Posner again ...
Barb Junkkarinen
Any Posner fans want to defend against some of the more blatant
atrocious errors in his book anymore? You know, the ones like when he
co-mingles Frazier and Randles testimonies into one and attributes it
to Randle, painting a mind pic of a very long package for the reader
to open a chapter .... or when he ignore the parts of Frazier's
testimony that makes it clear Oswald was not acting odd by showing up
at the house that morning as Frazier was running late ... or when he
ignored Frazier's testimony from when they arrived at work and Frazier
makes it clear Oswald did not bolt from the car and run ahead of
Frazier as Posner asserts?
Probably not. Good call.
Barb :-)
Peter Fokes
Didn't he also claim to have a taped interview with someone .....???
Owen call Posner a "journalistic vampire".
I posted this same url here last night at midnight.
>
>Barb :-)
PF
PF
bigdog
wrote:
> http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/03/gerald_posner_plagiari...
>
> Any Posner fans want to defend against some of the more blatant
> atrocious errors in his book anymore? You know, the ones like when he
> co-mingles Frazier and Randles testimonies into one and attributes it
> to Randle, painting a mind pic of a very long package for the reader
> to open a chapter .... or when he ignore the parts of Frazier's
> testimony that makes it clear Oswald was not acting odd by showing up
> at the house that morning as Frazier was running late ... or when he
> ignored Frazier's testimony from when they arrived at work and Frazier
> makes it clear Oswald did not bolt from the car and run ahead of
> Frazier as Posner asserts?
>
> Probably not. Good call.
>
> Barb :-)
Some of the criticisms of Posner might be valid, but the bottom line is he
got conclusion right. Oswald alone shot JFK. The first shot missed and the
SBT is valid. Posner's work supports the WCR, but by no means can replace
it. The WCR remains the definitive word on the JFK assassination. Posner
did benefit from several decades of analysis of the evidence which the WC
did not have, and he made a strong case for the first shot miss, although
that had been on the table before he published his work. In the long run,
I think CC will pale in comparison to RH, but that doesn't mean CC does
not have value.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:49:05 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
><barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/03/gerald_posner_plagiarized_seve.php
>>
>>Any Posner fans want to defend against some of the more blatant
>>atrocious errors in his book anymore? You know, the ones like when he
>>co-mingles Frazier and Randles testimonies into one and attributes it
>>to Randle, painting a mind pic of a very long package for the reader
>>to open a chapter .... or when he ignore the parts of Frazier's
>>testimony that makes it clear Oswald was not acting odd by showing up
>>at the house that morning as Frazier was running late ... or when he
>>ignored Frazier's testimony from when they arrived at work and Frazier
>>makes it clear Oswald did not bolt from the car and run ahead of
>>Frazier as Posner asserts?
>>
>>Probably not. Good call.
>
>Didn't he also claim to have a taped interview with someone .....???
Ahhhh, Posner claimed to have notes from a conversation he claims he
had with Boswell ... in which Posner claimed Boswell told him he had
changed his mind about the skull wound. Posner mentioned this little
bombshell when testifying before the Conyer's Committee ... but never
produced the notes. The ARRB contacted him twice asking for his
evidence that Boswell had changed his mind ... and they had received a
copy of the audiotaped conversation Gary Aguilar had with Boswell
wherein Boswell certainly says no such thing and confirms his original
conclusions. Posner failed to respond to the ARRB. Twice. I had a
couple exchanges with Posner about producing the notes, as did others,
I know ... to no avail.
>
>Owen call Posner a "journalistic vampire".
>
>I posted this same url here last night at midnight.
I should have called up new posts before posting ... but I didn't
....sorry.
Bests,
Barb :-)
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Barb :-)
>
>PF
>
>
>PF
John Fiorentino
John F.
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ago7q599dmefm3t80...@4ax.com...
John McAdams
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
Are you denying that Oswald had the rifle in the bag?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
yeuhd
> ignored Frazier's testimony from when they arrived at work and Frazier
> makes it clear Oswald did not bolt from the car and run ahead of
> Frazier as Posner asserts?
Oswald did not "quickly" leave the car, as Posner said, but he
certainly put a good distance between himself and Wesley Frazier.
From Frazier's affidavit of Nov. 22, 1963:
When we started walking, Lee was just a few feet ahead of me, but he
kept waking faster than me, and finally got way ahead of me.
From his WC testimony:
Mr. FRAZIER. He got out of the car and he was wearing the jacket that
has the big sleeves in them and he put the package that he had, you
know, that he told me was curtain rods up under his arm, you know, and
so he walked down behind the car and standing over there at the end of
the cyclone fence waiting for me to get out of the car, and so quick
as I cut the engine off and started out of the car, shut the door just
as I was starting out just like getting out of the car, he started
walking off and so I followed him in.
So, eventually there he kept getting a little further ahead of me… and
by that time we got down there pretty close to the Depository Building
there, I say, he would be as much as, I would say, roughly 50 feet in
front of me but I didn't try to catch up with him because I knew I had
plenty of time so I just took my time walking up there.
Mr. BALL. Did you usually walk up there together?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; we did.
Mr. BALL. Is this the first time that he had ever walked ahead of
you?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; he did.
John Blubaugh
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:49:05 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/03/gerald_posner_plagiari...
