For newcomers to the case.

In the book Case Closed, chapter "I'll never forget it for as long as I live" Postner attempts to rubbish the eyewitness testimony of anyone who casts doubt on the lone nut theory. It is vital to Postners book that he discredits all testimony hostile to the W/C findings. To achieve this he employs several techniques, regurgitation of long disputed FBI reports, as if they were the Holy Graille, glossing over of parts of the testimony that he can't explain, and the repeated trashing of hostile witnesess reputations. This is pretty standard fare, but can appear convinsing to newcomers to this case.

Before we get onto the Dealy Plaza witnesess lets examine postners technique in action on Albert Bogard,the Dallas car sales man who had a strange meeting with a man who called himself Lee Oswald on the 9th of nov 1963. Postner states "He (Bogard) was the Dallas car salesman who claimed Oswald had test driven a car with him, although none of his co-workers supported his story. He was fired shortly after he told the story." Observe the way the trick works, make a bald statement, as if it were uncontested fact, then trash the witness(he was fired shortly after) The facts of this incident though are somewhat different to Mr Postners version. Firstly,Bogards account was corroborated by two fellow workers, one of whom even claimed that "Oswald" returned to the dealership a few days later. Postner also fails to inform us that bogard was not the only employee to be sacked in the weeks following the assassination,far from it, a regular cull ensues. Now, not being familiar with employment laws, practises in Texas, in the 1960's I draw no inference from this, but I find Postners failure to even mention it indicative of his whole approach to this case.

Now lets see how he handles two key Dealy Plaza eyewitnesess, Arnold Rowland, who claims to see TWO men on the sixth floor, one holding a rifle at 12-15. And Carolyn Arnold, who claims to see Oswald in the second floor lunch room also at 12-15. Now if both these witnesess are correct not only is Oswald calmly eating his lunch on the second floor at 12-15, but, at the same time two men,one armed with a rifle, the other dark complected are seen on the sixth floor of the book depository. To be fair there are problems with both witnesess, and Postner battons on these like a Vampire on a virgins neck, but, as per usual fails to point out any positive aspects of their testimony. This behaviour becomes even more self serving when we observe how he treats witnesess supportive of his theory.

Carolyn Arnold was the witness who who told Anthony Summers in 1978 that she had seen Oswald in the second floor lunchroom at 12-15. POstner starts by informong us that Arnold had made a contemporaneous statement, saying she had only glimsed Oswald briefly, Arnold had told Summers that the FBI had misquoted her,Postner then points out that Arnold had signed her statement, and that four other women who accompanied her supported her original statement. So, on the first point, could the FBI, have either on purpose, or by mistake misquoted her? "Hoovers obsession with speed made impossible demands on the field. Many mistakes were made." Asst Director Courtney Evans. Other former agents recall virtually being ordered to avoid leads that might point to a conspiracy. On the second point Postner is vague about which statement the co-workers support, it could well be that they agree to catching a glimse of oswald in the lunch room at this time. Nor does he say when these statements were taken, by whom, or under what conditions.

Contrast this with his treatment of Charles Givens Quote on " I came downstairs and discovered i'd left my smokes in my jacket upstairs, when I got upstairs he (Oswald) was on the sixth floor toward the window the shots were fired from." Unfortunately there's a few things about Mr Givens that Postner fails to inform us of (1) It is impossible for Givens to see Oswald as he testifies unless, without any reason for so doing, he walks to the far east of the elivator. (2) Givens is a known narcotics user, with a long Police record. (3) At 12-00pm Bonnie Ray Williams returns to the sixth floor to eat his lunch, he see's neither LHO, or Givens. (4)Givens was himself sought by the Police following the Assasination because he, like Oswald had left the depository shortly after the shooting. When questioned he at first mentions nothing about seeing Lee upstairs(This only emerges in 1964) He said he had seen Lee in the Domino room,first floor, reading a newspaper at approx 11-50. Mr Givens is poor, Black, a drug user, with a long police record, who had left the biulding following the assassination,Do we need to say more?

But its with the second eyewitness that postner really gets to vent his spleen,Mr Arnold Rowland was a bystander in the Plaza with his wife. He asks her if she wants to see a secret service agent on the sixth floor, he'd seen "A man back from the window, he was standing and holding a rifle, he wasn't in the snipers nest, but in the far left window" He also spotted another man in the infamous right hand window, Rowlands said that this man was "Dark complected" this was at 12-15 exactly the time Carolyn Arnold claims to see Oswald in the second floor lunch room. His testimony is backed up by three other witnesess, (1) John Powell, an inmate on the sixth floor of the Dallas county jail watches two men with a gun on the sixth floor of the TSBD. (2) Mrs Carolyn Walther see's two men with a gun on the fifth, or sixth floor, one is wearing a brown suit coat. (At 12-00, one Richard Carr noticed a man on the seventh floor, who was by chance also wearing a brown suit coat.) (3) Mrs Ruby Henderson, sees two men standing back from a window on the upper floors, she reports that one of the men had darker hair, and a darker complextion than the other. Mrs Henderson, Arnold Rowland, & John Powell all report that one man was of a darker complextion than the other. So how does Postner explain this,Here they come again, FBI reports, buckets of white-wash, omissions, and the usual trashing of witnesess. Rowland is a liar, and known fantasist who's own wife doesnt even back him up. John Powell is seen off by the good ole FBI, they conclude that Powell could not have seen the TSBD from his position, and that because of past mental health problems they have "No confidence in any information furnished by him." Carolyn Walther is another fantasist who's friend Pearl Springer sees no gunmen on the sixth floor, and Ruby Henderson is just plain confused because she is not 100% sure which high floor the men she saw were on.

Henderson is a wonderful example of Postner at work, he states " Henderson says the men could have been mexican or Negro's WRONG, Henderson says that one of the men she saw was darker complected, meaning that the second man was of lighter complextion. He continues," On the fifth floor directly below Oswald were three young black men, Bonnie Ray Williams, Junior Jarman & Harold Norman looking out of the window, True, but nowhere does mrs Henderson talk of seeing three, or even two young black men, she is quite specific on this point. TWO MEN STANDING BACK FROM THE WINDOW,ONE A DARKER COMPLEXTION THAN THE OTHER.Postner concludes," Her FBI statement (Again with the Feds) indicates that Henderson saw two of these three young men on a high floor, she was not describing the sixth floor. BALDERDASH SIR, How many more times before it sinks in Henderson "Two men, one more dark complected than the other, first man may have been mexican(Cuban?) Rowland "A man back from the window, standing and holding a rifle,and a second darker man at the snipers window" Powell, "I remember the guys fooling with the scope, quite a few of us saw them"he too remembers one being darker complected than the other. Rowlands, Powell, Henderson, &Walther. All independantly, and spontaneously recall essentially, the same men at the same time, in the same location. Forget Postners spin, misdirection, & name calling, this is good solid eyewitnesess testimony, mostly swept under the carpet by the Warren Commission, and given Postners version of a Stalinist show trial in "Case Closed" next I will look at how he treats L/N star witness Howard Brennan.

If other members have examples of Postner's "Spin & Deny" technique please post them. I started this topic because a nieghbour of mine, knowing of my deep interest in JFK informed me that I should "read this book it solves the case" with that he handed me 'Case Closed'. When I explained to him that I had read it on several occasions, and found it to be deeply flawed, he shook his head and walked away.To seasoned researchers Postners tricks are obvious, but to newcomers they can be seductive and need exposing.

