The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Wed 02 Apr 2014, 7:42 pm

First topic message reminder :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thu 24 Apr 2014, 10:07 pm

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.

Thu 24 Apr 2014, 11:20 pm

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.

Lee,

Richard was given the job in recognition of the fact that he was around when no one else was. If it had not been for Richard, I'd have been talking to myself and would probably have just folded the tent.

Some of the things you say here, I admit to being totally oblivious to, or else they did not impress me in the manner they have you and as a result, I have simply forgotten. I do agree however, that Richard's handling of the matter was lop-sided, even if, as he contends, well-meaning. It is also true it lacked empathy for your POV. Richard was not - and is not having his membership deleted over it. He did lose his admin status and since then, he has indicated a willingness to move on with what we are supposed to be here for.

If your pulling out of the book project had anything to do with this, then that is also something I was oblivious to.

"this sorry state of affairs..." boils down to this for me... Richard got sent over the edge and you and possibly one other member have bailed. This forum has been up since 2009 - that's approximately 260 weeks - of that period, I could count on one hand the number of weeks this place has been in cage-fighting mode over substantial issues between members. It is a piddling amount of time compared to the life thus far of the forum. One wave in 5 years of relative calm. But look at the devastation. Certainly, you and others have hung tough at other forums for a lot longer than you have here - even though the relative calm in those places are small islands in an ocean of verbal violence.

Richard has written an article on why he believes the 2nd floor incident occurred and I intend to host it at the main site when I get time to put it up. It will however, share space with a piece outlining the counter argument.

Since all this started, I have been issued two ultimatums and one quasi-ultimatum. I have let it slide because of the genuine affection I have for those issuing them and out of trying to understand the frustration and grievances from which they sprang.

But I think I have reached my limit.

Yes, it is hard yards dealing with idiots, cutting through the noise levels, all the while doing the dirty work of deconstruction that needed doing. Sometimes I despair, too. But I have provided whatever I can to make collaboration bearable and fruitful.

You know exactly where you stand with me. I've told you a number of times. That hasn't, and won't change.

Nor will my standards regarding fair and equitable treatment to all. I don't pretend it's perfect, but it is underpinned with a sense of humility and humanity.

Fri 25 Apr 2014, 2:04 am

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.

Fri 25 Apr 2014, 5:07 am

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.

Nor do I Hasan; he had his own ego and firm beliefs at stake, and subsequently revealed some less than admirable qualities of character. It happens. If it also happened (as seems possible) because he had loyalty to a friend at heart, that at least is more understandable and less reprehensible than otherwise. The main issue was presuming to speak on behalf of everyone, and especially to do so without any kind of discussion with anyone about it. (That kind of thing also tends to happen where someone thinks of himself as a "boss.")

I'm glad Greg brought up the issue of ultimatums. I kept quiet about this at the time(s) they occurred, but I was prepared to advise you to "be careful what you wish for" in supporting me to be a moderator, because I had some critical things to say about issuing ultimatums. That being, basically: either shit or get off the pot. Lee made an ultimatum about Prudhomme's membership; that put you in the awkward position of having to choose between them. You made a decision and then made your own ultimatum in the event your decision was reversed. These things are understandable, and I frankly was inclined to be agreeable to Lee's attitude on the basis of his having good instincts about liars and trolls (from my experience); but I didn't think Prudhomme's behavior was sufficiently negative to delete his membership outright, much less to do so as the result of an ultimatum being issued. Taken to the logical extreme, that will only result in the same thing we see at DPF: a handful of regular posters agreeing with one another and banning anyone who doesn't say things they like to hear. Probably just as important, it puts a "boss" in the position of choosing loyalty to a friend or to someone you admire or agree with, as opposed to being fair to those you oppose or don't admire or agree with. So in that vein, "either shit or get off the pot" means: make your position/attitude/beliefs known to the best of your ability, and if you find things intolerable take a sabbatical or leave entirely, but please don't make threats to try to ensure you get your way.

