On Sep 21, 9:09 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission guessed
> that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting Oswald.
> "Brennan swore to the Commission that the man he saw fire from the window 'was
> standing up and resting against the left window sill'. However, there could not
> have been a man standing and firing from there because, as photographs of the
> building taken within seconds of the assassination prove, the window was open
> only partially at the bottom, and one shooting from a standing position would
> have been obliged to fire through the glass. As the window pane was intact, the
> Commission was compelled to concede that 'although Brennan testified that the
> man in the window was standing when he fired the shots, most probably he was
> either sitting or kneeling.'"
> Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission was forced to contradict its own star
> witness.
On one detail, big deal. Brennan thought the guys on the 5th floor
were standing and they were kneeling also.
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
> > In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission guessed
> > that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting Oswald.
> > "Brennan swore to the Commission that the man he saw fire from the window 'was
> > standing up and resting against the left window sill'. However, there could not
> > have been a man standing and firing from there because, as photographs of the
> > building taken within seconds of the assassination prove, the window was open
> > only partially at the bottom, and one shooting from a standing position would
> > have been obliged to fire through the glass. As the window pane was intact, the
> > Commission was compelled to concede that 'although Brennan testified that the
> > man in the window was standing when he fired the shots, most probably he was
> > either sitting or kneeling.'"
> > Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission was forced to contradict its own star
> > witness.
> On one detail, big deal. Brennan thought the guys on the 5th floor
> were standing and they were kneeling also.
Poor little buddy. It'll never come home to you that arguing about
Brennan is a waste of time once you have proven that the M-C didn't
fire any bullets that went through JFK, and that Oswald wasn't
anywhere near the 6th floor window when the shots rang out.
With all the coverage of the stairwells, there's not much chance of
Oswald getting past everyone and not being seen, and if he had, he
would be breathing hard when they found him on the lower floor with a
coke in his hand, which he wasn't. And yet Brennan came up with a
perfect ID of Oswald, which all the other witnesses saw all kinds of
other things, like Euins that saw a large bald spot on the top of the
shooters head. And Euins was within 10 feet of Brennan and said that
it was hard to see anything the way the light was reflecting. He
couldn't even tell if the shooter was black or white, yet Brennan had
a perfect bead on Oswald!
>On Sep 21, 9:09=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission guessed
>> that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting Oswald.
>> "Brennan swore to the Commission that the man he saw fire from the window 'was
>> standing up and resting against the left window sill'. However, there could not
>> have been a man standing and firing from there because, as photographs of the
>> building taken within seconds of the assassination prove, the window was open
>> only partially at the bottom, and one shooting from a standing position would
>> have been obliged to fire through the glass. As the window pane was intact, the
>> Commission was compelled to concede that 'although Brennan testified that the
>> man in the window was standing when he fired the shots, most probably he was
>> either sitting or kneeling.'"
>> Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission was forced to contradict its own star
>> witness.
> On one detail, big deal. Brennan thought the guys on the 5th floor
>were standing and they were kneeling also.
And if you look at the Dillard photo, they *appear* to be standing.
It's interesting that the buffs will nitpick at irrelavant details of
witnesses they don't like, and ignore massive holes in the stories of
witnesses they find convenient.
BTW, Brennan was hardly a "star" witness. Commission counsel *asked*
him whether he had seen a picture of Oswald before he made the
(semi)identification in the lineup, and Brennan said he had.
Here is the WC conclusion about Brennan's testimony.
> On Sep 21, 6:19 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > On Sep 21, 9:09 am, Ben Holmes <> wrote:
> > > In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission guessed
> > > that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting Oswald.
> > > "Brennan swore to the Commission that the man he saw fire from the window 'was
> > > standing up and resting against the left window sill'. However, there could not
> > > have been a man standing and firing from there because, as photographs of the
> > > building taken within seconds of the assassination prove, the window was open
> > > only partially at the bottom, and one shooting from a standing position would
> > > have been obliged to fire through the glass. As the window pane was intact, the
> > > Commission was compelled to concede that 'although Brennan testified that the
> > > man in the window was standing when he fired the shots, most probably he was
> > > either sitting or kneeling.'"
> > > Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission was forced to contradict its own star
> > > witness.
> > On one detail, big deal. Brennan thought the guys on the 5th floor
> > were standing and they were kneeling also.
> Poor little buddy. It'll never come home to you that arguing about
> Brennan is a waste of time once you have proven that the M-C didn't
> fire any bullets that went through JFK, and that Oswald wasn't
> anywhere near the 6th floor window when the shots rang out.
Arguing with anyone who would assert something as silly as that is a
waste of time.
> With all the coverage of the stairwells, there's not much chance of
> Oswald getting past everyone and not being seen, and if he had, he
> would be breathing hard when they found him on the lower floor with a
> coke in his hand, which he wasn't.
On what do you base your idea that it is impossible for a fit man
in his early twenties with near zero body fat to run down 4 flights of
steps without being noticeably winded?
