three shots were fired at the Presidential motorcade from a window on the sixth floor of the building. He was seen in the lunchroom by two witnesses: the manager of the Texas School Book Depository, Mr. Roy S. Truly, and a motorcycle policeman who was the first officer to enter the building.
The fact of Oswald’s presence on the second floor, it should be noted, was first presented to the public as evidence against him. In his unforgettable press conference of Sunday, November 24 (“to detail some of the evidence against Oswald for the assassination of the President”), District Attorney Wade put it this way: “A police officer, immediately after the assassination, ran into the building and saw this man [Oswald] in a corner and tried to arrest him. But the manager of the building said he was an employee and it was all right…” In emphasizing that Oswald had barely escaped arrest “immediately after the assassination,” the District Attorney was obviously trying to convey the impression that Oswald had virtually been caught red-handed. He therefore neglected to mention that the place in which Oswald was (as it were) “cornered” was the second-floor lunchroom; nor did he indicate that the police officer and the manager of the building had described Oswald as holding a Coca-Cola bottle in his hand. These details, however, had been announced the day before by Police Chief Jesse Curry, whose Saturday afternoon statement remains very intriguing. Chief Curry started by saying that he could tell from the sound of the shots that they had come from the School Book Depository, and that “right away” he had radioed an order from his car to surround and search the building. Then he told of the first officer to reach it, of this officer climbing the stairs together with the building manager (Mr. Truly), and of the two men seeing Oswald in the lunchroom. There were, he added, “other persons” in the lunchroom as well.
I can see only one explanation for the emphasis both Mr. Wade and Chief Curry placed on how soon after the shots Oswald was seen inside the building, and for the singular statement by Chief Curry—never repeated, but never corrected as a mistake either—to the effect that there were other witnesses to Oswald’s presence in the lunchroom besides the motorcycle policeman and Mr. Truly. According to the version of the story given out by the police on Friday evening, Oswald had been stopped when leaving the building after the assassination, but had been allowed to proceed when Mr. Truly identified him as an employee. This version collapsed when Mr. Truly told the real story to the press, revealing that he had identified Oswald as an employee in the lunchroom, and not at the street door or on the sidewalk. Thus, there were no witnesses to testify to the exact time Oswald left the Elm Street building—and since this raised the possibility that he might claim to have left it before the crime, it became important to stress his presence in the building after the shots had been fired.
Chief Curry’s statement that Oswald was in the lunchroom “among others” has never been retracted. But unless we are to impute criminal negligence, we must assume that on this point Mr. Curry was simply ill informed: if there really were other persons in the lunchroom at the time Oswald entered it and nobody bothered to question them about the exact moment and about his behavior, we could stop and draw our conclusions right now. For the exact moment that Oswald entered the lunchroom is of the very first importance in determining whether it was physically possible for him to have been on the sixth floor when the shots were fired.
All the reports we have—including the statements by Wade and Curry on television and those given to individual reporters—place Oswald in the lunchroom an extremely short time after the crime. Bob Considine of the Hearst Press, for example, was told that Oswald had been questioned inside the building “almost before the smoke from the assassin’s gun had disappeared.” As for me, I have the direct testimony of one of the two witnesses, Mr. Roy Truly. When I asked him whether it had taken a long time for him and the motorcycle policeman to reach the lunchroom, he answered (apparently not realizing what I was driving at): “Oh, no! It was as soon as the last shot was fired when I saw the officer come running. As a matter of fact, it was so soon afterwards that I don’t believe he was riding in the motorcade. He must have been off his motorcycle, standing nearby. Anyhow, it was right away after the shots. I knew they were shots, but had no idea they were fired from the building. I thought the officer wanted to get to the roof for a better look and I immediately offered to show him how. We ran to the freight elevators in the back of the building because the front elevators do not go beyond the fourth floor, but the two freight cars had both been left somewhere up in the top floors and we took the stairs, the officer ahead of me. When I reached the second-floor landing, the officer was already at the open door of the lunchroom, some twenty or twenty-five feet away. No, I couldn’t tell you exactly how much time it took, all this, but it wasn’t long…”
The obvious question, then, is whether there was enough time for Lee Oswald—if he fired the shots from the front window on the sixth floor—to run to the staircase in the back (that is, on the opposite side of the building), hide the gun, and go down four flights of stairs to the lunchroom before the motorcycle policeman and Mr. Truly saw him there, not panting, not looking suspicious, and probably sipping a Coke (which means additional time for getting it out of the vending machine and opening it).
