31-01-2017, 11:54 PM
3) The 1964 filmed interview and 1986 filmed testimony contain no tangible indication that a monstrous lie about the lunchroom incident is being put forth, nor is there any indication that Baker was excessively anxious when being questioned by Bugliosi.
You do realize it was just a film don'tcha? Like my interviews, which makes my job hard to separate truth from fiction, and the only way to do that is to find as much material that will corroborate as much information as possible to back any interview. BTW... I did that too, and as I find my corroborations with other individuals, they have no idea the questions I'm asking them is to see if their information is in relation to the material I'm seeking. I want to know if their stories they're giving me is true, everything must fall in line, fall in place before I can reject it. Like the information some researcher said about Frank Sturgis and the S.F. Chronicle, this is a perfect example, the information was at John Simkim's page, some researcher who calls himself "The Realist" injects this information, and it was or is still found at some site owned by Tom Flaco, now if no one knew any better, you'd swear they're telling the truth right? That's why it's important to fact check with FOIA documents too, although, documents can be wrong, the moral of my story is, the more people saying the same thing, and if there's documents backing up their information, then it's pretty hard to discredit it right?
You do realize it was just a film don'tcha? Like my interviews, which makes my job hard to separate truth from fiction, and the only way to do that is to find as much material that will corroborate as much information as possible to back any interview. BTW... I did that too, and as I find my corroborations with other individuals, they have no idea the questions I'm asking them is to see if their information is in relation to the material I'm seeking. I want to know if their stories they're giving me is true, everything must fall in line, fall in place before I can reject it. Like the information some researcher said about Frank Sturgis and the S.F. Chronicle, this is a perfect example, the information was at John Simkim's page, some researcher who calls himself "The Realist" injects this information, and it was or is still found at some site owned by Tom Flaco, now if no one knew any better, you'd swear they're telling the truth right? That's why it's important to fact check with FOIA documents too, although, documents can be wrong, the moral of my story is, the more people saying the same thing, and if there's documents backing up their information, then it's pretty hard to discredit it right?