From ck260@Freenet.Buffalo.EDU Mon Mar 30 09:18:36 1998
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 09:10:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Russ <ck260@Freenet.Buffalo.EDU>
To: ck260@Freenet.Buffalo.EDU
Subject: 351eecc9.43418819@mcadams.posc.mu.edu


                             Posner Phone Records
                                       
   From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
   Reply to: [1]John McAdams
   Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 01:11:09 GMT
   Newsgroups:
          [2]alt.assassination.jfk
   Followup to: [3]newsgroup(s)

It's interesting that conspiracy people are *still* pushing the
"Posner lied about talking to Tague and Boswell" stuff.  This was
resolved -- at least the issue of whether he talked to them, as
opposed to precisely what they told him -- over three years ago on
Compuserve.

This whole exercise is beginning to seem like the "it was Oswald in
the doorway in the Altgens photo" thing, or the "parade route was
changed at the last minute" thing.  You know, the conspiracy factoid
that continues to circulate notwithstanding decisive evidence to the
contrary.

The following are the relevant CIS posts:


#: 314035 S7/JFK Debate  [JFK4]
    22-Feb-95  09:22:07
Sb: #313948-Posner Phone Records
Fm: M. Duke Lane 76004,2356
To: John McAdams [WPUSERS] 71333,2114

>>
Steve Bochan, Duke Lane, are you two lurking? I would like to ask both
of you to serve as "honest brokers" who will each receive a copy of
the bills Posner sent me, and report right here what you see. You do
not, of course, have to endorse Posner's version of what these
witnesses said. You do not even have to say whether the documents are
genuine or not -- although I think you will each be happy to report
that they appear genuine.  The deal is that you just report what's
there. One of the key things you will need to do is to confirm that
the calls are to Tague's, Boswell's, and Humes' phone numbers.
Duke, you have these numbers, do you not? <<

I'm here, and no doubt Steve's just around the corner.<G> I've sent
you my mailing address by email to send the copy to.

There is, of course, no idea to know what was said during these phone
conversations, much less "endorse" Gerald's "version" of them. I
*will* know an Amex bill when I see one, tho'.<G> I've got the numbers
in question to compare the bills against, and will forward them to
Steve via email. (BTW, PNTVDRABC = Ponte Vedra Beach).

FWIW, and not to be prejudicial but rather objective, you have to be
aware that a 1-minute call is the minimum billing unit. If I were to
call you, get your answering machine, not want to leave a message and
hang up immediately, I will be billed for one minute. I could also
leave a phone number in that time. Thus, I don't find one-minute calls
to be significant in any way, and thus:

>>
The bills show three calls to a number in Plano, TX (presumably
Tague's). One call, on January 19, 1992 was placed at 8:25 p.m. and
lasted for 63 minutes.  On January 20, a one minute call was placed to
this number at 6:22 p.m., and a four minute call at 7:00 p.m. <<

... the first January 20 call suggests to me, especially considering
that it was followed up 37 minutes later by another call, that the
6:22 call was an "answering machine call." No big deal. The 63 minute
call very well may have been an interview ... or one HELL of a long
message!<G> Most answering machines won't let you record that much, so
let's call it a conversation.

>>
Now Boswell:  the bills show a 34 minute call, placed at 5:31 p.m. on
April 2, 1992, to Kensington, MD.  They also show another call to the
same number later on the same evening, lasting for one minute,
beginning at 6:14. <<

... 5:31 plus 34 minutes is 6:05. Nine minutes later followed a
one-minute ("answering machine?") call. I don't know what to make of
such a call so shortly after a longer one (a short clarification
question? An attempt to reach back someone who did not wish to speak
any longer? The same might be asked of the latter calls to Tague, but
as above, I have no way of knowing), but must discount it as
significant in any way for reasons above.

>>
Finally, the bills show three calls to a number (presumably Humes') in
PNTVDRABC [sic] FL.  One, at 6:30 p.m. on April 2, 1992 lasted only a
minute. A second, on November 2, 1992 lasted 19 minutes, and began at
1:23 p.m. Finally, a one minute call was made a few minutes later (at
1:42). <<

The first and last calls are discounted for reasons already stated,
the last also subject to the same questions as above for Boswell. 1:23
plus 19 minutes is 1:42, the same time as the last call, suggesting
(or indicating) an immediate call-back.

You apparently have three different months' bills: Feb, April and Nov,
judging by the above info. April 2 included three calls, two to
Boswell and one to Humes, the last two apparently unanswered or very
short and insignificant. No further calls were apparently placed to
Humes for seven months, unless records exist on other bills, copies of
which were not sent to you. Since you got April and November but
nothing in between, I infer that there were no other calls placed to
these folks in between otherwise they'd have been "entered into
evidence," so to speak. Does this jive with your thinking?

