Home
Portal
Events
ROKC Wiki
Gallery
Search
Register
Log in
The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
+21
Mick_Purdy
Goban_Saor
bernie laverick
Vinny
Faroe Islander
Redfern
Mark A. O'Blazney
ianlloyd
Ray Mitcham
Albert Rossi
Colin_Crow
Frankie Vegas
Hasan Yusuf
John Mooney
TerryWMartin
dwdunn(akaDan)
Admin_2
gerrrycam
beowulf
StanDane
greg_parker
25 posters
GuestGuest
The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Wed 02 Apr 2014, 7:42 pm
First topic message reminder :
I want to begin by focusing on the notorious vestibule door, with the plate-glass window, that Baker first glimpsed Oswald looking through. It's WC Exhibit 498, at XVII p. 213, and even in the Warren volumes you can easily discern the fresh grain pattern in the wood. First Day Evidence, on p. 286, is even clearer.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0120a.htm
Very probably this was a new door, installed during the late 1962 overhaul, when the Sexton Grocery warehouse was remodeled to accommodate the TSBD company and several other publishers. By the way, Sexton had its offices on the 1st & 2nd floors and very likely used the same lunchroom that we all know so well. The vestibule door had an automatic closing device, and Truly had to come in and make a special affidavit about that on August 3rd (WCH VII p. 591). It took several seconds to close. This device was probably pneumatic.
This vestibule door had some weight to it. It was sturdy. It could be described as heavy-duty. Installing it was a 2-man job. In comparison, the doors to the up & down flights of stairs were downright flimsy. (Same link as above, but page 217). These stairwell doors were normally open during the course of the day, as was the lunchroom door (WCD 496, p. 32). The vestibule door closed by itself and was always in the closed position, if not in use.
The vestibule door helped muffle the sounds from the landing and stairwell, so that people in the lunchroom could eat in relative peace & quiet. The stairs were old and quite noisy and the landing floors were wood. Warehouse workers habitually came up to use the lunchroom Coke machine. And office workers also came down from the 3rd & 4th floors, human nature being what it is, rather than wait impatiently at lunchtime for the passenger elevator. For example, Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles' run down the stairs on November 22nd wasn't their first experience on them. They instinctively knew they could head for the corner stairwell when they discovered the passenger elevator wasn't operating.
Considering the potential for irritable human traffic, the vestibule door kept disturbing sounds to a reasonable minimum. It was installed with that purpose in mind.
****************************************************************
Adams & Styles watched the motorcade from their 4th-floor office window overlooking Elm Street. Adams estimated the time it took them to reach the 1st floor, after the shots, was "no longer than a minute at the most." She confirmed to author Barry Ernest that she left the window just before the limousine reached the Triple Underpass (The Girl on the Stairs p. 329).
The first point that needs to be appreciated is that Adams & Styles could not have beaten Truly & Baker to the freight elevators. Even if these women made it to the 1st floor in 60 seconds, Truly & Baker had 60 seconds to make it only as far as the will-call counter, or just a bit further into the warehouse, to see the women across the floor. And Adams & Styles continued running in front of the freight elevators for the rear door. Even the most sluggard time estimate for Truly & Baker brings them onto the warehouse floor well before Adams & Styles. And in one re-enactment they made it to the 2nd-floor lunchroom in 75 seconds.
The second point is that Adams' & Styles' supervisor, Dorothy Garner, stated for the record that after they went downstairs, she saw Truly & Baker come up. The purpose of Garner's statement was to refute the WC argument that Adams must have gone downstairs several minutes after the shots, because otherwise she should have encountered Lee Harvey Oswald fleeing down the steps. Garner's statement was given in the U.S. Attorney's office in Dallas, and they sent it to WC Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin. But he never brought it to light, since it helped refute the Commission's contention that Oswald was the 6th-floor assassin. And the statement lay buried in the National Archives in the papers of the Dallas U.S. Attorney until Barry Ernest discovered it.
We can boil the stairs down to a mathematical problem, where A & S are descending from the 4th while T & B are ascending to the 4th (and then the 5th). Yet they never interact with each other. Why is this the case? Because T & B removed themselves from the stairs for a time, and went into the lunchroom. And it is a mathematical certainty that A & S passed T & B while they were in the lunchroom.
Why didn't T & B hear them? Truly said that he, Baker & Oswald were only 2 or 3 feet inside the lunchroom. The answer is that the vestibule door muffled a lot of sound, coming from Adams' & Styles' high heels clomping down the wooden stair treads and across the wooden landing. And T & B were in an intense, gun-in-the-belly situation with Oswald. Even if a little bit of noise from those high heels filtered into their eardrums, it was only high heels and they quickly brushed it off and forgot about it.
Baker estimated the lunchroom encounter took 30 seconds. The stairs were roughly L-shaped, split-level. I think it's fair to say that for someone in the lunchroom, floor "2 1/2" to floor "1 1/2" constitutes their hearing range. Half a flight of steps gets descended in about 5 seconds, with another 5 seconds for crossing the 10-foot landing. That's 15 seconds total for A & S to be in hearing range. They probably were on the 3rd-floor landing just as B & T entered the lunchroom.
