The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Wed 02 Apr 2014, 7:42 pm

First topic message reminder :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mon 19 May 2014, 7:53 am

Stan Dane wrote:But you got some issues and you're not doing yourself any favors. It's your behavior that's alienated you here.

No doubt about it, Stan. No doubt whatsoever.

Mon 19 May 2014, 8:13 am

Richard Gilbride wrote:Colin,

This in response to your e-mail and some further thoughts about the elevator. I haven't looked at any of the latest posts.

Sterling effort to sort through that FBI doc that way; at least we've got another source beside Lovelady, assumedly with a wristwatch, but no gimme as to whether he was accurate.

I had looked through the doc before opening your e-mail, so as not to bias my thinking. What struck me is what seems to be a "systemic" error. The difference between recreations 1 & 2 takes an extra 9 seconds for taking the elevator down from 6 to 1, as opposed to using the stairs. But in recreations 6 & 7, it takes an extra 27 seconds and the elevator travels only from 6 to 2.

Beats me.

Those elevators could be called, riding between floors with no one in them, only if the outer gates were rolled down. I think that is what Jerry Dealey was saying or had meant to say. I'm fairly sure he got his information from the 6th Floor Museum and Gary Mack. Gary has shown puzzlement in the past as to the nuances of the elevators, which are definitely confusing. (At least we have agreement on one certainty- confusion).

Certainly there is one of the recreations (number 7) that gives a strange result. That one provides 15 seconds per floor and is clearly inconsistent with the others that indicate 8, 10.2 and 10.8 seconds per floor. This compares with 4 and 5 seconds for the passenger elevator. Of course this is an inexact analysis but it clearly indicates that the 5 seconds one would assume going by Lovelady is way too fast. The time for staircase movement come in at 10 and 9.75 seconds per floor.

Mon 19 May 2014, 8:41 am

Colin Crow wrote:

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?

Lee,
I'm going from memory but I think Barnett (east) and one of the Smith's (west) were nearest the TSBD. There may have been one other. I'm pretty sure this was discussed a while back on Duncan's forum.

Thanks, Colin.

I'd already scrubbed Barnett. It certainly wasn't him based upon where he placed himself during his testimony. Roy Truly's crowd surfing back to the TSBD steps would still be in The Guinness Book of World Records if he started where Barnett was.

I'll look into the other two.

Mon 19 May 2014, 9:54 am

Stan Dane wrote:When you started this thread (which may soon be the most viewed thread in the entire forum), I was looking forward to a good discussion here. So if you had compelling information and arguments that support a second floor encounter, then I wanted to see them. Your first post intrigued me. I'm not married to any position. I can be swayed by facts and logic.

I was intrigued by the thread as well but it very quickly devolved into some rather bizarre and unattractive form of self-flagellation.

After so many points of the argument have been refuted, but then completely ignored by the Gilbride, I see no point in trying to debate the points as that is not the intent, if it ever had been.

I am certain this thread will be instructive to future researchers about how dementia can overtake even the most diligent student of the case but I think that point has been reached. Further whipping of this dead horse seems counter-productive and the continuing public humiliation has become rather repetitious though humorously entertaining to many, I suppose.

When I was in an off-campus discussion group on the assassination (almost forty years ago), the fallacy of the second floor encounter was discussed. But then they also discussed the fallacy of a shooter from the TSBD and even the idea that JFK was not really killed. The facts presented were not anything like the depth of evidence we have today but the idea had been floating around for decades.

I dare say that every possible angle has been brought up at one time or another in the years since Dallas - whether in published form, forums, or informal discussion groups - but doing so with evidence is what we aspire to. The evidence for the second floor encounter is based on later accounts, questionable testimony, and suspiciously lacking details.

Bill Kelly was reticent to let go of the incident - as do many others - because it is "proof" that Oswald was innocent. If that were so, why then would the WC embrace it so tightly? Their conclusion is that it proves their case possible.

And we really can't have that, can we?

Oh, dear. I seem to be rambling again...

Neutral

Mon 19 May 2014, 10:07 am

I’ve steered clear of getting tangled up in this discussion until now,
but Stan’s remark has brought to the fore something which has bothered
me about the idea of mathematically “proving” the scenario where Adams and Styles
intersect with Baker and Truly.

First of all, the mathematics here is pretty rudimentary. It’s just
the solution of simultaneous equations — i.e., linear or matrix algebra.
I imagine we can see it as linear because the effects of acceleration
can be considered negligible, and we can use an “average velocity” of the two
pairs to compute the solution(s). Depending on what country you are from and
what school system you frequented, you should have encountered this kind of problem
in 7th, 8th or 9th grade. Example:

Car A takes off at time (ti1) on a road at a distance of (d) from Car B,
which similarly takes off at time (ti2) on the same road going in the opposite
direction. Given the average velocity of each car, where do they cross, and
at what time? Sound familiar?

Now that’s a simplified version of the problem, because we are not considering
pauses, deviations, etc. But for our purposes, that is not necessary.

What should be obvious is that initial conditions and velocity determine the
solution. But even if certain reasonable limits establish only a range of possible values,
because these ranges are continuous, the number of solutions to this system is infinite.

To state this another way, what we are really saying is, “given these preconditions,
here is where they cross”; or, the other way around, “given that they must cross
at this point in space, what are the possible initial conditions?”.

