If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[John Mytton]

This 'report', which was more like a basic statement, was written up and signed by Baker and it referred to the man in the lunchroom drinking a coke when Baker saw him. The reference to "drinking a coke" was indeed crossed out but by Baker who had to initial his crossing out.
This is confirmed by Oswald's reported statement that he had just purchased a coke when Baker came in.
Even you must admit that there wasn't enough time for Oswald to be admiring his handiwork from the Sniper's Nest window then purchasing a coke before Baker entered the lunchroom.

Two men were there and both testified that Oswald was NOT holding a coke, and Baker's signature on the affidavit is written in a different style to the same name on the first line.

Mr. DULLES. When you, and the officer saw Oswald in the luncheon room. did any words pass between you?
Mr. TRULY. No. The officer said something to the boy.
Mr. DULLES. I mean between you and Oswald.
Mr. TRULY. No, sir. Oswald never said a word. Not to me.
Mr. DULLES. What was he doing?
Mr. TRULY. He was just standing there.
Mr. DULLES. Did he have a coke?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir.
Mr. DULLES. No drink?
Mr. TRULY. No drink at all. Just standing there.

Mr. BELIN - Was he carrying anything in his hands?
Mr. BAKER - He had nothing at that time.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Were you carrying anything in either of your hands?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; I was.
Mr. BELIN - What were you carrying?
Mr. BAKER - I had my revolver out.



And again thanks to DVP's site, here's Roy Truly's affidavit which also displays a signature in a different style yet the bulk of the writing is very much the same as Baker's affidavit.



JohnM

[John Mytton]

You haven't got a clue what Oswald actually said. The reports of the interrogators about what he said contradict eachother. Even the accounts of Brookhout and Fritz differ.

Bookhout has him seeing junior and another man walking through the room (without saying which room) and Fritz has him saying that he was having lunch with junior and another man when the President was shot.

The only one making a guess is you!

There is no way anybody on the 6th floor window could have seen or heard anybody standing or walking directly under them. And never mind that Oswald could have looked through a closed window and somehow see Norman and Jarman walking on the sidewalk towards the back of the building or enter the building itself. But hey, anything to come up with some sort of "explanation" how Oswald could have guessed that Norman and Jarman were there a couple of minutes prior to the shots, as both actually confirmed they were.

Make up your mind, either the interrogations are contradictory or tell a reliable narrative??

It's hilarious the interrogation evidence is only authentic when you say so, but when anything contradicts your conspiratorial World view, you start screaming that the interrogations are not reliable!

Bookhout has him seeing junior and another man walking through the room (without saying which room) and Fritz has him saying that he was having lunch with junior and another man when the President was shot.

Huh? If Oswald saw the two men enter the back door then he would say, "The two men entered the rear door!"
Besides, the open floor area where the two men entered in NO WAY can be classified as a room. Try again!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Make up your mind, either the interrogations are contradictory or tell a reliable narrative??

It's hilarious the interrogation evidence is only authentic when you say so, but when anything contradicts your conspiratorial World view, you start screaming that the interrogations are not reliable!

Huh? If Oswald saw the two men enter the back door then he would say, "The two men entered the rear door!"
Besides, the open floor area where the two men entered in NO WAY can be classified as a room. Try again!

JohnM

Make up your mind, either the interrogations are contradictory or tell a reliable narrative??

It's hilarious the interrogation evidence is only authentic when you say so, but when anything contradicts your conspiratorial World view, you start screaming that the interrogations are not reliable!

What in the world are you babbling about? There are contradictions in the interrogation reports, making them utterly unreliable.

But I'll play along;

Bookhout has Oswald seeing junior and another man walking through the room (without saying which room) and Fritz has him saying that he was having lunch with junior and another man when the President was shot.

Both can't be correct, so which one is the correct one?

Huh? If Oswald saw the two men enter the back door then he would say, "The two men entered the rear door!"

Hilarious. So, just because you say what Oswald would have said, and he didn't, means that it didn't happen? Just how pathetic can you get?

Oswald, sitting in the lunchroom, could not have actually seen anybody entering through the back door. He would only see them when they came in his line of sight, as they were walking towards the elevators.

