The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Colin Crow wrote:
Is it possible that all of these events occurred? Would it be possible for Adams and Styles to descend without noticing (or being noticed by) Baker and Truly? Is it possible for Oswald to be PM and still make it to the lunchroom to be noticed by Baker?
From what I have seen, I would tend to agree with Richard that maybe the girls passed Baker and Truly while the latter were involved with Oswald in the lunchroom. The question would then be, why would PM Oswald want to go to a postion where he was spotted by Baker on the second floor? It would seem this event triggered him to leave the building, not the firing of shots.

greg parker wrote:

It would seem this event triggered him to leave the building, not the firing of shots.

If "this event" happened at all Colin, you may be right. 

Oswald's actual alibi - first day news accounts - accounts given to HSCA by fellow employees represent the Bermuda Triangle of the lunchroom story because they all point to a first floor encounter.

Ray Mitcham wrote:

Colin Crow wrote:
Is it possible that all of these events occurred? Would it be possible for Adams and Styles to descend without noticing (or being noticed by) Baker and Truly? Is it possible for Oswald to be PM and still make it to the lunchroom to be noticed by Baker?
From what I have seen, I would tend to agree with Richard that maybe the girls passed Baker and Truly while the latter were involved with Oswald in the lunchroom. The question would then be, why would PM Oswald want to go to a postion where he was spotted by Baker on the second floor? It would seem this event triggered him to leave the building, not the firing of shots.

I tend to disagree with the two girls not noticing them Baker and Truly when the latter were involved with Oswald, as according to their statements neither of the two men entered the rest room, so they would both have been very visible to the girls as they came out of the down stair well. As well as the girls not seeing the two men, the two men said nothing about seeing two girls passing, which they surely would have heard if not seen.

Colin Crow wrote: There is convincing evidence they were downstairs within a minute or so.

Stan Dane wrote:

Colin Crow wrote: There is convincing evidence they were downstairs within a minute or so.

That would be downstairs to the first floor in no more than a minute. Just like Victoria Adams said all along. Correct?

John Mooney wrote:As I said previously, Truly lied to the Warren Commission about the picture that was presented as Bakers view when he rounded the staircase. (See my previous post in this thread).

That absolutely was not Bakers view.

I am also suspicious about the number of boxes that blocked any view of the lunchroom door. There are various pictures that suggest the boxes could have been stacked head high between the stair door and the lunchroom door.

Richard Gilbride wrote:I was given a responsibility as administrator to be in a boss position. I cared deeply about this forum, its image and such, including how members here , were treated (or mistreated) on other forums. But to have it de-evolve into a profanity-tossing fest after the David Josephs incident set me off big-time. I explained that I see where using profanity is offensive, uncalled for.

And I stepped into the fight to attempt to break it up, seeing myself as making a magnanimous gesture by apologizing to David. I was viciously attacked with insults for doing this. My "revenge" is directed against these particular insults. If there had been animosity against my general posting personality, it really came out then.

True, I don't need this forum. Life is extremely full for me. My schedule often gives me inadequate time for it. But I think we can carry on with respect and calmness from here, I really do. I got very upset to watch this place bottom out into a mudslinging pit, when it does a lot of high-class and high-caliber research.

It seems that I owe everyone an apology. So be it. I'm sorry. But please understand that my anger was stoked by your anger, and it was yours initially. It inflamed into a Lord of the Flies situation. This has been a common scene on JFK forums the past several years, and small wonder that the divisive invectives cause more harm than good.

We can get down to brass tacks or continue venting, the choice is ours and will be ongoing. I am quite passionate about this particular issue and have every confidence of the correctness of my stated position. It might be a good tonic for the research community, to have this debate on record and to show that we can settle down after explosive in-fighting.

I will make an effort to tone down the rhetoric. It would be a shame to lose the discussion because of heated emotions. However, I will not tone down my confidence in my correctness.

Tomorrow I have a few hours off and can spend some time re-posting the "brass tacks", as this discussion may need a fresh starting point.

Last edited by dwdunn(akaDan) on Thu 24 Apr 2014 - 21:14; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : I meant to edit for clarification (underlining, quotebox for the RG quote), but it appears correct in edit format, so must be due to Lee's limbo status as poster/member? Nothing to see here then, nothing edited.)