> And yet Brennan came up with a
> perfect ID of Oswald, which all the other witnesses saw all kinds of
> other things, like Euins that saw a large bald spot on the top of the
> shooters head. And Euins was within 10 feet of Brennan and said that
> it was hard to see anything the way the light was reflecting. He
> couldn't even tell if the shooter was black or white, yet Brennan had
> a perfect bead on Oswald!
Brennan saw the shooter, gave a description of the shooter that
matched Oswald and identified Oswald as the man he saw. That you don`t
like this is of no consequence, reality is not going to change to suit
you.
> On 21 Sep 2012 18:19:16 -0400, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 21, 9:09=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission guessed
>>> that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting Oswald.
>>> "Brennan swore to the Commission that the man he saw fire from the window 'was
>>> standing up and resting against the left window sill'. However, there could not
>>> have been a man standing and firing from there because, as photographs of the
>>> building taken within seconds of the assassination prove, the window was open
>>> only partially at the bottom, and one shooting from a standing position would
>>> have been obliged to fire through the glass. As the window pane was intact, the
>>> Commission was compelled to concede that 'although Brennan testified that the
>>> man in the window was standing when he fired the shots, most probably he was
>>> either sitting or kneeling.'"
>>> Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission was forced to contradict its own star
>>> witness.
>> On one detail, big deal. Brennan thought the guys on the 5th floor
>> were standing and they were kneeling also.
> And if you look at the Dillard photo, they *appear* to be standing.
> It's interesting that the buffs will nitpick at irrelavant details of
> witnesses they don't like, and ignore massive holes in the stories of
> witnesses they find convenient.
So you don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot.
> BTW, Brennan was hardly a "star" witness. Commission counsel *asked*
> him whether he had seen a picture of Oswald before he made the
> (semi)identification in the lineup, and Brennan said he had.
> Here is the WC conclusion about Brennan's testimony.
what brennan doesn't tell you is that he forgot where he was when he saw oswald, which was on the 1st floor gsbd, brennan was stopping by to see his old bud giancana and saw oz on the 1st floor?
> On Sep 21, 9:09 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> > In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission guessed
> > that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting Oswald.
> > "Brennan swore to the Commission that the man he saw fire from the window 'was
> > standing up and resting against the left window sill'. However, there could not
> > have been a man standing and firing from there because, as photographs of the
> > building taken within seconds of the assassination prove, the window was open
> > only partially at the bottom, and one shooting from a standing position would
> > have been obliged to fire through the glass. As the window pane was intact, the
> > Commission was compelled to concede that 'although Brennan testified that the
> > man in the window was standing when he fired the shots, most probably he was
> > either sitting or kneeling.'"
> > Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission was forced to contradict its own star
> > witness.
> On one detail, big deal. Brennan thought the guys on the 5th floor
> were standing and they were kneeling also.
Lane's wording is designed to paint Brennan in the worst light
possible. Brennan didn't "swear" (insist) that the man was standing;
he testified that that was how it appeared to him. That impression was
wrong, of course, but (as Lane fails to acknowledge) it was an easy
mistake to make under the circumstances.
> On 22 Sep., 00:19, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 21, 9:09 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission guessed
>>> that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting Oswald.
>>> "Brennan swore to the Commission that the man he saw fire from the window 'was
>>> standing up and resting against the left window sill'. However, there could not
>>> have been a man standing and firing from there because, as photographs of the
>>> building taken within seconds of the assassination prove, the window was open
>>> only partially at the bottom, and one shooting from a standing position would
>>> have been obliged to fire through the glass. As the window pane was intact, the
>>> Commission was compelled to concede that 'although Brennan testified that the
>>> man in the window was standing when he fired the shots, most probably he was
>>> either sitting or kneeling.'"
>>> Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission was forced to contradict its own star
>>> witness.
>> On one detail, big deal. Brennan thought the guys on the 5th floor
>> were standing and they were kneeling also.
> Lane's wording is designed to paint Brennan in the worst light
> possible. Brennan didn't "swear" (insist) that the man was standing;
> he testified that that was how it appeared to him. That impression was
> wrong, of course, but (as Lane fails to acknowledge) it was an easy
> mistake to make under the circumstances.
OK, did Brennan "swear" (under oath?) that he saw Oswald in the window?
Do you understand that Mark Lane was a DEFENSE attorney?
Do you understand that one of the jobs of a DEFENSE attorney is to attack the reliability of the prosecution witnesses?
>On 22 Sep., 00:19, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 21, 9:09=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> > In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission=
> guessed
>> > that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting Oswald.
>> > "Brennan swore to the Commission that the man he saw fire from the wind=
>ow 'was
>> > standing up and resting against the left window sill'. However, there c=
>ould not
>> > have been a man standing and firing from there because, as photographs =
>of the
>> > building taken within seconds of the assassination prove, the window wa=
>s open
>> > only partially at the bottom, and one shooting from a standing position=
> would
>> > have been obliged to fire through the glass. As the window pane was int=
>act, the
>> > Commission was compelled to concede that 'although Brennan testified th=
>at the
>> > man in the window was standing when he fired the shots, most probably h=
>e was
>> > either sitting or kneeling.'"
>> > Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission was forced to contradict its=
> own star
>> > witness.
