The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

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'.  

Richard, at some stage, are you going to introduce a "Harvey & Lee" element to this? Otherwise shouldn't it be the JFK section?

I can see that this resolves the no hear/no see each other issue, but your assumptions don't square with Truly's testimony. As I read it, he was ahead of Baker and half-way up to the third floor - rand back down - could hear voices -opened the outer door, stuck his head in and saw Baker at the other door with his gun at LHO.

You have them - and need them - all inside the lunchroom with doors closed.  I know that is one of the myriad versions... but it's not the one told by Truly when it mattered - before the commission.

Mr. BAKER - I didn't get anything out of him. Mr. Truly had come up to my side here, and I turned to Mr. Truly and I says, "Do you know this man, does he work here?" And he said yes, and I turned immediately and went on out up the stairs.
================================
Mr. TRULY. I think I opened it. I opened the door back and leaned in this way. 
Mr. BELIN. What did you see? 
Mr. TRULY. I saw the officer almost directly in the doorway of the lunch-room facing Lee Harvey Oswald. 

Neither claim to have been inside the lunchroom.

But Baker has Truly coming up to him at the lunchroom door while he has his gun on Oswald.

Truly said he merely opened the outer door and leaned in. 

Can't prove either of them is lying -- but one or both are mistaken and neither support you theory. 

The only one "two or three feet inside the lunchroom" was Oswald. Or at least that is all you can derive from testimony.
 
Mr. TRULY. He was at the front of the lunchroom, not very far inside he was just inside the lunchroom door. 
Mr. BELIN. All right. 
Mr. TRULY. 2 or 3 feet, possibly. 
===========================
Mr. BAKER - As I called, I remember moving forward a little bit and meeting him right here in this doorway.



-----------------------------------------------------
Sorry Richard, but the encounter remains mythical. There was no hearing / seeing Styles and Adams simply because they themselves were not there. B & T were on a higher floor.

If I map out Adams & Styles movements based upon their testimony:
 
T+0 seconds. The shots are fired. Adams & Styles are on the 4th Floor watching the motorcade (sixth window from the east).
 
T+8 seconds. JFK limo just before Triple Underpass. (Assumption: Z-450 shows this nicely. Z-450 – Z-313 = 137 frames; 137/18.3 fps = 7.5 seconds, rounded to 8 seconds.) Adams is now in motion for the NW stairs (Styles too).
 
(Assume A&S walked 100 feet across the 4th Floor to get to the NW stairs. To understand the time required to walk this distance, I walked from my study to the front door in my house, which I estimate is 85 feet. Walking briskly, that took me about 20 seconds. That translates to about 24 seconds for 100 feet. I'll go with that for the sake of this. Throw in 4 seconds to verify the elevator not available/working. So give them 28 seconds to get to the 4th Floor NW stairs.)
 
T+36 seconds. Adams and Styles enter the NW stairs on the 4th Floor. 
 
T+44 seconds. A&S on 3rd Floor. (Assume 8 seconds per floor.)
 
T+52 seconds. A&S on 2nd Floor.
 
T+60 seconds. A&S on 1st Floor.
 
These are just assumptions and I may be off/incorrect, but if this is reasonable, does this support, refute or is it neutral concerning the Lunchroom incident?

That's a good time scheme, Stan, but a little over-generous to Adams' estimate. Styles told Sean Murphy in 1 or 2 e-mails that Vicky Adams was a bit "prone to exaggeration". I think they spent a bit longer than 4 seconds to verify that the passenger elevator wasn't working (maybe 10). And remember, they were in 3-inch high heels. The gals were 23/24, in reasonably good shape, but those 3-inchers weren't built for speed like Nikes.

I give them 85-90 seconds to get to the 1st floor. Not an entirely wild guess, as it plays into my personal estimate of 50 sec for Truly & Baker to reach the freight elevators and 65 sec to reach the lunchroom. Still, I'm sure Adams felt like she was booking it, and in the whirl of the excitement 90 seconds probably felt very close to one minute. She got downstairs pronto, no doubt about it.

No Harvey & Lee stuff on this, Greg. Sorry to disappoint you. Maybe Lee was in Cason's office making out with Geneva Hine.

Truly supposed he was only "up 2 or 3 steps before I realized the officer wasn't following me." (WCH III p. 224). That's a lot less than halfway up to the 3rd floor. There were 10-12 steps per half-flight.