>
> >Any Posner fans want to defend against some of the more blatant
> >atrocious errors in his book anymore? You know, the ones like when he
> >co-mingles Frazier and Randles testimonies into one and attributes it
> >to Randle, painting a mind pic of a very long package for the reader
> >to open a chapter .... or when he ignore the parts of Frazier's
> >testimony that makes it clear Oswald was not acting odd by showing up
> >at the house that morning as Frazier was running late ... or when he
> >ignored Frazier's testimony from when they arrived at work and Frazier
> >makes it clear Oswald did not bolt from the car and run ahead of
> >Frazier as Posner asserts?
>
> >Probably not. Good call.
>
> Are you denying that Oswald had the rifle in the bag?
>
> .John
>
Well, John, that is very astute of you. Of course she is saying that
as are almost all of the CT crowd.
JB
John McAdams
One can see Frazier in the video "Four Days in November" saying that
Oswald got out of the car while Frazier stayed in to charge his
battery, and went on ahead of Frazier into the Depository.
Where did Barb get "bolt" and "run head?"
Barb, are you lurking? Did Posner use these words?
You wouldn't want to do the same things you are accusing Posner of,
would you?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
HistorianDetective
Barb,
I'm wondering too where you got "bolt" and "run ahead".
Posner....Case Closed pg 224
"Oswald quickly left the car and walked ahead."
JM
PS....Did you ever find a pic of Hal Verb?
Dave Reitzes
>
> Any Posner fans want to defend against some of the more blatant
> atrocious errors in his book anymore? You know, the ones like when he
> co-mingles Frazier and Randles testimonies into one and attributes it
> to Randle, painting a mind pic of a very long package for the reader
> to open a chapter .... or when he ignore the parts of Frazier's
> testimony that makes it clear Oswald was not acting odd by showing up
> at the house that morning as Frazier was running late ... or when he
> ignored Frazier's testimony from when they arrived at work and Frazier
> makes it clear Oswald did not bolt from the car and run ahead of
> Frazier as Posner asserts?
>
> Probably not. Good call.
>
> Barb :-)
CASE CLOSED has mistakes (some of which I've written about), but I'd
give it a 98 out of 100 for accuracy and overall reliability. It was a
milestone achievement in the wake of 30 years of mass misinformation.
And furious, kneejerk LN haters can kiss my ass. \:^)
Dave
François Carlier
As for me, I still say, in 2010, that "Case closed" remains the best book on
the Kennedy assassination.
Indeed, I may have read 150+ books on the subject, but cannot expect others
to do the same (some of my friends find it a waste of time, but that's
another story). If I had one single volume to suggest to anyone interested
in the Kennedy assassination, I would pick "Case closed", and certainly not
"Reclaiming History" (too big, with lots of unnecessary information for the
layman).
Case closed sums it up perfectly, with logic and comon sense.
I am a Posner fan, whatever may be written in this newsgroup.
/François Carlier/
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:2e3be27c-dcd1-4d40...@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
John Fiorentino
have many misgivings with his research and journalistic approach.
CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ORLEANS
STATE OF LOUISIANA
STATE OF LOUISIANA vs. CLAY L. SHAW
198-059
1426 (30)
SECTION "C"
EXCERPT OF THE TESTIMONY TAKEN IN OPEN COURT
February 13, 1969
B E F O R E: THE HONORABLE EDWARD A. HAGGERTY, JR., JUDGE, SECTION "C"
BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER, after first being duly sworn, was examined and
testified on his oath as follows:
Q: Do you recall approximately what time you arrived at the Texas School
Book Depository that morning?
A: We arrived in the parking lot there I believe roughly around 8:00, or ten
minutes before 8:00.
Q: What, if anything, did you do when you arrived at the Texas School Book
Depository?
A: I parked the car, and as I was sitting there I looked at my watch and I
had a few minutes about eight or ten minutes, so I sat there and was looking
out over Stemmons Freeway, which you could see from the parking lot, and I
said I would charge my battery for a few minutes, because I had been driving
in town and you could look at your gauge and see the battery was not
charging. I said to him, " I will race the engine pretty fast and charge it
up a little bit."
Q: What did Lee Harvey Oswald do when you were charging your battery?
A: He got out of the car, got the package and walked behind the picket fence
there and stayed there like he was waiting on me.
Q: Did you catch up with him?
A: As soon as I cut the engine off and got out and closed the door he
started walking off. I followed him but I didn't catch up with him because
at that time of the morning --
Q: Did you see Lee Harvey Oswald enter the Texas School Book Depository?
A: Yes, sir, I did. I saw him enter the first door there.
Frazier again: ...."AND STAYED THERE LIKE HE WAS WAITING ON ME."
The idea that Oswald must wait in the car while Frazier "charged his
battery" is simply silly. Fact is according to Frazier himself, Oswald DID
wait for him for a time. In fact even Ball's questioning might be
interpreted as misleading. What Ball never asked, was how many times did you
dawdle, or charge your battery after driving Oswald to work?
Now, do I believe Oswald brought his rifle to work that day?....Yes I do.
John F.
"HistorianDetective" <historian...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4091a9bf-c06d-415d...@x23g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 20, 12:40 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 20 Mar 2010 01:33:23 -0400, yeuhd <needleswax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 19, 4:49 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
> >wrote:
> >> or when he
> >> ignored Frazier's testimony from when they arrived at work and Frazier
> >> makes it clear Oswald did not bolt from the car and run ahead of
> >> Frazier as Posner asserts?
>
> >Oswald did not "quickly" leave the car, as Posner said, but he
> >certainly put a good distance between himself and Wesley Frazier.
