If I had planned the conspiracy ...

[John Mytton]

Baker's signature on the affidavit is written in a different style to the same name on the first line

We can leave Truly out of it for now as he wasn't there when Baker first entered the room.
So let me see if I'm getting this straight:
You've posted an actual handwritten version of Baker's affidavit . It reads -

"On the second or third floor, where the lunch room is located, I saw a man standing in the lunch room, drinking a coke. He was alone in the lunch room at this time."

"or third floor" has been crossed out so it reads "on the second floor, where the lunch room is located".
"drinking a coke" has been crossed out and not replaced with anything.
Both crossings out have been initialed by Baker.
Here we have Baker saying that he saw a man standing in the lunchroom, alone and drinking a coke.
Then the "drinking a coke" bit is crossed out and initialed by Baker.
This tallies with Oswald's reported statement that he had just purchased a coke when Baker came in the room.

Your argument against this is that the style of Baker's signature at the end of the affidavit is different from the way he's written his name at the bottom of the first page (it's also a different style to the way he's initialed the bits he's crossed out).
Can you please explain how that is an argument in any way.
Can you be more clear regarding what you're driving at.
Can't you recognise this as a potentially important piece of evidence or is it just an inconvenience you feel you need to shut down any way you can?

Hmmm...once again, what are you getting at?
That someone faked these affidavits? Is that the hole you're digging for yourself?
Remember, both affidavits were witnessed

Here's Truly's handwritten affidavit as compared to the document signed by Roy Truly, and the writing is exactly the same! -sarcasm-





Here is selected words taken from the original two documents and look closely at the way 22 November is written, same letters, same spacing within the words and same spacing between words. Btw I made these comparisons some time ago and I can't find the original page 1 of the Truly document but I got the Truly 22 November 1963 from that.

Remember, both affidavits were witnessed

So what? All that means is that a document that you approve was witnessed as it was being signed by you. And Baker clearly didn't approve of the coke reference so he crossed it out and initialled the correction.



JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Here's Truly's handwritten affidavit as compared to the document signed by Roy Truly, and the writing is exactly the same! -sarcasm-





Here is selected words taken from the original two documents and look closely at the way 22 November is written, same letters, same spacing within the words and same spacing between words. Btw I made these comparisons some time ago and I can't find the original page 1 of the Truly document but I got the Truly 22 November 1963 from that.



So what? All that means is that a document that you approve was witnessed as it was being signed by you. And Baker clearly didn't approve of the coke reference so he crossed it out and initialled the correction.



JohnM

And Baker clearly didn't approve of the coke reference so he crossed it out and initialled the correction.

If Baker was the one who didn't approve of the coke reference, then who was the person that put the reference in there in the first place and based on what?

Do you really believe somebody, out of the blue, came up with the idea to put a reference to the coke in there? What would have been the purpose of that?

[Dan O'meara]

I know you will never understand it. It just makes me laugh watching you fumble around.

If you can't point me to the person who created the theory you pretend is your own just say so.

[Dan O'meara]

Again, I will leave to others to assess who is falling apart and making rather a spectacular ass of himself. This is, alas, the old "wrestling with a pig" thing. The pig - that would be you in this analogy - enjoys it.

"Again, I will leave to others to assess who is falling apart and making rather a spectacular ass of himself."

I really wouldn't do that if I were you 

"This is, alas, the old "wrestling with a pig" thing. The pig - that would be you in this analogy - enjoys it."

This is one of the creepiest things ever posted on this forum.

What I was talking about - which I thought was rather clear - was any conspiracy theory that insists Oswald's rifle was merely planted on the 6th floor but no shots were fired from there.

??
Who has come up with this theory that Oswald's rifle was planted on the 6th floor but no shots were fired from the 6th floor?
What on earth are you talking about?
Are you having some kind of genuine breakdown?
Really, where are you getting the idea from that no shots were fired from the 6th floor?

2-1/2" into the hairline - which was Specter's description, not Euins' - is not "on top of his head." Euins likewise said nothing about a "distinctive" bald spot. Even the CTers at Greg Parker's forum, who were light years ahead of you, were willing to suggest Euins may have been describing a shiny spot on the shooter's forehead. You'll have to refresh my memory - please do - as to where Euins described the shooter appearing to be lefthanded.

Where are you getting this phrase from that you keep repeating - "into the hairline"?
"Into"?
"Above the hairline" - "Above" - this is the top of the head.
You're starting to sound like a confused old man.

"You'll have to refresh my memory - please do - as to where Euins described the shooter appearing to be lefthanded."

If you can't even be bothered to read what's being posted don't expect me to spoon feed you what's going on.
That's just so lazy on your behalf.

[Dan O'meara]

Here's Truly's handwritten affidavit as compared to the document signed by Roy Truly, and the writing is exactly the same! -sarcasm-





Here is selected words taken from the original two documents and look closely at the way 22 November is written, same letters, same spacing within the words and same spacing between words. Btw I made these comparisons some time ago and I can't find the original page 1 of the Truly document but I got the Truly 22 November 1963 from that.



So what? All that means is that a document that you approve was witnessed as it was being signed by you. And Baker clearly didn't approve of the coke reference so he crossed it out and initialled the correction.



JohnM

Are you saying these affidavits were faked?
Are you suggesting someone else just made up the contents of the affidavits then asked Baker and Truly to have a look through them?
Why do you think the signatures are different? Are you saying someone faked their signatures?
Are you just waffling because you know how damaging this affidavit is to your theory?
What, exactly, are you saying?

[John Mytton]

And Baker clearly didn't approve of the coke reference so he crossed it out and initialled the correction.

If Baker was the one who didn't approve of the coke reference, then who was the person that put the reference in there in the first place and based on what?

Do you really believe somebody, out of the blue, came up with the idea to put a reference to the coke in there? What would have been the purpose of that?

Ok let's assume that Baker wrote the entire document and that Truly and Baker except for their signatures, wrote in the exact same style. If hiding the Coke reference was so important, wouldn't Baker just rewrite the entire document instead of simply crossing it out and leaving it to be discovered by armchair sleuths?

I believe that by the time the document was written, by most probably the man who witnessed the signatures(Burnett), he simply wrote the coke reference because Oswald holding a coke while in the building was at that time common knowledge but Baker who was there and knew what he saw, simply made an innocuous correction, which he had no inkling would be blown out of all proportion.

JohnM

[Lance Payette]

Are you saying these affidavits were faked?
Are you suggesting someone else just made up the contents of the affidavits then asked Baker and Truly to have a look through them?
Why do you think the signatures are different? Are you saying someone faked their signatures?
Are you just waffling because you know how damaging this affidavit is to your theory?
What, exactly, are you saying?

It is exceedingly common practice - I have done it innumerable times - to prepare an affidavit on the basis of the preparer's understanding of the facts and of what the affiant will say. The affiant then makes such corrections as are needed. There may be several drafts before everyone is satisfied. The affiant then signs and the notary or witnesses attest to the affiant's signature. There is nothing siniater about this. DVP's site has an extensive discussion of the circumstances under which these particular affidavits were hurriedly prepared, which explains why they are handwritten rather than being in the more typical typed form. As usual, the phrase Much Ado About Nothing comes to mind.

[David Von Pein]

If Baker was the one who didn't approve of the coke reference, then who was the person that put the reference in there in the first place and based on what?

Do you really believe somebody, out of the blue, came up with the idea to put a reference to the coke in there? What would have been the purpose of that?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-baker-truly-and-coca-cola.html