Most people that swear some force group or governmental entity were responsible other than LHO are entitled to their opinions. However most of these folks while they criticize the WC, never read any of the volumes.
Thank you for the comment, Frank. I certainly agree that before one forms an intelligent opinion about a matter of dispute, they have to hear both sides of the story. Like the old West Virginia Mountaineer said, “No matter how thin I make my pancakes, they always have two sides.”
You're right about that...but Oswald is an interesting guy. Military man turns hardcore Marxist.Defects to USSR arrives fluent in Russian. Comes back no problem. Now he's rabid anti Cuban communist. On and on crazy things happening. And assassinated himself at 24. Its a lot.
Over the past few months, I have watched many videos on this subject, involving a wide spectrum of opinions but this has been the best discussion of the event I have seen. Well done to both Nick Owens and Gerald Posner. I think we can all safely agree that the case is well and truly closed! 😎
A conspiracy theorist goes to heaven and asks God "Who killed JFK?" God answers "Oswald." The theorist turns away thinking "Wow, this conspiracy is bigger than I thought."
A time traveler from the future appears in Deally Plaza on November 22, 1963. He encounters a group of three men, one is CIA, one is FBI, and one is Secret Service. He asked the three men, is this before or after the JFK assassination? All three answered simultaneously, BEFORE!
Good point! However, to be fair JWB was a lone gunman who carried out a history changing event on his own. Most Kennedy conspiracies involve multiple gunmen
@@dilznick101 ...JWB was part of a conspiracy , thats the whole point of the excellent original comment..his co conspirators were Samuel Arnold, George Atzerodt, David Herold, Michael O'Laughlen, Lewis Powell and also John and Mary Surratt .
So everyone who doesn't think like you is illiterate and unable to think for themselves. Just a bit narcistic don't ya think? Maybe you should read his book.
I would suggest watching Lemino's video on the Texas Book Depository. It convinced me that Oswald acted alone after almost 30 years of believing in the conspiracy theories.
I know, do u realy think Oswald would have been recruited by the CIA, it's such crap. Thr mob never would have risked everything to kill Kennedy, why would they want to?? It makes no,sense. Thr mob would have been destroyed . He acted alone period. There is not one strand of evidence that shows there was a conspiracy. If anyone ever finds it, they would be millionaires over nite.😊
What a brilliant man. Thanks for this. Its a really frustratingly difficult event to get your head around, but he really gives you some useful tools. Great interview. Amazing video. Thank you
@@TipToe67Ahahahah ah no it hasn’t. There is no question that Oswald went to Mexico. The CIA merely mistook him for some other American and photographed him instead. Big nothingburger.
Spot on @Randy Harris. If one reads everything Katzenbach said, it is clear his one poorly constructed sentence--only poorly constructed because it lends itself to twisting by clever lawyers--does not mean we must pull the wool over people's eyes and make them believe that Oswald is the assassin but that it's clear to all of us looking at all the evidence that Oswald is the assassin and we want the public to understand that. Why was he saying this? Because as soon as Kennedy was shot conspiracy theories were spreading like wildfire. I think the first poll taken after the assassination found only 29% of Americans believed Oswald was the lone assassin. My opinion on all this is very much what Bugliosi says on pages 366-67 of "Reclaiming History." The only criticism I have after re-reading those two pages is Bugliosi using the tautology "true facts." By definition, if it's a fact it is true. What I've noticed about most conspiracy theorists is they focus minor inconsistencies or things that are not fully explained or they lift things out of context while ignoring the overwhelming mass of evidence. Defense attorneys are great at doing this, e.g. the trial of O.J. Simpson.
A time traveler goes back to try and save Kennedy. When he arrives in the past he sees a CIA agent. He asks the agent "Is today November 22nd 1963?" The CIA agent says "Yes" The time traveler then asks, "Before or after the Kennedy assassination?" The CIA agent says, "Before".😮
That’s pretty good.. lol.. You do realize the person who killed Tippit discarded his jacket, after killing him.. Which is interesting, because Oswald discarded his jacket, then tried to kill cops when he resisted arrest.. lol.. What a coincidence.. lol..
@@jacobjones5269 good god! you conspiracy nuts are just unashamed of your lies, or just don’t care about facts. Is it because you guys get away with your lies to people who don’t know any better? Oswald was not wearing a jacket when he was arrested. That’s an absolute lie. The jacket found was his because the eyewitness saw him wearing it when he shot tippit then suddenly he’s arrested without one and Marina said it was his. If I was a conspiracy theorist I would stay away from Tippit and only argue jfk, you’ll have a better chance because there is no question he killed Tippit. Tons of evidence and even more eyewitness, about 12, thats a lot of people you’re gonna have to explain away. Oh yeah, stay away from general Walker too, there’s no question he shot at Walker a few months prior. You’re in a very deep hole with a lot of excuses needed and evidence you’ll have to explain away. Or you could just go with your common sense and objective reasoning and lose the kooky conspiracies.
"In 2010, Posner was the chief investigative reporter at The Daily Beast. Following the revelation that a number of Posner's stories for the Beast contained portions plagiarized from articles in other publications, Posner resigned from the Beast." (Wikipedia)
I often think the Kennedy Assassination proves Nietzsche's assertion that there are no facts only interpretations. The interviewer touched on this when he declared we were hard-wired biologically to seek out patterns, and when you subject any complicated event to minute analysis you can find many random details to support a theory you wish to propagate.
@@randallanthony1794 Oh I agree. I've never read Posner's book and have no opinion on it. There's a whole cottage industry built up around JFK's assassination. People seem to find in it what they want to find.
@@JeffRebornNow And so does Posner it’s just Warren commission stuff and they refused to see it. There’s so much evidence out there they prove otherwise the two wallets in there were two unless the police Leiden and switched him and took him to the camp at mader saying, and then took it back and he couldn’t possible but I doubt it and then there’s a set up Mexico City that October that has him there at the Cuban in Russian embassy and doesn’t approve assassinations cruise. Somethings going on funny it was all the information in the early 90s that come out about the Oswald Molly intelligence people knew who he was and he went through for their their ways to check him and he wasn’t watching. They said they had no interest they’re lying but you’re right a lot of people do this cottage industry that’s way with everything with this guy is too. He’s a piece of shit and he’s a liar. Posner is no good he’s a Fraud he’s an official an official Fraud.
@@JeffRebornNowwell the Dallas Police found Oswald's rifle and the FBI found the bullet fragments in the car that matched it. People can interpret whatever they want but facts don't lie.
Yes you guys are so right, there are no facts and just interpretations, and that’s why I’m a flat earther…. Gravity is also this totally subjective thing …..
We look forward to you explaining how the people planting bogus bullet at the hospital within one hour of the shooting knew a bullet needed planting at all or that he wasn't simply planting one bullet too many into evidence and blowing the whole plot.
I wouldn't call Oswald a loser. He was a young man who had already done more in life than many young man in this day and age. He was a marine, lived in Russia and came back, had a wife and kid etc. There's an interview with him in which I found him quite articulated for his age.
Oswald had been in the marines and been to Russia, but as a person he wasn’t fulfilled, he wasn’t happy with American politics and thought Marxism was his answer and he wasn’t happy in Russia, he was antisocial, he was angry and didn’t make friends and continually hit his wife Marina, wanted to leave his mark in history and ultimately was a failure. I believe part of his damaged personality was caused by his mother who said her children were a burden and she put them into care at a young age.
@@davidmoss4280 LMFAO, Lee Oswald was not a "Maxrist", name one Marxist he knew or associated with? its just silly , his job was to play the Marixt and be a Castro sympathizer...Jesus he worked for Guy Bannister at 544 Camp street and Bannister was a former FBI man and a John Bircher. Recent document releases prove the FBI was doing an infiltration operation on the Fair Play For Cuba commity, of which Lee Oswald was the only member of the New Orleans branch and wrote the NY office telling them of a scuffle he had while handing out flyers...a week before it happened! in this day and age, how can you keep regurgitating hooey from the 1960s ?????
A young man , so patriotic that he leaves school to join the USMC at 17. (the USMC is an elite unit and slackers who just want a job or to get away from their mothers, don't join or don't last...thats what the coast guard is for...lol). He does so well on his aptitude and intelligence tests that he is sent to the "elite" trade in the radar tech section. There among the best and the brightest of new USMC recruits he finishes at the top of his class (7th out of a class of 50). He is sent to various bases and gets to "see the world' . He is given exemplary ratings by his COs for his fine work as a radar Tec. And despite his busy schedule , on his own initiative, he completes his high school equivalency and teaches himself Russian...yea what a failure?? He goes on the adventure of a life time to Russia, is very popular, makes a lifetime friend of Earnst Titovits (who was exchanging letters with Lee right until Lee's death in 63) and marries the extremely beautiful woman Marina...what a looser??. Returns to the USA and fathers 2 children in a 3 year marriage (you know what that means.....what a failure???). Yea, be bounced from job to job a little (while working at photo lab doing top secret work??? and a coffee company tied to the CIA??)..Just as I and millions of other men did at 22 years of age after the military or collage. If he wasn't , i would think that was strange. In many ways, he was a model person, he did not drink and he did not smoke..and by all accounts he loved is children dearly. He read voraciously, on a wide range of topics...including the Russian classics like Tolstoy...which he read in Russian! He was looking to always improve himself and was working on a book on his Russian travels and according to Judeth Baker was very interested in being a writer (possibly of science fiction stories) Did he get published in his brief life? Nope, but even Steven King did not get his first book published until he was 26....Lee didn't live that long...so I guess that makes him a "failure"??...I could go on and on, but you get my point. If an exceptional person like Lee Oswald could be so easily smeared as a failure..anyone can. And smears are not the truth, that must be looked for a little deeper than childish character assassination.
@@JohnJohnson-pq4qz your assessment of Oswald is totally incorrect, he wasn’t patriotic that’s why he fled to Russia, he was disobedient in the marines and had several charges against him and was demoted , he didn’t like the US and soon became disenchanted with Russia, you don’t get credit for fathering children any fool can do that, he wasn’t doing secret work for the photo company and he was sacked for incompetence. He was unsuccessful at everything he did, couldn’t even keep his jobs, constantly beat up his wife, couldn’t keep a home, couldn’t get along with anyone, was aggressive, antisocial, discontented and wanted to leave his mark on history, and he certainly did that.
Does this guy really believe what he is saying, ok please explain why these people are in Dealy Plaza , Johnny Roselli , Chuck Nicoletti , Malcolm Wallace , Sheriff Weathersford , Rosco White , James Files , why did everyone run to the grassy knoll , why were reports coming in of secret service keeping people away from grassy knoll , explain umbrella man explain Mary Morman photo , explain the hundreds of mysterious deaths of witnesses and police
Gregory, ... Why don't you read the book? That is all covered in there. He explains the umbrella man. He covers the Babuska lady. Umbrella man was named in his book, and I believe the Umbrella man was protesting a certain political issue Kenndey administration was dealing with. Posner list the names of the people who ran over to the Grassy Knoll. He talked to and interviewed many of them. He goes over the not-so-mysterious-mysterious deaths. I haven't read the book in years, but Mr. Posner covers everything you mentioned.
Posner's Case Closed convinced me that it was LHO and no conspiracy. Logically, nothing else I've ever seen convinces me otherwise. Excellent interview for anyone with the patience to watch it in its entirety.
Me too. And it's quite refreshing these days to encounter someone else who is prepared to change their opinion in the light of facts. Ironically, the Oliver Stone film, which presented such an outlandishly large conspiracy, somewhat turned me off of the conspiracy camp. There was also an in-depth biography of Oswald on PBS Frontline which painted a compelling picture of Oswald as the type of person who: a) could be a lone-nut assassin; and b) would not have been recruited by any serious conspirators.
After a plethora of alternative scenario books I read Case Closed when it came out, and it cleared the table-top clean of a whole pile of nonsense and misconceptions. It established the near-certainty of Oswald's three shots and eliminated any frontal shot, but in the intervening years I find that the _acted alone_ component remains his weakest argument. I'm also troubled by the tendency of the more polished Warren-advocates toward summary dismissal of a myriad of anomalies in the arena of coverup-behavior. I will give one infamous famous example. I could give hundreds. The Zapruder frames were published in the WC evidence. Of _all_ the frames, two were transposed. Just two. Which two were those? The two that would establish that the lethal shot came from behind. "Oh" says the FBI. "printing error". You could sell me the Brooklyn Bridge, too. I accept that the lethal shot came from behind, but don't lie to me. I know _you're_ not lying to me Gerald, but tell the truth as a dispassionate lawyer playing Historian. Put a historian's hat on and be forthright about the lie, and who... _probably_ ... told the lie. Don't sugarcoat stuff. I know sometimes, especially when the malefactor is dead, that government forensics will play fast and loose with optics. Don't pretend somebody didn't get the memo: "Hey bud, them frames gotta come out right, you're a great guy and you'll be up for promotion... Oswald is dead anyway... it don't matter..." .
When I felt my kid was old enough -- almost 16 -- I stopped shielding him from stuff I watched on the JFK assassination. One doc I was watching with him in the room was about to show the Zapruder film, so before it rolled I warned him: "This is graphic and I know you're kinda squeamish with blood and things, so you might not want to see this," but he insisted he did. Now keep in mind, he didn't know a thing about the assassination or my views of it, but after the film rolled he first exclaimed "That was the ACTUAL footage of him getting shot??" and I of course said "Yes." He was speechless. Then I asked him: "Where do you think that shot came from?" and without a pause he said "From the right side maybe a little in front of him." But Posner (and the Warren Commission) of course tell us: "Don't believe your lying eyes." 🙄
"But Posner (and the Warren Commission) of course tell us: "Don't believe your lying eyes."" The thing is, however, that many people make the mistake that the "back and to the left" motion seen in the Zapruder film all by itself "proves" that the shot came from the right and partly in front of JFK. When I've heard or read what these people say regarding this, I often notice that they never, or very rarely, mention that this is only one detail seen in the film, and there are a larger number of other details also seen in the same film that indicate a greater likelihood that the bullet was fired from behind him after all.
@@ccrider4516 Bullets can indeed do weird things. But two things they pretty much always do is (1) their momentum carries their target in the same direction as the bullet was flying, and (2) they become damaged when they strike hard things like human bones. And yet we're to believe that on 11/22/63 one bullet hit Kennedy from behind but threw him *backwards* and to the left. And another went through 2 men causing 7 wounds and yet came out looking virtually pristine. It's absurd how many people actually buy this malarkey. As far as listening to doctors, I do listen to them. All the time. Doctors like Dr. Cyril Wecht. ruclips.net/video/KCmtzTQwJ6A/видео.html
@@Caeruleo Complete Hooey. read "Head Shot" by Paul Chambers, if i recall right, he is a physics PHD and an expert on explosions and the effects of forces etc. Long story short...Its impossible that that shot came from any where but from his front right. Case Closed.
@@JohnJohnson-pq4qz "Complete Hooey." You mean it is complete hooey in your opinion. Yet I notice that you did not name any of the other details in the film that I was talking about that suggest a greater likelihood that the fatal head shot came from behind JFK after all. This gives the impression that you don't know about these other details in the first place. "read "Head Shot" by Paul Chambers, if i recall right, he is a physics PHD and an expert on explosions and the effects of forces etc." Uh-huh. Does Chambers make any mention of the fact that frames 312-313 of the Zapruder film show that when JFK's head was first struck by the bullet his head jolted forward several inches in only 1/18th of a second, as if indeed the bullet struck the rear of his head after all and knocked his head forward? Does Chambers also mention that this cannot have been caused (as Tink Thompson and others have mistakenly suggested) by William Greer tapping on the brake, since Jackie's, Nellie's, and John Connally's heads do not jerk forward an iota in those frames? Does Chambers also mention that the "back and to the left" motion does not even begin for the first time until several frames after the initial forward jerk of JFK's head, and that the "back and to the left" motion is also much slower than the initial forward jerk? Does Chambers also mention that frames 313 and several following frames show that the majority of the bloody spray and other material of his head exits forward or upward and partly forward and that much less exits even partly backward? Does Chambers also mention that the "back and to the left" motion does not begin until after material is seen exploding mostly forward out of his head, as if it was actually the material exploding forward which shoved his head backward rather than the direction the bullet was traveling? Does Chambers also mention that in the last second before the head shot JFK was already leaning far to his left anyway, so that no matter what direction the bullet came from his head would have almost certainly gone to the left anyway, "back and to the left," "forward and to the left," or whatever? Does he mention that this is called "gravity"? Does Chambers also mention that the film shows that by far the most obvious exit damage is in front of JFK's right ear, with those big, horrible flaps of bone and scalp hanging down from the upper right front of his head? Does he also discuss the fact that people like Douglas Horne are very unlikely to be correct when they say that those horrible flaps were "added" to the film later, given that nearly all of the closest witnesses on JFK's right, such as Emmett Hudson, Bill Newman, Gayle Newman, Marilyn Sitzman, and Zapruder himself, corroborated what is seen in the film? All of them said they saw the right side of his head explode, not the rear. Zapruder on live television only two hours after the assassination, before he or anyone else had yet seen the developed film for the first time ever, said, "And then I heard another shot or two - I couldn't say whether it was one or two, and I saw his head practically open up, all blood and everything, and I kept on shooting." At the same time as he is speaking those words we see him place his right hand on the right side of his own head in front of his right ear to demonstrate which part of JFK's head he saw explode, exactly the area where we see the greatest damage to his head in the film. In stark contrast, the film shows no significant damage at all to the entire rear half of his head, and the hole in the rear of his head seen at Parkland is barely visible, nowhere even remotely near as blindingly obvious as those horrible flaps in front of his right ear. And is Chambers demonstrate his honesty by mentioning that Bobby Hargis was only one of eight people who were showered by blood and other material from JFK's head, unlike the people who only mention him to try to make a case that the material exited "only" or "primarily" to the left rear due to a shot from the right front? Is he honest and does he inform the reader that Billy Joe Martin was also showered with such material? And is he honest and does he also inform the reader that both motorcycle policemen riding on the other side of the limo, the right rear, James Chaney andDouglas Jackson, were also showered with material from JFK's head, and that it has never been proven that "more" of the material went to the left than to the right since the amount of such material that landed on each of these officers was never "measured" in any way? And is he also honest by informing the reader that all four people sitting in front of JFK, John Connally, Nellie Connally, William Greer, and Roy Kellerman, were also showered with blood and pieces of JFK's brain, and that it has also never been proven that "more" of the material landed on the officers behind the limo than landed on the people in front of JFK? Does Chambers honestly quote John Connally as saying that immediately after he heard the third shot, "Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb, thumbnail, and again I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else"? Does Chambers also honestly admit to the reader that such material also landed all over the inside of the car, and also landed as far forward as on the windshield and on the front hood of the car? Does Chambers also admit that since the four motorcycle policemen were constantly moving forward anyway, they would have almost certainly have driven into the bloody spray anyway, even if the majority of it exited forward. Is he also honest and does he admit that the same cannot be true in reverse, that any material exiting even slightly rearward would have all fallen back down and landed behind JFK and that only material exiting significantly forward would have landed on all four people sitting in front of him, and all over the inside of the car, and on the windshield, and on the hood? And does Chambers mention that the main reason that the big, horrible flaps in front of JFK's right ear weren't especially noticeable at Parkland was almost certainly because Jackie closed them up on the way to the hospital? Does Chambers admit to the reader that Jackie said that she was trying to hold his head together on the way to the hospital? Does Chambers show the reader the quote of what she said to Theodore White one week after the assassination? "I kept holding the top of his head down, trying to keep the brains in." Does he make sure the reader take note of the fact that she said she was trying to hold down the "top" of his head, not the "rear"? And is Chambers honest and does he correctly point out to the reader that the observations of the Parkland doctors and nurses are extremely limited in value, because they did not perform an autopsy at Parkland and only examined JFK while he was still technically "alive"? That because of this they never pulled back his thick hair and scalp to view his skull directly? That they also never took a single x-ray of him at Parkland? That because of these things they would have no possible way of knowing, no matter how great their "expertise," whether the hole they saw in the rear of his head represented the majority of the damage to his skull or only a minority of the damage to his skull? That only after his thick hair and scalp were pulled back and only after x-rays were taken could such a thing be determined with any certainty? And is he honest and does he make sure the reader knows that the more forward damage to JFK's skull was not entirely missed at Parkland? Does he make sure the reader knows that Dr. Adolph Giesecke said that he saw that parts of JFK's skull were missing as far forward as just above the browline, which is precisely what is also shown in both the anterior and lateral x-rays from Bethesda, the only x-rays ever taken of his head after he was shot? Because unless Chambers specifically mentions every single one of these things in at least half as much detail as I have, he is guilty of misleading the reader by ignoring too much of the evidence. "Its impossible that that shot came from any where but from his front right." In your opinion. "Case Closed." In your opinion. But you have not demonstrated, in any detailed discussion of the evidence yourself here, independently of the claims of any author of any book, exactly how the cased is "closed" on the shot coming from his right front. And I have long ago found that books about the assassination are often among the least reliable sources of information about the assassination. I have long ago lost count of how many times I have caught authors of books badly misrepresenting the evidence. For example, when referencing testimony by witnesses, these authors will quite frequently quote only the individual sentences spoken or written by a witness which make it seem as if the witness is supporting the author's point of view, but make no mention of the other sentences spoken or written by the same witness in the same testimony which cast a very different light on the point the witness was actually making. Far better to study the evidence itself directly, independently of any author's interpretation of the evidence.
The thing is...Bugliosi, in his book, deals with the likelihood that most folks would not want to plow through his 1700 page book...but he hoped that, maybe 100 years down the road, his effort would be the main "textbook" for study by college students, etc. He knew he would not make much money on this book--he already was a millionaire author, because of several True Crime books that were best-sellers.
According to Oswald’s best friend in Russia he was a terrible shot. Hoover said the Oswald in Mexico was not Oswald, it was an impersonator. His Russian speaking was also terrible.
Oswald’s televised statement to the press was that he was a “patsy”. A person in that situation acting alone would either declare innocence or guilt (with his motives). Very unusual for an accused to immediately declare themselves as a participant in a plot unless they actually are.
Thats right Don. Oswald knows what is happening to him. The setting up of patsy's isn't some big secret, Intelligence services use it all the time all around the world. Doesn't mean he participated, but it does mean he understands the nature of those who did and could point fingers at who did. Had he been able to defend himself and spill the beans we might all know who did it today. They knew it too and couldn't let that happen.
@@TheClyde-v3f I expect him to say “I am innocent”, say nothing or say “I did it”. Name one time in human history where an assassin claimed to be a participant in a conspiracy (because that was a patsy is) and that was not demonstrated to be the case?
Posner with "people spend too much time thinking about Dealey Plaza" is just silly. The Zapruder film shows evidence that at least one bullet came from the front. He is trying to psychoanalyze Oswald. How do you do that with a 24 yr old kid who is hardly known to anyone? (other than his CIA handlers like DeMarchildt and Ruth Paine) Had he lived and could have been interviewed, maybe, but trying to do that with a couple of remarks he made on a radio show in New Orleans or something someone heard him say in the army? Give me a break.
@@curbozerboomer1773 I am more interested in the facts. Oswald had a higher Security Clearance than his Commanding officer. He wasn't just a run-of-the-mill private in the Marines. He worked as a Radar Technician on a base that tracked the U2 Jets. He got an early Discharge because his mother was ill. And yet instead of going home to attend to her he stopped in Helsinki and entered the USSR, presumably to Defect. And then when he supposedly decided he didn't like it, he and his Russian wife (daughter of a Soviet Intelligence officer) were allowed to enter the U.S. no questions asked. Then this failed Defector got a job at the Jaggers-Chiles-Stoval Company in Dallas which made highly classified maps for the U.S. Government. When they searched Ruth Paine's home he had a very expensive spy camera. Actually, there were 2. One of them was owned by Michael Paine. Nope. The evidence points to Oswald being involved, but in what role? As the shooter? Hardly. He couldn't shoot worth shit, and the gun he supposedly owned was a piece of crap.
Posner is amazing in his profound incontrovertible logic. There is a number of facts that, by themselves, destroys the idea of Oswald being a part of a conspiracy. One is a neighbor friend of Maria's who told her about the school book depository job opening. Without that one, tiny referral the assassination wouldn't have happened.
Please, are you just ignorant? Almost none of the people who believe in a conspiracy theory believe Oswald was knowingly part of a conspiracy. There assertions are almost always that he was a patsy and being set-up.
Are you some sort of shill as well? Posner and his agenda is an affront to basic intelligence as well as the truth of the murky matter itself. Notice how little Posner speaks of--or considers--H Howard Hunt. Or the fact that Ben-Gurio, the Israeli PM, had resigned in a hysteric panic in the Spring of 1963 after JFK had demanded inspections of Israel's (stolen) nuclear weapons programs.
@@wehaveasituation Perhaps the reason he doesn't speak of Ben Gurion is because there is not a shred of credible evidence that Israel had anything to do with the JFK assassination, and that instead there is a greater amount of evidence disputing that idea?
You’re uninformed. Watch all parts of The Men Who Killed Kennedy and if you still don’t see there was a conspiracy you have cognitive dissonance. It’s not debatable, especially if we use witness testimony as you suggest. The deaf guy witness from the road, the special forces guy who was requested to assassinate an American politician and the ton of folks that not only heard the shot from the knoll but saw the gunsmoke. It just depends on how many dozens of witnesses you want to ignore. Your choice
Wow, very interesting!! An interview with Gerald Posner, the author of Case Closed on the JFK assassination has garnered only 23k views thus far (06/23). One would imagine views in the millions by now!!
Haha I came to tell you you are insane. Well played. Posner is a punchline like the Warren Report. It’s sad America is still being lied to by scums like GP
Younger people nowadays really do not care much about history!...And quite a few of us, old enough to remember how awful this murder was, have died...I am 76 now...when I mention this murder to my youngest sister-a bright 63yo woman, she just rolls her eyes, and says "Nobody cares...get a life!"
Nobody can place Oswald on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting. Not the Warren report, not Bugliosi, and not Posner. If Posner could do that, he wouldn't have to go on about Oswald's psychology and smirk. The case against Oswald in the Walker shooting is so thin it wouldn't be laughed out of court, it could never get to court in the first place. At the time, people thought Walker himself arranged it for publicity. The bullet was identified as a steel-jacketed 30-06 round. The Warren commission turned it into a copper-jacketed Carcano round. When Walker was shown the bullet by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, he called it a "ridiculous substitution. The physical evidence in the Tippit case lacks all chain of custody and again, no conviction in a court of law could be obtained. Only two Warren commission witnesses actually claimed to see the shooting: Domingo Benevides, who did not identify anyone; and Helen Markham, whose story changed so many times the commission said her testimony wasn't really essential. Posner is a very engaging fellow, but he's very disingenuous. I wonder if you noticed that he said the throat shot entered "high in the neck." That of course is a fabrication, but a necessary one. JFK was hit in the third thoracic vertebra. That's the upper back. How did a shot from the sixth floor hit him in the back and then deflect upwards, without hitting any bone, to exit his throat? Readers interested in a meticulous demolition of Posner's book can refer to this article. www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/case-closed-30-years-on-even-worse
No cinviction in a court of law could be obtained That's a asinine comment you left out all the witnesses that Id Oswald within seconds of shooting Tippit the Davis Sisters Cab Calloway many more. A ten year old school kid could debunk your nonsense with 30 minutes of googling.