For Lee personally I have still more gratuitous advice. I sympathize entirely with being frustrated in dealing with people who may not be honest, who may be pursuing an agenda, who may be complete idiots, who may be touched in the head. And as you may recall, I once said something about nothing being worth the price of our own mental health. The problem is that these venues are not the place to be if one wants to avoid the frustrations, or if one finds (for instance) that one is obsessively engaged in them and so endangering one's own balance and life outside "the round." From my own experience, though, I'll say that going halfway doesn't help much; lurking without direct communication is still involvement in the things that are the source of frustration and worry. The only "cure" is a clean break, getting entirely away from it altogether and not (for instance) ever bothering in the least with Robert Prudhomme's current discussions with a loy-yer friend of Dawn Meredith, or Ernie Lazar's ongoing efforts to debate Tartuffe, or how Vince Palamara thought that David Von Pein had written a book when DVP had merely written a Foreward for a(nother) book written by Mel Ayton, or indeed how anyone could take seriously someone who chooses a nom de plume lifted from being influenced by 1980s professional wrestling in the United States (call me "Von Pain," as that is what I shall be for you, conspiracy buffs).

I would much rather see you here and involved, Lee. But if you choose not to be, I hope you'll take my unsolicited advice to heart and free yourself from "all this" entirely, or at least for a period of time to get away from it entirely. Otherwise you're half in and half out, which I don't think helps any. In any event, I personally have the highest regard and admiration for you, and I wish the best for you.

Fri 25 Apr 2014, 5:24 am

Well said, Dan. Very well said.

Fri 25 Apr 2014, 6:55 am

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.

Fri 25 Apr 2014, 7:39 am

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.

As I've explained before, I don't read every post here, and time zones mean that even when I do see a post, it's sometimes too late in terms of addressing it in the timely matter expected. To be given ultimatums with deadlines I couldn't meet, even if I were inclined to, was disappointing to me to say the least.

Let me tell you where I come from. I run a corner store. You can't get more humble than that. I make hot-dogs and coffee for tradesmen and sell newspapers to little old ladies who only buy it for the death notices. But most of my customers like me. Most of them leave with a smile because I treat them with respect, kid around with them, smile even when I haven't slept more than 5 hours in the past 2 days.

I left school at 14. I took whatever work I could get rather than take a handout. I have worked as a laborer in factories, as a cleaner at markets, poured beers, worked on construction sites, done data entry, once lived on stale bread and a jar of vegemite for a week between jobs when I could have just gone hand in cap to the government, or to my parents. Somewhere in there I also climbed as high as middle management in the federal public service while competing for those jobs with snotty-nosed pimple-faced kids fresh from university. Later still, I also ran a profitable office of a major employment agency.

I do whatever I have to do. No more, no less. And that will include solving this case.

I'm no quitter. Not for anyone or anything. And I do it on my terms because I trust myself to do what's right.

Fri 25 Apr 2014, 8:04 am

[quote="greg parker"][quote="Goodbye"]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.[/quote]

I'm no quitter. Not for anyone or anything.
[/quote]

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

Fri 25 Apr 2014, 8:40 am

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

You mean apart from being tall, holding onto a successful career, having a proper education and being well traveled? cheers

Look Lee, all I'm saying is I have never let anything stop me do what I want to do. As a teen, I wanted to follow my father and take up boxing. I had to omit a lot of medical history to get registered, but I did it. And I went out with a perfect record. I wanted to have kids, but couldn't. I still did it through IVF. I've always wanted to write a book. I finally did it, even if I had to self-publish. I've done everything anyone ever said I couldn't. I've taken every knock and got back up and never resiled from a fight where principles were involved. I've made plenty of mistakes along the way, but I have never failed to try and make them right where I could.

We are the same in this respect. You would not be quitting over a few scraps. And I don't believe you don't care about this case any more.

And you still have a hell of a lot to offer.

Fri 25 Apr 2014, 8:46 am

Lee,

Just to focus on the Powell photo issue, I looked into it recently and my instincts were correct. One thing, Walt Brown (Cakebread) doesn't have a science degree, but a history Ph.D. So am I to sign on to this brainstorm of his, re: Powell was actually taken several minutes before the assassination?

