|Posted by Terry Martin on February 3, 2016 at 9:05 AM|
(quoted from the Ed Forum thread "One Last Thing Before Xmas Eve: 2nd Floor Lunch Room Encounter"; post 131 is in black, my comments are in red)
"The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived, and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-John F. Kennedy, commencement address to Yale University, June 11, 1962
It is an odd quote to use to preface his defense of the Warren Commission's contrived myth of the Second Floor encounter. He does little more than subject all the facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations (that of the WC) and cherry picks the evidence to support his case - yes, just as he accuses everyone who opposes his (the WC's) theory. The theory put forth by Greg and Sean does the opposite.
Greg Parker, post #96- "In short, [Oswald] followed his natural route of going up and buying a coke and coming back down to have it with his lunch IN THE DOMINO room. The purchase of the coke happened BEFORE the assassination - and that is when he was seen by Reid.
"...they brought Baker's encounter down to the 2nd floor lunchroom and claimed it was Oswald and they changed Reid's sighting from a pre-assassination one to a post-assassination one. Voila! Mission accomplished! This was the whole reason for the confusion about the coke."
The confusion about the coke is also resolved by postulating that Oswald purchased two cokes - one for his domino-room lunch and one just after being confronted by Baker. (Sure, you could postulate that Oswald bought two cokes but you need to show how often he did such in the past. If it was an occurrence multiple times in the week you might find some agreement. Absence of any corroboration or support diminishes this postulate.) But Greg's scenario shanghais Reid into the lunchroom-hoax mini-conspiracy, and by extension Leavelle & Belin & who-knows-who-else, as he turns her affidavit topsy-turvy in order to make the hoax hypothesis work. (Since we are discussing an incident wherein most investigators suspect a conspiracy, why should one not hypothesize certain people having been involved? If there is substantive evidence that one or more persons could not have been involved, please produce them. Otherwise we can posit they might have been involved. You cannot have a conspiracy with no one involved and cannot discount someone merely on a person's claim that they were a "right good copper" or any other opinion. Reason dictates that many people involved in conspiracy are usually pretty good at hiding the fact, otherwise the conspiracy would fall apart rather quickly.)
These shenanigans stink of artificiality (opinion), and they service a hypothesis that yields ephemeral results (opinion), which have no empirical substantiation (opinion, but then neither does yours have any empirical substantiation). Even if one discards Tan Jacket Man and Ira Trantham as laughable, Baker's confusion (opinion) ("3rd or 4th floor") does not automatically transmutate into an encounter with a flesh-and-blood person there (discounting testimony because it does not fit your theory, Richard, is called "cherry picking"). Nor is there even a hint from film or circumstances that Baker & Prayerman had any interaction on the front landing. (Nor is there any film evidence that they did not. The fact is equivocal; saying it backs your preference is "cherry picking". As far as circumstances, there are certainly hints given that they DID in fact interact. But that would be the very event that is proposed was levitated to the second floor. From the vestibule to the doorway of the lunchroom. Oswald had already claimed to be in the lunchroom so they simply moved it to the other lunchroom.)
Yet Greg holds onto the lunchroom-hoax the way Norman Bates shows devotion to his mother in Psycho. Neither rhyme nor reason can shake his tenacious determination that her Aussified remains must live on. (paragraph is an ad hominem attack, only and should be ignored)
Consider when I point out that:
1) every single item of lunchroom-related evidence has a mundane explanation that supports the incident's reality, no answer is given. (Specificity would best be served in this item - on the face of it, you imply everything supports your theory when in fact it does not. Your claim of every single item needs some clarification as Lee, Sean, and Greg have presented much evidence that does NOT support the reality.)
2) the Sept. 23rd affidavit shows Baker's continuing confusion with the TSBD floor layout, and cannot be construed as supportive of a hoax, and no answer is given. (Nor can it be construed as supporting the second floor encounter. In case you did not know this, confusion is like that. It is a little too messy to support any opinion.)
3) the 1964 filmed interview shows Baker as a modest man with integrity (opinion). His fellow officers called him "MommaSon" and referred to him as "dopey". Yet Greg wants to paint him as a coverup monster (slight hyperbole, what?), more clever than any professional actors of the day (opinion), telling a whopper about the lunchroom with a complete deadpan delivery (opinion).
