Why do I call it technobabble? Because when you just babble off things like "type of camera, film, lens, setting, distance" etc. to account for disparities among images of the same thing, you're just playing it like a trump card. None of those things can change who is there. I expect to see the same people; not different people.
But, I'm hardly surprised that the Idiot Backes also denies that the lunch room encounter ever took place, although one wonders why he didn't say so before now. I've been writing about it for years, so why didn't he declare before now that it never happened?
Look: he declared that the bus ride and cab ride never took place. He's said that over and over, hasn't he? So, why didn't he add that the lunch room encounter was also made up?
But, of course, it's just as stupid, and that's why I say I'm not surprised he says it since he can be counted on to be stupid. He's just a stupid man.
And note that Backes has never laid out where Oswald was and what he was doing in lieu of trekking to the lunch room after the shooting. Nor has he ever laid out where Oswald was and what he was doing during the shooting.
Backes just makes things up, for instance, that the Loveladys gave the Wedding photo to the HSCA. Another doozey of his is that a driver pulled up in front of the TSBD and yelled, "Get in the fuckin' car, Oswald!" And it wasn't a reference to the famous Nash Rambler of Roger Craig. It was just something that Backes made up.
Backes: my mother is still alive. And when my father died, his money, being combined with hers, stayed with her. Nothing changed. You are, once again, spewing falsehoods, which is all you have ever done, from the beginning and all along.
And I never said that Fritz lied in his notes. I said he lied to the Warren Commission when he said said that Oswald said he was eating lunch with other employees during the assassination, employees who were actually up on the 5th floor at the time, and we have a picture of them there.
Backes: "Well, if Fritz is lying at one point in his own notes, then why is it impossible for Fritz to be lying in another section, or why not think the whole thing is a lie, that the Fritz notes were created after the fact to help Fritz tell the official story?"
Cinque: I never said Fritz lied in his own notes, and how can "Out with Bill Shelley in front" be construed as telling the official story? Again, you are stupid, Backes. You are truly an ignoramus.
And when I said "what difference does it make" about the Coke, I meant: what difference does it make to Kamp, since he denies that the encounter ever took place. I didn't mean that it makes no difference to me.
Again: there is no evidence that Baker and Truly knew each other prior to 11/22/63, and there is no reason to think they had ever met before. All the indications are that they were complete strangers, and without providing evidence of them having met before, no one has the right to assume otherwise.
So, since they both maintained they had this encounter with Oswald, it would mean that they, two strangers, conspired, on the spot, to lie about it.
And that means that one of them had to propose the idea to the other, right? We can't we assume that they both got the idea, spontaneously, at the same time, can we?
It's easy enough to suspect that Truly would have lied for the following reasons: he worked in a high position at the TSBD, ma CIA front company; he was directly involved in hiring Oswald (who was obviously placed there to be framed for shooting Kennedy); he was directly above and worked closely with Bill Shelley, another suspicious character who, in his suit and tie, was foreman of the motley floor-laying crew on the 6th floor that day; Truly was known to be an ultra-right winger and Kennedy hater, etc. etc. But, Baker? What are the talking points for Baker being involved in the plot?
And it's not just a matter of how Baker could be convinced to lie, but why he would have any inclination or willingness whatsoever to lie. And since statements of what happened were made almost immediately, how was there even time to engage Baker into lying? Again: he had no reasons of his own to lie. So how, in that circumstance, in that milieu, in that time frame, could he be induced to lie?
Aren't these questions that a person who is accusing him of lying must answer?
And regarding the discrepancy between Baker and Mrs. Reid about Oswald's clothes, I stated that I don't have an explanation for it, but neither does anyone else. Does Backes? Is the explanation that one of them lied? But, Bart Kamp maintains that both of them lied.
And again, it was obvious that Oswald was emphatically denying the charges. He said it emphatically: "I emphatically deny these charges." We can see and hear him say it.
So, how was he going to react when he found out that Truly and a policeman were claiming that they encountered him in the second floor lunch room shortly after the shooting? Wasn't he going to emphatically deny that as well? Wasn't he going to tell his lawyer that? Wasn't his lawyer going to act on it?
So, knowing that Oswald had a mouth and could use it, why would Baker lie? And if you think Baker knew that Oswald was going to be killed, how? How did he know? Did somebody tell him? Who? What is the basis for claiming it?
And even if you are going to make that ridiculous claim- that Baker knew Oswald was going to be killed- there was no guarantee. Look how many times the CIA tried to kill Castro. But, he wound up living long and dying recently of old age.
But, it is certainly true what I said, that if you are going to accuse Baker of lying, of conspiring with Truly to lie, then you have to place Marrion Baker smack dab into the plot to kill John F. Kennedy. There is no getting around that.
And that's because: why else would Marrion Baker lie? Why else would Marrion Baker concoct such a story? Why, Backes? Why, WHY WHY?
Some people are just too stupid to be doing this, and Joseph Backes is certainly one of them. And he demonstrates that over and over and over again.