The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Richard Gilbride wrote:
I'll get to you, Lee Farley, the laziest researcher I have ever come across in my long and illustrious career as a Gobbledegooker. What do they put in that Liverpuddlian H2O that so twists the mind? What's thrilling me this moment is my knowledge that you have fallen for the ole rope-a-dope. Roar, meow, & a swipe to follow.

Richard Gilbride wrote:The question we want to resolve in this particular post is whether Truly & Baker were able to look up the elevator shaft. The answer is yes.

From Jerry Dealey's article "The Ups and Downs of the TSBD":

"The EAST elevator was hand controlled and you had to be in the elevator to hold the up or down direction switch. The WEST elevator could be called, provided the gate at each floor, and the gate on the elevator itself was closed (double gated). You would then push the button for the floor you wish to move to."

An article he was kind enough to e-mail to me 5 years ago before it went to press, "Giving the Dealey Plaza Sewer Troll a 'Lift'", states:

"The freight elevators were a dual gate system. The gates were slats of wood, with gaps between them held together by linkage. The outer gate was a full one, which rolled into the holder that is seen above the elevator in photos 6 & 7 of CD496. The inner gate was a 3/4 gate, standing about 4 feet from the floor. It lifted into the shaft to open, and the elevators would not move unless both gates were closed (for safety reasons). Additionally, the gates on any other floor would not open if the elevator was not on that floor. (I suppose they could be "jimmied" in some way).

But Jerry was mistaken, as this clip from the Alyea film shows. It was taken as the photographer rode up to the 6th floor in the west elevator. (Notice the stairway sign)

http://jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=23&pos=3

So the outer, roll-up gate on the 6th floor was open when Alyea rode it up. The elevator's ascension didn't depend on someone being upstairs to open the outer, roll-up gate once someone downstairs decided to use the elevator.

This means that the safety-lock mechanism was attached to the inner, slide-down wood-slat gate. The west elevator would not move unless all of these were closed on every floor.

During the course of a normal work day, I believe it was common practice to leave the outer, roll-up gates to the 1st and 4th, 5th & 6th open, while leaving the outer roll-up gates to the 2nd & 3rd closed. Because these latter floors were hardly used by the warehouse workers, if at all.

Belin specifically asked Truly (III, pp. 226-7) whether Truly had noticed any elevator present on the 2nd, 3rd or 4th while he climbed the stairs; Truly said no but gave no indication whether or not whether or not the outer gate was rolled up into its overhead holder.

Adams specifically stated "The elevator was not moving" (VI, p. 389) when she got to the 4th-floor landing; she didn't see any cables moving through the wood-slat gate. She couldn't remember about the other floors. But Styles years later recalled Adams telling co-workers about hearing the elevator cables during their descent of the stairs. This, I believe, is when the west began to descend- about when A & S were at the 3rd-floor landing.

The answer is yes, that Truly & Baker looked up the elevator shaft.

I'll get to you, Lee Farley, the laziest researcher I have ever come across in my long and illustrious career as a Gobbledegooker. What do they put in that Liverpuddlian H2O that so twists the mind? What's thrilling me this moment is my knowledge that you have fallen for the ole rope-a-dope. Roar, meow, & a swipe to follow.

Richard Gilbride wrote:In the meantime, you or anybody who wants to can post something as to what their definition of proof is. To use a Fetzerian expression, "What does it take?"

Richard Gilbride wrote:Lee Farley,

Again I must apologize for beginning this topic with inexact language. I have read T & B's testimonies at least 2 dozen times and have the bad habit of thinking I can perfectly recall them, without having to dig them out again.

Most of us at some time or other have done it.

And I said that T, B & O were all "in the lunchroom" but, regrettably, wasn't more specific. And the matter was straightened out on page 1 of this thread. So it's a bit much to listen to your hyperbole about me being a compulsive liar.

The basics are that T, B & O were within a 3-foot radius of the lunchroom doorframe. Truly mentioned details he could only have garnered from moseying up to Baker, and Baker even testified that "Mr. Truly had come up to my side here." So the vestibule door had to close. Even though this was never mentioned in testimony.