Skeptics of the lunchroom incident not only have to construe Baker & Truly as liars. Since 2010, when Garner's information came out, they have to construe her as misbegotten as well- yet her statement was made with Oswald's escape in mind, not the lunchroom incident.
What the simple mathematics of this problem means is that the totality of evidence cited by the skeptics, as supporting the lunchroom episode as a non-event, is nothing more than a red herring. The disparate news stories are just that- disparate news stories, and they tell us little more than that reporters will write anything.
And etc. Bring your best arguments to the table, in favor of the non-event. Prepare for a whuppin'.
I want to begin by focusing on the notorious vestibule door, with the plate-glass window, that Baker first glimpsed Oswald looking through. It's WC Exhibit 498, at XVII p. 213, and even in the Warren volumes you can easily discern the fresh grain pattern in the wood. First Day Evidence, on p. 286, is even clearer.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0120a.htm
Very probably this was a new door, installed during the late 1962 overhaul, when the Sexton Grocery warehouse was remodeled to accommodate the TSBD company and several other publishers. By the way, Sexton had its offices on the 1st & 2nd floors and very likely used the same lunchroom that we all know so well. The vestibule door had an automatic closing device, and Truly had to come in and make a special affidavit about that on August 3rd (WCH VII p. 591). It took several seconds to close. This device was probably pneumatic.
This vestibule door had some weight to it. It was sturdy. It could be described as heavy-duty. Installing it was a 2-man job. In comparison, the doors to the up & down flights of stairs were downright flimsy. (Same link as above, but page 217). These stairwell doors were normally open during the course of the day, as was the lunchroom door (WCD 496, p. 32). The vestibule door closed by itself and was always in the closed position, if not in use.
The vestibule door helped muffle the sounds from the landing and stairwell, so that people in the lunchroom could eat in relative peace & quiet. The stairs were old and quite noisy and the landing floors were wood. Warehouse workers habitually came up to use the lunchroom Coke machine. And office workers also came down from the 3rd & 4th floors, human nature being what it is, rather than wait impatiently at lunchtime for the passenger elevator. For example, Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles' run down the stairs on November 22nd wasn't their first experience on them. They instinctively knew they could head for the corner stairwell when they discovered the passenger elevator wasn't operating.
Considering the potential for irritable human traffic, the vestibule door kept disturbing sounds to a reasonable minimum. It was installed with that purpose in mind.
****************************************************************
Adams & Styles watched the motorcade from their 4th-floor office window overlooking Elm Street. Adams estimated the time it took them to reach the 1st floor, after the shots, was "no longer than a minute at the most." She confirmed to author Barry Ernest that she left the window just before the limousine reached the Triple Underpass (The Girl on the Stairs p. 329).
The first point that needs to be appreciated is that Adams & Styles could not have beaten Truly & Baker to the freight elevators. Even if these women made it to the 1st floor in 60 seconds, Truly & Baker had 60 seconds to make it only as far as the will-call counter, or just a bit further into the warehouse, to see the women across the floor. And Adams & Styles continued running in front of the freight elevators for the rear door. Even the most sluggard time estimate for Truly & Baker brings them onto the warehouse floor well before Adams & Styles. And in one re-enactment they made it to the 2nd-floor lunchroom in 75 seconds.
The second point is that Adams' & Styles' supervisor, Dorothy Garner, stated for the record that after they went downstairs, she saw Truly & Baker come up. The purpose of Garner's statement was to refute the WC argument that Adams must have gone downstairs several minutes after the shots, because otherwise she should have encountered Lee Harvey Oswald fleeing down the steps. Garner's statement was given in the U.S. Attorney's office in Dallas, and they sent it to WC Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin. But he never brought it to light, since it helped refute the Commission's contention that Oswald was the 6th-floor assassin. And the statement lay buried in the National Archives in the papers of the Dallas U.S. Attorney until Barry Ernest discovered it.
We can boil the stairs down to a mathematical problem, where A & S are descending from the 4th while T & B are ascending to the 4th (and then the 5th). Yet they never interact with each other. Why is this the case? Because T & B removed themselves from the stairs for a time, and went into the lunchroom. And it is a mathematical certainty that A & S passed T & B while they were in the lunchroom.
Why didn't T & B hear them? Truly said that he, Baker & Oswald were only 2 or 3 feet inside the lunchroom. The answer is that the vestibule door muffled a lot of sound, coming from Adams' & Styles' high heels clomping down the wooden stair treads and across the wooden landing. And T & B were in an intense, gun-in-the-belly situation with Oswald. Even if a little bit of noise from those high heels filtered into their eardrums, it was only high heels and they quickly brushed it off and forgot about it.
Baker estimated the lunchroom encounter took 30 seconds. The stairs were roughly L-shaped, split-level. I think it's fair to say that for someone in the lunchroom, floor "2 1/2" to floor "1 1/2" constitutes their hearing range. Half a flight of steps gets descended in about 5 seconds, with another 5 seconds for crossing the 10-foot landing. That's 15 seconds total for A & S to be in hearing range. They probably were on the 3rd-floor landing just as B & T entered the lunchroom.
Skeptics of the lunchroom incident not only have to construe Baker & Truly as liars. Since 2010, when Garner's information came out, they have to construe her as misbegotten as well- yet her statement was made with Oswald's escape in mind, not the lunchroom incident.