Truly said he "opened the door back and leaned in..." He saw Oswald 2 or 3 feet inside the lunchroom, and Baker right up next to him. Baker was just inside the doorframe. "I saw the officer almost directly in the doorway of the lunchroom facing Lee Harvey Oswald." The triangular foyer measures 7 feet from the vestibule door to the lunchroom doorframe. Plenty of room for Truly to step inside the foyer, and let the vestibule door close behind him.

But Belin never bothered to specifically ask whether, after Truly leaned in, he stepped in and allowed the vestibule door to close. That detail mattered little or nothing to the testimony.

If Truly stayed frozen in time, leaning in and watching the Baker/Oswald interaction, how could he see Oswald's facial expression and the fact that Baker had his gun in Oswald's gut? They weren't in profile to Truly's POV, because then Baker & Oswald would both be 2-3 feet inside the lunchroom- not as Truly described, with Baker just inside the doorframe, facing Oswald. The indications from what Truly was able to see & describe come from him moseying up to them.

You're making a choice, Greg, to favor a natural omission in Belin's questioning- glossing over a minor detail- favoring this as stronger evidence than the evidence that Adams & Styles reached the 2nd-floor landing (on their way to the 1st floor).

Otherwise you have to go with the tack Sean Murphy took, postulating that Truly & Baker took the west freight elevator upstairs.

Sean Murphy's hypothesis that Truly & Baker took the west freight elevator upstairs relies on the conjecture that Captain Fritz coaxed Baker into making a false statement in that afternoon's affidavit. Because Baker wrote, "The elevator was hung several floors up so we used the stairs instead."

Baker displayed immense personal courage racing into the building where gunshots had sounded from. He was part of the Traffic & Safety Division, in the Solo Motorcycle Detail. Why on earth would he kowtow to Fritz, who was head of Homicide?

Had Fritz made any advances toward perpetuation of a fraud like that, he risked being exposed by Baker. And if that happened Fritz could eventually be accused of conspiracy. To commit murder and treason. In other words, Fritz would be risking everything with such an advance. Meaning all the masters he was serving that day could also be exposed. Fritz was in no position to make such an advance to Baker.

Its possible Truly & Baker went up the front stairs to 2nd floor (these went no higher) then walked through office and past lunchroom to rear stairwell.  If I remember correctly, Dec 1 Washington Post story has Truly describing just such a route. The problem is this route gets the pair to the lunchroom far too early, rear stairway was slow enough for LHO to (barely) beat them.

Richard,  be careful to steer clear of Bill Kelly syndrome: i.e.,  Baker was a good copper and couldn't possibly have averred to a false statement because Baker was a good copper.
Fritz was tight with the police chief. If the department needed a false affidavit from Baker to cinch the case against a presumed cop killer, they're going to get it or Baker would be looking for a new job (there'd be approximately a 0% chance of Baker facing perjury charges in any event). 

To switch gears, I see Sean Murphy's last post at the Ed forum was last November 22. Below is a list of Ed posts in reverse chronological order.  From mid-August on he was on such an astonishing, brilliant tear that he might have said to himself on the anniversary, "my work is done here". )
[searchInKey]=&search_app_filters[forums][sortKey]=date]Sean's EF posts

At about 4:45 PM Baker was in a back room at the Homicide Office in the process of filling out his affidavit when Oswald was brought back from his first line-up to resume his interrogation. This was when SS agents Sorrels & Kelley brought Oswald briefly into the back room, and Baker didn't mention the suspect in his affidavit. Oswald was brought into Fritz's main interrogation room by the time Baker handed in his affidavit to be typed, because he overheard the shouting from within: "Did you kill the President?!... That's absurd!! I want a lawyer!!"

Fritz had been busy with Oswald until 4:05, when he was brought downstairs for the line-up. Baker had ended his shift and returned to DPD HQ from Parkland and then Love Field. When did Fritz even learn that a motorcycle officer had encountered the suspect in the TSBD?? Because Truly never mentioned this in his testimony, when he was talking with Fritz on the 6th floor about having a boy missing. And Fritz didn't mention anything about that in his testimony. Lumpkin didn't even testify.

Sean Murphy makes a conjecture, out of whole cloth, that Fritz coaxed Baker into making a false statement on his affidavit without the slightest indication as to when this coaxing took place. Fritz's motivation is supposedly that he had nothing to go on to convict the suspect- no incriminating details confessed, and Baker's search of the building turned up nothing.