We disagree on whether it was closed for enough time to allow Adams & Styles to pass. I take the position that there must have been unspoken pieces of human interaction around that lunchroom doorframe, to allow the A & S event to happen. You maintain  that my position is ludicrous. Fine. But I provided an A & S time estimate in my essay to back up my position on this.

It's called "shoehorning", Richard. "must have been unstated human interaction..." + "time estimate" = mathematical certainty to you? Lee was right. It is ludicrous - even by LN shoehorning standards.  

The only critique I have seen thus far of the A & S time estimate comes from Greg Parker, who says my "insistence that A & S could not get out in time is based on a bunch of your own assumptions and hand-picked evidence. ALL the timings are meaningless because of the assumptions used."

On the contrary, I carefully measured every known distance & action A & S took, and gave them extreme latitude to get them downstairs as quickly as possible. And it's just not possible that they got outside before T & B would have noticed them.

Based on certain assumptions as to how soon after the shots they left and how quickly T & B got to the stairs. When you (or anyone) start relying on maths based around a set of assumptions and try and sell the results as hard fact, my bullshitometer goes off.  

So the timings are not meaningless. This is a hide-your-head-in-the-sand kind of statement, full of intellectual conceit, something I would expect from Sean Murphy when he says, "This is a non-starter for me." It's only a non-starter in regards to his lunchroom hoax hypothesis.

Sean is spot on. 

The next item Lee Farley rails against me concerns my list of points that mesh in the T & B testimonies, as regards T & B meeting up in the front lobby. B said it, T said it was a possibility but he didn't remember that close. Lee gets into his vicious mode and tears into me for daring to intimate that this was a point the testimonies shared in common. The major point being that there are a heck of a lot of correspondences between the 2 testimonies.

But NOT prior to the testimonies. What does that tell you? The reliance on WC testimony and the total lack of interest in any statements prior, is another LN hallmark.

So much that I would say, did Truly witness the same Pontiac crash that Baker says he also witnessed? Sure looks that way to me.

Our next bone of contention is the Baker-asking-where-the-stairs-are issue. We can say he was lying, but in every instance where we find an anomaly to the evidence supporting the official destination, we have every right to ask if there is a benign explanation. And we should accept that benign explanation before making the jump to saying the destination was never reached.

But you haven't given this benign explanation. I am rather taken with Stan's thoughts on this. Maybe you can have a look and address what he said? 

Whether or not the Leo Sauvage story is correct (that Baker led the way up the 1st flight), the destination was still reached.

Let's ignore the mutual exclusion bit... unless Baker had a doppelganger who led Truly while he followed. 

And I take the position that for every single piece of evidence, in the totality of the evidence, that supports the lunchroom hoax hypothesis has a benign explanation. All roads lead to the lunchroom.

Great! Let's hear those benign explanations. Lets's also hear the benign explanation for Baker not mentioning Oswald in his affidavit. Let's hear the benign explanation for Baker testifying that they got the elevator one floor above where the incident took place. Let's hear the benign explanation for the Biffle account. Let's hear the benign explanation for Fritz' brain fart and complete mental break-down into a stuttering idiot when confronted with questions by the WC on this subject. Let's hear the benign explanation for Oswald being let go by cop at front entrance stories attributed to police sources as appearing in a number of papers that weekend.  

In the last line of the essay I comment that "I do not await capitulation from this obstinate school of thought." It will take some of you several years to finally get this, until it finally sinks in. If your lunchroom hypothesis was so true, it wouldn't even tolerate critiques from the likes of Bill Kelly and myself.

It doesn't tolerate logical debate. But lack of evidence and zero logic doesn't stop DVP et al, and it doesn't stop you. You all have your shoehorns, and and you are going to use them!

ReOpenKennedyCase is the central gathering spot for those who support this hypothesis. You are entitled to your own beliefs about what happened inside the TSBD. I would like to see someone put together a cohesive narrative that at least gets Baker from the front lobby to the roof. Adding details about what A & S, Dougherty, Piper, West, Oswald, Mooney, ATF agents, etc. did with themselves. Because the lunchroom hoaxers are going to have to agree on a narrative to gain credibility. You don't have it right now, not outside of your own tribe.