The bullet did not deflect upward The bullet hole seems to be higher because of the anotomic position of the President when the bullet hit. The bullet was always on a downward angle Vincent Bugliosi explains this beautifully in his book.
"Nobody can place Oswald on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting." While I suppose it could be said that way, it could also be said that no one can place any other person besides Oswald on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting either, which would all by itself weaken the claim that someone else besides him fired from there. It is also true that no one can place Oswald anywhere else at the time of the shooting either. No TSBD employee ever said they saw Oswald elsewhere at the moment the shots were fired. Carolyn Arnold said she might have seen him as little as five minutes before the shooting, but that's still plenty of time for him to get from any floor in the building to the sixth floor sniper's nest and still have at least two minutes to spare before the presidential limousine first came into view. No other TSBD employee ever said they saw Oswald less than five minutes before the shooting. After the shooting, Marrion Baker and Roy Truly said they saw him in the second floor lunchroom perhaps as little as 90 seconds after the shooting, but both of them admitted that it could have been longer, perhaps as long as two minutes after the shooting. And Oswald could have quite easily gotten from the sniper's nest to the second floor lunchroom in no more than 70 seconds, and indeed Baker's impression when he first saw Oswald was that Oswald had just entered the lunchroom only seconds earlier.
Turkey Shoot; more than one gunman. LeeHO knew something and shot live on TV by JRuby, but Ruby gets cancer: dead. That female reporter , Killgallen who was found dead supposedly by suicide, all the witnesses mysteriously DEAD. Killers are hiding in plain sight. Ever lose something & go nuts looking for it just to find it under your nose ? I recall that film: JFK's head goes up ,then to the left; grabs his throat and his back harness prohibits evasive movement ; next shot , head explodes. I can believe driver turned around and shoots. In either case of so many possibilities, Kennedy was NOT supposed to survive. And we're not even discussing how the President's body was handled between Parkland Hospital and Bethesda Naval in Washington ... the different types of caskets. Why did LBJ get sworn in as POTUS right hand placed on a Missle, not a Bible on plane with, Jacqueline Kennedy standing right next to him in bloody dress? For sure : more questions than answers, and the moment someone gets too close, like the Vatican Library: records SEALED. Oops, did i get too close again? Yes, i did.
Oswald + de Mohrenschildt, (CIA) = Walker, (blocks from Ruby's Vegas club). Oswald's whereabouts unknown for approx. three hours following attempt. Oswald kills Kennedy. Where was he going after leaving rooming house? Good question. See map of Dallas. Draw straight line from N. Beckley rooming house to Tenth + Patton... and continue. Few blocks later you will cross Ruby's S. Ewing address. Waggoner Carr sent memo to J. Lee Rankin regarding this issue. No follow-up. Ruby tells Earl Warren he fears for his life and those of his family because of the JBS and Edwin Walker. Doesn't prove anything, but certainly is interesting. And this is just the tip of a huge iceburg. Would enjoy speaking with Mr. Posner. He is three years my elder. I have a great respect for his intellect and his work.
"See map of Dallas. Draw straight line from N. Beckley rooming house to Tenth + Patton... and continue. Few blocks later you will cross Ruby's S. Ewing address." Wrong. You need to check the map again. And I've lived in Texas all my life and have been right there in that neighborhood multiple times and have been to all the addresses involved. A straight line from the rooming house to 10th and Patton does *not* continue on to intersect Ruby's address on Ewing. The line would have to turn left a significant number of degrees from 10th and Patton to intersect Ruby's address. "Ruby tells Earl Warren he fears for his life and those of his family because of the JBS and Edwin Walker." Now that, at least, you are correct about. And more to the point, he also said he wanted to be taken to Washington so that he could tell the truth, that he *wasn't* involved in any conspiracy.
@@cjcar63 "1963 map of Dallas" Which shows the same thing: it was not a straight line from the rooming house to the scene of the Tippit shooting and then to Ruby's address. There was a left turn of quite a few degrees from the Tippit shooting to Ruby's address.
Agreed!...There was an early book, called "Conspiracy of One"...but I cannot remember the name of the author. It used common sense, but not a lot of facts.
@@curbozerboomer1773 Jim Moore. Quite good considering it was ahead of even Posner and made an outstanding case. I bought it second hand about a year ago…didn’t know it even existed. So many more though…Sturdivan on ballistics, MacAdams on psychology of conspiracy, Myers on Tippit, Lambert on Garrison investigation, and a bunch about Oswald’s activities and personality by Johnson, Mailer and a good one called Oswald’s Game which might be second hand only.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Oswald was on the 6th floor. And absolutely no evidence he fired a rifle that day. And he passed his parrafin test. Bonnie Ray Williams eating his chicken sandwich and Dr. Pepper in the so called snipers nest at 12 noon and after. No Oswald. And don't forget the motorcade was running 6 minutes late. The sniper wouldn't know that and would have to have been in position. Dallas police set up the snipers nest in different configurationMauser was first identified. Oswald seen on 2nd floor. In Wesley Buell Fraziers new book he finally admitted he saw a man with a rifle exiting the TSBD and put it in his trunk. Frazier never told anyone that because he was afraid for his family.
Superb interview. Gerald Posner is such an interesting mind and conveys his thoughts and conclusions in such a honest and impartial way. His thought process is an example to anyone on how to look at something and find the truth.
Keep drinking the Kool aid! Posner's research has been debunked several times. He has lied & twisted the truth to fit his theory. Posner doesn't know who was involved just like everybody else.
I greatly respect Mr. Posner's passion and research, and I absolutely believe Oswald was shooting from the sixth floor, and the first shot that hit JFK came from him. But after seeing the Zapruder film, I started thinking that the fatal shot may have come from the area of the grassy knoll. I believed it even more when Dr. Robert McClelland, one of the trauma doctors who oversaw the effort to save President Kennedy’s life, examined Kennedy's wounds and he came to the conclusion that the fatal shot came from the area of the grassy knoll. I have no idea what the absolute truth is, and I doubt that any of us ever will, which is beyond pathetic.
The headshot came from the sewer drain, a wide open can't miss 15-20 foot shot. In some footage you can clearly see a cop drop his bike at the curb, staring down at the drain a few feet away and heading in for a closer look. Opinions on this will forever be divided on this, all the way from "oswald acted alone", to "there were seven shooters stratigically placed around the plaza". Not many trust the gov anymore, so even if they do release the rest of the files, not many will believe what they feed us anyways. They lost the public on this one over half a century ago.
Half his solutions to the main questions are sketchy, I’m with you that fatal shot was from the Picket fence , and the doctors who tried to save him they knew the fatal shot was from the front , the autopsy was a coverup big time the body of the president was tampered with , there are videos out there , this year is the 60th year of the assassination I believe technology this year will show for sure there was more than one shooter , but most of us believe that already but in November mote people will believe the warren commission and that single bullet theory was a crock of , and because of all the researchers in the assassination community keeping the truth alive , in. November this year the truth will be out !
@@C77-C77 "The headshot came from the sewer drain, a wide open can't miss 15-20 foot shot." Nonsense. Photographic evidence from multiple sources proves that by the time of the fatal head shot JFK was already leaning far over to his left. His head would thus have not been visible from the sewer drain. The shooter would have had to fire through the side of the car to hit JFK's head, with no way of knowing if he was aiming accurately. And what is your proof that a man could even *fit* in that drain? And where would he have entered the sewer system to reach that particular drain and how would he know which of the many branching passages to take to reach that particular drain? "In some footage you can clearly see a cop drop his bike at the curb, staring down at the drain a few feet away and heading in for a closer look." So? How do you know he wasn't looking at the drain for a completely different reason? What was the policeman's full name, and what did he himself say in his own exact words regarding why he looked at the drain?
The good Dr. admitted to Bugliosi, that he might have been a bit wrong about seeing JFKs large back of the head wound...after all, JFK was lying with his large head being very flat on the gurney, and the several doctors did not examine the head during their efforts to save JFK...Only Dr. Kemp Clark saw the head evaluated the wound, and proceeded to give a less than great evaluation...saying the wound was located in the Occiput, but extending into the Parietal area (side) of the head. He was a little off, as the official x-rays and photos prove...and interestingly, he very rarely gave any interviews over the ensuing years of his career!..I think he knew he made a hasty, poor evaluation.
Hindsight! Just so much hindsight. Oswald had enough time, and enough desire, and was a good enough marksman. It was not a difficult shot, and the car slowed down, after the first shot.
Here are two facts that prove that there was more than one shooter. (1) The "magic bullet" was almost pristine and yet there bullet fragments in Governor Connally. So the magic bullet was not involved. (2) The bullets from Oswald's rifle were full metal jacket bullets (FMJB) which are difficult to fragment. The fatal bullet that hit JFK in the head was highly fragmented. It was not a FMJB. So It did not come from Oswald's rifle. So there was more than one shooter and the Oswald rifle was not the one that killed the president. CASE CLOSED.
Bullet, of course, is not "pristine," it is badly crushed at the nose and flattened down one side, perfectly consistent with going through Kennedy without hitting bone, slowing and tumbling on leaving him, and broadsiding its way through Connally's ribs. We look forward to you explaining how anybody planting a bogus bullet within one hour of the shooting could possibly have known a bullet needed planting at all or that he wasn't simply planting one bullet too many into evidence and blowing the whole plot. All bullets and fragments ever found were matched to Oswald's rifle, of course he shot him.
@@aaronz7056 I said the bullet was "almost pristine" which it was. It was not crushed at the nose and it was only slightly flattened. A bullet like that which allegedly went through so many bones and yet did not show expected damage. Tests of same type of bullet on carcass showed significant damage. The bullet that hit JFK's head could not be matched to Oswald's rifle as it was just fragments. The bullet exploded on impact. Yes, the bullet was foolishly planted by the cover up team. JFK's car (a crime scene)was washed of all evidence and windscreen (with bullet hole, where did that bullet come from? More than 3 bullets?) was replaced.
@@roberttohill627 A) You are blatantly lying about the bullet's condition, but who should people believe, you or their own eyes? B) Only damage to the windshield, still in the National Archives, is a crack caused by a bullet fragment which also damaged the chrome plating... from the INSIDE. The idea somebody was standing squarely in front of the limo, firing through glass and past the ears of a carful of passengers while shooting Kennedy in the face, fully expecting to frame this on Oswald from behind, is idiotic. C) I asked you to explain HOW somebody could have known a bullet needed planting and your only answer is "the bullet was planted." You obviously can't answer the question and therefore haven't a leg to stand on, thanks anyway.
"(1) The "magic bullet" was almost pristine" Oh, here we go again with the silly "almost pristine" myth. You seem to be just mindlessly repeating what certain authors and makers of videos often claim about the bullet without bothering to do actual research to see if their claims are really credible. You also give the impression that you are yet another person who has looked at less than 50 percent of all the photographs ever taken of the bullet. Photos taken of the base of the bullet, as opposed to those taken directly from the side (which appear to be the only ones you've seen) show the base to be severely flattened, with part of the metal core having been forced out. That is not what most people would call "almost pristine." "(2) The bullets from Oswald's rifle were full metal jacket bullets (FMJB) which are difficult to fragment." But nowhere near impossible to fragment. "The fatal bullet that hit JFK in the head was highly fragmented. It was not a FMJB. So It did not come from Oswald's rifle." Nope, that does not follow. You are using faulty logic. The bullet that struck JFK's head struck his skull first without passing through or hitting any other object first to reduce its velocity. Since the skull is one of the hardest bones in the human body it is not at all implausible that a FMJ bullet would fragment in such circumstances. "So there was more than one shooter and the Oswald rifle was not the one that killed the president. CASE CLOSED." Nope, you have come nowhere even remotely close to demonstrating that there was more than one shooter. You merely mistakenly think you have.
@@roberttohill627 "I said the bullet was "almost pristine" which it was." No, it was not. "It was not crushed at the nose and it was only slightly flattened." Nonsense, the base of the bullet is far more than "slightly" flattened. "A bullet like that which allegedly went through so many bones and yet did not show expected damage." I don't agree. The bullet would have passed through JFK first without hitting any bone. That would, quite obviously, slow its velocity significantly but not cause any significant damage to the bullet. It would mean that the bullet entered Connally's back at a significantly slower velocity than it would have had it struck Connally first without previously passing through something else. The bullet then still had to travel almost all the way through his torso from back to front before it finally struck any bone for the first time, so that would have of course slowed its velocity even further before it finally struck anything even remotely as hard as bone. And the first bone it finally struck was a rib, which is nowhere even remotely close to being one of the hardest bones in the human body, so that would reduce the possibility of damage to the bullet even further. And since it is the base, rather than the nose of the bullet, which is *severely* (not "slightly") flattened, this suggests that by this time the bullet was tumbling (which is not even slightly uncommon for bullets to do) and struck the rib sideways rather than nose first. By the time the bullet finally exited Connally's chest its velocity would have been slowed even more, so that when it passed through his wrist and through one of the narrow, brittle wrist bones (also nowhere even remotely close to being one of the hardest bones in the human body) it was barely moving fast enough to even make it all the way through his wrist. Further evidence of this is the fact that it penetrated his thigh such a short distance that not only did it never even touch his femur but also fell out of his thigh in the hospital. Had the bullet hit Connally only I would expect not only far greater damage to the bullet but also that it would have gone far enough into his thigh to hit and also damage his femur. The most plausible explanation for why it did not penetrate farther into his thigh is that it passed through more than just Connally's body before reaching his thigh. "The bullet that hit JFK's head could not be matched to Oswald's rifle as it was just fragments." The bullet that hit JFK's head struck his skull first, one of the hardest bones in the human body, without passing through anything else first. So naturally it fragmented. This comes nowhere even remotely close to "proving" that it was a different type of bullet from the one that hit Connally. And you didn't know that at least one of the bullet fragments found in the limo was indeed ballistically matched to the Carcano? And what about the dent on the inside surface of the chrome frame of the windshield? That was quite obviously caused by something striking the frame from behind, since it was on the wrong side to have been caused by anything coming from in front. How do you know that that dent wasn't caused by the very bullet fragment found in the limo that was ballistically matched to Oswald's Carcano? "Yes, the bullet was foolishly planted by the cover up team." I'm guessing you are talking about CE 399, the bullet alleged to be the single bullet. If so, what is your proof that it was "planted" and that there even was such a "cover up team" in the first place?
Posner is just as bad and irresponsible on the medical evidence as he is about Oswald. In the chapter entitled "He Has a Death Look" he uses people like Michael Baden to discredit the doctors in Dallas who say they saw a large hole in the rear of Kennedy's head. Posner is intent on getting rid of that hole because it would give strong evidence of there being a shot from the front of Kennedy's car. In fact, he admits this himself about the hole in the back of the head: "If true, this not only contradicted the findings of the autopsy team but was evidence that the President was probably shot from the front. He then spends pages trying to discredit the doctors and attendants at Parkland Hospital who say they saw this hole. The agenda being that if he does so, there will be no evidence for it left.
What a load of crap , the angle of the bullet hitting Connelly debunks single bullet. It's a completely separate shot from different position . The Zapruder film was altered . If Kennedy was shot from behind why was the police riders behind the car , notably the one on the left covered in Kennedy's blood and not the driver or other secret service passenger. What about the shot that lands in the grass at the feet of the girl running parallel to the limo ,she stopped running and looks directly at her feet where the bullet slammed into the soil . Oswald was just a patsy .
Same old bullcrap why did the motorcycle drivers gets hit by the blood . Because dammit he drove into it. Why don't you listen to the man's video. The head shot blood went up and forward by examining each single frame you can see that. Stop the misinformation get more educated
"If Kennedy was shot from behind why was the police riders behind the car , notably the one on the left covered in Kennedy's blood and not the driver or other secret service passenger." Where on earth are you getting this from? All four people sitting in front of JFK, John Connally, Nellie Connally, William Greer, and Roy Kellerman, were also showered with blood and other material from JFK's head, and such material also landed all over the inside of the car, and as far forward as on the windshield and on the hood of the car. The bloody spray did not land "only" on the police officers riding behind the car. And what do you mean by "notably the one on the left"? You didn't know that plenty of the bloody spray also landed on the two police officers riding on the right, James Chaney and Douglas Jackson? You didn't know that it has never been proven that "more" of the bloody spray landed on the officers riding on the left than on the officers riding on the right? "What about the shot that lands in the grass at the feet of the girl running parallel to the limo ,she stopped running and looks directly at her feet where the bullet slammed into the soil ." Wow, you really do give the appearance of getting this stuff from one or more extremely unreliable sources. The girl you're talking about, Rosemary Willis, never at any time in the film stopped and looked at her feet. Instead, she plainly stops and looks back toward the TSBD, as if she's just heard a shot fired from there. "Oswald was just a patsy ." If so you have presented zero evidence that comes even remotely close to proving him to be a patsy.
@@aaronz7056 you may find this interesting (if you didn't already see it). punch in Douglas C. Horne's name. he talks w/ Dino Brugioni (NPIC film analysis professional) and it'd seem that the film was messed w/, according to Dino, whose boss apparently kept him out of any chicanery to protect him. he lived to a ripe old age, 93. he was just about the first American to see the Z film. he did work for some Gov't men. but 50 yrs. or so later, he found out that there was other activity that had gone on, strongly implying that it was deliberately edited. DB was an honest man, despite working for the Gov't.
Posner says Oswald had no particular hatred for Kennedy. Perhaps. But I wonder what he discussed with the diplomats in the Cuban embassy in Mexico City. I wonder if they might have told Oswald about the US-sponsored plots to kill Castro. If they did, that may have caused Oswald to think of Kennedy as a political enemy.
Oswald kills two, Ruby kills one then Ruby stays tight lipped, gets very ill and dies in Prison about 3 years after he's in jail. That's the way it always happens...
"Oswald kills two, Ruby kills one then Ruby stays tight lipped, gets very ill and dies in Prison about 3 years after he's in jail." Not sure where on earth you're getting the idea that Jack Ruby, of all people, stayed "tight lipped." He did precisely the opposite of that, talking on and on and on to Earl Warren and others, describing his actions, his motivations, his suspicions, etc. in tremendous detail. I'm guessing you've never read more than one percent of his Warren Commission testimony. Try reading all of it, all the way through from the first word of the first sentence to the last word of the last sentence, and every word and sentence in between. It is in two parts, and it is very, very long, one of the longest testimonies given by anyone to the WC. There are pages where it is just Ruby speaking continuously for many lines in a row without anyone speaking. The man had diarrhea of the mouth. He was precisely the opposite of "tight-lipped." And the testimony is most instructive due to what he *really* said about why he wanted to be taken to Washington. Many authors and makers of videos have falsely claimed that he wanted to be taken to Washington to reveal inside information about the assassination, but the reasons he actually gave were quite different from that.
@@Caeruleo Convicts always die (55 years old) of cancer 3 years after going to solitary confinement in Prison, and before their second trial. So the video where Ruby states clear as day no one will ever no his motives or the people that were behind it has to be a fake video just like the Warren Commission. Keep watching CNN.
I believe if Oswald had lived, he would have changed his story up to the day of his execution. James Earl Ray was changing his story up till the day he died. It's part of their personality disorder, of which compulsive lying was one of the symptoms.
Perhaps thats why we've never been permitted to hear what Oswald had to say. His story may have exonerated him totally, and it was not permitted to be heard by anyone. They produced no interrogation notes and claimed the room was 'too small' to obtain a tape recorder. Oswald never had his day in court to defend himself and tell what he knew. Oswald had been a Marine and was granted a top secret security clearance working on the most sensitive military program at the time, the U2 flights. Hardly sounds like a man with any personality disorder son.
@@ghostdance56 kind of ironic also that we know there was a Chicago plot just a month before Dallas which was foiled. Coincidentally, there were a bunch of Cubans with high powered rifles found in a hotel room speaking about killing the president. Oh, and the fall guy was set to be an aimless wanderer in his early 10s who happened to have served in the USMC
The problem is LHO could never have been convicted by that pile of dung they called "evidence. Rifles appearing and disappearing, 2 not 3 shells originally found and photographed. Paraffin and neutron activation tests proving he did not fire a rifle that day. and a completely screwed up chain of evidence on any ballistics. At least 2 WC lawyers said as much in the 60s and things have only got much worse for the evidence. Mark Lane could have slept in, forgot his glasses and brief case and come to trial with a hang over and still got that shoddy set up job dismissed just on evidence incompetence....But some people will believe what they are told.
@@Caeruleo - No document in history has been more scrutinized by more people than the Warren report has over the last 60 years. Posner leaves out what the Warren report leaves out, just as you do. He's a shill for the CIA anyway, anyone reading his other work knows this.
"RUSH TO JUDGEMENT. mark Lane." Oh yes, that's one of the worst books to read if one wants to know the actual facts. Mark Lane grossly distorts the evidence. Just to give one example, he concentrates almost exclusively on people who said shots sounded as if they came from the knoll and almost completely ignores the equal or larger number of witnesses who said all the shots sounded as if they came only from the TSBD and nowhere else. And in his analysis of the ones who said shots came from the knoll, he ignores the fact that with only very rare exceptions, all of them said *all* the shots sounded as if they came from the knoll and none from anywhere else. Lane doesn't bother to explain how on earth that supports the idea of multiple shooters in multiple locations.
I appreciate you sharing your opinion. If you look at the individual frames of the Zapruder film, specifically frame 313, at the all important moment of impact, you see the explosion from the fatal head shot and the presidents head is pushed slightly forward indicating a shot from behind. From frames 314-321 you see the head snap backwards, which pathologists state was a neuromuscular reaction of nerve damage to the presidents brain caused by the bullet making his back muscles tighten resulting in his head snapping backwards.
I've heard that explanation before, but how many times I watched it again, I (and all the people I watched it with) don't see it. The earliest withnesses at the scene confirmed shooting from the grassy knoll. The first medics looking at the head wound said it entered the front and left the back of the head. They were surprised the Warren commission concluded something different. The only thing that strengthen me to believe there is a conspiracy is the effort that some people make to ignore or change the facts.
@@wederklop "I've heard that explanation before, but how many times I watched it again, I (and all the people I watched it with) don't see it." Perhaps because you've never studied those frames individually? And there are at least two videos here on RUclips that go back and forth repeatedly between frames 313 and 314 and in both those videos it is blindingly obvious that his head does indeed jerk forward several inches in only 1/18th of a second upon being struck by the bullet. If all you ever do is watch the Zapruder film in real time you won't see it because it happens too fast. You've got to also study the individual frames. "The earliest withnesses at the scene confirmed shooting from the grassy knoll." You are saying that in a misleading way. Many witnesses said all the shots sounded as if came from the grassy knoll and none from any other direction or location. But it is, of course, impossible for all the shots to have come from the knoll, since it is quite obvious that John Connally was hit in the back by a shot fired from behind him. There were also many witnesses who said that all the shots sounded as if they came from the TSBD and no other place. Interesting that you didn't bother to mention those witnesses as well. "The first medics looking at the head wound said it entered the front and left the back of the head." Wrong. Only a minority of the Parkland doctors and nurses said specifically that they thought the bullet entered the front of his head and exited the rear of his head. The majority of them said no such thing. And three of the Parkland doctors, Kemp Clark, Robert McClelland, and Malcolm Perry said that at first they thought it was possible that JFK was hit by one bullet, total, and that this bullet supposedly entered the front of his throat, turned upward, and exited out of his head. They said nothing about the bullet entering the front of his head. And they were obviously mistaken about that anyway, correct? Not even you believe that the bullet hole in the front of his throat and the damage to his head were caused by the same bullet, correct? And you didn't know that it's not uncommon for early conclusions, early reports, and early speculations to simply be mistaken anyway? Those three doctors were quite obviously mistaken about the bullet entering the front of his throat, turning upward, and exiting out of his head, right? And you didn't know that it was also mistakenly reported that a Secret Service agent had been killed in Dealey Plaza that day? "They were surprised the Warren commission concluded something different." I'm guessing that you're getting this from one or more authors of books and/or from one or more makers of videos, and have not actually read the complete, unabridged testimonies of those same Parkland doctors to the Warren Commission. Several of them said that the conclusion that all the shots were fired from behind JFK made perfect sense to them. Shall I quote them verbatim in their own exact words saying exactly what I claim they said, or will you?
@@Caeruleo What nonsense, the witnesses are on film. Look it up. Either you want to make money from this or you are paid to participate in the coverup. 
@@wederklop "What nonsense, the witnesses are on film. Look it up." Strawman. You are arguing with something I never said. I never said there were not witnesses on film who said the shots came from the grassy knoll. I've been studying this assassination since 1988 and I've seen the films of those witnesses many times. What I find interesting, however, is that you didn't bother to mention that there were an approximately equal number of witnesses who were filmed saying that the shots came from the TSBD. Look it up. I also find it interesting that you don't bother to mention that nearly every witness who said shots came from the grassy knoll also said that *all* the shots came from the grassy knoll and nowhere else. How does that support your claim of multiple shooters in multiple locations? I also find it interesting that you don't bother to mention that there were an approximately equal number of witnesses who said that *all* the shots came *only* from the TSBD and nowhere else. They quite obviously didn't claim that the shots came from multiple directions either. Bottom line: of all the witnesses who ever gave any opinion whatsoever on where the shots came from, the vast majority said all the shots came either from the TSBD only, or from the knoll only, but definitely not from both locations. I've been studying the witness statements in detail for 35 years and I know what they said, and also what they didn't say. And at this moment I can only recall four witnesses who contemporaneously claimed that the shots came from multiple directions: Sam Holland, Paul Landis, A.J. Millican, and Dave Powers. Look it up. And I see you completely ignored everything I said about frames 313-314 of the Zapruder film showing that JFK's head most definitely did jolt forward several inches in only 1/18th of a second upon being struck by the bullet. You didn't even try to find those two videos here on RUclips that I told you about which prove that by going back and forth many times between those two frames, did you. You also didn't go and study those two frames carefully in any sense, did you. If you did, interesting that you act as if you didn't. I also find it interesting that you completely ignored my correction of your mistaken claim about what the Parkland doctors and nurses actually said. "Either you want to make money from this or you are paid to participate in the coverup." ROFL! And you, of all people, claimed that what I said was "nonsense"? Well now, you're certainly the pot calling the kettle black, since that sentence of yours is far more nonsensical than anything I said. No wonder you tin foil hats mindlessly believe so many silly conspiracy theories. So in other words, you are so biased and closed-minded and so lacking in common sense that you actually are naive enough to believe that just because a person has a different opinion from you about the JFK assassination, that all by itself means that they've "just got to be" wanting to make money or being paid to support a coverup? You can't fathom the idea that it is entirely possible that a person could simply come to honestly believe that the majority of the evidence does indeed suggest that it is more likely than not that there was only one shooter, without having any ulterior motive to say so? I am not seeking to be paid, nor am I paid, by anyone in any sense, to post these comments on RUclips, and you cannot come even remotely close to proving otherwise. And I do indeed honestly believe, after studying this case for 35 years, that it is more likely than not that there was only one shooter, and I do indeed have no ulterior motive for saying so. And if you're this quick to jump to the wrong conclusion about me personally, how do the rest of us know that you aren't equally quick to jump to the wrong conclusions about the JFK assassination?