As a side note, having been privy to conversations with both Humes and
Boswell, I must congratulate Gerald in getting Humes to talk for 19
minutes; it has to be a rare feat! Boswell seems congenial enough,
willing to talk with anyone and able to handle "controversy"
unflappably, and I can easily imagine getting a half-hour out of him.
Humes, otoh, seems to automatically react to people as being
contrarians even without apparent (to me) justification, and does not
seem willing to discuss this topic with anyone he so deems.
Unfortunately, of those conversations I'm aware of, no attempt was
apparently made (IMO) to dissuade or disabuse Humes from this notion,
and so the conversations were cut short abruptly. 19 minutes must be a
New World's Record!<G>

Also, based on that, my guess is that the last one-minute call to
Humes was, in fact, a hang-up or refusal to come to the phone. This
need not be linked to Posner's approach or comments, but rather to
Humes' overall refusal to discuss his "15 minutes of fame" with anyone
who seems to even slightly question him or his expertise/veracity in
any way (even by pointing out that *somebody else* said such-and-such
about whatnot by way of seeking HIS response or input).

That said, I look forward to getting the copies.

--Duke
  22- Feb- 95 at 10:07  OzST

#: 313948 S7/JFK Debate  [JFK4]
    22-Feb-95  00:47:37
Sb: #Posner Phone Records
Fm: John McAdams [WPUSERS] 71333,2114
To: Gary L. Aguilar 73653,2623 (X)

All:

I have Gerald Posner's phone records showing calls to (presumably)
Tague, Boswell, and Humes.

Posner's long distance carrier is MCI, and Posner has his calls billed
through his American Express card.  It so happens that I have a
similar MCI account billed through my American Express card, so I can
affirm that the layout, MCI logo, and typography of the bills Posner
sent me are identical to those I have received from AMEX.

Posner has redacted all information concerning phone calls to
individuals other that the three already mentioned.  He has also
redacted personal information about himself, including his AMEX
account number, his phone number, and his line of credit.

The bills show three calls to a number in Plano, TX (presumably
Tague's). One call, on January 19, 1992 was placed at 8:25 p.m. and
lasted for 63 minutes. On January 20, a one minute call was placed to
this number at 6:22 p.m., and a four minute call at 7:00 p.m.

Now Boswell:  the bills show a 34 minute call, placed at 5:31 p.m. on
April 2, 1992, to Kensington, MD.  They also show another call to the
same number later on the same evening, lasting for one minute,
beginning at 6:14.

Finally, the bills show three calls to a number (presumably Humes') in
PNTVDRABC [sic] FL.  One, at 6:30 p.m. on April 2, 1992 lasted only a
minute. A second, on November 2, 1992 lasted 19 minutes, and began at
1:23 p.m. Finally, a one minute call was made a few minutes later (at
1:42).

Steve Bochan, Duke Lane, are you two lurking?

I would like to ask both of you to serve as "honest brokers" who will
each receive a copy of the bills Posner sent me, and report right here
what you see.  You do not, of course, have to endorse Posner's version
of what these witnesses said.  You do not even have to say whether the
documents are genuine or not -- although I think you will each be
happy to report that they appear genuine.  The deal is that you just
report what's there.

One of the key things you will need to do is to confirm that the calls
are to Tague's, Boswell's, and Humes' phone numbers.  Duke, you have
these numbers, do you not?

Now Gary:  I might be willing to see whether Posner will allow me to
release these documents to one additional person.  If there is anybody
that you want them sent to, please say so now.  It has to be someone
who is a member here: we don't want your second-hand account of what
somebody said about the documents.

Frankly, given what you have said up to this point, Posner may feel no
inclination to accomodate you IN ANY WAY.  You have already made it
clear that you will insist the documents are forged, or that Posner
spent 30 minutes talking to Boswell's cat, or some such.  Why should
he show you evidence you are committed to disbelieving?

But if you want to suggest a name, I will pass it along.

I do hope this marks the end of your personal, mean-spirited, and
vindictive campaign against Posner.

John


There are 4 Replies.

#: 314833 S7/JFK Debate  [JFK4]
    23-Feb-95  23:41:42
Sb: #314035-Posner Phone Records
Fm: John McAdams [WPUSERS] 71333,2114
To: M. Duke Lane 76004,2356 (X)

Duke,

>>>
Since you got April and November but nothing in between, I infer that
there were no other calls placed to these folks in between otherwise
they'd have been "entered into evidence," so to speak. Does this jive
with your thinking? <<<


Correct, with the proviso that there are yet *another* three calls to
Humes (two lasting only a minute, and one lasting 28 minutes) that
Posner accidently redacted. I discovered that when I compared one of
his e-mail messages with the documents he actually sent me. The call
is on the April bill.