What the simple mathematics of this problem means is that the totality of evidence cited by the skeptics, as supporting the lunchroom episode as a non-event, is nothing more than a red herring. The disparate news stories are just that- disparate news stories, and they tell us little more than that reporters will write anything.
And etc. Bring your best arguments to the table, in favor of the non-event. Prepare for a whuppin'.
greg_parkerAdmin- Posts : 8331
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 66
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia 
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Tue 29 Apr 2014, 2:49 pm
Colin, how do you account for Baker's first day statement? Coercion? Miscounting of stairs and forgetting to mention the lunch-room?Colin Crow wrote:Encountering a suspect on the 4th floor seems unlikely given the number of women employees in the vicinity. Anyone say Garner for instance? Also i believe the room in the South west corner did not have a solid wall and the staircase would be visible to the two women (?) at that position. I think this point was discovered by Tony Fratini and was discussed on Duncan's forum.
Two women? Wasn't Garner there alone? She said she saw them coming (or words to that effect). That doesn't mean she was still there when they arrived.
This is among Baker's most telling testimony, in my opinion.
Mr. BELIN - At the time you got up there was there any elevator on floor number two that you can remember, if you can remember? Maybe you cannot remember, I don't know.
Mr. BAKER - Evidently--now, I didn't look, evidently it wasn't because it seemed to me like the next floor up Mr. Truly said let's take the elevator.
Baker says they got the elevator one floor above where the encounter occurred. The elevator was on five, so even tho Belin specifically mentions the second floor, Baker is actually placing the encounter one floor below where they caught the elevator. The fourth floor. I don't know if there is a term for this, but what gives it credence to me is the sheer inadvertence of it.
Belin seems to recognize the problem and skirts around it in his next question by putting different wording in Baker's mouth by asking "At some higher floor?" Well, no, Mr. Belin. Not some unspecified higher floor - very specifically, the next floor up from where the encounter occurred.
_________________
Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise.
Lachie Hulme
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
Me
"So what’s an independent-minded populist like me to do? I’ve had to grovel in promoting myself on social media, even begging for Amazon reviews and Goodreads ratings, to no avail." Don Jeffries
"I've been aware of Greg Parker's work for years, and strongly recommend it." Peter Dale Scott
https://gregrparker.com
- Redfern
- Posts : 120
Join date : 2013-08-27
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Tue 29 Apr 2014, 4:25 pm
I interpret Marrion Baker’s original affidavit as indicating distrust of ‘the building manager’. It insulated himself to some extent from future allegations that he was responsible for letting an assassin loose.
It presumably dawned on Baker that working in the building (and he might have had doubts about this too) was not sufficient reason to eliminate the man as a suspect. He also failed to obtain the suspect’s name, which is usually the first or second question asked by a police officer. This could only have added to his concerns.
Crucially, Baker failed to identify Lee Harvey Oswald as the suspect mentioned in the affidavit despite seeing him in the homicide office. There is no credible reason why a police officer would omit this information were Oswald the suspect. However, for the sake of argument, if there was an oversight on Baker’s part why would he not be asked subsequently (and quickly) to complete another affidavit stipulating clearly that the individual under arrest was the same man he intercepted near the 3rd or 4th stairway in the TSBD? This is surely the elephant in the room.
I suspect Baker was eventually presented with a fait accompli by Fritz, Truly and Mrs. Reid.
Baker’s original affidavit, his Warren testimony and his later contribution as ‘Officer E’ all seemed to be reasonably consistent on the elevator issue.
It presumably dawned on Baker that working in the building (and he might have had doubts about this too) was not sufficient reason to eliminate the man as a suspect. He also failed to obtain the suspect’s name, which is usually the first or second question asked by a police officer. This could only have added to his concerns.
Crucially, Baker failed to identify Lee Harvey Oswald as the suspect mentioned in the affidavit despite seeing him in the homicide office. There is no credible reason why a police officer would omit this information were Oswald the suspect. However, for the sake of argument, if there was an oversight on Baker’s part why would he not be asked subsequently (and quickly) to complete another affidavit stipulating clearly that the individual under arrest was the same man he intercepted near the 3rd or 4th stairway in the TSBD? This is surely the elephant in the room.
I suspect Baker was eventually presented with a fait accompli by Fritz, Truly and Mrs. Reid.
Baker’s original affidavit, his Warren testimony and his later contribution as ‘Officer E’ all seemed to be reasonably consistent on the elevator issue.
Colin_Crow- Posts : 322
Join date : 2013-08-03
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Tue 29 Apr 2014, 5:43 pm
A graphic by Tony Fratini showing the position of the 8 women on the 4th floor at the time of the shots. Note the supplies room on the western end.greg parker wrote:Colin, how do you account for Baker's first day statement? Coercion? Miscounting of stairs and forgetting to mention the lunch-room?Colin Crow wrote:Encountering a suspect on the 4th floor seems unlikely given the number of women employees in the vicinity. Anyone say Garner for instance? Also i believe the room in the South west corner did not have a solid wall and the staircase would be visible to the two women (?) at that position. I think this point was discovered by Tony Fratini and was discussed on Duncan's forum.
Two women? Wasn't Garner there alone? She said she saw them coming (or words to that effect). That doesn't mean she was still there when they arrived.