Lets contrast Postner's treatment of Rowlands, Henderson et al with that of witnesess that help to support his view, he cites two Dealy Plaza witnesess, Robert Edwards, and Ronald Fisher as good, consistant testimony, why? because they both describe seeing a single white male, in the snipers position, who superficially matched Oswald. Postner says, "They witnesed this just before the motorcade came." He gives no specific time for this event, and in Postner's twisted world the term "Shortly before"can cover a multitude of options depending on whether the witness is hostile or friendly. Even more starkly partizan is his kid gloves treatment of the L/N star witness Howard Brennan, postner has plenty of witnesess who claim that the shots came from the south east corner of the sixth floor, some even say that they see the rifle, Robert Jackson, Malcomb Couch, James Crawford, Mrs Earle Cabell, James Worrell, Amos Euins, but only one who claims to have got a good look at the sniper. Why is this so important to Postner?Because no other witness to the shooting damages the testimony of Arnold, Powell Walther & Henderson. For Postner's theory to hold Brennan must be whiter than white.

Brennan gave at best a very problematic testimony, he failed to positively ID Oswald in a Police line-up on the 22nd Nov, even though he had seen Oswald's photo on the television beforehand. Only after weeks of "Questioning" by federal agents did he finally ID Oswald. He also insisted that the man he saw in the window
was wearing a light colored shirt or jacket, whilst Oswald wore a brownish shirt to work that day. His boss believed that the agents who interviewed Brennan," Made him say what they wanted him to say" He added that Brennan was repeatedly interviewed by these agents for weeks, and that by the time he returned to work he was a "nervous wreck" The HSC found Brennan's testimony so flawed that they ignored it entirely.

Brennan also claimed to have seen three forths of the rifle protruding from the window, and further that it had no scope, yet, if the rifle was the Carcano, the scope under these conditions would have been plainly visible to Brennan with his "extraordinary vision*

Warren Commission.

Mr Brennan, "After the President had passed me, I really couldn't say how many feet, or how far, a short distance, I heard this crack that I thought was a backfire"

Mr Bellin, "You thought it was a backfire?"

Mr Brennan, "Of a motorcycle."

Mr Bellin," Then what did you observe or hear"

Mr Brennan,"Well, then something right after this explosion made me think it was a firecracker being thrown from the Texas book store(TSBD) and I glanced up and the man I saw previous was aiming for his last shot."

So how many shots does Brennan describe? "A backfire or firecracker" then right after "The man I saw previous aiming for his LAST shot. By my count thats TWO shots. So brennan actually testifies to, A MAN IN A LIGHT COLORED SHIRT OR JACKET, FIRING TWO SHOTS, FROM A RIFLE WITH NO SCOPE. And this is Posners star witness.....................

* Case Closed, Posner G.

it's "Posner".

Not to detract from your post......
I wouldn't waste my time reading his stuff if I were you, however....

As far as newbies being swayed, anyone who cannot see the lack of brain power Posner suffers from is not someone I care to worry about..

My first experience was seeing him on a documentary made by the CBC (I will lookup which one if it's important..) and Posner just looked and acted like he was reading off cards provided by the Warren Commission.

If someone has a credible lone nut theory that doesn't rely on the magic bullet/Oswald was a grumpy loser, I'll buy twenty copies first day it hits shelves. I'll give anything a chance if the author is sincere with their work, even if i disagree with it.

Posner and his awful "research" don't hold up at all.
His spin is mighty weak as well.
In my opinion, judging by the rest of his work, the man is a stooge who couldn't hold up to a proper line of questioning if you handed him the answers on a plate.

I don't know who I dislike more, Posner or the late David Belin, who both talk out of the sides of their mouths.

Both of those men and their "work" are poison to anyone seriously looking into this case but distilling it for others imho is a waste of your time.
Even reiterating it lends it more value than it deserves.

not trying to jack your thread....

So were there only two shots fired?

From "Mortal Error" page 114.

"One of the shells was dented, and showed many marks from the carrier, the large spring in the Carcano clip that pushed the bullet up the chamber. Howard Donahue (Ballistics and firearms expert) did not believe that this dented shell could have been used to fire a bullet that day, the gun would not have functioned properly he said"

From "Case Closed"

"In experiments by the HSCA (of the dented shell) rapid firing of the Carcano resulted in some shells being dented in the exact same location."

Here is what Donahue said about Posner's claim

"Concerning the case with the damaged lip, Posner claims it could have held a projectile. Let me explain something about Posner, he will tell you anything to make his point, and further his case.THERE WERE NO SHELLS DENTED IN THAT MANNER BY THE HSCA"....

(1) No one inside the TSBD heard more than two shots.

(2) Howard Brennan heard only two shots.

(3) The three men standing directly under the window at first heard only two shots, but eventualy, under pressure, changed their testimony.

Hi Blair, welcome to the Forum. the main aim of these threads is education, not everybody lurking here has the same depth of knowledge on the assasination as your good self. I agree Posner talks crap, and is probably being well paid to do so. (He is house writer at Random House, so as long as he plays pretty he gets to eat at the masters table) All I want to do is expose his little games, deconstruct him if you like, on one thread, so his poison is contained. And whether we like it or not, this guy sells shed loads of books,and either he or a handy clone always gets wheeled out on the TV specials to pass the W/C valium. If we don't take him seriously others, with much less knowledge will.

All the best.....Steve.

Posner's book, like the WCR, is good reference material when it comes to verifying facts regarding the less-serious items, but for everything else - I just suggest everyone to take it with a grain of salt.

Steve, as a newbie, a member of the 'don't throw the baby out with the bathwater' school, and posessing an independent brain wired with some degree of discernment, I wonder if you could continue this post. I'm finding it interesting.

Stephen:

I would like to say I would like to agree also that he is not worth your effort, but I can't, the evidence again, has been soiled in his book deliberatley.. and he has been paid to do so.

He once stated it took him all of I believe 16 months or thereabouts to complete his book.???? Amazing, now there is a quick fix.. these well researched books usually take many years unless, whomever is simply repeating and copying other authors information, from their previously published books..

So IMO, you do not throw the book out, in all books I have found there is some truth, so you use it for your knowledge and to your advantage.. You check all information within out, and see for yourself, it proves one very interesting lesson for us all, and that is that the fix is still in, they are still working on the cover-up...they give themselves away repeatedly..

....This is a good thread, to open the newbies eyes and lead them on the correct path... show him up for what he is and has done..

A paid buffoon...he works very well for the Public Relations of the Warren Commission, and is kept comfortable doing so... the problem is the devil is in the details... and getting those out is like " so dense"..

The media is also a big part of the quick fix, in and out, and so Posner takes the seat for perhaps as much as 15 minutes out of an hour, less commercials, in many of these programs, along with others who trot out to repeat the regular.......... so overdone..

WC correct...lone assassin, "Case Closed"..and ta da......news controlled...that is part of his job and others. Same old.

If you haven't, sometime perhaps, you would read Harold Weisberg's "Case Open"....his rebuttal , he trashes Posner's book..with the truth..

For instance this paid hack never spoke to one Secret Service agent.. He relied on documents ... even though he gives that impression in his book.. he only spoke to some sort of an Administrator of the SS.... nor even Dr. Boswell, let alone James Tague..and on and on.

Thanks, carry on.


B

Very good thread Stephen. I have added a link to this thread on my page on Posner.

I have been in email contact with Posner for sometime. He constantly promises to join the forum and defend Case Closed. He always claims that he needs to finish off his current book before joining the debate. I am not sure he was ever going to appear on the forum. However, this thread probably guarantees this is the case. As far as Posner is concerned, the case is really closed.

I agree. I must apologize .
I reacted a little harshly.
POSNER does that to me because in many cases I have met many diffuse people who seem to think they "know" the WC was "right" and then show up empty handed. I dislike diffuse people in general and even in a social context I avoid them like the plague.