Now while there is nothing wrong with this form of reasoning, it does not
constitute proof. It constitutes a mathematical underpinning for the possibility
that things happened this way. We can’t rule it out mathematically, but we
are hardly in the realm of having demonstrated that indeed was what happened.

What we really have here is more like a logical or perhaps geometrical problem, though
claiming the latter tends to exaggerate the importance of a formal method to solve
it — it’s all pretty intuitive when you come down to it. If the difference between departure
times of the two pairs is less than the time needed to traverse the entire distance, then,
barring possession of a Klingon cloaking device on the part of Adams or Styles, or
Truly and Baker stopping off in the first-floor storage room for a smoke, these two pairs
need to cross paths in such a way that they are invisible to each other. Where could that take place?
It seems in fact that it is this assumption which actually implicitly determines the acceptable
departure times and velocities, rather than the other way around. Any other crossing
point would allow different values for those parameters.

But that means that reasoning outside the linear equations themselves must be
the basis for establishing the validity of those assumptions. That reasoning, it seems
to me (unless there is some statistical confidence interval calculation which we have
not yet been presented with — and I would be very curious to see on what basis such a
statistical argument could be made), is not mathematical.

To put it in terms of First Order classical logic, what we have is a very simple example of
modus ponens:

If these preconditions are met, then these are the (mathematical) results.
- Show the preconditions are true.
- Then the results follow.

Without showing the validity of the preconditions, you cannot apply the conditional to
reach a conclusion.

And there is the rub. I have been following this discussion now for about a year, both
here and at the Ed Forum, and if it has taught me anything, it is that the evidentiary
basis is like quicksand — the statements pretty clearly shift around over the course
of DPD, FBI, SS and WC testimony. One needs some sort of sieve. I personally think
“first day evidence” an important sieve to pass this stuff through. But in the end all
you can do is make reasonable arguments and weigh them on their merits.
I also think it clear that lumping all these arguments under the rubric of “lunchroom hoax”
gets you nowhere. There is perhaps one version of this hypothesis for every researcher
here who has spent time wrestling with this question. Third floor encounter? Fourth floor?
Oswald on the first before Baker’s ascent, or after? Not to mention that while certainly
it has a bearing on this argument, the latter does not strictly depend on the identification of PM.

Moreover, I think it an unfair characterization to see revisionism based on first-day evidence
as on the same plane as the Harvey & Lee theory, the Zapruder cartoon theory, or the idea that
the plotters intended to alter the wound configurations in order to “fool” the autopsists and
the official investigation (don’t forget, that was the basic thesis of Best Evidence). You
certainly aren’t required to accept a lot of questionable conclusions drawn from paper-thin
evidence to see the problems with TSBD testimony. If we were to reject questioning
the authenticity of this testimony, then I suppose we should also buy Frazier’s brown
paper bag, the purchase receipts for the rifle, and the fact that Lee had a revolver with
him in the theater which he attempted to use. I for one am incapable of going there.

Let me also state that I do not find it useful to perpetuate the two-cultures stereotype;
as I have said in another thread, one can certainly make a case for humanistic and scientific
thinking being orthogonal to each other, but that hardly means that they cannot both reside
in single individuals. It’s even worse when the scientists disparage the humanists as if
they all suffered from some sort of mathematical penis-envy. Let me say that I have not
seen very many empirical scientists capable of doing subtle literary interpretations. But
that is neither a judgment nor a generalization.

I am not a physicist or chemist, so I have not been afforded training in the solutions
of Hamiltonians, tensor fields, Hilbert spaces or path integrals (none of which, by the way,
are necessary to undestand the mathematics discussed here), but when I returned
to school at age 43 in order to do computer science, I made sure I learned as much math
as I could. And having worked with scientists over the past decade and a half, I have had
the opportunity to expand that knowledge, such as by taking a course in Computational Fluid
Dynamics. I don’t use this stuff every day, but according to the viewpoint expressed above,
I am an impossibility.

But let me conclude with one other thing. And perhaps I risk sounding a bit like Uriah
Heep here, but I mean what I am about to say sincerely. I do not believe that any of my academic
preparation has made me particularly adept at the investigative procedures and reasoning necessary to see
one’s way through this case. Hats off to the principal contributors to this forum for
their abilities in that domain. You have my admiration.

Mon 19 May 2014, 12:05 pm

Albert Rossi wrote:And perhaps I risk sounding a bit like Uriah Heep here, but I mean what I am about to say sincerely.

It's OK to sound like Uriah Heep.

Mon 19 May 2014, 7:00 pm

I put together a timeline this morning, which I wish I'd incorporated into my essay, as it's more realistic. But I hadn't wanted to come across as too contrived.

Baker spots Oswald at :65. Truly, Baker & Oswald are in the lunchroom/vestibule, with the vestibule door closed, from :75-90.

Adams leaves the window at :08.
She tells Styles she's going to go outside, and they navigate around a desk and get to the passenger elevator at :18.
They realize the elevator isn't operating and opt for the rear stairwell at :30
They get through the door into the 4th-floor storage area at :36
They reach the head of the stairs down to the 3rd floor at :54
They reach the 3rd-floor landing at :64
They reach the head of the stairs down to the 2nd floor at :68
They reach the 2nd-floor landing at :78

They pass by the 2nd-floor lunchroom at :78- :82

Mon 19 May 2014, 7:40 pm

Richard Gilbride wrote:I put together a timeline this morning, which I wish I'd incorporated into my essay, as it's more realistic. But I hadn't wanted to come across as too contrived.