Are you not familiar with the lay out of the 1st floor or are you just being dishonest again, as per usual?

Besides, the open floor area where the two men entered in NO WAY can be classified as a room. Try again!

Really? If the main open space on the 1st floor of the TSBD isn't a room, then what is it?

[John Mytton]

Make up your mind, either the interrogations are contradictory or tell a reliable narrative??

It's hilarious the interrogation evidence is only authentic when you say so, but when anything contradicts your conspiratorial World view, you start screaming that the interrogations are not reliable!

What in the world are you babbling about? There are contradictions in the interrogation reports, making them utterly unreliable.

But I'll play along;

Bookhout has Oswald seeing junior and another man walking through the room (without saying which room) and Fritz has him saying that he was having lunch with junior and another man when the President was shot.

Both can't be correct, so which one is the correct one?

Huh? If Oswald saw the two men enter the back door then he would say, "The two men entered the rear door!"

Hilarious. So, just because you say what Oswald would have said, and he didn't, means that it didn't happen? Just how pathetic can you get?

Oswald, sitting in the lunchroom, could not have actually seen anybody entering through the back door. He would only see them when they came in his line of sight, as they were walking towards the elevators.

Are you not familiar with the lay out of the 1st floor or are you just being dishonest again, as per usual?

Besides, the open floor area where the two men entered in NO WAY can be classified as a room. Try again!

Really? If the main open space on the 1st floor of the TSBD isn't a room, then what is it?

Oswald, sitting in the lunchroom, could not have actually seen anybody entering through the back door. He would only see them when they came in his line of sight, as they were walking towards the elevators.

Think hard, in which direction would they be going when they walked across Oswald's line of sight?

Really? If the main open space on the 1st floor of the TSBD isn't a room, then what is it?

Are you serious, there are closed rooms facing Houston street and the rest is open warehouse space, nobody would refer to this area which encapsulates virtually the entire first floor area as a room. In fact not one employee refers to this open floor space as a room and no employee refers to any open warehouse space on any floor as a room! Oswald was clearly referring to the room he was in. Your desperation in trying to fit Oswald's words into your narrative is truly bizarre.

Truly doesn't say he went to the north west corner of the room. LOL! "And I ran diagonally across to the northwest corner of the building."

Jarman doesn't say he was walking around the room but around the first floor.

Mr. BALL. You say you ate the rest of it when?
Mr. JARMAN. Walking around on the first floor there.

The experts who created the first floor plan don't refer to the large area as an "Open Storage Room" which is simply absurd but as "Open Storage Space"



JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Make up your mind, either the interrogations are contradictory or tell a reliable narrative??

It's hilarious the interrogation evidence is only authentic when you say so, but when anything contradicts your conspiratorial World view, you start screaming that the interrogations are not reliable!

What in the world are you babbling about? There are contradictions in the interrogation reports, making them utterly unreliable.

But I'll play along;

Bookhout has Oswald seeing junior and another man walking through the room (without saying which room) and Fritz has him saying that he was having lunch with junior and another man when the President was shot.

Both can't be correct, so which one is the correct one?

Answer my question! Or are you simply afraid it makes you look stupid?

Oswald, sitting in the lunchroom, could not have actually seen anybody entering through the back door. He would only see them when they came in his line of sight, as they were walking towards the elevators.

Think hard, in which direction would they be going when they walked across Oswald's line of sight?

Stupid question. All you need to do is look at the first floor plan you've just posted and you've got your answer.

The plan clearly shows that the line of sight, through the door opening of the lunchroom, shows the area next to the elevators.
Norman and Jarman entered through the back door, which can't be seen from the lunchroom and walked to the west elevator, which is when they came in the clear line of sight from the lunchroom.

Mr. BALL. Where did you go when you went in the building?
Mr. NORMAN. We got the east elevator. No; the west.
Mr. BALL. The west elevator?
Mr. NORMAN. The west elevator. And went to the fifth floor.
Mr. BALL. The west elevator is the one you use the push button on?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes; the one you pull the gate.

Really? If the main open space on the 1st floor of the TSBD isn't a room, then what is it?