This is among Baker's most telling testimony, in my opinion.
Mr. BELIN - At the time you got up there was there any elevator on floor number two that you can remember, if you can remember? Maybe you cannot remember, I don't know.
Mr. BAKER - Evidently--now, I didn't look, evidently it wasn't because it seemed to me like the next floor up Mr. Truly said let's take the elevator.
Baker says they got the elevator one floor above where the encounter occurred. The elevator was on five, so even tho Belin specifically mentions the second floor, Baker is actually placing the encounter one floor below where they caught the elevator. The fourth floor. I don't know if there is a term for this, but what gives it credence to me is the sheer inadvertence of it.
Belin seems to recognize the problem and skirts around it in his next question by putting different wording in Baker's mouth by asking "At some higher floor?" Well, no, Mr. Belin. Not some unspecified higher floor - very specifically, the next floor up from where the encounter occurred.
As for accounting for Baker's first statement. Maybe it was the 3rd floor, maybe he had trouble remembering the floors (difficult to understand but possible). I think the 4th floor is most unlikely.
- Mark A. O'Blazney
- Posts : 100
Join date : 2013-10-03
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Tue 29 Apr 2014, 6:25 pm
A nice de-construction. Good to eat this "Crow". Thanks, Colin. Moving right along again, as it should be. JFK research is a lot like dealing with international diplomacy, but in a microcosm, methinks. With the power of reason, all can get along without internecine warfare……..but emotion is always the variable in any conflict, as are asteroids slamming into our planet.
StanDane- Posts : 3644
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 70
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Tue 29 Apr 2014, 7:02 pm
To me, the Fourth Floor diagram above strengthens Adams' claim that she and Styles got down to the first floor pretty damn close to 60 seconds.
- greg_parkerAdmin
- Posts : 8331
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 66
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Tue 29 Apr 2014, 8:40 pm
Thanks Colin. Diagrams tend to bring it home a bit more.
The problem remains that we do not know the whereabouts of any of them except Styles, Adams and Garner in that crucial one or two minutes after the shots.
Is it not possible - even probable - that the others stayed at the windows keeping a watch on all the happenings outside?
Styles and Adams get out as Baker and Truly are at the front door. Garner sees Truly and Baker coming up and joins the others at the window before they actually reach the 4th, thus missing any encounter between them and suspect.
Yes, it's tight, but no tighter than any other scenario and I can't see why it wouldn't be feasible. If I'm missing something that rules this out, please tell me!
The problem remains that we do not know the whereabouts of any of them except Styles, Adams and Garner in that crucial one or two minutes after the shots.
Is it not possible - even probable - that the others stayed at the windows keeping a watch on all the happenings outside?
Styles and Adams get out as Baker and Truly are at the front door. Garner sees Truly and Baker coming up and joins the others at the window before they actually reach the 4th, thus missing any encounter between them and suspect.
Yes, it's tight, but no tighter than any other scenario and I can't see why it wouldn't be feasible. If I'm missing something that rules this out, please tell me!
_________________
Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise.
Lachie Hulme
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
Me
"So what’s an independent-minded populist like me to do? I’ve had to grovel in promoting myself on social media, even begging for Amazon reviews and Goodreads ratings, to no avail." Don Jeffries
"I've been aware of Greg Parker's work for years, and strongly recommend it." Peter Dale Scott
https://gregrparker.com
- Mark A. O'Blazney
- Posts : 100
Join date : 2013-10-03
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Tue 29 Apr 2014, 8:53 pm
Diagrams 'in motion' would help further this case. Explain the 'further', please. Jack's dead, but we're dying to know.
I'm quit impressed by how one can 'film' oneself whilst researching, an even more honest way of approaching this. Must be done with panache, though.
Use the same method as Myers and there you may have it, for all different theories explained. By the way, what is your conclusion, if any, to this "Kennedy Case", Mr. Scully? You seem to be the only one that knows what's going on here.
The secret is to never lose interest.
I'm quit impressed by how one can 'film' oneself whilst researching, an even more honest way of approaching this. Must be done with panache, though.
Use the same method as Myers and there you may have it, for all different theories explained. By the way, what is your conclusion, if any, to this "Kennedy Case", Mr. Scully? You seem to be the only one that knows what's going on here.
The secret is to never lose interest.
- Colin_Crow
- Posts : 322
Join date : 2013-08-03
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Tue 29 Apr 2014, 9:43 pm
Greg, are you saying a 3rd floor encounter is possible? If so, I wouldn't disagree. I think most observers migrated to the windows on the western side shortly after the shots. Eg the three on the 5th floor. When they descended they noticed women at the western windows on the 4th floor.greg parker wrote:Thanks Colin. Diagrams tend to bring it home a bit more.
The problem remains that we do not know the whereabouts of any of them except Styles, Adams and Garner in that crucial one or two minutes after the shots.
Is it not possible - even probable - that the others stayed at the windows keeping a watch on all the happenings outside?
Styles and Adams get out as Baker and Truly are at the front door. Garner sees Truly and Baker coming up and joins the others at the window before they actually reach the 4th, thus missing any encounter between them and suspect.
Yes, it's tight, but no tighter than any other scenario and I can't see why it wouldn't be feasible. If I'm missing something that rules this out, please tell me!