>> On one detail, big deal. Brennan thought the guys on the 5th floor
>> were standing and they were kneeling also.
>Lane's wording is designed to paint Brennan in the worst light
>possible. Brennan didn't "swear" (insist)
You *do* know what testimony taken under oath is, right?
Why then, do you attempt to give it another meaning?
>that the man was standing;
>he testified that that was how it appeared to him. That impression was
>wrong, of course, but (as Lane fails to acknowledge) it was an easy
>mistake to make under the circumstances.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
> > On 22 Sep., 00:19, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> On Sep 21, 9:09 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission guessed
> >>> that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting Oswald.
> >>> "Brennan swore to the Commission that the man he saw fire from the window 'was
> >>> standing up and resting against the left window sill'. However, there could not
> >>> have been a man standing and firing from there because, as photographs of the
> >>> building taken within seconds of the assassination prove, the window was open
> >>> only partially at the bottom, and one shooting from a standing position would
> >>> have been obliged to fire through the glass. As the window pane was intact, the
> >>> Commission was compelled to concede that 'although Brennan testified that the
> >>> man in the window was standing when he fired the shots, most probably he was
> >>> either sitting or kneeling.'"
> >>> Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission was forced to contradict its own star
> >>> witness.
> >> On one detail, big deal. Brennan thought the guys on the 5th floor
> >> were standing and they were kneeling also.
> > Lane's wording is designed to paint Brennan in the worst light
> > possible. Brennan didn't "swear" (insist) that the man was standing;
> > he testified that that was how it appeared to him. That impression was
> > wrong, of course, but (as Lane fails to acknowledge) it was an easy
> > mistake to make under the circumstances.
> OK, did Brennan "swear" (under oath?) that he saw Oswald in the window?
> Do you understand that Mark Lane was a DEFENSE attorney?
> Do you understand that one of the jobs of a DEFENSE attorney is to
> attack the reliability of the prosecution witnesses?
Thanks, Tony. It can't have been easy to admit that your hero was
using cheap defense lawyer tactics.
> In article <7ffe419f-1030-49ae-b0c8-1f3e49b91...@l14g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> Mark Ulrik says...
> >On 22 Sep., 00:19, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> On Sep 21, 9:09=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> > In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission=
> > guessed
> >> > that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting Oswald.
> >> > "Brennan swore to the Commission that the man he saw fire from the wind=
> >ow 'was
> >> > standing up and resting against the left window sill'. However, there c=
> >ould not
> >> > have been a man standing and firing from there because, as photographs =
> >of the
> >> > building taken within seconds of the assassination prove, the window wa=
> >s open
> >> > only partially at the bottom, and one shooting from a standing position=
> > would
> >> > have been obliged to fire through the glass. As the window pane was int=
> >act, the
> >> > Commission was compelled to concede that 'although Brennan testified th=
> >at the
> >> > man in the window was standing when he fired the shots, most probably h=
> >e was
> >> > either sitting or kneeling.'"
> >> > Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission was forced to contradict its=
> > own star
> >> > witness.
> >> On one detail, big deal. Brennan thought the guys on the 5th floor
> >> were standing and they were kneeling also.
> >Lane's wording is designed to paint Brennan in the worst light
> >possible. Brennan didn't "swear" (insist)
> You *do* know what testimony taken under oath is, right?
I think we all know that Brennan was testifying under oath. There was
no need for Lane to emphasize it, unless he wanted to imply that
Brennan was somewhat adamant about his (mistaken) impression. Btw, you
do understand the semantic difference between standing and appearing
to be standing, don't you?
> Why then, do you attempt to give it another meaning?
Perhaps I was being too subtle for you. Or perhaps you simply don't
like to admit that your hero was employing cheap defense lawyer
tactics.
> >that the man was standing;
> >he testified that that was how it appeared to him. That impression was
> >wrong, of course, but (as Lane fails to acknowledge) it was an easy
> >mistake to make under the circumstances.
> In article <7ffe419f-1030-49ae-b0c8-1f3e49b91...@l14g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> Mark Ulrik says...
> >On 22 Sep., 00:19, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> On Sep 21, 9:09=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> > In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission=
> > guessed
> >> > that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting Oswald.
> >> > "Brennan swore to the Commission that the man he saw fire from the wind=
> >ow 'was
> >> > standing up and resting against the left window sill'. However, there c=
> >ould not
> >> > have been a man standing and firing from there because, as photographs =
> >of the
> >> > building taken within seconds of the assassination prove, the window wa=
> >s open
> >> > only partially at the bottom, and one shooting from a standing position=
> > would
> >> > have been obliged to fire through the glass. As the window pane was int=
> >act, the
> >> > Commission was compelled to concede that 'although Brennan testified th=
> >at the
> >> > man in the window was standing when he fired the shots, most probably h=
> >e was
> >> > either sitting or kneeling.'"
> >> > Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission was forced to contradict its=
> > own star
> >> > witness.
> >> On one detail, big deal. Brennan thought the guys on the 5th floor
> >> were standing and they were kneeling also.
> >Lane's wording is designed to paint Brennan in the worst light
> >possible. Brennan didn't "swear" (insist)
> You *do* know what testimony taken under oath is, right?
