Then went outside to watch P. parade ( Parts 1 & 2 )

[Alan Ford]

Does Mr. Ford swear on the Holy Book that the image he posted of the fuzzy version of Altgens that has an upraised arm and bottle shaped object
Is from a reliable source?

Yes-----------we even see Mr Cronkite's finger pointing out detail in the closeup as he holds it up to the camera.

Why?

[Zeon Mason]

Sour  it’s a verifiable version of Altgens that Cronkite was looking at, then the CLEAR  actual photo that was Cronkite must have observed , theoretically would show this arm and bottle clear enough to remove doubt that ii was any photographic quirk, and therefore substantial evidence of someone with bottle upraised just behind Lewis.

Would Cronkite have kept this arm upraise version off Altgens photo and can it possible be found?

[Alan Ford]

Sour  it’s a verifiable version of Altgens that Cronkite was looking at, then the CLEAR  actual photo that was Cronkite must have observed , theoretically would show this arm and bottle clear enough to remove doubt that ii was any photographic quirk, and therefore substantial evidence of someone with bottle upraised just behind Lewis.

Would Cronkite have kept this arm upraise version off Altgens photo and can it possible be found?

That would of course be nice, Mr Mason, but the differences between the Cronkite closeup and the 'canonical' version are already glaring enough for us to see what has been done to the image------------

----vs----

[John Iacoletti]

I should be used to your cowardly, meaningless sniping from the side-lines but I'd like you to provide one theory I've ever put forward that is supported by zero evidence.
You won't be able to so why don't you STFU and keep your snide comments to yourself.

U mad bro?

Absolutely: your “identification” of Gloria Calvery in Darnell.

[John Iacoletti]

It's how the English language works (not your strong suit, I know)
In the context of the story being told "the door" can only refer to a door of the second floor central office. That's a fact of how the English language works. It's not a question of me reading into it.
It cannot refer to any other door.

Notice how Dan always goes into arrogant insult mode when he’s on the wrong end of a failing argument? It is pure conjecture what “the door” refers to.

[Walt Cakebread]

Notice how Dan always goes into arrogant insult mode when he’s on the wrong end of a failing argument? It is pure conjecture what “the door” refers to.

It is pure conjecture what “the door” refers to.

FWIW..... IMO It seems clear to me that she was referring to the door at the back of the office area. The door that  is at the south end of the foyer which was at the west end of the 2nd floor lunch room.

[Alan Ford]

It is pure conjecture what “the door” refers to.

FWIW..... IMO It seems clear to me that she was referring to the door at the back of the office area. The door that  is at the south end of the foyer which was at the west end of the 2nd floor lunch room.

It only 'seems clear' for the same reason it 'seems clear' that a jacket-wearing "man walking away from the stairway" on "the third or fourth floor" refers to a non-jacket-wearing man seen through a small window in a closed door leading to the door to a lunchroom on the second floor; or that the words "Then went outside to watch P. Parade" cannot possibly refer to the act of going outside to watch the Presidential Parade
-------------i.e. the official story so dominates the researcher's psyche that said psyche has long since lost the ability to even imagine any other scenario.

All LNers suffer from this sad syndrome; many CTers do to!

[Walt Cakebread]

It only 'seems clear' for the same reason it 'seems clear' that a jacket-wearing "man walking away from the stairway" on "the third or fourth floor" refers to a non-jacket-wearing man seen through a small window in a closed door leading to the door to a lunchroom on the second floor; or that the words "Then went outside to watch P. Parade" cannot possibly refer to the act of going outside to watch the Presidential Parade
-------------i.e. the official story so dominates the researcher's psyche that said psyche has long since lost the ability to even imagine any other scenario.

All LNers suffer from this sad syndrome; many CTers do to!

It only 'seems clear' for the same reason it 'seems clear' that a jacket-wearing "man walking away from the stairway" on "the third or fourth floor" refers to a non-jacket-wearing man seen through a small window in a closed door leading to the door to a lunchroom on the second floor;]

Pssssst, Alan. I've long ago rejected the nonsense the Lee was the man that Baker saw on either the third or fourth floor.

I believe that Baker was wrong about the floor that he saw a 165 pound man who was wearing a tan jacket who was WALKING AWAY FROM THE STAIRS .........on  the fifth floor.

Clearly Baker's description of the man DID NOT fit Lee Oswald, nor did the location fit the second floor lunchroom.....The 165 pound man who was wearing a tan jacket was NOT Lee Oswald.   The encounter with Lee in the second floor lunchroom was so innocuous that Baker completely dismissed that encounter when he was informed that he may may have encountered the assassin in the TSBD when he dashed through the building immediately following the shooting.  Since the 165 pound man (who was on the 5th floor) was acting suspicious and trying to avoid being seen when Baker yelled at him and told him to "Come here"  .....THAT was the man that Baker thought may have been the assassin when he wrote his affidavit.