You are correct in the sense that people should understand how information can get spun to paint another picture entirely and yes I agree with you that newbies should be aware of this.

POSNER makes my butt pucker everytime I think of him profiting from all this.
I loathe people who put up a point and then dance around the questions when they can't answer reliably.
Again, this is why people like Belin make my blood boil.

Sorry if I came off like an ass.
Cheers,


Dobson.

(edited the Groden for Posner...what the hell was I thinking..)

No need for apologies, he makes me spit as well. I want to continue to use this thread to deconstruct as much of Mr Posner's work as possible, reading the meisterwork in question, Posner quotes Brennan as having witnessed three shots, anyone know where he gets this from? Its certainly not the W/C report, or has he, as I suspect, made it up from whole cloth.He also describes seeing Oswald for a brief second with a smirk on his face, before pulling back out of sight (what a pantomime villian, If Oswald had grown a moustache no doubt he would have been twirling it.)

For clarity's sake, you mean Posner, not Groden, correct?

Posner was hired to defend the lone nut theory after Stone's movie caused too many to doubt. Harold Weisberg wrote a point by point response to Posner's book, entitled Case Open. There are also several websites that take him on.

To me, Posner's low point was in his trying to defend the HSCA's interpretation of the head wound entrance as being in the cowlick. He said that both Boswell and Humes had admitted they were wrong at the autopsy, when they placed it near the hairline. He told the ARRB that Boswell had admitted his mistake in an interview. Dr. Gary Aguilar followed up on this and found out that Boswell had NEVER admitted this to Posner, and that, in fact, Posner had NEVER even spoken to Boswell. Posner just made it up because it fit his theory. If he's ever offered an explanation for this, I'm unaware.

It is to Posner's credit, however, that he signed the letters demanding the CIA release all the info on George Joannides. Maybe he has some respect for the truth after all.

But so did John McAdams. One of the reasons why I don't think this is a very productive line of inquiry.

Does this mean you think someone, even at this late date, is coaching McAdams and Posner on what to cover-up?

I think their reasons for signing the letters, as stated in the recent letter, make perfect sense. They believe Oswald did it and that the Joannides files will reveal nothing new. They are anxious for his files to be released so they can say "see, I told you so." I wouldn't be surprised if there are some real nuggets in the file--perhaps a report from Bringuier indicating the fight in the streets of NO (currently under water) was staged.

Pat, I suspect your reasoning is correct. The idea that Posner, McAdams etc do nothing but lie, and missinform is itself incorrect,where the truth is the easiest option to support their theory, then thats what they employ. And both like nothing better than a wild conspiracy theory that can be easily demonstrated to be false, it allows them to insinuate that any anti W/C thinking deserves the same treatment.

[
For clarity's sake, you mean Posner, not Groden, correct?

LOL .. I am laughing at myself..Yes I meant Posner and Not Groden...
It was late when I posted that..
(egg on face...)

Lets turn to how Posner deals with the testimony regarding the possible impersonation of Oswald. The first one I want to look at is the most famous of these, the Odio incident. Sylvia & Annie Odio were the two Cuban sisters who claimed they were visited on either the 26th or 27th of Sept 1963, by three men, one of whom they said was called Leon Oswald, they further claimed that this man bore a striking resemblence to LHO. This, if true, is hughly damaging to posner's lone nut theory, so what exactly did the sisters claim, they reported (through a nieghbour) that they were visited without warning by three men, all strangers, two Latins and a white American. The men told the sisters that they belonged to JURE, an anti Castro grouping,(although well to the left of most exile groups) that Sylvia had helped to form a few months earlier. The leader identified himself as "Leopoldo"The second Latin man was called "Angelo or Angel" The third man was identified as "Leon Oswald", He was younger than the other two, and stood quietly,taking no part in the discussion that followed, all three, Sylvia noticed were unkempt, in need of a wash and a shave. Leopoldo told her they were on a trip to gather funds for anti Castro activities, and had just arrived from New Orleans, he claimed they were working for the Exile Cuban Revolutionary Council, as well as being members of JURE. They knew her fathers "Underground" name, and they appeared well informed about recent plans to assassinate Castro. Despite this the Sisters were uneasy, their father had warned them against the twisted intrigues of exile politics, so Sylvia informed her visitors that she wanted no part in a campaign of violence, the men left shortly after. Less than 48 hours later Leopoldo phoned Sylvia, amoungst other things he reminds her of the American, and asks what she thought of him, he tells her Oswald is "kind of nuts"and that he had been a Marine, and an expert "Shotman"(sic) and that Oswald had said the Cubans were gutless for not killing Kennedy after the BOP fiasco. Odio said that the conversation made her nervous, and that she ended it as soon as possible. She never hears from any of the men again. After the assassination she claims to recognise "Leon Oswald" as the man charged with killing Kennedy, & Tippet.

So, lets see how Mr Posner handles this potential bombshell, first he resusitates the Loran Hall story,Posner says the FBI thought they had solved the Odio mystery in early 1964, when it found three men who might have visited her appartment,one Loran Hall bore a strong resemblence to "Leopoldo" Hall named his two companions as Lawrence Howard, & William Seymour, Howard posner claims looks like "Angelo" & Seymour greatly resembled Oswald, right down to a beard stubble as described by Odio, however four days later Hall recanted his statement, Seymour and Howard also denied that they had been at Odio's. Posner says," Odio also stuck to her story, and said she could not identify them as the men" He finishes, "But even if the visitors were Hall, Howard and Seymour"!!

Right lets go, Posner is insinuating, without a shred of evidence that this pile of excrement might be true, its not, the wheels had fallen off within days of Halls claims, and, it was not as posner claims, Hall who recanted first, but Howard & Seymour, who told the FBI that nothing of the sort had occured, only when faced with this did Hall retract his story. But with the help of the W/C it had the effect of relegating prime evidence of a conspiracy to a side show.Also notice the two little Lawyers tricks Posner uses, quote "Odio also stuck to her story"Well Gerald as all three men had at this time admitted to not visiting her, it would have been surprising for her to have said anything else, would it not? Quote, "Even if the visitors were Hall Howard & Seymour" Eh!! THEY WERE NOT, THEY ADMITTED THEY WERE NOT, THE FBI SAID THEY WERE NOT, THE HSCA SAID THEY WERE NOT. Only Mr posner continues to plow this particular barren field. So why is Posner giving mouth to mouth to a lie that was nailed 40 years ago? to prop up a thread bare theory. Of course the big question that he never ask's is why did Hall make this claim in the first place, and under who's instructions was he opperating.