Baker spots Oswald at :65. Truly, Baker & Oswald are in the lunchroom/vestibule, with the vestibule door closed, from :75-90.

Adams leaves the window at :08.
She tells Styles she's going to go outside, and they navigate around a desk and get to the passenger elevator at :18.
They realize the elevator isn't operating and opt for the rear stairwell at :30
They get through the door into the 4th-floor storage area at :36
They reach the head of the stairs down to the 3rd floor at :54
They reach the 3rd-floor landing at :64
They reach the head of the stairs down to the 2nd floor at :68
They reach the 2nd-floor landing at :78

They pass by the 2nd-floor lunchroom at :78- :82

Richard ,
here is part of my response......still in development, regarding the trip to the passenger elevator.

Richard’s analysis of the A&S movements has an initial component of their journey to the passenger elevator prior to crossing the building to the NW stairs. However, according to Barry Ernest the A&S trip does not appear to include this additional diversion. The following is a quote from Barry’s website on this issue. http://mysite.verizon.net/restu5kb/id24.html

“The reason Miss Adams did not mention it in her testimony is because, according to her, the “pit stop” never occurred. Here’s the background:

       When I interviewed Sandra Styles in 2002, she stated rather casually that she and Miss Adams had first attempted to get on a passenger elevator located just outside their office before heading toward the back staircase. That elevator served only the first four floors of the Depository, those being occupied by the various book publishing companies located in the building. I had never heard nor read about this “pit stop” before and when I asked Sandra during my interview if she was sure that’s what she and Vicki had done, her reply was, “That is my recollection.”

       After the self-published version of “The Girl on the Stairs” was released, researcher Sean Murphy brought to my attention an interview he conducted with Sandra in 2008 in which she mentioned to him the same thing, that both women had first gone to the passenger elevator prior to descending the stairs. However, in a follow-up interview Murphy did with Sandra in 2011 based solely on the new evidence made public in my book, Sandra began to think differently. She now recanted a bit, admitting her calculations may have been off and that she would “yield to wiser heads if the evidence is there.”

       Here is that evidence:

       1) Vicki was consistent in all of her questioning by various agencies, several interviews of which were considerably detailed in descriptions of her actions. Not a word is mentioned in any of them, from her first interview in November 1963 through her Warren Commission testimony in April 1964, about a side trip to the passenger elevator. When I told her about Sandra’s version, Vicki said, “This is really surprising. We did not go out that way. I think she has this really off.”

       2) The Martha Joe Stroud document, in which office supervisor Dorothy Garner saw Officer Baker and Roy Truly emerge onto the fourth floor after Vicki and Sandra went down, certainly implies no delay on the part of Vicki and Sandra’s descent. This quickness is also evident in light of time tests showing the lunchroom encounter between Oswald, Baker and Truly took place in less than 90 seconds after the final shot. And don’t forget Mrs. Robert Reid, who testified she saw Oswald within two minutes after the shooting, which would have followed the lunchroom confrontation.

       The most compelling evidence that supports a trip without an elevator stop comes from Dorothy Garner and was not available to readers in the self-published edition of “The Girl on the Stairs.”

       3) Mrs. Garner actually followed Vicki and Sandra as they left the fourth-floor window after the shots. She told me in an exclusive interview in 2011 that she was close behind the two women as the pair went through the office, exited out the rear door of that office, and went directly from there to the back staircase. That is why she was in a position to observe Baker and Truly as quickly as she was. Based on her statements, no elevator was involved during the trip.

       Some suggest there is support for Sandra’s version because she brought up the detail that the passenger elevator wasn’t working when the women got there, hence the reason for the stairway exit. Indeed, there was a point where the elevators in the building had stopped working, but the question is, when did that occur? Vicki does, in fact, admit the passenger elevator and the freight elevators were inoperable. But she noticed that only when she attempted to use them upon her return from being outside several minutes later. Sandra had re-entered the building moments ahead of Vicki. Vicki offered the possible explanation that Sandra may have confused the elevator problems as occurring earlier instead of when she came back into the Depository.

       Some also suggest common sense dictates that Vicki and Sandra, running in high heels, would try to use a convenient elevator to descend to the first floor versus the old wooden stairs at the back of the building. That is a logical thought, but hindsight is always 20/20 and reasonable thinking is not always a factor in human behavior.

       Simply put, the existing evidence just does not corroborate a “pit stop.”

Another consideration was your having the girls moving at 12 ft/sec. This is really moving and for my analysis I have them moving at 9 ft/sec, equivalent for others at a fast walk/jog.

Without having fully analysed all the possiblilities it would seem a "ships that pass in the night" scenario requires an extra delay in the girls getting to the second floor (if there was no pitstop as indicated by Barry) and an independent delay of Baker and Truly.

In your analysis;

Baker spots Oswald at :65. Truly, Baker & Oswald are in the lunchroom/vestibule, with the vestibule door closed, from :75-90.
and

They (A&S) reach the head of the stairs down to the 2nd floor at :68

So if Baker spots Oswald at 65, Truly is approaching the stairs up to level 3 ignorant of Baker's deviation. Truly reacts to hearing Baker call to Oswald (3-4 seconds later?) and returns at the door by 73, inside by 75. Truly must be almost half way up the stairs as the girls are thundering down in the same portion of stairwell. This is something that hit me when I started to analyse this. Unless Truly was behind Baker and followed him into the vestibule.