>
> >From Frazier's affidavit of Nov. 22, 1963:
>
> >When we started walking, Lee was just a few feet ahead of me, but he
> >kept waking faster than me, and finally got way ahead of me.
>
> >From his WC testimony:
>
> >Mr. FRAZIER. He got out of the car and he was wearing the jacket that
> >has the big sleeves in them and he put the package that he had, you
> >know, that he told me was curtain rods up under his arm, you know, and
> >so he walked down behind the car and standing over there at the end of
> >the cyclone fence waiting for me to get out of the car, and so quick
> >as I cut the engine off and started out of the car, shut the door just
> >as I was starting out just like getting out of the car, he started
> >walking off and so I followed him in.
> >So, eventually there he kept getting a little further ahead of me� and
Anthony Marsh
Most people do not like to stay in the car while the driver is revving
the engine.
> DID wait for him for a time. In fact even Ball's questioning might be
> interpreted as misleading. What Ball never asked, was how many times did
> you dawdle, or charge your battery after driving Oswald to work?
>
Where do you quote Ball? I thought this was from the Clay Shaw trial.
Right in the answer is the explanation of why that day Frazier decided
to charge the battery. Because he had been driving in town, saw that the
battery was getting low and had a few extra minutes to charge it.
>> >So, eventually there he kept getting a little further ahead of me… and
HistorianDetective
how it differs than what Barb proposed he stated.
Whether he mislead or not is a different matter for debate and
interpretation.
On Mar 20, 12:55 pm, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
wrote:
> "HistorianDetective" <historiandetect...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> PS....Did you ever find a pic of Hal Verb?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
What if that 2% of errors and outright lies are the Achilles Heel which
destroys the whole thing?
Anthony Marsh
Close enough for a WC defender. Just ignore what Frazier actually said.
Barb Junkkarinen
>On Mar 19, 4:49 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>> or when he
>> ignored Frazier's testimony from when they arrived at work and Frazier
>> makes it clear Oswald did not bolt from the car and run ahead of
>> Frazier as Posner asserts?
>
>Oswald did not "quickly" leave the car, as Posner said, but he
>certainly put a good distance between himself and Wesley Frazier.
>
>From Frazier's affidavit of Nov. 22, 1963:
>
>When we started walking, Lee was just a few feet ahead of me, but he
>kept waking faster than me, and finally got way ahead of me.
>
>From his WC testimony:
>
>Mr. FRAZIER. He got out of the car and he was wearing the jacket that
>has the big sleeves in them and he put the package that he had, you
>know, that he told me was curtain rods up under his arm, you know, and
The relevant portion....
*****************
>so he walked down behind the car and standing over there at the end of
>the cyclone fence waiting for me to get out of the car,
*****************
>and so quick
>as I cut the engine off and started out of the car, shut the door just
>as I was starting out just like getting out of the car, he started
>walking off and so I followed him in.
>So, eventually there he kept getting a little further ahead of me… and
>by that time we got down there pretty close to the Depository Building
>there, I say, he would be as much as, I would say, roughly 50 feet in
>front of me but I didn't try to catch up with him because I knew I had
>plenty of time so I just took my time walking up there.
>Mr. BALL. Did you usually walk up there together?
>Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; we did.
>Mr. BALL. Is this the first time that he had ever walked ahead of
>you?
>Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; he did.
Oh .... you didn't include the part about how Frazier likes to dawdle
and watch the trains sometyimes. And according to information Steve
Bochan got from someone (Russo?) several years ago, Frazier told him
(RUsso?) that LHO kept going because he had to go to the bathroom...
At any rate, Frazier made it clear that LHO did not leap out of the
car and race ahead of him .... which is exactly what Posner peddled.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<historian...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>My post reflected what Posner stated in his book and
>how it differs than what Barb proposed he stated.
Excuse me people .... I did not indicate in any way shape or form that
I was *quoting* Posner.
>Whether he mislead or not is a different matter for debate and
>interpretation.
He did mislead. Totally.
Barb :-)
>> > >So, eventually there he kept getting a little further ahead of me� and
Barb Junkkarinen
<historian...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Barb,
>
>I'm wondering too where you got "bolt" and "run ahead".
I did not quote Posner as having used those words.
>
>Posner....Case Closed pg 224
>
>"Oswald quickly left the car and walked ahead."
>
>JM
>
>PS....Did you ever find a pic of Hal Verb?
I emailed you about that again just yesterday ... e-mail has not
bounced, did you get it? Or email me with the address I should be
using .... just remember to backspace out the "REMOVE" from my address
...
Bests,
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
I didn't say Posner said those words ... I did not put them in
quotation marks, but that is clearly Posner's assertion.
This from an article I wrote about a few of Posner's liberties with
some witness testimony ... I covered this very issue and quote both
Posner and Frazier:
QUOTE ARTICLE
In Case Closed, Chapter 11, page 224, Posner says:
"When they arrived at the Book Depository, Frazier parked the car in
the employee lot behind the warehouse. Usually, they went in together,
but on that morning, though they were early, Oswald quickly left the
car and walked ahead."
That does sound sinister, doesn't it? But what did Frazier actually
say? There's a BIG difference!
