If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[Dan O'meara]

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.

[Dan O'meara]

Getting back to John's theory that Bonnie Ray spent some time in the Sniper's Nest just before the assassination:

Bonnie Ray said he sat in the isle where his coke was and never went close to the sniper's nest.
I have a theory that Williams when looking for his friends would have checked all the windows because why wouldn't he check the windows overlooking Elm? and would have seen Oswald and perhaps stayed there with Oswald and had his lunch then went down when he heard his friends arrive. In fact the stories coming from these men was a little flexible as they got their stories straight. I reckon Williams who was black wanted no part of being with Oswald in the minutes before they assassination.
In fact the WC I believe share this same theory because when this came up at Williams testimony Dulles suddenly and unexpectedly brought up if Williams had trouble with the law, why at this precise time while questioning would Dulles try this tactic?

JohnM

I, too, agree that Bonnie Ray spent his lunch break in the Sniper's Nest, making his way down to the 5th floor minutes before the motorcade arrived in Dealey Plaza.
This is corroborated by the fact that six of the first officers on the scene - Mooney, Hill, Weatherford, McCurley, Brewer and Haygood - collectively describe the remains of Bonnie Ray's lunch on one of the stacks of boxes that formed the back wall of the Sniper's Nest. The testimonies of these officers were completely ignored by the Commission.
It is also supported by Arnold Rowland's observation of a black male in the Sniper's Nest around 12:15 pm. Bonnie Ray even alludes to it in his WC testimony when he is asked what he sat on while he had his lunch - "First of all, I remember there was some boxes behind me. I just kind of leaned back on the boxes first."

However, I disagree that Bonnie Ray discovered Oswald in the Sniper's Nest when he first arrived on the 6th floor as I believe Oswald was on the first floor at this time.
As disgraceful as it was for the Commission to ignore the testimonies of the six officers who saw Bonnie Ray lunch remains on top of the Sniper's Nest, it was nothing compared to the lie that was concocted involving Charles Givens. The Commission tried to make it seem as though Oswald never came down to the first floor when the lunch break started. In order to do this they had to ignore the collective testimonies of the workers on the 6th floor who described Oswald on the 5th floor asking to get a lift down to the first floor but who was ignored because the floor-laying crew were involved in an elevator race, so Oswald called down to make sure they left the gate down so he could call the elevator back, presumably so he could come down to the first floor (as he would have done if Charles Givens stopped to let him on).
The Givens lie - about going back up to the 6th floor to collect his jacket and cigarettes and seeing Oswald near the southeast corner - was created specifically so the Commission could claim that the last employee to see Oswald saw him on the 6th floor near the southeast corner. But Givens wasn't the last employee to see Oswald - Eddie Piper had some kind of interaction with Oswald at 12:00 pm on the first floor. This testimony also had to be ignored by the Commission.

Bonnie Ray broke for lunch, went down to the first floor, washed up, collected his lunch, got himself a Dr. Pepper and went back up to the 6th floor where he found himself a secluded spot in the southeast corner. He stayed here until about 12:25 pm. At least three of the officers who saw his lunch remains on the Sniper's Nest described seeing a partially-eaten piece of chicken, which seems unusual as this formed the main part of his lunch that day and he had been working hard that morning, using the saw and laying the floor. To me, it suggests he left the area unwillingly, that he was told to leave.

[Zeon Mason]

@Dan: That’s an excellent summary and it’s clear that at the   marked point on the floor plan (22) there’s no way Baker was seeing thru both windows into the lunchroom. So if he saw Oswald at that position (22 ) Oswald would have to be in hallway area.

JohnM (if I’m understanding right) , suggests that Oswald managed to just get thru the outer door and it was closed when Baker got to the top of the staircase and Baker stepped onto the landing area of the 2nd floor.

This might be possible but for Oswald then to immediately stop there and turn around  and be looking out thru the outer door window, as Baker passes by is an improbable act imo.

So if Oswald is NOT standing next to the outer door window then either Baker is altering the detail of seeing Oswald at position  22 , or Baker moved over for some unclear reason    from 22 to a point ( which is not marked on the plan) from which point it would have been possible for Baker to see thru both door windows into a small area of the lunchroom.