I find it difficult to have A&S out while B&T are at the front door. If the girls leave as the President's car is in the underpass they would be at the top of the stairs about 20-30 seconds after the shots. At this time Baker is just inside the TSBD. I find it difficult to get the girls out before B&T arrive at the west elevator. Unless the girls left immediately by the open bay door between the elevator and stairs.
That is why, IF the lunchroom encounter happened, maybe the girls passed B&T while they were preoccupied with Oswald in the lunchroom.
TerryWMartin- Posts : 1000
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 72
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Wed 30 Apr 2014, 12:33 am
Perhaps these posts are being garbled by my internet provider, OR they are intended in some language other than English, OR Mark is simply using a "Kennedy filter" incompatible with my own, OR I am getting too old for this insanity. Whatever the reason, I simply cannot make heads or tails out of his last two posts here.
Maybe it's all an inside joke - and it does not help by being situated on the outside... Read it over several times and I still haven't a clue what Mark is saying.
Stan, "O'Blazney" would not happen to be an alias of yours would it?
Mark A. O'Blazney wrote:A nice de-construction. Good to eat this "Crow". Thanks, Colin. Moving right along again, as it should be. JFK research is a lot like dealing with international diplomacy, but in a microcosm, methinks. With the power of reason, all can get along without internecine warfare……..but emotion is always the variable in any conflict, as are asteroids slamming into our planet.
Mark A. O'Blazney wrote:Diagrams 'in motion' would help further this case. Explain the 'further', please. Jack's dead, but we're dying to know.
I'm quit impressed by how one can 'film' oneself whilst researching, an even more honest way of approaching this. Must be done with panache, though.
Use the same method as Myers and there you may have it, for all different theories explained. By the way, what is your conclusion, if any, to this "Kennedy Case", Mr. Scully? You seem to be the only one that knows what's going on here.
The secret is to never lose interest.
Maybe it's all an inside joke - and it does not help by being situated on the outside... Read it over several times and I still haven't a clue what Mark is saying.
Stan, "O'Blazney" would not happen to be an alias of yours would it?
- StanDane
- Posts : 3644
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 70
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Wed 30 Apr 2014, 3:19 am
No Terry, Stan's my only alias.terlin wrote:Stan, "O'Blazney" would not happen to be an alias of yours would it?
It's funny you observe this. Over on the "plot, wherefore art thou?" thread I saw:
...and just as I was going to respond thus:Mark A. O'Blazney wrote:Ms. Meredith(sic?) has fallen prey to many of the same traps as all of us. There have been some "good" posts by her, but no one really knows. Let us all have a chance to speak, then place our thoughts through some kind of "Kennedy Filter" all can agree to, which separates the truth from the lie. Try it, you'l like it.
...I never pulled the trigger. It was very early here and thought I may be missing something and didn't want to come across as...well, I don't know. When you don't know how you'll come across, it's best to sit on the sidelines and mumble things.Stan Dane almost wrote:Same traps such as hero worship, adoration of strong personalities, and uncritical, emotion-laced thinking? Hmm. (I'll leave out the more universal human pitfalls such as the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. And occasional cussing. Nobody's perfect.) And try what and I'll like it?
That's where I be a sittin' right now.
PS: Can you help us old country boys out, Mark?
- TerryWMartin
- Posts : 1000
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 72
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Wed 30 Apr 2014, 3:39 am
Stan Dane wrote:...I never pulled the trigger. It was very early here and thought I may be missing something and didn't want to come across as...well, I don't know. When you don't know how you'll come across, it's best to sit on the sidelines and mumble things.
That's where I be a sittin' right now.
Oops! Sorry. I must've walked right passed you when I stepped in... well "it" and pulled the trigger.
Maybe I shoulda just sat down too and mumbled a bit.
- TerryWMartin
- Posts : 1000
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 72
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Wed 30 Apr 2014, 3:44 am
Stan, "early" there?
Where are you located. I'm near the Washington DC morass on the east coast and it is already past the crack o' noon.
Where are you located. I'm near the Washington DC morass on the east coast and it is already past the crack o' noon.
_________________
If God had intended Man to do anything except copulate, He would have given us brains.
- - - Ignatz Verbotham
- StanDane
- Posts : 3644
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 70
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Wed 30 Apr 2014, 3:53 am
To pass the time, we could mumble the Star-Spangled Banner. Or if you prefer, we could whistle Bridge on the River Kwai in two-part harmony.
(I'm in the greater Phoenix Arizona area, but I was referring to a much earlier time this morning.)
(I'm in the greater Phoenix Arizona area, but I was referring to a much earlier time this morning.)
- TerryWMartin
- Posts : 1000
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 72
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Wed 30 Apr 2014, 4:10 am
Stan Dane wrote:To pass the time, we could mumble the Star-Spangled Banner. Or if you prefer, we could whistle Bridge on the River Kwai in two-part harmony.
(I'm in the greater Phoenix Arizona area, but I was referring to a much earlier time this morning.)
Well, since the ability to whistle does not seem to have been included in my genetic make-up, how 'bout we mumble in two part harmony?