From Warren Commission, Vol. II, page 227:
FRAZIER: He got out of the car and he was wearing the jacket that has
the big sleeves in them and he put the package that he had, you know,
that he told me was curtain rods up under his arm, you know, and so he
walked down behind the car and STANDING OVER THERE AT THE END OF THE
CYCLONE FENCE WAITING FOR ME to get out of the car, and so quick as I
cut the engine off and started out of the car, shut the door just as I
was starting out just like getting out of a car, he started walking
off and so I followed him. [emphasis mine]
What Frazier does not mention in that exchange, but does state
elsewhere in his testimony, is that he sat there for a few minutes
with the engine running to charge up his battery. And, remember, he
testified, that Oswald was WAITING for him during this time. When
Frazier got out, Oswald started walking and got further and further
ahead of Frazier, not because Oswald was in a hurry, but because, as
Frazier testified, he had plenty of time and was watching the trains
and switching going on in the railroad yard.
Here's that exchange from Frazier's testimony, VolumeII: [emphasis
mine]
FRAZIER: So, eventually there he kept getting a little further ahead
of me and I noticed we had plenty of time to get there and because it
is not too far from the Depository and usually I walk around and watch
them switching trains because you have to watch where you are going if
you have to cross the tracks.
One day you go across the track and maybe there would be some cars
sitting there and there would be another diesel coming from there, so
you have to watch when you cross the tracks, I just walked along and I
just like to watch them swith the cars, SO EVENTUALLY HE KEPT GETTING
A LITTLE FURTHER AHEAD OF ME and by the time we got down there pretty
close to the Depository Building there, i say, he would be as much as,
I would say, roughly 50 feet in front of me BUT I DIDN'T TRY TO CATCH
UP WITH HIM because I knew I had plenty of time SO I JUST TOOK MY TIME
WALKING UP THERE. Posner's presentation has Oswald practically bolting
from the car and leaving Frazier in the dust. Obviously, from
Frazier's own testimony, that is not the case. Oswald didn't rush
ahead, Frazier lagged behind to watch the trains!
END QUOTE
The entire article is here:
http://www.assassinationweb.com/barb1.htm
Bests,
Barb :-)
John Fiorentino
I'm not here to defend Barb.............Lord knows we've had our
differences.
However, I do think it is relevant to consider how Posner approached his
research and how he gave attributions.
IMHO, Posner's research methods were less than adequate and his
attributions, even less than that.
John F.
"HistorianDetective" <historian...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ca735069-4adb-4271...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
> > >So, eventually there he kept getting a little further ahead of me???
Anthony Marsh
Wow, that does sound sinister, doesn't it. Couldn't be anything like
common courtesy or common decency. Sounds like something a terrorist
would do. This alone must prove Oswald's guilt. You've solved the case.
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
This post is very interesting. How many times have Lone Nuts gone on
and on about some conspiracy researchers (Jack White springs to mind)
and highlighed some usually small issues where they have been wrong,
or have acted in ways they don't approve of, and then dismiss ALL
evidence/research they have presented!!! It happnes all the time.
Well, we have our na na na na na na na guy now, Gerald Posner (and we
can probably include VB as well seeing he wrote that book about Bush
and it appears most Lone Nutters think Bush was just misunderstood,
and he did all these great things for America)
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well I hate to disappoint you but this LN does not fit into your neat
little stereotype of what you believe LNs think. I am not a Republican
or Democrat and am not a defender of GWBush, never voted for him, I
don't really care what VB has written about him although I understand
it was not too flattering. I voted for Obama not because I believe in
what he stands for but to spite John McCain and the Republican Party
for nominating him. The last Republican I voted for for President was
GHWBush and that last one I was enthusiastic about was Reagan. I am a
Goldwater conservative which in today's vernacular makes me a
libertarian which is a label I gladly accept.
I've never understood those who believe the question of conspiracy is
a liberal/conservative issue. I know modern liberals like to be called
progressives but I've never understood the difference other than the
spelling. LNs are spread across the political spectrum as are CTs.
With CTs, their political persuasion tends to dictate who they want to
blame for the crime.
Anthony Marsh
You are a supporter of the extreme right wing ideology. But even Bush is
not right wing enough for you. Even Cheney is too wimpy for you. No
Republican is wacky enough for you, not even Ron Paul. You are beyond
Libertarian.
> don't really care what VB has written about him although I understand
> it was not too flattering. I voted for Obama not because I believe in
> what he stands for but to spite John McCain and the Republican Party
> for nominating him. The last Republican I voted for for President was
> GHWBush and that last one I was enthusiastic about was Reagan. I am a
> Goldwater conservative which in today's vernacular makes me a
> libertarian which is a label I gladly accept.
>
Nah, you probably think the Libertarians are Communists.
> I've never understood those who believe the question of conspiracy is
> a liberal/conservative issue. I know modern liberals like to be called
> progressives but I've never understood the difference other than the
There is a distinct difference between old Liberal and new Liberal.
> spelling. LNs are spread across the political spectrum as are CTs.
> With CTs, their political persuasion tends to dictate who they want to
> blame for the crime.
>
It is about tendencies.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
You are a supporter of the extreme left-wing ideology.
So there!
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
Uh, oh!
You have done what you accused Posner of doing, taking what he said
that making it "stronger" so as to attack it.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>At any rate, Frazier made it clear that LHO did not leap out of the
>car and race ahead of him .... which is exactly what Posner peddled.
>
Did Posner say "leap" and "race ahead?"
I'm looking at p. 224 of CASE CLOSED, and Posner says Oswald "quickly
left the car and walked ahead."
You are doing *exactly* what you accuse Posner of doing.
Thalia
Yeah well guess what I support the Liberal party in Australia which is
right of centre. )though when comparing to the United States, is probably
the equivalent of the Democrats, who in many ways are rightist by world
standards)
However, I don't think Goldwater conservatives should really call
themselves libertarians, basically they don't believe in "live and let
live" (which is what libertarism was traditionally about) they believe
"Its my way or the highway"
John Fiorentino
Yes, but he really didn't "quickly leave the car and walk ahead."