And apparently Fritz only learns at about 4:15 that Baker has been in the TSBD. So, after one interrogation session with the suspect, he gives up on getting anything out of him?? He quickly decides to co-opt Baker into a risky plan- he needs a false affidavit that entails running into a suspect, say, on the 3rd or 4th floor- which means that if Baker actually took the west freight elevator up, he's going to have to change it to the stairs, and say instead that the elevator was "hung several floors up"- all because Fritz has given up on getting anything out of LHO??

The motivations and timeframe for Fritz here, making such a major decision, are far too strained for plausibility.

Sean seems content to sit on the fence in his Prayer Man thread as to whether T & B took the front lobby stairs or the warehouse 1st floor to get to the freight elevators. He doesn't make a commitment, although to be fair, seems to favor the warehouse route. Let me explain why the front lobby stairs is a very unlikely possibility.

There are 7 points of correspondence between the T & B testimonies as to what happened from the front lobby to the freight elevators. That would be a nifty script to follow, were T & B synchronizing their lies.

1) Truly caught up with Baker inside the front lobby (III pp. 221, 249).
2) While inside the front lobby, Baker asks Truly where the stairs are (221, 249). They were right at the foot of the front lobby stairs, and very near the passenger elevator, and Truly evidently made it understood that the most direct way to the roof is via the rear of the warehouse.
3) Truly ran into the swinging door at the will-call counter, which was latched shut. Baker bumped into him (222, 249).
4) Truly pressed the call button for the freight elevator; it didn't come down (223, 254).
5) T & B looked up the elevator shaft (223, 254).
6) They saw that the elevators were stuck upstairs (240, 254).
7) Truly yelled up the shaft twice (223, 249).

And then T & B successfully synchronized their lunchroom scripts?? These also have 7 points of correspondence. Wouldn't this latter synchroization be sufficient, were they aiming to carry out a lunchroom hoax?? Did they have a walkthrough of the TSBD on March 20, rehearsing their scripts??

So lunchroom non-event hypothesizers are forced to construe Truly & Baker as redundant liars, Garner as misbegotten, and by extension, Fritz as a rash coaxer who just had a sudden lack of self-confidence, in order to maintain their hypothesis.

The Washington Post excerpt shows that a reporter will write just about anything. We have no idea what his source was, and his "facts" are not always reliable. Information, misinformation, or disinformation??

I said at the top of this thread that the simple mathematics of this problem mean that the totalityof the evidence arguing for a lunchroom non-event is a red herring. It doesn't add up, and it goes against common sense.

"What I have no respect for is people who claim a theory to be fact. Especially so when the theory is all smoke and mirrors and large colorful fonts. If this case is to be progressed, it will not do so by everyone being obliged to embrace every conspiracy theory that anyone ever came up with."

-Greg Parker, in the Magic Tonsillectomy thread at Deep Politics


Yet who has been claiming the lunchroom non-event as "fact" for years? And throwing mud in the direction of those who refuse to give in to the reasoning behind this hypothesis?

I have to admire Bill Kelly for standing up to the tribe of lunchroom non-eventers. He did observe that you are fooling yourselves.

I'm prepared to take this issue to checkmate or your resignation. I'm dug in and armed to the teeth with facts and logic and will not relent. This issue is going to be refuted for keeps, right here. I won't stand for any more lunchroom non-event espousals. The tribe is going to have to pass right through me. Where are you all? Afraid, perhaps, of being shown to be a fool?

Richrad Gilbride wrote:There are 7 points of correspondence between the T & B testimonies 

Richard, that's part of the issue. The points of correspondence were not there in earlier statements. They were both all over the shop.

Richard Gilbride wrote:"What I have no respect for is people who claim a theory to be fact. Especially so when the theory is all smoke and mirrors and large colorful fonts. If this case is to be progressed, it will not do so by everyone being obliged to embrace every conspiracy theory that anyone ever came up with."

-Greg Parker, in the Magic Tonsillectomy thread at Deep Politics


Yet who has been claiming the lunchroom non-event as "fact" for years? And throwing mud in the direction of those who refuse to give in to the reasoning behind this hypothesis?

I have to admire Bill Kelly for standing up to the tribe of lunchroom non-eventers. He did observe that you are fooling yourselves.

I'm prepared to take this issue to checkmate or your resignation. I'm dug in and armed to the teeth with facts and logic and will not relent. This issue is going to be refuted for keeps, right here. I won't stand for any more lunchroom non-event espousals. The tribe is going to have to pass right through me. Where are you all? Afraid, perhaps, of being shown to be a fool?

I don't know about too much mud being thrown over this, except by LNers. 