Ah, Phoenix, a wonderful city of "the lights"... which I got to witness years ago... when I lived there. Last stretch was in a modest home on the outskirts of Paradise Valley, just south of Greenway. Spent more'n a decade in Flagstaff as well.
Loved Arizona but it didn't have much of an autumn... not like here.
- beowulf
- Posts : 373
Join date : 2013-04-21
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Wed 30 Apr 2014, 7:15 am
'Styles and Adams get out as Baker and Truly are at the front door. Garner sees Truly and Baker coming up and joins the others at the window before they actually reach the 4th, thus missing any encounter between them and suspect."
Garner walks towards window and just missed seeing Truly & Baker running into 4th floor suspect (or a suspect passing 4th floor on the way to 3rd floor encounter) sounds like T&B ducking into 2nd floor lunchroom and just missed seeing Adams & Styles. Its possible though unlikely.
Between Adams, Styles & Garner on or near the backstairs, no one else appears to have been on the stairs immediately after the shooting--- not Oswald, not a 4th floor suspect, not even Baker or Truly.
Its the same thing with the front stairs. From her desk in the office, Mrs. Hine didn't see Oswald go down or Mrs. Reid go up front stairs (she didn't see Baker & Truly come up either-- a pity since that route would have given a clear view of lunchroom). Williams's elevator story explains how Officer Baker made it to 5th floor without being seen by Adams, Styles or Hine (and how, for her part, Garner did not see Baker's purported 4th floor suspect).
Bonnie Ray Williams's 1st day FBI statement is the same as his March 1964 statement-- he saw an officer (Baker presumably) walk off 5th floor elevator. He changed his story when he testified at the WC but even WC counsel Joseph Ball recognized how incongruent his new story (officer had come up stairway) was with what he'd told FBI twice before.
http://media.nara.gov/dc-metro/rg-272/605417-key-persons/williams_bonnie_ray/williams_bonnie_ray.pdf
Garner walks towards window and just missed seeing Truly & Baker running into 4th floor suspect (or a suspect passing 4th floor on the way to 3rd floor encounter) sounds like T&B ducking into 2nd floor lunchroom and just missed seeing Adams & Styles. Its possible though unlikely.
Between Adams, Styles & Garner on or near the backstairs, no one else appears to have been on the stairs immediately after the shooting--- not Oswald, not a 4th floor suspect, not even Baker or Truly.
Its the same thing with the front stairs. From her desk in the office, Mrs. Hine didn't see Oswald go down or Mrs. Reid go up front stairs (she didn't see Baker & Truly come up either-- a pity since that route would have given a clear view of lunchroom). Williams's elevator story explains how Officer Baker made it to 5th floor without being seen by Adams, Styles or Hine (and how, for her part, Garner did not see Baker's purported 4th floor suspect).
Bonnie Ray Williams's 1st day FBI statement is the same as his March 1964 statement-- he saw an officer (Baker presumably) walk off 5th floor elevator. He changed his story when he testified at the WC but even WC counsel Joseph Ball recognized how incongruent his new story (officer had come up stairway) was with what he'd told FBI twice before.
http://media.nara.gov/dc-metro/rg-272/605417-key-persons/williams_bonnie_ray/williams_bonnie_ray.pdf
- TerryWMartin
- Posts : 1000
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 72
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Wed 30 Apr 2014, 8:04 am
It is interesting that Bonnie Ray could not seem to get straight exactly where he ate his lunch (and left dem bones and the Dr. Pepper bottle). Was it the sixth floor or the fifth.
One account has him going back up to the sixth with his lunch and, when seeing no one there, went down to the fifth.
Another has him eating his lunch on the sixth and leaving the garbage there.
I thought the remnants of the chicken feast were found on the sixth floor and the early investigators thought it was Oswald's lunch though there were no greasy prints on the rifle.
Were there any stories that remained consistent or did everyone change theirs with the prevailing winds?
One account has him going back up to the sixth with his lunch and, when seeing no one there, went down to the fifth.
Another has him eating his lunch on the sixth and leaving the garbage there.
I thought the remnants of the chicken feast were found on the sixth floor and the early investigators thought it was Oswald's lunch though there were no greasy prints on the rifle.
Were there any stories that remained consistent or did everyone change theirs with the prevailing winds?
_________________
If God had intended Man to do anything except copulate, He would have given us brains.
- - - Ignatz Verbotham
- greg_parkerAdmin
- Posts : 8331
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 66
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Wed 30 Apr 2014, 9:27 am
Bonnie Ray initially said "I went back up to the 5th with a fellow called Hank, and Junior. I don't know his last name. After we got on the 5th floor..."terlin wrote:It is interesting that Bonnie Ray could not seem to get straight exactly where he ate his lunch (and left dem bones and the Dr. Pepper bottle). Was it the sixth floor or the fifth.
One account has him going back up to the sixth with his lunch and, when seeing no one there, went down to the fifth.
Another has him eating his lunch on the sixth and leaving the garbage there.
I thought the remnants of the chicken feast were found on the sixth floor and the early investigators thought it was Oswald's lunch though there were no greasy prints on the rifle.
Were there any stories that remained consistent or did everyone change theirs with the prevailing winds?
Jarman didn't mention going back upstairs at all in his initial statement, and Norman's initial statement - if he made one - has disappeared from the records.