For those becoming familiar with Mr Posner's technique it will come as no surprise that the next tactic is "trash the witness"and posner plays hardball with Odio, it is vital to his theory to destroy the odio evidence by fair means or foul, and as he has very little of the fair variety he gives foul all he's got. During a long and fairly rambling few sentances Posner says of Odio,"She had a history of emotional problems" "She had seen a psychiatrist about marital problems" "She had lost custody of her children" "She had a tendancy to exagerate" And you will love this " Her Mother in Law ( From a failed and bitter marrage) said Odio was an excellent actress who could fabricate such an episode if she wished" I find it absolutely hypocritical that Posner quotes CIA low level scumbags like Hall, and frightened junkies like Givens as if he's citing George Washington, but give him a witness hostile to his theory and off come the gloves. He insinuates that the sisters are doing this for attention, and so has to nod and wink about Sylvia's "Mental problems" But he's got a few problems here (1) Three men did visit the sisters within the time frame given, Annie testifies to this fact. (2) although Annie doesn't hear all the discussion, she testifies that it concerns exile politics/plots, she further backs up Sylvia's description of the men, two latin, one white American. (3) Sylvia tells her psychiatrist about the visit prior to kennedys assassination, he said she seemed disturbed by the incident,she also mentions it in a letter to her father again prior to the event (substantiated by her father) (4) If, as posner hints at, this was all done for attention, why did the sisters vow to keep quite about it, why did a neighbour have to bring it to the FBI's attention (after Sylvia had sworn her to silence) hardly the actions of an attention seeker. The Odio's were little more in reality than frightened little girls, seperated from a loving family, and living in a unfamiliar environment,why as anti Castro Cubans whould they draw attention to themselves by claiming to have been in contact with the man who assassinated Kennedy, it makes no sence at all. Oh and BTW, I know many people who would not want a character reference form their Mother in Law

Steve, Gaeton Fonzi provides a fairer account of Odio in 'last investigation'. After outlining her background he concludes : "Based on character and background alone Sylvia and Annie were highly credible witnesses.Their story held up through my heavy checking and I was completely convinced they were telling the truth" alsewhere he states that he can see it possible to prove a conspiracy based on the Odio incident alone. He explains the background to Silvia's problems in a way that certainly makes Posner out to be a dork. (i'm reading the last investigation' while also following your informative post, it makes for an interesting contrast.)

For those who collect photos, the Odio Sisters.

James

Is Posner not simply employing the tactics of a lawyer? He hammers home the point he wants to make, and when he can't shake the testimony of the rebuttal witness, he attacks the credibility of the witness.

While his tactics may outrage folks, the very same ones are played out in courtrooms across the US every day. And as with Posner, the attorney is concerned with winning the case, and not necessarily with discovering the truth.

Perry Mason was, after all, a fictional character. Never forget that.

See my post re the men at Odio's door.

Posner's attack on Odio is now destroyed. A very credible reporter, Professor Joan Mellen, has interviewed a Cuban exile, Angel Murgado, who told her that he was indeed at Odio's door, accompanied by Lee Harvey Oswald!

Mark, my thoughts too. Sounds like a lawyer, looks like..etc. Who's the client?

If what Tim says about the Odio trio turns out to be true, there's the case for a conspiracy proven. Enough to reopen investigation? DPD, you listening? You say you don't close the book on Murder in Texas.

I believe the revelation that Oswald was indeed at Odio's door should be sufficient to re-open an investigation. The game may not yet be over, my friends!

But I do not think the Odio incident necessarily proves conspiraacy.

Assume that Oswald actually told Leopoldo what Leopoldo relayed to Odio. Two possibilities suggest themselves:

(1) Oswald was indeed a "nut" (didn't Leopoldo call him "a little loco" or words to that effect?). Of course, for other reasons apart from the Odio incident I reject that thesis.

(2) Oswald was a US agent provocateur trying to draw out violent anti-Castro Cubans through such provocative lines. (What else does an agent provocateur do but provocotate?) He may have also been used as an agent provocateur with pro-Castro Cubans. (Or perhaps an imposter using his credentials in Mexico City.) Didn't the Mexico City Oswald (by some accounts) offer to kill Kennedy for the Cubans?

If (2) is true, it is possible the Odio incident was unrelated to the assassination. On the other hand, it is certainly possible that a conspirator deliberately associated Oswald with a Cuban who was close to the Kennedys.

Well of course Posner comes on like a lawyer,its what he is, Snakes slither, lions roar, and lawyers sell you the brooklyn bridge. But in the context of this thread thats hardly the point. I know guys like you dont buy Posners ware's,the point of this thread was to expose as many of his lies, spins,& character assassinations as possible for newcomers to the case. So can we please get back on topic, there are plenty of other threads to discuss re-opening the case, this aint one of them.

Stephen, my point was merely that Posner's tactics, while commonly used, don't necessarily lead one to the truth. Posner's concern is with selling the LN theory, and truth is just an expendable inconvenience to folks of his ilk.

And I also agree with the original purpose of this thread, which is the exposure of Posner's less-than-forthright tactics, so that rookie researchers aren't taken in by his bogus arguments.

As we used to say in the '70's...keep on truckin', Stephen!!!

QUOTE (Blair Dobson @ Aug 26 2005, 12:54 PM)

it's "Posner".

Not to detract from your post......
I wouldn't waste my time reading his stuff if I were you, however....

As far as newbies being swayed, anyone who cannot see the lack of brain power Posner suffers from is not someone I care to worry about..

My first experience was seeing him on a documentary made by the CBC (I will lookup which one if it's important..) and Posner just looked and acted like he was reading off cards provided by the Warren Commission.

If someone has a credible lone nut theory that doesn't rely on the magic bullet/Oswald was a grumpy loser, I'll buy twenty copies first day it hits shelves. I'll give anything a chance if the author is sincere with their work, even if i disagree with it.

Posner and his awful "research" don't hold up at all.
His spin is mighty weak as well.
In my opinion, judging by the rest of his work, the man is a stooge who couldn't hold up to a proper line of questioning if you handed him the answers on a plate.

I don't know who I dislike more, Posner or the late David Belin, who both talk out of the sides of their mouths.

Both of those men and their "work" are poison to anyone seriously looking into this case but distilling it for others imho is a waste of your time.
Even reiterating it lends it more value than it deserves.

not trying to jack your thread....

Blair,

We here who have studied this case know this is true, BUT:

The media gives Posner a lot of attention. Most regular folk are not aware that the media in this country is controlled and that they have played an active role in covering up the assassination.

Posner's book sold very well and got a lot of help in so doing. COntrast that to the scathing reviews given to Oliver Stone's "JFK" well before this film even came out. It first aired here in Austin 12/20/91, and by then I had at least 6 front page magazine articles just TRASHING it. A first for any movie in the United States.

So I think what Stephen is doing on this thread is GREAT, and highly appreciated by myself, for the newcomers who don't know that Posner is a PAID LIAR, IMHO.

Dawn

Dawn, thanks for the nice comments, Mark, keep on truckin yourself, sorry if I came accross a bit harsh, but I was watching the scenes from New Orleans at the time, and they made me ever so slightly angry.

I still have lots to post on this thread, what I'm aiming for is a complete re-buttal of "Case closed" perhaps Mr Posner may care to come to the Forum to argue for his work, but I shant be holding my breath. Next is going to be Posners handling of De Mohrenschiltd, probably later today, or tomorrow, enjoy...Steve.

[/quote][/color]



Blair,

We here who have studied this case know this is true, BUT:

The media gives Posner a lot of attention. Most regular folk are not aware that the media in this country is controlled and that they have played an active role in covering up the assassination.

Posner's book sold very well and got a lot of help in so doing. COntrast that to the scathing reviews given to Oliver Stone's "JFK" well before this film even came out. It first aired here in Austin 12/20/91, and by then I had at least 6 front page magazine articles just TRASHING it. A first for any movie in the United States.

So I think what Stephen is doing on this thread is GREAT, and highly appreciated by myself, for the newcomers who don't know that Posner is a PAID LIAR, IMHO.

Dawn

[/quote]


Yeah I remember reading a bunch about the film before it came out and it seemed very interesting how the most ardent detractors of the film had a finished shooting script in their possession....

I agree with you whole heartedly.
I think it is important...

The media is in itself a pretty interesting thing...
When you see the BBC talk about JFK, (or Bush for that matter), it's a whole different take than say what the Canadian media or the Austrailian media might say.. We currently think Bush is a nutbar for not doing anything about NO..but thats another story...

largely it has been my experience that it serves the advertisers more than the stations themselves..
It might be an interesting idea to see who pays for LNer docs. stories etc..
Who might want to pay to have that party line towed might be more telling than not.

