The Lunchroom Incident Revisited

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'.  

Richard Gilbride wrote:I was given a responsibility as administrator to be in a boss position. I cared deeply about this forum, its image and such, including how members here , were treated (or mistreated) on other forums. But to have it de-evolve into a profanity-tossing fest after the David Josephs incident set me off big-time. I explained that I see where using profanity is offensive, uncalled for.

And I stepped into the fight to attempt to break it up, seeing myself as making a magnanimous gesture by apologizing to David. I was viciously attacked with insults for doing this. My "revenge" is directed against these particular insults. If there had been animosity against my general posting personality, it really came out then.

True, I don't need this forum. Life is extremely full for me. My schedule often gives me inadequate time for it. But I think we can carry on with respect and calmness from here, I really do. I got very upset to watch this place bottom out into a mudslinging pit, when it does a lot of high-class and high-caliber research.

It seems that I owe everyone an apology. So be it. I'm sorry. But please understand that my anger was stoked by your anger, and it was yours initially. It inflamed into a Lord of the Flies situation. This has been a common scene on JFK forums the past several years, and small wonder that the divisive invectives cause more harm than good.

We can get down to brass tacks or continue venting, the choice is ours and will be ongoing. I am quite passionate about this particular issue and have every confidence of the correctness of my stated position. It might be a good tonic for the research community, to have this debate on record and to show that we can settle down after explosive in-fighting.

I will make an effort to tone down the rhetoric. It would be a shame to lose the discussion because of heated emotions. However, I will not tone down my confidence in my correctness.

Tomorrow I have a few hours off and can spend some time re-posting the "brass tacks", as this discussion may need a fresh starting point.

Richard,

David Josephs came here AFTER saying he wanted his membership deleted. He was in effect, a member by technicality only - that technicality being that no one had yet acted on his request. No one forced his hand to request that deletion. He asked for it as an avoidance strategy.  

What motivated you, was also the motive for those you upset. But they saw "caring about this forum" as the reason to run Josephs off for his bizarre appearance here.

That is what has inflamed the situation. What you saw as the best way of caring for this place, was seen by others as a complete sellout in favor of appeasing the attacker.

Yes, none of this has exactly enhanced the reputation of this place, but it is only a permanent stain if it is not attended to. 

I can only hope that I am not again risking losing people I don't want to lose.

If you can repost the "brass tacks" as you put it, I will move this thread to where the others now reside.  An alternative would be to write it as an article for the main site.

You don't have to be on the same page as me or anyone else here on any given JFK topic, but you should reassess what constitutes "caring for this place". Attacking defenders for profanity while apologizing to the offender seems as antithetical to me as it does others.

Thanks for clarifying that, Greg. I was unaware that Josephs had requested that his membership be deleted, before his own uncalled-for outburst. As I mentioned I have not always had the proper amount of time to follow the latest developments on this forum. And I regret that there were so many misunderstandings.

There are too many hard feelings generated, of late, to expect a reasoned discussion of the lunchroom issue. It's best for me to put that together as an essay and let it go at that. I don't plan on posting anything at all in the meantime.

It's difficult for me not to view this situation as one where double standards apply, in terms of your frustrations with the H & L camp, and what has recently transpired at Deep Politics, where you were moderated for inflammatory rhetoric, but then permitted to post, and what has gone on with me here with my frustrations with the lunchroom non-event camp. And double standards as far as what mud gets hurled my way, vs. mud that gets hurled back. But I realize making arbitration decisions is not something where all sides can be pleased. And having resentments doesn't help the least bit for composing essay material.

So long as Gilbride reframes from making anymore condescending and insulting remarks at Greg and forum members (and from responding to any of my posts and using my name in his own posts), I will reframe from cussing at him. I think that the next time he crosses the line, he should be banned from the forum without even the slightest hesitation.

Richard Gilbride wrote:Thanks for clarifying that, Greg. I was unaware that Josephs had requested that his membership be deleted, before his own uncalled-for outburst. As I mentioned I have not always had the proper amount of time to follow the latest developments on this forum. And I regret that there were so many misunderstandings.