Bill is entitled to his opinion about any of us fooling ourselves, but I have told Bill that I respect his position in that it is closer to the truth than the Warren Commission and whether he is right, or I am right, either way shows LHO was innocent.

Also don't know why you're trying to paint this as some sort of war. It's not.  Neither scenario is on the lunatic fringe ala 2 Marguerites, for example. I can live with either because both are based on actual evidence. The difference is in which evidence is used, what weight is given to it, and which evidence is discarded, and why.

You seem to be building your case based on some assumptions, which in themselves may or may not be valid.

I start with only one assumption: that the earliest statements are generally more reliable.

I start with only one assumption: that the earliest statements are generally more reliable.

Right, if both Baker and Truly had the same story from day one whose details drifted apart over time, that'd be understandable as simply fading memories.  Its when the stories start drift closer over time that one suspects they're both following a script.

Dorothy Garner's statement establishes a boundary condition, which allows this problem to be resolved mathematically. That trumps conflicts between the earlier/later stories, every time. In order to salvage the lunchroom non-event, you have to refute those mathematics. That can't be done, so you have to refute the veracity of her account. That's why you have to sign on to the Fritz-coaxer theory. Rots o' ruck with that one.

You'll thank me for this someday. What kind of progress have you made with 4th-floor man? More accurately, 3rd or 4th floor man? Think it was Dougherty? Or that guy in the parking lot in the Hughes film? When will those "leads" ever find fruit?

How about all of the energy expended on why Baker didn't mention Oswald in his affidavit? Isn't a sensible explanation that it just wasn't appropriate? Here's a guy with a welt on his eye, and sure Baker probably recognized him, but you're asking him to write "Holy cow! They just brought in the man I saw!" He was confirmed as an employee, and the department obviously roughed him up, but he may or may not have had anything to do with it. Why not give him the benefit of the doubt, rather than take part in the DPD gang-tackling? If he's guilty, it'll come out.

The totality of the evidence suggesting a lunchroom non-event has to be discarded, due to the simple mathematics of the A & S non-interaction with T & B.

Several times you've said "simple mathematics" proves your point. If so, distill your argument into a simple formula/equation to show your proof. Include uncertainties in those numbers (e.g., Adams said she made it to the first floor in no more than 60 seconds; you say it was 85-90 seconds). Explain why some numbers (yours) are better than others. Lay the whole thing out succinctly and it should be obvious to all. Right?

I laid the whole thing out in my first post. It does't really involve numbers. Just about any numbers can be plugged into the time estimates, as long as we stay within the parameters that Adams & Styles did not reach the 1st floor freight elevators before Truly & Baker, and Adams & Styles arrived at the 4th floor landing before Truly & Baker.

A & S and T & B were on the stairs at the same time, descending and ascending. Yet A & S and T & B did not encounter each other. The extant lunchroom evidence is sufficient to state with mathematical certainty that T & B were in the lunchroom when A & S passed by on the 2nd floor landing.

My best guesstimate is that at about Z-313 plus 65 seconds, Baker saw Oswald at the vestibule door, and Adams was close to entering the 3rd floor landing. T & B started up the stairs at 60 seconds, and this is very close to the time that A & S started down the stairs.

The uncertainty in the statement that A & S did not reach the 1st floor freight elevators before T & B is well under 1 part in 1,000. In that miniscule part, they race to the 1st floor rear door before T & B get past the will-call counter.

Baker's foot touched the outside front step at least by Z-313 plus 22 seconds (consensus film analysis at JFK Lancer in 2007), but it may have been even sooner. From Malcolm Couch's testimony and that of others in the same car, and the scenes depicted in his film, it can be determined that Couch began filming no more than 10 seconds after Z-313. Baker is in the beginning segment of that film, racing for the steps. In one re-enactment he made it to the TSBD front step in 15 seconds.

When you break down the described actions of T & B, it would require 30, 40 or more seconds of them to be standing in the front lobby deciding what to do in order for A & S to get past the freight elevators before T & B get to the will-call counter.
So improbable as to be negligible in the reasoning.

There isn't any uncertainty in the statement that Adams & Styles arrived at the 4th floor landing before Truly & Baker, not from a mathematical perspective. The eyewitness account of Dorothy Garner constitutes proof. Its innocence of provenance, found unexpectedly at the Archives, means that proof is rigorous, unimpeachable.