I'm afraid Richard, you are not the arbiter of what needs to be done in order for it to be credible. That's another LN tactic. "Unless you can tell who did it, you got nuthin'!"  

Your petulance in calling this a "tribe" seems to be some sort of payback for my calling H & L supporters a cult group. 

But it doesn't work as the insult it's meant to be. Their behavior matches all the criteria for cult status - including adherence to the occasional utterances of an unseen leader resulting in little, if any independence of thought. The work is holy writ. The myth is spoken as proven reality and there is no room for any dissent. Outsiders with ideas that go against Fearless Leader will not be tolerated. They will be forever banned. Facebook groups on the subject will be closed to public scrutiny. Only "true believers" allowed.

A tribe on the other hand, may be rallied around a core set of beliefs, but within that, dissent is allowed, personal beliefs are allowed, disagreements are allowed, telling the "owner" he is a prick is allowed.  

greg parker wrote:Great! Let's hear those benign explanations. Lets's also hear the benign explanation for Baker not mentioning Oswald in his affidavit. Let's hear the benign explanation for Baker testifying that they got the elevator one floor above where the incident took place. Let's hear the benign explanation for the Biffle account. Let's hear the benign explanation for Fritz' brain fart and complete mental break-down into a stuttering idiot when confronted with questions by the WC on this subject. Let's hear the benign explanation for Oswald being let go by cop at front entrance stories attributed to police sources as appearing in a number of papers that weekend.  

Richard Gilbride wrote:Colin,

Continuing the excerpt from "Giving the Dealey Plaza sewer Troll a 'Lift' ",

"The north wall of the elevator was a complete wall, and the lifting mechanism was attached within that wall. As can be seen from the photos, the south wall was a 3/4 wall, and the interior of the elevator shaft could be seen from within it. Additionally, the 2 freight elevators shared a single elevator shaft, and the elevator walls between them was also a 3/4 wall, with a wire mesh on the remaining 1/4 to the roof.

I found that film footage, a very short clip at 4:39 of

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tsR8PGx2ZE

So apparently the cables run through the floor of the elevator. Maybe you have another idea on that. We're looking at the west wall in the Unger photo, through the west face of the west elevator.

Lee,

You took what was a good-natured jest (lazy, when you obviously are the hardest-working guy in the community) (long & illustrious career as a Gobbledegooker- poking fun at myself, with your characterisation) 180% the wrong way. This is your problem, it seems to me. You dish it out, but can't take it. You are basically overworked. And in my estimation, that contributes to you seeing things that aren't there. Such as the Cakebread analysis of the Powell photo. And now it's the authenticity of the photo/pneumatic door mechanism to the vestibule.

These days it's me who's in the crosshairs of your anger, but next year it will be someone else. Who won't go along with your brainstorm on something such as Ralph Yates, because his own questions do not receive satisfactory answers. The best outlet for frustrations like that is an article, to present your views.

I find I've grown more conservative as time passes, having sifted through much of the JFK narrative as best I can. And hearing the older but wiser voices of people like Jerry Dealey admonish my earlier speculations. I had signed on to the lunchroom hoax story for about a year, until Barry Ernest's book woke me up, and I immediately posted on Lancer that A & S had to have passed T & B when they were in the lunchroom. I still have that download. So since 2011 I've been firmly in the official story camp. But I don't think I've ever once stated that the official story as we know it is completely true. The research is never in vain.

I'll be several hours composing a comprehensive reply to your latest posts. The gist of it is already in my head but I want to give careful attention to detail.

In the meantime, you or anybody who wants to can post something as to what their definition of proof is. To use a Fetzerian expression, "What does it take?"

Richard Gilbride wrote:Lee Farley,

Again I must apologize for beginning this topic with inexact language. I have read T & B's testimonies at least 2 dozen times and have the bad habit of thinking I can perfectly recall them, without having to dig them out again. And I said that T, B & O were all "in the lunchroom" but, regrettably, wasn't more specific. And the matter was straightened out on page 1 of this thread. So it's a bit much to listen to your hyperbole about me being a compulsive liar.