We “amateur investigators” obviously have no means of doing that type of checking. But did the professional investigators—the Dallas police, the FBI, the Secret Service—do it? During the week following the assassination of Oswald, the FBI spent a lot of time in and around the Texas School Book Depository. Since the press was not allowed inside the building while the FBI was there, we do not know whether and how Oswald’s movements immediately after the shooting were checked. But in order to find out whether Oswald had an alibi or not, it was not only necessary to get as close an estimate as possible of the time he would have needed to make his way from the sixth to the second floor. It was also necessary to find out precisely how much time elapsed between the last shot and the moment the motorcycle policeman and Mr. Truly saw Oswald in the lunchroom.
“I told them, as I just told you, that it was a very short time,” Roy Truly answered when I asked him whether there had been any special tests to determine the number of seconds he and the motorcycle policeman lost in the lobby with the elevators before starting to climb the stairs. When I pressed the point, he said: “No, nothing else…” And none of the many reporters and photographers who for days kept a close watch on the Texas School Book Depository, writing and taking pictures of the various re-enactments of the assassination staged on Elm Street, even saw a motorcycle policeman running into the building under the eyes of detectives with stopwatches in their hands.
- beowulf
- Posts : 373
Join date : 2013-04-21
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Sat 17 May 2014, 3:33 am
I thought the officer wanted to get to the roof for a better look and I immediately offered to show him how.
Nice telepathy here, apparently Baker was as quiet on the first floor as Oswald was on the second.
and we took the stairs, the officer ahead of me. When I reached the second-floor landing, the officer was already at the open door of the lunchroom, some twenty or twenty-five feet away...
That is curious, why did the story change from Truly leading the charge to Baker leading? What's more this business about "open door of the lunchroom" makes it seem like running up the front stairs was still an option [in winter of 1964, piece was published that March]. Funny, the word "vestibule" apparently is not yet in Truly's vocabulary.
And none of the many reporters and photographers who for days kept a close watch on the Texas School Book Depository, writing and taking pictures of the various re-enactments of the assassination staged on Elm Street, even saw a motorcycle policeman running into the building under the eyes of detectives with stopwatches in their hands...
What is up with ML Baker? Not only is he not on site for the FBI building survey time trials, he isn't even identified by name (he's listed in criminal complaint, so shouldn't the press know who he is by now?). I fear brother Baker was headed for an inopportune motorcycle accident had he not finally played ball.
Nice telepathy here, apparently Baker was as quiet on the first floor as Oswald was on the second.
and we took the stairs, the officer ahead of me. When I reached the second-floor landing, the officer was already at the open door of the lunchroom, some twenty or twenty-five feet away...
That is curious, why did the story change from Truly leading the charge to Baker leading? What's more this business about "open door of the lunchroom" makes it seem like running up the front stairs was still an option [in winter of 1964, piece was published that March]. Funny, the word "vestibule" apparently is not yet in Truly's vocabulary.
And none of the many reporters and photographers who for days kept a close watch on the Texas School Book Depository, writing and taking pictures of the various re-enactments of the assassination staged on Elm Street, even saw a motorcycle policeman running into the building under the eyes of detectives with stopwatches in their hands...
What is up with ML Baker? Not only is he not on site for the FBI building survey time trials, he isn't even identified by name (he's listed in criminal complaint, so shouldn't the press know who he is by now?). I fear brother Baker was headed for an inopportune motorcycle accident had he not finally played ball.
- GuestGuest
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Sat 17 May 2014, 3:54 am
Paul Klein wrote:
"Here we have Truly say Baker went ahead of him which makes rather more sense. Lee, do you know when we first learn about it being the other way around? It would be good to get dates on all this."
The problem with the entire thing is no matter what way this piece of shit story was put together it had plot holes and timing issues.
They settled on the one that they felt made the most sense even though they actually voiced the other variations such was the outright cheek of these lying bastards.
Truly is a lying sack of shit no matter what way you cut it and Baker went along with it all.
The shame of it is that all the critics fell for the lunchroom encounter as being real and tried proving it exonerated Oswald rather than pursuing whether it actually occurred at all. It certainly did the job of burying any and all talk of Oswald being not only on the first floor, but more than likely in the doorway watching the motorcade go by. This is why I really believe the FBI shat a brick when people started saying that Oswald was pictured in the doorway of Altgens-6.
The same happened with the brown paper bag where the arguments, led by Mark Lane, were to try and prove the rifle didn't fit rather than pursuing whether a bag existed in the first place.
Tippit murder; everyone arguing about whether Oswald could get to the scene in the time allocated from his boarding house -- when the likelihood is he never lived in that damn house and was probably already in the Theater eating his popcorn.
I've yet to come across anything true written about this poor kid.
And now that we know that Truly was helping create the best fit scenario for this bullshit encounter right the way up to appearance in front of David Belin, Richard Gilbride can well and TRULY kiss my arse...