Stroud's letter (link below) merely paraphrased what Garner said. If she said she saw no one other than Truly and policeman come on 4th floor, Stroud may be inferring Truly and Baker came up backstairs. Its also possible Garner actually saw Truly and Baker coming down or, for that matter, Truly coming up with Sawyer several minutes later (from the front).
http://mysite.verizon.net/restu5kb/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/MarthaLetter.jpg

"Mr. Belin was questioning Miss Adams about whether or not she saw anyone as she was running down the stairs. Miss Garner, Miss Adams' supervisor, stated this morning that after Miss Adams went downstairs she (Miss Garner) saw Mr. Truly and the policeman come up."

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

"If she said she saw no one other than Truly and policeman come on 4th floor, Stroud may be inferring Truly and Baker came up backstairs.

With this statement, beowulf, I read that you are interpreting that T & B came up the stairs and reached the 4th-floor landing, to be witnessed by Garner, after A & S had gone downstairs. The "If" introductory phrase leading to the "then" "Stroud may be inferring" is unnecessary, as it was implicitly understood that T & B came up the stairs as a pair. Not with Troy West, Eddie Piper, Luke Mooney, Herbert Sawyer, etc.

"It is also possible Garner actually saw Truly and Baker coming down..."

Back this up. Surely you do not believe this, a sophist construction if I ever saw one. It's like saying it's also possible Truly & Baker arrived upstairs via helicopter, since Garner didn't explicitly say they didn't. The Stroud document states in plain English that she saw Truly and the policeman come up.

...or, for that matter, Truly coming up with Sawyer several minutes later."

More sophistry, and in this case you make T & B out to be redundant liars: "Then we continued on down, and we saw officers on the 4th floor" (III, p. 229) and "Next thing that I noticed was Inspector Sawyer, he was on one of those floors there." (III, p. 261)

You might also explain why Sawyer went up to the 4th, spent a couple minutes, returned to the front steps, then somehow went back up with Truly?? Presumably he managed to broadcast into his police radio while doing this.

Sean Murphy bent this document every which way but loose in hopes of salvaging the lunchroom non-event. It was unimpeachable, and this forced him into the hypothesis that Truly & Baker had actually taken the west freight elevator upstairs.

The document is talking about Adams' testimony regarding the stairs in the context of whether she saw LHO running down those stairs. And Garner confirms that Adams ran down those stairs immediately after the shots. And afterwards, she saw T & B "come up" [those same stairs]. It goes against common sense to interpret this last line as Sean wishes, that T & B had "come up" [on the elevator]. This was a US Attorney's office, and this element would have been explicitly added, had it occurred, so it would be clearly understood. It was clearly defined via parentheses that it was Miss Garner who had seen T & B.

stan dane wrote:If I map out Adams & Styles movements based upon their testimony: 
 
T+0 seconds. The shots are fired. Adams & Styles are on the 4th Floor watching the motorcade (sixth window from the east).
 
T+8 seconds. JFK limo just before Triple Underpass. (Assumption: Z-450 shows this nicely. Z-450 – Z-313 = 137 frames; 137/18.3 fps = 7.5 seconds, rounded to 8 seconds.) Adams is now in motion for the NW stairs (Styles too). 
 
(Assume A&S walked 100 feet across the 4th Floor to get to the NW stairs. To understand the time required to walk this distance, I walked from my study to the front door in my house, which I estimate is 85 feet. Walking briskly, that took me about 20 seconds. That translates to about 24 seconds for 100 feet. I'll go with that for the sake of this. Throw in 4 seconds to verify the elevator not available/working. So give them 28 seconds to get to the 4th Floor NW stairs.)
 
T+36 seconds. Adams and Styles enter the NW stairs on the 4th Floor. 
 
T+44 seconds. A&S on 3rd Floor. (Assume 8 seconds per floor.)
 
T+52 seconds. A&S on 2nd Floor.
 
T+60 seconds. A&S on 1st Floor.
 
These are just assumptions and I may be off/incorrect, but if this is reasonable, does this support, refute or is it neutral concerning the Lunchroom incident?

If this is accurate, it is possible that the ladies were just exiting the back when the men were entering the front. 

Richard Gilbride wrote:Sean Murphy's hypothesis that Truly & Baker took the west freight elevator upstairs relies on the conjecture that Captain Fritz coaxed Baker into making a false statement in that afternoon's affidavit. Because Baker wrote, "The elevator was hung several floors up so we used the stairs instead."

It is difficult to ever rule anything Sean says out, but I do in this case. Sean has decided I think that Baker was the bad guy and Truly was innocent of any wrong. I have it completely the other way around.  I don't buy that at that time on Friday they had worked out what would fly and what wouldn't so any statements from that period are honest, if not also accurate. You also make a good case that it was unlikely.

