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

[Dan O'meara]

Oswald?

Excuse me,
Baker's encounter with the man he later identified as Oswald.

[Dan O'meara]

Much later.

True, but a lot of the ingredients of the second floor lunchroom encounter are present in Baker's affidavit on the day of the assassination:
Baker (not Truly) sees a man walking away from the stairs
He calls out to the man who turns around and walks back towards him
Truly vouches for the man
Baker let's the man loose and hits the stairs

I suppose the point I'm making is that Baker could've made a mistake about which floor it happened on and when looking closer at the third and fourth floors as options it seems this might be the case. If, however, Baker did mean the second floor it is notable he makes no mention of seeing his man through a door. The impression I get from Baker's affidavit is that the encounter happens in an open space.
One thing has always bothered me about the idea the encounter with Baker, Truly and Oswald in the second floor lunchroom is a hoax, with Baker and Truly culpable in it - why not have it on the fifth or sixth floor? Why leave so much room for doubt?

[Dan O'meara]

I count zero ingredients of the "lunchroom encounter" in Baker's affidavit.

Got me slightly confused here Otto. Baker's affidavit definitely contains some of the key ingredients of his later "2nd floor lunchroom encounter" with Oswald:

"As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway"       Affidavit
"As I came out to the second floor there ... I caught a glimpse of this man walking away..."       WC testimony

"I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me."     Affidavit
"I hollered at him at that time and said, "Come here." He turned and walked right straight back to me."    WC testimony

"The manager said, "I know that man, he works here."    Affidavit
"I turned to Mr. Truly and I says, "Do you know this man, does he work here?" And he said yes"    WC testimony

"I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor."     Affidavit
"I turned immediately and went on out up the stairs."       WC testimony

There can be no doubt that Baker's affidavit contains certain key ingredients of his WC testimony so I'm not 100% sure what you mean when you say you "count zero".

Surprisingly, Baker completely fails to mention (affidavit) that he just identified the man being brought in, handcuffed, as the man he had stopped in the depository.

Again, I'm a bit confused. Johnson makes it clear that Baker's identification of Oswald occurred after the affidavit had been taken:
"While in the office from 3:00pm until 2:00am I answered the phone and took an affidavit from Patrolman M. L. Baker ...
Officer Baker later identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man he stopped on the 4th floor..."

How did Baker get the opportunity to identify Oswald?

"When Patrolman M. L. Baker identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man that he stopped in the Texas School Book Depository Building, Patrolman Baker was in the Homicide Bureau giving an affidavit and Oswald was brought into the room to talk to some Secret Service men. When Baker saw Oswald he stated, "That is the man I stopped on the 4th floor of the School Book Depository"

I think the wording of this part of the statement can be misleading. It can be read as Baker recognising Oswald as he was giving his affidavit but it can also be read as Baker being in the Homicide Bureau because he was giving an affidavit. While there Oswald was brought in and Baker made his identification. The correct interpretation is revealed by Johnson's earlier statement that Baker had given his affidavit and then, at some point later, identified Oswald.

Further details on page 2, which included a search of the man......there you go!

Johnson states that Baker "started to search the man but the building manager stated that the man was an employee"
It does not state that Baker searched him, in fact the obvious reading of this passage is that he never searched him at all because as he started Truly chimed in.

There you go!  (whatever that's supposed to mean)

[Dan O'meara]

If it was clear when Baker later identified Oswald there was no need for the addendum which states it happened when Baker was giving an affidavit. Plain and simple, but it just didn't suit you.

That Johnson states Baker's identification of Oswald took place after his affidavit was taken is indisputable.
You choose to ignore this blatant fact because, I assume, it suits you to do so.
Unlike you, I don't have an entrenched position on this issue.
You're lucky that you've made your mind up about it. I still have to wonder about silly little details such as "What point does a fake lunchroom encounter serve?" and "Why not, if its all made up, have it on the sixth floor?"

I'm not trying to sway you on this matter in any way, if I ask (myself) challenging questions it's because I still don't understand what's happening.

[Bill Chapman]

That Johnson states Baker's identification of Oswald took place after his affidavit was taken is indisputable.
You choose to ignore this blatant fact because, I assume, it suits you to do so.
Unlike you, I don't have an entrenched position on this issue.
You're lucky that you've made your mind up about it. I still have to wonder about silly little details such as "What point does a fake lunchroom encounter serve?" and "Why not, if its all made up, have it on the sixth floor?"

