Gerald Posner on the Latest in the JFK Assassination

[BOZ]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzOalJDxvGI

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/9/2019 9:22 PM, BOZ wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzOalJDxvGI
>


I thought you said there was nothing new. Didn't you say the WC solved
the case in 1963?

[Ramon F Herrera]

On 3/9/2019 8:22 PM, BOZ wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzOalJDxvGI
>

Deagle:

Is it fair to say that the appearances of Squire Posner during the Big
Dump constituted his Swam Song?

He and Myers are retired, correct? If so, I must have missed the
announcements that are customary.

Always demanding this notable (lowercase) NG to take on the activist role
that historically belongs to us, why not penning these two petitions:

(1) To Harvard educated professor John McAdams, please deliver our
request to Gerald Posner.

(2) To ardent defender of the widely seen and purchased 2003 opus, David
Emerling, please deliver our request to Dale Myers.

What would those requests state? As obedient servant, I will sign anything
that you, worthy components of this sovereign group will decide.

That said, it is obviously not a tangential stretch to ask that
illustrious pair questions such as:

(a) "Are you aware of the work done done by the small, tiny outlet named
JFK Numbers?"

[Here you add some URLs]

(b) What is your position about their work? About their indictments
directed to your much more widespread "definite" work?

(c) Would you support the JFK Numbers proposal? They require all parts to
be co-signers, as a show of the unity that we owe to America in these
perilous days.

Those are just a suggestions. You have my signature, a blank check assured.

Thus, I defer the narrative to more competent writers. After all, I am
just a poor immigrant, geek, 3D designer and cheap movie maker wannabe.

After/during that we could pick up the theme that Steve Galbraith is so
anxious to know, the answer that he expectantly waits with breathless
anticipation: The role of the Kochs in the PBS Nova program, their
editorial control -or lack thereof. PBS owes that answer to viewers and
taxpayers.

Steve should have the honor to write the first (and final?) draft. So
Galbraith: do you deserve the Trust imposed on you by the participants?

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

#FreeTheCranium
#FreeTheBlueprints
#FreeRamon'sPosts
#MyMomFreedVenezuela

[bigdog]

On Saturday, March 9, 2019 at 9:22:14 PM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzOalJDxvGI

Posner is still propagating the myth that the WC concluded Oswald fired
his 3 shots in 5.6 seconds which is something the WC never concluded. He
did that when his book first came out and it seems he is still doing that.
That indicates he is either being deliberately dishonest or his research
is sloppy. He also presents his speculations as if they are established
facts, most notably Oswald's motive. How could anyone KNOW that. Only
Oswald knew that and he's not talking. He also stated in this interview
that Oswald had over 11 seconds to fire the shots. To know that, one would
have to know when the first shot was fired. There is no definitive
evidence of that. We all have our theories but it is intellectually
dishonest to present something as fact that has not been proven. Posner to
be sure has made some valuable contributions but he presents himself as
much more of an authority on the assassination than he actually is.

[BOZ]

Do you mean Swan Song?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

From the WC's conclusion: "Since the preponderance of the evidence
indicated that three shots were fired, the Commission concluded that one
shot probably missed the Presidential limousine and its occupants, and
that the three shots were fired in a time period ranging from
approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds."

"Chapter 3: The Shots from the Texas School Book Depository"
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#number

[Ramon F Herrera]

Full Subject Header: Are Gerald Posner and Dale Myers still in this
business? Have they retired?

On 3/12/2019 12:21 PM, BOZ wrote:
>
> Do you mean Swan Song?
>

Either one works. Just like John Wayne and Roy Rogers rode into the
sunset, the Posner-Myers pair is now swimming into the obscurity, the
abyss, the deep side of the pool. The shark jumped them.

IOW: That was then, JFK Numbers is now.

For some reason, this YouTube blocked videoclip (too long, they shouted)
comes to mind:

https://vimeo.com/237323846

-Ramon The Shark

JFK Numbers

#FreeTheCranium
#FreeTheBlueprints
#FreeRamon'sPosts

#PaulIsDead

[bigdog]

Yup, yet the myth persists, even among some LNs like Posner, that the WC
concluded 3 shots in under 6 seconds. The key is that the WC couldn't find
conclusive evidence either for when the first shot was fired or which shot
missed. That's why their conclusion was indeterminant. Only under a second
shot miss scenario would all three shots have to be fired in under 6
seconds. They calculated that the earliest JFK could have first been hit
was 210 which is 103 frames or 5.6 seconds prior to the head shot. Somehow
that became widely accepted as the WC's conclusion yet the WC never
concluded the second shot missed. People like Posner aren't helping things
when they propagate that myth.