Richard Gilbride wrote:"What I have no respect for is people who claim a theory to be fact. Especially so when the theory is all smoke and mirrors and large colorful fonts. If this case is to be progressed, it will not do so by everyone being obliged to embrace every conspiracy theory that anyone ever came up with."

-Greg Parker, in the Magic Tonsillectomy thread at Deep Politics


Yet who has been claiming the lunchroom non-event as "fact" for years? And throwing mud in the direction of those who refuse to give in to the reasoning behind this hypothesis?

I have spent a little bit of time trying to find anywhere I have said it is a fact. I cannot locate an instance, but I do not deny it's possible. Even if so, one or two instances over the 13 year period I've been bringing this up, is hardly "claiming for years that it's a fact". There is a difference between possibly referring to my 4th floor scenario as a fact once or twice, and talking about a theorized double and a theorized double for the mother as if historically proven facts every single time the subject is raised. I don't suffer, for instance, under the delusion that my scenario is historically proven - because that implies historically accepted. 

richard gilbride wrote:I'm prepared to take this issue to checkmate or your resignation. I'm dug in and armed to the teeth with facts and logic and will not relent. This issue is going to be refuted for keeps, right here. I won't stand for any more lunchroom non-event espousals. The tribe is going to have to pass right through me. Where are you all? Afraid, perhaps, of being shown to be a fool?

Having given this some thought, you don't need to "beat" me at anything to get my resignation. What I'd have to see is you and Hasan being able to work cooperatively, or for one of you to resign and the other to accept sole responsibility. If you can't work harmoniously, I am not going play King Solomon and choose one of you. 

I realize you are upset over recent events, but you chose to make an apology on behalf of everyone to someone who came here looking for trouble and found it. You made that decision I suspect, based on loyalty to the person involved, instead of on sound principles of administration and common sense. That would mean simply taking all factors into account dispassionately. If you needed to apologize, you should have done so on behalf of yourself.     

I would also add that your comments above are at odds with one of your later statements - "I laid the whole thing out in my first post."

richard gilbride wrote:How about all of the energy expended on why Baker didn't mention Oswald in his affidavit? Isn't a sensible explanation that it just wasn't appropriate? Here's a guy with a welt on his eye, and sure Baker probably recognized him, but you're asking him to write "Holy cow! They just brought in the man I saw!" He was confirmed as an employee, and the department obviously roughed him up, but he may or may not have had anything to do with it. Why not give him the benefit of the doubt, rather than take part in the DPD gang-tackling? If he's guilty, it'll come out.

Any energy expended was because of resistance to the idea that he should have mentioned it - much like your resistance here. 

In your scenario, LHO goes to trial. Baker gets put on the stand and has to explain not only no mention of 2nd floor and no lunchroom, but his not IDing him when he had a perfect opportunity to do so. His credibility shredded, the sole witness becomes Truly. And Truly they don't want put under pressure, or a microscope because he is a can of worms. 

richard gilbride wrote:Styles told Sean Murphy in 1 or 2 e-mails that Vicky Adams was a bit "prone to exaggeration".

Well, she did, but why not look also at other things she repeatedly said?

Sean Murphy post 277304 in the Oswald Leaving TSBD? thread at Ed Forum:

I decided to re-contact Sandra Styles, this time by email, and put to her the information contained in the Stroud document.
She seemed genuinely taken aback, if not nonplussed, by Garner's reported claim.

She then restated several times something that she had said in our original conversation and in the follow-up emails, something that I had heard but not really processed, putting it down to the lady's self-effacing modest personality: she could not rule out the possibility that Vicki's recollection was the more accurate one. Memory, she said, plays funny tricks and all she could tell me at this point was that "logic tells me" that it was later than Vicki said.

Styles repeatedly told Sean that Adams might be right, but he brushed it off as modesty -- until he contacted her about Garner, and she again emphasized she might be in error.