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:But his post didn't look as it currently looks originally, until I went to edit & did nothing other than "Send" the post (which looked correct in Edit format). So, in other words, the orignal had no yellow quote box but had [quot]//[/quot] around RG's quoted part, as well as b & i bracketing on emphasized words (which looked right after I'd sent the (un)edited post back. Anyway, at least it looks right now.

Life is like a box of edits. You never now what flubber you're going to get.  

It's hard to get used to calling him "Goodbye" after all this time tho; I preferred "Lee" or even "Farley."

Hmmm.

After spending a month in the United States and watching, mostly from a distance, the black comedy unfold here and elsewhere concerning five year old dopplegangers, I really need to put my own full stop on this.

Richard Gilbride was given the job of moderator here at RKC because Greg has enjoyed a long friendship with him here at the forum.  Richard was generally warm and friendly until a topic arose that he had invested himself in emotionally and financially.  If you questioned any of his deep rooted JFK assassination beliefs he became quite surly and arrogant.  I know Richard has accused me of the same thing and in some ways he is correct but there is a massive difference that needs to be considered.

I hold very few immovable beliefs concerning the assassination.  My experience doing this quickly taught me that sometimes things can completely turn on their head.  Only an open mind will find the hidden structure of the story.  My purpose at this forum, and the other forums I have been a member of, is to question everything.  Turn over every rock.  Keep digging until something clicks.  Dismantle and reassemble.  Keep going.  Find collaborators.  Bounce ideas around.

When it came to the above, Richard Gilbride, I found, was more of a hinderance than a help.

In a previous post after I called him a "condescending cunt", that I stand by on every level, he had the audacity to try and besmirch the research I did into Ralph Yates.  No one, and I mean no one, has done more research into Yates that me on these forums.  Every document was read over and over again concerning his alleged experiences.  Months of digging and reevaluating every detail.  Every book containing his name was trawled over.  Each part of the story was presented to the wider community with pertinent questions regarding him and the hitchhiker and the possible relationship with the wider assassination narrative.  There were some people who wanted to collaborate on learning more.  Only a few.  There were many who didn't.  Richard Gilbride fell into the latter camp.  He joined the ranks of other closed minded nutcases who float around these forums to single-mindedly dismiss everything that was presented on a complete whim with very little thought put into the responses he gave. 

His replies became more frustrating to read than any of my numerous tête-à-têtes with David Lifton.

The bottom line concerning one of Richard's sacred cows, Ralph Yates, was that Yates was used by John Armstring to prop up the Harvey and Lee bollocks.  And in Richard's world, as we have also seen with the Fez, Harvey and Lee are established facts.  It got to a point when communicating with Richard that even the most obvious of points were being hand waved away because they were simply too uncomfortable for him to contemplate.  To agree with simple things would mean having to eventually agree with more complex things and this was never going to happen with someone with a titanium skull.  Most of the time if I awoke to a Gilbride reply to one of my threads I would open it up with trepidation in case I had advertently or inadvertently pulled the rug out from one of his reinforced beliefs.

So, back to his moderation abilities.  Utter shite.  Three times he was called on to moderate.  Three times he failed.  Miserably.  Devoid of empathy he simply threw petrol on issues.  He allowed a posted here to claim I was a dangerous stalker who could kill someone.  The utter dick-wad that is Bobby Prudhomme was first caught bitching like a fucking little girl on another forum about things written here and then when pulled on it he made up some lie that he was again pulled on.  He didn't like being caught in a lie and so the only thing he had left was to scrape the bottom of the barrel like all good liars do.

When I gave the ultimatum after Bobby the Deer Fucker got splinters scraping the shit encrusted barrel I could not imagine that Richard Gilbride would fuck things up so badly by leaving the bottom feeder's comments insitu and then passing the blame elsewhere.  I left this forum immediately after Richard's response and did not return upon Hasan's counter move.  Bobby the Deer Banger seems to think this is innacurate and he private messaged Greg after the Deep Arseholes Forum debacle to state this.  Obviously when one is a proven liar within the community we cannot expect anything else but for the said liar to keep on creating lies to feed his own insatiable ego.  This prick's MO is to cry, bitch, whinge and moan that nobody reads or replies to his posts.  Create falsehoods to deflect away from his crying, bitching, whinging and moaning when confronted and then expect to be listened to when he claims he is fighting for truth.  Only an isolated redneck with an infatuation with firearms could be so confused as to why liars aren't taken seriously in any environment apart from politics.