This outer door being opened and closed is mostly predicated on the theory Oswald was the 6th floor shooter and was running down stairs and had to divert suddenly on the 2nd floor landing because he heard Truly shout up the elevator shaft.

 Ruling this scenario out because of Dorothy Garner on the 4th floor , the only other option would be that Oswald used the east freight elevator with help of an accomplice ( who returns elevator to 5th floor) to bypass Garner unseen.

But this scenario requires Oswald reaching the 2nd floor by approx 55 sec post shots so that the accomplice can return east elevator to 5th floor by 75 sec post shots where it will be seen by Truly  when he looks up the shaft as he shouted to send the elevator down.

So in this  scenario, it’s possible also that Oswald was IN the lunchroom by 60 secs post shots and maybe he even got a coke from the machine, but if he is the shooter is he going to go back  out to stand at the outer door looking thru the window? No, but he might go out the lunchroom door and pass by the outer door on his way to either go down the outer hallway or go into the 2nd floor office, because he is theoretically trying  to get out of TSBD asap.

But wait! This is impossible because it’s TOO EARLY! It’s only 60 secs post shots! Mrs Reid took 2 minutes to get to the 2nd floor office. Baker/Truly took at  least 75 secs but more likely it was closer to 90 secs to meet Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom.

So as Sherlock Holmes says, eliminate the impossible ( or at least the improbable) and whatever is left must  be the truth.

Therefore , The flight down 4 floors/stairs or taking an elevator scenario is improbable. Baker at Point 22 on the floor plan seeing Oswald just standing at the outer door = improbable. Baker moving over towards the door if not seeing Oswald has no clear explanation by Baker and since that position was NOT marked on the map= improbable as well.

So what is left?

The most probable reason  therefore if we are accepting that Baker  saw Oswald thru the outer door window at position 22 , is that Oswald was going PAST the window on his way to the lunchroom because he had used the outer hallway to get there after he went up from being in the 1st floor entrance lobby. Oswald  either used the front staircase or he used  the passenger elevator, to get to the 2nd floor hallway.

Now I’m willing to go further here and try a timing analysis comparing both Baker and Truly going across the 1st floor  with Oswald in the entrance lobby going up the lobby staircase or using the passenger elevator, but I’ll save that for another post.

[Mitch Todd]

It's always about you, isn't it?  . OK, just kidding. Mostly. You will have it authenticated. And, you will of course apply your own personal standard as to what constitutes properly authenticated. And this standard will be designed from the outset to prevent it from being, in your mind, authenticated. But it's all simply nothing more than a ruse to avoid dealing with evidence that you find inconvenient.

How sad, just after I accepted your evidence about the Hill/Davenport matter.

Really? And yet, you still managed to convince me that there was no discrepancy in the Hill/Davenport matter

Back in 1963 people still considered what people like notaries, lawyers and priests said to be beyond question. Now we know better.

In 1963, it was done the way that WC did it: by asking the official who first took possession of the item if he could positively identify it as the thing he took possession of.

Ok, so Secret Service agent Richard E. Johnson would be the first offical who took possession of the "magic" bullet and he failed to identify it later. Where does that leave us?

This process is actually dialectic: what is the evidence that the item is authentic, vs what is the evidence that the item is invalid.

There is no problem. If evidence is authentic it's valid. So, use the chain of custody to show the evidence is authentic and your problem is solved.

If I use the unreasonably high standard, I have an item that is not authenticated, but has not been shown to be invalid.

If a piece of evidence is not authenticated, it's automatically invalid. But what exactly do you consider an "unreasonable high standard". Could it simply be a standard your evidence can't meet?

If I use the low standard, I have an item that has been authenticated, but has not been shown to be invalid. Either way, it has not been shown to be invalid.

So why not use a reasonable standard? Or do you believe no such thing exists?

You still don't get the difference between "authentic" and "authenticated." "Authentic" is an inherent property of an item. "Authenticated" is a label we assign to that item, based on some test we devise. There is no inherent equivalence between the two, and every authentic item is authentic whether or not it's been "authenticated."