John F.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4baa9aa7.3133656704@news.supernews.com...
John Blubaugh
> the equivalent of the Democrats, who in many ways are rightist by world
> standards)
>
> However, I don't think Goldwater conservatives should really call
> themselves libertarians, basically they don't believe in "live and let
> live" (which is what libertarism was traditionally about) they believe
>
Well said and very true.
JB
bigdog
> the equivalent of the Democrats, who in many ways are rightist by world
> standards)
>
> However, I don't think Goldwater conservatives should really call
> themselves libertarians, basically they don't believe in "live and let
> live" (which is what libertarism was traditionally about) they believe
> "Its my way or the highway"- Hide quoted text -
>
You are confusing Goldwater conservatives with the neo-cons. John Dean
wrote an excellent book differentiating between the two. Goldwater was a
champion of individual liberty over increased government power. Goldwater
held firm to his core convictions throughout his life while the defintion
of a conservative changed. Goldwater often tweaked the noses of modern
conservatives prior to his death and this led some to believe that he had
somehow mellowed in his later years. In truth, it was not Goldwater who
had changed but the perception of what the conservative movement was
about. "It's my way or the highway" had nothing to do with the Goldwater
philosophy.
Barb Junkkarinen
That's silly, did you see his words? I already posted them.
Barb :-)
>
>.John
Barb Junkkarinen
McAdams) wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 14:52:41 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
><barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>At any rate, Frazier made it clear that LHO did not leap out of the
>>car and race ahead of him .... which is exactly what Posner peddled.
>>
>
>Did Posner say "leap" and "race ahead?"
>
>I'm looking at p. 224 of CASE CLOSED, and Posner says Oswald "quickly
>left the car and walked ahead."
>
>You are doing *exactly* what you accuse Posner of doing.
>
>.John
Yes, Posner says that ... but that is not what FRAZIER said Oswald did
... at all. Frazier said Oswald WAITED for him by the fence, and
started walking when Frazer, after revving his engine for the battery,
turned off the car and started getting out. THEN Frazier said that the
reason Oswald got farther and farther ahed was because he (Frazier)
was dawdling, watching the trains.
Posner selectively quotes ... and leaves the reader with his spin,
completely ignoring what ALL Frazier said and in what context.
So there. :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>.John:
>
>Yes, but he really didn't "quickly leave the car and walk ahead."
>
>John F.
Exactly ... and thank you.
Barb :-)
John McAdams
You should not use stronger words than Posner used, quotes or not.
He didn't say "bolt" and he didn't say "run ahead."
If you can't attack what he actually *said*, rather than your
*characterization* of what he said, you should leave it alone.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>.John:
>
>Yes, but he really didn't "quickly leave the car and walk ahead."
>
He clearly did "walk ahead." As for "quickly" leaving the car, that's
a matter of interpretation. He clearly got out before Frazier,
although you could argue that Frazier was dawdling, charging his
battery.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
yeuhd
Oswald walking faster than usual, you walking slower than usual, or
both?"
As it is, all three alternatives are possible interpretations from
Wesley Frazier's testimony. Frazier says that he liked to watch the
trains, which suggests a habit of his, but he also says that this was
the first time that he and Oswald did not walk together. If Frazier
was in the habit of dawdling to watch the trains, one would think this
walking-apart situation would have happened before.
John Fiorentino
On those occasions when you transported LHO to work, specifically, how
many times did you remain in your car to charge your battery?
How many times in toto did you transport LHO to work?
John F.
"yeuhd" <needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:223bc3cb-4b90-474a...@15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
John Blubaugh
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:44:02 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
>
>
>
>
>
> <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:40:58 -0500, John McAdams
You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. She paraphrased the language
he used and that is acceptable. You can't stop and look up the exact
wording of everything someone says. You are just nitpicking.
JB
HistorianDetective
JB
>
> You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. She paraphrased the language
> he used and that is acceptable.
Paraphrasing is not taking the word "walk" and changing it to "run".
>You can't stop and look up the exact wording of everything someone says.
One of the basic rules of analytical reading is "coming to terms" with
the author.
In order to agree, or disagree, the reader must first understand, as
precisely as possible, what the author is attempting to communicate.
In this instance...
Posner did not mean "run" or "race" when he wrote "walk".
Posner did not mean "bolted" or "leapt" when he wrote "quickly".
Posner does utilize the adverb "quickly" on several occassions in his
book. I think a more appropriate meaning of what he is trying to convey in
all those instances is "with little or no delay".
>You are just nitpicking.
Its OK to nitpick Posner, but not anyone who disagrees with him?
I don't agree with Barb that it is a blatant atrocious error.
JM
PS....On a sidenote, I wouldn't have used the adverb "quickly".
I was taught early on to avoid using adverbs. To use them "sparingly". :-)
As Stephen King once wrote.... "The road to hell is paved with adverbs.
They are like dandelions."
Barb Junkkarinen
<john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
I DID attack what he actually said, John ... you seem to see all the
other posts in this thread ... why not the one where I post Posner's
words and spins vs what Frazier actually said, in complete context?
Barb :-)
>
>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
HistorianDetective
John,
> Fact is according to Frazier himself, Oswald DID wait for him for a time.
Fact is, Oswald stopped at the fence according to Frazier.
Only Oswald would know why he stopped.