There's a contrail in Dillard B in XIX, yes, and there's not one in Powell. But there was a pretty good headwind that day. I did some rough ballpark calculations: setting the contrail at 10,000 feet, setting the wind at 15 mph, and found that a contrail would move over 300 feet in 15 seconds (my estimate of difference between Dillard and Powell photos). And Dillard grabs a much bigger slice of sky than Powell, which is significantly closer to the TSBD. So it's very easy for me to attribute the contrail's "disappearance" in Powell to the wind.

It's much more difficult to establish a case for the photo being taken circa 12:27. So that's enough for me to accept Powell's December 31 FBI statement that it was 30 seconds after the assassination; that's a barely legible document as it is. Rather than bang my brains trying to chase what still looks to me like a mis-notion of a history major.

Fri 25 Apr 2014, 10:23 am

Why can't we all agree that Prudhomme is a prick and move on? I dealt with him at Duncans forum and it didn't take me long to ignore the fucker. There is something that is not right about him.

Fri 25 Apr 2014, 1:02 pm

"There is something that is not right about him"

I think it's his deer fetish, Paul.

Fri 25 Apr 2014, 1:20 pm

Paul Klein wrote:There is something that is not right about him.

I think we're all in agreement here, Paul.

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited - Page 4 199_ba10

Fri 25 Apr 2014, 2:38 pm

Goodbye wrote: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.

Yes it does. And at that point it's not an issue of "quitting" but of self-preservation. If you've reached that point, I don't know what else to say other than what I've already said. Those who are sincere and conscientious risk and sacrifice themselves and merely hope it somehow makes a fucking difference, at least someday. And I think the biggest mistake any one person can make is to get so bound up in "all this" that they believe it all depends on them. It doesn't; and others will have to carry the torchlights after we're gone. The best we can do is try to provide some example that they can meaningfully admire -- maybe even cling to, along with clearing away as much bullshit as we're able to. If God were the man people say he is, this world should've been different; but it's not.

I'll leave this with something silly instead of something heavy.

Be well, my friend.

Fri 25 Apr 2014, 7:11 pm

Lee,

I'm sorry that my decision as an administrator during the Robert Prudhomme issue brought you grief. My decision, by the way, was for the two combatants to chill out for a week, which Hasan subsequently over-ruled. You placed this forum's management in an uncomfortable position by saying you'd leave within 24 hours if Prudhomme wasn't banned. My immediate response, as I recall, was that it wasn't about ultimatums.

I had to make a judgment call. based on my limited knowledge of each combatant. I was familiar with Prudhomme from the Ed Forum Prayer Man thread, and could see he was a newcomer, and saw from other threads over there he had an expertise with rifles. And what I was familiar with with you was that there was a tendency to erupt at times, an Irish temper, which I have myself. You have a scintillating command of many facets of this case, yet there is that tendency to clash horns and denigrate the other person. I am thinking especially of Doyle and Trejo in this regard.

So my "referee's judgment call" did not sit right with you, and I'm sorry it festered over the winter. I couldn't agree with what Hasan did, banning Prudhomme, and let that be known in our private chat box. But I didn't make any attempt to change his own decision. And was sorry to see that you had left the forum, but understood that that was not the first occasion you'd left a forum.

The administrator's job here, you can have it. I did make the right call on Bill Brown, saw that a mile away. And Bob0 from Calcutta. Remember him? But obviously I did an unpopular thing recently as regards the Fez. First impressions count for a lot, and my first sight about this matter was the Racist Piece headlining a thread. I don't use profanity, have already explained that, and saw this forum heading due south.

I have a dear friend here whose son was murdered trying to break up a fight, and understand a whole lot better why that happened. The antagonism against me is uncalled for, more worthy of a street gang than academically-orientated researchers. That will be why I will opt for an early retirement from the community, and pick up my efforts in physics again.

