JFK Assassination Forum

"He read the prepared statement and refused to sign it because it said Oswald had a Coke in his hand and he knew that he hadn't said that."
Cite the documented evidence of this garbage and the other 2/3's about where and when he actually said those things.

Otherwise it is just made up

Baker's statement is CE3076:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/c649blf3s1cnge3/CE%203076.jpg?dl=0

I just noticed that below the line identifying this document as CE3076, there is a handwritten notation saying it is CE1576. Either way it shows Baker made two corrections to the prepared statement.

Note in the next to the last paragraph, Baker made two corrections and initialed both of them. I can't make out what he crossed out in the first correction but the second correction you can see he crossed out "drinking a Coke".

You seem to be ignorant of this fact. Either that or you are aware of it and are being deliberately deceptive. The claim that Oswald was drinking a Coke when Baker confronted him is lie some CT cooked up many years ago based on the erroneous statement that was written FOR BAKER. It was not written by him. Baker refused to sign the statement without the corrections. The reason for cooking up this lie about Oswald having a Coke in his hands is quite simple. That lie gives the impression that Oswald had been in the lunchroom for some time and would give him an alibi that would have precluded him having fired the shots from the sixth floor. Of course, the alibi is a lie because Oswald had just entered the lunchroom seconds before Baker reached the landing which is why Baker was able to see Oswald walking away from the door. Through several recreations of both Oswald's movement from the sixth floor sniper's nest to the second floor lunchroom as well as Baker's movement from his motorcycle to the second floor lunchroom. These recreations, while not proving ow long either man took to reach the lunchroom, showed that it was possible for Oswald to get to the lunchroom ahead of Baker. The claim that Oswald was holding a Coke would indicate Oswald had reached the lunchroom well ahead of Baker because he would have taken some time to purchase the Coke. Of course if that had happened, the door would have closed behind him and Baker couldn't have seen him inside the lunchroom.

I was making this same argument to the CTs 35 years ago when I was a participant on the old Prodigy forum yet here we are in 2026 and there are CTs still clinging to this myth. I guess when you don't have any real evidence to support your belief in a conspiracy, myths are all you have.

You completely misrepresent what I have said repeatedly. I have never said a person is not able to recall events. I have said that witnesses don't remember things perfectly. The do remember some things but they also get some things wrong. The task is to figure out what they got right and what they got wrong by comparing their recollections to the body of evidence as a whole. In this case, we have a witness far more credible than all the other witnesses combined, and that is Zapruder's camera. Any eyewitness account that conflicts with the Z-film should be rejected.

As for my accepting earwitnesses as gospel, you obviously have not read what I have said about the earwitnesses who said the shots came from the GK. They were dead wrong. I know they were dead wrong because it conflicts with the body of evidence, starting with other earwitnesses who said the shots came from the direction of the  TSBD. We know they were right because EYEwtinesses saw a shooter firing from the sniper's nest on the 6th floor, 3 shell were found at the location the eyewitnesses pointed to, and a rifle was found elsewhere on the 6th floor. That rifle was possitively matched to the shells found in the sniper's nest and the only two bullets recovered from the shooting.

As for believing JBC, he said he turned to his right after he heard the shot that did not hit him.  The Z-film shows him start that turn at frame Z164. 6= frames later, we see his jacket suddenly bulge outward and two frames later he reacts by flipping his right arm upward followed immediately by him doubling over and twisting to his right, obviously in reaction to having been shot through the torso. I think JBC would know he heard a shot and then several seconds later he was hit by a follow up shot. The Z-film shows us that he did.
Your fallacy is believing eyewitnesses are needed to establish what happened. Many crimes are solved without eyewitnesses. Perry Smith and Dick Hickock left no witnesses when they murdered the Clutter family yet the investigators were able to convict them on the forensic evidence.
I have no idea what your point here is. The SBT is perfectly compatible with a first shot miss and second shot strike.
Yes it is. Now explain why that is wrong.
That is how you resolve cases where the eyewitnesses give conflicting accounts. They can't all be correct. That's why you turn to what other evidence is available to figure out who is right and who is wrong.
It is not an interpretation that JBC turned to look over his right shoulder beginning at Z164 and 60 frames later his jacket bulged out and 2 frames after that he suddenly flipped his right arm upward. Do you dispute that is what happened.
Unlike you, I do not rely solely on witnesses to tell me what happened. I evaluate what they have said in the context of all the available evidence. That allows me to determine who got what right and who got things wrong.
Since you foolishly rely solely on witnesses, I'm not surprised you can't understand the concept of corroboration.
That might be the dumbest thing you have written.......so far.