MW: So why not use a reasonable standard? Or do you believe no such thing exists?

Who defines "reasonable?" You think you alone do? In reality, once Hill and Carroll testify that they recognize this pistol with the identifying marks they put on it as the one seized from the defendant at the Texas Theatre," it's going to be considered authenticated at trial, whether you like it or not.  The idea that an unequivocal chain of custody must exist is the result of watching too many police procedurals late at night instead of getting a  good night's rest.

[Zeon Mason]

It’s  the LAW and ORDER series which has influenced  me to be questioning stuff all the time

[Mitch Todd]

It’s  the LAW and ORDER series which has influenced  me to be questioning stuff all the time

It's not bad to question things. The problem I have with Martin's position here isn't so much about authentication as that he wants to use it as a Get Out Of Jail Free card in order to ignore the pistol as evidence. The problem is, this tack will not accomplish that. He would need to show that the Pistol is somehow defective as evidence in this case. That is, that some fact about the pistol would actually disqualify it, like it was the wrong caliber, or that the barrel was welded shut rendering the gun incapable of firing.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

It's not bad to question things. The problem I have with Martin's position here isn't so much about authentication as that he wants to use it as a Get Out Of Jail Free card in order to ignore the pistol as evidence. The problem is, this tack will not accomplish that. He would need to show that the Pistol is somehow defective as evidence in this case. That is, that some fact about the pistol would actually disqualify it, like it was the wrong caliber, or that the barrel was welded shut rendering the gun incapable of firing.

As Robert Oswald said (I'm paraphrasing), "It's good to question things [the assassination]. But after the third time, the fourth, the fifth at some point it's enough."

This wasn't the police framing a black man or poor white man for shooting a gas station clerk in the middle of the night. Where one or two witnesses were either coerced or "encouraged" to point a finger at that person, someone who was "causing problems" anyway. Other witnesses ignored or not sought. That is either framing him or rushing an arrest. An easy conviction that was on page A-22 in the paper. The evidence is that Wade and the DPD did do things like that. It's a fact.

But this crime was investigated again and again and again (heck, it still is). By others, by the FBI, the WC, news reporters. Did the conspiracy include all of these people and investigations too? We go from a handful of people to dozens and dozens. Over half a century? Do we simply dismiss all of them as well? They were corrupt? Or possibly so? Hugh Aynesworth was on the ground there; he was at the assassination and then rushed to the Tippit scene. He interviewed the people. At that time. He was a heckuva reporter. Was he corrupt? Of course the conspiracists say *he was* corrupt, he was working for the CIA.

This is what, in part, "gets me". It's an endless series of charges of conspiracies, coverups, coverups of those coverups. Multiple generations of Americans in the government and outside of it. Aynesworth was corrupt. The WC was corrupt. The HSCA was corrupt. The news media were corrupt (Operation Mockingbird and all that). Really? This is the world that you think exists?

Asking questions is not only not bad but it's good. But at some point you have to accept the answers. This is all we have. We're not going to have a Perry Mason moment where everything falls into place. If you're not going to accept the answers then they're just not good faith questions but simply attempts to, for some odd reason, exonerate this very odd fellow Lee Harvey Oswald.

[Dan O'meara]

The Warren Commission was, in effect, the FBI investigation of the JFK assassination.
Less than 48 hours after the assassination Hoover let it be known that the outcome of the investigation was going to be that Oswald was the lone assassin.
This isn't a joke or an exaggeration - the outcome of the investigation was decided before the investigation had really got going.
The loyalty of FBI agents was not to the truth or justice or any of that...their loyalty was to the Bureau and the Bureau was Hoover.
Hoover was the FBI and the FBI was Hoover.

This is a very uncomfortable fact for Lone Nutters, who swallow down the Warren Commission's findings wholesale, because it pulls the rug out from under any notions of "truth".
Trying to present the Oswald-Did-It [ODI] theory as a result of the search for some kind of "truth" is a sick joke and the perpetuation of this sick joke is an indicator of a serious malfunction within society.

There is no more extreme mentality than that of the Lone Nutter.