There is zero chance I'll migrate to a different forum. I don't quite understand why you have it in for me, Lee, but I assure you those resentments are a profound waste of energy. I look forward to the discussion regarding the lunchroom and still have unshakeable confidence in the correctness of my position. Prepare to get raked over the coals...

Fri 25 Apr 2014, 10:02 pm

There are quite a few of us that have to take accountability for what has transpired here over the last few months and when it's all said and done I'm no so deluded that I don't realise that I started all of this.

I completely understand how I am perceived by different people. I reflect on my behaviour extensively. Yet I still have what I regard as my own set of skills, values and principles that define what is important to me and no matter what way you cut it those skills, values and principles will grate against other peoples. Trying to create fairness will often undermine friendships. Consistency will undermine flexibility. And because our values can change given our circumstances we sometimes, unfortunately, become hypocrites.

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

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

For fuck's sake.

If you cannot fathom why I was so pissed off with you then maybe empathy is a skill you could spend some time working on over the coming months? Focus some attention on the comment that Prudhomme left that resulted in the ultimatum being issued by me and see what you can come up with concerning my reaction to your response immediately after.

Yes, I have left other forums. So what? I left Duncan MacRae's forum because Paul May proved to me that he is one of the most disgusting human beings walking the face of the earth. He is no doubt a Christian as well as fascist lunatic who likes to accuse people he disagrees with of paedophilia. Lovely guy. I left the Education Forum the final time after defending the evidentiary record against the insanity of Paul Trejo and his ever evolving methods of lying his arse off about anything and everything.

I left here because Prudhomme sunk to the level of Paul May and you somehow felt that was acceptable.

So yes, I have a tendency to erupt at times. Primarily because I've had to deal with fucking nutcases on these forums for so long and shitty moderators. Albert Doyle is another one. This is a guy who will swear blind that the sky is green and spend message after message describing how dishonest you are being by not agreeing with his madness. He also has unshakeable confidence in the correctness of his positions. Unfortunately most of them are complete shit, just like yours. Each and every time I look at the sky - it appears blue.

I'm sorry you don't like my language but this is the way I speak. We don't all live in the world of Little House on the Prairie or The Waltons. John-Boy and Don Jeffries are members of other forums. Your comment that this forum is heading due south because of the language is indicative to me of how your mind works. Surely what you meant to say was that you would prefer that this forum had some sort of rule concerning profanity because you believe it would enhance its reputation?

Beliefs.

But you don't state it as a belief, you write it like it is a fact.

Some members will share your beliefs...

...I'm guessing most won't.

But you are so cocksure that your beliefs are facts it is virtually impossible to collaboratively research with you.

As far as trusting you is concerned I will point your attention to a quote of yours in one of your posts from three weeks ago:

[i]"C'mon, Lee. You know the score. Float like a bumblebee, sting like a bee. Put up your dukes, you temper-mental old twat."[/i]

So you'll pardon me when I say your quote from today is a crock of horseshit:

[i]"I don't use profanity, have already explained that, and saw this forum heading due south."[/i]

I don't know what the swearing scale is like where you come from but your language toward me was on a par with mine toward you. Life's a bitch when your words don't marry with your actions and it is presented to you as crow-pie to eat but I don't hold the language you used against you, only your delusional hypocrisy.

If this community has got to a stage where you feel you have to rake honest brokers over coals then I'd suggest you really need to reevaluate your agenda and I will state categorically that everything I began to believe about you has been fully realised. You are obviously upset with how things have transpired. Me too. I don't want the administrators job. Never did. Never will. I am far less suitable for a position like that than you have turned out to be. But with water under the bridge and an opportunity to put my thoughts into words over the last few days since returning from my vacation I will finish off with this.

I do not want to see you leave this forum. Just because I struggle with you from a collaboration perspective does not mean you should pack up and leave. And just because you believe I "have it in for you" does not make it true. However, on this occasion, I totally understand why you believe it. I will apologise for instigating this mess with the ultimatum I served. I should have employed a different and more constructive option. Be that as it may - I did issue it - nothing can change that, but I certainly hope you reconsider your decision to retire but implore you to endeavour to see things from the view of others when the situation commands.