Nobody is misrepresenting anything. You have decided your opinion has taken on the status of fact. You were given corroborating evidence. Lots and lots of corroborating evidence. Nelly, Jackie, JBC and JBC crying out after the first shot is clearly corroborating evidence. You responded with a strange post about the Clutter Family murder? Something that is not even remotely relevant.

There was not a shot at Z14, Z150, or Z160 or whatever. The corroborating eyewitnesses explained that JFK reacts to the first shot. Just the way JBC describes in the Hospital Room interview.

After the first shot strikes JFK and JBC, JBC turns and looks directly at JFK, and JFK is slumped just like he describes and so many eyewitnesses described as having taken place after the first shot. There is no doubt he saw JFK after he was hit behind the sign.

This whole Early Missed Shot is pure tripe. Not one shred of evidence to it at all. Apparently, you are not going to provide any. Nothing but trying to pass off your opinion as a fact.

To whom it may concern: Changing the title of the thread after I had obviously already seen the original title is not going to lure me into reading your ravings.

BLAH BLAH BLAH
Baker stated he saw Oswald drinking a coke. It was written down.

Do you have the statement from Baker that it was a mistake ?
that was not part of the tired garbage you posted.

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.

JohnM

Oswald wasn't seen with a Coke until after the Baker encounter. Baker said he did not have a Coke when he confronted Oswald. Baker did not write his official statement. It was written up for him and he was asked to sign it. He read the prepared statement and refused to sign it because it said Oswald had a Coke in his hand and he knew that he hadn't said that. They asked him to cross out the reference to the Coke and initial his correction, which he did and then signed the statement

My guess is the person who prepared the statement for Baker did so from notes taken when he was interviewed. It's possible that same person had also prepared Reid's statement and conflated what Reid said with what Baker said. Whatever the reason for the mistake was, Baker made a point to say he did not see Oswald with a Coke in his hand.

Oswald would not have had time to buy a Coke because he had just entered the lunchroom seconds before Baker reached the landing. Baker spotted him through the window of the outer door. There was an inner door which didn't have a glass window and that door had an automatic closer. The only reason Baker was able to see Oswald was because Oswald had just gone through that inner door and it had not closed behind him. Had Oswald ben in the lunchroom for more than a few seconds, that inner door would have been closed and Baker wouldn't have even known he was there.

Yes, I know all that. I have no convincing explanation for why the person who prepared Baker's original affidavit would have gratuitously inserted "holding a Coke" - yet another quirk of the wildly quirky JFKA that only adds to the mystery. With one's CT beanie on, one can see how eliminating the Coke from Baker's story is critical, because if Oswald had a Coke at the time then he had been there longer than a few seconds and buying a Coke before the Baker encounter would be exceedingly odd behavior for an escaping Presidential assassin. On the other hand, even buying a Coke after the assassination would be somewhat odd. Would he really have the presence of mind at that point to think "It will look better if I walk out of here with a Coke in my hand?" The zombie-like encounter with Mrs. Reid, assuming it occurred as she described, is likewise odd. The escaping assassin who had the presence of mind to buy a Coke didn't have the presence of mind to say, "No, really? I'm going to go out and see what I can find out."

It seems that staunch defenders of the LN narrative want to go to immediately to "He had a motive!" and "Here are all the reasons he's guilty!" For purposes of this discussion, I accept all that. I simply ask how we account for behavior that seems (to me, anyway) seriously inconsistent with that?

Things like his behavior in Irving and the Baker encounter have always stuck in my craw. I have explained his post-assassination lack of cooperation and lies on the basis that he was saving everything for a long, theater-like trial in which Abt would guide him through an exploration of his political philosophy and he would at least go down in history as a deep-thinking, ideologically motivated assassin - but even this is pretty iffy. But the more I think about it, his behavior with Marina and his beloved children in Irving, and his lack of any Oswald-like manifesto prepared at Beckley the night before, are really puzzling. To say he had a motive and there is lots of evidence of his guilt avoids these puzzles but doesn't solve them.

My LN-oriented explanation has been that he wasn't fully committed to the JFKA until the very, very last minute, after Marina had rebuffed his attempts at reconciliation. But even this is kind of bizarre: "Maybe I'll buy Marina a washing machine and set up her and the kids in an apartment in Dallas or maybe I'll assassinate the President. Well, that it didn't go so well in Irving - I guess I'll go ahead and assassinate the President and leave Marina and the kids to deal with the aftermath and fend for themselves." What?