Frazier did not testify that Oswald told him why.
Frazier's perception is not a fact as to why Oswald stopped.
JM
Barb Junkkarinen
<john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>On 24 Mar 2010 22:20:16 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
><johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>.John:
>>
>>Yes, but he really didn't "quickly leave the car and walk ahead."
>>
>
>He clearly did "walk ahead." As for "quickly" leaving the car, that's
>a matter of interpretation. He clearly got out before Frazier,
>although you could argue that Frazier was dawdling, charging his
>battery.
>
>.John
John, are you really unfamiliar with what Frazier actually said ... I
posted the whole relevant exchange for you here just the other day.
Frazier said Oswald got out of the car, went by the fence and WAITED
for Frazier for a few minutes while he revved his engine. It was not
until Frazier turned off his car and starting getting out of it that
Oswald began walking. THEN Frazier told about how he dawdled watching
the trains and so Oswald just got farther and farther ahead of him.
Posner put a whole different spin of it by quoting selectively,
incompletely and out of context.
Barb :-)
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Fiorentino
less a technical issue.
However, not that I would be so inclined, but if I were Oswald's defense
counsel, I would shred Frazier's testimony to pieces.
There is in fact no establishment of Oswald's "normal" actions re: what he
did or didn't do after being transported to work by Frazier. The timeframe
is extremely short, the number of trips extremely small, and the fact
(according to Frazier himself) that Oswald actually waited a time for him
to finish charging his battery, etc. is, quite frankly not what one might
expect of someone with a rifle in a bag intent on assassinating a
President.
Now you can dice it and slice it - you can dance and sing about
it...........but it almost borders on being exculpatory.
John F.
"HistorianDetective" <historian...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4a1f5e38-31f6-403c...@k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> > >>>So, eventually there he kept getting a little further ahead of me?
John McAdams
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:55:25 -0500, John McAdams
><john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>>On 24 Mar 2010 22:20:16 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
>><johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>.John:
>>>
>>>Yes, but he really didn't "quickly leave the car and walk ahead."
>>>
>>
>>He clearly did "walk ahead." As for "quickly" leaving the car, that's
>>a matter of interpretation. He clearly got out before Frazier,
>>although you could argue that Frazier was dawdling, charging his
>>battery.
>>
>
>John, are you really unfamiliar with what Frazier actually said ... I
>posted the whole relevant exchange for you here just the other day.
>
>Frazier said Oswald got out of the car, went by the fence and WAITED
>for Frazier for a few minutes while he revved his engine. It was not
>until Frazier turned off his car and starting getting out of it that
>Oswald began walking. THEN Frazier told about how he dawdled watching
>the trains and so Oswald just got farther and farther ahead of him.
>
>Posner put a whole different spin of it by quoting selectively,
>incompletely and out of context.
>
Barb, you had Posner saying Oswald "leaped" out of the car, and "raced
ahead."
John Fiorentino
John F.
"HistorianDetective" <historian...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b182c3e6-9ecb-4848...@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
John Fiorentino
When I start agreeing with you, I know the end must be near...... ;-)
John F.
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:28vpq51k5rhjrfmt3...@4ax.com...
Anthony Marsh
A cautionary tale. As I often warn people to be careful when debunking
something. Don't misrepresent what was actually said. Yes Posner
exaggerated what happened to make it look more incriminating as if
Oswald was rushing to get into the TSBD before anyone could see the
package he was carrying or before Frazier could ask him why the package
looked so heavy. Barb overdid it. She misrepresented what Posner said
even though Posner himself misrepresented what happened. But when I make
the same complains about Barb or you misrepresenting something you
interpret that as my agreeing with the original statement because I am
"defending" the person who made it from attack.
Anthony Marsh
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:55:25 -0500, John McAdams
> <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 24 Mar 2010 22:20:16 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
>> <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> .John:
>>>
>>> Yes, but he really didn't "quickly leave the car and walk ahead."
>>>
>>
>> He clearly did "walk ahead." As for "quickly" leaving the car, that's
>> a matter of interpretation. He clearly got out before Frazier,
>> although you could argue that Frazier was dawdling, charging his
>> battery.
>>
>> .John
>
> John, are you really unfamiliar with what Frazier actually said ... I
> posted the whole relevant exchange for you here just the other day.
>
> Frazier said Oswald got out of the car, went by the fence and WAITED
> for Frazier for a few minutes while he revved his engine. It was not
> until Frazier turned off his car and starting getting out of it that
> Oswald began walking. THEN Frazier told about how he dawdled watching
> the trains and so Oswald just got farther and farther ahead of him.
>
Well, that must prove his guilt then according to some WC defenders.
> Posner put a whole different spin of it by quoting selectively,
> incompletely and out of context.
>
Which is why I said from the outset that Posner is a professional
propagandist.
Anthony Marsh
Huh? We are not debating WHY Oswald stopped at the fence, just the way
Posner misrepresented what Oswald did and omitted the FACT that Oswald
stopped at the fence and waited for Frazier.
> JM
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Ok, so you are saying that Oswald stood at the fence quickly?
Anthony Marsh
> Yeah, the recent revelations about Mr. Posner aside, I think it's more
> or less a technical issue.
>
> However, not that I would be so inclined, but if I were Oswald's defense
> counsel, I would shred Frazier's testimony to pieces.
