Gerald Posner and the Eyewitness Accounts

[Blair Dobson]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[/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 xxxx, IMHO.

Dawn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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...

[Guest Stephen Turner]

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...

Edited September 6, 2005 by Stephen Turner

[Guest Stephen Turner]

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.....

[Guest Stephen Turner]

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........

[Guest Stephen Turner]

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".

[Guest Stephen Turner]

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...

[Guest Stephen Turner]

, 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.

[Lee Forman]

, 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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

[Lee Forman]

The steampipe and switchbox.

[Lee Forman]

The steampipe and switchbox.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

- lee

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Thanks Lee, an excellent post.

[ville huoponen]

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 xxxx because that one person did not hear about it before the fact.

Edited September 27, 2005 by ville huoponen

[Guest Stephen Turner]

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 xxxx because that one person did not hear about it before the fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

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...

[Guest Stephen Turner]

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.