Like Brennan's? Yeah. But Lane used the word "swore" to imply
something else. Do you understand the difference between swearing that
the man was standing and testifying (whether under oath or not) that
the man *appeared* to be standing? Lane certainly does.
> Why then, do you attempt to give it another meaning?
Because Lane used "swore" to imply that Brennan was more emphatic than
he really was.
> Indeed, it's an outright *lie* on this kook's part to try to misrepresent sworn
> testimony as someone "insisting" on something. Two completely different
> concepts.
You are very close to calling your hero Lane a kook.
> Embarrassing that the kooks are so far under water that they have to simply lie
> about grammar.
Well, Lane *is* a lawyer. This is about semantics, btw, not grammar.
> >that the man was standing;
> >he testified that that was how it appeared to him. That impression was
> >wrong, of course, but (as Lane fails to acknowledge) it was an easy
> >mistake to make under the circumstances.
> On 25 Sep., 05:06, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <7ffe419f-1030-49ae-b0c8-1f3e49b91...@l14g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
>> Mark Ulrik says...
>>> On 22 Sep., 00:19, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 21, 9:09=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>>>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission=
>>> guessed
>>>>> that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting Oswald.
>>>>> "Brennan swore to the Commission that the man he saw fire from the wind=
>>> ow 'was
>>>>> standing up and resting against the left window sill'. However, there c=
>>> ould not
>>>>> have been a man standing and firing from there because, as photographs =
>>> of the
>>>>> building taken within seconds of the assassination prove, the window wa=
>>> s open
>>>>> only partially at the bottom, and one shooting from a standing position=
>>> would
>>>>> have been obliged to fire through the glass. As the window pane was int=
>>> act, the
>>>>> Commission was compelled to concede that 'although Brennan testified th=
>>> at the
>>>>> man in the window was standing when he fired the shots, most probably h=
>>> e was
>>>>> either sitting or kneeling.'"
>>>>> Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission was forced to contradict its=
>>> own star
>>>>> witness.
>>>> On one detail, big deal. Brennan thought the guys on the 5th floor
>>>> were standing and they were kneeling also.
>>> Lane's wording is designed to paint Brennan in the worst light
>>> possible. Brennan didn't "swear" (insist)
>> You *do* know what testimony taken under oath is, right?
> I think we all know that Brennan was testifying under oath. There was
> no need for Lane to emphasize it, unless he wanted to imply that
> Brennan was somewhat adamant about his (mistaken) impression. Btw, you
> do understand the semantic difference between standing and appearing
> to be standing, don't you?
I think that he was trying to make sure that the readers who are unfamiliar with the evidence would not think it was just hearsay.
>> Why then, do you attempt to give it another meaning?
> Perhaps I was being too subtle for you. Or perhaps you simply don't
> like to admit that your hero was employing cheap defense lawyer
> tactics.
>>> that the man was standing;
>>> he testified that that was how it appeared to him. That impression was
>>> wrong, of course, but (as Lane fails to acknowledge) it was an easy
>>> mistake to make under the circumstances.
>On 25 Sep., 05:06, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>In article <7ffe419f-1030-49ae-b0c8-1f3e49b91...@l14g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
>> Mark Ulrik says...
>> >On 22 Sep., 00:19, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sep 21, 9:09=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> > In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission=
>> > guessed
>> >> > that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting Oswald.
>> >> > "Brennan swore to the Commission that the man he saw fire from the wind=
>> >ow 'was
>> >> > standing up and resting against the left window sill'. However, there c=
>> >ould not
>> >> > have been a man standing and firing from there because, as photographs =
>> >of the
>> >> > building taken within seconds of the assassination prove, the window wa=
>> >s open
>> >> > only partially at the bottom, and one shooting from a standing position=
>> > would
>> >> > have been obliged to fire through the glass. As the window pane was int=
>> >act, the
>> >> > Commission was compelled to concede that 'although Brennan testified th=
>> >at the
>> >> > man in the window was standing when he fired the shots, most probably h=
>> >e was
>> >> > either sitting or kneeling.'"
>> >> > Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission was forced to contradict its=
>> > own star
>> >> > witness.
>> >> On one detail, big deal. Brennan thought the guys on the 5th floor
>> >> were standing and they were kneeling also.
>> >Lane's wording is designed to paint Brennan in the worst light
>> >possible. Brennan didn't "swear" (insist)
>> You *do* know what testimony taken under oath is, right?
>I think we all know that Brennan was testifying under oath.
That is, precisely, what Mark Lane stated. Why is it a lie on Mark Lane's part to correctly assert that Brennan's testimony was under oath?
How does this simple fact get twisted into a meaning *read into* Mark Lane's writing that simply doesn't exist?
Is Mark Lane so stupid that he cannot capitalize, italicize, or in some other way indicate that he's asserting that Brennen "insisted"?
Is Mark Lane so stupid that he can't use the English language in such a way that reasonable people will all understand what he's saying?
>There was
>no need for Lane to emphasize it,
I'm sure it bugs you that some people are accurate with historical fact.
You're pretending now that there was some sort of emphasis on the word.
