If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[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.

[John Mytton]

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?

Are you saying these affidavits were faked?

No.

Are you suggesting someone else just made up the contents of the affidavits then asked Baker and Truly to have a look through them?

The two documents were written by the same someone else, most probably the man who witnessed both "Burnett" and were based on established facts and when a human error was observed, Baker corrected the mistake. What is odd that you are placing so much emphasis on a correction that was left in the Official records, like only you have Sherlock Holmes like abilities to decipher the truth.

Why do you think the signatures are different? Are you saying someone faked their signatures?

WTF? Both Baker and Truly looked over the documents, then when satisfied, signed them. How deep does your conspiracy go?

Are you just waffling because you know how damaging this affidavit is to your theory?

Damaging? If Oswald was carrying around a coke, which he could have purchased at any time, how is that in any way problematic?

What, exactly, are you saying?

I'm saying, "let me out of this madhouse"!!!

JohnM

[David Von Pein]

DVP's site has an extensive discussion of the circumstances under which these particular affidavits were hurriedly prepared...

LEE HARVEY OSWALD, MARRION BAKER, ROY TRULY, AND THE COKE

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

[Lance Payette]

"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.

Sorry, but whenever the wrestling with a pig analogy is trotted out, someone has to be the pig. You're the one who pretty clearly enjoys the JFKA mudfest. (I see creepier things here all the time, but thanks for the compliment. Oink, oink.)

??
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?

I'm beginning to suspect your pose of vast knowledge about the JFKA is just that, a pose. FWIW, the highly respected folks at Dealey Plaza UK entertained this very possibility in 2018: http://dealeyplazauk.com/uncategorized/no-shots-fired-from-t-s-b-d/

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.

Here is the actual testimony. Unless you have a very odd-shaped head, which I suspect you do, 2-1/2" above the hairline is not the "top of the head." "Right along in here" would be rather an odd way to describe the top of the head.

Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you tell whether his hair was dark or light?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. How far back did the bald spot on his head go?
Mr. EUING. I would say about right along in here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating about 2-1/2 inches above where you hairline is. Is that about what you are saying?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir; right along in here.

"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.

Nice try. Euins said nothing about the shooter appearing to be lefthanded. As with your top of the head assertion, this is merely your spin on what he actually said.

You might want to reconsider your approach. Nobody wins a snarky-fest with me, bub. I spent 40 years out-snarkying other professionals in the snarkiest profession of them all.