WAS BAKER TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT POSITION OF COPS BEEN IN REAR?
Mr. DULLES - What was the nature of those conversations?
Mr. BAKER - Well, we just were discussing, each one of us had a theory, you know where, how it happened, and really none of us knew how it happened, it just happened, and where they was at in place, you know, in reference to the car, would be about the only thing they could say, and at the time the first shot they didn't know where the shot came from.
The second shot they still didn't know, and then the third shot some of them over to the left-hand side, the blood and everything hit their helmets and their windshields and then they knew it had to come from behind.
Mr. BELIN - Say this again, Officer Baker. When you say some were on the left-hand side?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, I believe Officer B. J. Martin---
Mr. BELIN - Is he a motorcycle policeman?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; he is.
Mr. BELIN - On a one- or two-wheeler or three-wheeler?
Mr. BAKER - He is a solo motorcycle, two-wheeler.
Mr. BELIN - Where was he riding at this time?
Mr. BAKER - He was on the left front.
Mr. BELIN - Of what?
Mr. BAKER - There were five motorcycle officers in front. There were four, two on each right side behind.
Mr. BELIN - When you say in front and behind of what vehicle?
Mr. BAKER - We are referring to the President's car.
Mr. BELIN - All right. He was on the front and to the left of the President's car.
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; that is right.
Mr. BELIN - What did he say to you about blood or something?
Mr. BAKER - Like I say, we were talking about where the shot came from, and he said the first shot he couldn't figure it Out where it came from. He turned his head backward, reflex, you know, and then he turned back and the second shot came off, and then the third shot is when the blood and everything hit his helmet and his windshield.
Mr. BELIN - Did it hit the inside or the outside of his windshield, did he say?
Mr. BAKER - It hit all this inside. Now, as far as the inside or outside of the windshield. I don't know about that. But it was all on the right-hand side of his helmet.
Mr. BELIN - Of his helmet?
Mr. BAKER - On his uniform also.
Mr. BELIN - On his uniform.
Mr. BAKER - That is right.
Mr. BELIN - And he was riding to the left of the President and you say ahead of the President?
Mr. BAKER - On the left-hand side.
Mr. DULLES - But a little ahead of him?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. They were immediately in front of the car.
****
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/martinsh.htm

Officer Martin contradicted Bakers testimony,
THE COURT: As I understand, the Officer wants to show where he was following the car and this picture corroborates his testimony and it was done for the Jury what came on his helmet or on the motorcycle came from President Kennedy's head.

gerrrycam, why do you even bring this up? Baker was riding abreast of the last camera car and was well away from the motorcycles trailing the limousine. How does this even remotely apply to the discussion of Baker's running into the TSBD and its lunchroom? Let's see you attend an American football game and sit in one end zone and accurately describe what went on the the other end zone. Oh, you made a mistake? I get it, you must be lying.

T + 60 seconds. A & S on 1st floor.

"If this is accurate, it is possible that the ladies were just exiting the back when the men were exiting the front."

No, Greg, it's not accurate, and you know it. I explained 2 posts ago that the film timing shows that T & B were at the will-call counter long before A & S got anywhere near the freight elevators.

Check out the Prayer Man thread at this forum for your treatment of the lunchroom non-event hypothesis as fact, and your mudslinging of Bill Kelly. This is part of your bully pulpit attitude that people won't put up with at Deep Politics, and what got you axed from the Ed Forum. It's OK to be passionate about no H & L, but you haven't demonstrated that you're able to do it calmly and with objectivity. You disregard evidence simply on your say-so, with a hatred bordering on pathological.

I will not relent on this lunchroom issue. For far too long it has been treated as sacrosanct by the tribe of true believers and I am showing unequivocably that it is incorrect. Hasan is an impudent punk who needs several years of maturity. I don't see him on this thread. Let him put up the muscle to back up his mouth. He made a mistake adding insult to injury over what David Josephs posted. "Racist piece of doo-doo." I don't favor Josephs over anyone else, but admire how he's stood up to your H & L attacks, but personally criticize his knee-jerk criticism of MC Piper. That innuendo evidently went over dwdunn's head, who gave me flack for bringing up Piper. True, forum members have vented their anger against me for attempting to stop a venom-filled argument. (I succeeded, by the way). And I have every motivation to get my revenge via this thread. Is not revenge a dish best served cold?

I did lay it out in the first post. You don't have the formal education to see that. Let me remind you that I majored in philosophy before earning a chemistry degree. I have US Patent D396,060 for the "Periodic Circle of the Elements", fundamentally improving Mendeleyev's design for the elements. Before I started my JFK research I spent 6 years intensively tearing apart theoretical physics, looking for answers, in just about all of Nikola Tesla's work and in the Einstein-Cartan spin-tensor equations for a rotating gravitational field, among many others. When I retire from JFK work I plan on picking up where I left off, and there are 3 patents I intend to apply for for deriving energy from the natural environment. Lots of energy.

No brag, just fact. I will not be slighted, nor underestimated.

"In your scenario, LHO goes to trial. Baker gets put on the stand and has to explain not only no mention of 2nd floor and no lunchroom, but his not IDing him when he had the perfect opportunity to do so? His credibility shredded..."