"a head shot from behind does not go backwards , nor does body parts go backwards, on to the trunk." Says who? I've seen videos of a melon on a pedestal being shot which show material exploding out of the melon in the same direction the bullet was traveling but also show that the material exploding out of the melon shoved the melon off the pedestal in the opposite direction the bullet was traveling. The mass of a bullet is far too small to impart that much momentum to a human head. Normally there will be a smaller jolt of several inches of the head in the direction the bullet was traveling, but larger motions of the head are normally caused by other things, such as sudden muscle spasms as the brain is injured and sends a sudden jumble of signals to the brain, or material exploding out of the head. The "back and to the left" motion is only one detail seen in the Zapruder film. What about the larger number of details also seen in the film that all suggest a greater likelihood that the bullet came from behind JFK after all? The film shows that when his head is first struck by the bullet, his head does indeed jolt forward several inches in only 1/18th of a second. The film also shows that the majority of the bloody spray exploded forward out of his head, and that much less of it exited rearward. It also shows that the "back and to the left" motion does not even begin for the first time until several frames after the initial forward jerk of his head, that it is also slower than the initial forward jolt, and that it also does not begin until after material is seen exploding mostly forward out of his head, as if it was actually the material exploding forward that shoved his head rearward, rather than the direction the bullet was traveling. Just like the melon on the pedestal.
@Caeruleo those frames of the Zapruder film was altered as described by Dino Brugioni. The fact that only one frame shows the explosion is a joke, the explosion should have been visible in several frames as Dino said the film originally showed. That remaining single frame was altered to show the explosion in the front and the back part was poorly blacked out in an oblivious edit. Of course you are one of the half-dozen government trolls who can only accept the Warren Report version of events.
@@alrifr5786 "those frames of the Zapruder film was altered as described by Dino Brugioni. The fact that only one frame shows the explosion is a joke, the explosion should have been visible in several frames as Dino said the film originally showed." Huh? Which "Zapruder film" are you talking about? You must be talking about a film most people have never seen. I'm talking about the "Zapruder film" that was first shown publicly on national television in 1975 and since then has been released on home video in high quality digital restorations and has been posted many times here on RUclips, etc. This "Zapruder film," the one the vast majority of us have seen, shows his head first exploding in frame 313 but continues to show the bloody spray from the initial explosion in several successive frames. It does not show the explosion in one frame only. Where on earth are you getting this from? "That remaining single frame was altered to show the explosion in the front and the back part was poorly blacked out in an oblivious edit." You are repeating an unproven factoid or urban legend about the assassination. It has never been proven that the back of his head was blacked out in even one frame of the film, and it would need to be blacked out for quite a few frames continuously to be convincing. You are also ignoring all the other evidence I cited in support of the idea of the shot having been fired from behind JFK after all. "Of course you are one of the half-dozen government trolls who can only accept the Warren Report version of events." Nonsense. I am nothing even remotely similar to what most people call a "troll" and I most certainly do not work for the government, and you cannot come even remotely close to proving otherwise. I also do not agree with at least some of the Warren Commission's conclusions, as I have explained in detail many times. It is quite obvious that the true reason you call me a "government troll" is not because it's actually true, but because you are utterly desperate to "discredit" me or some such nonsense, just because I have a different opinion from you about the JFK assassination and no other reason. Just because someone honestly has a different opinion from you about the JFK assassination doesn't automatically mean they're a "government troll"; only a person with very little common sense, and/or a very biased and closed-minded person would think otherwise. And I ask you once again: if you're this quick to jump to the wrong conclusion about me personally, how do the rest of us know that you aren't equally quick to jump to the wrong conclusions about the JFK assassination?
Mr Posner is entitled to his views and conclusions, however, he and many others merely base their views on the Zapruder film, the copies of which the public sees is at least several generation of copies away from the original film. Also, viewing this assassination from a 'lawyers perspective' is quite different from that of criminal forensic expert. The Warren Report was designed and succeeded in quickly placing a simple conclusion upon the death of JFK.
Nothing of what you are saying would change all the forensic evidence pointing at Oswald. Fragments, bullets, rifle, finger/palm prints. Yeah maybe you bring something new to the facts, but the existing facts will not disappear and that is the problem with all theories. The film is primarely used as a timeline and reference to double check on forensic evidence or eyewitnesses at least people who are interested in hard evidence use it that way. Other people imply things on the film like theories around Greer shooting the president or projectiles from Umbrella-Man etc. Same goes for the house select committee on assasinations they came to an opposite conclusion because of lack of time and lack of money, so what's the point?
The CIA files do reveal new information. The main thing is Oswald's trip to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico was not simply to get a visa. The contention is the Sept.9 NY Times interview with Castro (where the Cuban leader excoriates JFK and talks about US plots to kill Castro) infuriated Oswald enough to get him to join the Cuban revolution or volunteer his services to kill JFK in service of said revolution. The Castro interview was syndicated throughout the country, and Oswald probably read it in the New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper. If true, that is a plausible motive for Oswald's actions. A question I have is, what truth is there to the attempted assassination of JFK in Chicago on Nov.2, 1963? It was supposedly foiled by the Secret Service, but the act bared striking similarities to Dallas (an ex-Marine sharpshooter who had a job in a warehouse overlooking the proposed presidential motorcade). I've only heard this story from one source, the late Secret Service agent, Abraham Bolden. I would like to hear corroboration (or a dispute) of that event.
Zfilm .... rooftop of the Dallas county records bldg....frame 313...318... Sprocket hole .. evidence of a second shooter..and in no words did I mention the Knoll... that's enough in itself to raise serious questions...I believe Oswald got the scope in the eye when the recoil snapped back which would explain the bent scope, and the shot that went wild down Elm Street
"Zfilm .... rooftop of the Dallas county records bldg....frame 313...318... Sprocket hole .. evidence of a second shooter" How on earth is that evidence of a second shooter?
Posner knows what he's talking about. I should thank him because he confirms what I have been saying for years - Oswald did it and he did it alone. However, in this video, I'm not quite agreeing with a few areas. Mainly - Oswald's "flight". Posner is implying Oswald had a plan after he shot JFK. Well I'm sorry but I don't see it. What I see is a guy that didn't have a clue as to what he was doing. He was all over the place. Leaves the building, gets on a bus, takes a taxi, goes to his room, grabs his gun, starts walking - God knows where - then he kills that cop. Then he ends up in that movie theater, for no particular reason. I don't see any plan whatsoever in LHO's actions after the assassination. One other area I'm iffy on is Ruby. Agreed he was there in a position to shoot Oswald thru sheer happenstance. However, nothing was going thru Jack Ruby's mind other than in that one singular moment in time, he lost his cool and pulled out his gun.
I appreciate your analysis on Oswalds flight from the scene. He very well may not have had an exit strategy. For the hour and ten minutes after the assassination, I would agree he was all over the place.
It's certainly possible that Oswald had no detailed escape plan. He had left nearly all his money and his wedding ring with Marina at the Paine's house in Irving that morning. He walked out of the book depository with about $12 in his pocket. He may have expected, or even desired, to be caught, but OTOH he wasn't in any big hurry about it. He went to the Oak Cliff rooming house to pick up his pistol, which he'd been unable to get since he went to Irving to pick up the rifle the night before and came directly back to the depository in the morning. After leaving the rooming house, he wandered around aimlessly until he encountered Officer Tippett and killed him. That added a new element of urgency and panic to the situation. He hid in the movie theater, but had already been spotted by the shoe store manager. His behavior when the police arrived ("This is it!") suggests that he might even have expected to be killed then and there--"suicide by police." When he found himself still alive and arrested, he made the most of it, drawing the situation out as long as he could. Oswald saw himself as an important person ignored and bypassed by history. Now that he was famous, he wanted to let the story unfold slowly for maximum dramatic effect. On Sunday, Jack Ruby thought that Oswald had been transferred from the police station an hour or two before. He sent the stripper in Ft. Worth the $25 moneygram and then decided to walk the few blocks over to the police station to socialize and maybe give out some passes to the club--he was a police groupie, after all. Or maybe as Mr. Posner suggests, he saw the crowd and went out of curiosity. He left his beloved dog in the car, which suggests it was a spur-of-the-moment decision. Over the weekend, Ruby had worked himself into a frenzy over Oswald and had been close enough to shoot at him at least once. Then suddenly Oswald appeared only a few yards away, smiling and exulting over killing the president. To Ruby, it was like the Lord was giving him one last chance--the chance of a lifetime--and like Oswald himself two days earlier, Ruby took it. That's what I believe, but I don't try to convince anybody else.
@@williamwingo4740 Hi - Im pretty much with you. My views - Oswald: The only thing he had vision on is he wasn't coming back - this is why he left the money and the ring for Marina. But he had absolutely no plan after he shot JFK. Things transpired as they did. He ended up surviving and then started playing his games. Ruby: Total happenstance he ended up near the police station. Agreed with Posner, Ruby noticed some commotion/activity at the Police Station so he walked over. He had worked himself up over the weekend over Oswald. This is why he didn't shoot him Friday night. SO he heads over to the Police station, slips thru because the truck is in the way, and , purely by coincidence - ends up right where Oswald is being taken out. In that moment, being all worked up and seeing Oswald's smirk, he lost his cool and shot him. But Ruby had no plan either. He simply lost his cool at one moment in time. Then he spent the next three years lying about it.
@@ledzep310 I agree, but we seem to be in the minority here. Many people are still unable to accept such a string of coincidences. Just look at some of the other comments on this thread.... And of course, conspiracy theories are still where the money is, even sixty years later. If you haven't seen it already, I recommend the book "Conspiracy of One" by Jim Moore. He goes into considerable detail on the sequence of shots, and especially Oswald's movements after the assassination.
@@williamwingo4740 I suppose you can make an argument for Oswald - meaning that he in fact was a part of something bigger. I mean I don't believe that and I don't think that - but you can at least make an argument. With Ruby, there is no argument. It is absolutely impossible for what he did that day to be anything but pure happenstance (coincidence).
@@HindsightHistory Who will be the subject of the next interview? I’ve listened to Posner before on RUclips discuss “Case Closed.” I own a copy of his book but just haven’t gotten around to reading it. But I agree with everything he says on the subject, and I have no use for people who refuse to acknowledge that he has done his homework and simply refuse to let go of the usual conspiracy theories. I thought you handled the interview very well by asking direct, central questions and then giving Posner all the time he needed to elaborate.
@@charleswinokoor6023 I appreciate the compliment on the interview. Took a little over a year to bring it to life and I'm thankful with the way it turned out. Our next interview will be with historian and author Candice Millard on her book "The River of Doubt: Theodore Roosevelt's Darkest Journey." Very much looking forward to the conversation.
@@HindsightHistory I look forward to it. I think it was a couple years ago when I watched an excellent PBS documentary about Teddy Roosevelt’s dangerous journey.
"and there were more than three shots" Nope, it has never yet been proven that there were more than three shots. You are merely speculating or getting this from someone else who was merely speculating. "there was a hole in the windshield, from the front" How do you know that the damage to the windshield was from the front?
@Caeruleo The very experienced glass professional at the Ford plant who handled the damaged windshield said that it was a through and through shot from the front and he included a statement to this effect in his estate papers.
@@julesclay8142 "The very experienced glass professional at the Ford plant who handled the damaged windshield said that it was a through and through shot from the front and he included a statement to this effect in his estate papers." Uh-huh. Let's explore that carefully. You seem to be talking about George Whitaker. This is what he claimed in a 1993 interview: "And the windshield had a bullet hole in it, coming from the outside through…it was a good, clean bullet hole, right straight through, from the front. And you can tell, when the bullet hits the windshield, like when you hit a rock or something, what happens? The back chips out and the front may just have a pinhole in it…this had a clean round hole in the front and fragmentation coming out the back." But that's hardly the end of the story. Now let's look at an article by Vincente Velasco: ********** Vicente S. Velasco says: March 12, 2021 at 8:16 am If you are referring to George Whitaker, sad to say that he was a liar. He was in no position to make such a statement because he never worked on the limo when it was transported to the Ford plant. Researcher Pamela Brown effectively debunked Whitaker: **qu0te on** George Whitaker worked at the Rouge in Dearborn, at the Glass Plant. He said he saw the limo in the B building, which was the final assembly building. Whenever the limo was at Ford it went to the Experimental Garage; a different location. There are other FMC employees who have said nearly the same thing as this man did about seeing the limo at Dearborn for the teardown that took place prior to the rebuild. This process did not start until the end of December 1963. (Whether or not it should have started at all is another question). Vaughn Ferguson, who was the FMC employee in DC directly responsible for the limo spent the four days after the assassination with the limo. His memo, which was mistakenly sent to me by NARA provides concrete documentation as to what did happen during that time. Mr. Whitaker and other FMC employees likely heard Vaughn Ferguson talking about the limo when he was at Dearborn. He drove the car there from the White House Garage in DC in December 1963. He also loved to play golf when he was there. One of these men was a golf buddy of his. I believe that is how Ferguson’s statements spread and changed. Mr. Whittaker’s story has many gaffes in it, that were mostly sanitized by the time TMWKK [The Men Who Killed Kennedy] was taped, largely because of corrections made after I presented to Weldon and his mentor [James] Fetzer documentation from the Henry Ford Museum that helped define them. **quote off** ********** Thus there seems to be some doubt about Whitaker's credibility. Now let's look at Robert Frazier's much more contemporaneous account of the original examination of the windshield before it was sent to the Ford plant: ********** Mr. SPECTER - Did you have occasion then to examine the windshield of the Presidential limousine? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I did. Mr. SPECTER - What did that examination disclose? Mr. FRAZIER - On the inside surface of the windshield there was a deposit of lead. This deposit was located when you look at the inside surface of the windshield, 13 1/2 inches down from the top, 23 inches from the left-hand side or driver's side of the windshield, and was immediately in front of a small pattern of star-shaped cracks which appeared in the outer layer of the laminated windshield. Mr. DULLES - What do you mean by the "outer layer of the laminated windshield"? Mr. FRAZIER - The windshield is composed of two layers with a very thin layer of plastic in between which bonds them together in the form of safety glass. The inside layer of the glass was not broken, but the outside layer immediately on the outside of the lead residue had a very small pattern of cracks and there was a very minute particle of glass missing from the outside surface. Mr. DULLES - And the outside surface was the surface away from where the occupants were sitting? Mr. FRAZIER - That is correct; yes. Mr. DULLES - And the inside surface was the surface nearest the occupants? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. Mr. SPECTER - What do those characteristics indicate as to which side of the windshield was struck? Mr. FRAZIER - It indicates that it could only have been struck on the inside surface. It could not have been struck on the outside surface because of the manner in which the glass broke and further because of the lead residue on the inside surface. The cracks appear in the outer layer of the glass because the glass is bent outward at the time of impact which stretches the outer layer of the glass to the point where these small radial or wagon spoke-wagon wheel spoke-type cracks appear on the outer surface. Mr. DULLES - So the pressure must have come from the inside and not from the outside against the glass? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; that is correct. Mr. DULLES - As far as the car is concerned from the back to the front? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. DULLES - Not from outside against the glass--from the front against the glass. Mr. FRAZIER - That is right. Mr. SPECTER - Was a comparison made of the lead residues on the inside of the windshield with any of the bullet fragments recovered about which you have heretofore testified? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. They were compared with the bullet fragment found on the front seat, which in turn was compared with Commission 399. The lead was found to be similar in composition. However, that examination in detail was made by a spectrographer, Special Agent John F. Gallagher. Mr. SPECTER - Was that examination made in the regular course of examining procedures by the FBI? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. ********** See how this account is far more detailed than the Whitaker account? Whitaker made no mention of any lead deposit, which gives the impression that if he was even telling the truth at all about seeing the windshield, he didn't examine the damage nearly as closely as Gallagher did. Also, did you know that two bullet fragments were found in the car, one of them in the driver's seat? Did you also know that there was a dent on the rear surface of the chrome frame above the windshield? That dent could only have been caused by something striking the chrome from behind because if it had come from in front the dent would be on the opposite side of the chrome. It is thus entirely plausible that these two fragments could have been from the same bullet, the one that struck JFK in the head, and that one fragment could have caused the dent in the chrome and the other could have caused the damage to the windshield.
"I think more than anything else, if I had an opportunity and the facts that said Lee was innocent, I would be out there shouting it loud and clear. But the facts point in the other direction. If you go right down the line and look at it, all the facts will point to Lee's involvement. Lee actually committed the crime, period...Now what we don't know is the why. We can go through all those speculations and theories and so forth and everything, but I think it goes back to his character. He had some real serious mental problems as far as I'm concerned. This is not an excuse of what he did. This is understanding what he did. He had problems at home. He had problems on his job. He was completely frustrated about what was going on around him. He was really in serious depression as far as I'm concerned. His demeanor and his direction that he wanted to go was to be somebody. But then again, he's being held down by the society, you know, that he really wanted to take notice of him, and they didn't take notice of him." ― Robert Oswald Or was he in on the conspiracy too? 🤔
Don't tell me you're one of those putz that believe the movie "JFK", which Stone admitted was 90% fiction. He did manage to get the right president correct but beyond that: a load of manure.
@@TheClyde-v3f - But you 'chose' to not post what you 'saw' right here and now for all to see. Got it son, I'll believe that. LOL Get your prescription filled, I think you're believing your own BS. LOL
I just finished the audio version of Posner's book. It was riveting. Before listening to it, I was vaguely interested in the Kennedy assassination because I was in grade school when it happened, but then 20 years later, I worked on a TV mini-series called Kennedy, starring Martin Sheen in which we closed down the financial disctrict of Richmond, Virginia and turned it into Dealy Plaza. The old Medical College of Virginia was used for Parkland Hospital. It was a fascinating project. I have always presumed that Oswald was more or less set up as a "Patsy" for the shooting in some plot. But then I spent the next 30 years in law enforcement and learned through experience that nobody keeps their mouth shut for that long in a criminal conspiracy. The murder of Oswald by Jack Ruby kept me believing in some sort of mob plot. Much of this I now know was just based on false information reported as fact, usually by some nut job with a book to sell, or someone who got invited to a public library to give everyone the "inside story of what really happened". I heard everything about Oswald's alleged involvement with spy planes in Japan, to how his rifle was either (depending on whom you ask) a crappy Italian Carcano that wouldn't hit anything to a beautifully made German Mauser that had been switched to a Carcano after the shots were fired. I heard all kinds of things about Jack Ruby being a hit man for the mob. I heard about four shots, the grassy knoll, and pretty much everything else you can imagine. You can fall down a RUclips rabbit hole on JFK and spend weeks just watching. By the end of it, you can be convinced that space aliens killed Kennedy. It was in watching one such video where I saw a "JFK researcher" refer to the book Case Closed as "total crap". So of course I had to read it. It was in a search for the book that I found the audio version and listened to it all in one sitting except for bathroom breaks. Finally it all made sense. My career led me to become a criminal investigator, and also an expert witness on firearms. I had seen many shoddy investigations before, and some where comments were made before all the facts were in. I'd also seen firearms misidentified by responding officers, such as one case where the first guy on scene had identified a Smith and Wesson automatic as a "Glock". The kid told me he thought that Glock was a generic name for a handgun. So, it didn't suprise me that some Texas cop misidentified a rather obscure Italian rifle as the much more familiar Mauser. The Carcano is a well-made rifle, certainly capable of making the shots that Oswald made. It is an accurate rifle, but its ergonomics are a little balky in working the bolt. And since it is a smaller rifle chambered for a powerful cartridge, it kicks like a mule. Ammunition was not so easy to find. So of the WWII mail order surplus rifles, it would not have been my first choice of what was available in the 60's, but was certainly the cheapest option. I think Oswald bought what he could afford, and the pre-installed scope had to be attractive. I actually borrowed one in the 90's and was perfectly capable of replicating Oswald's shots. So much for that. I can say that if a professional assasin had been tasked with the killing, the Carcano would not be their first choice of weapon. But it was perfectly capable. I actually replicated his shots with a handgun on three fixed targets. No problem. Just about any repeating rifle would have worked. I also learned a long time ago never to speculate what a bullet will or will not do as it passes through flesh and bone, or what it will look like when recovered. I wasn't at JFK's autopsy, but I have sat in on 250 others where people were shot with firearms, and have seen entrance wounds mistaken for exit wounds initially and vice versa. I have no problem believing that excited ER doctors saw what they thought was one type of wound was actually found to be something else on autopsy. Just normal human error. Posner's chapters on Oswald's biography were most instructive. I am surprised he had such a troubled life, and can easily see how, having failed at everything, he craved the feeling he belonged to some cause, and was hungry for recognition for something, anything that people would remember him by. His psych profile reads like the typical Active Shooter of today, except that I do not believe he thought he was going to get caught. But the most interesting parts of Case Closed to me are the parts about Jack Ruby. I'll admit that his murder of Oswald spontaneously is a bit hard to swallow until you understand that Ruby was a small-time wanna be hood who was pretty bent psychologically and had a mercurial temper. Posner is right that he craved action and wanted to be known as a big man around town. He befriended cops to that end, even though they all thought he was a flake. Posner is right that he had multiple chances to kill Oswald over the weekend, but just had to get himsef wound up enough to go through with it. Until I read the book, the thing I got stuck on was the fact that he left his dog in his car when he went in on the day of the murder. He either didn't know when he went inside that he was going to kill anyone, or less likely, that he knew what he planned to do and thought he would be hailed as a hero and would be right back to his dog. And, if this was a hit to close off some mob conspiracy, do we really think organized crme entrusted this to a small time strip joint owner? And if so, why was Ruby left alive after being arrested? He could have been shanked at any time while he was in custody which would realy cleaned up a loose end. But yet he died in 1967 of lung cancer. So what I think now is that the whackiest little nut job in Dallas on that day took a rifle to work and killed the President. Later that weekend, the second whackiest nut job in Dallas killed Oswald. A mishandled government investigation left us all with the impression that something more complicated was going on and being hidden. Occam's Razor in action figures this one out for us. I think if there was any sort of "conspiracy" it took the form of Oswald making noises about killing Kennedy to his Cuban friends so he would be allowed into Cuba as a hero by Castro, and them saying "Yeah, you should totally do that." But that is pure guesswork on my part. Maybe I should try giving a talk on this at the public library.
@@HindsightHistory Thanks for your kind reply. I devoted a few days to the RUclips Rabbit Hole and then Posner's book while I was laid up with an illness. The contrast between his book and most of what I saw was striking in terms of serious research and logical support. But then it was time to move on and go back to real life. I have no idea how people can devote their whole lives to a single murder and be as passionate about it as if they were JFK's family. Maybe I'm just callous because I've stood over so many dead bodies, but for me this was nothing more than a distraction from being ill for a week. Now that I'm better and back to real life, I ask myself "Who killed JFK?" I find myself replying "Who cares?"
Problem is a have just stumbled onto interviews where people say a shot was fired from behind the fence. Multiple people. Or at least the shot was fired from behind where they were standing…Seven different people.
@@machivellisucstwogo7103 "Problem is a have just stumbled onto interviews where people say a shot was fired from behind the fence. Multiple people. Or at least the shot was fired from behind where they were standing…Seven different people." But those are nowhere even remotely close to all the people who gave statements regarding where they thought the sounds of the gunfire came from, and nowhere close even to the majority of those people. More than 100 Dealey Plaza witnesses gave such statements. What about what the other 93+ witnesses said? Also didn't all seven or nearly all seven of those people also say that all the shots sounded as if they came from behind the fence and no other direction? How does that support the idea of multiple gunman? And we know for a fact that it is impossible for all the shots to have come from behind the fence, because we know for a fact that John Connally, at least, was hit in the back by a shot fired from behind him, whether or not that same bullet also hit JFK.
@@Caeruleo I now think there were multiple shooters. I think I now heard at least eight people say it. These people didn’t know each other and they are saying basically the same thing. I can give you links to videos.
Aside from all the well-known issues, there remains in me one doubt: there's something about the composed manner and casual spontaneity with which Lee Oswald answered the question " did you shoot the President? " that still keeps me from achieving 100% certainty regarding his guilt: It's the simple way he calmly said, " No, I didn't shoot anybody."
All the studies have shown that lawyers and judges can’t tell whether someone is lying from demeanour. It isn’t an accurate method for discovering truth.
Apparently not, at least by your lights. I am aware though, that when condescending, smug people are confronted with an opinion that diverges from their own, they tend to get insecure and unnecessarily nasty.
@@barrylyndongurley "Apparently not, at least by your lights. I am aware though, that when condescending, smug people are confronted with an opinion that diverges from their own, they tend to get insecure and unnecessarily nasty." But since I came nowhere even remotely close to being what most people would call "nasty," what you said cannot reasonably apply to me. And I was merely articulating an obvious fallacy in the claim I have seen many times, that people interpret Oswald's demeanor and denials as supposed evidence of his innocence, when in fact it is not uncommon for real murderers to seem quite convincing in their denials.
"A man is innocent, until proven guilty, in this country, Oswald never stood trial. Case not closed" All that means is that he was never proven to be guilty in a court of law. But that is meaningless, since he never would have stood trial anyway, because Jack Ruby killed him before he could stand trial. And many things can be proven without a trial. One doesn't have to go to court to prove that the earth is orbiting the sun; the evidence for that is already overwhelming in the first place.
Doctors saw the neck wound as an entry wound. The closest witness says the car just about stopped for 1-2 seconds , which proves Zapruder film was doctored
@@jdunn101ify I'm not sure that is true. Check out Bugliosi, he pretty comprehensively covered alternate theories. Have you read the WC, Posner or Bugliosi? To me the overwhelming evidence is that Oswald did it alone. You've drawn another conclusion. That's fine. Neither of us will ever actually know the truth. In any jury that has seen the same evidence you'll get disagreement. The thing is the WC, Posner and Bugliosi back up their interpretation with solid evidence. The other interpretations that I've seen just don't do that. They tend to rely on minor discrepancies, innuendo, spurious connections, and some, on downright lies. When it comes down to it it hardly matters what either of us thinks. personally I think if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. But it might not be. Over sixty years all the real evidence is very duckish.
I gave up trying to convince conspiracy theorists years ago. Most of them are asking questions and making statements that are beginner level stuff - What about Jack Ruby? Oswald said he was a Patsy, head shot came from the front cause the head goes back and to the left, and so on. You can't convince them. Like Gerald said, if he had HD footage of Oswald in the Sniper's nest, they'd just say it was fake in some way. Every massive event carries a million conspiracy theories, it's what people do. The moon landings, JFK, Princess Diana, 911, Paul McCartney is dead, Covid, the list goes on and on. My best advice to anyone who wants to research the JFK Assassination, is to read the Warren report and make your own decision. If you think there was a conspiracy, fine but please don't say Oswald was innocent cause with all the evidence against him, you have to have him involved. Please don't send me messages arguing and calling me names, I'm not interested in a debate and I won't reply.