It is criminal that Williams (and a whole bunch of others) were not cross-examined about their initial statements where their testimony was at variance with those statements.
And no - there were few stories - more-so among (but not confined to) the non-whites - that stayed consistent. That's not necessarily a sign of relative honesty, let alone complicity in any plot.
_________________
Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise.
Lachie Hulme
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
Me
"So what’s an independent-minded populist like me to do? I’ve had to grovel in promoting myself on social media, even begging for Amazon reviews and Goodreads ratings, to no avail." Don Jeffries
"I've been aware of Greg Parker's work for years, and strongly recommend it." Peter Dale Scott
https://gregrparker.com
- TerryWMartin
- Posts : 1000
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 72
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Wed 30 Apr 2014, 9:51 am
greg parker wrote:Bonnie Ray initially said "I went back up to the 5th with a fellow called Hank, and Junior. I don't know his last name. After we got on the 5th floor..."
Jarman didn't mention going back upstairs at all in his initial statement, and Norman's initial statement - if he made one - has disappeared from the records.
It is criminal that Williams (and a whole bunch of others) were not cross-examined about their initial statements where their testimony was at variance with those statements.
And no - there were few stories - more-so among (but not confined to) the non-whites - that stayed consistent. That's not necessarily a sign of relative honesty, let alone complicity in any plot.
Oh, well. I guess it's like someone said...
greg parker wrote:Ain't this case a hoot?
And ain't that the truth?
- beowulf
- Posts : 373
Join date : 2013-04-21
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Thu 01 May 2014, 4:36 am
On the other hand (its a new day!)... if Baker & Truly did take the stairs, maybe the story sounds fishy because they had something to hide. Perhaps they did run into an employee on the 4th floor-- Jack Dougherty or one of the black guys from the 5th floor presumably-- and Truly quickly vouched for him. In this scenario, the trouble starts when-- for want of any witnesses to Oswald near the sniper's nest--DPD brass persuade Baker to replace description of actual employee near stairs with the APB description put out on radio.
When a 4th floor encounter becomes implausible (say, when DPD belatedly discovered Adams & Styles were in the stairwell and other witnesses were on 4th floor), they had to act fast to fix the story. Moving the Oswald encounter to the 2nd floor would require erasing the actual (innocent) employee encounter on 4th floor to keep Baker's testimony coherent since he only mentioned one encounter in his affidavit.
When a 4th floor encounter becomes implausible (say, when DPD belatedly discovered Adams & Styles were in the stairwell and other witnesses were on 4th floor), they had to act fast to fix the story. Moving the Oswald encounter to the 2nd floor would require erasing the actual (innocent) employee encounter on 4th floor to keep Baker's testimony coherent since he only mentioned one encounter in his affidavit.
- GuestGuest
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Sat 03 May 2014, 8:33 pm
Warren Report, p. 154:
"If she descended from the fourth to the first floor as fast as she claimed in her testimony, she would have seen Baker or Truly on the first floor or on the stairs, unless they were already in the second-floor lunchroom talking to Oswald."
There is nothing original in my stating that Adams & Styles passed by Truly & Baker while they were in the lunchroom. But I am declaring it to be the truth. Planting it like a sword in the ground.
Are the insults here real or perceived? I find the contentions of those who say the lunchroom event didn't happen an insult to my intelligence. What I am insulting is their reasoning power, regarding this particular facet of November 22nd- because as far as this incident goes, they have taken leave of their senses. "They" meaning Sean Murphy, Greg Parker, Lee Farley, and those who actively promote this school of thought. What they promulgate is an insult to my better judgment, and many other peoples' better judgment. It should be an insult to their better judgment.
They are going to have to come to terms with the mess they have made, as regards the remainder of their research. Come to terms with the damage they have wrought, with whatever others may remind them when they seek to defend a position. And the research community will have to come to terms with its own tendency to denigrate those who came up short. I have never maintained, over the past several years, that their research on this issue was not brilliant.
I didn't make this mess, and one day will be walking away from it. But right now I'm standing next to that sword, defending it to the hilt.
"If she descended from the fourth to the first floor as fast as she claimed in her testimony, she would have seen Baker or Truly on the first floor or on the stairs, unless they were already in the second-floor lunchroom talking to Oswald."
There is nothing original in my stating that Adams & Styles passed by Truly & Baker while they were in the lunchroom. But I am declaring it to be the truth. Planting it like a sword in the ground.
Are the insults here real or perceived? I find the contentions of those who say the lunchroom event didn't happen an insult to my intelligence. What I am insulting is their reasoning power, regarding this particular facet of November 22nd- because as far as this incident goes, they have taken leave of their senses. "They" meaning Sean Murphy, Greg Parker, Lee Farley, and those who actively promote this school of thought. What they promulgate is an insult to my better judgment, and many other peoples' better judgment. It should be an insult to their better judgment.
They are going to have to come to terms with the mess they have made, as regards the remainder of their research. Come to terms with the damage they have wrought, with whatever others may remind them when they seek to defend a position. And the research community will have to come to terms with its own tendency to denigrate those who came up short. I have never maintained, over the past several years, that their research on this issue was not brilliant.
I didn't make this mess, and one day will be walking away from it. But right now I'm standing next to that sword, defending it to the hilt.