There are too many hard feelings generated, of late, to expect a reasoned discussion of the lunchroom issue. It's best for me to put that together as an essay and let it go at that. I don't plan on posting anything at all in the meantime.

It's difficult for me not to view this situation as one where double standards apply, in terms of your frustrations with the H & L camp, and what has recently transpired at Deep Politics, where you were moderated for inflammatory rhetoric, but then permitted to post, and what has gone on with me here with my frustrations with the lunchroom non-event camp. And double standards as far as what mud gets hurled my way, vs. mud that gets hurled back. But I realize making arbitration decisions is not something where all sides can be pleased. And having resentments doesn't help the least bit for composing essay material.

Richard,

Part of your frustration seems to stem from not knowing the full facts. 

I was not moderated for inflammatory rhetoric at DPF. There was a public announcement made when the moderation was lifted, stating Greg has been made aware of how this all came about - mostly all confusion on my part, and an apology has been given to him by me about this. 

Did I flame others there? Yes - in retaliation, but ceased after being warned, despite the flaming continuing against me.

Ask yourself this: if I wrote an article going into all the issues I have with H&L, would DPF host it for me? You know the answer to that as well as I do. No, they would not. As I have explained before, I have told Bill Kelly that though I vehemently disagree with his take on the alleged lunch-room encounter, I can live with his take because it has the same end result as my take: showing that LHO could not have been on the 6th floor. 

As for any other double-standards on how others have been treated here, as opposed to you -  part of it comes down somewhat to our differences over the use of profanity. I don't have huge issues with it.  This has much to do with my own research into it which shows that historically, certain words were only deemed profane by the upper classes because it was the common language of the poor and working classes. If some upper class twat wanted to insult another upper class twat, he would "stoop" to the "gutter language" of those lower classes. As always happens, the lower classes got conned over time - in this instance into eventually accepting that their own slanguage was "filthy gutter talk". That said, and in deference to delicate sensibilities, I did state that it had gone overboard. If I had been biased Richard, I would have banned you before, after the Prudhomme affair.  
 
Send me the piece on the lunch-room incident and I'll put it up asap. I hope everyone can get back to business now.

greg parker wrote:I have told Bill Kelly that though I vehemently disagree with his take on the alleged lunch-room encounter, I can live with his take because it has the same end result as my take: showing that LHO could not have been on the 6th floor.

A sane attitude, Greg.  One must find a balance between the desire to chase after the great white historical whale, "absolute truth", and the need at some point to say, "this is surely enough to prove the major point(s)."  Vince Salandria was convinced there was already enough evidence of conspiracy in 1965, and that anything else would be just fiddling with minutiae, fine tuning, or at worst a (n intended?) distraction from the larger truth.  While I would hardly consider the years researchers have spent on this case, and the more recent scrutinizing of declassified documents, to be futile, I do find wisdom in Salandria's view which forces us now and again to step back from these pursuits and put them in perspective.  I think being of two minds (as in your formulation -- that you disagree but realize the disagreement is not crucial to the bigger picture) in such cases is the correct way to proceed.

Alan Dixon wrote:Last night i deleted my account here due to Richard's attitude and absolute distain towards all members, mainly Hasan and Greg. It was wrong for me to do this. As a 24 carat moron, i joined this forum to learn all i can from a diverse group of people who hail from all points of the compass.
My education will continue and hopefully Richard will get a contract for the Forth Bridge.

Alan I did the same and deleted my account a few weeks ago and just recently joined up again. I didn't have an issue with anybody but I hated seeing good researchers, who are still seeking answers, eat each other up. It breaks your heart.

Greg, Richard and Lee are what make up this forum for me. That is why I came back.

Alan and Paul,

thanks for the kind words -- and most importantly - for coming back. I hope others join you in doing that.

It's just a fact that there are going to be personality clashes in any group of individuals, and that any decisions and interventions are never going to please all parties. 

I can only add that I have tried my best to steer a course that is fair and reasonable and fitting for the circumstances.

greg parker wrote:I can only add that I have tried my best to steer a course that is fair and reasonable and fitting for the circumstances.

That you have, Skipper. That you have.
 