>
> There is in fact no establishment of Oswald's "normal" actions re: what
> he did or didn't do after being transported to work by Frazier. The
> timeframe is extremely short, the number of trips extremely small, and
> the fact (according to Frazier himself) that Oswald actually waited a
> time for him to finish charging his battery, etc. is, quite frankly not
> what one might expect of someone with a rifle in a bag intent on
> assassinating a President.
>
Yeah, that nutty Oswald showing common courtesy or common decency by
waiting for the guy who gave him a ride to work. Sounds like some kind of
terrorist or something. Bugliosi would cite is as evidence of guilt. Just
like Oswald being calm when confronted by Baker is cited as evidence of
guilt by some WC defenders.
John McAdams
You talked about "when he ignored Frazier's testimony from when they
arrived at work and Frazier makes it clear Oswald did not bolt from
the car and run ahead of Frazier as Posner asserts?"
You should not have characterized Posner's description this way.
You were doing what you accuse Posner of doing.
The sources don't support that Posner said "bolt," or that he said
"run."
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
HistorianDetective
> On 3/20/2010 1:06 PM, HistorianDetective wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 20, 12:40 am, John McAdams<john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >> On 20 Mar 2010 01:33:23 -0400, yeuhd<needleswax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 19, 4:49 pm, Barb Junkkarinen<barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> ignored Frazier's testimony from when they arrived at work and Frazier
> >>>> makes it clear Oswald did not bolt from the car and run ahead of
> >>>> Frazier as Posner asserts?
>
> >>> certainly put a good distance between himself and Wesley Frazier.
>
> >> > From Frazier's affidavit of Nov. 22, 1963:
>
> >>> When we started walking, Lee was just a few feet ahead of me, but he
> >>> kept waking faster than me, and finally got way ahead of me.
>
> >> > From his WC testimony:
>
> >>> Mr. FRAZIER. He got out of the car and he was wearing the jacket that
> >>> has the big sleeves in them and he put the package that he had, you
> >>> know, that he told me was curtain rods up under his arm, you know, and
> >>> so he walked down behind the car and standing over there at the end of
> >>> the cyclone fence waiting for me to get out of the car, and so quick
> >>> as I cut the engine off and started out of the car, shut the door just
> >>> as I was starting out just like getting out of the car, he started
> >>> walking off and so I followed him in.
> >>> by that time we got down there pretty close to the Depository Building
> >>> there, I say, he would be as much as, I would say, roughly 50 feet in
> >>> front of me but I didn't try to catch up with him because I knew I had
> >>> plenty of time so I just took my time walking up there.
> >>> Mr. BALL. Did you usually walk up there together?
> >>> Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; we did.
> >>> Mr. BALL. Is this the first time that he had ever walked ahead of
> >>> you?
> >>> Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; he did.
>
> >> One can see Frazier in the video "Four Days in November" saying that
> >> Oswald got out of the car while Frazier stayed in to charge his
> >> battery, and went on ahead of Frazier into the Depository.
>
>
> >> Barb, are you lurking? Did Posner use these words?
>
> >> You wouldn't want to do the same things you are accusing Posner of,
> >> would you?
>
>
> > Barb,
>
> > I'm wondering too where you got "bolt" and "run ahead".
>
> > Posner....Case Closed pg 224
>
> > "Oswald quickly left the car and walked ahead."
>
Tony,
Regarding your ,"Just ignore what Frazier actually said."
I'm perplexed. You have posted a countless number of times to "Never Rely
on Eyewitnesses" ?
Is Frazier something other than an eyewitness or have you now seen the
light and will rely on eyewitnesses.
I hope the latter and that I will never see another one of your "Never
Rely on Eyewitnesses" posts.
And BTW....I am not ignoring what Frazier said in the least. In fact, I am
relying on it, save for the speculation parts.
JM
HistorianDetective
Tony,
In the future, please read my entire post before asking a question that
was already answered had you read my entire post.
.
Per your already answered question...
> Ok, so you are saying that Oswald stood at the fence quickly?
>
I previously posted, had you read the entire post,
that I wouldn't have used the adverb "quickly".
I was taught early on to avoid using adverbs; to use them
"sparingly". :-)
As Stephen King once wrote.... "The road to hell is paved with adverbs.
They are like dandelions."
With that aside, the obvious answer to your question is NO. That is not
what I am saying. Delete the "quickly" and then the answer would be
affirmative.
JM
Barb Junkkarinen
<johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Jeez,
>
>When I start agreeing with you, I know the end must be near...... ;-)
>
>John F.
I know. It's a bit of a shock, isn't it? LOL
Barb :-)
HistorianDetective
wrote:
John,
> I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are saying.
>
Fair enough. Let me try to explain better.
You posted...
> Fact is according to Frazier himself, Oswald DID wait for him for a time.
I disagree that "Oswald DID wait for him for a time" is a fact, which
is what
many people are claiming.
I can accept that Oswald stood at the fence as being a verifiable fact
via
Frazier's eyewitness testimony.
The "What for" or "Why" Oswald was standing at the fence is a
different matter.
Oswald never revealed the "what for" or "why" to Frazier or anyone
else, for
that matter.
It was Frazier's perception that Oswald was "waiting for him." That
perception
is not verifiable. Therefore, it is not a verifiable fact that Oswald
was waiting
for Frazier.
Is it the most likely reason? Perhaps. Still, Oswald could have been
standing there
for any number of reasons; not necessarily waiting for Frazier.
We just don't know for sure.
Kinda like the James Tague dilemna. There is a lack of verifiable
data. Only in this case
it involves a motive, a reason why, which is typically one of the more
difficult things
to prove in any case.
