Oswald: No power lunch

[Walt Cakebread]

Officer Baker 11/22 himself puts the encounter (not with Mr Oswald) several floors up,

Yes, and I believe the encounter with the man who had dark hair and was wearing a light brown ( Khaki) jacket happened on the fifth floor.    This man could easily have been the man that Arnold Rowland saw behind the west end window on the sixth floor.   There can be no doubt that Baker was NOT recalling the encounter with Lee Oswald in the second floor lunch room because when Baker testified and was recalling the event to mind he said " It was kind of dark in there by the elevator and I couldn't see very well.....  Baker certainly was NOT recalling the encounter with Lee Oswald in the well lit second floor lunch room.

I looked up Baker's testimony....

Mr Belin--- Did you notice what clothes the man was wearing as he came up to you?

Officer Baker---  At that particular time I was looking at his face, and it seemed to me like he had a light brown jacket on and some kind of white looking shirt.     Anyway as I noticed him walking away from me, it was kind of dim in there that particular day and the ( it was ) hanging out to his side.

I noticed him walking away from me, it was kind of dim in there

Question :.... Was it dim in the lunchroom? Or do photos show that the lunchroom is well illuminated?

Lee was wearing a reddish brown shirt over a white undershirt ...  He was NOT wearing a light brown Jacket...

 Perhaps a LNer will propose that Baker was color blind and couldn't perceive the difference between the colors red and Light  brown.

[Dan O'meara]

"that particular day"

Interesting.

As opposed to.....?

As opposed to the day he was in there for the re-enactment.

[Walt Cakebread]

As opposed to the day he was in there for the re-enactment.

Thank you Dan....  I believe that it could have been a bit dim in there on the day of the "re-enactment" but on 11-22-63 it was bright sun shiny day....

But Baker wasn't viewing Lee's corpse .... He said that he saw Lee in the lunchroom at about 12:31 / 12:32 on 11-22-63.

The point is: Baker said it was DIM in there....  And I believe that he was recalling the encounter with the 165 pound dark haired man who was wearing a khaki jacket and attempting to evade an encounter with Baker on "either the third or fourth floor" ( actually I believe it was the fifth floor.)   It was dimly  lit on the fifth and sixth floors ......

[Walt Cakebread]

Lee was wearing a reddish brown shirt over a white undershirt ...  He was NOT wearing a light brown Jacket...

"reddish brown shirt" also not shown to Baker so we know with 100% certainty we're dealing with a fake investigation.

"a light brown Jacket" originates from Baker's affidavit and I'll bet you the dim thing is something he made up on the fly to help support the idea of a misidentified CE 150.

"reddish brown shirt" also not shown to Baker so we know with 100% certainty we're dealing with a fake investigation.

Thank you Otto.... That's an observation that I hadn't considered.    And you're absolutely right..... The bastards who were framing Lee Oswald knew full well that he had worn the reddish brown shirt with the BUTTON DOWN COLLAR at the TSBD that  morning and that's the shirt that Baker would have seen.....  But it's much more difficult to morph a RED shirt with a button down collar into a khaki jacket. 

[Alan Ford]

Garner reports seeing Truly and a policeman coming up the stairs but she says nothing about a confrontation because it didn't happen.

~Grin~

She also says nothing about the arrival on four shortly thereafter of Messrs Norman, Jarman & Williams. Does that mean that never happened? Of course not. The issue, as she understood it, involved Ms Adams, Mr Truly and Officer Baker, and she helpfully spoke to her sightings of those three people.

If Ms Garner saw the officer challenge a casually dressed man, and if she heard Mr Truly tell the officer this man was ok, he was an employee, and if she saw the officer let the man go and then continue on up to the next floor, then she would have given the incident no further thought----------for it was to all appearances an event of zero real significance. A complete nothing burger. It wouldn't have even crossed her mind that a) this man was NOT in fact a manual worker and therefore b) Mr Truly was lying. The presence there of a bona fide employee (who was not Mr Oswald, the man everyone was saying shot JFK) would have been no more worthy of mention later than the arrival on four shortly thereafter of Messrs Norman, Jarman & Williams, manual employees who had also been on a higher floor.

However! She was quite categorical to Mr Ernest in 2011 on one point: she did NOT see Mr Oswald

Bottom line: it is perfectly possible that Officer Baker's confrontation with a man other than Mr Oswald happened by the rear stairway on the fourth floor. And despite the impression you tried to create, there is NOTHING in any of Ms Garner's statements that disallows that possibility. If she had been called to appear before the Warren Commission and had--------in response to the question 'Was there anyone else near the stairway when the officer and Mr Truly came up onto the fourth floor?'--------said: 'No, absolutely no one', then you would have an argument.

I suggest therefore that you engage the 5% of your brain that is not hopelessly Warren-Gullible, Mr O'Meara------------doing so will help you will realize the silliness of your non sequitur above!

Q: What independent corroboration is there for Baker's insinuation the encounter happened on the 4th floor?
A: Why, Bakers testimony

-CT makes claim X
-LNer: 'There is no evidence for claim X!'
-CT shows LNer evidence
-LNer: 'But I don't like that evidence! Therefore there is no evidence for claim X!'

 

[Dan O'meara]

-CT makes claim X
-LNer: 'There is no evidence for claim X!'
-CT shows LNer evidence
-LNer: 'But I don't like that evidence! Therefore there is no evidence for claim X!'

 

Alan: Baker says the encounter happened on the fourth floor
Me: What independent corroboration do you have for that?
Alan: Baker said so!
Me: WTF are you on?

[Dan O'meara]

Lee was wearing a reddish brown shirt over a white undershirt ...  He was NOT wearing a light brown Jacket...

"reddish brown shirt" also not shown to Baker so we know with 100% certainty we're dealing with a fake investigation.

"a light brown Jacket" originates from Baker's affidavit and I'll bet you the dim thing is something he made up on the fly to help support the idea of a misidentified CE 150.

Let's put this "light brown jacket" nonsense to bed.

This is CE151

photoupload

It is described as a "Man's light-brown cotton long-sleeved sport shirt."

This is the shirt Oswald wore to work and changed out of when he went back to the rooming house.
Baker lived in a world where everyone had their shirt tucked in and simply mistook Oswald's light brown shirt for a jacket because it wasn't tucked in:

Mr. BELIN - Did you notice what clothes the man was wearing as he came up to you?
Mr. BAKER - At that particular time I was looking at his face, and it seemed to me like he had a light brown jacket on and maybe some kind of white-looking shirt.

Mr. BAKER - Well, it would be similar in color to it--I assume it was a jacket, it was hanging out. Now, I was looking at his face and I wasn't really paying any attention. After Mr. Truly said he knew him, so I didn't pay any attention to him, so I just turned and went on.

Not exactly a massive mystery.
Light brown sports shirt over a white t-shirt mistaken for a jacket because it was hanging out.

[Alan Ford]

Alan: Baker says the encounter happened on the fourth floor
Me: What independent corroboration do you have for that?
Alan: Baker said so!
Me: WTF are you on?

Mr O'Meara, you and I agree that Mr Bill Shelley clearly lied about his immediate post-assassination movements, yes? What independent corroboration do we have for this, our shared conclusion?