We seem to have the following events that are central to the dispute.
1. The lunchroom encounter between Oswald/Baker/Truly that was claimed to occur from 1-2 minutes post shots.
2. The presence of PM on the TSBD steps as Baker is seen rushing towards them 20 seconds or so after the last shot.
3. Adams and Styles rushing down the NW stairs and the Stroud document that includes a statement from Garner that indicates the women descended before Baker and Truly appeared on the 4th floor.
I assume we all conclude that Oswald did not descend from the 6th Floor immediately after the shooting.
Is it possible that all of these events occurred? Would it be possible for Adams and Styles to descend without noticing (or being noticed by) Baker and Truly? Is it possible for Oswald to be PM and still make it to the lunchroom to be noticed by Baker?
From what I have seen, I would tend to agree with Richard that maybe the girls passed Baker and Truly while the latter were involved with Oswald in the lunchroom. The question would then be, why would PM Oswald want to go to a postion where he was spotted by Baker on the second floor? It would seem this event triggered him to leave the building, not the firing of shots.

It would seem this event triggered him to leave the building, not the firing of shots.

If "this event" happened at all Colin, you may be right. 

Oswald's actual alibi - first day news accounts - accounts given to HSCA by fellow employees represent the Bermuda Triangle of the lunchroom story because they all point to a first floor encounter.

Colin Crow wrote:
Is it possible that all of these events occurred? Would it be possible for Adams and Styles to descend without noticing (or being noticed by) Baker and Truly? Is it possible for Oswald to be PM and still make it to the lunchroom to be noticed by Baker?
From what I have seen, I would tend to agree with Richard that maybe the girls passed Baker and Truly while the latter were involved with Oswald in the lunchroom. The question would then be, why would PM Oswald want to go to a postion where he was spotted by Baker on the second floor? It would seem this event triggered him to leave the building, not the firing of shots.

I tend to disagree with the two girls not noticing them Baker and Truly when the latter were involved with Oswald, as according to their statements neither of the two men entered the rest room, so they would both have been very visible to the girls as they came out of the down stair well. As well as the girls not seeing the two men, the two men said nothing about seeing two girls passing, which they surely would have heard if not seen.

greg parker wrote:

It would seem this event triggered him to leave the building, not the firing of shots.

If "this event" happened at all Colin, you may be right. 

Oswald's actual alibi - first day news accounts - accounts given to HSCA by fellow employees represent the Bermuda Triangle of the lunchroom story because they all point to a first floor encounter.

One of the mysteries of the WC lunchroom version was the right to left movement of Oswald heading to the lunchroom when noticed by Baker. It is inconsistent with an Oswald descending the stairs, heading for cover, after being alerted the B&T ascending. It makes no sense for Oswald the sniper to seek an alibi in a room where he might not have been detected. It is consistent with movement from the front stairs, heading NW across the second floor, leading to the lunchroom. I wonder why, if the lunchroom sighting was a concoction, this  strange movement was not "tidied up".

Ray Mitcham wrote:

Colin Crow wrote:
Is it possible that all of these events occurred? Would it be possible for Adams and Styles to descend without noticing (or being noticed by) Baker and Truly? Is it possible for Oswald to be PM and still make it to the lunchroom to be noticed by Baker?
From what I have seen, I would tend to agree with Richard that maybe the girls passed Baker and Truly while the latter were involved with Oswald in the lunchroom. The question would then be, why would PM Oswald want to go to a postion where he was spotted by Baker on the second floor? It would seem this event triggered him to leave the building, not the firing of shots.

I tend to disagree with the two girls not noticing them Baker and Truly when the latter were involved with Oswald, as according to their statements neither of the two men entered the rest room, so they would both have been very visible to the girls as they came out of the down stair well. As well as the girls not seeing the two men, the two men said nothing about seeing two girls passing, which they surely would have heard if not seen.

Going from memory, Baker was in the doorway to the lunchroom. There is no way he would have seen the girls on the landing as he was facing Oswald. Truly claimed to be leaning in through the open vestibule doorway. He too would have been unsighted and distracted from the landing behind him. Perhaps he even closed the door behind him for a few seconds.

There are numerous examples of people not noticing Baker entering the TSBD, even as he ran past them. I don't think we can assume what people would have seen (or heard) in those chaotic minutes.