I could accept "waiting" at the fence as being a verifiable fact. But
that begs the question
waiting for what; waiting for who? That's why I prefer Oswald was
standing at the fence.
Or, Oswald was standing at the fence for reasons unknown. And if you
want to add that
Frazier perceived Oswald was waiting for him, then that is acceptable
to me.
But I can't accept "Oswald was waiting for Frazier" as being a
verifiable fact.
JM
> John F.
>
> "HistorianDetective" <historiandetect...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> JM- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Fiorentino
particular hurry to get into the TSBD.
Based on the testimony of Frazier, the fact LHO entered *ahead* of Frazier
is irrelevant. Certainly re: what Posner was trying to convey.
Nothing can really be established re: Oswald's *normal* activities because
there is simply a lack of sufficient data.
How many times did Frazier drive Oswald to work? How long did Oswald even
work at the TSBD. See what I mean?
We're essentially talking about once a week here for how many weeks? There
is no, in fact couldn't be any establishment of any "pattern." At least
not anything that wouldn't be shredded by a competent defense attorney.
John F.
"HistorianDetective" <historian...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c54d6fa9-9c4e-4635...@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
I was criticizing Posner, not you. I was trying for irony. Adding his
adverb "quickly" to the concept of Oswald standing next to the fence.
How can one stand still "quickly"?
Anthony Marsh
Yes, Frazier is something other than an eyewitness. Certainly you wouldn't
call Oswald an eyewitness. Or the other Frazier, the FBI firearms expert.
I never rely on eyewitnesses. But I don't just ignore them.
> I hope the latter and that I will never see another one of your "Never
> Rely on Eyewitnesses" posts.
>
Never rely on eyewitnesses. Never ignore eyewitnesses.
> And BTW....I am not ignoring what Frazier said in the least. In fact, I am
> relying on it, save for the speculation parts.
>
It is almost impossible to find any witness who is 100% accurate on
every point. Even Connally who said that SS agents ran to the TSBD.
> JM
HistorianDetective
wrote:
> Yeah, well I think the point is, he didn't act like he was in any
> particular hurry to get into the TSBD.
>
> Based on the testimony of Frazier, the fact LHO entered *ahead* of Frazier
> is irrelevant. Certainly re: what Posner was trying to convey.
>
> Nothing can really be established re: Oswald's *normal* activities because
> there is simply a lack of sufficient data.
>
> How many times did Frazier drive Oswald to work? How long did Oswald even
> work at the TSBD. See what I mean?
>
> We're essentially talking about once a week here for how many weeks? There
> is no, in fact couldn't be any establishment of any "pattern." At least
> not anything that wouldn't be shredded by a competent defense attorney.
>
> John F.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Please don't take this as being derogatory in any way, shape or form, but
I'm not here to play fantasy court. As this isn't a court of law, any
discussion along those lines are hypothetical and irrelevant.
I prefer utilizing the historical method versus any other approach to this
event.
Add to that, I'm not interested at this time, as I've posted before, to
debate whether or not Posner mislead. I understand your concerns, as well
as Barb's, regarding Posner's book. I also have concerns.
With that aside, I'd like to get back to the topic at hand started by Barb
regarding one of Posner's sentences from his book "Case Closed".
As you posted yourself, you can slice it, dice it, whatever you want to
do, but Barb is incorrect when she proposes that Posner asserts in his
book that Oswald "BOLTED" from the car and "RAN" ahead.
HistorianDetective
wrote:
> http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/03/gerald_posner_plagiari...
>
> Any Posner fans want to defend against some of the more blatant
> atrocious errors in his book anymore? You know, the ones like when he
> co-mingles Frazier and Randles testimonies into one and attributes it
> to Randle, painting a mind pic of a very long package for the reader
> to open a chapter .... or when he ignore the parts of Frazier's
> testimony that makes it clear Oswald was not acting odd by showing up
> at the house that morning as Frazier was running late ... or when he
> ignored Frazier's testimony from when they arrived at work and Frazier
> makes it clear Oswald did not bolt from the car and run ahead of
> Frazier as Posner asserts?
>
>
Barb,
RE: ....or when he ignore the parts of Frazier's testimony that makes it
clear Oswald was not acting odd by showing up at the house that morning as
Frazier was running late
Yep! Posner ignored that part of Frazier's testimony.
He also ignored that part of Frazier's testimony where when asked if he
was later than usual that morning he replied with a no.
Hmmm.....you seemed to have ignored that part of Frazier's testimony, as
well.
Gotta love conflicting testimony, eh?
JM
Barb Junkkarinen
<historian...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In context, it really is not conflicting at all.
Regarding LHO appearing at the kitchen window:
QUOTE
Representative FORD - Did this different method of him meeting you
raise any questions in your mind?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it didn't. I just thought maybe, you know, he
just left a little bit earlier but when I looked up and saw that the
clock was. I knew I was the one who was running a little bit late
because, as I say, I was talking, sitting there eating breakfast and
talking to the little nieces, it was later than I thought it was.
END QUOTE
A few questions later, was this exchange.
QUOTE
Mr. BALL - Were you later than usual that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe we were, because we got to work
on time. I say, when I looked at the clock, after I glanced he was
there a split second and I just turned around and looked at the clock
to see what time it was and it was right amount 7:21 then and I went
in and brushed my teeth real quick and running through the house put
my coat on and we left.
Mr. BALL - You both got in the car about the same time?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - All right.
END QUOTE
Tsk, tsk.
Nice try though.
Barb :-)
>
>JM