Are you serious, there are closed rooms facing Houston street and the rest is open warehouse space, nobody would refer to this area which encapsulates the entire floor area as a room.

I don't care how anybody would refer to it. Again, if it isn't a room, what is it?

Oswald was clearly referring to the room he was in.

Says who?

But to follow your "reasoning"; if Oswald referred to the room he was in, then he couldn't have been on the 6th floor, right?

[John Mytton]

Answer my question! Or are you simply afraid it makes you look stupid?

Stupid question. All you need to do is look at the first floor plan you've just posted and you've got your answer.

The plan clearly shows that the line of sight, through the door opening of the lunchroom, shows the area next to the elevators.
Norman and Jarman entered through the back door, which can't be seen from the lunchroom and walked to the west elevator, which is when they came in the clear line of sight from the lunchroom.

Mr. BALL. Where did you go when you went in the building?
Mr. NORMAN. We got the east elevator. No; the west.
Mr. BALL. The west elevator?
Mr. NORMAN. The west elevator. And went to the fifth floor.
Mr. BALL. The west elevator is the one you use the push button on?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes; the one you pull the gate.

I don't care how anybody would refer to it. Again, if it isn't a room, what is it?

Says who?

But to follow your "reasoning"; if Oswald referred to the room he was in, then he couldn't have been on the 6th floor, right?

I don't care how anybody would refer to it.

Isn't that the point, if no one refers to the first floor open space as a room, then why would Oswald?

Again, if it isn't a room, what is it?

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Euins doesn't say "top".
It is something I've inferred from three things:
1] Euins constantly refers to a "bald spot". A bald spot is usually found somewhere on top of the head.
2] Euins constantly refers to the bald spot on the man's head. This supports point #1
3] When Specter asks Euins to describe where the bald spot is Euins points to a spot "about 2 1/2 inches above where you hairline is." Specter's use of the phrase "above where your hairline is" can only realistically be interpreted as meaning on top of the man's head.
I doubt even you can twist this phrase to mean a receding hairline although I'm sure you'll have a good go.

"And how could he even see the top of Oswald's head when Oswald was 6 floors up?"

If he saw the man standing up it would have been impossible to see a bald spot on top of the man's head but he would have easily seen a receding hairline. The fact that Euins describes that the man had to make a specific maneuver before he could see the bald spot confirms he is not talking about a receding hairline:

Mr. Euins.
All I got to see was the man with a spot in his head, because he had his head something like this.
Mr. Specter.
Indicating his face down, looking down the rifle?
Mr. Euins.
Yes, sir: and I could see the spot on his head.

He saw the bald spot BECAUSE the man moved his head in a certain way.
What's interesting about this is that the bald spot only becomes visible when the man looks down the rifle. From Euins point of view this would mean the man had to lean his head to the left before the bald spot became visible. This indicates that the man was shooting the rifle left-handed. Once again pointing away from Oswald as the shooter.

"Imo Euins was referring to Oswald's receding hairline which is accentuated by being out in the sun."

Yeah John, what you've done here is decide what Euins meant.
If any CTer tried the same thing you and the boys would be up in arms.
You have literally based this view on your own belief rather than let the evidence inform that belief.
And if you think you have "easily explained" Euins away then you need to wake up as you are clearly dreaming.

Euins doesn't say "top".
It is something I've inferred...

What's interesting about this is that the bald spot only becomes visible when the man looks down the rifle. From Euins point of view this would mean the man had to lean his head to the left before the bald spot became visible. This indicates that the man was shooting the rifle left-handed. Once again pointing away from Oswald as the shooter.

In the following CBStv recreation which had the same height and distances, the shooter is practically in the same position as Oswald and the lean to the left that you speak of wasn't required. So considering that Euins was 6 floors down, just how big would the bald spot be required to be seen because to be seen from Euins position it would have have to be huge and wouldn't be referred to as a bald spot but just bald!



And I'm no rifle expert so correct me if I'm wrong, but because the scope was mounted on the left and away from the bolt, wouldn't aiming through the scope mean that the rifle had to be on the right side of your face? But I guess he could have used the iron sight for all three shots??







JohnM