@@garyfrancis6193 "Why do all Americans say “ cause” instead of “ because”?" I've seen and heard British people say "cause" instead of "because" many times. And not "all" as in 100 percent of Americans say "cause" instead of "because." There are plenty who don't. You seem to be biased in this regard. "It’s pretty much 100% and it’s ignorant as hell." In your opinion. And you are acting as if you've never once heard or seen slang. Now, do you have anything of any actual substance to say about the JFK assassination, or are you just going to keep talking about things that are irrelevant and trivial?
@@barryirvin2417 because the whole event is difficult to unravel. First of all the conspirators plan way ahead and have alternate plans and create scenarios to lead investigators up the wrong tree. Lee Oswald knew he was going to die but he didn’t know what was in store for him. Judith knew he was in trouble but had hope. But the powers that be had other plans. JFK had to go. He was the fly in their ointment. JFK had money to burn. He had his fun in the sun but was cut down by the powers that operating at that time we were flush with cash also. Lee Oswald was cool, calm, and collected. He was a trained agent. The worst thing that came out of the assassination was the escalation of the Vietnam war. Which was not an official war. Congress held the pursue strings so we were not allowed to fight all out. So we pulled out in the end and the north Vietnam overran the south
Listen to this .... LHO could not get Edwin Walker in march 1963 ...50 feet to the window and ...25 feet to his desk ... Hit the window pane and the the wall ..walker got hit by a few fragments that's it Then Oswald got the job in the book depository OCT 1963 shooting a moving target yet LIKE LHO SAID IM JUST A PATSY .. It wasn't him ...Next question .................W H O .........
It hit the window frame and deflected. It was Oswald's first murder attempt, after dark, and with a scope you become target focused and don't notice details extraneous to the target and the cross hairs. That may also explain why his first shot at Kennedy deflected off a tree limb or the traffic light.
Here's the next question: how do the people framing poor innocent Oswald know: - they can take it for grated they will accurately predict his every thought and action - he will show up unexpectedly at the Paine house Nov. 21, otherwise they can't pretend he smuggled the rifle - he wouldn't simply stand out on the sidewalk during the parade - nobody would ever find any bullets or fragments that don't match to his rifle - he would immediately flee the plaza - an imposter who looks so much like him he's guaranteed to fool the nearly dozen witnesses who ID Oswald needs to be hanging around 10th and Patton - Officer Tippit won't simply outdraw and capture his attacker - Oswald would try to shoot a second cop minutes later nearby - Oswald would lie to police and refuse to cooperate - Oswald would refuse help from the President of the Dallas Bar Association - Oswald would just shrug a hollow, rambling reply when asked on live TV, "Did you shoot the President?" - they can safely count on scores of police, FBI, Secret Service, military personnel, doctors, Oswald family members, ballistics experts, whole commissions, etc., to obey illegal orders and bend over backwards making themselves all eternally loyal accessories to murder and treason...?
My main concern is the trajectory of the magic bullet. I can’t see how the right side of JFK was hit near the T3 and ended up coming out the throat. Upwards out of JFK to Connally now going downwards. POSNER HIMSELF DISPOVES THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY. How can it go straight threw Kennedy if it’s shot from the 6th floor? But really it’s not straight threw its at an upward trajectory.
This guy is telling it like it happened based on actual facts. Very logical. If you read about Oswald you might never know WHY he ultimately did it, but he sure had the personality to do it combined with a history of gun violence (the assassination attempt on Walker) prior to Nov 22nd. Oswald was delusional and thought he was contributing a verse in the great saga of human history by this deed of his.
@@mikeklassic78 yes. Several witnesses saw a man in the window, and their description was sent out on police radio. Also, Oswald was the only employee missing from the TSBD after the shooting, so the same description of a fairly young, white male with dark hair was certainly picked up pretty soon.
NONE of that is true son. There is nothing that links him to Walker shooting, else he would have been arrested for that. Hello??? Oswald had no criminal or psychiatric history, he was a marine issued a top secret clearance to monitor the U2 flights, the most sensitive program in the US at that time. He also was NOT the only employee missing from TSBD, as many people had gone from watching the motorcade to going straight home afterwards, so thats a fallacy too. NO ONE identified Oswald in a sixth floor window either. In fact, many witnesses saw 'multiple men' on the sixth floor right before the shooting, in particular a dark skinned man was described by multiple witnesses. So no son, Oswald's personality certainly does not reflect a man who was delusional or who had a history of violence or crime in any way. He in fact had to be one cool customer to have done what he did in going to Russia and back and not been arrested for treason, if you know the full story. So everything you just wrote comes from a 'narrative' only, there is zero evidence for any of that Oswald was crazy nonsense, and it was an obvious false narrative to help frame Oswald.
@@mistermousterian - Do you know the police officer's name who claimed that account? Seems to me, the 48 hour interrogation had no notes taken, unlike in all other cases in United States history, so did someone whisper that in your ear or what? Did they also know his favorite snack? LOL
I agree. Knowing how passionate Oswald was about politics, it's hard to believe he wouldn't want to be immersed in all things at Dealey Plaza that day.
"Officer Tippit was killed by Ruby and used as a body double." That's one of the silliest claims I've ever seen made about this case. To start with, it has never yet been proven that Jack Ruby was anywhere within a quarter mile in any direction of the Tippit shooting at the time it occurred. And if by "body double" you are referring to the silly myth that I've seen some people here on RUclips mindlessly repeat, that Tippit's body was used as a "double" for JFK in the Bethesda autopsy that evening, I'd suggest you do better research. For one thing, Tippit did not look similar enough to JFK for that to have a snowball's chance of surviving a summer day in Texas of fooling anyone. Secondly, Earl Rose's autopsy of Tippit (I'm guessing you've never actually read the autopsy report) occurred too late in the day for Tippit's body to have then been flown from Texas to Maryland in time to be present for the JFK autopsy. "Look up Mark Groubear" Don't you mean Mark Groubert? If so, that's laughable, since he has never come anywhere even remotely close to proving that Jack Ruby was anywhere near the scene of the Tippit shooting, nor has he come anywhere even remotely close to proving that Tippit's body was used as a double or any other such nonsense. If you think I'm wrong, please describe, here, in detail, the evidence Groubert has presented which you think proves these things. Thanks.
@@Caeruleo so the eye witnesses on film, that state they watched Ruby exit a car and shoot Tippit don't count. Same ok spin Jonny Carson used on Garrison..Why NBC pulled the video. The Oswald phone call to Hurt...records don't lie. Oswald called the CIA handler. Those records belong to the phone company. Care to comment on the phone call your buddies missed
@@c.hundley9714 "so the eye witnesses on film, that state they watched Ruby exit a car and shoot Tippit don't count." Please say the full names of the eyewitnesses who said on film that they saw Jack Ruby shoot Tippit. I have been studying this assassination for 35 years and I do not recall any witness saying anything even remotely similar to that, on film or in print. And let me turn this around on you: the *majority* of the eyewitness at or near the scene of the Tippit shooting said the man they saw either was definitely Oswald, or at the very least looked reasonably similar to Oswald, and several of them said it both on film and in print. So according to you, what the majority of the witnesses said doesn't count?
You deep State thugs couldn't make a better argument. Your boys missed Oswald s phone call. Not speculation. Bell Telephone records and guess what. Two women who worked the Dallas pbx are on video record talking about placing it. Oswald was under the impression he was CIA. CIA fuck wads. Take your best shot, ceicil. You can't get past the fuck up of Oswald calling a known CIA house. Bring it. Bell Telephone....you messed up. Hahaha it's out there.
Oswald acted alone. Well, that's not very sexy. BUT it's the truth. Gerald Posner got it right, none of the other hundreds who scribbled about the case did. BUT no one will ever go broke peddling conspiracy to the American people.
"Except for the fact that all the doctors in Dallas said the exit wound was in the back his head" That is false. Nowhere near "all" of the doctors, as in 100 percent of them, said specifically that the damage in the rear of his head was an "exit." Less than half of them said that.
@@elguapo42 A) Doctors at their first press conference are speculating wildly about the wounds, unable to conjecture about numbers, directions, etc. B) Parkland doctors looked at the autopsy photos for NOVA in 1988 and had no particular problem with them. C) Who safely approached scores of Secret Service, military personnel, FBI, doctors, x-ray technicians, ballistics experts, photographers, witnesses, etc. and persuaded them all to obey illegal orders and make themselves all loyal accessories to murder and treason? D) How is contradicting Parkland doctors, altering wounds, forging x-rays, faking photographs, falsifying evidence and committing perjury by the dozen a better idea than just leaving well enough alone and saying Oswald must have had an accomplice who got away, which would have suited any conspiracy just fine? E) Connally's said the shots all came from behind. F) Witnesses under the sixth floor window said the shots all came from directly overhead. G) Kennedy is clearly seen to suffer a massive exit wound exploding at the right temple completely inconsistent with a shot from anywhere but the rear. H) No bullets or fragments were ever found that did not match to Oswald's rifle. I) Who exactly was assuming they would frame this on a lone shooter from the rear while firing away from multiple directions?
Thank you Terry for the kind words! My goal for the discussion was to avoid injecting myself constantly into the conversation knowing someone like Gerald whose studied the subject for decades to have the stage. Much more content to come soon!
I don't have to read all, or any, of the WC to form an opinion on the presentations of those who have. I put the Posners and the Lanes in the balance and see what's what. This is akin to how juries weigh "expert opinion" witnesses. When Max Holland points out that a slug's exit-hole in the wall of the skull (or glass, etc. for that matter) is spalled outward conically, it saves me an incredible amount of reading.
Oswald was working long ago at the TSBD, before the president came to Dallas and passed the TDBD. So, he (LHO) was placed there? That's insane OR BETTER: another fact for a conspiracy if he was placed. But by whom? Not even JFK knew the exact way of the motorcade. How could LHO knew it? To read about the way in the papers 2 days before doesn't make him automaticly an assassin...
By Ruth Paine, who had many family CIA connections that Mr. Posner well knows but didn't mention. Likewise the motorcade route could have been altered by Dallas Mayor Earl Cabell, brother of Charles Cabell, a high-ranking CIA officer who was fired by JFK after the Bay of Pigs. What's known today is that Mayor Cabell himself was an active CIA asset.
@@slycat956 I understand LHO was friends with George De Mohrenschildt during his time in Dallas. However, after speaking with Gerald and looking into it further, it looks like Ruth Paine was actually the one to get him an interview at the Book Depository.
The motorcade route was published in the Dallas newspaper a few days before November 22nd. The route itself was drawn up by the Dallas Secret Service chief around 45 days before. LHO got his job via the suggestion from Marina's friend Ruth Paine. Paine herself heard about the job opening at the Texas Schoolbook Depository from her neighbor.
Finally someone with common sense, not to mention that if Oswald shot Kennedy, that his brains would have been all over the front of the limo not on the trunk as shown in the Z film. The fatal shot came from THE FRONT !!!
"Oswald never fired a shot!" Oh really? Who did kill JFK then? Please say the person's full name, along with your proof that you are naming the correct person. Thanks.
@@larryyouguessame6078 "Roscoe White" Nope, that's not what I said. I said to give the full name of the killer of JFK and to also give your proof that the person you name really was the killer of JFK. You have produced no evidence whatsoever that White really did kill JFK. Does that mean that you can't prove the killer was anyone except Oswald after all? And excuse me, but Roscoe White??? Bwaaahahahahahahahahahaha!!! 😅😆🤣You seem to be doing nothing more than just mindlessly repeating a name commonly suggested by conspiracy believers to have been involved in the assassination. But in actual truth, it has never been proven that Roscoe White was even in Dealey Plaza at all that day, much less firing at JFK. That story is more full of holes than an overripe Swiss cheese. The origin of the silly Roscoe White myth comes from the claims of his son and his widow, made long after his death, that he supposedly "confessed" to having been involved in the assassination. They claimed he kept a diary in which he had said so in his own handwriting, but when it came time to produce the diary publicly as corroboration it "conveniently" had supposedly gone missing. And if I recall correctly, a later attempt to produce corroboration in Roscoe White's handwriting turned out to be a forgery. So since you utterly failed to do as I asked, let's try this again for the second time, and maybe this time you won't post a silly, evasive, insubstantial answer. If Oswald never fired a shot, then who did kill JFK? Please say the person's full name ALONG WITH YOUR ***PROOF*** THAT YOU ARE NAMING THE CORRECT PERSON. (If I type it in all caps will you act as if you understand English this time?)
The real story is on America's Untold Stories... Mark Groubert is a genius... I don't agree with him on the kill shot. There were two bullets a FMJ through and through and a hollowpoint... The only hollow point was agent Hickey behind him. As he swung the M16 to return fire he fell back as the driver hit the gas ...squeezing the trigger ... Accidentally at the moment he passed Jacks head. I am a firearms expert and the trajectory fits . And there is a 20 cal entrance on the skull. It even explains the broken windshield ... Connaly said it was raining down bullets ... Bullets were found in the car and on the street and in Connaly . One shot a low power 22 penetrates the throat and only about an inch.. No... There were a lot of shooters . Sheriff's admitted rifles on their building and a sheriff... Probably another Dallas bigot. Johnson flew AF 2 to Belgium to stop a codebreaker who cracked a French message and had all the facts weeks in advance . Johnson had him held on a nuthouse till after the election then disappeared to Johnsonville where the visitors till kill day were quite interesting Jackie said Jacks loudest argument he threatened to get back on the plane unless Yarborough was out and Connaly in... He almost left ! Then the traitor secret service bigot agents completely rearranged the whole parade . They took the flatbed film truck that always is in front of the prez ...is put in back... The 2 agents running were told to quit . They went to a diner and we're eating burgers when the news reached them .. Jack Ruby was seen driving a truck and dropping off his gay lodger from Caberet and a rifle on the knoll. His truck broke down at the overpass and was quickly pushed away by another instantly showed up. Then they both killed Tippet and dropped Lee's ID on the body and walked back to his apt. His gay lodger got a ride to a mile from the Canadian border ... after they killed Tippet... Oswald's handler CIA Morenscheld left to kill papa doc in Haiti and turned Lee over to long time generational CIA and elite Michael and Ruth Paine taught Russian took Lee to Right Wing Rallies and most likely took a shot at General Walker .. Ruby was Al Capone's man then Marcello's man Lee's dad worked for Marcello.. Lee had just compromised the New Orleans Particle accelerator and got everyone killed stealing weaponized cancer ... He also worked at Cutter Labs the people who gave us 50% cancer rates from 200 million doses of cancer infected polio vaccine... So he was expendable ...The Paine's separated Lee and Marina and Mike and Lee moved out ... Police found their lesbian love letters to Marina as she was humping her ... This is typical spy technique . Keep em broke push em around then set em up. The Paine's we're radical leftist CIA agents ...just like today... We have a complete timeline ... No one could operate the junk Carcanmo when they tried. 2 rifles found in the book building 303 Enfield on the roof and a Mauser was held up and then ... The Caracno ... Which was in poor condition. Walker was shot at in his home with a 30:06... The deeper we dig in this we see... Lyndon's liver said he was in on it and Lyndon's lawyer said he was in on it ... This is an old farce ..one shooter ...bullshit
"The only hollow point was agent Hickey behind him. As he swung the M16 to return fire he fell back as the driver hit the gas ...squeezing the trigger ... Accidentally at the moment he passed Jacks head. I am a firearms expert and the trajectory fits ." I would suggest you study that issue more closely. The idea that Hickey shot JFK was solidly debunked years ago. The Bronson film shows him seated at the moment the head shot was fired, and not because he had just fallen back only a second before. And Dave Powers, sitting in the same car, said, "Someone a foot away from me or two feet away from me couldn’t fire the gun without me hearing it." "I am a firearms expert and the trajectory fits ." I don't see how any level of expertise would enable you to know that with any certainty, since there is not enough evidence in the first place to determine the precise trajectory anyway. "And there is a 20 cal entrance on the skull." How on earth would you know that? The evidence from the autopsy is too inconclusive for anything like that to be certain. "It even explains the broken windshield" How, exactly? Why can't the windshield have instead been damaged by a fragment from a headshot fired from the sixth floor of the TSBD instead, since it is not uncommon for fragments from bullets to veer off in a different direction from the exact direction the whole bullet was originally traveling anyway? "Connaly said it was raining down bullets" Please quote Connally verbatim in his own exact words, along with naming the original primary source of the quote so the rest of us can see for ourselves that you're quoting him accurately, as saying that. I do not recall him saying any such thing. Instead he said he heard a shot, then felt himself to be hit by a second shot, then heard only one more shot after that. I don't think three shots is what most people would call "raining down bullets." "Bullets were found in the car and on the street and in Connaly" If by that you mean at least one *whole* bullet was found in the car, that is not true. And one or more bullets were found on the street itself according to what source? I do not know of any author of any published book about the assassination who has ever made that claim, nor do I know of any Dealey Plaza witness who ever claimed that a whole bullet was found in the street. If I'm wrong, please say the full names of these authors and/or witnesses. Thanks. "One shot a low power 22 penetrates the throat and only about an inch." Prove it. That is a highly unlikely scenario. The neck is much too narrow a part of the human body for a bullet to enter but not exit, especially when the bullet strikes nothing even remotely as hard as bone after entering the person's neck, and thus does not strike anything hard enough to slow down its velocity enough to prevent it from exiting. And what about the other bullet hole in his back near the base of his neck? Even though you haven't said so specifically, you are quite obviously proposing the patently ridiculous scenario of two bullets hitting him and neither one exiting, even though neither bullet would have struck or passed through anything else first to slow down its velocity before hitting him, nor would either bullet have struck any bone inside his body to slow down its velocity enough to make a lack of exit for both bullets plausible. Your two bullets would have to be far more "magical" than anything ever attributed to the single bullet. And if Connally and JFK weren't hit by the same bullet, why do both men jerk violently beginning at precisely the same instant, frame 226 of the Zapruder film? "Jack Ruby was seen driving a truck and dropping off his gay lodger from Caberet and a rifle on the knoll." You mean a man who supposedly looked like Jack Ruby was *allegedly* seen driving a truck and dropping off a rifle on the knoll. It has never yet been proven that that was really him, and there is more evidence that it wasn't him than there is that it was. People who had actually met him before and already knew what he looked like said he was in the newspaper offices at the time the shots were fired. No one who had ever met him before said they saw him anywhere in Dealey Plaza that day, driving a truck or otherwise. "His truck broke down at the overpass and was quickly pushed away by another instantly showed up. Then they both killed Tippet and dropped Lee's ID on the body and walked back to his apt." Oh please, now you are engaging in pure wild speculation. There is not a shred of credible evidence that Jack Ruby, of all people, was anywhere near the scene of the Tippit shooting. "Oswald's handler CIA Morenscheld left to kill papa doc in Haiti and turned Lee over to long time generational CIA and elite Michael and Ruth Paine taught Russian took Lee to Right Wing Rallies and most likely took a shot at General Walker" BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you're saying it might have actually been Ruth Paine who shot at Walker??? 😆😅🤣😂 Well, I've certainly read enough of this silliness. You are quite obviously a person who does not need to be taken seriously. You cannot truthfully say the same of me.
@@Caeruleo i lean toward Hickey. There are debunkers to undo debunkers... Even the Oswald theory is compelling ...the evidence has been run to death like an old horse.. I can study any theory and see some validation ... So.. in the final play there's enough evidence to believe anything you want ... At the end of the day we are still being taken over by forces more insidious than Johnson ...the oilmen ... The CIA ... Or even Biden... And everyone's asleep
@@davidmurphy619 "i lean toward Hickey." Based on what evidence, exactly? "There are debunkers to undo debunkers..." At times, yes, but when has the debunking of the Hickey theory ever itself been debunked, and by whom? I've never seen the debunking of the Hickey theory ever come even remotely close to being itself debunked. And what about the vast majority of the witnesses saying that all the shots came either from the TSBD and nowhere else, or from the grassy knoll and nowhere else, and very few saying that any one individual shot sounded louder or closer, or softer or farther, than the others? If the fatal shot really had come from Hickey's gun, wouldn't we have a much larger number and percentage of the witnesses noticing an obvious difference in the direction, distance, and volume of the third shot from the other shots?
Loved Posner's book but he's WRONG when he asserts that without the Z film "we'd never know what really happened." One must read the late Vincent Bugliosi's tome, RECLAIMING HISTORY, after reading Posner's lesser (but still excellent) book. Vince points out that movies hardly EVER accompany a murder, yet convictions based on other evidence are routine.
Most people that swear some force group or governmental entity were responsible other than LHO are entitled to their opinions. However most of these folks while they criticize the WC, never read any of the volumes.
Thank you for the comment, Frank. I certainly agree that before one forms an intelligent opinion about a matter of dispute, they have to hear both sides of the story. Like the old West Virginia Mountaineer said, “No matter how thin I make my pancakes, they always have two sides.”
@@HindsightHistoryVince Bugliosi used to say that 😅
@@andycummings-music Yes, one of my favorite quotes from him.
You're right about that...but Oswald is an interesting guy.
Military man turns hardcore Marxist.Defects to USSR arrives fluent in Russian.
Comes back no problem.
Now he's rabid anti Cuban communist.
On and on crazy things happening.
And assassinated himself at 24. Its a lot.
In the 70s, the US Congress also did not believe the WC report and ordered a new investigation.
Over the past few months, I have watched many videos on this subject, involving a wide spectrum of opinions but this has been the best discussion of the event I have seen. Well done to both Nick Owens and Gerald Posner. I think we can all safely agree that the case is well and truly closed! 😎
A conspiracy theorist goes to heaven and asks God "Who killed JFK?" God answers "Oswald." The theorist turns away thinking "Wow, this conspiracy is bigger than I thought."
Lmao .
Yes!
So fucking true
Very funny!...I will use that one on my thick-headed brother-in-law, who embraces any and all theories of conspiracy!
A time traveler from the future appears in Deally Plaza on November 22, 1963. He encounters a group of three men, one is CIA, one is FBI, and one is Secret Service. He asked the three men, is this before or after the JFK assassination? All three answered simultaneously, BEFORE!
Ironically, Posner uses James Wilkes Booth as an example of a lone gunman changing history. Guess he forgot Booth was part of a conspiracy.
..This should be the top comment
Denying conspiracies is an involuntary bodily function for Posner. He didn't forget. That or he's a half-assed historian. Maybe both.
@@Ekrindul Silly comment.
Good point! However, to be fair JWB was a lone gunman who carried out a history changing event on his own. Most Kennedy conspiracies involve multiple gunmen
@@dilznick101 ...JWB was part of a conspiracy , thats the whole point of the excellent original comment..his co conspirators were Samuel Arnold, George Atzerodt, David Herold, Michael O'Laughlen, Lewis Powell and also John and Mary Surratt .
this is great for people who don't read and can't think. we need comfort.....
You need to read...try using your brain.
@@curbozerboomer1773 Ouch!!! but thanks for the support:)
So everyone who doesn't think like you is illiterate and unable to think for themselves. Just a bit narcistic don't ya think? Maybe you should read his book.
I would suggest watching Lemino's video on the Texas Book Depository. It convinced me that Oswald acted alone after almost 30 years of believing in the conspiracy theories.
I know, do u realy think Oswald would have been recruited by the CIA, it's such crap. Thr mob never would have risked everything to kill Kennedy, why would they want to?? It makes no,sense. Thr mob would have been destroyed . He acted alone period. There is not one strand of evidence that shows there was a conspiracy. If anyone ever finds it, they would be millionaires over nite.😊
What a brilliant man. Thanks for this. Its a really frustratingly difficult event to get your head around, but he really gives you some useful tools. Great interview. Amazing video. Thank you
Oswald never was in Mexico City.
The CIA lied.
(How shocking)
He was ID'd by people on the bus.
He was ID'd by hotel and embassy staff.
He signed hotel registers, VISA applications, etc.
@@aaronz7056 that's been proven false.
@@TipToe67 Yes, of course it has. LOL
@@TipToe67Ahahahah ah no it hasn’t.
There is no question that Oswald went to Mexico. The CIA merely mistook him for some other American and photographed him instead. Big nothingburger.
@@TipToe67by who and where is that proof that it false that he was there? It's iron clad evidence that he was in fact there.
Katzenback said they had to quash the foreign rumors circulating because If they didn't they woukd assume they agreed with the rumors.
Spot on @Randy Harris. If one reads everything Katzenbach said, it is clear his one poorly constructed sentence--only poorly constructed because it lends itself to twisting by clever lawyers--does not mean we must pull the wool over people's eyes and make them believe that Oswald is the assassin but that it's clear to all of us looking at all the evidence that Oswald is the assassin and we want the public to understand that. Why was he saying this? Because as soon as Kennedy was shot conspiracy theories were spreading like wildfire. I think the first poll taken after the assassination found only 29% of Americans believed Oswald was the lone assassin.
My opinion on all this is very much what Bugliosi says on pages 366-67 of "Reclaiming History." The only criticism I have after re-reading those two pages is Bugliosi using the tautology "true facts." By definition, if it's a fact it is true.
What I've noticed about most conspiracy theorists is they focus minor inconsistencies or things that are not fully explained or they lift things out of context while ignoring the overwhelming mass of evidence. Defense attorneys are great at doing this, e.g. the trial of O.J. Simpson.
You are correct Mr. Posner. Study the psychology of LHO and study the rifle. Both were capable platforms.
A time traveler goes back to try and save Kennedy. When he arrives in the past he sees a CIA agent. He asks the agent "Is today November 22nd 1963?" The CIA agent says "Yes" The time traveler then asks, "Before or after the Kennedy assassination?" The CIA agent says, "Before".😮
Cool story. Try to lose the Hollywood mindset. This was real life. The cia didn’t do it.
That’s pretty good.. lol..
You do realize the person who killed Tippit discarded his jacket, after killing him.. Which is interesting, because Oswald discarded his jacket, then tried to kill cops when he resisted arrest.. lol..
What a coincidence.. lol..
I thought it was the mob? Or General Walker? Or the anti Castro Cubans?
@@denroy3
It was the boogeyman.. And it alternates.. LBJ, Ruth Paine, the CIA, mafia, Texas Oil men, JD Tippit, Ted Callaway… And on and on..
@@jacobjones5269 good god! you conspiracy nuts are just unashamed of your lies, or just don’t care about facts. Is it because you guys get away with your lies to people who don’t know any better? Oswald was not wearing a jacket when he was arrested. That’s an absolute lie. The jacket found was his because the eyewitness saw him wearing it when he shot tippit then suddenly he’s arrested without one and Marina said it was his. If I was a conspiracy theorist I would stay away from Tippit and only argue jfk, you’ll have a better chance because there is no question he killed Tippit. Tons of evidence and even more eyewitness, about 12, thats a lot of people you’re gonna have to explain away. Oh yeah, stay away from general Walker too, there’s no question he shot at Walker a few months prior. You’re in a very deep hole with a lot of excuses needed and evidence you’ll have to explain away. Or you could just go with your common sense and objective reasoning and lose the kooky conspiracies.