I have tried to work out if the girls could have left the building before B&T were in position to see them. I cannot if they left via the door near the east lift. There is convincing evidence they were downstairs within a minute or so.

Colin Crow wrote: There is convincing evidence they were downstairs within a minute or so.

That would be downstairs to the first floor in no more than a minute. Just like Victoria Adams said all along. Correct?

Oswald's actual alibi - first day news accounts - accounts given to HSCA by fellow employees represent the Bermuda Triangle of the lunchroom story because they all point to a first floor encounter.

Hasan has a good post on this; the interesting thing about the lunchroom story is how much Truly's story changed on the first day.
"Let me also note that apparently Roy Truly had informed reporters and the FBI on the night of 22/11/63, that he and Baker had encountered Oswald in the second floor lunchroom. Yet as mentioned above, he was overheard by Dallas Morning news reporter, Kent Biffle, informing Captain Will Fritz that he and Baker encountered Oswald on the first floor!"
http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-lunchroom-encounter-that-never-was.html

One of the mysteries of the WC lunchroom version was the right to left movement of Oswald heading to the lunchroom when noticed by Baker... I wonder why, if the lunchroom sighting was a concoction, this  strange movement was not "tidied up".

There needed to be some reason to explain why Baker would duck into the 2nd floor lunchroom if he was in a hurry to get to the roof. Its impossible to see inside the lunchroom from the the landing, so movement behind the door's window (which would be visible from landing) was needed to catch Baker's eye.  Tidying away that detail would necessarily tidy away the reason Baker looked in the lunchroom.

As I said previously, Truly lied to the Warren Commission about the picture that was presented as Bakers view when he rounded the staircase. (See my previous post in this thread).

That absolutely was not Bakers view.

I am also suspicious about the number of boxes that blocked any view of the lunchroom door. There are various pictures that suggest the boxes could have been stacked head high between the stair door and the lunchroom door.

Stan Dane wrote:

Colin Crow wrote: There is convincing evidence they were downstairs within a minute or so.

That would be downstairs to the first floor in no more than a minute. Just like Victoria Adams said all along. Correct?

Yes Stan, there are various clues in Vicoria's testimony that confirm an early descent. The Shelley/Lovelady addition should be discarded.

John Mooney wrote:As I said previously, Truly lied to the Warren Commission about the picture that was presented as Bakers view when he rounded the staircase. (See my previous post in this thread).

That absolutely was not Bakers view.

I am also suspicious about the number of boxes that blocked any view of the lunchroom door. There are various pictures that suggest the boxes could have been stacked head high between the stair door and the lunchroom door.

Agree about Baker's view. I cannot work out why he would veer so far to the right at the landing to get a view of the window unless he was disoriented and was unaware of where the door was to continue up the staircase. I wonder if he was leading Truly. I would not like to be ahead of an armed officer charging up stairs. It may have been that Baker was ahead of Truly or Truly well ahead of him and he did not notice where Truly went.

Agree about Baker's view. I cannot work out why he would veer so far to the right at the landing to get a view of the window unless he was disoriented and was unaware of where the door was to continue up the staircase.


I''m skeptical Baker ever saw Oswald on the 2nd floor but if he did, it'd have to be one of two ways:
1. Oswald walked through the office towards lunchroom and was seen as he walked past landing door's window from right to left.
2. Baker and Truly walked through office (from front stairs) towards back stairs and saw Oswald as they walked past lunchroom. 
The hole in either account is neither Mrs. Hine nor  Mrs. Reid saw anyone walk through office towards lunchroom but the 2nd account is in congruence w/ Dec. 1 Washington Post account (and it does explain why B&T didn't run into Styles & Adams on the back stairs).  The reason neither account works for Feds is neither version gives Oswald time to get from 6th floor to office (in 1) or to lunchroom (in 2) before Baker & Truly.

Sandra Styles Butler interview on the Travel Channel:

Richard Gilbride wrote:I was given a responsibility as administrator to be in a boss position. I cared deeply about this forum, its image and such, including how members here , were treated (or mistreated) on other forums. But to have it de-evolve into a profanity-tossing fest after the David Josephs incident set me off big-time. I explained that I see where using profanity is offensive, uncalled for.