We have not been told the complete story here......something is amiss with the official version if the girls left anytime less than 90 seconds after the last shot.

As I have been trying to get my head around this it strikes me that the WC need not have worried about the girls, merely get them out before Baker and Truly get into position. The real problem for the WC is that the girls movement highlights a significant delay in the journey across the first floor of TSBD by B&T that has not been accounted for in the official version. All this needed was an extra 10-15 seconds before hitting the swinging door.....the question is, what was that delay and why did they not want it exposed? A legitimate delay had the prime advantage in getting Oswald to the lunchroom in plenty of time but it is critical not to report it but go with timing that one can mount a case for Oswald not having enough time. The other fact that we know is the possession of the coke.....if Oswald has that in his hand when encountered, either first or second floors (or both) he cannot be the assassin.

Mon 19 May 2014, 8:50 pm

1. Raymond J. Carroll - Oddball
2. David Healey - A very, very odd man.
3. Francois Carlier - Mental case
4. David Lifton - Oddball and the only person who I believe has always worked for the other side
5. Paul Baker - A complete waste of space
6. DVP - Nuff said
7. Paul May - A disgusting little prick
8. Albert Doyle - The man who has never been wrong about anything
9. Bill Brown - A wannabe DVP with less intelligence
10. Jim Phelps - A man with far too much time on his hands
11. Paul Trejo - The pathological liar
12. Pat Speer - Utter arse licker
13. Bob Prudhomme - Boring bastard and attention seeker
14. Ralph Cinque - Utter gonad who should have been marginalised immediately but was instead given time to create a big gang of gonads
15. Jim Fetzer - Needs a good dig and another person who liked to wave their academic superiority around

Now there is one fucked up dinner party...

Pure class!

Mon 19 May 2014, 9:45 pm

Is this like the play "Twelve Angry Men', with three alternate jurors? Hopelessly deadlocked your honor. They've been in the deliberation room a long time. I wonder if they're getting along? Who's feeding them?

Mon 19 May 2014, 11:29 pm

Mark there are only twelve angry men listed...the other three are pseudonyms for Fetzer.

But where is Meridith's name?

As Lee's fellow Liverpudlian, Cilla Black, would have put it: "She's a lorra lorra loyer...!"

Tue 20 May 2014, 1:28 am

CE 1434 - FBI interview of Pauline E. Sanders
jfkassassination.net/russ/exhibits/ce1434.htm

Tue 20 May 2014, 4:06 am

gerrrycam wrote:CE 1434 - FBI interview of Pauline E. Sanders
jfkassassination.net/russ/exhibits/ce1434.htm

Cached
Similar

PAULINE E. SANDERS, 4226 Delmar, a Clerk, Texas School Book Depository, ... had never seen him talking to any of the other employees that she could recall.

Another unimpeachable FBI interview. Some impressions:

It's as if some form of the phrase "very quiet and never seen him talking to any of the other employees" is a subliminal message that's inserted in various different statements & places to profile Oswald as a loner. Why offer this up unless you were asked? Why ask it? What has the fact that he was quiet or talkative have to do with laying out the initial facts of the case like who was where when?

I see she says she went out to watch the motorcade at 11:25. So she actually stood out there for over an hour? Really? They gave her that much time off from work to do that? OK. She also said she didn't see Oswald during this time. Makes sense. He was warehouse worker and they just don't knock off work and stand around for an hour.

After the shots she said she did not observe Oswald "in the lobby" (another subliminal message?). But then she says the lobby was crowded, so what the heck. Cover all the bases, but either way he's a patsy.

Tue 20 May 2014, 4:36 am

Stan Dane wrote:

gerrrycam wrote:CE 1434 - FBI interview of Pauline E. Sanders
jfkassassination.net/russ/exhibits/ce1434.htm

Cached
Similar

PAULINE E. SANDERS, 4226 Delmar, a Clerk, Texas School Book Depository, ... had never seen him talking to any of the other employees that she could recall.

Another unimpeachable FBI interview. Some impressions:

It's as if some form of the phrase "very quiet and never seen him talking to any of the other employees" is a subliminal message that's inserted in various different statements & places to profile Oswald as a loner. Why offer this up unless you were asked? Why ask it? What has the fact that he was quiet or talkative have to do with laying out the initial facts of the case like who was where when?

I see she says she went out to watch the motorcade at 11:25. So she actually stood out there for over an hour? Really? They gave her that much time off from work to do that? OK. She also said she didn't see Oswald during this time. Makes sense. He was warehouse worker and they just don't knock off work and stand around for an hour.

After the shots she said she did not observe Oswald "in the lobby" (another subliminal message?). But then she says the lobby was crowded, so what the heck. Cover all the bases, but either way he's a patsy.

Don't want you to think I was lying on the other post about being short on time but I wanted to reply to this quickly in case I forget later. Kids bedtime.

The same subliminal messages were garnered specifically relating to Oswald having no business being in the office area. It was to make his possible walking through it to be some sort of one in a million event.

Tue 20 May 2014, 5:03 am

Stan Dane wrote:After the shots she said she did not observe Oswald "in the lobby" (another subliminal message?). But then she says the lobby was crowded, so what the heck. Cover all the bases, but either way he's a patsy.