Why was Oswald immediately a suspect? Why was an all point bulletin issued for a guy matching Oswald’s description?
I asked the same question.
Set up
Because he was the only employee of the TSBD that was missing, that’s why!!
Because the shooter was seen in the window of the TSBD building and Oswald fit the description.
Patsy
Probably the best interview of Posner I’ve ever seen. Well done.
Very kind of you! Thank you for watching.
It is staggering to consider the amount of evidence Posner has to ignore to pursue his theories.
"In 2010, Posner was the chief investigative reporter at The Daily Beast. Following the revelation that a number of Posner's stories for the Beast contained portions plagiarized from articles in other publications, Posner resigned from the Beast." (Wikipedia)
witnesses who read his book say he has them saying stuff which they never discussed with him.
@@TheHeavensFellen
Witnesses who read his book ?
Like who ?
Ya’ll are determined to believe it was a conspiracy. Bless your misguided thinking.
@@patrickmitchell4134 You are funny, I like that.
@@TheMrSuge I don't recall, just web search for it.
Posner is spot on, Oswald was the lone gunman case closed.
Brilliant deduction.
Who's this guy work for?
I often think the Kennedy Assassination proves Nietzsche's assertion that there are no facts only interpretations. The interviewer touched on this when he declared we were hard-wired biologically to seek out patterns, and when you subject any complicated event to minute analysis you can find many random details to support a theory you wish to propagate.
yes but posner does this also
@@randallanthony1794 Oh I agree. I've never read Posner's book and have no opinion on it. There's a whole cottage industry built up around JFK's assassination. People seem to find in it what they want to find.
@@JeffRebornNow And so does Posner it’s just Warren commission stuff and they refused to see it. There’s so much evidence out there they prove otherwise the two wallets in there were two unless the police Leiden and switched him and took him to the camp at mader saying, and then took it back and he couldn’t possible but I doubt it and then there’s a set up Mexico City that October that has him there at the Cuban in Russian embassy and doesn’t approve assassinations cruise. Somethings going on funny it was all the information in the early 90s that come out about the Oswald Molly intelligence people knew who he was and he went through for their their ways to check him and he wasn’t watching. They said they had no interest they’re lying but you’re right a lot of people do this cottage industry that’s way with everything with this guy is too. He’s a piece of shit and he’s a liar. Posner is no good he’s a Fraud he’s an official an official Fraud.
@@JeffRebornNowwell the Dallas Police found Oswald's rifle and the FBI found the bullet fragments in the car that matched it.
People can interpret whatever they want but facts don't lie.
Yes you guys are so right, there are no facts and just interpretations, and that’s why I’m a flat earther…. Gravity is also this totally subjective thing …..
Yes, flattened on one side. Like you put it into a vise.
We look forward to you explaining how the people planting bogus bullet at the hospital within one hour of the shooting knew a bullet needed planting at all or that he wasn't simply planting one bullet too many into evidence and blowing the whole plot.
@@aaronz7056 The people who planted the bullet at the hospital were Imaginary. 😂
Why we need another fake book somebody can git rich off of it no thank
"Get"
Me and you could write one we'll make at least fifty grand each that's all I need to live out the rest of my life. I'm old
"fake book"? No it's real. I own a copy.
I wouldn't call Oswald a loser. He was a young man who had already done more in life than many young man in this day and age. He was a marine, lived in Russia and came back, had a wife and kid etc. There's an interview with him in which I found him quite articulated for his age.
Those aren't accomplishments. That was him drifting from one failure to the next.
Oswald had been in the marines and been to Russia, but as a person he wasn’t fulfilled, he wasn’t happy with American politics and thought Marxism was his answer and he wasn’t happy in Russia, he was antisocial, he was angry and didn’t make friends and continually hit his wife Marina, wanted to leave his mark in history and ultimately was a failure. I believe part of his damaged personality was caused by his mother who said her children were a burden and she put them into care at a young age.
@@davidmoss4280 LMFAO, Lee Oswald was not a "Maxrist", name one Marxist he knew or associated with? its just silly , his job was to play the Marixt and be a Castro sympathizer...Jesus he worked for Guy Bannister at 544 Camp street and Bannister was a former FBI man and a John Bircher. Recent document releases prove the FBI was doing an infiltration operation on the Fair Play For Cuba commity, of which Lee Oswald was the only member of the New Orleans branch and wrote the NY office telling them of a scuffle he had while handing out flyers...a week before it happened! in this day and age, how can you keep regurgitating hooey from the 1960s ?????
A young man , so patriotic that he leaves school to join the USMC at 17. (the USMC is an elite unit and slackers who just want a job or to get away from their mothers, don't join or don't last...thats what the coast guard is for...lol). He does so well on his aptitude and intelligence tests that he is sent to the "elite" trade in the radar tech section. There among the best and the brightest of new USMC recruits he finishes at the top of his class (7th out of a class of 50). He is sent to various bases and gets to "see the world' . He is given exemplary ratings by his COs for his fine work as a radar Tec. And despite his busy schedule , on his own initiative, he completes his high school equivalency and teaches himself Russian...yea what a failure?? He goes on the adventure of a life time to Russia, is very popular, makes a lifetime friend of Earnst Titovits (who was exchanging letters with Lee right until Lee's death in 63) and marries the extremely beautiful woman Marina...what a looser??. Returns to the USA and fathers 2 children in a 3 year marriage (you know what that means.....what a failure???). Yea, be bounced from job to job a little (while working at photo lab doing top secret work??? and a coffee company tied to the CIA??)..Just as I and millions of other men did at 22 years of age after the military or collage. If he wasn't , i would think that was strange. In many ways, he was a model person, he did not drink and he did not smoke..and by all accounts he loved is children dearly. He read voraciously, on a wide range of topics...including the Russian classics like Tolstoy...which he read in Russian! He was looking to always improve himself and was working on a book on his Russian travels and according to Judeth Baker was very interested in being a writer (possibly of science fiction stories) Did he get published in his brief life? Nope, but even Steven King did not get his first book published until he was 26....Lee didn't live that long...so I guess that makes him a "failure"??...I could go on and on, but you get my point. If an exceptional person like Lee Oswald could be so easily smeared as a failure..anyone can. And smears are not the truth, that must be looked for a little deeper than childish character assassination.
@@JohnJohnson-pq4qz your assessment of Oswald is totally incorrect, he wasn’t patriotic that’s why he fled to Russia, he was disobedient in the marines and had several charges against him and was demoted , he didn’t like the US and soon became disenchanted with Russia, you don’t get credit for fathering children any fool can do that, he wasn’t doing secret work for the photo company and he was sacked for incompetence. He was unsuccessful at everything he did, couldn’t even keep his jobs, constantly beat up his wife, couldn’t keep a home, couldn’t get along with anyone, was aggressive, antisocial, discontented and wanted to leave his mark on history, and he certainly did that.
Does this guy really believe what he is saying, ok please explain why these people are in Dealy Plaza , Johnny Roselli , Chuck Nicoletti , Malcolm Wallace , Sheriff Weathersford , Rosco White , James Files , why did everyone run to the grassy knoll , why were reports coming in of secret service keeping people away from grassy knoll , explain umbrella man explain Mary Morman photo , explain the hundreds of mysterious deaths of witnesses and police
Gregory, ... Why don't you read the book? That is all covered in there. He explains the umbrella man. He covers the Babuska lady. Umbrella man was named in his book, and I believe the Umbrella man was protesting a certain political issue Kenndey administration was dealing with. Posner list the names of the people who ran over to the Grassy Knoll. He talked to and interviewed many of them. He goes over the not-so-mysterious-mysterious deaths.
I haven't read the book in years, but Mr. Posner covers everything you mentioned.
Posner's Case Closed convinced me that it was LHO and no conspiracy. Logically, nothing else I've ever seen convinces me otherwise. Excellent interview for anyone with the patience to watch it in its entirety.
Thank you for taking the time to watch the discussion with Gerald. We have a new episode airing this Sunday!
Me too. And it's quite refreshing these days to encounter someone else who is prepared to change their opinion in the light of facts. Ironically, the Oliver Stone film, which presented such an outlandishly large conspiracy, somewhat turned me off of the conspiracy camp. There was also an in-depth biography of Oswald on PBS Frontline which painted a compelling picture of Oswald as the type of person who: a) could be a lone-nut assassin; and b) would not have been recruited by any serious conspirators.
Something wrong with the warren report?
Same. The many conspiracy theories get more and more far fetched every year.
After a plethora of alternative scenario books I read Case Closed when it came out, and it cleared the table-top clean of a whole pile of nonsense and misconceptions.
It established the near-certainty of Oswald's three shots and eliminated any frontal shot, but in the intervening years I find that the _acted alone_ component remains his weakest argument. I'm also troubled by the tendency of the more polished Warren-advocates toward summary dismissal of a myriad of anomalies in the arena of coverup-behavior. I will give one infamous famous example. I could give hundreds.
The Zapruder frames were published in the WC evidence. Of _all_ the frames, two were transposed. Just two. Which two were those? The two that would establish that the lethal shot came from behind.
"Oh" says the FBI. "printing error".
You could sell me the Brooklyn Bridge, too.
I accept that the lethal shot came from behind, but don't lie to me. I know _you're_ not lying to me Gerald, but tell the truth as a dispassionate lawyer playing Historian. Put a historian's hat on and be forthright about the lie, and who... _probably_ ... told the lie.
Don't sugarcoat stuff. I know sometimes, especially when the malefactor is dead, that government forensics will play fast and loose with optics. Don't pretend somebody didn't get the memo: "Hey bud, them frames gotta come out right, you're a great guy and you'll be up for promotion... Oswald is dead anyway... it don't matter..." .
Fascinating listen. Thank you.
When I felt my kid was old enough -- almost 16 -- I stopped shielding him from stuff I watched on the JFK assassination. One doc I was watching with him in the room was about to show the Zapruder film, so before it rolled I warned him: "This is graphic and I know you're kinda squeamish with blood and things, so you might not want to see this," but he insisted he did. Now keep in mind, he didn't know a thing about the assassination or my views of it, but after the film rolled he first exclaimed "That was the ACTUAL footage of him getting shot??" and I of course said "Yes." He was speechless. Then I asked him: "Where do you think that shot came from?" and without a pause he said "From the right side maybe a little in front of him."
But Posner (and the Warren Commission) of course tell us: "Don't believe your lying eyes." 🙄
"But Posner (and the Warren Commission) of course tell us: "Don't believe your lying eyes.""
The thing is, however, that many people make the mistake that the "back and to the left" motion seen in the Zapruder film all by itself "proves" that the shot came from the right and partly in front of JFK. When I've heard or read what these people say regarding this, I often notice that they never, or very rarely, mention that this is only one detail seen in the film, and there are a larger number of other details also seen in the same film that indicate a greater likelihood that the bullet was fired from behind him after all.
@@ccrider4516 Bullets can indeed do weird things. But two things they pretty much always do is (1) their momentum carries their target in the same direction as the bullet was flying, and (2) they become damaged when they strike hard things like human bones. And yet we're to believe that on 11/22/63 one bullet hit Kennedy from behind but threw him *backwards* and to the left. And another went through 2 men causing 7 wounds and yet came out looking virtually pristine. It's absurd how many people actually buy this malarkey.
As far as listening to doctors, I do listen to them. All the time. Doctors like Dr. Cyril Wecht.
ruclips.net/video/KCmtzTQwJ6A/видео.html
@@ccrider4516 Spoken like a true Mr. Know It All.
@@Caeruleo Complete Hooey. read "Head Shot" by Paul Chambers, if i recall right, he is a physics PHD and an expert on explosions and the effects of forces etc. Long story short...Its impossible that that shot came from any where but from his front right. Case Closed.
@@JohnJohnson-pq4qz "Complete Hooey."
You mean it is complete hooey in your opinion. Yet I notice that you did not name any of the other details in the film that I was talking about that suggest a greater likelihood that the fatal head shot came from behind JFK after all. This gives the impression that you don't know about these other details in the first place.
"read "Head Shot" by Paul Chambers, if i recall right, he is a physics PHD and an expert on explosions and the effects of forces etc."
Uh-huh. Does Chambers make any mention of the fact that frames 312-313 of the Zapruder film show that when JFK's head was first struck by the bullet his head jolted forward several inches in only 1/18th of a second, as if indeed the bullet struck the rear of his head after all and knocked his head forward? Does Chambers also mention that this cannot have been caused (as Tink Thompson and others have mistakenly suggested) by William Greer tapping on the brake, since Jackie's, Nellie's, and John Connally's heads do not jerk forward an iota in those frames?
Does Chambers also mention that the "back and to the left" motion does not even begin for the first time until several frames after the initial forward jerk of JFK's head, and that the "back and to the left" motion is also much slower than the initial forward jerk?
Does Chambers also mention that frames 313 and several following frames show that the majority of the bloody spray and other material of his head exits forward or upward and partly forward and that much less exits even partly backward?
Does Chambers also mention that the "back and to the left" motion does not begin until after material is seen exploding mostly forward out of his head, as if it was actually the material exploding forward which shoved his head backward rather than the direction the bullet was traveling?
Does Chambers also mention that in the last second before the head shot JFK was already leaning far to his left anyway, so that no matter what direction the bullet came from his head would have almost certainly gone to the left anyway, "back and to the left," "forward and to the left," or whatever? Does he mention that this is called "gravity"?
Does Chambers also mention that the film shows that by far the most obvious exit damage is in front of JFK's right ear, with those big, horrible flaps of bone and scalp hanging down from the upper right front of his head? Does he also discuss the fact that people like Douglas Horne are very unlikely to be correct when they say that those horrible flaps were "added" to the film later, given that nearly all of the closest witnesses on JFK's right, such as Emmett Hudson, Bill Newman, Gayle Newman, Marilyn Sitzman, and Zapruder himself, corroborated what is seen in the film? All of them said they saw the right side of his head explode, not the rear. Zapruder on live television only two hours after the assassination, before he or anyone else had yet seen the developed film for the first time ever, said, "And then I heard another shot or two - I couldn't say whether it was one or two, and I saw his head practically open up, all blood and everything, and I kept on shooting." At the same time as he is speaking those words we see him place his right hand on the right side of his own head in front of his right ear to demonstrate which part of JFK's head he saw explode, exactly the area where we see the greatest damage to his head in the film. In stark contrast, the film shows no significant damage at all to the entire rear half of his head, and the hole in the rear of his head seen at Parkland is barely visible, nowhere even remotely near as blindingly obvious as those horrible flaps in front of his right ear.
And is Chambers demonstrate his honesty by mentioning that Bobby Hargis was only one of eight people who were showered by blood and other material from JFK's head, unlike the people who only mention him to try to make a case that the material exited "only" or "primarily" to the left rear due to a shot from the right front? Is he honest and does he inform the reader that Billy Joe Martin was also showered with such material? And is he honest and does he also inform the reader that both motorcycle policemen riding on the other side of the limo, the right rear, James Chaney andDouglas Jackson, were also showered with material from JFK's head, and that it has never been proven that "more" of the material went to the left than to the right since the amount of such material that landed on each of these officers was never "measured" in any way? And is he also honest by informing the reader that all four people sitting in front of JFK, John Connally, Nellie Connally, William Greer, and Roy Kellerman, were also showered with blood and pieces of JFK's brain, and that it has also never been proven that "more" of the material landed on the officers behind the limo than landed on the people in front of JFK? Does Chambers honestly quote John Connally as saying that immediately after he heard the third shot, "Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb, thumbnail, and again I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else"? Does Chambers also honestly admit to the reader that such material also landed all over the inside of the car, and also landed as far forward as on the windshield and on the front hood of the car? Does Chambers also admit that since the four motorcycle policemen were constantly moving forward anyway, they would have almost certainly have driven into the bloody spray anyway, even if the majority of it exited forward. Is he also honest and does he admit that the same cannot be true in reverse, that any material exiting even slightly rearward would have all fallen back down and landed behind JFK and that only material exiting significantly forward would have landed on all four people sitting in front of him, and all over the inside of the car, and on the windshield, and on the hood?
And does Chambers mention that the main reason that the big, horrible flaps in front of JFK's right ear weren't especially noticeable at Parkland was almost certainly because Jackie closed them up on the way to the hospital? Does Chambers admit to the reader that Jackie said that she was trying to hold his head together on the way to the hospital? Does Chambers show the reader the quote of what she said to Theodore White one week after the assassination? "I kept holding the top of his head down, trying to keep the brains in." Does he make sure the reader take note of the fact that she said she was trying to hold down the "top" of his head, not the "rear"?
And is Chambers honest and does he correctly point out to the reader that the observations of the Parkland doctors and nurses are extremely limited in value, because they did not perform an autopsy at Parkland and only examined JFK while he was still technically "alive"? That because of this they never pulled back his thick hair and scalp to view his skull directly? That they also never took a single x-ray of him at Parkland? That because of these things they would have no possible way of knowing, no matter how great their "expertise," whether the hole they saw in the rear of his head represented the majority of the damage to his skull or only a minority of the damage to his skull? That only after his thick hair and scalp were pulled back and only after x-rays were taken could such a thing be determined with any certainty? And is he honest and does he make sure the reader knows that the more forward damage to JFK's skull was not entirely missed at Parkland? Does he make sure the reader knows that Dr. Adolph Giesecke said that he saw that parts of JFK's skull were missing as far forward as just above the browline, which is precisely what is also shown in both the anterior and lateral x-rays from Bethesda, the only x-rays ever taken of his head after he was shot?
Because unless Chambers specifically mentions every single one of these things in at least half as much detail as I have, he is guilty of misleading the reader by ignoring too much of the evidence.
"Its impossible that that shot came from any where but from his front right."
In your opinion.
"Case Closed."
In your opinion. But you have not demonstrated, in any detailed discussion of the evidence yourself here, independently of the claims of any author of any book, exactly how the cased is "closed" on the shot coming from his right front.
And I have long ago found that books about the assassination are often among the least reliable sources of information about the assassination. I have long ago lost count of how many times I have caught authors of books badly misrepresenting the evidence. For example, when referencing testimony by witnesses, these authors will quite frequently quote only the individual sentences spoken or written by a witness which make it seem as if the witness is supporting the author's point of view, but make no mention of the other sentences spoken or written by the same witness in the same testimony which cast a very different light on the point the witness was actually making. Far better to study the evidence itself directly, independently of any author's interpretation of the evidence.
It is not known as the "Gold Standard." "Silver Standard" perhaps, but the "Gold Standard" is Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History."
I just read Bugliosi's book as well. I found it equally convincing.
This is true!...but "Reclaiming History" is so amazingly huge, nearly 1700 pages--that most folks will never even bother to read it!
The thing is...Bugliosi, in his book, deals with the likelihood that most folks would not want to plow through his 1700 page book...but he hoped that, maybe 100 years down the road, his effort would be the main "textbook" for study by college students, etc. He knew he would not make much money on this book--he already was a millionaire author, because of several True Crime books that were best-sellers.
If you don't get a hernia picking it up.
Bugliosi was a hot head but a very effective prosecutor.
According to Oswald’s best friend in Russia he was a terrible shot. Hoover said the Oswald in Mexico was not Oswald, it was an impersonator. His Russian speaking was also terrible.
Oswald’s televised statement to the press was that he was a “patsy”. A person in that situation acting alone would either declare innocence or guilt (with his motives). Very unusual for an accused to immediately declare themselves as a participant in a plot unless they actually are.
Yup. No chance whatsoever Oswald Acted Alone. The SBT is impossible! No honest person that is knowledgeable could ever believe the official story.
Thats right Don. Oswald knows what is happening to him. The setting up of patsy's isn't some big secret, Intelligence services use it all the time all around the world. Doesn't mean he participated, but it does mean he understands the nature of those who did and could point fingers at who did. Had he been able to defend himself and spill the beans we might all know who did it today. They knew it too and couldn't let that happen.
🤣😅😂 Oh yeah, if LHO said he was a patsy then he must be. What did you expect him to say ? You people prove PT Barnum was right.
@@TheClyde-v3f I expect him to say “I am innocent”, say nothing or say “I did it”. Name one time in human history where an assassin claimed to be a participant in a conspiracy (because that was a patsy is) and that was not demonstrated to be the case?
@@vernpascal1531 Oswald being a patsy is not inconsistent with the SBT
Posner with "people spend too much time thinking about Dealey Plaza" is just silly. The Zapruder film shows evidence that at least one bullet came from the front. He is trying to psychoanalyze Oswald. How do you do that with a 24 yr old kid who is hardly known to anyone? (other than his CIA handlers like DeMarchildt and Ruth Paine) Had he lived and could have been interviewed, maybe, but trying to do that with a couple of remarks he made on a radio show in New Orleans or something someone heard him say in the army? Give me a break.
OK, Sherlock!
@@curbozerboomer1773 I am more interested in the facts. Oswald had a higher Security Clearance than his Commanding officer. He wasn't just a run-of-the-mill private in the Marines. He worked as a Radar Technician on a base that tracked the U2 Jets. He got an early Discharge because his mother was ill. And yet instead of going home to attend to her he stopped in Helsinki and entered the USSR, presumably to Defect. And then when he supposedly decided he didn't like it, he and his Russian wife (daughter of a Soviet Intelligence officer) were allowed to enter the U.S. no questions asked. Then this failed Defector got a job at the Jaggers-Chiles-Stoval Company in Dallas which made highly classified maps for the U.S. Government. When they searched Ruth Paine's home he had a very expensive spy camera. Actually, there were 2. One of them was owned by Michael Paine. Nope. The evidence points to Oswald being involved, but in what role? As the shooter? Hardly. He couldn't shoot worth shit, and the gun he supposedly owned was a piece of crap.
Posner is amazing in his profound incontrovertible logic.
There is a number of facts that, by themselves, destroys the idea of Oswald being a part of a conspiracy.
One is a neighbor friend of Maria's who told her about the school book depository job opening.
Without that one, tiny referral the assassination wouldn't have happened.
Please, are you just ignorant? Almost none of the people who believe in a conspiracy theory believe Oswald was knowingly part of a conspiracy. There assertions are almost always that he was a patsy and being set-up.
Yes. All the evidence points to Oswald, but Maria’s account is very damning.
Are you some sort of shill as well? Posner and his agenda is an affront to basic intelligence as well as the truth of the murky matter itself. Notice how little Posner speaks of--or considers--H Howard Hunt. Or the fact that Ben-Gurio, the Israeli PM, had resigned in a hysteric panic in the Spring of 1963 after JFK had demanded inspections of Israel's (stolen) nuclear weapons programs.
@@wehaveasituation Perhaps the reason he doesn't speak of Ben Gurion is because there is not a shred of credible evidence that Israel had anything to do with the JFK assassination, and that instead there is a greater amount of evidence disputing that idea?
You’re uninformed. Watch all parts of The Men Who Killed Kennedy and if you still don’t see there was a conspiracy you have cognitive dissonance. It’s not debatable, especially if we use witness testimony as you suggest.
The deaf guy witness from the road, the special forces guy who was requested to assassinate an American politician and the ton of folks that not only heard the shot from the knoll but saw the gunsmoke. It just depends on how many dozens of witnesses you want to ignore. Your choice
Wow, very interesting!! An interview with Gerald Posner, the author of Case Closed on the JFK assassination has garnered only 23k views thus far (06/23). One would imagine views in the millions by now!!
Every one knows he a plagiarist. Except you.
@@peggylavelle581 I was being sarcastic. Hehehe.
Why? Everyone knows he's a parasitical fraud.
Haha I came to tell you you are insane. Well played. Posner is a punchline like the Warren Report. It’s sad America is still being lied to by scums like GP
Younger people nowadays really do not care much about history!...And quite a few of us, old enough to remember how awful this murder was, have died...I am 76 now...when I mention this murder to my youngest sister-a bright 63yo woman, she just rolls her eyes, and says "Nobody cares...get a life!"
Nobody can place Oswald on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting. Not the Warren report, not Bugliosi, and not Posner. If Posner could do that, he wouldn't have to go on about Oswald's psychology and smirk. The case against Oswald in the Walker shooting is so thin it wouldn't be laughed out of court, it could never get to court in the first place. At the time, people thought Walker himself arranged it for publicity. The bullet was identified as a steel-jacketed 30-06 round. The Warren commission turned it into a copper-jacketed Carcano round. When Walker was shown the bullet by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, he called it a "ridiculous substitution.
The physical evidence in the Tippit case lacks all chain of custody and again, no conviction in a court of law could be obtained. Only two Warren commission witnesses actually claimed to see the shooting: Domingo Benevides, who did not identify anyone; and Helen Markham, whose story changed so many times the commission said her testimony wasn't really essential.
Posner is a very engaging fellow, but he's very disingenuous. I wonder if you noticed that he said the throat shot entered "high in the neck." That of course is a fabrication, but a necessary one. JFK was hit in the third thoracic vertebra. That's the upper back. How did a shot from the sixth floor hit him in the back and then deflect upwards, without hitting any bone, to exit his throat?
Readers interested in a meticulous demolition of Posner's book can refer to this article. www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/case-closed-30-years-on-even-worse
Ford moved the second shot up to the throat with no forensic justification.
Oswald had pictures of Walkers house not too flimsy evidence he was stalking Oswald. You don't know really what the fbi had now do you plus the note.
No cinviction in a court of law could be obtained That's a asinine comment you left out all the witnesses that Id Oswald within seconds of shooting Tippit the Davis Sisters Cab Calloway many more. A ten year old school kid could debunk your nonsense with 30 minutes of googling.
The bullet did not deflect upward The bullet hole seems to be higher because of the anotomic position of the President when the bullet hit. The bullet was always on a downward angle Vincent Bugliosi explains this beautifully in his book.
"Nobody can place Oswald on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting."
While I suppose it could be said that way, it could also be said that no one can place any other person besides Oswald on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting either, which would all by itself weaken the claim that someone else besides him fired from there. It is also true that no one can place Oswald anywhere else at the time of the shooting either. No TSBD employee ever said they saw Oswald elsewhere at the moment the shots were fired. Carolyn Arnold said she might have seen him as little as five minutes before the shooting, but that's still plenty of time for him to get from any floor in the building to the sixth floor sniper's nest and still have at least two minutes to spare before the presidential limousine first came into view. No other TSBD employee ever said they saw Oswald less than five minutes before the shooting. After the shooting, Marrion Baker and Roy Truly said they saw him in the second floor lunchroom perhaps as little as 90 seconds after the shooting, but both of them admitted that it could have been longer, perhaps as long as two minutes after the shooting. And Oswald could have quite easily gotten from the sniper's nest to the second floor lunchroom in no more than 70 seconds, and indeed Baker's impression when he first saw Oswald was that Oswald had just entered the lunchroom only seconds earlier.