And this is what this sorry state of affairs degenerated into.  A game of politics.  With a dumbass "lawyer"; a hunter who accuses others of stalking; a man who will take you in circles for the rest of your life; a racist PR man who abuses fonts; and a utter tit who employed Warren Commission tactics to try, and fail, to win any argument whatsoever as the cast of characters who joined together to put a stop on any and all debate on the issue of Harvey & Lee.

Now, I probably hold a special place here concerning one particular point.  I have read the book.  Much of the information is useful. Some areas were/are groundbreaking. The writing is awful.  The cental thesis is utter shite.  The sources and endnotes in multiple, multiple instances cannot be trusted.  I have debunked many parts of it.  I believe Armstrong knowingly warped certain evidence to fit and left other evidence out that didn't but evidence that he most certainly owned.

So The Fez can stick that in his pipe and then shove his pipe up his arse, along with Harvey & Lee, and along with Jim Hargrove's and Dawn Meredith's tongues.  I've read the book.  I've extensively searched Armstrong's archive.  And I know there was no Harvey & Lee.

I have stopped researching right now.  I pulled out of the book project with Greg.  I am sick of dealing with utter idiots and liars when asking serious questions.  Whether they be David Von Pein or Bob Prudhomme - who purport to be on opposite sides but in actual fact belong on the same one - the side of say anything to win the argument - no matter what the cost.

The cost for me in all this will now be less expensive.  Less frustration.  Less banging of my head against the wall.  Less communicating with fucking imbeciles.  That group is now extended to include Richard Gilbride who seemed to think rolling his sleeves up and calling me "twat" was the best way to put a lid on the boiling pan.  Which tells you all you need to know as to why he couldn't moderate his way out of a wet paper bag...

...and why his propping up of the Baker lunchroom mularkey will have to take place elsewhere.

P.S. Bobby The Deer's efforts to measure CE399 with his dick have been hilarious to witness.  He fails every time.  Someone needs to tell him that a small guy will always be a small guy no matter how much he stretches it.

Hasan Yusuf wrote:I for one will spare you any further ultimatums, Greg. However, let me also state that I do NOT believe the condescending prick had the best interests of the forum at heart when he wrote his BS apology to the Fez.

Goodbye wrote:To Greg, i do not want to create any more divisiveness here but simply wanted to summarise my feelings on the matter.  I avoided locking horns with Richard when the Bobby P bollocks came to a head out of respect for you and the forum.  At the time I had two options - go for Gilbride's scalp or leave.  I decided to leave.  

I had begun to make my feeling known to you in subtle ways concerning Richard's roadblock type attitude to the things I wanted to discuss on this forum a few months before all this took place in a few emails.  The most significant one was his attempted shutting down of any discussion regarding the authentication of the Powell photos of the TSBD.  In that email I told you that Gilbride was "nuts."

I hate being proven right all of the time.

I did not drop out of co-authorship of the book with you for any other reasons that the ones shared privately with you and I mentioned it in my post only to make a point that I was leaving this research behind me.

I will certainly admit that in ordinary circumstances I would not have issued an "ultimatum" and I understand that behaviour like this forces people into awkward situations.  If it wasn't me who was at the centre of the situation I know instinctively how it should have been handled by Hasan and Richard.  Unfortunately, Richard got in first and did the only thing that was going to result in me leaving.  He left the comment that was made by the complete wanker on the board and he he requested we both take time out.  I neither wanted nor needed a time out.  I wanted the gun-freak taken to task for writing such a gutless and cowardly comment.

I can take being called almost anything.  I can generally give better than I receive.  But there are limits.  And that complete and utter arse-wipe from the fucking tundra couldn't regulate himself enough to take the back and forth to the limit and not go so far past that I wanted the wanker gone from a place I care deeply about.

To then see Gilbride's response to David Joseph and I finally understood my instincts were spot on. They're very rarely wrong when it comes to weighing up people.  It's my day job and it has served me well in my capacity of JFK researcher too.  

Dan - I have never disagreed with anything you have ever posted.  On any forum.  About any topic.  You are a man who understands me very well.  I appreciate your comments.  I appreciate your insights.  I admire your intellect.  

You have witnessed many of my internet scraps.  You have watched me win virtually all of them.  But every scrapper's luck runs out at some point and they're left punch drunk and exhausted.  One fight too many eventually takes its toll.

Well, I guess you've finally got around to subtly describing what you see as the difference between you and I.