Yes, the lobby was crowded for her, but not for officer Marion Barber. When Truly and he got there, they encountered on one, did they?

So was it crowded or empty?

Or is there some discrepancy in one or the other's timetables?

This case is a trifle confusing, is it not?

Tue 20 May 2014, 6:22 am

terlin wrote:

Stan Dane wrote:After the shots she said she did not observe Oswald "in the lobby" (another subliminal message?). But then she says the lobby was crowded, so what the heck. Cover all the bases, but either way he's a patsy.

Yes, the lobby was crowded for her, but not for officer Marion Barber. When Truly and he got there, they encountered on one, did they?

So was it crowded or empty?

Or is there some discrepancy in one or the other's timetables?

This case is a trifle confusing, is it not?

Maybe it's a case of was the lobby half-empty or half-full? Or as an engineer might say, there was too much lobby.

Tue 20 May 2014, 7:53 am

This is my last post. I am resigning from this forum. It has long been in my plans and now feels like the appropriate time. I have a business to manage and can ill afford toxic emotions- I'm sure the feeling is mutual, and there will be a sigh of relief at my leaving.

I have no sense of victory nor defeat. If anything, I am reminded of the Foreman fight, when Ali got whaled by a haymaker in an early round, and asked, "Is that the best you got, sucker?" Years later, visibly afflicted by Parkinson's, he humbly acknowledged that he wasn't "The Greatest"; it was all "posturing". But he gets my vote.

The quantum physicist Richard Feynmann was fond of matrices of probability histories, and as a diagnostic tool it led him to significant advances in electrodynamics. The classical physicist Albert Einstein used the partial differential equations of statistical mechanics for plowing ahead in the field of general relativity. Einstein was adamant that the causal nexus could not be broken; Feynmann said it could be broken for certain "virtual" states. Their debate has never been satisfactorily resolved, as we have never achieved a "unified field theory" for gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong & weak nuclear force.

If we place Baker as having just arrived in the front lobby, there is one set of possibilities, with its own subsets, that bring him up the lobby stairs. Another nest of possibilities brings him up the passenger elevator, with its own particular subsets. And a third road to travel brings him ahead through the doors into the warehouse. We must choose one of the three. This is a crime scene investigation, and we are trying to reconstruct just what happened. And then remember, after our choice, that there were two alternatives that we left behind. They may be needed if our choice doesn't pan out.

Despite some puzzling information- that Baker asked where the stairs are- the evidence points toward Baker going through the doors into the warehouse. For we also have knowledge that he wanted to get to the roof, we have architectural drawings of the building, and know that he was with the building superintendent. This knowledge overrides the puzzling information, and we progress in our reconstruction, deciding that Baker must have gone through the door into the warehouse.

Our next variable comes at the freight elevators. And we have recently hashed out that it was entirely feasible that the outer gate was rolled up, that only the inner gate was in place. The freshest piece of hard evidence, Baker's affidavit, states that the elevators were "hung several floors up". This is an observation of his, an estimate, and sounds like it came from looking up the shaft with his own eyes. Even though the building superintendent was with him, and- being more experienced with the shaft- probably influenced Baker's judgment. But we learn later that the elevators were indeed hung up on the 5th, so it was an accurate estimate.

There is no alternative now but to take the stairs. And the burning question is- did or did not Baker walk through the vestibule and confront Oswald? Was it the truth, or all a clever lie?

There are not simultaneous solutions to the equations governing these two possibilities. This is a crime scene investigation- better described as an investigation of an investigation. This is an either/or situation, in real life. Either it happened, or it didn't.

There are ramifications to our choice, because other events are directly tied to the lunchroom, hoax or encounter. There is Mrs. Reid's testimony- is some or all of it a fable? There is Adams' & Styles' descent- how fast or slow were they? There is Prayer Man and the newspaper story about the 1st-floor storage room- how can Oswald have made it to the lunchroom, if both are true? Are both true? The answers to one nest of these subset events will directly affect our main choice- whether the lunchroom was a hoax or true encounter.

All of this merely restates the obvious. I have made an adamant case that the lunchroom event was a true encounter. The evidence presented to overturn this official story, which I have followed for several years, is simply not strong enough, in my opinion- not enough to undermine the central foundation of the story- that there was an incident involving Oswald & Baker which took place in the lunchroom. And it is my firm conviction that Adams & Styles passed by Truly & Baker while they were in the lunchroom.

I will not be reading this or any other forum after this post- I have plenty enough material in my files to finish the main essay I've been working on. Then it will be retirement; I have only so many ticks left on my ticker.

Best wishes to you all in your JFK research.

Adios

Tue 20 May 2014, 8:13 am

Richard Gilbride wrote:This is my last post. I am resigning from this forum. It has long been in my plans and now feels like the appropriate time. I have a business to manage and can ill afford toxic emotions- I'm sure the feeling is mutual, and there will be a sigh of relief at my leaving.

I have no sense of victory nor defeat. If anything, I am reminded of the Foreman fight, when Ali got whaled by a haymaker in an early round, and asked, "Is that the best you got, sucker?" Years later, visibly afflicted by Parkinson's, he humbly acknowledged that he wasn't "The Greatest"; it was all "posturing". But he gets my vote.