And I stepped into the fight to attempt to break it up, seeing myself as making a magnanimous gesture by apologizing to David. I was viciously attacked with insults for doing this. My "revenge" is directed against these particular insults. If there had been animosity against my general posting personality, it really came out then.

True, I don't need this forum. Life is extremely full for me. My schedule often gives me inadequate time for it. But I think we can carry on with respect and calmness from here, I really do. I got very upset to watch this place bottom out into a mudslinging pit, when it does a lot of high-class and high-caliber research.

It seems that I owe everyone an apology. So be it. I'm sorry. But please understand that my anger was stoked by your anger, and it was yours initially. It inflamed into a Lord of the Flies situation. This has been a common scene on JFK forums the past several years, and small wonder that the divisive invectives cause more harm than good.

We can get down to brass tacks or continue venting, the choice is ours and will be ongoing. I am quite passionate about this particular issue and have every confidence of the correctness of my stated position. It might be a good tonic for the research community, to have this debate on record and to show that we can settle down after explosive in-fighting.

I will make an effort to tone down the rhetoric. It would be a shame to lose the discussion because of heated emotions. However, I will not tone down my confidence in my correctness.

Tomorrow I have a few hours off and can spend some time re-posting the "brass tacks", as this discussion may need a fresh starting point.

After spending a month in the United States and watching, mostly from a distance, the black comedy unfold here and elsewhere concerning five year old dopplegangers, I really need to put my own full stop on this.

Richard Gilbride was given the job of moderator here at RKC because Greg has enjoyed a long friendship with him here at the forum.  Richard was generally warm and friendly until a topic arose that he had invested himself in emotionally and financially.  If you questioned any of his deep rooted JFK assassination beliefs he became quite surly and arrogant.  I know Richard has accused me of the same thing and in some ways he is correct but there is a massive difference that needs to be considered.

I hold very few immovable beliefs concerning the assassination.  My experience doing this quickly taught me that sometimes things can completely turn on their head.  Only an open mind will find the hidden structure of the story.  My purpose at this forum, and the other forums I have been a member of, is to question everything.  Turn over every rock.  Keep digging until something clicks.  Dismantle and reassemble.  Keep going.  Find collaborators.  Bounce ideas around.

When it came to the above, Richard Gilbride, I found, was more of a hinderance than a help.

In a previous post after I called him a "condescending cunt", that I stand by on every level, he had the audacity to try and besmirch the research I did into Ralph Yates.  No one, and I mean no one, has done more research into Yates that me on these forums.  Every document was read over and over again concerning his alleged experiences.  Months of digging and reevaluating every detail.  Every book containing his name was trawled over.  Each part of the story was presented to the wider community with pertinent questions regarding him and the hitchhiker and the possible relationship with the wider assassination narrative.  There were some people who wanted to collaborate on learning more.  Only a few.  There were many who didn't.  Richard Gilbride fell into the latter camp.  He joined the ranks of other closed minded nutcases who float around these forums to single-mindedly dismiss everything that was presented on a complete whim with very little thought put into the responses he gave. 

His replies became more frustrating to read than any of my numerous tête-à-têtes with David Lifton.

The bottom line concerning one of Richard's sacred cows, Ralph Yates, was that Yates was used by John Armstring to prop up the Harvey and Lee bollocks.  And in Richard's world, as we have also seen with the Fez, Harvey and Lee are established facts.  It got to a point when communicating with Richard that even the most obvious of points were being hand waved away because they were simply too uncomfortable for him to contemplate.  To agree with simple things would mean having to eventually agree with more complex things and this was never going to happen with someone with a titanium skull.  Most of the time if I awoke to a Gilbride reply to one of my threads I would open it up with trepidation in case I had advertently or inadvertently pulled the rug out from one of his reinforced beliefs.

So, back to his moderation abilities.  Utter shite.  Three times he was called on to moderate.  Three times he failed.  Miserably.  Devoid of empathy he simply threw petrol on issues.  He allowed a posted here to claim I was a dangerous stalker who could kill someone.  The utter dick-wad that is Bobby Prudhomme was first caught bitching like a fucking little girl on another forum about things written here and then when pulled on it he made up some lie that he was again pulled on.  He didn't like being caught in a lie and so the only thing he had left was to scrape the bottom of the barrel like all good liars do.

