There's so much wrong with this statement alone, where do I start?
Baker's quite clear where he was when he saw Oswald, and he even pinpoints the exact spot on CE 497.
Mr. BELIN - Now, with relation to Exhibit 497 perhaps you can try to trace your route as you came out from the stairway, as to the route you took and the point you were when you first caught a glimpse of some movement through that window or door?
Mr. BAKER - At the upper portion of this stairway leading to the second floor, I was just stepping out on to the second floor when I caught this glimpse of this man through this doorway.
Mr. BELIN - Do you want to put a spot there, with the letter "B" at the point you believe you were when you were looking through that door? You put the letter "B" on Exhibit 497 when you first saw the movement.
And here inexplicably just yesterday Dan has Baker way out on the floor and nowhere near where Baker says.
Dan O'eara: ...the "B" is Baker's approximate position when he was supposed to have seen this movement movement:
And today you have Baker even more out on the floor where you claim he can see Oswald at the coke machine, WOW!
Here is yesterday's "estimate" where Dan placed Baker and I have overlayed a purple/yellow Point of View Line of Sight. Which in no way allows a view even close to the Coke Machine or even into the lunchroom itself, therefore even if Dan's fantasy placement of Baker was correct all it does is strengthen the reality that Oswald was moving into the lunchroom.
So as is obvious, CT's will invent their own evidence to fit their speculation whereas honest LNers simply use the evidence. Baker's testimony and from the physical layout of the 2nd floor, it's clear that Baker saw Oswald in the hallway at the vestibule door and next Baker saw Oswald in the lunchroom.
All I can say Dan, is next time bring your "A" game because this is way too easy.
JohnM
There's so much wrong with this statement alone, where do I start? You start by reading the post you are responding to.
READ...THE...POST
You were told this just a few posts ago [REPLY#282]
What's wrong with reading the posts you're replying to?
I then have to go through the whole post again correcting your misunderstandings and misinterpretations. It's like helping someone pretending to be an old man across the road.
All I can say is how desperate you are now to try and score a point.
You're reduced to pointing out that my approximation for Baker's position (which was clearly stated to be an approximation) was a couple of feet away from where his actual position was. Look at the wealth of information in the post you were replying to and this is all you can come up with, this trivial, nit-picking detail. It's sad and desperate.
Just so we don't lose the context of this discussion, it started off with this comprehensive list I posted of the evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination and how every piece of it pointed away from Oswald being the shooter [REPLY#212]:
All the evidence, John?
The collective statements of 4 eyewitnesses have the man on the 6th floor wearing a white/very light coloured shirt, open at the collar - Oswald wore a brown shirt to work that day.
Amos Euins constantly describes a distinctive bald spot on top of the mans head a few inches behind his hairline. Something Oswald didn't have.
Three eyewitnesses describe "Oswald's" hair but fail to mention it's most distinctive feature - that it is receding. In fact, one of them states that he didn't believe the man had a receding hairline.
Three eyewitnesses describe the man having a fair/light complexion, opposed to Oswald's dark, unshaven complexion.
Brennan thought the man was substantially older than Oswald when he saw (and failed to identify) him.
Hank Norman heard the small empty shells hitting the wooden floor directly above his head but, after the third one, failed to hear Oswald's heavy Oxford work shoes clomping around on the same wooden floor which is strange because Oswald is supposed to have started his descent immediately after the third shot in order to get down to the 2nd floor lunchroom to have an encounter with Baker with 3 seconds to spare.
Maybe Norman doesn't hear the footsteps because, as Brennan reported, when the presidential limo entered the underpass he looked back towards the man who was still stood at the window, a good 8 seconds after the last shot (thus scuppering the 3 second window of opportunity).
Jack Dougherty was supposed to be stood a few feet from the stairs when Oswald descended but he neither saw nor heard anything (remember, heavy Oxford work shoes on a wooden floor).
Same thing on the 4th floor with Dorothy Garner who followed Adams and Styles out and who was in that area when Truly and Baker came up, but no Oswald, and it's not just a case of him coming down the stairs, at the bottom of each staircase he has to walk across the floor in order to get to the next staircase.
None of the other women who came out to the 4th floor storage area reported seeing Oswald either.
Oswald reportedly told his interrogators that he had just purchased a coke when Baker came in. In Sept' '64 Baker wrote a report in which he stated that he saw the man in the lunchroom drinking a coke.
Oswald also told them that while he was having lunch in the domino room he had some kind of encounter with two men who can only be Hank Norman and Junior Jarman. This interaction happened about 5 minutes before the shooting. Arnold Rowland had already seen the man with a rifle on the 6th floor ten minutes before this.
And how do we explain the remains of Bonnie Rays lunch on top of the Sniper's Nest when it was first discovered?
This was followed by your incredibly weak rebuttal of these the points (the ones you felt you could manage anyway), which included real beauties such as deciding what witnesses really meant to say and your absolutely bizarre theory that daylight makes all colours look white [REPLY#214]
These points were easily dealt with in REPLY#220
Since then you've been trying desperately to score a point but failing miserably before turning to your tactic of not reading the posts you are replying to.
Just to get you up to speed...at the moment, the specific detail you are trying to score a point about is Baker's claim to have seen movement through the vestibule window. You have created a story about Oswald waiting around at the vestibule door watching Truly pass by, then almost getting caught out by Baker coming up the stairs. It is a completely made up story but when I pointed that out you got really upset:
"What speculating? I based my scenario on the facts."Ignoring the fact it was still speculation, even if it was "based on the facts", as you put it, it has to be pointed out that your made up story is based on a single fact - Baker said so in his WC testimony. There is no corroborating evidence for your little 'scenario'. Just as there is no corroborating evidence for your belief that Oswald was on the 6th floor around the time of the shooting (but I have presented the evidence against this) and there is no corroborating evidence for your belief Oswald descended the steps from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom (I have presented the evidence against this).
What you can't accept is that Baker told Burnett that he had seen the man standing alone in the lunchroom drinking a coke. This is corroborated by Oswald's statement that he had just purchased a coke when Baker came in the lunchroom. You ignored the vast majority of the post you were responding to which included this:
"What facts did you base your imaginative speculation on...that Baker said so? He also said he saw the man drinking a coke.
If he saw the man drinking a coke the man was already in the lunchroom.
If he was already in the lunchroom then Baker didn't "glimpse" him move through the vestibule window.
If he didn't "glimpse" him through the window from the top of the stairs he must have moved towards the vestibule door.
See, I can speculate just as good as you...only I know when I'm speculating. You seem to think you're reporting the facts".
In order for Baker to see Oswald standing alone in the lunchroom drinking a coke HE MUST HAVE MOVED FROM THE TOP OF THE STAIRS TO THE VESTIBULE DOOR.
It was impossible for him to see Oswald drinking a coke in the lunchroom from the top of the stairs. It's not a difficult point to follow.
Topic: If I had planned the conspiracy ... (Read 14549 times)