My friend thinks the Government had nothing to do with it and that it was all a bunch of rednecks from Bell Helicopter worried about their jobs...LOL.. I explained it to him ...but....

Tonight on Petroliums British Subsidiary....
"Who was LHO?" Brought to you by TFX, Bell helicopter and The Paine Foundation for Keeping things a secret......

Thanks for reading and posting,

Dobson...

Posner on De Mohrenschildt.

George De Mohrenschildt is a hughly influential and contradictory witness, he is a man to whom intrigue clings like a well tailored suit. Because of the complexity of the man and his relationship with Oswald I shall need to split this post into two parts,(1) De Mohrenschildt's possible ties to the intelligence community And (2) His strange relationship with the Oswalds. In the first catagory, which could be the subject of a book in itself. Posner "deals with this evidence by largely ignoring it, in a book of some 600 pages this complex subject is seen off in a page and a half. Here for example is what Posner says about De Mohrenschildt's possible ties to the KGB, and The CIA, Quote on, "The KGB informed this authour in 1992 that it had no file on De Mohrenschildt or his wife Jeanne indicating neither had worked for it, And, "CIA officials have provided sworn testimony that there was no De Mohrenschildt- US intelligence relationship, Keep in mind that this book was not written to decieve serious researchers, but was pitched at the entry level mass market. Even so this is weak beyond belief, we are being asked to accept the word of the very agencies we suspect De Mohrenschildt of having a SECRET relationship with, when they tell us he did not. Lets remind ourselves of the CIA's attitude towards the ethics of public disclosure.

TRANSCRIPT WARREN COMMISION, EXECUTIVE SESSION.

Warren, " How would an agent deal with inquiries about another agent he had recruited."

Dulles," He would not tell."

Warren, "Wouldn't he tell it under oath?"

Dulles, "I wouldn't think he would tell it under oath, no."

Chairman, "Why"

Dulles, "He ought not to tell it under oath, maybe not tell it to his Government."

Chairman, "Would he tell it to his own chief?"

Dulles, "He may, or he may not."

How much plainer can Dulles make it? "When it suits our purpose we lie and decieve to protect our vested interests." Yet these are the people that Posner offers as plain dealing witnesses on their own murky past.How charmingly nieve of him. As regards his supine attitude towards the KGB, it leaves you gobsmacked, this is an agency that for over 50 years terrorized its own people into submission, yet because it suits his purpose posner falls over himself to accept what he is told. This is a man who does jigsaw puzzles with a handy hammer by his side. Now lets explore some interesting connections, that for some reason Mr Posner leaves out of his book. There was for example speculation, based on FBI reports, that De Morenschildt did undercover work for Nazi Germany whilst in the US. He was deported from Mexico in 1942, under a cloud of allegations, because of this his passport file was marked for review. "To determine if he posed a security threat." But as always with De Morenschildt this episode may mask another reality altogether. There was for examle no evidence that his file was ever reviewed, and he continued to recieve passports with no problems. He is also closely linked, though his cousin Baron Kronstien, to Nelson Rockefeller, when he is arrested in Mexico he is holding $6,000 dollars in letters of credit issued by Chase Manhattan, Rockerfeller's bank. Rockefeller was himself linked to allied intelligence though the famous, "British security co-ordination." and had set up an op to prevent oil supplies from reaching Germany via Latin America, De Mohrenschildt had a masters degree in petrolium geology, an industry he worked in for more than 20 years. Add this the fact that he was arrested in Latin America, and the Nazi connection begins to look like a false legend being born. In 1942 he lived in Washington, in the same house as a British intelligence officer, and an American Naval officer, he expressed at this time, a desire to work for the OSS ( forerunner of the CIA) They rejected him because of his possible links to the Nazi's, but once the war was over the CIA recruited many proven ex Nazi's, let alone people simply suspected of having links to the Regime. De Mohrenschildt's extensive world travels under the guise of an oil industry exec would have made him a perfect recruit for the intelligence community. In 1957 he spent many months in Yougoslavia, on a field survey, he was working for the CIA funded "International Co-operation admistration."whilst there he was accused of making drawings of military fortifications, when he returned to the US he was thoughly de-briefed by the CIA, in sessions lasting for days. a report of the meetings revealed "The CIA obtained foreign intelligence which was promptly disseminated to other federal agencies in 10 seperate reports". Many of George's closest friends and workmates felt he was Agency though and though, He even told his Dallas Lawyer, Patrick Russell that he was doing service for the state dept, Rusell said " He had contacts with intelligence again and again, he regularly travelled abroad, and each time he returned, underwent de-briefing. Next I will examine posners work as regards the relationship between De Mohrenschildt and Oswald...

WESLEY BUELL FRAZIER, & LINNIE MAE RANDLE...

Lets examine Posners attitude as regards these VIP witnesses.

Quote, Case Closed, page 221, "He (Oswald) approached Frazier on Thurs 21st Nov and asked if he could get a ride to Irving, as he needed to get some curtain rods to put in his appartment, this was a lie, his appartment did not need curtains or curtain rods, both were provided." WRONG MR POSNER, a photo taken less than 24 hours after the assassination, shows Oswalds room, and the window has neither curtains or rods in place. Indeed Oswalds landlady asked for the photo to be delayed whilst these were hung. Posner (same page.) Then claims, " It was likely that later that day he used brown paper and tape at the depository,to fashion a bag over three feet long."Notice that Lawyers trick again? make a bald statement, with no supporting evidence, as if it were uncontested fact.( objection your honour!!) I may as well claim that oswald spent the time teaching Monkeys to tap dance, I have as much evidence for this as Posner does for his paper bag story NONE. no one at the depository claims to see Oswald doing anything of the sort, nor does Mr Frazier notice this 3ft long paper sack on the return journey,ask yourself, how likely is that.

Now, what does Posner say about Frazier & Randle's description of the bag. Quote Case closed 224-225, "Randle said the package was approx 27ins long,Frazier estimated it at "A little over 2ft." Frazier later admitted the package could have been longer than he originally thought, "I only glanced at it, hardly paid any attention to it." Right lets take the first part of this statement, the length of the bag, because Posner has a real problem here, and its a problem that for all of his spin, selective statements, & Mud slinging, refuses to go away. The package both Frazier & Randle describe seeing is significantly shorter than the extant one shown to them by the DPD, and W/C. The bag the police claim to have found at the Depository is 38ins in length, remember Randle had it at a mere 27ins, Frazier is even more damaging to Posner, he claims it was a LITTLE over two feet. If we take an average of the two sightings as being 26-27ins then thats 11-12ins shorter than the bag the W/C claim that Oswald transported the rifle in that morning. Worse was to come, despite two long bullying sessions with the W/C, both Brother and Sister refused to identify the bag as the one they had seen Oswald carrying, Frazier even demonstrated that Oswald could not have physically carried a 35in rifle tucked under his armpit, with the base cupped in his hand, as Frazier remembered him doing. We can now comprehend just how serious Posners problems are with this evidence. The only two witnesses who see Oswald take a paper sack with him into work that day claim, despite hugh pressure, that the sack the police say was used to carry the rifle, is not the one they BOTH saw Oswald with. Imagine what a top defence Lawyer could have done with that testimony.

As regards posners claim that Frazier didn't pay much attention to the sack, this is taken from a British TV programme "The trial of Lee Harvey Oswald" which aired more than 20 years after the assassination, and bears little resemblance to fraziers contempory statements. So much for the man who takes other researchers to task for not using the earliest statements given, as self evidently the most reliable.....