Was it italicized? Was it in all caps? Just *what*, about that statement, leads you to believe that there's something diabolical about it?
Can you admit that testifying under oath is *NOT* the same as "insisting" on something? I know it wasn't you that said it (or more precisely, I know it was someone with a different name), but can you defend it?
>unless he wanted to imply that
>Brennan was somewhat adamant about his (mistaken) impression. Btw, you
>do understand the semantic difference between standing and appearing
>to be standing, don't you?
Why did Mark Lane "insist" on specifying that the alleged assassin was "resting against the left window sill?"
Could it be, that this was merely another fact that he was stating?
Just as he stated that this was under oath?
>> Why then, do you attempt to give it another meaning?
>Perhaps I was being too subtle for you. Or perhaps you simply don't
>like to admit that your hero was employing cheap defense lawyer
>tactics.
I see that you can't admit that testifying under oath is not the same thing as "insisting" ... if semantics are all you have, you don't have very much, do you?
Why would you claim that telling the historical truth is "employing cheap defense lawyer tactics?"
Do you claim when the Warren Commission report is describing testimony that it's "employing cheap prosecution lawyer tactics?"
Don't worry, those are rhetorical questions... I don't expect you to answer them.
>> >that the man was standing;
>> >he testified that that was how it appeared to him. That impression was
>> >wrong, of course, but (as Lane fails to acknowledge) it was an easy
>> >mistake to make under the circumstances.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
>On 25 Sep., 03:13, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>In article <7ffe419f-1030-49ae-b0c8-1f3e49b91...@l14g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
>> Mark Ulrik says...
>> >On 22 Sep., 00:19, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sep 21, 9:09=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> > In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission=
>> > guessed
>> >> > that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting Oswald.
>> >> > "Brennan swore to the Commission that the man he saw fire from the wind=
>> >ow 'was
>> >> > standing up and resting against the left window sill'. However, there c=
>> >ould not
>> >> > have been a man standing and firing from there because, as photographs =
>> >of the
>> >> > building taken within seconds of the assassination prove, the window wa=
>> >s open
>> >> > only partially at the bottom, and one shooting from a standing position=
>> > would
>> >> > have been obliged to fire through the glass. As the window pane was int=
>> >act, the
>> >> > Commission was compelled to concede that 'although Brennan testified th=
>> >at the
>> >> > man in the window was standing when he fired the shots, most probably h=
>> >e was
>> >> > either sitting or kneeling.'"
>> >> > Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission was forced to contradict its=
>> > own star
>> >> > witness.
>> >> On one detail, big deal. Brennan thought the guys on the 5th floor
>> >> were standing and they were kneeling also.
>> >Lane's wording is designed to paint Brennan in the worst light
>> >possible. Brennan didn't "swear" (insist)
>> You *do* know what testimony taken under oath is, right?
>Like Brennan's? Yeah. But Lane used the word "swore" to imply
>something else.
In fevered imagination, of course he did.
If this is the best that can be done to show that Mark Lane was a liar... that he simply told the truth, you're not convincing anyone.
>Do you understand the difference between swearing that
>the man was standing and testifying (whether under oath or not) that
>the man *appeared* to be standing? Lane certainly does.
Do you understand the difference between testifying under oath, and "insisting" on something?
>> Why then, do you attempt to give it another meaning?
>Because Lane used "swore" to imply that Brennan was more emphatic than
>he really was.
It's good that mind reading is alive and well.
The average person will simply have to read Mark Lane's perfectly understandable English words, and understand them for what they say.
>> Indeed, it's an outright *lie* on this kook's part to try to
>> misrepresent sworn testimony as someone "insisting" on something.
>> Two completely different concepts.
>You are very close to calling your hero Lane a kook.
You seem confused on who the "kook" is. Trust me, I certainly did *not* have Mark Lane in mind when I used the term.
>> Embarrassing that the kooks are so far under water that they have to
>> simply lie about grammar.
>Well, Lane *is* a lawyer. This is about semantics, btw, not grammar.
Does it embarrass you that I'm speaking about facts, and you're arguing grammar and semantics?
Does it embarrass you that another lawyer, Vincent Bugliosi, provably *LIED* about Carrico & Perry's testimony?
>> >that the man was standing;
>> >he testified that that was how it appeared to him. That impression was
>> >wrong, of course, but (as Lane fails to acknowledge) it was an easy
>> >mistake to make under the circumstances.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
In article <7ffe419f-1030-49ae-b0c8-1f3e49b91...@l14g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk> wrote:
> Lane's wording is designed to paint Brennan in the worst light
> possible. Brennan didn't "swear" (insist) that the man was standing;
> he testified that that was how it appeared to him. That impression was
> wrong, of course, but (as Lane fails to acknowledge) it was an easy
> mistake to make under the circumstances.
I don't see how anyone from more than 50 feet below would necessarily be able to tell whether the shooter was standing or kneeling anyway. In the Dillard photo showing Norman and Williams (I think) on the fifth floor seconds after the last shot was fired, if you didn't happen to already know that the bottom sills of the windows were close to the floor, there would be no way to tell that those men are kneeling rather than standing, since you can only see them from about mid-chest up.
