That's it, Mr O'Meara, put yet more words in my mouth!
Well, excuse me Alan.
let's refer to this bunch of made up people as the "investigating authorities".
Obviously, there is no team of people creating this fake Hoax but I wouldn't want to be seen labelling this imaginary group incorrectly.
(I assume some elements of the DPD are in your imaginary group, maybe you'll let us all know at some point, but for now let's stick with "investigating authorities"
)
Too risky---------the 'investigating' authorities knew full well by now that Mr Oswald had been on the front steps at the time of the shooting. What if a photograph turns up clearly showing this? What if one of the witnesses speaks the truth to the press? What if Mr Oswald proves the fact in court? The lunchroom story is the only way of hedging bets-------------a location to which Mr Oswald could (at least notionally) have descended from the sixth floor or ascended from the first.
Brilliant
Fantasia Ford in full flow.
Just a note for readers unfamiliar with your work - everything above is completely made up, based on zero evidence yet presented as fact.
I have to confess Alan, I'm slightly jealous of the freedom you have to move so easily between the realms of fact and fantasy. It leaves me in the unenviable role of the Killjoy.
"...the 'investigating' authorities knew full well by now that Mr Oswald had been on the front steps at the time of the shooting."In the real world we can't actually know this. Not one of the many potential witnesses who knew Oswald by sight and would have seen him standing on the steps has placed him there. Not one of the "investigating authorities" has ever placed him there. Even Oswald has never placed himself there (although in multiple instances he has placed himself in the TSBD at the time of the shooting)
"The lunchroom story is the only way of hedging bets-------------a location to which Mr Oswald could (at least notionally) have descended from the sixth floor or ascended from the first."Those unfamiliar with the 'bendy' logic of Mr Ford will be saying to themselves, "Surely the 3rd floor is the best way to hedge your bets, midway between both points. And that way you don't have to create this ridiculous Hoax with all it's complexity and unlikeliness, dragging in scores of people to prop up this insanity. Just say the man on the 3rd floor is Oswald."
To be honest, as long as he leaves the scene before Truly and Baker it can be any floor you want. Why not have it on the 6th floor? Baker made an honest mistake in his affidavit, it wasn't the third or fourth floor, it was the 6th floor. Baker sees Oswald moving away from the southeast corner, asks Truly who that man is, Truly says he's an employee, Lee Harvey Oswald. Boom - Oswald witnessed at the scene of the crime.
Why move the encounter
further away from the 6th floor?
Because if Oswald is spotted at the front entrance the 2nd floor is closer than the 3rd??
Have a little think about the logic you're using here Alan.
And then there's the professional & insitutional embarrassment factor: having let a man in a second floor lunchroom go is a whole lot less embarrassing than having let a man caught walking away from the stairway several floors up.
If there's anyone out there who can unravel the logic of this statement please get in touch.