How on earth do you come up with all that? Looking too long through lunchroom non-event glasses, in my opinion. My scenario posits Baker not joining in the rough-necking of LHO by the DPD, but trusting they'll find out if LHO was somehow involved. Period. Someday you'll just have to accept a benign explanation for why Baker didn't ID Oswald and just leave it at that. It's what went on that afternoon in Baker's mind, which evidently didn't reproduce accurate architectural drawings of the TSBD. That's all there is to it.

"...that Vicki's recollection was the more accurate one..." meaning that Styles conceded that they may well have gone down the stairs immediately after the shots.

"She seemed genuinely taken aback, if not nonplussed, by Garner's reported claim." Because for years Styles had been living in the mis-memory of having gone down those stairs a long time after the shots.

Face it, Greg. Your lunchroom non-event theory is in its death throes. Can you handle that fact? Where is your disproof of my statement that:

Dorothy Garner's statement establishes a boundary condition, which allows the problem to be resolved mathematically. That trumps conflicts between earlier/later stories, every time. In order to salvage the lunchroom non-event, you have to refute those mathematics. That can't be done, so you have to refute the veracity of her account. That's why you have to sign on to the Fritz-coaxer theory."

Because that takes my critique head-on. Your last post is filled with end-around arguments.

Richard Gilbride wrote:Hasan is an impudent punk who needs several years of maturity. I don't see him on this thread. Let him put up the muscle to back up his mouth. He made a mistake adding insult to injury over what David Josephs posted. "Racist piece of doo-doo."

And you are an arrogant prick who thought you had the right to speak on behalf of everyone when you apologised to David Josephs. It's obvious you care more about defending Josephs than you do about this forum. Just why the hell did I need to come to this thread? I need years of maturity? Go fuck yourself. Josephs racially abused me, and got what he deserved.

It's obvious you don't care much about this forum. I have removed Admin access from your account, because I don't think you are worthy of it anymore, and I strongly recommend that Greg remove it from my Admin account so it is fair. if he restores it to your account, I will leave the forum for good.

I feel like I'm grabbing the proverbial dog by the ears here, but…

Richard Gilbride wrote:Check out the Prayer Man thread at this forum for your treatment of the lunchroom non-event hypothesis as fact, and your mudslinging of Bill Kelly.

Well, I did check. On Page 1 of the thread:

greg parker wrote:Bill is one of the good guys and I exempt him from comments below. His POV is that of someone who cannot conceive of a lie passing the lips of Marion Baker. I don't think he can be swayed on it, and it puzzles me as to why.

On Page 20:

greg parker wrote:Most of us have our blind spots. This seems to be Bill's.

And so on. Is this what you call mudslinging? Anytime I've seen Greg mention Bill Kelly he does so respectfully. If there is a specific example of a "mud-covered" Kelly, then produce some quotes (like I just did). Otherwise, knock off the hateful hyperbole!

I have an observation. As I read through the PM thread, I notice your tone is different now. It's like you're trying to pick a fight or something when you say things like "the tribe is going to have to pass right through me." Maybe you are. 

Why is that Richard?

PS: There are lots of ways to desecrate "the temple of the spirit."  Bitterness is one of them.

PPS: How's that patent working out for you?

Richard Gilbride wrote:....I don't favor Josephs over anyone else, but admire how he's stood up to your H & L attacks, but personally criticize his knee-jerk criticism of MC Piper. That innuendo evidently went over dwdunn's head, who gave me flack for bringing up Piper. True, forum members have vented their anger against me for attempting to stop a venom-filled argument. (I succeeded, by the way). And I have every motivation to get my revenge via this thread. Is not revenge a dish best served cold?

What went over my head? You mentioned your agreement with a statement Michael Collins Piper made about John Newman. I said that if a person was going to remain completely quiet about an issue of prejudice/bigotry/racism -- as you have, then it's probably not the best idea to go around mentioning your agreement with Michael Collins Piper on any subject. (As people might get the wrong impression, and you should think about whether you want that wrong impression reflected on your character.) Nicht wahr? Is that not exactly what I said? How is that in any way involved with things I had no idea about -- viz., David Josephs' "knee-jerk criticism of Piper," or your evident admiration for Piper, or "innuendo" about any of same?

Believe it or don't, I'm not privy to what goes on inside your head, any more than I was privy to David Josephs' opinions about Michael Collins Piper (having just now learned about it from you).

You want to get revenge? You've tossed your cookies.