"Here we have Truly say Baker went ahead of him which makes rather more sense. Lee, do you know when we first learn about it being the other way around? It would be good to get dates on all this."
The problem with the entire thing is no matter what way this piece of shit story was put together it had plot holes and timing issues.
They settled on the one that they felt made the most sense even though they actually voiced the other variations such was the outright cheek of these lying bastards.
Truly is a lying sack of shit no matter what way you cut it and Baker went along with it all.
The shame of it is that all the critics fell for the lunchroom encounter as being real and tried proving it exonerated Oswald rather than pursuing whether it actually occurred at all. It certainly did the job of burying any and all talk of Oswald being not only on the first floor, but more than likely in the doorway watching the motorcade go by. This is why I really believe the FBI shat a brick when people started saying that Oswald was pictured in the doorway of Altgens-6.
The same happened with the brown paper bag where the arguments, led by Mark Lane, were to try and prove the rifle didn't fit rather than pursuing whether a bag existed in the first place.
Tippit murder; everyone arguing about whether Oswald could get to the scene in the time allocated from his boarding house -- when the likelihood is he never lived in that damn house and was probably already in the Theater eating his popcorn.
I've yet to come across anything true written about this poor kid.
And now that we know that Truly was helping create the best fit scenario for this bullshit encounter right the way up to appearance in front of David Belin, Richard Gilbride can well and TRULY kiss my arse...
- GuestGuest
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Sat 17 May 2014, 4:37 am
Roy Truly's statement to the FBI on November 22nd, 1963:
"He [Truly] then noticed a Dallas City Police officer wearing a motorcycle helmet and·boots running toward the entrance of the depository building and he accompanied the officer into the front of the building. They saw no one there and be accompanied the officer immediately up the stairs to the second floor of the building, where the officer noticed a door and stepped through the door, gun in hand, and observed OSWALD in a snack bar there, apparently alone. This snack bar no windows or doors, facing the outside of the building, but is located almost in the center of the building. The officer pointed to OSWALD and asked if OSWALD was an employee of the company and he, TRULY, assured the officer that OSWALD was an employee. He and then proceeded onto the roof of the building."
Roy Truly's statement to the FBI on November 23rd, 1963:
"They stopped at the freight elevators and, observing that these elevators were not on the first floor they ran up the stairway after he showed the officer where the stairway was. As they reached the second floor landing, the officer opened a door to a small lunch room next to the business office on that floor, and stuck his gun in the door. LEE OSWALD was in the lunch room. The officer asked him if he was an employee, to which OSWALD replied that he was. TRULY and the officer gave this no further consideration, inasmuch as OSWALD was an employee, and they ran up to the fifth floor"
Truly's interview with Leo Sauvage:
"…we took the stairs, the Officer ahead of me. When I reached the second floor landing, the officer was already at the door of the lunchroom some twenty or twenty five feet away. No, I couldn't tell you how much time it took, all this, but it wasn't long…"
Roy Truly's Warren Commission testimony:
Mr. BELIN. Okay. And where was this officer at that time?
Mr. TRULY. This officer was right behind me and coming up the stairway. By the time I reached the second floor, the officer was a little further behind me than he was on the first floor, I assume - I know.
Mr. BELIN. Was he a few feet behind you then?
Mr. TRULY. He was a few feet. It is hard for me to tell. I ran right on around to my left, started to continue on up the stairway to the third floor, and on up.
...
Mr. TRULY. I suppose I was up two or three steps before I realized the officer wasn't following me.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. TRULY. I came back to the second floor landing.…
I'm real interested to see how Mr. Gilbride expects all us "brainwashed green-cheesers" to interpret this dramatic Truly u-turn in 1964. I'm guessing a literal translation won't be on the cards -- this will instead require the Gilbride Gobbledegook Jabberwocky machine [patent pending] to be cranked up to its highest setting...
"He [Truly] then noticed a Dallas City Police officer wearing a motorcycle helmet and·boots running toward the entrance of the depository building and he accompanied the officer into the front of the building. They saw no one there and be accompanied the officer immediately up the stairs to the second floor of the building, where the officer noticed a door and stepped through the door, gun in hand, and observed OSWALD in a snack bar there, apparently alone. This snack bar no windows or doors, facing the outside of the building, but is located almost in the center of the building. The officer pointed to OSWALD and asked if OSWALD was an employee of the company and he, TRULY, assured the officer that OSWALD was an employee. He and then proceeded onto the roof of the building."