The quantum physicist Richard Feynmann was fond of matrices of probability histories, and as a diagnostic tool it led him to significant advances in electrodynamics. The classical physicist Albert Einstein used the partial differential equations of statistical mechanics for plowing ahead in the field of general relativity. Einstein was adamant that the causal nexus could not be broken; Feynmann said it could be broken for certain "virtual" states. Their debate has never been satisfactorily resolved, as we have never achieved a "unified field theory" for gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong & weak nuclear force.

If we place Baker as having just arrived in the front lobby, there is one set of possibilities, with its own subsets, that bring him up the lobby stairs. Another nest of possibilities brings him up the passenger elevator, with its own particular subsets. And a third road to travel brings him ahead through the doors into the warehouse. We must choose one of the three. This is a crime scene investigation, and we are trying to reconstruct just what happened. And then remember, after our choice, that there were two alternatives that we left behind. They may be needed if our choice doesn't pan out.

Despite some puzzling information- that Baker asked where the stairs are- the evidence points toward Baker going through the doors into the warehouse. For we also have knowledge that he wanted to get to the roof, we have architectural drawings of the building, and know that he was with the building superintendent. This knowledge overrides the puzzling information, and we progress in our reconstruction, deciding that Baker must have gone through the door into the warehouse.

Our next variable comes at the freight elevators. And we have recently hashed out that it was entirely feasible that the outer gate was rolled up, that only the inner gate was in place. The freshest piece of hard evidence, Baker's affidavit, states that the elevators were "hung several floors up". This is an observation of his, an estimate, and sounds like it came from looking up the shaft with his own eyes. Even though the building superintendent was with him, and- being more experienced with the shaft- probably influenced Baker's judgment. But we learn later that the elevators were indeed hung up on the 5th, so it was an accurate estimate.

There is no alternative now but to take the stairs. And the burning question is- did or did not Baker walk through the vestibule and confront Oswald? Was it the truth, or all a clever lie?

There are not simultaneous solutions to the equations governing these two possibilities. This is a crime scene investigation- better described as an investigation of an investigation. This is an either/or situation, in real life. Either it happened, or it didn't.

There are ramifications to our choice, because other events are directly tied to the lunchroom, hoax or encounter. There is Mrs. Reid's testimony- is some or all of it a fable? There is Adams' & Styles' descent- how fast or slow were they? There is Prayer Man and the newspaper story about the 1st-floor storage room- how can Oswald have made it to the lunchroom, if both are true? Are both true? The answers to one nest of these subset events will directly affect our main choice- whether the lunchroom was a hoax or true encounter.

All of this merely restates the obvious. I have made an adamant case that the lunchroom event was a true encounter. The evidence presented to overturn this official story, which I have followed for several years, is simply not strong enough, in my opinion- not enough to undermine the central foundation of the story- that there was an incident involving Oswald & Baker which took place in the lunchroom. And it is my firm conviction that Adams & Styles passed by Truly & Baker while they were in the lunchroom.

I will not be reading this or any other forum after this post- I have plenty enough material in my files to finish the main essay I've been working on. Then it will be retirement; I have only so many ticks left on my ticker.

Best wishes to you all in your JFK research.

Adios

Richard,

it's been a strange ride. Thanks sincerely for all the positives you've contributed over the years, and for a dignified exit.

Tue 20 May 2014, 8:35 am

Richard Gilbride wrote:This is my last post. I am resigning from this forum. It has long been in my plans and now feels like the appropriate time. I have a business to manage and can ill afford toxic emotions- I'm sure the feeling is mutual, and there will be a sigh of relief at my leaving.

I have no sense of victory nor defeat. If anything, I am reminded of the Foreman fight, when Ali got whaled by a haymaker in an early round, and asked, "Is that the best you got, sucker?" Years later, visibly afflicted by Parkinson's, he humbly acknowledged that he wasn't "The Greatest"; it was all "posturing". But he gets my vote.

The quantum physicist Richard Feynmann was fond of matrices of probability histories, and as a diagnostic tool it led him to significant advances in electrodynamics. The classical physicist Albert Einstein used the partial differential equations of statistical mechanics for plowing ahead in the field of general relativity. Einstein was adamant that the causal nexus could not be broken; Feynmann said it could be broken for certain "virtual" states. Their debate has never been satisfactorily resolved, as we have never achieved a "unified field theory" for gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong & weak nuclear force.

If we place Baker as having just arrived in the front lobby, there is one set of possibilities, with its own subsets, that bring him up the lobby stairs. Another nest of possibilities brings him up the passenger elevator, with its own particular subsets. And a third road to travel brings him ahead through the doors into the warehouse. We must choose one of the three. This is a crime scene investigation, and we are trying to reconstruct just what happened. And then remember, after our choice, that there were two alternatives that we left behind. They may be needed if our choice doesn't pan out.

Despite some puzzling information- that Baker asked where the stairs are- the evidence points toward Baker going through the doors into the warehouse. For we also have knowledge that he wanted to get to the roof, we have architectural drawings of the building, and know that he was with the building superintendent. This knowledge overrides the puzzling information, and we progress in our reconstruction, deciding that Baker must have gone through the door into the warehouse.

