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

[Walt Cakebread]

I opened this particular conversation with a diagram of the third floor and these words:

"The gap between the stairs and the elevators is about 15ft. Can the encounter described by Baker have taken place in this tiny space?"

From the beginning the conversation has been about the small space between the "Up" stairs and the elevators but because you live in a fantasy dream-world you don't seem to have grasped this fundamental point.
Just to get you up to speed - the argument is that this space is too small for the encounter Baker describes in his affidavit. Even though there is barely any detail in the affidavit there is enough to rule out the tiny space on the third floor as the setting for the encounter.
When Baker "calls out" to the man it implies there is the kind of distance involved where someone would have to raise their voice to be heard clearly. In the tiny space between the stairs and the elevator Baker and the man would be a few feet apart. No need to call out.
The same applies to the detail that the man "turned around and came back toward me." This also implies a distance greater than a few feet.
The space between the Up stairs and the elevators is too small for the encounter described by Baker.
It didn't happen on the fourth floor because Dorothy Garner would've noticed it.
And it didn't happen on the fifth as Williams, Norman and Jarman would've mentioned it.

We're running out of places for it to have happened.
Maybe it happened on the second floor but Baker made a mistake in his vague recollection (3rd or 4th) of which floor it was.
A simple mistake from someone recalling events from a building he was unfamiliar with, pistol drawn, adrenaline fuelled, etc.

What didn't happen was some invisible, unknown person concocting the worst hoax in the history of hoaxing.

 

Even though there is barely any detail in the affidavit there is enough to rule out the tiny space on the third floor as the setting for the encounter.

True.....But there are a few more details in the testimony of Baker....

it didn't happen on the fifth as Williams, Norman and Jarman would've mentioned it.

That's an assumption ....But not necessarily true.   The three stooges attention was riveted on the railroad yard, and the incident was only a few seconds in duration....

[Alan Ford]

I opened this particular conversation with a diagram of the third floor and these words:

"The gap between the stairs and the elevators is about 15ft. Can the encounter described by Baker have taken place in this tiny space?"

From the beginning the conversation has been about the small space between the "Up" stairs and the elevators

No, that's been merely your side of the conversation. You're not exactly noted for your listening skills.

but because you live in a fantasy dream-world you don't seem to have grasped this fundamental point.
Just to get you up to speed - the argument is that this space is too small for the encounter Baker describes in his affidavit. Even though there is barely any detail in the affidavit there is enough to rule out the tiny space on the third floor as the setting for the encounter.
When Baker "calls out" to the man

Incorrect----"called to"

it implies there is the kind of distance involved where someone would have to raise their voice to be heard clearly.

Huh? When Officer Baker says he saw a man walking away from the stairway and called to him it implies he saw a man walking away from the stairway and called to him. No more and no less. If you want to insist on a football field between them, knock yourself out.

What's amusing here, Mr O'Meara, is that your contrived objections to the third floor are set against the background of your ridiculously (ahem) creative harmonization of the affidavit with the lunchroom encounter story. The reason you're losing this debate is that you have to resort to strained interpretation; I on the other hand don't.

Debating you is as easy as debating a LNer. (There may be a reason for that.)

In the tiny space between the stairs and the elevator Baker and the man would be a few feet apart.

Again, why must Officer Baker necessarily be himself in front of the UP stairs at the moment he calls out? And even if he is, so what?

To repeat: we still have at least three points from which Officer Baker could have seen "a man walking away from the stairway". 

[Alan Ford]

it didn't happen on the fifth as Williams, Norman and Jarman would've mentioned it.

That's an assumption ....But not necessarily true.   The three stooges attention was riveted on the railroad yard, and the incident was only a few seconds in duration....

But don't you understand, Mr Cakebread? Mr O'Meara has proved beyond any (of Mr O'Meara's) doubt that Officer Baker didn't just call to the man-----------he let out a barbaric YAWP!

[Dan O'meara]

The reason you're losing this debate is that you have to resort to strained interpretation; I on the other hand don't.

 

Why should you rely on any kind of interpretation when you've got pure fantasy at your fingertips.

But even your fantastical imagination can't come up with anyone who might have created the hoax you constantly waffle on about.
Who created it? When? Who was involved?

[just make something up. you usually do] 

[Alan Ford]

Why should you rely on any kind of interpretation when you've got pure fantasy at your fingertips.

But even your fantastical imagination can't come up with anyone who might have created the hoax you constantly waffle on about.
Who created it? When? Who was involved?

[just make something up. you usually do] 

~Grin~ The one where Mr O'Meara realizes his contrived case against the third floor has collapsed in on top of him

[Alan Ford]

(...) Baker and Truly also encountered another man near the stairs as they were on their way to the roof.   Baker said that Truly vouched for this DARK HAIRED , 165 POUND,  who was wearing a LIGHT BROWN JACKET.   and told Baker that the man was an employee.   IF in fact the man was an employee .....There is a high probability that the man was Jack Dougherty.  BUT since Baker's description doesn't fit Jack Dougherty then Truly was lying and the man was not an employee.....

AND we have very good reason to believe he was the same man seen running from the building shortly afterwards (as described in a 9 Jan '64 FBI internal memo about the true source of the suspect description put out by DPD shortly after the shooting)------------------

"An unidentified individual told Inspector SAWYER that he had seen an individual run from the TSBD building shortly after the shooting of President KENNEDY and that this individual was an unknown white male, approximately 30, slender build, 5'10", 165 pounds, carrying what looked to be a 30:30 or some type of Winchester rifle."

Officer Baker screwed up BIG-time in turning the man loose. And Mr Truly has--------------to put it mildly--------------questions to answer

[Bill Chapman]

It's human nature to dismiss one's own employees as being a murderer, especially since Truly apparently liked Oswald who had another kid on the way, was a good worker. and didn't bother anybody. Baker was a motorcycle cop, not a detective, who would be more likely detain anybody coming down the stairs immediately post shots.

[Alan Ford]

It's human nature to dismiss one's own employees as being a murderer, especially since Truly apparently liked Oswald who had another kid on the way, was a good worker. and didn't bother anybody. Baker was a motorcycle cop, not a detective, who would be more likely detain anybody coming down the stairs immediately post shots.

Oswald? Who said anything about Mr Oswald?