Roy Truly's statement to the FBI on November 23rd, 1963:
"They stopped at the freight elevators and, observing that these elevators were not on the first floor they ran up the stairway after he showed the officer where the stairway was. As they reached the second floor landing, the officer opened a door to a small lunch room next to the business office on that floor, and stuck his gun in the door. LEE OSWALD was in the lunch room. The officer asked him if he was an employee, to which OSWALD replied that he was. TRULY and the officer gave this no further consideration, inasmuch as OSWALD was an employee, and they ran up to the fifth floor"
Truly's interview with Leo Sauvage:
"…we took the stairs, the Officer ahead of me. When I reached the second floor landing, the officer was already at the door of the lunchroom some twenty or twenty five feet away. No, I couldn't tell you how much time it took, all this, but it wasn't long…"
Roy Truly's Warren Commission testimony:
Mr. BELIN. Okay. And where was this officer at that time?
Mr. TRULY. This officer was right behind me and coming up the stairway. By the time I reached the second floor, the officer was a little further behind me than he was on the first floor, I assume - I know.
Mr. BELIN. Was he a few feet behind you then?
Mr. TRULY. He was a few feet. It is hard for me to tell. I ran right on around to my left, started to continue on up the stairway to the third floor, and on up.
...
Mr. TRULY. I suppose I was up two or three steps before I realized the officer wasn't following me.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. TRULY. I came back to the second floor landing.…
I'm real interested to see how Mr. Gilbride expects all us "brainwashed green-cheesers" to interpret this dramatic Truly u-turn in 1964. I'm guessing a literal translation won't be on the cards -- this will instead require the Gilbride Gobbledegook Jabberwocky machine [patent pending] to be cranked up to its highest setting...
- beowulf
- Posts : 373
Join date : 2013-04-21
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Sat 17 May 2014, 4:41 am
Colin,
About that picture of Truly & Baker on ground floor, I think Sean suggested it was shot at the WC's re-creation the following spring. The only photographer in the TSBD on Day One was TV cameraman Tom Alyea, I don't think I've seen that scene in any of his footage, and that shot looks more in focus and sharper than what Robin Unger has posted in his Alyea gallery. Maybe the Truly/Baker pic is a photograph and not screen capture of film. Has anyone seen a motion picture version of the Truly/Baker scene?
http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/thumbnails.php?album=23
About that picture of Truly & Baker on ground floor, I think Sean suggested it was shot at the WC's re-creation the following spring. The only photographer in the TSBD on Day One was TV cameraman Tom Alyea, I don't think I've seen that scene in any of his footage, and that shot looks more in focus and sharper than what Robin Unger has posted in his Alyea gallery. Maybe the Truly/Baker pic is a photograph and not screen capture of film. Has anyone seen a motion picture version of the Truly/Baker scene?
http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/thumbnails.php?album=23
StanDane- Posts : 3644
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 71
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Sat 17 May 2014, 5:26 am
In all of the places I've worked in my life, I always learned the quickest/easiest/fastest way to get where I wanted to go. I found elevators that service office workers to generally be zippy and fast, while elevators designed to haul equipment as well as people to be slower. If I needed to get somewhere in a hurry, I took this into account.Leo Sauvage wrote:I [Roy Truly] thought the officer wanted to get to the roof for a better look and I immediately offered to show him how. We ran to the freight elevators in the back of the building because the front elevators do not go beyond the fourth floor, but the two freight cars had both been left somewhere up in the top floors and we took the stairs, the officer ahead of me. When I reached the second-floor landing, the officer was already at the open door of the lunchroom, some twenty or twenty-five feet away. No, I couldn't tell you exactly how much time it took, all this, but it wasn't long…
I wonder if the elevator in the SE corner of the TSBD building was faster than the freight elevators in the NW corner? I got to think an office creature like Truly would use the front office elevator whenever possible. If it was indeed fast and if he wanted to go to the fifth or sixth floors, why not take it quickly up to the up to the fourth, walk over to the freight elevators and take them up the rest of the way, or use the stairs from there? What I'm trying to do here is to put myself in Truly's wingtips and anticipate what I might have done.
So I'm Roy and I hear shots...this cop comes running up...he wants to go to the roof...I take him inside the front door to the elevator right there and we quickly go up to the fourth floor...we cross over the relatively open fourth floor to the elevators, and if they are not quickly available, we take the stairs up the last few flights. Ain't wasting no time.
I'm speculating out the wazoo here, but I don't think I would have trudged over to the NW corner and then hoped those elevators were on the first floor, and if not, jumped through the hoops to coax those suckers on down, and failing that, then start running up the stairs. (He had to be familiar with the layout of the building and how all the moving parts worked, so his brain had to process the alternatives instantly.) Truly was an old fart, so I can't imagine him wanting to do wind sprints up 6-7 flights of stairs. I sure as hell wouldn't. But I may be missing something and I could be wrong, of course.
But after reading what Sauvage wrote, I found another reason to be skeptical of what Truly said he did.
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum|
|
|