When I gave the ultimatum after Bobby the Deer Fucker got splinters scraping the shit encrusted barrel I could not imagine that Richard Gilbride would fuck things up so badly by leaving the bottom feeder's comments insitu and then passing the blame elsewhere.  I left this forum immediately after Richard's response and did not return upon Hasan's counter move.  Bobby the Deer Banger seems to think this is innacurate and he private messaged Greg after the Deep Arseholes Forum debacle to state this.  Obviously when one is a proven liar within the community we cannot expect anything else but for the said liar to keep on creating lies to feed his own insatiable ego.  This prick's MO is to cry, bitch, whinge and moan that nobody reads or replies to his posts.  Create falsehoods to deflect away from his crying, bitching, whinging and moaning when confronted and then expect to be listened to when he claims he is fighting for truth.  Only an isolated redneck with an infatuation with firearms could be so confused as to why liars aren't taken seriously in any environment apart from politics.

And this is what this sorry state of affairs degenerated into.  A game of politics.  With a dumbass "lawyer"; a hunter who accuses others of stalking; a man who will take you in circles for the rest of your life; a racist PR man who abuses fonts; and a utter tit who employed Warren Commission tactics to try, and fail, to win any argument whatsoever as the cast of characters who joined together to put a stop on any and all debate on the issue of Harvey & Lee.

Now, I probably hold a special place here concerning one particular point.  I have read the book.  Much of the information is useful. Some areas were/are groundbreaking. The writing is awful.  The cental thesis is utter shite.  The sources and endnotes in multiple, multiple instances cannot be trusted.  I have debunked many parts of it.  I believe Armstrong knowingly warped certain evidence to fit and left other evidence out that didn't but evidence that he most certainly owned.

So The Fez can stick that in his pipe and then shove his pipe up his arse, along with Harvey & Lee, and along with Jim Hargrove's and Dawn Meredith's tongues.  I've read the book.  I've extensively searched Armstrong's archive.  And I know there was no Harvey & Lee.

I have stopped researching right now.  I pulled out of the book project with Greg.  I am sick of dealing with utter idiots and liars when asking serious questions.  Whether they be David Von Pein or Bob Prudhomme - who purport to be on opposite sides but in actual fact belong on the same one - the side of say anything to win the argument - no matter what the cost.

The cost for me in all this will now be less expensive.  Less frustration.  Less banging of my head against the wall.  Less communicating with fucking imbeciles.  That group is now extended to include Richard Gilbride who seemed to think rolling his sleeves up and calling me "twat" was the best way to put a lid on the boiling pan.  Which tells you all you need to know as to why he couldn't moderate his way out of a wet paper bag...

...and why his propping up of the Baker lunchroom mularkey will have to take place elsewhere.

P.S. Bobby The Deer's efforts to measure CE399 with his dick have been hilarious to witness.  He fails every time.  Someone needs to tell him that a small guy will always be a small guy no matter how much he stretches it.

And, naturally, now it looks as intended. hmmm

Anyway, I'm glad to see time spent in the United States provides insight into American politics: "Only an isolated redneck with an infatuation with firearms could be so confused as to why liars aren't taken seriously in any environment apart from politics."

Last edited by dwdunn(akaDan) on Thu 24 Apr 2014 - 21:14; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : I meant to edit for clarification (underlining, quotebox for the RG quote), but it appears correct in edit format, so must be due to Lee's limbo status as poster/member? Nothing to see here then, nothing edited.)

Dan,

Lee's status is unchanged.

But his post didn't look as it currently looks originally, until I went to edit & did nothing other than "Send" the post (which looked correct in Edit format). So, in other words, the orignal had no yellow quote box but had [quot]//[/quot] around RG's quoted part, as well as b & i bracketing on emphasized words (which looked right after I'd sent the (un)edited post back. Anyway, at least it looks right now. It's hard to get used to calling him "Goodbye" after all this time tho; I preferred "Lee" or even "Farley."