So, they claimed that Baker's saw Oswald in the lunch room, period. No. Baker first saw Oswald in the anteroom to the lunch room.
Mr. BAKER - As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly was ahead of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the rooms, and I caught a glimpse of this man walking away from this--I happened to see him through this window in this door. I don't know how come I saw him, but I had a glimpse of him coming down there.
Mr. DULLES - Where was he coming from, do you know?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir. All I seen of him was a glimpse of him going away from me.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do then?
Mr. BAKER - I ran on over there
Representative BOGGS -You mean where he was?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. There is a door there with a glass, it (the glass) seemed to me like about a 2 by 2, something like that, and then there is another door which is 6 foot on over there, and there is a hallway over there and a hallway entering into a lunchroom, and when I got to where I could. see him he was walking away from me about 20 feet away from me in the lunchroom.
You only have to look at the diagram to realize that Baker's first glimpse of Oswald (through the glass) had to be when Oswald was in the anteroom. IT WAS THROUGH THE GLASS OF THE DOOR TO THE ANTEROOM THAT BAKER SAW HIM.
The Warren Commissioners quickly glossed over this first sighting. They wanted to talk about the second sighting, after Baker went through the door he previously looked through and was standing on the threshold of the internal door to the lunch room within the anteroom. But, for now, forget about the second sighting. It's the first sighting that matters. What does it tell us?
First, it tells us that Oswald was moving when Baker first saw him: moving into the lunch room. And since he was moving, we have to presume he was just getting there. Right? Is there any solid reason to assume anything else? If a guy seems to be arriving somewhere, you assume he is arriving there, i.e.,for the first time. Now, there is no reason to assume anything else. And I swear to God, if you do, I am sticking that 12th century friar on you, and believe me, he was one mean son of a bitch.
So, Oswald was just getting to the lunch room, and that's very important. For one thing, it completely destroys the alleged Carolyn Arnold revision of 1978.
But, it also raises the crucial question of: WHICH DOOR DID OSWALD GO THROUGH TO ENTER THAT ANTEROOM?
That's the setup. Without even stating it, the Warren Commission just assumed that Oswald went through the same door through which Baker was looking. BUT, HOW COULD THAT BE TRUE WHEN BAKER SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE DOOR BEING IN MOTION? And if it was in motion, Baker wouldn't have been facing the glass, and he probably wouldn't have seen Oswald at all.
I have got a photograph of it.
You see the glass in the door. Right? That glass is what gave Baker the visual of Oswald. Oswald had to be right there behind it, moving through the anteroom, which is in the farground to us. Baker said he only caught a glimpse of him. Why? Because Oswald was moving, and the angle was such that Baker did not have a steady view of him. Oswald just passed through Baker's visual field like a glimmer. And, Oswald could not have been very far from the door. He had to be right behind the glass or else Baker would not have seen him. And if Oswald had just gone through that door, the door would still have been moving. And if it had been moving, Baker surely would have said so. So then, Baker went through the door, himself, and as he turned left to face the lunch room (the door was propped open just as we see there) Oswald was 20 feet into the room. That's what Baker said. But, the implication is that the door with the window was stationary, which means that Oswald must have come through the door on the other side, from the office side. And the Warren Commission readily admitted that Oswald left that way, through the office side. But, they just assumed that Oswald got there from the stairwell side, the same way Baker did. But, they didn't even state it as an assumption. They never articulated it. They never said, "Note for the record that we presume Oswald came in the same way Baker did, from the stairwell side." They assumed it to the point that they didn't even state that they were making an assumption. They just left it out of the discussion.
But, the mechanics, and the geometry of the optics that are involved here tell you that Oswald had to use the other door. If he had used the door through which Baker saw him, he would have disappeared before the door stopped moving. He would have vanished instantly. The swinging door is the only thing Baker would have seen. In order for that glass to be lined up right for Baker to have seen him, Oswald had to have come through the other door on the other side. And there was no access to the 6th floor from that side.
The day that Marrion Baker testified to the Warren Commission, Lee Harvey Oswald was completely and totally exonerated, and that's true even if we didn't have another speck of evidence that he was innocent, whereas, we have a mountain of other evidence that he was innocent, including a photograph of him standing in the doorway at the time of the shooting.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.