- TerryWMartin
- Posts : 1000
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 72
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Sat 03 May 2014, 9:07 pm
Put a sock in it, Richard.
This isn't a playground, so stop acting the bully.
You've stated your case - fine and good - and then you go and ruin everyone's day by being a putz about it. You act as if Sean, Greg, and Lee have done the community some sort of great disservice.
Duh! It is called research and hypothesis. (Didn't they teach that in your philosophy classes?)
Save the medieval innuendos for the boys club.
Cretin.
Doesn't matter if you are right (which I doubt) or wrong. You attitude alone wins you no respect from me.
This isn't a playground, so stop acting the bully.
You've stated your case - fine and good - and then you go and ruin everyone's day by being a putz about it. You act as if Sean, Greg, and Lee have done the community some sort of great disservice.
Duh! It is called research and hypothesis. (Didn't they teach that in your philosophy classes?)
Save the medieval innuendos for the boys club.
Cretin.
Doesn't matter if you are right (which I doubt) or wrong. You attitude alone wins you no respect from me.
Hasan Yusuf- Posts : 1899
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 35
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Sat 03 May 2014, 10:50 pm
See terlin, that's the problem with utter dickheads. They can't help but act that way. IMO, Greg should have banned this Tiger fucking prick after his last comment about Greg and others who support the lunchroom encounter being lunatics. I don't know why he didn't. From now on, I'll be deleting every single one of the fucking asshole's posts which contain even the slightest insult towards any member of this forum.
He says it's an insult to his "intelligence." What intelligence? The man is a fucking dumb cunt, who is asking to be banned by constantly writing insulting crap. He can stick a dildo up his arse too, but I'm sure he does already.
He says it's an insult to his "intelligence." What intelligence? The man is a fucking dumb cunt, who is asking to be banned by constantly writing insulting crap. He can stick a dildo up his arse too, but I'm sure he does already.
- TerryWMartin
- Posts : 1000
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 72
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Sun 04 May 2014, 12:15 am
Hasan, thanks for the clarification.
_________________
If God had intended Man to do anything except copulate, He would have given us brains.
- - - Ignatz Verbotham
- GuestGuest
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Sun 04 May 2014, 10:57 am
Rixhard, you are familiar with the term FETZERING?
- greg_parkerAdmin
- Posts : 8331
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 66
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia
Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited
Sun 04 May 2014, 11:38 am
Richard Gilbride wrote:Warren Report, p. 154:
"If she descended from the fourth to the first floor as fast as she claimed in her testimony, she would have seen Baker or Truly on the first floor or on the stairs, unless they were already in the second-floor lunchroom talking to Oswald."
Richard, the Warren Report? Really? This is the same august body that got the FBI to recreate Oswald's alleged descent 254 times in order to determine the best scenario they could run with?
There is nothing original in my stating that Adams & Styles passed by Truly & Baker while they were in the lunchroom. But I am declaring it to be the truth. Planting it like a sword in the ground.
I say they were leaving through the cargo door while Truly and Baker were discussing the price of eggs in China at the front door. I declare that to be the truth. It is a seed that I planted long long ago and have watched grow with the hard work of others like Sean and Lee. Bad seeds just wither and die. Any farmer knows that. Swords in the ground? They just rust and provide not one iota of sustenance to the truth starved masses. But I guess they look impressive.
Are the insults here real or perceived? I find the contentions of those who say the lunchroom event didn't happen an insult to my intelligence. What I am insulting is their reasoning power, regarding this particular facet of November 22nd- because as far as this incident goes, they have taken leave of their senses. "They" meaning Sean Murphy, Greg Parker, Lee Farley, and those who actively promote this school of thought. What they promulgate is an insult to my better judgment, and many other peoples' better judgment. It should be an insult to their better judgment.
I am sorry you are insulted by research. I am glad you took the time to put your own case. It is now on the main site. However due to the file format, all I could do was put it up as a gallery of "pictures" and as a result, it may be difficult for some to read. If you could resend in word or PDF format, I can redo it. I don't have the expertise to change the formats myself. Part of the delay was in trying...
They are going to have to come to terms with the mess they have made, as regards the remainder of their research. Come to terms with the damage they have wrought, with whatever others may remind them when they seek to defend a position. And the research community will have to come to terms with its own tendency to denigrate those who came up short. I have never maintained, over the past several years, that their research on this issue was not brilliant.
Yet Sean's work is almost universally hailed as breathtaking and the benchmark in this type of research. Even Bill Kelly, who is at least partly on your side in this debate, acknowledges that the research is worthwhile.
I didn't make this mess, and one day will be walking away from it. But right now I'm standing next to that sword, defending it to the hilt.
You're welcome to the sword. You put it there, after all. We're all over on this side of the field watching the miracle of growth and regeneration spring from fertile land and smart farming methods. It will feed the fact-starved for generations to come. Why don't you turn that sword into plowshares and join us?
_________________
Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise.
Lachie Hulme
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
Me
"So what’s an independent-minded populist like me to do? I’ve had to grovel in promoting myself on social media, even begging for Amazon reviews and Goodreads ratings, to no avail." Don Jeffries
"I've been aware of Greg Parker's work for years, and strongly recommend it." Peter Dale Scott
https://gregrparker.com
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum|
|
|