Everyone overthinks that part of the notes.

The section of interest is not, as assumed, a free-flowing word salad where the absent punctuation can be inserted wherever it gives the meaning that best fits any preconception or bias.

What it actually constitutes are three dot points on an alibi timeline. Each line is a separate entry on that timeline.

This then, is what we are looking at:

-Claims (getting a) 2nd floor coke when off[icer] came in, THEN
-(Went) to 1st floor (and) had lunch, THEN
-(Went) out (and stood) with Bill Shelley in front

These notes were not made during the interrogation, but sometime after Oswald was murdered.

Compare to Hosty's notes as they pertain to the same alibi timeline.

-"O[swald] stated he was present for work [at the] T[exas] B[ook] D[epository] on the morning of 11/22 and at noon, went to lunch.
-He went to 2nd floor to get coca cola to eat [sic] with lunch and
-returned to 1st floor to eat lunch, then went outside to watch P[resident's] parade."

It should be immediately obvious that both contain THE EXACT SAME ELEMENTS, IN THE EXACT SAME ORDER.

Oswald goes to the 2nd floor to get a coke, then goes to the first floor to have lunch and then goes outside to watch.

The one difference - Fritz has Officer Baker encountering Oswald when Oswald is on the 2nd floor to get his coke. This is a crucial difference and makes them chalk and cheese because one is exculpatory, the other supports the prosecution - despite the
claims of some. This is because the timing issue they cite as exculpatory in getting from the 6th to the 2nd floor was made a non-issue after investigators accomplishing the feat in reconstructions.

The insertion of Baker by Fritz means

Either

-Baker raced into the building BEFORE the assassination, OR

-Oswald decided to grab a coke and have lunch AFTER the assassination and then go out to watch a parade that was now over, while standing near a person who by that person's account, was no longer there, OR

-Fritz was "verballing"* Oswald with the intent of both obscuring Oswald's real alibi, and having him agree with a scenario that would have, according to reconstructions, allowed him to get down from the 6th to the 2nd floor within the timeframe set by
the authorities.

* Verballing is the term used when police put words into the mouth of a suspect in order to incriminate them.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

GREG DOUDNA SAID:

Do you seriously believe Oswald, whose lunch break started at 12:00, would claim in interrogation that he ate his lunch *after* the assassination which occurred at 12:30? Do you seriously believe Oswald claimed that?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, I do think that Oswald claimed during his police interrogation that he ate his lunch after the assassination. And that's because this chronology....

1. Coke/Lunchroom Encounter with Officer Baker.

2. Then down to 1st floor to have lunch.

3. Then outside with Bill Shelley.

....is confirmed (or at least it is present and exists) in THREE different places within the reports or notes written by the various officials:

1. Captain Fritz' notes.

2. James Bookhout's solo 11/22/63 FBI report.

3. James Hosty's recently-discovered notes.

In Hosty's notes, however, he doesn't say anything about "Shelley". He, instead, says Oswald went outside to watch the "P. Parade". But, IMO, Hosty is, in effect, conflating "Shelley" and "P. Parade". But in any event, Hosty, just like Fritz and Bookhout,
has Oswald going outside only after the "Coke" and the "Lunch on 1st floor".

And Hosty, in his notes, doesn't mention the encounter Oswald had with Baker either. But there's no indication in the existing records and reports that Oswald ever said anything about going to the second floor TWO times to get a Coke on Nov. 22. So, IMO,
Hosty's "went to 2nd floor to get Coca-Cola" is essentially the same thing as also referring to the encounter between LHO and Baker.

And as "absurd" as it might be to think that anyone would want to go and eat his lunch after having such an encounter with a police officer (at gunpoint) and after discovering that the President had just been shot right outside the front door of your
workplace, we also have to realize that such a chronology was being provided by the person to whom all of the evidence in the assassination leads --- Lee H. Oswald.

In other words, Oswald's absurd and crazy chronology was all just one big fat lie being told by the actual assassin of President Kennedy (except for the Lunchroom Encounter with Officer Baker, of course, which actually did occur and wasn't just one of
Oswald's made-up tall tales).

The key point isn't really the specific "lunch" aspect of any of Oswald's lies. (And maybe Oswald himself was having a hard time keeping his "lunch" lies straight after he was arrested.)