4) the will-call counter bump, a superfluous incident that serves no ostensible purpose in a contrived hoax narrative, is a telltale indicator that other points of correspondence (at the elevator & in the lunchroom) in the Baker/Truly testimonies actually happened (opinion - interesting how most superfluous items that Greg mentions are swept aside but this one item seems to sew-up the whole case for you.). But because this detail did not come out until the testimonies (which were preceded by 2 re-enactments), Greg ignores its pertinence (and that pertinence is…?). Neglecting that numerous other details about the elevator area & lunchroom were refreshed with the help of the re-enactments. Neglecting that numerous other details about Baker's time in the Depository weren't elaborated on until the testimonies. Greg would have us discount any detail that doesn't fit into his conception of a hoax-supportive deadline. (Yes, just as you would have us do for you, Richard. The details discounted weigh as heavily on your premise - more so I should think because your premise supports the WC which is demonstrably a fiction.)
5) the Biffle story has not one whit of corroboration (opinion), nothing that substantiates it as supporting a hoax, and no answer is given. (Cherry-picking again, Richard.)
6) the Stroud document, coupled with a fact-based understanding of their timelines, places Adams & Styles on the stairs during the same timeframe that Truly & Baker are ascending the stairs from the elevator area. And the men had to have been in the lunchroom (opinion - with the length of time required for this already destroyed by Lee Farley and the fact that the door was not "sound-proof" as you assume, and as your theory requires...) when the ladies passed. Yet Greg mis-reads (opinion) Truly's vestibule-area testimony so as to maintain that this is impossible and thereby enable the hoax. (opinion)
Greg Parker's obstinacy in the face of a cascade of reasoned criticism (I haven't seen much of that is this treatise) does not bode well for his grip on reality (ad hominem) as regards other JFK matters. His is an immature hypothesis supported only by wishful thinking (opinion), sophistic spinning (opinion) and ad hominum [sic] attacks. He and Sean Murphy co-founded and co-advertised this misbegotten (opinion) school of thought and they have an enormous emotional investment in pretending (ad hominem) that it is true. And their efforts have involved recruiting new followers to "get on board" and thereby help confirm the validity of this fruitless, regressive way of thinking. Because they do not have the courage of their convictions (presumption unfounded and ad hominem) and this insecurity requires sycophants. (This entire passage is opinion and devoid of substance. Anyone supporting the Warren Commission account is what we normally call "Lone Nutters". I suppose we should probably start putting you in that category from here on out, huh?)
The result has been a collective dementia (opinion) that favors mullarkey over hard-nosed logical connections. (oh, like the WC?) That favors sophistry, and barroom bulls***, over answers that will sustain. ("...answers that sustain"?? I haven't seen anything in your presentation, Richard, which sustains anything but the LN party line.)
The hoax hypothesis doesn't hold up to scrutiny (opinion). Its adherents are forced to ignore the uncomfortable fact that all of the pertinent evidence (As in your statement #1 above, it is far from ALL the evidence - perhaps all of your cherry-picked evidence does but then that is precisely what you accuse others of as well.) can be interpreted as supportive of the lunchroom incident's reality. And they are forced to ignore that for 5 items - an aggregate of evidence (a Bugliosian pronouncement, for certain) - the clarity is so well-defined that only a contortion of common sense (opinion) allows any interpretation supporting a hoax (opinion).
Were there only one item, they might have a case. But there are 5. And probability theory tells us the hoaxers' chances of being correct are infinitesmal, ultramicroscopic. Their position is a demonstrable falsehood. (Your comprehension of probability theory should be a little better than that, Richard. Bugliosi's 52 items stand a much better statistical chance than your five measly items, and he is dead wrong on all 52. You better check the math again. Even if your five items are correct (and the jury is still out on that) the probabilities are not as astronomical as you seem to think.)
To presume the people supporting your theory were the truth-sayers of Dallas and all others were the liars seems remarkably naive. This event was a conspiracy. People involved even marginally are apt to lie their asses off to save their skin - even if the danger to them is imaginary or merely threatened - as we have seen throughout most of history. Threat of pain, torture, and death can make even the meekest choir boys into very convincing con men.
All evidence must be considered tainted. And logic dictates that the pronouncements by the WC should be considered fiction. Failing to do so merely continues drawing water from the fifty-year poisoned well.
To your health!