Turkey Shoot; more than one gunman. LeeHO knew something and shot live on TV by JRuby, but Ruby gets cancer: dead. That female reporter , Killgallen who was found dead supposedly by suicide, all the witnesses mysteriously DEAD. Killers are hiding in plain sight.
Ever lose something & go nuts looking for it just to find it under your nose ?
I recall that film: JFK's head goes up ,then to the left; grabs his throat and his back harness prohibits evasive movement ; next shot , head explodes. I can believe driver turned around and shoots. In either case of so many possibilities, Kennedy was NOT supposed to survive.
And we're not even discussing how the President's body was handled between Parkland Hospital and Bethesda Naval in Washington ...
the different types of caskets. Why did LBJ get sworn in as POTUS right hand placed on a Missle, not a Bible on plane with,
Jacqueline Kennedy standing right next to him in bloody dress?
For sure : more questions than answers, and the moment someone gets too close, like the Vatican Library: records SEALED.
Oops, did i get too close again? Yes, i did.
Subjective BS.
@@curbozerboomer1773
What makes u uncomfortable, the TRUTH, Freedom of Speech or r u just stuck in storm shelter trolling?
Oswald + de Mohrenschildt, (CIA) = Walker, (blocks from Ruby's Vegas club). Oswald's whereabouts unknown for approx. three hours following attempt. Oswald kills Kennedy. Where was he going after leaving rooming house? Good question. See map of Dallas. Draw straight line from N. Beckley rooming house to Tenth + Patton... and continue. Few blocks later you will cross Ruby's S. Ewing address. Waggoner Carr sent memo to J. Lee Rankin regarding this issue. No follow-up. Ruby tells Earl Warren he fears for his life and those of his family because of the JBS and Edwin Walker. Doesn't prove anything, but certainly is interesting. And this is just the tip of a huge iceburg. Would enjoy speaking with Mr. Posner. He is three years my elder. I have a great respect for his intellect and his work.
"See map of Dallas. Draw straight line from N. Beckley rooming house to Tenth + Patton... and continue. Few blocks later you will cross Ruby's S. Ewing address."
Wrong. You need to check the map again. And I've lived in Texas all my life and have been right there in that neighborhood multiple times and have been to all the addresses involved. A straight line from the rooming house to 10th and Patton does *not* continue on to intersect Ruby's address on Ewing. The line would have to turn left a significant number of degrees from 10th and Patton to intersect Ruby's address.
"Ruby tells Earl Warren he fears for his life and those of his family because of the JBS and Edwin Walker."
Now that, at least, you are correct about. And more to the point, he also said he wanted to be taken to Washington so that he could tell the truth, that he *wasn't* involved in any conspiracy.
@@Caeruleo 1963 map of Dallas
@@cjcar63 "1963 map of Dallas"
Which shows the same thing: it was not a straight line from the rooming house to the scene of the Tippit shooting and then to Ruby's address. There was a left turn of quite a few degrees from the Tippit shooting to Ruby's address.
Posner and Bugliosi are the two cornerstones of explanation of the event.
I agree with you @Kerry S. Both Posner and Bugliosi (exhaustively) address all such conspiracy questions.
Bugliosi has been shown to be corrupt and a liar. Read CHAOS by Tom ONeill.
Agreed!...There was an early book, called "Conspiracy of One"...but I cannot remember the name of the author. It used common sense, but not a lot of facts.
@@curbozerboomer1773 Jim Moore. Quite good considering it was ahead of even Posner and made an outstanding case. I bought it second hand about a year ago…didn’t know it even existed. So many more though…Sturdivan on ballistics, MacAdams on psychology of conspiracy, Myers on Tippit, Lambert on Garrison investigation, and a bunch about Oswald’s activities and personality by Johnson, Mailer and a good one called Oswald’s Game which might be second hand only.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Oswald was on the 6th floor. And absolutely no evidence he fired a rifle that day. And he passed his parrafin test.
Bonnie Ray Williams eating his chicken sandwich and Dr. Pepper in the so called snipers nest at 12 noon and after. No Oswald. And don't forget the motorcade was running 6 minutes late. The sniper wouldn't know that and would have to have been in position. Dallas police set up the snipers nest in different configurationMauser was first identified. Oswald seen on 2nd floor. In Wesley Buell Fraziers new book he finally admitted he saw a man with a rifle exiting the TSBD and put it in his trunk. Frazier never told anyone that because he was afraid for his family.
You just told so many blatant and demonstrable lies I don't know where to begin... lol
Superb interview. Gerald Posner is such an interesting mind and conveys his thoughts and conclusions in such a honest and impartial way. His thought process is an example to anyone on how to look at something and find the truth.
Thank you for the kind words!
Truth! You can't handle the truth! Posner is a convicted plagiarist . Opps.
Keep drinking the Kool aid! Posner's research has been debunked several times. He has lied & twisted the truth to fit his theory. Posner doesn't know who was involved just like everybody else.
I greatly respect Mr. Posner's passion and research, and I absolutely believe Oswald was shooting from the sixth floor, and the first shot that hit JFK came from him. But after seeing the Zapruder film, I started thinking that the fatal shot may have come from the area of the grassy knoll. I believed it even more when Dr. Robert McClelland, one of the trauma doctors who oversaw the effort to save President Kennedy’s life, examined Kennedy's wounds and he came to the conclusion that the fatal shot came from the area of the grassy knoll. I have no idea what the absolute truth is, and I doubt that any of us ever will, which is beyond pathetic.
The headshot came from the sewer drain, a wide open can't miss 15-20 foot shot. In some footage you can clearly see a cop drop his bike at the curb, staring down at the drain a few feet away and heading in for a closer look. Opinions on this will forever be divided on this, all the way from "oswald acted alone", to "there were seven shooters stratigically placed around the plaza". Not many trust the gov anymore, so even if they do release the rest of the files, not many will believe what they feed us anyways. They lost the public on this one over half a century ago.
Half his solutions to the main questions are sketchy, I’m with you that fatal shot was from the Picket fence , and the doctors who tried to save him they knew the fatal shot was from the front , the autopsy was a coverup big time the body of the president was tampered with , there are videos out there , this year is the 60th year of the assassination I believe technology this year will show for sure there was more than one shooter , but most of us believe that already but in November mote people will believe the warren commission and that single bullet theory was a crock of , and because of all the researchers in the assassination community keeping the truth alive , in. November this year the truth will be out !
@@C77-C77 "The headshot came from the sewer drain, a wide open can't miss 15-20 foot shot."
Nonsense. Photographic evidence from multiple sources proves that by the time of the fatal head shot JFK was already leaning far over to his left. His head would thus have not been visible from the sewer drain. The shooter would have had to fire through the side of the car to hit JFK's head, with no way of knowing if he was aiming accurately. And what is your proof that a man could even *fit* in that drain? And where would he have entered the sewer system to reach that particular drain and how would he know which of the many branching passages to take to reach that particular drain?
"In some footage you can clearly see a cop drop his bike at the curb, staring down at the drain a few feet away and heading in for a closer look."
So? How do you know he wasn't looking at the drain for a completely different reason? What was the policeman's full name, and what did he himself say in his own exact words regarding why he looked at the drain?
The good Dr. admitted to Bugliosi, that he might have been a bit wrong about seeing JFKs large back of the head wound...after all, JFK was lying with his large head being very flat on the gurney, and the several doctors did not examine the head during their efforts to save JFK...Only Dr. Kemp Clark saw the head evaluated the wound, and proceeded to give a less than great evaluation...saying the wound was located in the Occiput, but extending into the Parietal area (side) of the head. He was a little off, as the official x-rays and photos prove...and interestingly, he very rarely gave any interviews over the ensuing years of his career!..I think he knew he made a hasty, poor evaluation.
Hindsight! Just so much hindsight. Oswald had enough time, and enough desire, and was a good enough marksman. It was not a difficult shot, and the car slowed down, after the first shot.
Posner's book 'case closed' is brilliant, a thorough research of conspiracy theories, debunking everyone.
Here are two facts that prove that there was more than one shooter. (1) The "magic bullet" was almost pristine and yet there bullet fragments in Governor Connally. So the magic bullet was not involved. (2) The bullets from Oswald's rifle were full metal jacket bullets (FMJB) which are difficult to fragment. The fatal bullet that hit JFK in the head was highly fragmented. It was not a FMJB. So It did not come from Oswald's rifle. So there was more than one shooter and the Oswald rifle was not the one that killed the president. CASE CLOSED.
Bullet, of course, is not "pristine," it is badly crushed at the nose and flattened down one side, perfectly consistent with going through Kennedy without hitting bone, slowing and tumbling on leaving him, and broadsiding its way through Connally's ribs.
We look forward to you explaining how anybody planting a bogus bullet within one hour of the shooting could possibly have known a bullet needed planting at all or that he wasn't simply planting one bullet too many into evidence and blowing the whole plot.
All bullets and fragments ever found were matched to Oswald's rifle, of course he shot him.
@@aaronz7056 I said the bullet was "almost pristine" which it was. It was not crushed at the nose and it was only slightly flattened. A bullet like that which allegedly went through so many bones and yet did not show expected damage. Tests of same type of bullet on carcass showed significant damage. The bullet that hit JFK's head could not be matched to Oswald's rifle as it was just fragments. The bullet exploded on impact. Yes, the bullet was foolishly planted by the cover up team. JFK's car (a crime scene)was washed of all evidence and windscreen (with bullet hole, where did that bullet come from? More than 3 bullets?) was replaced.
@@roberttohill627 A) You are blatantly lying about the bullet's condition, but who should people believe, you or their own eyes?
B) Only damage to the windshield, still in the National Archives, is a crack caused by a bullet fragment which also damaged the chrome plating... from the INSIDE.
The idea somebody was standing squarely in front of the limo, firing through glass and past the ears of a carful of passengers while shooting Kennedy in the face, fully expecting to frame this on Oswald from behind, is idiotic.
C) I asked you to explain HOW somebody could have known a bullet needed planting and your only answer is "the bullet was planted." You obviously can't answer the question and therefore haven't a leg to stand on, thanks anyway.
"(1) The "magic bullet" was almost pristine"
Oh, here we go again with the silly "almost pristine" myth. You seem to be just mindlessly repeating what certain authors and makers of videos often claim about the bullet without bothering to do actual research to see if their claims are really credible. You also give the impression that you are yet another person who has looked at less than 50 percent of all the photographs ever taken of the bullet. Photos taken of the base of the bullet, as opposed to those taken directly from the side (which appear to be the only ones you've seen) show the base to be severely flattened, with part of the metal core having been forced out. That is not what most people would call "almost pristine."
"(2) The bullets from Oswald's rifle were full metal jacket bullets (FMJB) which are difficult to fragment."
But nowhere near impossible to fragment.
"The fatal bullet that hit JFK in the head was highly fragmented. It was not a FMJB. So It did not come from Oswald's rifle."
Nope, that does not follow. You are using faulty logic. The bullet that struck JFK's head struck his skull first without passing through or hitting any other object first to reduce its velocity. Since the skull is one of the hardest bones in the human body it is not at all implausible that a FMJ bullet would fragment in such circumstances.
"So there was more than one shooter and the Oswald rifle was not the one that killed the president. CASE CLOSED."
Nope, you have come nowhere even remotely close to demonstrating that there was more than one shooter. You merely mistakenly think you have.
@@roberttohill627 "I said the bullet was "almost pristine" which it was."
No, it was not.
"It was not crushed at the nose and it was only slightly flattened."
Nonsense, the base of the bullet is far more than "slightly" flattened.
"A bullet like that which allegedly went through so many bones and yet did not show expected damage."
I don't agree. The bullet would have passed through JFK first without hitting any bone. That would, quite obviously, slow its velocity significantly but not cause any significant damage to the bullet. It would mean that the bullet entered Connally's back at a significantly slower velocity than it would have had it struck Connally first without previously passing through something else. The bullet then still had to travel almost all the way through his torso from back to front before it finally struck any bone for the first time, so that would have of course slowed its velocity even further before it finally struck anything even remotely as hard as bone. And the first bone it finally struck was a rib, which is nowhere even remotely close to being one of the hardest bones in the human body, so that would reduce the possibility of damage to the bullet even further. And since it is the base, rather than the nose of the bullet, which is *severely* (not "slightly") flattened, this suggests that by this time the bullet was tumbling (which is not even slightly uncommon for bullets to do) and struck the rib sideways rather than nose first. By the time the bullet finally exited Connally's chest its velocity would have been slowed even more, so that when it passed through his wrist and through one of the narrow, brittle wrist bones (also nowhere even remotely close to being one of the hardest bones in the human body) it was barely moving fast enough to even make it all the way through his wrist. Further evidence of this is the fact that it penetrated his thigh such a short distance that not only did it never even touch his femur but also fell out of his thigh in the hospital.
Had the bullet hit Connally only I would expect not only far greater damage to the bullet but also that it would have gone far enough into his thigh to hit and also damage his femur. The most plausible explanation for why it did not penetrate farther into his thigh is that it passed through more than just Connally's body before reaching his thigh.
"The bullet that hit JFK's head could not be matched to Oswald's rifle as it was just fragments."
The bullet that hit JFK's head struck his skull first, one of the hardest bones in the human body, without passing through anything else first. So naturally it fragmented. This comes nowhere even remotely close to "proving" that it was a different type of bullet from the one that hit Connally. And you didn't know that at least one of the bullet fragments found in the limo was indeed ballistically matched to the Carcano? And what about the dent on the inside surface of the chrome frame of the windshield? That was quite obviously caused by something striking the frame from behind, since it was on the wrong side to have been caused by anything coming from in front. How do you know that that dent wasn't caused by the very bullet fragment found in the limo that was ballistically matched to Oswald's Carcano?
"Yes, the bullet was foolishly planted by the cover up team."
I'm guessing you are talking about CE 399, the bullet alleged to be the single bullet. If so, what is your proof that it was "planted" and that there even was such a "cover up team" in the first place?
Oswald had attempted to assassinate General Edwin Walker in April of 1963 but failed, and Walker wasn't even moving, he was stationary.
Ben Bradlee couldn't believe that a man so inconsequential had such an impact. He was wrong. Oswald was consequential.
Total BS. At least 4 shots at the Plaza. Three to Kennedy (right shoulder, neck, and head) and one to Connally.
Not true.
@@aaronz7056 And I guess you believe Oswald was the lone shooter. lmao
Posner is just as bad and irresponsible on the medical evidence as he is about Oswald. In the chapter entitled "He Has a Death Look" he uses people like Michael Baden to discredit the doctors in Dallas who say they saw a large hole in the rear of Kennedy's head. Posner is intent on getting rid of that hole because it would give strong evidence of there being a shot from the front of Kennedy's car. In fact, he admits this himself about the hole in the back of the head: "If true, this not only contradicted the findings of the autopsy team but was evidence that the President was probably shot from the front. He then spends pages trying to discredit the doctors and attendants at Parkland Hospital who say they saw this hole. The agenda being that if he does so, there will be no evidence for it left.
Why not have a 4 year old interview Posner, it would have been the same interview 😂
What a load of crap , the angle of the bullet hitting Connelly debunks single bullet. It's a completely separate shot from different position . The Zapruder film was altered . If Kennedy was shot from behind why was the police riders behind the car , notably the one on the left covered in Kennedy's blood and not the driver or other secret service passenger. What about the shot that lands in the grass at the feet of the girl running parallel to the limo ,she stopped running and looks directly at her feet where the bullet slammed into the soil . Oswald was just a patsy .
Same old bullcrap why did the motorcycle drivers gets hit by the blood . Because dammit he drove into it. Why don't you listen to the man's video. The head shot blood went up and forward by examining each single frame you can see that. Stop the misinformation get more educated
"If Kennedy was shot from behind why was the police riders behind the car , notably the one on the left covered in Kennedy's blood and not the driver or other secret service passenger."
Where on earth are you getting this from? All four people sitting in front of JFK, John Connally, Nellie Connally, William Greer, and Roy Kellerman, were also showered with blood and other material from JFK's head, and such material also landed all over the inside of the car, and as far forward as on the windshield and on the hood of the car. The bloody spray did not land "only" on the police officers riding behind the car. And what do you mean by "notably the one on the left"? You didn't know that plenty of the bloody spray also landed on the two police officers riding on the right, James Chaney and Douglas Jackson? You didn't know that it has never been proven that "more" of the bloody spray landed on the officers riding on the left than on the officers riding on the right?
"What about the shot that lands in the grass at the feet of the girl running parallel to the limo ,she stopped running and looks directly at her feet where the bullet slammed into the soil ."
Wow, you really do give the appearance of getting this stuff from one or more extremely unreliable sources. The girl you're talking about, Rosemary Willis, never at any time in the film stopped and looked at her feet. Instead, she plainly stops and looks back toward the TSBD, as if she's just heard a shot fired from there.
"Oswald was just a patsy ."
If so you have presented zero evidence that comes even remotely close to proving him to be a patsy.
Film was in custody, processed, copied and distributed way too fast to have been screwed with.
@@aaronz7056 Correct people saw that film Friday night when he took it home.
@@aaronz7056 you may find this interesting (if you didn't already see it). punch in Douglas C. Horne's name. he talks w/ Dino Brugioni (NPIC film analysis professional) and it'd seem that the film was messed w/, according to Dino, whose boss apparently kept him out of any chicanery to protect him. he lived to a ripe old age, 93. he was just about the first American to see the Z film. he did work for some Gov't men. but 50 yrs. or so later, he found out that there was other activity that had gone on, strongly implying that it was deliberately edited. DB was an honest man, despite working for the Gov't.
Posner says Oswald had no particular hatred for Kennedy. Perhaps. But I wonder what he discussed with the diplomats in the Cuban embassy in Mexico City. I wonder if they might have told Oswald about the US-sponsored plots to kill Castro. If they did, that may have caused Oswald to think of Kennedy as a political enemy.
No matter what we know,assume,uncover;it ain't gonna bring him back.He's long gone,it's over.
Oswald kills two, Ruby kills one then Ruby stays tight lipped, gets very ill and dies in Prison about 3 years after he's in jail. That's the way it always happens...
"Oswald kills two, Ruby kills one then Ruby stays tight lipped, gets very ill and dies in Prison about 3 years after he's in jail."
Not sure where on earth you're getting the idea that Jack Ruby, of all people, stayed "tight lipped." He did precisely the opposite of that, talking on and on and on to Earl Warren and others, describing his actions, his motivations, his suspicions, etc. in tremendous detail. I'm guessing you've never read more than one percent of his Warren Commission testimony. Try reading all of it, all the way through from the first word of the first sentence to the last word of the last sentence, and every word and sentence in between. It is in two parts, and it is very, very long, one of the longest testimonies given by anyone to the WC. There are pages where it is just Ruby speaking continuously for many lines in a row without anyone speaking. The man had diarrhea of the mouth. He was precisely the opposite of "tight-lipped."
And the testimony is most instructive due to what he *really* said about why he wanted to be taken to Washington. Many authors and makers of videos have falsely claimed that he wanted to be taken to Washington to reveal inside information about the assassination, but the reasons he actually gave were quite different from that.
@@Caeruleo Convicts always die (55 years old) of cancer 3 years after going to solitary confinement in Prison, and before their second trial. So the video where Ruby states clear as day no one will ever no his motives or the people that were behind it has to be a fake video just like the Warren Commission. Keep watching CNN.
I believe if Oswald had lived, he would have changed his story up to the day of his execution. James Earl Ray was changing his story up till the day he died. It's part of their personality disorder, of which compulsive lying was one of the symptoms.
Perhaps thats why we've never been permitted to hear what Oswald had to say. His story may have exonerated him totally, and it was not permitted to be heard by anyone. They produced no interrogation notes and claimed the room was 'too small' to obtain a tape recorder. Oswald never had his day in court to defend himself and tell what he knew.
Oswald had been a Marine and was granted a top secret security clearance working on the most sensitive military program at the time, the U2 flights. Hardly sounds like a man with any personality disorder son.
@@ghostdance56 kind of ironic also that we know there was a Chicago plot just a month before Dallas which was foiled. Coincidentally, there were a bunch of Cubans with high powered rifles found in a hotel room speaking about killing the president.
Oh, and the fall guy was set to be an aimless wanderer in his early 10s who happened to have served in the USMC
The problem is LHO could never have been convicted by that pile of dung they called "evidence. Rifles appearing and disappearing, 2 not 3 shells originally found and photographed. Paraffin and neutron activation tests proving he did not fire a rifle that day. and a completely screwed up chain of evidence on any ballistics. At least 2 WC lawyers said as much in the 60s and things have only got much worse for the evidence. Mark Lane could have slept in, forgot his glasses and brief case and come to trial with a hang over and still got that shoddy set up job dismissed just on evidence incompetence....But some people will believe what they are told.
"How do others get such a different opinion from Posner?"
Perhaps by studying less than 50 percent of the evidence?
@@Caeruleo - No document in history has been more scrutinized by more people than the Warren report has over the last 60 years. Posner leaves out what the Warren report leaves out, just as you do. He's a shill for the CIA anyway, anyone reading his other work knows this.
CASE OPEN. re-writing history! Ignore the evidence. RUSH TO JUDGEMENT. mark Lane.
"RUSH TO JUDGEMENT. mark Lane."
Oh yes, that's one of the worst books to read if one wants to know the actual facts. Mark Lane grossly distorts the evidence. Just to give one example, he concentrates almost exclusively on people who said shots sounded as if they came from the knoll and almost completely ignores the equal or larger number of witnesses who said all the shots sounded as if they came only from the TSBD and nowhere else. And in his analysis of the ones who said shots came from the knoll, he ignores the fact that with only very rare exceptions, all of them said *all* the shots sounded as if they came from the knoll and none from anywhere else. Lane doesn't bother to explain how on earth that supports the idea of multiple shooters in multiple locations.
Nope, there where more shooters. The witnesses and Sapruder film tell so. Watch the head go to the back. Shot from the front.
I appreciate you sharing your opinion.
If you look at the individual frames of the Zapruder film, specifically frame 313, at the all important moment of impact, you see the explosion from the fatal head shot and the presidents head is pushed slightly forward indicating a shot from behind. From frames 314-321 you see the head snap backwards, which pathologists state was a neuromuscular reaction of nerve damage to the presidents brain caused by the bullet making his back muscles tighten resulting in his head snapping backwards.
I've heard that explanation before, but how many times I watched it again, I (and all the people I watched it with) don't see it. The earliest withnesses at the scene confirmed shooting from the grassy knoll. The first medics looking at the head wound said it entered the front and left the back of the head. They were surprised the Warren commission concluded something different.
The only thing that strengthen me to believe there is a conspiracy is the effort that some people make to ignore or change the facts.
@@wederklop "I've heard that explanation before, but how many times I watched it again, I (and all the people I watched it with) don't see it."
Perhaps because you've never studied those frames individually? And there are at least two videos here on RUclips that go back and forth repeatedly between frames 313 and 314 and in both those videos it is blindingly obvious that his head does indeed jerk forward several inches in only 1/18th of a second upon being struck by the bullet. If all you ever do is watch the Zapruder film in real time you won't see it because it happens too fast. You've got to also study the individual frames.
"The earliest withnesses at the scene confirmed shooting from the grassy knoll."
You are saying that in a misleading way. Many witnesses said all the shots sounded as if came from the grassy knoll and none from any other direction or location. But it is, of course, impossible for all the shots to have come from the knoll, since it is quite obvious that John Connally was hit in the back by a shot fired from behind him. There were also many witnesses who said that all the shots sounded as if they came from the TSBD and no other place. Interesting that you didn't bother to mention those witnesses as well.
"The first medics looking at the head wound said it entered the front and left the back of the head."
Wrong. Only a minority of the Parkland doctors and nurses said specifically that they thought the bullet entered the front of his head and exited the rear of his head. The majority of them said no such thing. And three of the Parkland doctors, Kemp Clark, Robert McClelland, and Malcolm Perry said that at first they thought it was possible that JFK was hit by one bullet, total, and that this bullet supposedly entered the front of his throat, turned upward, and exited out of his head. They said nothing about the bullet entering the front of his head. And they were obviously mistaken about that anyway, correct? Not even you believe that the bullet hole in the front of his throat and the damage to his head were caused by the same bullet, correct?
And you didn't know that it's not uncommon for early conclusions, early reports, and early speculations to simply be mistaken anyway? Those three doctors were quite obviously mistaken about the bullet entering the front of his throat, turning upward, and exiting out of his head, right? And you didn't know that it was also mistakenly reported that a Secret Service agent had been killed in Dealey Plaza that day?
"They were surprised the Warren commission concluded something different."
I'm guessing that you're getting this from one or more authors of books and/or from one or more makers of videos, and have not actually read the complete, unabridged testimonies of those same Parkland doctors to the Warren Commission. Several of them said that the conclusion that all the shots were fired from behind JFK made perfect sense to them. Shall I quote them verbatim in their own exact words saying exactly what I claim they said, or will you?
@@Caeruleo What nonsense, the witnesses are on film. Look it up. Either you want to make money from this or you are paid to participate in the coverup.

@@wederklop "What nonsense, the witnesses are on film. Look it up."
Strawman. You are arguing with something I never said. I never said there were not witnesses on film who said the shots came from the grassy knoll. I've been studying this assassination since 1988 and I've seen the films of those witnesses many times. What I find interesting, however, is that you didn't bother to mention that there were an approximately equal number of witnesses who were filmed saying that the shots came from the TSBD.
Look it up.
I also find it interesting that you don't bother to mention that nearly every witness who said shots came from the grassy knoll also said that *all* the shots came from the grassy knoll and nowhere else. How does that support your claim of multiple shooters in multiple locations?
I also find it interesting that you don't bother to mention that there were an approximately equal number of witnesses who said that *all* the shots came *only* from the TSBD and nowhere else. They quite obviously didn't claim that the shots came from multiple directions either.
Bottom line: of all the witnesses who ever gave any opinion whatsoever on where the shots came from, the vast majority said all the shots came either from the TSBD only, or from the knoll only, but definitely not from both locations. I've been studying the witness statements in detail for 35 years and I know what they said, and also what they didn't say. And at this moment I can only recall four witnesses who contemporaneously claimed that the shots came from multiple directions: Sam Holland, Paul Landis, A.J. Millican, and Dave Powers.
Look it up.
And I see you completely ignored everything I said about frames 313-314 of the Zapruder film showing that JFK's head most definitely did jolt forward several inches in only 1/18th of a second upon being struck by the bullet. You didn't even try to find those two videos here on RUclips that I told you about which prove that by going back and forth many times between those two frames, did you. You also didn't go and study those two frames carefully in any sense, did you. If you did, interesting that you act as if you didn't.
I also find it interesting that you completely ignored my correction of your mistaken claim about what the Parkland doctors and nurses actually said.
"Either you want to make money from this or you are paid to participate in the coverup."