But the most important point, IMO, is the chronology of the "Coke/Lunchroom Encounter" and "Out front with Shelley" aspects of Oswald's attempted alibi. And whether you choose to believe Bookhout, Fritz, and Hosty or not, the fact remains that those
three men (Bookhout, Fritz, & Hosty) *did* write things down in their notes and/or reports that definitely give the impression that OSWALD HIMSELF said he followed this chronology at around 12:30 on Nov. 22:

1. Coke/Lunchroom Encounter with Officer Baker.
2. Then down to 1st floor to have lunch.
3. Then outside with Bill Shelley.

Plus: Can anyone who believes that Oswald is the "Prayer Man" figure really and truly also believe that Oswald then decided he wanted to immediately go back into the TSBD Building and dash up to the second-floor lunchroom to buy a Coke within seconds of
JFK being shot out on Elm Street in front of the building?

That scenario of Oswald being Prayer Man and then immediately having a burning desire to go get a Coca-Cola on the second floor is a very loony scenario. But for the conspiracy theorists who wholly endorse the "Oswald Is Prayer Man" theory, then they
really have no choice but to believe such an absurd scenario. Because we know for a fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was in that 2nd-floor lunchroom with Officer Baker just a few minutes after the assassination took place.*

* Notwithstanding the many CTers who now belong to the INHAA club ---- http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html#The-INHAA-Club

--------------------

More: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2023/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1369.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 9:36:21 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

Everyone overthinks that part of the notes.

I don't think about it at all.

The section of interest is not, as assumed, a free-flowing word salad where the absent punctuation can be inserted wherever it gives the meaning that best fits any preconception or bias.

What it actually constitutes are three dot points on an alibi timeline. Each line is a separate entry on that timeline.

I'm glad you're not overthinking this. <chuckle>

This then, is what we are looking at:

-Claims (getting a) 2nd floor coke when off[icer] came in, THEN
-(Went) to 1st floor (and) had lunch, THEN
-(Went) out (and stood) with Bill Shelley in front

These notes were not made during the interrogation, but sometime after Oswald was murdered.

How do you know that and what does it mean if true?

Compare to Hosty's notes as they pertain to the same alibi timeline.

-"O[swald] stated he was present for work [at the] T[exas] B[ook] D[epository] on the morning of 11/22 and at noon, went to lunch.
-He went to 2nd floor to get coca cola to eat [sic] with lunch and
-returned to 1st floor to eat lunch, then went outside to watch P[resident's] parade."

It should be immediately obvious that both contain THE EXACT SAME ELEMENTS, IN THE EXACT SAME ORDER.

BFD

Oswald goes to the 2nd floor to get a coke, then goes to the first floor to have lunch and then goes outside to watch.

So tell us what is all means, Sherlock.

The one difference - Fritz has Officer Baker encountering Oswald when Oswald is on the 2nd floor to get his coke. This is a crucial difference and makes them chalk and cheese because one is exculpatory, the other supports the prosecution - despite the

claims of some. This is because the timing issue they cite as exculpatory in getting from the 6th to the 2nd floor was made a non-issue after investigators accomplishing the feat in reconstructions.

I'm trying to imagine what this would look like if you did overthink this.

The insertion of Baker by Fritz means

Either

-Baker raced into the building BEFORE the assassination, OR

A fine example of a conspiracy hobbyist looking at something incorrectly.

-Oswald decided to grab a coke and have lunch AFTER the assassination and then go out to watch a parade that was now over, while standing near a person who by that person's account, was no longer there, OR

Tell us why you think Oswald was telling the truth.

-Fritz was "verballing"* Oswald with the intent of both obscuring Oswald's real alibi,

Oswald had no real alibi. No witness placed him elsewhere at the time the shots were fired. All
the forensic evidence and an eyewitness placed him in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired.

and having him agree with a scenario that would have, according to reconstructions, allowed him to get down from the 6th to the 2nd floor within the timeframe set by the authorities.

* Verballing is the term used when police put words into the mouth of a suspect in order to incriminate them.

Oswald incriminated himself with every action he took from the time he went to Irving on
Thursday night to the time he shot and killed Tippit. Nothing Oswald said can change that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 18:54:15 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davevonpein@aol.com> wrote:

In other words, Oswald's absurd and crazy chronology was all just one big fat lie...

Yet you can't support that wacky claim.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 07:31:08 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

Oswald had no real alibi.

Is that what you think???