The above is indicative of Posners style,He finds parts of the testimony that support his Lone nut viewpoint, ie both Frazier & Randle agree that Oswald took a brown paper sack to work with him that day, relegates that huge discrepency in size to a few words spread around the text so as to make little sence to the casual reader. And completely fails to tell us that both witnesses would not identify the DPD sack, as the one they saw Oswald with. indeed they possitively say it is not the same one. And to top it off offers a statement from Frazier 20 years after the assassination, rather than a contemporaneous one,simply because the former suits his needs. And this is the great truth teller........

Oh and BTW, while we are on the subject,Jack Dougherty, the only man to see Oswald enter the depository, told the Warren Commission that he was not carrying anything in his hands when he arrived for work that morning. Guess how prominent this evidence is in "Case Closed".

SOME MORE "TRICKY, TRICKS" ON THE EYEWITNESSES. 1, GORDON ARNOLD.

Before I move on to a long post on the Clinton episode, lets take another look at how Posner distorts evidence to suit his own agenda. to facilitate this lets examine his treatment of some of the witnesses who claim 1, there was at least one shot from the knoll,2, kennedy was shot from the front, 3"mysterious agents" were present on the knoll, and behind the picket fence, before, during, and after the shooting. first Gordon Arnold. Now many researchers have legitimate problems excepting this testimony, my purpose here is not to examine the body of evidence he puts foward, but rather how Mr Posner twists and decieves to achieve his outcome.

Gordon Arnold was a 22 year old soldier on home leave on Nov 22 1963,He claims he ran into men with CIA identification behind the knoll, just prior to the assassination. When the shooting started he was only feet in front of the fence, and describes a bullet "whizzing" past his ear, he immediatly threw himself to the ground, as he recognised it as live ammunition. He further claimed that he had a camera, and that two men in police uniforms approached him, one assualted him, the other,brandishing a rifle and crying, confiscated the film, upon which he fled back to Alaska, and kept quiet for the next 15 years. In short Mr Arnold claims, CIA, or bogus CIA agents where behind the picket fence, shoots were fired from the knoll, and Police, or bogus police officers confiscated his film. Powerful stuff, if true. Now lets observe the Master at work, he begins, "The problem is that it appears that Arnold was not even in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination, people on the grassy knoll are clearly visible in the pictures taken of the knoll, although Arnold claims he is not visible because he is flat on the ground,photo enhancements show no such person." For those how have followed this thread alarm bells should be ringing. Firstly enhanced photography or not, no photo that I am aware of can either prove, or disprove Arnolds presence on the knoll. if one of our photographic experts is reading (you know who you are) perhaps they might like to comment on this aspect. But secondly, and much more revealing is the absolute liberties he takes with Sen Yarborough's testimony. Quote Case Closed, page 257, "Arnold appeared vindicated when Sen Yarborough later said he remembered seeing a young man throw himself on the ground as soon as the shooting started, However, Yarborough was refering to Bill Newman, who was at the foot of the knoll with his family, and threw himself, his wife and two children onto the ground." Now Posner only pulls this trick off by not reporting the Senators full statement, so lets look at what Yarborough actually said. He wrote in the Dallas Morning news, he recalled that when the first shot was fired he saw a UNIFORMED FIGURE,IMMEDIATELY hit the dirt at the very spot were Arnold said he was filming, he remembered thinking that the mans quick reaction suggested he must be a combat veteran. Got that, UNIFORMED, ON HIS OWN, NO MENTION OF A WIFE OR CHILDREN,THROWS HIMSELF TO THE GROUND ON HEARING THE FIRST SHOT. And this, from Mr Newmans affidavit sworn just after the assassination. quote " I was looking directly at him (Kennedy) when he was hit in the SIDE OF THE HEAD,I thought the shot had come from the garden directly behind me,THEN WE FELL DOWN ON THE GRASS, as it seemed we were in the direct line of fire." In other words Newman and family dont hit the dirt until after the fatal head shot. Yarborough reports seeing a man on his own,( Newman was with his family) In uniform (Newman was in civies) throw himself to the ground after the first shot ( Newmans testimony says he only fell to the ground after the last shot) Yet more Wall St Lawyers tricks from Mr Posner.

NEXT, LEE BOWERS Jr...

, he begins, "The problem is that it appears that Arnold was not even in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination, people on the grassy knoll are clearly visible in the pictures taken of the knoll, although Arnold claims he is not visible because he is flat on the ground,photo enhancements show no such person." For those how have followed this thread alarm bells should be ringing. Firstly enhanced photography or not, no photo that I am aware of can either prove, or disprove Arnolds presence on the knoll. if one of our photographic experts is reading (you know who you are) perhaps they might like to comment on this aspect

May I repeat my request, Jack, David, Lee, Robin, John. What is the best photographic evidence we have here, to either prove or disprove Arnolds claims. And what do you make of Posner's claims that photo enhancement has PROVEN that Arnold was not where he say's he was.

Thanks, Steve.

I'd say it is utter rubbish - however, I am not certified in Photogrammetry, and I have no credentials to support my being any kind of 'expert.'

One of the original arguments used as a rationale for why Arnold was not present was that he claimed [TMWKK] to have swung his leg up over the steampipe that used to be located there - and paused, as he was accosted by an individual who demonstrated credentials - yes - his story changed over time as to what these credential were - cut him some slack. The pipe, upon which Seymour Weitzman burned his hands while climbing the stockade fence - was thoroughly wrapped in some form of asbestos insulation at the point Arnold claimed to have been positioned. I have posted that photo here before - so you can axe that one. As an aside, this is the same pipe that was located next to the train switch box, where Ed Hoffman saw the rifle being tossed - over the pipe and to the breakdown man. As for me, I believe Ed Hoffman saw exactly that.

There are multiple individuals in the area of the stairs and the retaining wall. It's my opinion that all of these were covered - and that every photo and film of this area has been purposely altered to conceal these individuals. How many are there? I have no idea. Sprague and Cutler had 4 behind the retaining wall. I just reread Garrison's Playboy interview where he believes that there were 2. I think that both of those estimates are low.

We have the testimony of Emmett Hudson, in which he is standing with ONE man. A young man who parks in one of the secured Knoll parking lots, and knows shots are being fired at the President, while everyone else is in a state of shock and confusion. He goes prone, and urges Emmett to follow suit. Emmett is prone when a shot is fired over his head. Emmett has Kennedy struck in the side of the head when the Lincoln is much further up Elm - but we can only assume from that that there was indeed more than one shot to Kennedy's head. Does the Moorman reflect the Young Man lying prone? Does it have Emmett Hudson lying prone? No it does not. If you examine the aftermath photos and films - are we supposed to believe that there are only 2 individuals sitting there? If you examine the Moorman - Emmett Hudson is double-jointed in his leg, and he can actually bend it forward at the shin. The man standing next to him, whom he never said existed - is incomplete and unfinished. He isn't even real. If you watch him in the Nix and Muchmore films you will find he is equally transparent, and runs off into the shadow of the Texas Live Oak - only to vanish! I once called him 'The Time Traveller.' He is nonsense - why was he added? If you attempt to penetrate the tinting that was used [Muchmore especially], you can see multiple individuals hidden in the area of the stairs and the retaining wall. Some would call these artifacts - I find it hard to believe that all of these artifacts are the size of people - and that all of them appear to resemble men [many wearing hats] with cameras or other devices.

Back to Emmett - when asked about Zapruder, who would have been standing not too far away, and in view, given his position on the pedestal - Emmett answered the question "Did you see anybody standing up there that you can remember, during the time the President went by?' Emmett's response is astounding - and makes Marilyn Sitzman's account 100% suspect. Emmett saw lot's of people - a whole bunch of people, a lot of people - a whole bunch. He saw THEM taking pictures.