> In article <e465ab39-9d2a-463c-985d-ff3094ba6...@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> mucher1 says...
> >On 25 Sep., 03:13, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >>In article <7ffe419f-1030-49ae-b0c8-1f3e49b91...@l14g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Mark Ulrik says...
> >> >On 22 Sep., 00:19, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Sep 21, 9:09=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> >> > In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission=
> >> > guessed
> >> >> > that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting Oswald.
> >> >> > "Brennan swore to the Commission that the man he saw fire from the wind=
> >> >ow 'was
> >> >> > standing up and resting against the left window sill'. However, there c=
> >> >ould not
> >> >> > have been a man standing and firing from there because, as photographs =
> >> >of the
> >> >> > building taken within seconds of the assassination prove, the window wa=
> >> >s open
> >> >> > only partially at the bottom, and one shooting from a standing position=
> >> > would
> >> >> > have been obliged to fire through the glass. As the window pane was int=
> >> >act, the
> >> >> > Commission was compelled to concede that 'although Brennan testified th=
> >> >at the
> >> >> > man in the window was standing when he fired the shots, most probably h=
> >> >e was
> >> >> > either sitting or kneeling.'"
> >> >> > Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission was forced to contradict its=
> >> > own star
> >> >> > witness.
> >> >> On one detail, big deal. Brennan thought the guys on the 5th floor
> >> >> were standing and they were kneeling also.
> >> >Lane's wording is designed to paint Brennan in the worst light
> >> >possible. Brennan didn't "swear" (insist)
> >> You *do* know what testimony taken under oath is, right?
> >Like Brennan's? Yeah. But Lane used the word "swore" to imply
> >something else.
> In fevered imagination, of course he did.
> If this is the best that can be done to show that Mark Lane was a liar...
> that he simply told the truth, you're not convincing anyone.
> >Do you understand the difference between swearing that
> >the man was standing and testifying (whether under oath or not) that
> >the man *appeared* to be standing? Lane certainly does.
> Do you understand the difference between testifying under oath, and
> "insisting" on something?
> >> Why then, do you attempt to give it another meaning?
> >Because Lane used "swore" to imply that Brennan was more emphatic than
> >he really was.
> It's good that mind reading is alive and well.
> The average person will simply have to read Mark Lane's perfectly
> understandable English words, and understand them for what they say.
> >> Indeed, it's an outright *lie* on this kook's part to try to
> >> misrepresent sworn testimony as someone "insisting" on something.
> >> Two completely different concepts.
> >You are very close to calling your hero Lane a kook.
> You seem confused on who the "kook" is. Trust me, I certainly did *not*
> have Mark Lane in mind when I used the term.
> >> Embarrassing that the kooks are so far under water that they have to
> >> simply lie about grammar.
> >Well, Lane *is* a lawyer. This is about semantics, btw, not grammar.
> Does it embarrass you that I'm speaking about facts, and you're arguing
> grammar and semantics?
The fact is that Lane choose the word "swore" to make it appear to
the reader to be more than it really was.
> Does it embarrass you that another lawyer, Vincent Bugliosi, provably
> *LIED* about Carrico & Perry's testimony?
Lane provably lied about CE 399 being "undeformed", but that doesn`t
seem to bother you.
> >> >that the man was standing;
> >> >he testified that that was how it appeared to him. That impression was
> >> >wrong, of course, but (as Lane fails to acknowledge) it was an easy
> >> >mistake to make under the circumstances.
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>In article ><7ffe419f-1030-49ae-b0c8-1f3e49b91...@l14g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk> wrote:
>> Lane's wording is designed to paint Brennan in the worst light
>> possible. Brennan didn't "swear" (insist) that the man was standing;
>> he testified that that was how it appeared to him. That impression was
>> wrong, of course, but (as Lane fails to acknowledge) it was an easy
>> mistake to make under the circumstances.
>I don't see how anyone from more than 50 feet below would necessarily be >able to tell whether the shooter was standing or kneeling anyway. In the >Dillard photo showing Norman and Williams (I think) on the fifth floor >seconds after the last shot was fired, if you didn't happen to already >know that the bottom sills of the windows were close to the floor, there >would be no way to tell that those men are kneeling rather than standing, >since you can only see them from about mid-chest up.
>I guess Mr. Lane left that little part out? ;-)
"Thus the Commission contradicted its own star witness in an essential aspect of his testimony?the posture of the assassin at the time of the crime. While concluding that 'the half-open window, the arrangement of the boxes, and the angle of the shots virtually preclude a standing position', the Commission considered it 'understandable, however, for Brennan to have believed that the man with the rifle was standing'. The Commission reached that conclusion because 'the window ledges in the Depository Building are lower than in most buildings', and 'from the street, this creates the impression that the person is standing." - Rush to Judgment, pg 84.
Looks to me like the person who "left" something out was the person who didn't bother to read what he's criticizing.
Would you like to retract your incorrect presumption?
My suspicion is that Tony Marsh is far from the only person in this censored forum who will refuse to correct the record when it's found that they are in error.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
>On Sep 25, 2:23=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <e465ab39-9d2a-463c-985d-ff3094ba6...@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> mucher1 says...