Too bad you can't back it up with citation...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 12:54:17 PM UTC+11, David Von Pein wrote:

GREG DOUDNA SAID:

Do you seriously believe Oswald, whose lunch break started at 12:00, would claim in interrogation that he ate his lunch *after* the assassination which occurred at 12:30? Do you seriously believe Oswald claimed that?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, I do think that Oswald claimed during his police interrogation that he ate his lunch after the assassination. And that's because this chronology....

1. Coke/Lunchroom Encounter with Officer Baker.

2. Then down to 1st floor to have lunch.

3. Then outside with Bill Shelley.

....is confirmed (or at least it is present and exists) in THREE different places within the reports or notes written by the various officials:

1. Captain Fritz' notes.

2. James Bookhout's solo 11/22/63 FBI report.

3. James Hosty's recently-discovered notes.

In Hosty's notes, however, he doesn't say anything about "Shelley". He, instead, says Oswald went outside to watch the "P. Parade". But, IMO, Hosty is, in effect, conflating "Shelley" and "P. Parade". But in any event, Hosty, just like Fritz and

Bookhout, has Oswald going outside only after the "Coke" and the "Lunch on 1st floor".

And Hosty, in his notes, doesn't mention the encounter Oswald had with Baker either. But there's no indication in the existing records and reports that Oswald ever said anything about going to the second floor TWO times to get a Coke on Nov. 22. So,

IMO, Hosty's "went to 2nd floor to get Coca-Cola" is essentially the same thing as also referring to the encounter between LHO and Baker.

And as "absurd" as it might be to think that anyone would want to go and eat his lunch after having such an encounter with a police officer (at gunpoint) and after discovering that the President had just been shot right outside the front door of your

workplace, we also have to realize that such a chronology was being provided by the person to whom all of the evidence in the assassination leads --- Lee H. Oswald.

In other words, Oswald's absurd and crazy chronology was all just one big fat lie being told by the actual assassin of President Kennedy (except for the Lunchroom Encounter with Officer Baker, of course, which actually did occur and wasn't just one of

Oswald's made-up tall tales).

The key point isn't really the specific "lunch" aspect of any of Oswald's lies. (And maybe Oswald himself was having a hard time keeping his "lunch" lies straight after he was arrested.)

But the most important point, IMO, is the chronology of the "Coke/Lunchroom Encounter" and "Out front with Shelley" aspects of Oswald's attempted alibi. And whether you choose to believe Bookhout, Fritz, and Hosty or not, the fact remains that those

three men (Bookhout, Fritz, & Hosty) *did* write things down in their notes and/or reports that definitely give the impression that OSWALD HIMSELF said he followed this chronology at around 12:30 on Nov. 22:

1. Coke/Lunchroom Encounter with Officer Baker.
2. Then down to 1st floor to have lunch.
3. Then outside with Bill Shelley.

Plus: Can anyone who believes that Oswald is the "Prayer Man" figure really and truly also believe that Oswald then decided he wanted to immediately go back into the TSBD Building and dash up to the second-floor lunchroom to buy a Coke within seconds

of JFK being shot out on Elm Street in front of the building?

That scenario of Oswald being Prayer Man and then immediately having a burning desire to go get a Coca-Cola on the second floor is a very loony scenario. But for the conspiracy theorists who wholly endorse the "Oswald Is Prayer Man" theory, then they

really have no choice but to believe such an absurd scenario. Because we know for a fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was in that 2nd-floor lunchroom with Officer Baker just a few minutes after the assassination took place.*

* Notwithstanding the many CTers who now belong to the INHAA club ---- http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html#The-INHAA-Club

--------------------

More: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2023/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1369.html

WTF is wrong with you? You keep replying with what others have claimed. WTF has anything Greg D said got to do with what you are supposedly replying to?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 6:39:04 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

WTF is wrong with you? You keep replying with what others have claimed. WTF has anything Greg D said got to do with what you are supposedly replying to?

It's the exact same "Chronology" topic being discussed, you idiot. That's why I posted it. What's hard to understand about that?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 10:30:28 AM UTC+11, David Von Pein wrote:

On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 6:39:04 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

WTF is wrong with you? You keep replying with what others have claimed. WTF has anything Greg D said got to do with what you are supposedly replying to?

It's the exact same "Chronology" topic being discussed, you idiot. That's why I posted it. What's hard to understand about that?