Posner admits he would not be qualified for a job in the federal
government redacting documents <g>.

He's going to send me the bill with the additional Humes call, but in
the meantime I'm sending you and Steve the documents I have.  I should
get then in the mail tomorrow and you should have them Monday.

Thanks for your help on this.

John

#: 321127 S7/JFK Debate  [JFK4]
    10-Mar-95  22:26:45
Sb: POSNER'S PHONE RECORDS
Fm: STEVE N. BOCHAN 74273,3457
To: John McAdams [WPUSERS] 71333,2114

John,

Per your request, I have examined the copy of what appears to be a
legitimate MCI phone bill from Gerald L. Posner. All pages have the
MCI and American Express logos printed on them.

*  For the record, the copies appear pretty much the way you described
several weeks ago: The first page is dated 2/16/92, with a small
handwritten note that says: "John - In the best tradition of redacted
docs <g> - " and a signature that appears to say "Gerald."  All of the
personal information on the page - as with all of the others - has
been redacted in black. Also, all 14 phone calls on the first page
have been redacted.

*  The second page is dated 2/26/92, and "Gerald L. Posner" is printed
at the top as the Card Member Name. There is a total of 69 phone calls
listed all of which have been redacted except for three. The three
that are visible are all the same telephone number which I have
corroborated independently as the number listed in the public phone
books for James Tague. The first call made was on 1/19/92, at 8:25
p.m. and lasted for 63 minutes.  The second call made was on 1/20/92,
at 6:22 p.m. and lasted for 1 minute and the third call made was also
on 1/20./92, at 7:00 p.m. and lasted for 4 minutes.

*  The third page is similar to the first page in that all 13 calls
and personal information has been redacted. It is dated 4/26/92.

*  The fourth page is dated 4/26/92, and "Gerald L. Posner" is printed
at the top as the Card Member Name. There is a total of 69 phone calls
listed all of which have been redacted except for three. Of the three
that are visible, two are the same.  These two numbers I have
corroborated independently as the number listed in the public phone
books for J.T. Boswell. The first call made was on 4/02/92, at 5:31
p.m. and lasted for 34 minutes.  The second call was a mis-dial of the
first one: two of the last numbers were inverted. It was made at 6:14
p.m. and only lasted 1 minute.

The third number I have corroborated independently as the number
listed publicly for J. Humes. This call was made on 4/02/92 at 6:30
p.m. and only lasted 1 minute.

*  The fifth page is similar to the first page in that all 13 calls
and personal information has been redacted. It is dated 11/25/94.

*  The sixth page is dated 11/25/92, and "Gerald L. Posner" is printed
at the top as the Card Member Name. There is a total of 68 phone calls
listed all of which have been redacted except for two. These two
numbers are the same numbers that I had already corroborated as the
phone number listed publicly for J. Humes.  The first call was made on
11/02/92 at 1:23 p.m. and lasted for 19 minutes.  The second call was
also made on 11/02/92 at 1:42 p.m. and lasted for only 1 minute.

                                    ***

John, I have a couple of suggestions and comments at this point.

First; I appreciate your allowing me to participate in this.  I know
it probably wasn't easy to convince Posner to turn over a copy of his
phone records to a "conspiracy person."

Second; why not give a copy of these phone bills to Gary Aguilar?  He
has the phone numbers of the three individuals anyway, so I doubt you
have to worry about him bothering these people after he receives the
copies. Let Gary see these for himself; after all the bet was between
the two of you.

Third; since you seem to have established yourself as someone to be
trusted by Gerald Posner, why not suggest to him that he and Gary
exchange each other's interview tapes with these people and allow both
Posner and Aguilar to then examine each other's taped interviews? From
what I'm reading on alt.conspiracy.jfk, Posner has apparently said he
will turn over his taped interview materials anyway for future
research. Why not turn over the materials now?  What's to be gained by
waiting?

I think that there is much more to be learned from actually listening
to the taped interviews conducted by both Posner and Aguilar - from
beginning to end - than there is by these phone records, although I do
not have any reason to believe these phone records are faked.  I know
Gary Aguilar is willing to allow Posner to listen to his entire taped
conversations with these men -- do you think Posner would also be
willing to do the same?

Fourth and finally; if you post this on alt.conspiracy.jfk I only
request that you post it as it appears on CompuServe - in its entirety
- and not delete anything.  Thanks.

STEVE

#: 322976 S7/JFK Debate  [JFK4]
    15-Mar-95  21:58:05
Sb: #321127-#POSNER'S PHONE RECORDS
Fm: M. Duke Lane 76004,2356
To: STEVE N. BOCHAN 74273,3457 (X)

Steve, for the record, I concur completely with your analysis of the
records we'd received, which in the event your message has scrolled,
was as follows:

        --- QUOTE ---

"*  For the record, the copies appear pretty much the way you
described several weeks ago: The first page is dated 2/16/92, with a
small handwritten note that says: "John - In the best tradition of
redacted docs <g> - " and a signature that appears to say "Gerald."
All of the personal information on the page - as with all of the
others - has been redacted in black. Also, all 14 phone calls on the
first page have been redacted.