>> >On 25 Sep., 03:13, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >>In article <7ffe419f-1030-49ae-b0c8-1f3e49b91...@l14g2000yqo.googlegrou=
>ps.com>,
>> >> Mark Ulrik says...
>> >> >On 22 Sep., 00:19, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Sep 21, 9:09=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Comm=
>ission=3D
>> >> > guessed
>> >> >> > that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting O=
>swald.
>> >> >> > "Brennan swore to the Commission that the man he saw fire from th=
>e wind=3D
>> >> >ow 'was
>> >> >> > standing up and resting against the left window sill'. However, t=
>here c=3D
>> >> >ould not
>> >> >> > have been a man standing and firing from there because, as photog=
>raphs =3D
>> >> >of the
>> >> >> > building taken within seconds of the assassination prove, the win=
>dow wa=3D
>> >> >s open
>> >> >> > only partially at the bottom, and one shooting from a standing po=
>sition=3D
>> >> > would
>> >> >> > have been obliged to fire through the glass. As the window pane w=
>as int=3D
>> >> >act, the
>> >> >> > Commission was compelled to concede that 'although Brennan testif=
>ied th=3D
>> >> >at the
>> >> >> > man in the window was standing when he fired the shots, most prob=
>ably h=3D
>> >> >e was
>> >> >> > either sitting or kneeling.'"
>> >> >> > Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission was forced to contradi=
>ct its=3D
>> >> > own star
>> >> >> > witness.
>> >> >> On one detail, big deal. Brennan thought the guys on the 5th floor
>> >> >> were standing and they were kneeling also.
>> >> >Lane's wording is designed to paint Brennan in the worst light
>> >> >possible. Brennan didn't "swear" (insist)
>> >> You *do* know what testimony taken under oath is, right?
>> >Like Brennan's? Yeah. But Lane used the word "swore" to imply
>> >something else.
>> In fevered imagination, of course he did.
>> If this is the best that can be done to show that Mark Lane was a liar...
>> that he simply told the truth, you're not convincing anyone.
>> >Do you understand the difference between swearing that
>> >the man was standing and testifying (whether under oath or not) that
>> >the man *appeared* to be standing? Lane certainly does.
>> Do you understand the difference between testifying under oath, and
>> "insisting" on something?
Dead silence...
>> >> Why then, do you attempt to give it another meaning?
>> >Because Lane used "swore" to imply that Brennan was more emphatic than
>> >he really was.
>> It's good that mind reading is alive and well.
>> The average person will simply have to read Mark Lane's perfectly
>> understandable English words, and understand them for what they say.
Dead silence...
>> >> Indeed, it's an outright *lie* on this kook's part to try to
>> >> misrepresent sworn testimony as someone "insisting" on something.
>> >> Two completely different concepts.
>> >You are very close to calling your hero Lane a kook.
>> You seem confused on who the "kook" is. Trust me, I certainly did *not*
>> have Mark Lane in mind when I used the term.
More dead silence...
>> >> Embarrassing that the kooks are so far under water that they have to
>> >> simply lie about grammar.
>> >Well, Lane *is* a lawyer. This is about semantics, btw, not grammar.
>> Does it embarrass you that I'm speaking about facts, and you're arguing
>> grammar and semantics?
Rhetorical question, I never expect LNT'ers to be willing to answer...
> The fact is that Lane choose the word "swore" to make it appear to
>the reader to be more than it really was.
Nope. My personal mind reader whom I have on a monthly retainer, has assured me that this is absolutely false.
>> Does it embarrass you that another lawyer, Vincent Bugliosi, provably
>> *LIED* about Carrico & Perry's testimony?
Another question that LNT'ers simply cannot answer...
> Lane provably lied about CE 399 being "undeformed", but that doesn`t
>seem to bother you.
Come up with the topic, and I'll be happy to explain it to you. My suspicion is that you really aren't interested in the explanation... and will forever avoid stating the topic that Mark Lane was discussing.
>> >> >that the man was standing;
>> >> >he testified that that was how it appeared to him. That impression was
>> >> >wrong, of course, but (as Lane fails to acknowledge) it was an easy
>> >> >mistake to make under the circumstances.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
> In article <e465ab39-9d2a-463c-985d-ff3094ba6...@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> mucher1 says...
> >On 25 Sep., 03:13, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >>In article <7ffe419f-1030-49ae-b0c8-1f3e49b91...@l14g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Mark Ulrik says...
> >> >On 22 Sep., 00:19, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Sep 21, 9:09=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> >> > In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission=
> >> > guessed
> >> >> > that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting Oswald.
> >> >> > "Brennan swore to the Commission that the man he saw fire from the wind=
> >> >ow 'was
> >> >> > standing up and resting against the left window sill'. However, there c=
> >> >ould not
> >> >> > have been a man standing and firing from there because, as photographs =
> >> >of the
> >> >> > building taken within seconds of the assassination prove, the window wa=
> >> >s open
> >> >> > only partially at the bottom, and one shooting from a standing position=
> >> > would
> >> >> > have been obliged to fire through the glass. As the window pane was int=
> >> >act, the
> >> >> > Commission was compelled to concede that 'although Brennan testified th=
> >> >at the
> >> >> > man in the window was standing when he fired the shots, most probably h=
> >> >e was
> >> >> > either sitting or kneeling.'"