Our next variable comes at the freight elevators. And we have recently hashed out that it was entirely feasible that the outer gate was rolled up, that only the inner gate was in place. The freshest piece of hard evidence, Baker's affidavit, states that the elevators were "hung several floors up". This is an observation of his, an estimate, and sounds like it came from looking up the shaft with his own eyes. Even though the building superintendent was with him, and- being more experienced with the shaft- probably influenced Baker's judgment. But we learn later that the elevators were indeed hung up on the 5th, so it was an accurate estimate.

There is no alternative now but to take the stairs. And the burning question is- did or did not Baker walk through the vestibule and confront Oswald? Was it the truth, or all a clever lie?

There are not simultaneous solutions to the equations governing these two possibilities. This is a crime scene investigation- better described as an investigation of an investigation. This is an either/or situation, in real life. Either it happened, or it didn't.

There are ramifications to our choice, because other events are directly tied to the lunchroom, hoax or encounter. There is Mrs. Reid's testimony- is some or all of it a fable? There is Adams' & Styles' descent- how fast or slow were they? There is Prayer Man and the newspaper story about the 1st-floor storage room- how can Oswald have made it to the lunchroom, if both are true? Are both true? The answers to one nest of these subset events will directly affect our main choice- whether the lunchroom was a hoax or true encounter.

All of this merely restates the obvious. I have made an adamant case that the lunchroom event was a true encounter. The evidence presented to overturn this official story, which I have followed for several years, is simply not strong enough, in my opinion- not enough to undermine the central foundation of the story- that there was an incident involving Oswald & Baker which took place in the lunchroom. And it is my firm conviction that Adams & Styles passed by Truly & Baker while they were in the lunchroom.

I will not be reading this or any other forum after this post- I have plenty enough material in my files to finish the main essay I've been working on. Then it will be retirement; I have only so many ticks left on my ticker.

Best wishes to you all in your JFK research.

Adios

Best wishes to you, Richard. I've enjoyed reading your stuff over the years. Good luck in whatever you do and look after that ticker.

Tue 20 May 2014, 5:49 pm

greg parker wrote:

Richard Gilbride wrote:This is my last post. I am resigning from this forum. It has long been in my plans and now feels like the appropriate time. I have a business to manage and can ill afford toxic emotions- I'm sure the feeling is mutual, and there will be a sigh of relief at my leaving.

I have no sense of victory nor defeat. If anything, I am reminded of the Foreman fight, when Ali got whaled by a haymaker in an early round, and asked, "Is that the best you got, sucker?" Years later, visibly afflicted by Parkinson's, he humbly acknowledged that he wasn't "The Greatest"; it was all "posturing". But he gets my vote.

The quantum physicist Richard Feynmann was fond of matrices of probability histories, and as a diagnostic tool it led him to significant advances in electrodynamics. The classical physicist Albert Einstein used the partial differential equations of statistical mechanics for plowing ahead in the field of general relativity. Einstein was adamant that the causal nexus could not be broken; Feynmann said it could be broken for certain "virtual" states. Their debate has never been satisfactorily resolved, as we have never achieved a "unified field theory" for gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong & weak nuclear force.

If we place Baker as having just arrived in the front lobby, there is one set of possibilities, with its own subsets, that bring him up the lobby stairs. Another nest of possibilities brings him up the passenger elevator, with its own particular subsets. And a third road to travel brings him ahead through the doors into the warehouse. We must choose one of the three. This is a crime scene investigation, and we are trying to reconstruct just what happened. And then remember, after our choice, that there were two alternatives that we left behind. They may be needed if our choice doesn't pan out.

Despite some puzzling information- that Baker asked where the stairs are- the evidence points toward Baker going through the doors into the warehouse. For we also have knowledge that he wanted to get to the roof, we have architectural drawings of the building, and know that he was with the building superintendent. This knowledge overrides the puzzling information, and we progress in our reconstruction, deciding that Baker must have gone through the door into the warehouse.

Our next variable comes at the freight elevators. And we have recently hashed out that it was entirely feasible that the outer gate was rolled up, that only the inner gate was in place. The freshest piece of hard evidence, Baker's affidavit, states that the elevators were "hung several floors up". This is an observation of his, an estimate, and sounds like it came from looking up the shaft with his own eyes. Even though the building superintendent was with him, and- being more experienced with the shaft- probably influenced Baker's judgment. But we learn later that the elevators were indeed hung up on the 5th, so it was an accurate estimate.

There is no alternative now but to take the stairs. And the burning question is- did or did not Baker walk through the vestibule and confront Oswald? Was it the truth, or all a clever lie?

There are not simultaneous solutions to the equations governing these two possibilities. This is a crime scene investigation- better described as an investigation of an investigation. This is an either/or situation, in real life. Either it happened, or it didn't.

There are ramifications to our choice, because other events are directly tied to the lunchroom, hoax or encounter. There is Mrs. Reid's testimony- is some or all of it a fable? There is Adams' & Styles' descent- how fast or slow were they? There is Prayer Man and the newspaper story about the 1st-floor storage room- how can Oswald have made it to the lunchroom, if both are true? Are both true? The answers to one nest of these subset events will directly affect our main choice- whether the lunchroom was a hoax or true encounter.

All of this merely restates the obvious. I have made an adamant case that the lunchroom event was a true encounter. The evidence presented to overturn this official story, which I have followed for several years, is simply not strong enough, in my opinion- not enough to undermine the central foundation of the story- that there was an incident involving Oswald & Baker which took place in the lunchroom. And it is my firm conviction that Adams & Styles passed by Truly & Baker while they were in the lunchroom.