"*  The second page is dated 2/26/92, and "Gerald L. Posner" is
printed at the top as the Card Member Name. There is a total of 69
phone calls listed all of which have been redacted except for three.
The three that are visible are all the same telephone number which I
have corroborated independently as the number listed in the public
phone books for James Tague. The first call made was on 1/19/92, at
8:25 p.m. and lasted for 63 minutes.  The second call made was on
1/20/92, at 6:22 p.m. and lasted for 1 minute and the third call made
was also on 1/20./92, at 7:00 p.m. and lasted for 4 minutes.

"*  The third page is similar to the first page in that all 13 calls
and personal information has been redacted. It is dated 4/26/92.

"*  The fourth page is dated 4/26/92, and "Gerald L. Posner" is
printed at the top as the Card Member Name. There is a total of 69
phone calls listed all of which have been redacted except for three.
Of the three that are visible, two are the same.  These two numbers I
have corroborated independently as the number listed in the public
phone books for J.T. Boswell. The first call made was on 4/02/92, at
5:31 p.m. and lasted for 34 minutes.  The second call was a mis-dial
of the first one: two of the last numbers were inverted. It was made
at 6:14 p.m. and only lasted 1 minute.

"The third number I have corroborated independently as the number
listed publicly for J. Humes. This call was made on 4/02/92 at 6:30
p.m. and only lasted 1 minute.

"*  The fifth page is similar to the first page in that all 13 calls
and personal information has been redacted. It is dated 11/25/94.

"*  The sixth page is dated 11/25/92, and "Gerald L. Posner" is
printed at the top as the Card Member Name. There is a total of 68
phone calls listed all of which have been redacted except for two.
These two numbers are the same numbers that I had already corroborated
as the phone number listed publicly for J. Humes.  The first call was
made on 11/02/92 at 1:23 p.m. and lasted for 19 minutes.  The second
call was also made on 11/02/92 at 1:42 p.m. and lasted for only 1
minute."

        --- END QUOTE ---

I further agree with your estimation that if "Posner has apparently
said he will turn over his taped interview materials anyway for future
research. Why not turn over the materials now?  What's to be gained by
waiting? I think that there is much more to be learned from actually
listening to the taped interviews conducted by both Posner and Aguilar
- from beginning to end - than there is by these phone records,
although I do not have any reason to believe these phone records are
faked."

The phone records seem to dispel the general notion that Gerald Posner
did NOT speak with Humes, Boswell or Tague, but they do not do so in a
definitive manner. Yes, he called their numbers, but did he actually
speak with the people in question and, more importantly, what did he
speak with them about and what did they have to say about the
topic(s)?

I am inclined to believe that he did speak with each of the people in
question; a 63-minute phone conversation with Tague's wife or daughter
doesn't seem to make much sense; what would they talk about for so
long? However, just as much at issue seems to be his representation of
what they had to say, as the issue of whether he talked with them.
We'll consider the latter settled; the former ...? Not.

I consider this an issue only because of my conversation with Sheriff
Jim Bowles whom, you may recall, Posner creditted with the discovery
of a bell or gong outside of the Trade Mart which could have been the
source of the carillion bell sounds on the DPD tape. Bowles does, in
fact, suggest this in his now-published manuscript, but with the
caveat that the existance of such a bell or gong (or whatever) is not
established, but merely a possibility based on some rumblings or other
he's heard over time. I have been unable to verify its existance, and
conversations with several people who still work at the Trade Mart
since 1963 suggest that there was, in fact, NO such bell or gong.

Furthermore, Bowles himself says that Posner lent this possibility
more importance than it deserved, and that he himself does not vouch
for its existance. It is also interesting to note that, considering
the potential enormity of such a discovery, while Bowles was used as a
source by Harry Livingstone in KTT *and* while Livingstone generally
decries the tapes as meaningful, Bowles' "discovery" is mentioned by
neither of the two men throughout KTT, even when it would have
bolstered Livingstones' denunciation.

Thus, in order to fully corroborate the account in CC, the taped
conversations are a must. The phone records, nevertheless, are an
important "first step" and I congratulate and thank Gerald for making
them available.

Wait for the other shoe to drop before passing final judgement.

--Duke
  Wednesday 15- Mar- 95 at 9:04 a EST

There is 1 Reply.

References

   1. mailto:6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
   2. news://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/alt.assassination.jfk
   3. newsreply://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/alt.assassination.jfk