Then there are the accounts of the other films that have been seen - taken from the very same position, or close to where Zapruder was standing. I have managed to exchange with some of these witnesses - and it's my belief that we are talking about possibly an original Zapruder film - without jiggle or alteration, AND at least ONE OTHER FILM. However - I can't support that with any material yet.

One last comment on Emmett - my favorite witness - he is presented with the Phil Willis #5 [in which there are only 2 individuals standing on the stairs and some nonsense has been added at the retaining wall] and the Government reinactment photo done in 1964. He volunteers that he believes he can be seen in the photo that was published in the Newspaper - by that I assume he meant the Moorman - but he isn't presented with the Moorman - why? Very simply, because he may have asked who the hell the man was standing next to him. He may have wondered why he and the 3rd guy - the unidentified operator in the red shirt - weren't both lying on the ground. He may have asked where the bunch of people went to that were standing behind him.

Let's go very briefly to James Altgens - in a phone interview done by Lifton [posted elsewhere] Lifton asked if he recalled seeing 'people' plural - in that location - at the retaining wall. He did. He also recalled that some may have been Police officers.

Rosemary Willis in her Texas monthly interview saw the smoke rising through the trees from her position after the final shot. That fact eliminates the possibility of a motorcycle's exhaust - IMO.

Ed Hoffman saw the man dressed as a train worker and the man in the dark jacket and black hat. Other witnesses saw a Railroad Detective back there.

I feel very strongly that a man dressed as a Railroad Detective took one very loud and smokey skot from behind that fence. You can see him at the tree in the enhanced Moorman enlargements - which I posted elsewhere. That was the shot that caught Kennedy in the front right temple.

Now - to Arnold. Let's not forget that he didn't exactly come forth willingly. Also, that he left for Alaska shortly thereafter - and I don't believe anyone has managed to find any records of his military service - burned in the St Louis fire or something like that. He leaned against the tree at some point, and there was a fresh mound of dirt - unless a photo can be produced which proves that there was no mound of dirt there - that is a moot point, IMO.

The shot fired went over his left ear he said - therein lies the rub. If we examine the Moorman, we see that there is a man squatting on the stairs. My personal confidence level in the existence of this individual is 99.7%. He is in every version of the [altered] Moorman we have available - including the one originally published in the Herald. The shot would indeed have passed over this individual's head. Is he Arnold? I don't know. It seems to make more sense that he is either an operative making yet another secret assassination film, or that he was a spotter for the Railroad Detective behind the fence - but if you draw a line from Kennedy's head, back to the railroad man, and account for perhaps a second delay, it would have travelled over his left ear. Interesting.

Now if you return to other areas of the Moorman, you find that there are other items that resemble people - seemingly all over the place [behind the fence, behind the wall, behind the Tree, in front of the bushes, etc.]. Are they real, have they been matted in after the fact, or are they the result of my imagination? Hard to imagine they are all real - but at the same time, my CT is mega-black Op.

If you look to the left of the tree, behind the Phantom, there is what sure seems to be an individual crouching there. If you examine the other side of the tree - there is what appears to be an arm - I gave up on examing that - if there was someone there, it's tough to say. Certainly doesn't have the appearance of being a very normal tree trunk?

Lee Bowers, who may not have been in a position to see everyone behind the fence from his position, only said 2. And let's eliminate the argument concerning where these 2 were standing. Bowers saw them closer to the steampipe - as the Motorcade was making it's turn on to Houston. That's not enough to say that these individuals didn't move closer to the corner after that - the motorcade has the turn, the approach down Houston, and the turn that was removed from all films and photos on to Elm [Yes - even Tina Towner film is missing frames]. The footprints and cigarette butts say that someone was in the GKS position. No reason why one couldn't assume that these were one in the same - or that there may have been more than 2 people back there - and Bowers either couldn't see them - due to the sea of large automobiles - or that he was reluctant to mention what he saw - as per a lot of what can only be called speculation [Al Navis did not retain the letters]. Weitzman saw a railyard worker also - and there is the Murray photo of the man at the pickup truck showing his credentials.

Back to the Moorman - what is real and what is not? I don't know. Let's look at the area where Gordon Arnold says that he was standing initially, bracing himself against the tree. Stepman is not far from that position. The man to the left [our left] of the tree is not far from that position. There may be a man to the right [our right] of that position.

It's all very confusing, but the bottomline is that I just don't see how the statement can be made that the existing [altered] record is sufficient proof that Arnold was not there.

Someday I hope we will have access to one clear photo or film - unaltered, unadulterated, uncut and untouched by those Government officials that saw fit to cover up the operation. Or maybe a genuine Moorman will leak out, and certain individuals will quickly point out reasons why it is a hoax.

- lee

The steampipe and switchbox.

Credit to Robin Unger for this enlarged Moorman crop - I further enhanced it.

- lee

Thanks Lee, an excellent post.

I am quite surprised that one has yet to mention the treatment that Posner gave to Rose Cheramie. After all she did predict the assassination of JFK.

Posner says: "Dr. Victor Weiss, a treating physician, told investigators that he did not hear her say anything about the assassination, until November 25, the day after Ruby killed Oswald."

Posner's source is HSCA volume X page 200: "The doctor [Weiss] corroborated aspects of the Cheramie allegations. Dr. Victor Weiss verified that he was employed as a resident physician at the hospital in 1963. He recalled that on Monday, November 25, 1963, he was asked by another physician, Dr. Bowers, to see a patient who had been committed November 20 or 21. Dr. Bowers allegedly told Weiss that the patient, Rose Cheramie, had stated before the assassination that Kennedy was going to be killed. The account then relates that Cheramie told Weiss the same story she had allegedly told Dr. Bowers."

I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise that Posner "forgets" to mention the actual witnesses - the hospital nurses and Dr. Bowers - who heard Cheramie's prediction and instead uses a statement that was in no way relevant to the case. I guess this means that if you talk about someone's prediction to thirty people before the event and to one person after the event that makes you immediately a liar because that one person did not hear about it before the fact.

Ville, I set myself a task to completely debunk Mr Posner for the benefit of any newcomers to the case who visit this Forum. Due to the nature, and ammount of disinfo contained in Case Closed it will take a while, but thank you for saving me the effort in the Cheramie evidence.. Steve.

LEE BOWERS Jr

Lets have a look at Posners treatment of this important witness. Mr Bowers was a railroad employee, who at the time of the assassination was atop a 14ft high switching tower, which overlooked the parking lot well BEHIND the stockade fence. He see's a black 1957 Ford enter the lot, Bowers believed the driver was holding a microphone, or mobile telephone, the car leaves the lot at approx 12-20. Shortly after he see's another unfamiliar motor enter the lot behind the stockade fence, a 1961 Chevrolet, it circles around, and leaves at 12-25 approx. He also notices two men stancing behind the fence, they remain inplace until after the shots are fired at the motorcade. He also described a "Flash of light, and a disturbance that caused me to feel that something out of the ordinary had occured there.2 When questioned by the W/C, he was cut off mid sentance as he tried to describe the "Something out of the ordinary" The interrogating Lawyer changed the subject.