What don't you understand about me not giving a flying fuck what anyone else has posted on another forum? Reply by all means. But reply using your own words with your own brain in direct response to what I wrote. If you can manage it. Sheesh.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 9:35:27 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 10:30:28 AM UTC+11, David Von Pein wrote:

On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 6:39:04 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

WTF is wrong with you? You keep replying with what others have claimed. WTF has anything Greg D said got to do with what you are supposedly replying to?

It's the exact same "Chronology" topic being discussed, you idiot. That's why I posted it. What's hard to understand about that?

What don't you understand about me not giving a flying fuck what anyone else has posted on another forum? Reply by all means. But reply using your own words with your own brain in direct response to what I wrote. If you can manage it. Sheesh.

I'll post in any manner I desire, Mr. Prick. You're about to pass up Benji Holmes as THE biggest prick on this forum. Congrats.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 3:13:24 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 9:35:27 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 10:30:28 AM UTC+11, David Von Pein wrote:

On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 6:39:04 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

WTF is wrong with you? You keep replying with what others have claimed. WTF has anything Greg D said got to do with what you are supposedly replying to?

It's the exact same "Chronology" topic being discussed, you idiot. That's why I posted it. What's hard to understand about that?

What don't you understand about me not giving a flying fuck what anyone else has posted on another forum? Reply by all means. But reply using your own words with your own brain in direct response to what I wrote. If you can manage it. Sheesh.

I'll post in any manner I desire, Mr. Prick. You're about to pass up Benji Holmes as THE biggest prick on this forum. Congrats.

Oh, I don't know about that. He still has a long way to go to pass the GOAT.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 9:35:27 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 10:30:28 AM UTC+11, David Von Pein wrote:

On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 6:39:04 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

WTF is wrong with you? You keep replying with what others have claimed. WTF has anything Greg D said got to do with what you are supposedly replying to?

It's the exact same "Chronology" topic being discussed, you idiot. That's why I posted it. What's hard to understand about that?

What don't you understand about me not giving a flying fuck what anyone else has posted on another forum? Reply by all means. But reply using your own words with your own brain in direct response to what I wrote. If you can manage it. Sheesh.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Corbett and Von Pein are a pair of disingenuous cunts.
See you in Dallas Corbett!!!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 9:36:21 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

-"O[swald] stated he was present for work [at the] T[exas] B[ook] D[epository] on the morning of 11/22 and at noon, went to lunch.
-He went to 2nd floor to get coca cola to eat [sic] with lunch and
-returned to 1st floor to eat lunch, then went outside to watch P[resident's] parade."

It should be immediately obvious that both contain THE EXACT SAME ELEMENTS, IN THE EXACT SAME ORDER.

Greg is stealing my research uncredited here...I was the one who first recognized that the notes from the 3pm Interrogation all aligned in order starting at the Lunch Room Encounter 90 seconds after the shots, moving down to the 1st Floor, and then going
outside many minutes after the shots...Plain and simple, the reason they all start at the Lunch Room Encounter is because they clumsily excised Oswald telling them he was in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room during the shots...Fritz made clear that all three sets
of notes were lies when he failed to give Ball what he wanted...Ball tried to lead the witness by asking Fritz if Oswald was "up there to get a Coca Cola?"...Ball was trying to get Fritz to confirm that Oswald told them he was on the 1st Floor and went
up to get the Coke...Fritz wouldn't take the bait:

Mr. BALL. Did he tell you he was up there to get a Coca-Cola? Mr. FRITZ. He said he had a Coca-Cola.

Fritz was consciously avoiding confirming to Ball that Oswald had gone from the 1st Floor up to the 2nd Floor Lunch Room because he knew Oswald had told him he was in there the whole time...Greg Parker is an evidence vandal who takes partial quotes and
tries to force them towards his bullshit instead of interpreting their full profound and correct meaning...He's an asshole and bully who takes up all the space and oxygen on the subject and draws the thread in to long bullshit conversations with Lone
Nutter trolls driving people from the good information...If I was moderator that would be solved quickly...

-Fritz was "verballing"* Oswald with the intent of both obscuring Oswald's real alibi, and having him agree with a scenario that would have, according to reconstructions, allowed him to get down from the 6th to the 2nd floor within the timeframe set by

the authorities.

* Verballing is the term used when police put words into the mouth of a suspect in order to incriminate them.

Greg is the one who is "verballing" (or gas-lighting)...He thinks people don't see him winging it and trying to force the evidence towards his disinformation bullshit...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 03:15:13 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:


Nothing to respond to...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)