[19e...@mail.com]

On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 9:10:11 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:

There is no question about it. Posner's research is sloppy. I just looked
at his potboiler last night, and he's telling the story like a novel, as
if he is the author and he knows everything. He does have footnotes, and
presumably they support what he says. But still, taking somebody's
account, and then using it as if it is fact6 is very sloppy. One example,
in his narration he says that Oswald was brought to the police station
just after 2 o'clock, and then was taken to a third floor interrogation
room. Then, in the interrogation room, the police still don't know whether
he's Hidell or Oswald. But this cannot be true. We have a film showing
Oswald being brought into the interrogation room, and there's a weird coat
rack/clock right there, and it's 2 O'Clock on the button. He had to have
arrived at the station shortly before 2. This is a minor detail, but when
you are reciting specific facts, they ought to be correct, no? And we know
that Jack Dougherty and Billy Lovelady and Danny Arce and William Shelley
were all there, either in the Squad Room Oswald was walked through, or in
that very interrogation room, when Oswald was brought in, and that they
identified him to the police. So, they already knew who he was when they
sat him down in the interrogation room. Yet, Posner, has Guy Rose come in
and ask Oswald who he really is. Posner tells a story with incorrect
details as if he knows it all. Like a lawyer would. And being a Wall
Street lawyer, Posner of course supports the Official Story. He doesn't
care about the truth. Like Bugliosi, he is simply trying to scam the jury.
His sources may support what he says, but they are wrong if they do. This
sort of storytelling is extremely arrogant when applied to history, and
should be restricted to fiction, where the author has the authority to
create the facts. By providing an omniscient narration, Posner conditions
his readers to accept that he knows what happened, when he obviously does
not. He is no more an authority on the matter than you or I, certainly no
more than I.

[Anthony Marsh]

IN EXCESS. So it could be 2 minutes. How vague can you get?
Same day?

[bigdog]

Vague is the best you can do when you don't have definitive evidence.
You've never seemed to understand that. Without knowing when the first
shot was fired it is impossible to say with certainty how long the
shooting lasted. This same sort of thinking leads to your demand that we
say with precision and certitude the instant the single bullet struck. We
don't have definitive evidence for that either but we can identify a very
small time frame when it could have struck. Most people who aren't anal
find that satisfactory.

[BOZ]

THE COURTIER'S REPLY.

[BT George]

Our recent Vulcan mind meld is still holding. I just posted about the
same thing in another thread.

[Anthony Marsh]

I have the Best Evidence. The acoustical evidence.
All you have are guesses.

> You've never seemed to understand that. Without knowing when the first
> shot was fired it is impossible to say with certainty how long the

I know when the first shot was fired.

> shooting lasted. This same sort of thinking leads to your demand that we
> say with precision and certitude the instant the single bullet struck. We

Your theory. You need to defend it.

[bigdog]

This statement reminds me of what Ronald Reagan said about liberals:

“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they
know so many things that aren't so.”

> > shooting lasted. This same sort of thinking leads to your demand that we
> > say with precision and certitude the instant the single bullet struck. We
>
> Your theory. You need to defend it.
>

I don't need to know the precise instant the bullet struck to know who
fired it.

[Ramon F Herrera]

On 3/17/2019 12:49 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> I have the Best Evidence. The acoustical evidence.
> All you have are guesses.
>

I have told the community for years:

(1) "I will get you the NARA files (the caper of the decade, risked
prison), but there is NOTHING in it"

(2) "I will get you the most accurate technically and humanly possible
simulation, 3D models, videos of the SBT/MBT but that problem may prove
to be undecidable". See illustration of the reason below.

(3) "I will get you the top experts on acoustics in the world, but [...]"

Tony, your beloved acoustical evidence and your little program are not
worth a bucket of warm spit. Then again, I may be wrong. Let Science decide.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

The solution is here:

http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/Which-Problem-is-Easier-to-Solve.png

-Ramon

[Anthony Marsh]

Hatred does not prove that you are smart.

[donald willis]

Actually, they solved it in 1962.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/22/2019 12:16 PM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> On 3/17/2019 12:49 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>
>> I have the Best Evidence. The acoustical evidence.
>> All you have are guesses.
>>
>
> I have told the community for years:
>

> ??(1) "I will get you the NARA files (the caper of the decade, risked

> prison), but there is NOTHING in it"
>

> ??(2) "I will get you the most accurate technically and humanly possible

> simulation, 3D models, videos of the SBT/MBT but that problem may prove
> to be undecidable". See illustration of the reason below.
>

> ??(3) "I will get you the top experts on acoustics in the world, but [...]"

>
> Tony, your beloved acoustical evidence and your little program are not
> worth a bucket of warm spit. Then again, I may be wrong. Let Science
> decide.
>

FYI I was the only person on this planet who went ahead and did what W&A
suggested, but were not allowed to do.

> Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
>

Somehow I can't see you as a real conspiracy believer when you constantly
attack the vanguard of conspiracy believers who actually got something
done and proved conspiracy.

You seem to be just like a homeless we had up here who really didn't care
about the case and only used it to get a place to stay, some money for
drugs and a free meal.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/22/2019 12:16 PM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:

> On 3/17/2019 12:49 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>
>> I have the Best Evidence. The acoustical evidence.
>> All you have are guesses.
>>
>
> I have told the community for years:
>
>  (1) "I will get you the NARA files (the caper of the decade, risked
> prison), but there is NOTHING in it"
>
>  (2) "I will get you the most accurate technically and humanly possible
> simulation, 3D models, videos of the SBT/MBT but that problem may prove
> to be undecidable". See illustration of the reason below.
>
>  (3) "I will get you the top experts on acoustics in the world, but [...]"
>
> Tony, your beloved acoustical evidence and your little program are not
> worth a bucket of warm spit. Then again, I may be wrong. Let Science
> decide.
>
> Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
>

Do I have to reply to each of your SPAMS twice?