ROFL! And you, of all people, claimed that what I said was "nonsense"? Well now, you're certainly the pot calling the kettle black, since that sentence of yours is far more nonsensical than anything I said. No wonder you tin foil hats mindlessly believe so many silly conspiracy theories. So in other words, you are so biased and closed-minded and so lacking in common sense that you actually are naive enough to believe that just because a person has a different opinion from you about the JFK assassination, that all by itself means that they've "just got to be" wanting to make money or being paid to support a coverup? You can't fathom the idea that it is entirely possible that a person could simply come to honestly believe that the majority of the evidence does indeed suggest that it is more likely than not that there was only one shooter, without having any ulterior motive to say so?
I am not seeking to be paid, nor am I paid, by anyone in any sense, to post these comments on RUclips, and you cannot come even remotely close to proving otherwise. And I do indeed honestly believe, after studying this case for 35 years, that it is more likely than not that there was only one shooter, and I do indeed have no ulterior motive for saying so.
And if you're this quick to jump to the wrong conclusion about me personally, how do the rest of us know that you aren't equally quick to jump to the wrong conclusions about the JFK assassination?
This guy talks like he's holding 20 spinning plates simultaneously and speed-running covering up the assassination in real time
Gerard Posner goes against 150 years of Dallas Doctors experience. But Posner knows better. My god no wonder the world is dumber for reading this.
Pres. Richard Nixon: "Oswald did it by himself scenario" as "the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated."
"a head shot from behind does not go backwards , nor does body parts go backwards, on to the trunk."
Says who? I've seen videos of a melon on a pedestal being shot which show material exploding out of the melon in the same direction the bullet was traveling but also show that the material exploding out of the melon shoved the melon off the pedestal in the opposite direction the bullet was traveling. The mass of a bullet is far too small to impart that much momentum to a human head. Normally there will be a smaller jolt of several inches of the head in the direction the bullet was traveling, but larger motions of the head are normally caused by other things, such as sudden muscle spasms as the brain is injured and sends a sudden jumble of signals to the brain, or material exploding out of the head. The "back and to the left" motion is only one detail seen in the Zapruder film. What about the larger number of details also seen in the film that all suggest a greater likelihood that the bullet came from behind JFK after all? The film shows that when his head is first struck by the bullet, his head does indeed jolt forward several inches in only 1/18th of a second. The film also shows that the majority of the bloody spray exploded forward out of his head, and that much less of it exited rearward. It also shows that the "back and to the left" motion does not even begin for the first time until several frames after the initial forward jerk of his head, that it is also slower than the initial forward jolt, and that it also does not begin until after material is seen exploding mostly forward out of his head, as if it was actually the material exploding forward that shoved his head rearward, rather than the direction the bullet was traveling.
Just like the melon on the pedestal.
@Caeruleo those frames of the Zapruder film was altered as described by Dino Brugioni. The fact that only one frame shows the explosion is a joke, the explosion should have been visible in several frames as Dino said the film originally showed. That remaining single frame was altered to show the explosion in the front and the back part was poorly blacked out in an oblivious edit. Of course you are one of the half-dozen government trolls who can only accept the Warren Report version of events.
@@alrifr5786 "those frames of the Zapruder film was altered as described by Dino Brugioni. The fact that only one frame shows the explosion is a joke, the explosion should have been visible in several frames as Dino said the film originally showed."
Huh? Which "Zapruder film" are you talking about? You must be talking about a film most people have never seen. I'm talking about the "Zapruder film" that was first shown publicly on national television in 1975 and since then has been released on home video in high quality digital restorations and has been posted many times here on RUclips, etc. This "Zapruder film," the one the vast majority of us have seen, shows his head first exploding in frame 313 but continues to show the bloody spray from the initial explosion in several successive frames. It does not show the explosion in one frame only. Where on earth are you getting this from?
"That remaining single frame was altered to show the explosion in the front and the back part was poorly blacked out in an oblivious edit."
You are repeating an unproven factoid or urban legend about the assassination. It has never been proven that the back of his head was blacked out in even one frame of the film, and it would need to be blacked out for quite a few frames continuously to be convincing. You are also ignoring all the other evidence I cited in support of the idea of the shot having been fired from behind JFK after all.
"Of course you are one of the half-dozen government trolls who can only accept the Warren Report version of events."
Nonsense. I am nothing even remotely similar to what most people call a "troll" and I most certainly do not work for the government, and you cannot come even remotely close to proving otherwise. I also do not agree with at least some of the Warren Commission's conclusions, as I have explained in detail many times. It is quite obvious that the true reason you call me a "government troll" is not because it's actually true, but because you are utterly desperate to "discredit" me or some such nonsense, just because I have a different opinion from you about the JFK assassination and no other reason. Just because someone honestly has a different opinion from you about the JFK assassination doesn't automatically mean they're a "government troll"; only a person with very little common sense, and/or a very biased and closed-minded person would think otherwise. And I ask you once again: if you're this quick to jump to the wrong conclusion about me personally, how do the rest of us know that you aren't equally quick to jump to the wrong conclusions about the JFK assassination?
Mr Posner is entitled to his views and conclusions, however, he and many others merely base their views on the Zapruder film, the copies of which the public sees is at least several generation of copies away from the original film. Also, viewing this assassination from a 'lawyers perspective' is quite different from that of criminal forensic expert. The Warren Report was designed and succeeded in quickly placing a simple conclusion upon the death of JFK.
Speculation is all you have.
Nothing of what you are saying would change all the forensic evidence pointing at Oswald. Fragments, bullets, rifle, finger/palm prints. Yeah maybe you bring something new to the facts, but the existing facts will not disappear and that is the problem with all theories.
The film is primarely used as a timeline and reference to double check on forensic evidence or eyewitnesses at least people who are interested in hard evidence use it that way. Other people imply things on the film like theories around Greer shooting the president or projectiles from Umbrella-Man etc.
Same goes for the house select committee on assasinations they came to an opposite conclusion because of lack of time and lack of money, so what's the point?
Hoover knew all about Oswald, and could have reasonably anticipated the attack. Since he hated the Kennedys, Hoover didn't lift a finger to warn JFK.
Havie you never heard of incompetence? Hoover was incompetent
Posner is utterly disturbed. Listen carefully to the cadence of his speech.
The CIA files do reveal new information. The main thing is Oswald's trip to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico was not simply to get a visa. The contention is the Sept.9 NY Times interview with Castro (where the Cuban leader excoriates JFK and talks about US plots to kill Castro) infuriated Oswald enough to get him to join the Cuban revolution or volunteer his services to kill JFK in service of said revolution. The Castro interview was syndicated throughout the country, and Oswald probably read it in the New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper. If true, that is a plausible motive for Oswald's actions. A question I have is, what truth is there to the attempted assassination of JFK in Chicago on Nov.2, 1963? It was supposedly foiled by the Secret Service, but the act bared striking similarities to Dallas (an ex-Marine sharpshooter who had a job in a warehouse overlooking the proposed presidential motorcade). I've only heard this story from one source, the late Secret Service agent, Abraham Bolden. I would like to hear corroboration (or a dispute) of that event.
Zfilm .... rooftop of the Dallas county records bldg....frame 313...318... Sprocket hole .. evidence of a second shooter..and in no words did I mention the Knoll... that's enough in itself to raise serious questions...I believe Oswald got the scope in the eye when the recoil snapped back which would explain the bent scope, and the shot that went wild down Elm Street
"Zfilm .... rooftop of the Dallas county records bldg....frame 313...318... Sprocket hole .. evidence of a second shooter"
How on earth is that evidence of a second shooter?
@@Caeruleo It's... definitely ... evidence... of ... elipses.
Brilliant analysis by Gerald He has it right .
Thank you for watching, Barry. One comes away after reading Case Closed knowing there can only be 1 conclusion - Oswald acted alone.
Most lawyers end in hell.
Nope.
Posner knows what he's talking about. I should thank him because he confirms what I have been saying for years - Oswald did it and he did it alone. However, in this video, I'm not quite agreeing with a few areas. Mainly - Oswald's "flight". Posner is implying Oswald had a plan after he shot JFK. Well I'm sorry but I don't see it. What I see is a guy that didn't have a clue as to what he was doing. He was all over the place. Leaves the building, gets on a bus, takes a taxi, goes to his room, grabs his gun, starts walking - God knows where - then he kills that cop. Then he ends up in that movie theater, for no particular reason. I don't see any plan whatsoever in LHO's actions after the assassination. One other area I'm iffy on is Ruby. Agreed he was there in a position to shoot Oswald thru sheer happenstance. However, nothing was going thru Jack Ruby's mind other than in that one singular moment in time, he lost his cool and pulled out his gun.
I appreciate your analysis on Oswalds flight from the scene. He very well may not have had an exit strategy. For the hour and ten minutes after the assassination, I would agree he was all over the place.
It's certainly possible that Oswald had no detailed escape plan. He had left nearly all his money and his wedding ring with Marina at the Paine's house in Irving that morning. He walked out of the book depository with about $12 in his pocket. He may have expected, or even desired, to be caught, but OTOH he wasn't in any big hurry about it. He went to the Oak Cliff rooming house to pick up his pistol, which he'd been unable to get since he went to Irving to pick up the rifle the night before and came directly back to the depository in the morning. After leaving the rooming house, he wandered around aimlessly until he encountered Officer Tippett and killed him. That added a new element of urgency and panic to the situation.
He hid in the movie theater, but had already been spotted by the shoe store manager. His behavior when the police arrived ("This is it!") suggests that he might even have expected to be killed then and there--"suicide by police." When he found himself still alive and arrested, he made the most of it, drawing the situation out as long as he could. Oswald saw himself as an important person ignored and bypassed by history. Now that he was famous, he wanted to let the story unfold slowly for maximum dramatic effect.
On Sunday, Jack Ruby thought that Oswald had been transferred from the police station an hour or two before. He sent the stripper in Ft. Worth the $25 moneygram and then decided to walk the few blocks over to the police station to socialize and maybe give out some passes to the club--he was a police groupie, after all. Or maybe as Mr. Posner suggests, he saw the crowd and went out of curiosity. He left his beloved dog in the car, which suggests it was a spur-of-the-moment decision.
Over the weekend, Ruby had worked himself into a frenzy over Oswald and had been close enough to shoot at him at least once. Then suddenly Oswald appeared only a few yards away, smiling and exulting over killing the president. To Ruby, it was like the Lord was giving him one last chance--the chance of a lifetime--and like Oswald himself two days earlier, Ruby took it.
That's what I believe, but I don't try to convince anybody else.
@@williamwingo4740 Hi - Im pretty much with you. My views - Oswald: The only thing he had vision on is he wasn't coming back - this is why he left the money and the ring for Marina. But he had absolutely no plan after he shot JFK. Things transpired as they did. He ended up surviving and then started playing his games. Ruby: Total happenstance he ended up near the police station. Agreed with Posner, Ruby noticed some commotion/activity at the Police Station so he walked over. He had worked himself up over the weekend over Oswald. This is why he didn't shoot him Friday night. SO he heads over to the Police station, slips thru because the truck is in the way, and , purely by coincidence - ends up right where Oswald is being taken out. In that moment, being all worked up and seeing Oswald's smirk, he lost his cool and shot him. But Ruby had no plan either. He simply lost his cool at one moment in time. Then he spent the next three years lying about it.
@@ledzep310 I agree, but we seem to be in the minority here. Many people are still unable to accept such a string of coincidences. Just look at some of the other comments on this thread....
And of course, conspiracy theories are still where the money is, even sixty years later.
If you haven't seen it already, I recommend the book "Conspiracy of One" by Jim Moore. He goes into considerable detail on the sequence of shots, and especially Oswald's movements after the assassination.
@@williamwingo4740 I suppose you can make an argument for Oswald - meaning that he in fact was a part of something bigger. I mean I don't believe that and I don't think that - but you can at least make an argument. With Ruby, there is no argument. It is absolutely impossible for what he did that day to be anything but pure happenstance (coincidence).
Outstanding.
Thank you for the kind words, Charles. Next interview is in the works.
@@HindsightHistory Who will be the subject of the next interview?
I’ve listened to Posner before on RUclips discuss “Case Closed.”
I own a copy of his book but just haven’t gotten around to reading it.
But I agree with everything he says on the subject, and I have no use for people who refuse to acknowledge that he has done his homework and simply refuse to let go of the usual conspiracy theories.
I thought you handled the interview very well by asking direct, central questions and then giving Posner all the time he needed to elaborate.
@@charleswinokoor6023 I appreciate the compliment on the interview. Took a little over a year to bring it to life and I'm thankful with the way it turned out.
Our next interview will be with historian and author Candice Millard on her book "The River of Doubt: Theodore Roosevelt's Darkest Journey." Very much looking forward to the conversation.
@@HindsightHistory I look forward to it.
I think it was a couple years ago when I watched an excellent PBS documentary about Teddy Roosevelt’s dangerous journey.
One bullett did not hit both men, and there were more than three shots, yes only three were heard, there was a hole in the windshield, from the front
"and there were more than three shots"
Nope, it has never yet been proven that there were more than three shots. You are merely speculating or getting this from someone else who was merely speculating.
"there was a hole in the windshield, from the front"
How do you know that the damage to the windshield was from the front?
@Caeruleo The very experienced glass professional at the Ford plant who handled the damaged windshield said that it was a through and through shot from the front and he included a statement to this effect in his estate papers.
@@julesclay8142 "The very experienced glass professional at the Ford plant who handled the damaged windshield said that it was a through and through shot from the front and he included a statement to this effect in his estate papers."
Uh-huh. Let's explore that carefully. You seem to be talking about George Whitaker. This is what he claimed in a 1993 interview:
"And the windshield had a bullet hole in it, coming from the outside through…it was a good, clean bullet hole, right straight through, from the front. And you can tell, when the bullet hits the windshield, like when you hit a rock or something, what happens? The back chips out and the front may just have a pinhole in it…this had a clean round hole in the front and fragmentation coming out the back."
But that's hardly the end of the story. Now let's look at an article by Vincente Velasco:
**********
Vicente S. Velasco says:
March 12, 2021 at 8:16 am
If you are referring to George Whitaker, sad to say that he was a liar. He was in no position to make such a statement because he never worked on the limo when it was transported to the Ford plant. Researcher Pamela Brown effectively debunked Whitaker:
**qu0te on**
George Whitaker worked at the Rouge in Dearborn, at the Glass Plant. He said he saw the limo in the B building, which was the final assembly building. Whenever the limo was at Ford it went to the Experimental Garage; a different location. There are other FMC employees who have said nearly the same thing as this man did about seeing the limo at Dearborn for the teardown that took place prior to the rebuild. This process did not start until the end of December 1963. (Whether or not it should have started at all is another question).
Vaughn Ferguson, who was the FMC employee in DC directly responsible for the limo spent the four days after the assassination with the limo. His memo, which was mistakenly sent to me by NARA provides concrete documentation as to what did happen during that time.
Mr. Whitaker and other FMC employees likely heard Vaughn Ferguson talking about the limo when he was at Dearborn. He drove the car there from the White House Garage in DC in December 1963. He also loved to play golf when he was there. One of these men was a golf buddy of his. I believe that is how Ferguson’s statements spread and changed. Mr. Whittaker’s story has many gaffes in it, that were mostly sanitized by the time TMWKK [The Men Who Killed Kennedy] was taped, largely because of corrections made after I presented to Weldon and his mentor [James] Fetzer documentation from the Henry Ford Museum that helped define them.
**quote off**
**********
Thus there seems to be some doubt about Whitaker's credibility. Now let's look at Robert Frazier's much more contemporaneous account of the original examination of the windshield before it was sent to the Ford plant:
**********
Mr. SPECTER - Did you have occasion then to examine the windshield of the Presidential limousine?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - What did that examination disclose?
Mr. FRAZIER - On the inside surface of the windshield there was a deposit of lead. This deposit was located when you look at the inside surface of the windshield, 13 1/2 inches down from the top, 23 inches from the left-hand side or driver's side of the windshield, and was immediately in front of a small pattern of star-shaped cracks which appeared in the outer layer of the laminated windshield.
Mr. DULLES - What do you mean by the "outer layer of the laminated windshield"?
Mr. FRAZIER - The windshield is composed of two layers with a very thin layer of plastic in between which bonds them together in the form of safety glass. The inside layer of the glass was not broken, but the outside layer immediately on the outside of the lead residue had a very small pattern of cracks and there was a very minute particle of glass missing from the outside surface.
Mr. DULLES - And the outside surface was the surface away from where the occupants were sitting?
Mr. FRAZIER - That is correct; yes.
Mr. DULLES - And the inside surface was the surface nearest the occupants?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - What do those characteristics indicate as to which side of the windshield was struck?
Mr. FRAZIER - It indicates that it could only have been struck on the inside surface. It could not have been struck on the outside surface because of the manner in which the glass broke and further because of the lead residue on the inside surface. The cracks appear in the outer layer of the glass because the glass is bent outward at the time of impact which stretches the outer layer of the glass to the point where these small radial or wagon spoke-wagon wheel spoke-type cracks appear on the outer surface.
Mr. DULLES - So the pressure must have come from the inside and not from the outside against the glass?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; that is correct.
Mr. DULLES - As far as the car is concerned from the back to the front?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES - Not from outside against the glass--from the front against the glass.
Mr. FRAZIER - That is right.
Mr. SPECTER - Was a comparison made of the lead residues on the inside of the windshield with any of the bullet fragments recovered about which you have heretofore testified?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. They were compared with the bullet fragment found on the front seat, which in turn was compared with Commission 399. The lead was found to be similar in composition. However, that examination in detail was made by a spectrographer, Special Agent John F. Gallagher.
Mr. SPECTER - Was that examination made in the regular course of examining procedures by the FBI?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
**********
See how this account is far more detailed than the Whitaker account? Whitaker made no mention of any lead deposit, which gives the impression that if he was even telling the truth at all about seeing the windshield, he didn't examine the damage nearly as closely as Gallagher did. Also, did you know that two bullet fragments were found in the car, one of them in the driver's seat? Did you also know that there was a dent on the rear surface of the chrome frame above the windshield? That dent could only have been caused by something striking the chrome from behind because if it had come from in front the dent would be on the opposite side of the chrome. It is thus entirely plausible that these two fragments could have been from the same bullet, the one that struck JFK in the head, and that one fragment could have caused the dent in the chrome and the other could have caused the damage to the windshield.
@@Caeruleo Great info!
Well thank you for that. I look forward to reading your book.
"I think more than anything else, if I had an opportunity and the facts that said Lee was innocent, I would be out there shouting it loud and clear. But the facts point in the other direction. If you go right down the line and look at it, all the facts will point to Lee's involvement. Lee actually committed the crime, period...Now what we don't know is the why. We can go through all those speculations and theories and so forth and everything, but I think it goes back to his character. He had some real serious mental problems as far as I'm concerned. This is not an excuse of what he did. This is understanding what he did. He had problems at home. He had problems on his job. He was completely frustrated about what was going on around him. He was really in serious depression as far as I'm concerned. His demeanor and his direction that he wanted to go was to be somebody. But then again, he's being held down by the society, you know, that he really wanted to take notice of him, and they didn't take notice of him." ― Robert Oswald
Or was he in on the conspiracy too? 🤔
Wow, you poor soul. You have the opportunity but choose to remail Willfully Ignorant. So sad another sheepal.
Just your empty head talking, no evidence that would fly in a courtroom.
Is this guy a spy?
I want to see a debate between Posner and Oliver Stone. That would be VERY interesting.
Don't tell me you're one of those putz that believe the movie "JFK", which Stone admitted was 90% fiction. He did manage to get the right president correct but beyond that: a load of manure.
We may have to make that happen soon!
@@TheClyde-v3f - No son, he did not admit anything like that. Who do you think you're kidding? LOL
@@ghostdance56 Saw it with my own eyes, "son"....LMAO Do some real research and you'll know.
@@TheClyde-v3f - But you 'chose' to not post what you 'saw' right here and now for all to see. Got it son, I'll believe that. LOL Get your prescription filled, I think you're believing your own BS. LOL
I just finished the audio version of Posner's book. It was riveting. Before listening to it, I was vaguely interested in the Kennedy assassination because I was in grade school when it happened, but then 20 years later, I worked on a TV mini-series called Kennedy, starring Martin Sheen in which we closed down the financial disctrict of Richmond, Virginia and turned it into Dealy Plaza. The old Medical College of Virginia was used for Parkland Hospital. It was a fascinating project.
I have always presumed that Oswald was more or less set up as a "Patsy" for the shooting in some plot. But then I spent the next 30 years in law enforcement and learned through experience that nobody keeps their mouth shut for that long in a criminal conspiracy. The murder of Oswald by Jack Ruby kept me believing in some sort of mob plot. Much of this I now know was just based on false information reported as fact, usually by some nut job with a book to sell, or someone who got invited to a public library to give everyone the "inside story of what really happened".
I heard everything about Oswald's alleged involvement with spy planes in Japan, to how his rifle was either (depending on whom you ask) a crappy Italian Carcano that wouldn't hit anything to a beautifully made German Mauser that had been switched to a Carcano after the shots were fired. I heard all kinds of things about Jack Ruby being a hit man for the mob. I heard about four shots, the grassy knoll, and pretty much everything else you can imagine. You can fall down a RUclips rabbit hole on JFK and spend weeks just watching. By the end of it, you can be convinced that space aliens killed Kennedy. It was in watching one such video where I saw a "JFK researcher" refer to the book Case Closed as "total crap". So of course I had to read it. It was in a search for the book that I found the audio version and listened to it all in one sitting except for bathroom breaks. Finally it all made sense.
My career led me to become a criminal investigator, and also an expert witness on firearms. I had seen many shoddy investigations before, and some where comments were made before all the facts were in. I'd also seen firearms misidentified by responding officers, such as one case where the first guy on scene had identified a Smith and Wesson automatic as a "Glock". The kid told me he thought that Glock was a generic name for a handgun. So, it didn't suprise me that some Texas cop misidentified a rather obscure Italian rifle as the much more familiar Mauser. The Carcano is a well-made rifle, certainly capable of making the shots that Oswald made. It is an accurate rifle, but its ergonomics are a little balky in working the bolt. And since it is a smaller rifle chambered for a powerful cartridge, it kicks like a mule. Ammunition was not so easy to find. So of the WWII mail order surplus rifles, it would not have been my first choice of what was available in the 60's, but was certainly the cheapest option. I think Oswald bought what he could afford, and the pre-installed scope had to be attractive. I actually borrowed one in the 90's and was perfectly capable of replicating Oswald's shots. So much for that. I can say that if a professional assasin had been tasked with the killing, the Carcano would not be their first choice of weapon. But it was perfectly capable. I actually replicated his shots with a handgun on three fixed targets. No problem. Just about any repeating rifle would have worked. I also learned a long time ago never to speculate what a bullet will or will not do as it passes through flesh and bone, or what it will look like when recovered. I wasn't at JFK's autopsy, but I have sat in on 250 others where people were shot with firearms, and have seen entrance wounds mistaken for exit wounds initially and vice versa. I have no problem believing that excited ER doctors saw what they thought was one type of wound was actually found to be something else on autopsy. Just normal human error.
Posner's chapters on Oswald's biography were most instructive. I am surprised he had such a troubled life, and can easily see how, having failed at everything, he craved the feeling he belonged to some cause, and was hungry for recognition for something, anything that people would remember him by. His psych profile reads like the typical Active Shooter of today, except that I do not believe he thought he was going to get caught.
But the most interesting parts of Case Closed to me are the parts about Jack Ruby. I'll admit that his murder of Oswald spontaneously is a bit hard to swallow until you understand that Ruby was a small-time wanna be hood who was pretty bent psychologically and had a mercurial temper. Posner is right that he craved action and wanted to be known as a big man around town. He befriended cops to that end, even though they all thought he was a flake. Posner is right that he had multiple chances to kill Oswald over the weekend, but just had to get himsef wound up enough to go through with it. Until I read the book, the thing I got stuck on was the fact that he left his dog in his car when he went in on the day of the murder. He either didn't know when he went inside that he was going to kill anyone, or less likely, that he knew what he planned to do and thought he would be hailed as a hero and would be right back to his dog. And, if this was a hit to close off some mob conspiracy, do we really think organized crme entrusted this to a small time strip joint owner? And if so, why was Ruby left alive after being arrested? He could have been shanked at any time while he was in custody which would realy cleaned up a loose end. But yet he died in 1967 of lung cancer.
So what I think now is that the whackiest little nut job in Dallas on that day took a rifle to work and killed the President. Later that weekend, the second whackiest nut job in Dallas killed Oswald. A mishandled government investigation left us all with the impression that something more complicated was going on and being hidden. Occam's Razor in action figures this one out for us. I think if there was any sort of "conspiracy" it took the form of Oswald making noises about killing Kennedy to his Cuban friends so he would be allowed into Cuba as a hero by Castro, and them saying "Yeah, you should totally do that." But that is pure guesswork on my part. Maybe I should try giving a talk on this at the public library.
@Tom Crawford Great analysis on a lot of dynamics from the case. Thank you for sharing!
@@HindsightHistory Thanks for your kind reply. I devoted a few days to the RUclips Rabbit Hole and then Posner's book while I was laid up with an illness. The contrast between his book and most of what I saw was striking in terms of serious research and logical support. But then it was time to move on and go back to real life. I have no idea how people can devote their whole lives to a single murder and be as passionate about it as if they were JFK's family. Maybe I'm just callous because I've stood over so many dead bodies, but for me this was nothing more than a distraction from being ill for a week. Now that I'm better and back to real life, I ask myself "Who killed JFK?" I find myself replying "Who cares?"
Problem is a have just stumbled onto interviews where people say a shot was fired from behind the fence. Multiple people. Or at least the shot was fired from behind where they were standing…Seven different people.
@@machivellisucstwogo7103 "Problem is a have just stumbled onto interviews where people say a shot was fired from behind the fence. Multiple people. Or at least the shot was fired from behind where they were standing…Seven different people."
But those are nowhere even remotely close to all the people who gave statements regarding where they thought the sounds of the gunfire came from, and nowhere close even to the majority of those people. More than 100 Dealey Plaza witnesses gave such statements. What about what the other 93+ witnesses said? Also didn't all seven or nearly all seven of those people also say that all the shots sounded as if they came from behind the fence and no other direction? How does that support the idea of multiple gunman? And we know for a fact that it is impossible for all the shots to have come from behind the fence, because we know for a fact that John Connally, at least, was hit in the back by a shot fired from behind him, whether or not that same bullet also hit JFK.
@@Caeruleo I now think there were multiple shooters. I think I now heard at least eight people say it. These people didn’t know each other and they are saying basically the same thing. I can give you links to videos.
Aside from all the well-known issues, there remains in me one doubt: there's something about the composed manner and casual spontaneity with which Lee Oswald answered the question " did you shoot the President? " that still keeps me from achieving 100% certainty regarding his guilt: It's the simple way he calmly said, " No, I didn't shoot anybody."
All the studies have shown that lawyers and judges can’t tell whether someone is lying from demeanour. It isn’t an accurate method for discovering truth.
Oh, you didn't know that it's not uncommon for real murderers to deny their crimes, including doing so "calmly"?
Apparently not, at least by your lights. I am aware though, that when condescending, smug people are confronted with an opinion that diverges from their own, they tend to get insecure and unnecessarily nasty.