Time to bring on our old friend Mr Posner. Quote, Case Closed 225, " Before the assassination he saw no unusual activity,three cars drove into the parking lot between noon and the assassination looking for a space, but seeing it was full, left." This is rich, even by Posners usual standards, Firstly Bowers describes two cars not three, he notices them because they are unfamiliar to him. He says nothing about them looking for a parking space, he describes them cruising slowly around the stockade for up to five mins, and no attempts at parking are noticed. Finally Posner completely omits to tell his readers of Bowers description of the driver of the Ford holding a mobile telephone( not on sale to the general public in 1963)

On the subject of the two men Posner has this to say. Quote Case Closed 225, "Bowers also noticed two men behind the stockade fence some 15ft appart, who apparantly did not know each other."This is vintage stuff, how on earth could it be determined whether they knew each other or not, simple, because it suits Posners purpose for them to be strangers, he continues," They were still there when the Police arrived."Now this, you see, gives the impression that the men were seen, and cleared by Police at the scene, Bowers says no such thing, merely that the men were still in position after the shoys were fired. But we can do better than that. The first Policeman to go to the fence was one Joe Smith, who enters the lot on best evidence one and a half, to two minutes after the final shot. ( strangely he does not merit a mention in Case Closed. ) He went there because a woman had told him that the shots had come from the bushes (no pun intended) he also claims to smell gunpowder, and further had a very strange encounter. He came accross a man standing by a car, the man reacted quickly and as Smith remembers it "The man produced credentials from his hip pocket which showed him to be secret service, the credentials satisfied me so I let him go, and continued to search around the cars." It was a decision Smith later regretted for there were no authentic secret sevicemen on the knoll, none were stationed in the Plaza, and those with the motorcade stayed with their cars, so who was this bogus agent. ( Dont forget Gordon Arnold claimed he had encountered a secret service agent on the Knoll just before the assassination,and other witnesses report being turned away from the Knoll by "Agents") So how does Smith describe the S/S man. " He looked like an auto mechanic, he had on a sports shirt and sports pants, and he had dirty fingernails,afterwards it didn't ring true for a secret serviceman. I should have checked that man closer, but at the time I didn't snap on it." Could this be one of the men Bowers see's behind the fence, creating a distraction for the shooter to make good his escape?Building engineer JC Price is on the roof of the Terminal Anex building, on the south side of Dealey Plaza. He see's a man run from the area behind the fence, he states the man has something in his right hand, this is exactly the the same time as Officer Smith encounters the bogus S/S agent. Price described the man as, 25 wearing a white shirt, and kharki pants, he ran off towards the passenger cars on the railroad siding, and he was carring something. Are these two men, the bogus agent, and the running man the same men as seen by Bowers, possibly, but of course Mr posner never draws the picture for his readers, and so never has to ask the question...

I thought I would revive this thread for the benefit of a certain member who thinks were all closet Posner/McAdams supporters. Also I have still to complete the full debunking promised. Steve.

We have the testimony of Emmett Hudson, in which he is standing with ONE man. A young man who parks in one of the secured Knoll parking lots, and knows shots are being fired at the President, while everyone else is in a state of shock and confusion. He goes prone, and urges Emmett to follow suit. Emmett is prone when a shot is fired over his head. Emmett has Kennedy struck in the side of the head when the Lincoln is much further up Elm



The "operative" aspect of this "much further" is that the vehicle was further up Elm than was the location alongside Elm of the sidewalk on which Mr. Hudson was standing.

And, in that content and context, Z-312/313 is "much further" up Elm than was the location of the third/final/last shot.

By about 30-feet.

Therefore, one might want to add in what Mr. Hudson had to say in relationship to the location of the Presidential Limousine at the time of the last shot which he heard and did not see any results of impact.

Tom

BACK FROM THE GRAVE Sorry its taken me so long to get around to this.

Lets take a look at Posners take on the Mexico city incident.

He says all of the reported contacts with Oswald in Mexico city were with the real LHO (pages 170-173, 181-196) A lot of this however flies in the face of the evidence. There are hugh holes in Posners case, here's a few.

Oswalds alleged bus tickets were found only a few days before the Warren report was to be published. The tickets were supposedly found in some Spanish language mags that Oswald had allegedly brought back from Mexico. As the story goes, Marina supposedly took these mags with her to the Hotel where she was detained following the assassination. There, at the last minute, she found the tickets in one of the mags, no one has ever explained why she would have taken Spanish literature with her when she did not evn speak the language. Nor has it been explained why it took so long to find the tickets. Fbi agents had already carefully searched the motel rooms where Marina and the children were being held. The agents testified that every scrap of paper had been examined, but nothing of interest had been found. The rooms were searched again by a different team of agents, they didn't find the tickets either. It was only after the W/C finally seemed to get suspicious about the lack of hard evidence, tying Oswald to the Mexico city trip that the tickets miraculously turned up.

Every name in the Sept 27th register of the hotel where Oswald allegedly stayed is in the same handwriting, except Oswalds. The W/C tried to explain this by claiming that on the first night a guest would write their own name, but that on succeeding nights the Hotel clerk wrote them in Yet, " Eight other guests checked in on Sept 27, and, on the regiter for the 28th, Oswalds name is again in a unique style. To make it even stranger, the handwriting is not the same as that of the previous day."(Jim DiEugenio)

Oswald allegedly traveled on the Flecha Roja bus line. This line normally kept a manifest for each of its runs. The original was sent to Mexico city, and a duplicate was retained at Nuevo Laredo. However, four months after the assassination, when the FBI went to Mexico to examine the original passenger list, they were told that Mexican Goverment investigators had taken the list and had not returned it. These unnamed "Investigators" the Fbi was told, had also taken the duplicate, neither copy was ever located.

(1) Michael T Griffith, More than a reasonable doubt.

To be continued...

Sorry for some reason the above post didn't take. I will give it a bump.

Here are a few more Oswald impersonations that the good Wall St Lawyer ignores.

[color=#FF0000]*On Oct 11, 1963, while the real Oswald is in Dallas, someone in New orleans filed a change-of-adress card in Oswalds name to foward his mail to a house in Dallas. The card is signed in Oswald's name but the signature is not in his handwriting.

* Two weeks before the assassination, a phoney Oswald asked about a job as a parking attendant at the Southland hotel in downtown Dallas. When the manager wrote the applicants name down as "Lee Harvey Osborn" the man corrected it to "Oswald" The imposter then asked a strange questionthat would later have sinister significance: He wanted to know how high the hotel was, and whether it provided a good view over Dallas.

*On Nov st, 1963, A cuban man entered a gift shop in Dade county, Florida, and told an employee that he had a friend called Lee who could speak Russian, and German. The man addedthat his friend lived in Texas, or Mexico and "Was also a sharpshooter"

* On july 26th, 1963, when the real Oswald was in N/O, someone visited the Atomic energy Museum in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and signed the register "Lee H Oswald, USSR, Dallas Rd, Dallas Texas. The imposters intention, it appears, was to make it seem as though Oswald thought of himself as a Soviet citizen.

[quote name='Peter Lemkin' date='Jul 7 2006, 01:16 PM' post='67506']

QUOTE (Stephen Turner @ Aug 25 2005, 05:39 PM)

For newcomers to the case.


Posner never fooled me for one nano-second. Even before his book came out I knew who he was working for. Most pay no attention to his prior book on Joseph Mengele and his steering the reader away from the evidence that Mengele had CIA and other American intelligence connections post-War that protected him [and other Nazi]. These media assets are recycled.

Peter:

He is beyond despicable. Total CIA whore. I too was onto him from the first second. Now he's all over the map on all the cases. On tv all the time. I had a wonderful letter to ed. published in the local rag (Austin American Statesman) back in 93 where I took on on both Posner and Rather. Got a lot of response, mostly positive, but my favorite "negative" response was by Former AG Waggonner Carr!!! It's a true classic. Fortunately for me I signed only my name, omitting that I am an attorney. It took all my energy to suppress the urge to call him and have a little chat. . Somethings are better left unsaid, that is if one wishes to remain a member in good standing of the Tx. Bar.

Dawn

ps Steve:Great to see ya back.