Lee

Fri 25 Apr 2014, 10:48 pm

What's the title of this thread again?

Should this lot be moved to its own thread, out of the way of "research"? Perhaps "Rantings" or "In-house Issues"?

Fri 25 Apr 2014, 11:59 pm

ianlloyd wrote:What's the title of this thread again?

Should this lot be moved to its own thread, out of the way of "research"? Perhaps "Rantings" or "In-house Issues"?

Ian,

The title is "The Lunchroom Incident Revisited." I don't believe it should be moved to its own thread, since it became something different some pages ago. That sometimes happens, and it's fairly obvious that the issues being addressed are about the only thing the active membership cares to talk about the past few days. If you don't care for it, that's fine. Ignore it. Start your own thread on something, or post in an existing thread if you find something you'd care to comment on.

Sat 26 Apr 2014, 12:41 am

Richard Gilbride wrote:I look forward to the discussion regarding the lunchroom and still have unshakeable confidence in the correctness of my position. Prepare to get raked over the coals...

I have been researching this subject for fifty years and have seen so many people declare "unshakeable confidence" in their theory or their take on an aspect of the case and I am certain Richard feels that way. Fortunately, we have a forum for discussing these points and can look at them from many differing angles with lots of sets of eyes and minds.

That being said, I do not put much faith in people's unshakeability. I am certain there are people who back the WC with just as much unshakeable confidence. That is just ego.

And to puff oneself up with the "prepare to get raked over the coals..." threat, you have already lost all my interest in what you have to say.

Might I suggest a more open-minded approach to the subject, but it seems to me that your mind - like Fez, Dawn, and the rest of the H&L group - is already made up, pre-set and incapable of listening to intelligent discourse on the subject.

I seriously doubt you really even want to discuss the subject of the second floor encounter, you merely wish to enlighten the ignorant masses with your sublimely enlightened discourse.

Take it somewhere else, please.

We would prefer the give and take repartee of an intellectual discussion.

As far as profanity goes, many find it offensive. Being a writer, I understand the use of the vernacular and the power it can carry. Overuse, of course, lessens the impact and I see a tendency for many to overuse it. Still, that is for each person to decide.

I was on Burnham's new forum for a short while and they seemed to think I was upset with the flaming going on. Far from it. I was weaned on Civil War forum's many years ago and the ad hominem attacks and gutter language make these JFK forums look like old ladies' tea socials.

Bottom line, present your ideas and thoughts about the case or an aspect thereof and be ready for discussion, dissection and other viewpoints. Hopefully, we can all learn more through the process.

If you intend, rather, on making superfluous announcements about how great your intellect is, please but it in a book or a blog. It seems obvious that you are not looking forward to any "discussion", you are only looking for some way to stroke your ego...

...well, if not some other body part.

Sat 26 Apr 2014, 2:37 am

"And to puff oneself up with the "prepare to get raked over the coals..." threat, you have already lost all my interest in what you have to say"

Gilbride just can't help himself, terlin. If he'd stop acting like an arrogant jackass, people would take him seriously.

Sat 26 Apr 2014, 3:24 am

Hasan Yusuf wrote:"There is something that is not right about him"

I think it's his deer fetish, Paul.

Nothing wrong with deer if its cooked well done and served up with roasted carrots and potatoes, coated in a nice rich bernaise sauce, Hasan. To be enjoyed with a good glass of red of course.

Sat 26 Apr 2014, 4:04 am

Yummy……… is that the same as a Bernays' sauce served with the venison? Let's not confuse the recipe, shall we?

Sat 26 Apr 2014, 4:35 am

Just be sure to stay away from whitetails wearing fezzes. The meat is tough and gamy. No sauce of any kind will make it taste good. Fez variety venison is generally found up in Canada where hunters spend inordinate amounts of time measuring bullets.

Sat 26 Apr 2014, 8:23 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mXeuJOfUNM

Sat 26 Apr 2014, 8:39 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If someone beats me to it, I'll be just as happy.

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited