One of the EF moderators to whom you refer accused me of being a CIA disinformation agent. He did so because I presented evidence that L. Fletcher Prouty was a crackpot and an anti-Semite, and because I argued that if anyone fit the bill of a CIA disinformation agent whose job was to discredit the case for conspiracy, Prouty fit that bill perfectly.

Thankfully, the EF recently cleaned house and that moderator has been removed from the moderator staff.

At the conclusion of a March 2018 presentation by John M. Newman on Tennent H. Bagley's book, Spy Wars, Peter Dale Scott asked him if he was convinced that the Oswald who "returned" to the U.S. from Russia in June 1962 was the same one who had "defected" to it in October 1959.

Then he shared the following anecdote:

He was talking with Marina on the phone one day when he happened to mention the Russian writer, Turgenev, and Marina exclaimed, "Oh! Alek LOVED Turgenev!"

In a conspiratorial tone of voice, Scott told the assembled group, "Oswald didn't check out any books by Turgenev from the library."

You can read into it what you will.

Humm, so I take it you find the idea that Oswald was impersonated to be some wild and specious theory? Are you aware that the two HSCA investigators who investigated Oswald's activities in Mexico City (Ed Lopez and Dan Hardway) came away convinced that someone was impersonating Oswald in Mexico City? Have you read the Lopez-Hardway Report?

How about the several reports from credible witnesses, one of whom was a doctor, who reported seeing Oswald at certain locations in Dallas when the real Oswald was positively known to be elsewhere at those times? Let me guess: All the witnesses were "mistaken," right? 

Nonsense. Forensic evidence doesn't always require expert testimony to interpret. In some cases, expert witnesses are called to interpret what the forensic evidence for the jury. In other instances, the jury can be presented the evidence and allowed to use their own judgement as to what it represents. That was the case in the murder trial in which I was a juror. We had the medical examiner testify regarding the autopsy evidence and what it established regarding cause of death. We were also presented with the murder weapon and two recovered bullets. The only testimony was by the crime scene investigators who told us where the bullets were recovered from. He didn't attempt to tell us what those bullets indicated.

BS. Mathematicians can't prove whether witnesses have accurately remembered an event. 

I didn't say that. I said they could assign a mathematical probability to the distribution IF the witnesses were wrong.

Since you don't quote those doctors, we are left with your interpretation of what they said on that point. What the hell is that supposed to prove?

It is part of the Warren Commission documents (CD #326):

We have the forensic evidence of the Z-film corroborating JBC's account that he turned in reaction to hearing the first shot which hit neither him nor JFK. He then tells us after turning and seeing nothing, he was just starting to turn to face the front when he felt the second shot hit him in the back. The Z-film shows us that both he and JFK reacted to being shot at the same instant when both of them suddenly flipped their arms upward at Z226 which was immediately followed by JBC twisting and dipping to his right. That footage also corroborates Glenn Bennett's report that he heard a shot before turning to see JFK hit by the second shot. This is a case where the witnesses are supported by the visual evidence of the Z-film. Nothing you imagine is supported by the Z-film or any other forensic evidence. On the contrary, the Z-film refutes your crazy beliefs.

That may be how you define forensic evidence but the rest of the world would consider the Zfilm itself to be just physical or documentary evidence and treated like a document.  Again, your interpretation of the zfilm is not evidence.  An interpretation by a qualified expert having particular knowledge and expertise - for example, the physicist Luis Alvarez explaining how the rearward motion of JFK after z313 can be explained by the jet effect - would be considered forensic evidence.

There are two other problems with Posner's theory, as I explain in my article on the Tague wounding and in my chapter on the subject in A Comforting Lie.

I really don't care about Posner. I've never been a disciple of his. Case Closed did make some contributions but it was never the definitive account of the assassination and paled in comparison to Bugliosi's definitive account of the assassination, which largely defended the WC's work.

One, Posner assumes that his tree-branch-collision bullet was fired between Z140 and Z166, since this is the timeframe in which five witnesses saw a bullet strike the pavement behind the limo. Now, before I continue, I should note that Posner deserves credit for at least acknowledging that a bullet did strike the pavement before Z166. Many WC apologists deny the pavement strike because they view it as too problematic for their version of the shooting, even though five witnesses saw it happen.

There is some evidence of a bullet strike on the pavement although it is not definitive. It is possible that shot ricocheted down Elm St and struck the curb near Tague but also not definitive. A bullet striking the pavement is not in any way problematic for the WC's findings.

Anyway, to assume that an FMJ bullet fired from the sixth-floor window hit a branch of the intervening oak tree, we would have to believe that the supposed lone gunman completely missed, not only Kennedy, but the entire limousine,

I try to refrain from making assumptions but I'm going to make an exception here. I am going to assume Oswald wasn't trying to shoot the limo and if that is the case, he didn't miss the limo. He missed his intended target.

 from an elevation of 60 feet and from a distance of less than 140 feet. Even the Warren Commission (WC), in a rare display of logic and common sense, admitted it was hard to believe the gunman would have been so severely off the mark with his first and closest shot:

The WC offered a number of possibilities and pointed out the arguments for and against each one, while not indicating a preference for any of them. That was left to the reader of the report.

CTs always want to tell us how easy the first shot would have been while ignoring the obvious difficulties. Oswald would have been firing  almost vertically at a target moving across his line of fire. To fire downward at such a steep angle would require him to raise up out of his firing position, whether that was sitting or kneeling, through window open little more than a foot, and the boxes he stacked by the window would have been of little use steadying the rifle. On top of that he would have been tracking his target as it was moving in an arc around the corner and his target was about to move under the tree which could well have forced him to rush the shot. None of these problems existed for the subsequent shots which were much easier.

On the other hand, the greatest cause for doubt that the first shot missed is the improbability that the same marksman who twice hit a moving target would be so inaccurate on the first and closest of his shots as to miss completely, not only the target, but the large automobile. (WCR, p. 111)

You exhibit your ignorance of marksmanship when you assume distance is the only thing that affects the degree of difficulty.

Two, in order for Posner's errant shot to have had any chance of fragmenting from hitting an oak tree limb, assuming for the sake of
argument this is even possible, the missile would have had to strike far enough up the limb so the limb would not bend or snap when the bullet hit. This would have been a staggering, unbelievable miss if fired between Z140 and Z166 from the sixth-floor window. To hit a limb far enough up its structure during this timeframe, the limo, much less JFK, would not have even been in the gunman's field of aim when he pulled the trigger.

It's Posner's theory so I'll leave it up to him to defend. I don't believe the bullet struck a tree branch because I believe Oswald fired the shot before the limo passed under the tree.

Furthermore, as mentioned in previous replies, a bullet that hit far enough up an oak limb that that the limb did not bend or snap would not have fragmented into several fragments but would have penetrated deep into the limb and would have remained substantially intact. Such a collision certainly would not have caused the copper jacket to separate from the lead core, but Posner must assume this happened because the smear taken from the curb scar contained no copper (WCR, p. 116).

Why do you assume the bullet striking the tree is the only plausible reason it missed the target. [/quote]

Anyone can verify in sources on bullet behavior that an FMJ bullet will penetrate and not break apart when it hits oak wood. I asked Google AI what would happen if an FMJ bullet traveling at medium velocity hit a piece of oak wood. Google AI answered as follows, just as I knew it would:[/quote]

Now tell us what might happen if the bullet hit the pavement directly or hit the traffic arm. Why do you only address one of several possibilities.

When a medium-velocity FMJ (Full Metal Jacket) bullet strikes a piece of oak wood, it punches a deep, narrow hole through the dense grain while staying mostly intact.

Impact and Penetration

Deep entry: The bullet cuts cleanly into the wood instead of mushrooming or flattening out immediately.

Rapid deceleration: Oak is a hard, dense wood. It slows the bullet down much faster than soft pine or drywall.

Stopping power: If the oak board is thick (such as 4 to 6 inches), the bullet will likely lose all its energy and stop inside the wood. If the board is thin, the bullet will pass right through.

When I asked Google AI what would happen if an FMJ bullet traveling at low velocity hit a piece of oak wood, it once again answered just as I knew it would:

You're getting your information from AI? There's a reliable source. Just yesterday AI told me JFK never appointed any Republicans to his cabinet. He appointed two. Robert McNamara and C. Douglas Dillon. Relying on AI is a crapshoot. It might or might not give you an accurate answer to any question. It searches all available information related to the question but is not very good and weighing that information for accuracy.

A low-velocity full metal jacket (FMJ) bullet will cleanly punch a round hole into oak wood and stop without breaking apart.

What Happens to the Bullet

Stays intact: The hard metal cover keeps the lead core from flattening.

No expansion: The bullet keeps its original shape because the slow speed is not enough to deform the metal.

Slows down fast: The heavy resistance of the wood quickly robs the bullet of its forward motion.

Keep in mind that FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the WC that the alleged murder weapon was a rather low-velocity rifle (3 H 414), while some experts, using a different velocity scale, say the 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle is a medium-velocity weapon. No one, but no one, says the rifle is a high-velocity weapon.

Posner obviously knew nothing about FMJ bullet behavior

Looks like you two have found common ground.

when he formulated his tree-branch-collision theory. He erroneously assumed that his supposed FMJ bullet would not only produce two large fragments but would shed its copper jacketing.

The WC's alternative explanation for the Tague wounding, aside from being hopelessly and intentionally vague, is even worse than its headshot-fragment theory: "or it might have been a product of the fragmentation of the missed shot upon hitting some other object in the area" (WCR, p. 117).

This is a lame, useless explanation. The WC claimed to have no idea where the alleged lone gunman's miss landed, rendering its "hitting some other object in the area" theory useless from the outset. The WC refused to acknowledge that a bullet dug into the grass near the manhole cover in the vicinity of the triple underpass (even though the strike was observed and reported by Officer J. W. Foster, and even though a photo of the hole in the grass was published the next day in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram). The WC also refused to acknowledge that a bullet hit the sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street (even though it dug a 4.0 x 0.5-inch scar into the sidewalk, and even though two witnesses saw the scar before it was crudely patched). Thus, it is not surprising that the WC did not even speculate about where the supposed single assassin's errant shot landed.

And, of course, the WC could only float its specious explanations by dismissing the fact that Tague insisted the second shot was the one that caused his wound. The WC clearly leaned toward a first-shot miss, not a second-shot miss, which is why it could not accept Tague's clear, reasonable testimony, even though Tague, like several other witnesses, specified that the first shot he heard sounded different than the others, and even though he specified he heard the third shot after he felt something sting his face (7 H 552-555).

Unless the supposed lone gunman was legally blind, if his alleged second shot missed, it would have landed in the limo's passenger compartment, or on the limo's trunk or hood, or on the right side of the limo. The same would have been true if the alleged single shooter's first shot missed. If the supposed sixth-floor "sharpshooter" somehow managed to miss the entire huge limousine with his first and closest shot, it would have landed on the street or sidewalk in the vicinity of the limo, well over 300 feet from the Tague curb scar and with at least five witnesses standing between the impact point and the Tague curb scar/Tague himself.

The fact that the lone-gunman theory simply cannot explain the Tague wounding is the reason that Specter and the FBI tried so hard to ignore it. It should be noted that Specter never asked the Commission's wound-ballistics experts about the WCR's bogus theory that a fragment from the head shot could have caused Tague's wounding. Those experts would have told him that such a fragment would have had to exit from the right side of the skull (whereas Tague was standing to the left of the limo), that it would have had to clear the limo's roll bar and windshield, and that it most certainly would not have had enough velocity to veer over the roll bar, then dive downward and leftward, and then travel over 200 feet and hit the curb hard enough to scar it or hit Tague's face hard enough to cut it.

By attacking Posner's scenario, you do what CTs have done for decades when attacking the SBT. Of the possible explanations, you focus on the least likely one. CTs for years claimed the WC concluded that Oswald's second shot missed which would have required all three shots to be fired in 5.6 seconds or less. Cronkite and Rather foolishly assisted in promoting this myth. The reality is the WC proposed several possible scenarios, all but one of which allowed Oswald 7 seconds OR MORE to fire his three shots.

Likewise, you choose to attack Posner's theory regarding the missed shot because you believe that has the most flaws in it. You don't even bother to address other plausible reasons for why Oswald's first shot missed and what it might have struck.

While not proof positive,

Exactly, it is not proof of anything other than maybe an extra ejected shell casing. Like the WC postulated.

You seem to have an idiotic idea that unless evidence is 100% conclusive, it has no probative value and should be ignored. The reality is that evidence usually isn't 100% conclusive and should be weighed for probative value. 3 spent shells don't by themselves prove 3 shots were fired from the sniper's nest, but in conjunction with the statements of JBC, Glenn Bennett, Jarman, Norman, and Williams as well as the majority of spectators in DP who offered their opinion, it becomes highly probative 3 shots were fired from that location.

You constantly state the witnesses are unreliable except on this one issue, and then you only reference the earwitness testimony. A little hypocritical.

My position on witnesses has been consistent. Nothing a witness says should be assumed to be true or false. We should measure the credibility of any witness based on its compatibility with the body of evidence. JBC said he turned to look over his right shoulder upon hearing the first shot. The Z-film shows him doing that at Z164. He said after looking over his right shoulder, he started to turn back toward the front when he felt the second shot strike him. We see JBC react to being shot 62 frames, 3.9 seconds after his initial reaction. This fits perfectly with his description of the shooting.

...the consensus of the witnesses that there were three shots, including the testimony of the three employees who were directly below Oswald.

Did you purposely leave out mentioning the eyewitnesses in your consensus.

The three employees below the SN never stated that at all. Not one of them on their worst day indicated there was an early missed shot. You already know this.

Why do you have to tell an outright lie to make your point? I never cited the three employees on the 5th floor as evidence of a missed first shot and you know it. I cited them as evidence that three shots were fired. I have cited other evidence for a missed first shot, most notably the testimony of JBC whom we see reacting to the first shot almost 4 seconds before either he or JFK show signs of having been struck. One people who are arguing from weak positions have to lie about what someone else has said.

BTW, what do you believe caused Tague's injury?

According to Tague it had nothing to do with the first shot.

You didn't answer the question. I realize this presents a conundrum for you because it limits the possibilities for you. It would leave you with only one apparent possibility, that a fragment from the headshot caused the injury. If that's not what you believe, please clarify, but since you are a troll whose only purpose is to agitate, you never want to tell us what you actually believe because then you would have to defend it.

Tague didn't think it was the first shot. He might or might not be correct about that. There is nothing that refutes or corroborates his statement. It remains an open question.