I will not be reading this or any other forum after this post- I have plenty enough material in my files to finish the main essay I've been working on. Then it will be retirement; I have only so many ticks left on my ticker.

Best wishes to you all in your JFK research.

Adios

Richard,

it's been a strange ride. Thanks sincerely for all the positives you've contributed over the years, and for a dignified exit.

Richard,

Have received your email. I will delete your membership in 24 hours time. This will give you a little time to reconsider and also allow anyone who might want to contact you through this forum, a chance to do so. Deletion isn't a ban, so you are always free to come back if ever you do reconsider.

Tue 20 May 2014, 7:00 pm

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce1967.htm

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Date 11/23/63

1
ROGER CRAIG, 7711 Piedmont, Apartment B, Phone Evergreen 1-4851, employed as a Deputy Sheriff, Dallas County Sheriff's Department, advised that he was standing in front of the Dallas Sheriff's Office, 505 Main Street, at the time the motorcade of President JOHN F. KENNEDY was approaching the triple underpass. He stated that he heard a shot and ran around the corner onto Houston Street and went through the parking area and briefly searched area on Elm Street. Shortly after this, approximately 3 or 4 minutes, came back across Elm Street and observed an individual run down the grass area from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository. He heard this individual whistle and a white Rambler station wagon, driven ny a Negro male, pulled over to the curb and said individual got in and the car headed toward the Dallas-Fort Worth Turnpike.
CRAIG stated that at 5:18 PM, November 22, 1963, he was given an opportunity to observe LEE HARVEY OSWALD, in the office of Captain J. W. FRITZ in the Homicide and Robbery Bureau, Dallas Police Department, and that he is positive that OSWALD is identical with the same individual he observed getting into the Rambler station wagon as mentioned above.

Wed 21 May 2014, 5:44 am

greg parker wrote:What I will say is that it involves measurements between hands and of a particular object to see how well said object would fit. It does.

I would name it, but I don't want to set off a round of posts on that item prior to Linda presenting what she has. Apart from that, she may have an Uncle Vito!

I know everyone is waiting for it, but as with some of us, the hunt for more and more can at times overtake everything else.

What Linda brings to the table - apart from her hard work (and it really has been) on this - is a lot of enthusiasm and positivity.

She will be a very welcome addition to the ROKC forum.

I'm looking forward to reading what Linda has to offer proceedings, Greg.

Knowing Oswald, and knowing his passion for photography, my suspicions that he took his camera to work that day will not go away.

I still believe the most likely reason for Oswald's detour to Irving on the Thursday night was to get his camera. The curtain rods story needs to be burned, beaten and buried.

IMO - this is why we see many problems with the testimony involving the cameras he possessed.

Fri 23 May 2014, 7:57 am

On the camera topic.

Douglas Caddy posted an interesting video on the Ed Forum today about George HW Bush and the JFK assassination:

https://www.google.ie/search?rlz=1C2OPRB_enIE531IE531&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=dark+legacy%3A+george+h.+w.+bush+and+the+jfk+assassination&oq=Dar&gs_l=hp.1.0.35i39l2j0i20j0l7.3065.3704.0.5778.4.4.0.0.0.0.227.443.3j0j1.4.0....0...1c.1.44.hp..1.3.214.0.QOpwUaIqhdI

It describes very well the many connections that make Bush’s involvement highly likely. It also shows it’s highly likely Oswald was reporting to the FBI on CIA anti-Castro operations.

In the absence of any other plausible explanation that I’m aware of for why Oswald would be standing in the PM position with a camera, is it possible he was assigned in his FBI informant role to photograph suspicious activity in a location where he was told an assassination attempt would be foiled?

Fri 23 May 2014, 10:15 pm

Goban Saor wrote:On the camera topic.

Douglas Caddy posted an interesting video on the Ed Forum today about George HW Bush and the JFK assassination:

https://www.google.ie/search?rlz=1C2OPRB_enIE531IE531&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=dark+legacy%3A+george+h.+w.+bush+and+the+jfk+assassination&oq=Dar&gs_l=hp.1.0.35i39l2j0i20j0l7.3065.3704.0.5778.4.4.0.0.0.0.227.443.3j0j1.4.0....0...1c.1.44.hp..1.3.214.0.QOpwUaIqhdI

It describes very well the many connections that make Bush’s involvement highly likely. It also shows it’s highly likely Oswald was reporting to the FBI on CIA anti-Castro operations.

In the absence of any other plausible explanation that I’m aware of for why Oswald would be standing in the PM position with a camera, is it possible he was assigned in his FBI informant role to photograph suspicious activity in a location where he was told an assassination attempt would be foiled?

Goban, you don't find it plausible he just liked photography and this was good opportunity?

Sat 24 May 2014, 3:05 am

It’s plausible in a way, Greg, but if he were intent merely on photographing the motorcade for his own personal reasons the PM position does not seem a good vantage point.

My hypothesis is a shot-in-the-dark attempt to reconcile various Oswald theories/roles.

If he was an expendable agent, for example, directing him to discreetly photograph suspicious activity in the proposed assassination location would meet a number of objectives.

As our friend Charles Drago said elsewhere recently, every intel op is designed to achieve at least two objectives.

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

Re: The Lunchroom Incident Revisited