His response was 100 percent truthful
@@barrylyndongurley "Apparently not, at least by your lights. I am aware though, that when condescending, smug people are confronted with an opinion that diverges from their own, they tend to get insecure and unnecessarily nasty."
But since I came nowhere even remotely close to being what most people would call "nasty," what you said cannot reasonably apply to me. And I was merely articulating an obvious fallacy in the claim I have seen many times, that people interpret Oswald's demeanor and denials as supposed evidence of his innocence, when in fact it is not uncommon for real murderers to seem quite convincing in their denials.
Qswald was witnessed exiting from the rear of School Book Depository, within 10 min. after the assassination
Wrong . Don’t listen to Wesley Frazier lol .
From who?
A man is innocent, until proven guilty, in this country, Oswald never stood trial. Case not closed
"A man is innocent, until proven guilty, in this country, Oswald never stood trial. Case not closed"
All that means is that he was never proven to be guilty in a court of law. But that is meaningless, since he never would have stood trial anyway, because Jack Ruby killed him before he could stand trial. And many things can be proven without a trial. One doesn't have to go to court to prove that the earth is orbiting the sun; the evidence for that is already overwhelming in the first place.
Sounds like someone has a serious crush on Lee Harvey Oswald.
The evidence would've put Oswald in the electric chair
wow. wow. who is this guy working for. or what is he on
@@dennisstephens8793 You're clearly working for some Crooked people within the Conspiracy theory Industrial Complex.
Case still closed.
I thought I might find you in the chat! 😁
Doctors saw the neck wound as an entry wound.
The closest witness says the car just about stopped for 1-2 seconds , which proves Zapruder film was doctored
Read the book. Then Bugliosi's book. And the Warren report.
@@littlefluffybushbaby7256 the book that does the same as the WC, ignores any evidence that points to anything other than LHO did it alone.
@@jdunn101ify I'm not sure that is true. Check out Bugliosi, he pretty comprehensively covered alternate theories. Have you read the WC, Posner or Bugliosi? To me the overwhelming evidence is that Oswald did it alone. You've drawn another conclusion. That's fine. Neither of us will ever actually know the truth. In any jury that has seen the same evidence you'll get disagreement. The thing is the WC, Posner and Bugliosi back up their interpretation with solid evidence. The other interpretations that I've seen just don't do that. They tend to rely on minor discrepancies, innuendo, spurious connections, and some, on downright lies. When it comes down to it it hardly matters what either of us thinks.
personally I think if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. But it might not be. Over sixty years all the real evidence is very duckish.
Great interview. The interviewer did a great job. Asked pointed questions while not interrupting.
I gave up trying to convince conspiracy theorists years ago. Most of them are asking questions and making statements that are beginner level stuff - What about Jack Ruby? Oswald said he was a Patsy, head shot came from the front cause the head goes back and to the left, and so on. You can't convince them. Like Gerald said, if he had HD footage of Oswald in the Sniper's nest, they'd just say it was fake in some way. Every massive event carries a million conspiracy theories, it's what people do. The moon landings, JFK, Princess Diana, 911, Paul McCartney is dead, Covid, the list goes on and on. My best advice to anyone who wants to research the JFK Assassination, is to read the Warren report and make your own decision. If you think there was a conspiracy, fine but please don't say Oswald was innocent cause with all the evidence against him, you have to have him involved. Please don't send me messages arguing and calling me names, I'm not interested in a debate and I won't reply.
Why do all Americans say “ cause” instead of “ because”? It’s pretty much 100% and it’s ignorant as hell.
I'm not American, so you're wrong there.
@@garyfrancis6193 "Why do all Americans say “ cause” instead of “ because”?"
I've seen and heard British people say "cause" instead of "because" many times. And not "all" as in 100 percent of Americans say "cause" instead of "because." There are plenty who don't. You seem to be biased in this regard.
"It’s pretty much 100% and it’s ignorant as hell."
In your opinion. And you are acting as if you've never once heard or seen slang.
Now, do you have anything of any actual substance to say about the JFK assassination, or are you just going to keep talking about things that are irrelevant and trivial?
Oswald was framed
The stupidity by conspiracy theories is never ending .
@@barryirvin2417 because the whole event is difficult to unravel. First of all the conspirators plan way ahead and have alternate plans and create scenarios to lead investigators up the wrong tree. Lee Oswald knew he was going to die but he didn’t know what was in store for him. Judith knew he was in trouble but had hope. But the powers that be had other plans. JFK had to go. He was the fly in their ointment. JFK had money to burn. He had his fun in the sun but was cut down by the powers that operating at that time we were flush with cash also. Lee Oswald was cool, calm, and collected. He was a trained agent. The worst thing that came out of the assassination was the escalation of the Vietnam war. Which was not an official war. Congress held the pursue strings so we were not allowed to fight all out. So we pulled out in the end and the north Vietnam overran the south
Listen to this .... LHO could not get Edwin Walker in march 1963 ...50 feet to the window and ...25 feet to his desk ... Hit the window pane and the the wall ..walker got hit by a few fragments that's it Then Oswald got the job in the book depository OCT 1963 shooting a moving target yet LIKE LHO SAID IM JUST A PATSY .. It wasn't him ...Next question .................W H O .........
It hit the window frame and deflected. It was Oswald's first murder attempt, after dark, and with a scope you become target focused and don't notice details extraneous to the target and the cross hairs. That may also explain why his first shot at Kennedy deflected off a tree limb or the traffic light.
the walker shooting was a cover up, looks like he staged the shooting himself, we have a video clip on this.
Here's the next question: how do the people framing poor innocent Oswald know:
- they can take it for grated they will accurately predict his every thought and action
- he will show up unexpectedly at the Paine house Nov. 21, otherwise they can't pretend he smuggled the rifle
- he wouldn't simply stand out on the sidewalk during the parade
- nobody would ever find any bullets or fragments that don't match to his rifle
- he would immediately flee the plaza
- an imposter who looks so much like him he's guaranteed to fool the nearly dozen witnesses who ID Oswald needs to be hanging around 10th and Patton
- Officer Tippit won't simply outdraw and capture his attacker
- Oswald would try to shoot a second cop minutes later nearby
- Oswald would lie to police and refuse to cooperate
- Oswald would refuse help from the President of the Dallas Bar Association
- Oswald would just shrug a hollow, rambling reply when asked on live TV, "Did you shoot the President?"
- they can safely count on scores of police, FBI, Secret Service, military personnel, doctors, Oswald family members, ballistics experts, whole commissions, etc., to obey illegal orders and bend over backwards making themselves all eternally loyal accessories to murder and treason...?
My main concern is the trajectory of the magic bullet. I can’t see how the right side of JFK was hit near the T3 and ended up coming out the throat. Upwards out of JFK to Connally now going downwards. POSNER HIMSELF DISPOVES THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY. How can it go straight threw Kennedy if it’s shot from the 6th floor? But really it’s not straight threw its at an upward trajectory.
And the back wound was lower than the neck so impossible it was the same shot, and also the doctors thought the neck wound was an entry wound.
“I realized I knew nothing.” You still do bud! 🤣🤣🤣
I'll admit I'm an amateur on the subject. I appreciate you watching.
This guy is telling it like it happened based on actual facts. Very logical. If you read about Oswald you might never know WHY he ultimately did it, but he sure had the personality to do it combined with a history of gun violence (the assassination attempt on Walker) prior to Nov 22nd. Oswald was delusional and thought he was contributing a verse in the great saga of human history by this deed of his.
Ok...how did the police know exactly who to look for? Someone see him shoot?
@@mikeklassic78 yes. Several witnesses saw a man in the window, and their description was sent out on police radio. Also, Oswald was the only employee missing from the TSBD after the shooting, so the same description of a fairly young, white male with dark hair was certainly picked up pretty soon.
NONE of that is true son. There is nothing that links him to Walker shooting, else he would have been arrested for that. Hello??? Oswald had no criminal or psychiatric history, he was a marine issued a top secret clearance to monitor the U2 flights, the most sensitive program in the US at that time.
He also was NOT the only employee missing from TSBD, as many people had gone from watching the motorcade to going straight home afterwards, so thats a fallacy too.
NO ONE identified Oswald in a sixth floor window either. In fact, many witnesses saw 'multiple men' on the sixth floor right before the shooting, in particular a dark skinned man was described by multiple witnesses.
So no son, Oswald's personality certainly does not reflect a man who was delusional or who had a history of violence or crime in any way. He in fact had to be one cool customer to have done what he did in going to Russia and back and not been arrested for treason, if you know the full story. So everything you just wrote comes from a 'narrative' only, there is zero evidence for any of that Oswald was crazy nonsense, and it was an obvious false narrative to help frame Oswald.
There have been accounts of Oswald seeming almost self-satisfied, as if the world was changed, and he knew that he did it.
@@mistermousterian - Do you know the police officer's name who claimed that account? Seems to me, the 48 hour interrogation had no notes taken, unlike in all other cases in United States history, so did someone whisper that in your ear or what? Did they also know his favorite snack? LOL
The flight argument is imho the hardest to deny. Not only did he flee the scene, he was sitting with a loaded gun inside a theater.
I agree. Knowing how passionate Oswald was about politics, it's hard to believe he wouldn't want to be immersed in all things at Dealey Plaza that day.
Some people will believe anything.
Posner the pawn😔. Come on. Go away!
Curtis LaMay, General Walker, LBJ, Hoover and the CIA. Officer Tippit was killed by Ruby and used as a body double. Look up Mark Groubear
"Officer Tippit was killed by Ruby and used as a body double."
That's one of the silliest claims I've ever seen made about this case. To start with, it has never yet been proven that Jack Ruby was anywhere within a quarter mile in any direction of the Tippit shooting at the time it occurred. And if by "body double" you are referring to the silly myth that I've seen some people here on RUclips mindlessly repeat, that Tippit's body was used as a "double" for JFK in the Bethesda autopsy that evening, I'd suggest you do better research. For one thing, Tippit did not look similar enough to JFK for that to have a snowball's chance of surviving a summer day in Texas of fooling anyone. Secondly, Earl Rose's autopsy of Tippit (I'm guessing you've never actually read the autopsy report) occurred too late in the day for Tippit's body to have then been flown from Texas to Maryland in time to be present for the JFK autopsy.
"Look up Mark Groubear"
Don't you mean Mark Groubert? If so, that's laughable, since he has never come anywhere even remotely close to proving that Jack Ruby was anywhere near the scene of the Tippit shooting, nor has he come anywhere even remotely close to proving that Tippit's body was used as a double or any other such nonsense. If you think I'm wrong, please describe, here, in detail, the evidence Groubert has presented which you think proves these things. Thanks.
@@Caeruleo so the eye witnesses on film, that state they watched Ruby exit a car and shoot Tippit don't count. Same ok spin Jonny Carson used on Garrison..Why NBC pulled the video. The Oswald phone call to Hurt...records don't lie. Oswald called the CIA handler. Those records belong to the phone company. Care to comment on the phone call your buddies missed
@@c.hundley9714 "so the eye witnesses on film, that state they watched Ruby exit a car and shoot Tippit don't count."
Please say the full names of the eyewitnesses who said on film that they saw Jack Ruby shoot Tippit. I have been studying this assassination for 35 years and I do not recall any witness saying anything even remotely similar to that, on film or in print. And let me turn this around on you: the *majority* of the eyewitness at or near the scene of the Tippit shooting said the man they saw either was definitely Oswald, or at the very least looked reasonably similar to Oswald, and several of them said it both on film and in print. So according to you, what the majority of the witnesses said doesn't count?
Look up...here comes Santa Claus!!
You deep State thugs couldn't make a better argument. Your boys missed Oswald s phone call. Not speculation. Bell Telephone records and guess what. Two women who worked the Dallas pbx are on video record talking about placing it. Oswald was under the impression he was CIA. CIA fuck wads. Take your best shot, ceicil. You can't get past the fuck up of Oswald calling a known CIA house. Bring it. Bell Telephone....you messed up. Hahaha it's out there.
Posner is absolutely correct, that if there was film that showed Oswald shooting, they still wouldn't believe it was him.
I read Posner’s book many years ago. I have little doubt he was spot on with his analysis. Indeed the case is closed.
@Patrick Mitchell Thank you for sharing. After reading several conspiracy books, I'm thankful a mentor of mine recommended Case Closed.
I read Posner's book and wasn't sure whether to file it under fiction or comedy. It's a lot of both.
Oswald acted alone. Well, that's not very sexy. BUT it's the truth. Gerald Posner got it right, none of the other hundreds
who scribbled about the case did. BUT no one will ever go broke peddling conspiracy to the American people.
People just can’t accept that one loser can alter the course of world history.
@@ericw1911 Lone Nutters can't accept that tons of people who were there including at least 6 at the Autopsy were absolutely convinced of conspiracy.
Except for the fact that all the doctors in Dallas said the exit wound was in the back his head
"Except for the fact that all the doctors in Dallas said the exit wound was in the back his head"
That is false. Nowhere near "all" of the doctors, as in 100 percent of them, said specifically that the damage in the rear of his head was an "exit." Less than half of them said that.
Not true.
@@aaronz7056 Hella true
@@elguapo42 A) Doctors at their first press conference are speculating wildly about the wounds, unable to conjecture about numbers, directions, etc.
B) Parkland doctors looked at the autopsy photos for NOVA in 1988 and had no particular problem with them.
C) Who safely approached scores of Secret Service, military personnel, FBI, doctors, x-ray technicians, ballistics experts, photographers, witnesses, etc. and persuaded them all to obey illegal orders and make themselves all loyal accessories to murder and treason?
D) How is contradicting Parkland doctors, altering wounds, forging x-rays, faking photographs, falsifying evidence and committing perjury by the dozen a better idea than just leaving well enough alone and saying Oswald must have had an accomplice who got away, which would have suited any conspiracy just fine?
E) Connally's said the shots all came from behind.
F) Witnesses under the sixth floor window said the shots all came from directly overhead.
G) Kennedy is clearly seen to suffer a massive exit wound exploding at the right temple completely inconsistent with a shot from anywhere but the rear.
H) No bullets or fragments were ever found that did not match to Oswald's rifle.
I) Who exactly was assuming they would frame this on a lone shooter from the rear while firing away from multiple directions?
@aaronz7056 the parkland doctors provided Doug Horne with the ARRB testimony with hand drawn exit wounds on blank skull templates in 1996. 🤙
They made sure Oswald was in The TEXAS BOOK DEPOSITORY, and the rifle,shells.He should not been in America.Patsy.
The Magic Bullet kept going, traveling through time striking Posner in the head causing brain damage.
You know......I had not considered that! But it makes perfect sense! Afterall, it was a "Magic Bullet".
You sir are an excellent interviewer, you ask your questions and then listen to the answer, rare today. Thankyou
Thank you Terry for the kind words! My goal for the discussion was to avoid injecting myself constantly into the conversation knowing someone like Gerald whose studied the subject for decades to have the stage. Much more content to come soon!
Thank you, Mr. Posner, for your well-researched work.
I don't have to read all, or any, of the WC to form an opinion on the presentations of those who have. I put the Posners and the Lanes in the balance and see what's what.
This is akin to how juries weigh "expert opinion" witnesses. When Max Holland points out that a slug's exit-hole in the wall of the skull (or glass, etc. for that matter) is spalled outward conically, it saves me an incredible amount of reading.
People saw smoke and undercover officers at the picket fence,everyone was running up the hill to find shooter,but he got in the car and left
Thx for adding this which males posner not credible
Posner leaves sooo much out of the key moments of this story that causes others to view it alot differently.
He’s a shill
Oswald was working long ago at the TSBD, before the president came to Dallas and passed the TDBD. So, he (LHO) was placed there? That's insane OR BETTER: another fact for a conspiracy if he was placed. But by whom?
Not even JFK knew the exact way of the motorcade. How could LHO knew it? To read about the way in the papers 2 days before doesn't make him automaticly an assassin...
By Ruth Paine, who had many family CIA connections that Mr. Posner well knows but didn't mention. Likewise the motorcade route could have been altered by Dallas Mayor Earl Cabell, brother of Charles Cabell, a high-ranking CIA officer who was fired by JFK after the Bay of Pigs. What's known today is that Mayor Cabell himself was an active CIA asset.
3 months before. The CIA via Demorenshildt got him the job.
@@slycat956 CIA yes and Who's brother changed the route?mmmmm did that brother like Jack?m
@@slycat956 I understand LHO was friends with George De Mohrenschildt during his time in Dallas. However, after speaking with Gerald and looking into it further, it looks like Ruth Paine was actually the one to get him an interview at the Book Depository.
The motorcade route was published in the Dallas newspaper a few days before November 22nd. The route itself was drawn up by the Dallas Secret Service chief around 45 days before. LHO got his job via the suggestion from Marina's friend Ruth Paine. Paine herself heard about the job opening at the Texas Schoolbook Depository from her neighbor.
Absolutely bullsh#$t ..Oswald never fired a shot!🙄
Finally someone with common sense, not to mention that if Oswald shot Kennedy, that his brains would have been all over the front of the limo not on the trunk as shown in the Z film.
The fatal shot came from THE FRONT !!!
"Oswald never fired a shot!"
Oh really? Who did kill JFK then? Please say the person's full name, along with your proof that you are naming the correct person. Thanks.
@@Caeruleo Roscoe White
@@larryyouguessame6078 "Roscoe White"
Nope, that's not what I said. I said to give the full name of the killer of JFK and to also give your proof that the person you name really was the killer of JFK. You have produced no evidence whatsoever that White really did kill JFK. Does that mean that you can't prove the killer was anyone except Oswald after all?
And excuse me, but Roscoe White??? Bwaaahahahahahahahahahaha!!! 😅😆🤣You seem to be doing nothing more than just mindlessly repeating a name commonly suggested by conspiracy believers to have been involved in the assassination. But in actual truth, it has never been proven that Roscoe White was even in Dealey Plaza at all that day, much less firing at JFK. That story is more full of holes than an overripe Swiss cheese. The origin of the silly Roscoe White myth comes from the claims of his son and his widow, made long after his death, that he supposedly "confessed" to having been involved in the assassination. They claimed he kept a diary in which he had said so in his own handwriting, but when it came time to produce the diary publicly as corroboration it "conveniently" had supposedly gone missing. And if I recall correctly, a later attempt to produce corroboration in Roscoe White's handwriting turned out to be a forgery.
So since you utterly failed to do as I asked, let's try this again for the second time, and maybe this time you won't post a silly, evasive, insubstantial answer. If Oswald never fired a shot, then who did kill JFK? Please say the person's full name ALONG WITH YOUR ***PROOF*** THAT YOU ARE NAMING THE CORRECT PERSON. (If I type it in all caps will you act as if you understand English this time?)
@@larryyouguessame6078 ... whose known movements that day make it highly implausible he even had time to go to the plaza? Okay.
The real story is on America's Untold Stories... Mark Groubert is a genius... I don't agree with him on the kill shot. There were two bullets a FMJ through and through and a hollowpoint... The only hollow point was agent Hickey behind him. As he swung the M16 to return fire he fell back as the driver hit the gas ...squeezing the trigger ... Accidentally at the moment he passed Jacks head. I am a firearms expert and the trajectory fits . And there is a 20 cal entrance on the skull. It even explains the broken windshield ... Connaly said it was raining down bullets ... Bullets were found in the car and on the street and in Connaly . One shot a low power 22 penetrates the throat and only about an inch.. No... There were a lot of shooters . Sheriff's admitted rifles on their building and a sheriff... Probably another Dallas bigot. Johnson flew AF 2 to Belgium to stop a codebreaker who cracked a French message and had all the facts weeks in advance . Johnson had him held on a nuthouse till after the election then disappeared to Johnsonville where the visitors till kill day were quite interesting Jackie said Jacks loudest argument he threatened to get back on the plane unless Yarborough was out and Connaly in... He almost left ! Then the traitor secret service bigot agents completely rearranged the whole parade . They took the flatbed film truck that always is in front of the prez ...is put in back... The 2 agents running were told to quit . They went to a diner and we're eating burgers when the news reached them .. Jack Ruby was seen driving a truck and dropping off his gay lodger from Caberet and a rifle on the knoll. His truck broke down at the overpass and was quickly pushed away by another instantly showed up. Then they both killed Tippet and dropped Lee's ID on the body and walked back to his apt. His gay lodger got a ride to a mile from the Canadian border ... after they killed Tippet... Oswald's handler CIA Morenscheld left to kill papa doc in Haiti and turned Lee over to long time generational CIA and elite Michael and Ruth Paine taught Russian took Lee to Right Wing Rallies and most likely took a shot at General Walker .. Ruby was Al Capone's man then Marcello's man Lee's dad worked for Marcello..
Lee had just compromised the New Orleans Particle accelerator and got everyone killed stealing weaponized cancer ... He also worked at Cutter Labs the people who gave us 50% cancer rates from 200 million doses of cancer infected polio vaccine... So he was expendable ...The Paine's separated Lee and Marina and Mike and Lee moved out ... Police found their lesbian love letters to Marina as she was humping her ... This is typical spy technique . Keep em broke push em around then set em up. The Paine's we're radical leftist CIA agents ...just like today... We have a complete timeline ... No one could operate the junk Carcanmo when they tried. 2 rifles found in the book building 303 Enfield on the roof and a Mauser was held up and then ... The Caracno ... Which was in poor condition. Walker was shot at in his home with a 30:06... The deeper we dig in this we see... Lyndon's liver said he was in on it and Lyndon's lawyer said he was in on it ... This is an old farce ..one shooter ...bullshit
"The only hollow point was agent Hickey behind him. As he swung the M16 to return fire he fell back as the driver hit the gas ...squeezing the trigger ... Accidentally at the moment he passed Jacks head. I am a firearms expert and the trajectory fits ."
I would suggest you study that issue more closely. The idea that Hickey shot JFK was solidly debunked years ago. The Bronson film shows him seated at the moment the head shot was fired, and not because he had just fallen back only a second before. And Dave Powers, sitting in the same car, said, "Someone a foot away from me or two feet away from me couldn’t fire the gun without me hearing it."
"I am a firearms expert and the trajectory fits ."
I don't see how any level of expertise would enable you to know that with any certainty, since there is not enough evidence in the first place to determine the precise trajectory anyway.
"And there is a 20 cal entrance on the skull."
How on earth would you know that? The evidence from the autopsy is too inconclusive for anything like that to be certain.
"It even explains the broken windshield"
How, exactly? Why can't the windshield have instead been damaged by a fragment from a headshot fired from the sixth floor of the TSBD instead, since it is not uncommon for fragments from bullets to veer off in a different direction from the exact direction the whole bullet was originally traveling anyway?
"Connaly said it was raining down bullets"
Please quote Connally verbatim in his own exact words, along with naming the original primary source of the quote so the rest of us can see for ourselves that you're quoting him accurately, as saying that. I do not recall him saying any such thing. Instead he said he heard a shot, then felt himself to be hit by a second shot, then heard only one more shot after that. I don't think three shots is what most people would call "raining down bullets."
"Bullets were found in the car and on the street and in Connaly"
If by that you mean at least one *whole* bullet was found in the car, that is not true. And one or more bullets were found on the street itself according to what source? I do not know of any author of any published book about the assassination who has ever made that claim, nor do I know of any Dealey Plaza witness who ever claimed that a whole bullet was found in the street. If I'm wrong, please say the full names of these authors and/or witnesses. Thanks.
"One shot a low power 22 penetrates the throat and only about an inch."
Prove it. That is a highly unlikely scenario. The neck is much too narrow a part of the human body for a bullet to enter but not exit, especially when the bullet strikes nothing even remotely as hard as bone after entering the person's neck, and thus does not strike anything hard enough to slow down its velocity enough to prevent it from exiting. And what about the other bullet hole in his back near the base of his neck? Even though you haven't said so specifically, you are quite obviously proposing the patently ridiculous scenario of two bullets hitting him and neither one exiting, even though neither bullet would have struck or passed through anything else first to slow down its velocity before hitting him, nor would either bullet have struck any bone inside his body to slow down its velocity enough to make a lack of exit for both bullets plausible. Your two bullets would have to be far more "magical" than anything ever attributed to the single bullet.
And if Connally and JFK weren't hit by the same bullet, why do both men jerk violently beginning at precisely the same instant, frame 226 of the Zapruder film?
"Jack Ruby was seen driving a truck and dropping off his gay lodger from Caberet and a rifle on the knoll."
You mean a man who supposedly looked like Jack Ruby was *allegedly* seen driving a truck and dropping off a rifle on the knoll. It has never yet been proven that that was really him, and there is more evidence that it wasn't him than there is that it was. People who had actually met him before and already knew what he looked like said he was in the newspaper offices at the time the shots were fired. No one who had ever met him before said they saw him anywhere in Dealey Plaza that day, driving a truck or otherwise.
"His truck broke down at the overpass and was quickly pushed away by another instantly showed up. Then they both killed Tippet and dropped Lee's ID on the body and walked back to his apt."
Oh please, now you are engaging in pure wild speculation. There is not a shred of credible evidence that Jack Ruby, of all people, was anywhere near the scene of the Tippit shooting.
"Oswald's handler CIA Morenscheld left to kill papa doc in Haiti and turned Lee over to long time generational CIA and elite Michael and Ruth Paine taught Russian took Lee to Right Wing Rallies and most likely took a shot at General Walker"
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you're saying it might have actually been Ruth Paine who shot at Walker???
😆😅🤣😂
Well, I've certainly read enough of this silliness. You are quite obviously a person who does not need to be taken seriously. You cannot truthfully say the same of me.
@@Caeruleo i lean toward Hickey. There are debunkers to undo debunkers... Even the Oswald theory is compelling ...the evidence has been run to death like an old horse.. I can study any theory and see some validation ... So.. in the final play there's enough evidence to believe anything you want ... At the end of the day we are still being taken over by forces more insidious than Johnson ...the oilmen ... The CIA ... Or even Biden... And everyone's asleep
@@davidmurphy619 "i lean toward Hickey."
Based on what evidence, exactly?
"There are debunkers to undo debunkers..."
At times, yes, but when has the debunking of the Hickey theory ever itself been debunked, and by whom? I've never seen the debunking of the Hickey theory ever come even remotely close to being itself debunked.
And what about the vast majority of the witnesses saying that all the shots came either from the TSBD and nowhere else, or from the grassy knoll and nowhere else, and very few saying that any one individual shot sounded louder or closer, or softer or farther, than the others? If the fatal shot really had come from Hickey's gun, wouldn't we have a much larger number and percentage of the witnesses noticing an obvious difference in the direction, distance, and volume of the third shot from the other shots?
Loved Posner's book but he's WRONG when he asserts that without the Z film "we'd never know what really happened." One must read the late Vincent Bugliosi's tome, RECLAIMING HISTORY, after reading Posner's lesser (but still excellent) book. Vince points out that movies hardly EVER accompany a murder, yet convictions based on other evidence are routine.
Good point!..."Reclaiming History" is far and away the best book on this horrible moment.
Posner nails it! Case closed!