The basics are that T, B & O were within a 3-foot radius of the lunchroom doorframe. Truly mentioned details he could only have garnered from moseying up to Baker, and Baker even testified that "Mr. Truly had come up to my side here." So the vestibule door had to close. Even though this was never mentioned in testimony.

We disagree on whether it was closed for enough time to allow Adams & Styles to pass. I take the position that there must have been unspoken pieces of human interaction around that lunchroom doorframe, to allow the A & S event to happen. You maintain  that my position is ludicrous. Fine. But I provided an A & S time estimate in my essay to back up my position on this.

The only critique I have seen thus far of the A & S time estimate comes from Greg Parker, who says my "insistence that A & S could not get out in time is based on a bunch of your own assumptions and hand-picked evidence. ALL the timings are meaningless because of the assumptions used."

On the contrary, I carefully measured every known distance & action A & S took, and gave them extreme latitude to get them downstairs as quickly as possible. And it's just not possible that they got outside before T & B would have noticed them. So the timings are not meaningless. This is a hide-your-head-in-the-sand kind of statement, full of intellectual conceit, something I would expect from Sean Murphy when he says, "This is a non-starter for me." It's only a non-starter in regards to his lunchroom hoax hypothesis.

The next item Lee Farley rails against me concerns my list of points that mesh in the T & B testimonies, as regards T & B meeting up in the front lobby. B said it, T said it was a possibility but he didn't remember that close. Lee gets into his vicious mode and tears into me for daring to intimate that this was a point the testimonies shared in common. The major point being that there are a heck of a lot of correspondences between the 2 testimonies. So much that I would say, did Truly witness the same Pontiac crash that Baker says he also witnessed? Sure looks that way to me.

Our next bone of contention is the Baker-asking-where-the-stairs-are issue. We can say he was lying, but in every instance where we find an anomaly to the evidence supporting the official destination, we have every right to ask if there is a benign explanation. And we should accept that benign explanation before making the jump to saying the destination was never reached.

Whether or not the Leo Sauvage story is correct (that Baker led the way up the 1st flight), the destination was still reached. And I take the position that for every single piece of evidence, in the totality of the evidence, that supports the lunchroom hoax hypothesis has a benign explanation. All roads lead to the lunchroom.

In the last line of the essay I comment that "I do not await capitulation from this obstinate school of thought." It will take some of you several years to finally get this, until it finally sinks in. If your lunchroom hypothesis was so true, it wouldn't even tolerate critiques from the likes of Bill Kelly and myself.

ReOpenKennedyCase is the central gathering spot for those who support this hypothesis. You are entitled to your own beliefs about what happened inside the TSBD. I would like to see someone put together a cohesive narrative that at least gets Baker from the front lobby to the roof. Adding details about what A & S, Dougherty, Piper, West, Oswald, Mooney, ATF agents, etc. did with themselves. Because the lunchroom hoaxers are going to have to agree on a narrative to gain credibility. You don't have it right now, not outside of your own tribe.

Richard Gilbride wrote:My essay was written with the intent to wrap the argument for the lunchroom incident so tight that it could be expressed as a mathematical/physics problem. I succeeded in doing that, but a lot of you just don't buy that kind of analysis.

Richard Gilbride wrote:My essay was written with the intent to wrap the argument for the lunchroom incident so tight that it could be expressed as a mathematical/physics problem. I succeeded in doing that, but a lot of you just don't buy that kind of analysis.

Stan Dane wrote: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?

Richard Gilbride wrote:I laid the whole thing out in my first post. It doesn'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.

Hello Goodbye wrote:The First Truly Police Officer

Yesterday I posted the following quote from Roy Truly's Warren Commission testimony:

Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do or see? 
Mr. TRULY. I heard a policeman in this area along here make a remark, "Oh, goddam," or something like that. I just remember that. It wasn't a motorcycle policeman. It was one of the Dallas policeman, I think-- words to that effect.
I wouldn't know him. I just remember there was a policeman standing along in this area about 7, 8, or 10 feet from me.

Anyone any ideas who this police officer was that Truly claimed he was stood this close to outside the TSBD?