I'm not trying to sway you on this matter in any way, if I ask (myself) challenging questions it's because I still don't understand what's happening.

Oswald snuffed Kennedy.
That's it. No need to get one's shorts in a knot.

[Dan O'meara]

Oswald snuffed Kennedy.
That's it. No need to get one's shorts in a knot.

If it was as simple as that Bill then everyone's story would be very straight-forward. No need for the deception, falsehoods and confusion that permeate the testimonies of many who worked at the TSBD. Everyone would have a pretty good idea of where they were and what they were doing, sure some insignificant details would get mixed up, that's human nature, but the wholesale fabrications that take place are ridiculous.
We can agree to disagree on that. You may be able to rationalise it but it's not something I can ignore.

PS: I prefer the phrase "knickers in a twist"

[Dan O'meara]

Zoom out, and you'll notice the "...later identified..." statement concludes Johnson's narrative of what Baker witnessed at the depository. "Later" refers to the events in the Plaza/TSBD.

The indisputable moment, last paragraph, is "when" Baker is giving his affidavit. Johnson couldn't quote Baker if he wasn't there at that moment "when" Oswald entered the room. If it really happened. At least Baker, initially, brought it to the fourth floor.

Few things are indisputable in this case.

Mildly disappointed, but your effort is appreciated.

I really like the way you talk gibberish then finish it off by being condescending.
It's a great combo. Has that Big/Little man vibe to it.

Here's a bit of condescension especially for you while I hold your hand through some basic English. Try not to read it too quickly:

"While in the office from 3:00pm until 2:00am I answered the phone and took an affidavit from Patrolman M. L. Baker ...
Officer Baker later identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man he stopped on the 4th floor..."

Johnson took  Baker's affidavit (with me so far?)
LATER
Baker identified Oswald

One more time...

Just kidding.

You're going to paint yourself into a corner if you pursue this so let it go.
Obviously I was being too subtle for you in my last post:

Dear OTTO, what is the purpose of faking the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter?

Dear OTTO, if it's fake why not have it on the sixth floor?

If you're not interested in having any kind of reasoned dialogue about this issue that's fair enough and before you start crying about how you've been mistreated in this post I would like to stress it is a response to your own condescending attitude towards me but, as you recently advised someone else, "Suck it up and move on"

[Dan O'meara]

If the purpose of the "fake" 2nd floor lunchroom encounter is to establish Oswald's guilt, and it's hard to imagine what other purpose it might serve, it could hardly be any worse. It' so rubbish it's hard to accept as a fabrication. Why not have it on the 6th floor? By the time Baker gives his affidavit the Sniper's nest has been discovered:

Baker - As we made our way up past the 6th floor I saw a man shifting boxes in the southeast corner. Mr Truly assured me the man was an employee so we carried on our way. Later I identified the man as Lee Harvey Oswald.


There!! I've just done it 
I've created an airtight, fake encounter that puts Oswald at the scene of the crime.
That's how easy it is.
Just think about how easy and how obvious that is.
Only Truly and Baker need be involved. No need to drag in Jeraldean Reid, Marvin Johnson or Karen Westbrook Scranton.
Who cares what Oswald has to say, he's just trying to create an alibi for himself.
I've literally just come up with that, in seconds.
But whoever was supposed to be organising this fake encounter (SS/FBI/other) could only come up with this  , ramshackle effort?

"Ooh, but Baker saw Oswald wearing a shirt and Reid saw him wearing a T-shirt, therefore the whole thing is fake".
Well, let's turn that around.
If it is a fake, created to establish Oswald's guilt, why would it contain such a glaring error over something so fundamental?
Here's another - Why did Baker and Truly move so fast?
All they had to do was add 10 - 15 seconds in the lobby when they first met and the same again by the elevators, and this would've given Oswald plenty of time to get down to the 2nd floor lunchroom and compose himself.
But oh no, both men keep on insisting they were shifting.
They even did a reconstruction to show just how quick they got up there!
If it was organised fakery wouldn't they have allowed enough time for Oswald to have comfortably reached the lunchroom?