> >> >> > Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission was forced to contradict its=
> >> > own star
> >> >> > witness.
> >> >> On one detail, big deal. Brennan thought the guys on the 5th floor
> >> >> were standing and they were kneeling also.
> >> >Lane's wording is designed to paint Brennan in the worst light
> >> >possible. Brennan didn't "swear" (insist)
> >> You *do* know what testimony taken under oath is, right?
> >Like Brennan's? Yeah. But Lane used the word "swore" to imply
> >something else.
> In fevered imagination, of course he did.
> If this is the best that can be done to show that Mark Lane was a liar...
> that he simply told the truth, you're not convincing anyone.
I only said he was employing cheap defense lawyer tactics. The rest is
your imagination running wild.
> >Do you understand the difference between swearing that
> >the man was standing and testifying (whether under oath or not) that
> >the man *appeared* to be standing? Lane certainly does.
> Do you understand the difference between testifying under oath, and
> "insisting" on something?
The word used by Lane was "swore." He also left out the "as it
appeared to me" bit when quoting Brennan. You're very naive if you
believe that was an unintentional slip on Lane's part.
> >> Why then, do you attempt to give it another meaning?
> >Because Lane used "swore" to imply that Brennan was more emphatic than
> >he really was.
> It's good that mind reading is alive and well.
> The average person will simply have to read Mark Lane's perfectly
> understandable English words, and understand them for what they say.
Reading Lane's words, the average person would be left with the
impression that the witness was more assertive than he actually was.
Why do you think Lane left out the qualifier "as it appeared to
me"...?
> >> Indeed, it's an outright *lie* on this kook's part to try to
> >> misrepresent sworn testimony as someone "insisting" on something.
> >> Two completely different concepts.
> >You are very close to calling your hero Lane a kook.
> You seem confused on who the "kook" is. Trust me, I certainly did *not*
> have Mark Lane in mind when I used the term.
Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.
> >> Embarrassing that the kooks are so far under water that they have to
> >> simply lie about grammar.
> >Well, Lane *is* a lawyer. This is about semantics, btw, not grammar.
> Does it embarrass you that I'm speaking about facts, and you're arguing
> grammar and semantics?
What facts? You're simply in denial.
> Does it embarrass you that another lawyer, Vincent Bugliosi, provably
> *LIED* about Carrico & Perry's testimony?
You found a single error in a 1600+ page book? Wow! I guess that means
we can conveniently forget all the good information and analysis.
> >> >that the man was standing;
> >> >he testified that that was how it appeared to him. That impression was
> >> >wrong, of course, but (as Lane fails to acknowledge) it was an easy
> >> >mistake to make under the circumstances.
> > On 22 Sep., 00:19, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> On Sep 21, 9:09 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission guessed
> >>> that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting Oswald.
> >>> "Brennan swore to the Commission that the man he saw fire from the window 'was
> >>> standing up and resting against the left window sill'. However, there could not
> >>> have been a man standing and firing from there because, as photographs of the
> >>> building taken within seconds of the assassination prove, the window was open
> >>> only partially at the bottom, and one shooting from a standing position would
> >>> have been obliged to fire through the glass. As the window pane was intact, the
> >>> Commission was compelled to concede that 'although Brennan testified that the
> >>> man in the window was standing when he fired the shots, most probably he was
> >>> either sitting or kneeling.'"
> >>> Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission was forced to contradict its own star
> >>> witness.
> >> On one detail, big deal. Brennan thought the guys on the 5th floor
> >> were standing and they were kneeling also.
> > Lane's wording is designed to paint Brennan in the worst light
> > possible. Brennan didn't "swear" (insist) that the man was standing;
> > he testified that that was how it appeared to him. That impression was
> > wrong, of course, but (as Lane fails to acknowledge) it was an easy
> > mistake to make under the circumstances.
> OK, did Brennan "swear" (under oath?) that he saw Oswald in the window?
> Do you understand that Mark Lane was a DEFENSE attorney?
> Do you understand that one of the jobs of a DEFENSE attorney is to
> attack the reliability of the prosecution witnesses?
We understand that Lane is a SERIAL liar in the matter of the JFK
assassination and will use ANY TACTIC to get Oswald off the hook.
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
> >> >> >> > In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Comm=
> >ission=3D
> >> >> > guessed
> >> >> >> > that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting O=
> >swald.
> >> >> >> > "Brennan swore to the Commission that the man he saw fire from th=
> >e wind=3D
> >> >> >ow 'was
> >> >> >> > standing up and resting against the left window sill'. However, t=
> >here c=3D
> >> >> >ould not
> >> >> >> > have been a man standing and firing from there because, as photog=
> >raphs =3D
> >> >> >of the
> >> >> >> > building taken within seconds of the assassination prove, the win=
> >dow wa=3D
> >> >> >s open
> >> >> >> > only partially at the bottom, and one shooting from a standing po=
> >sition=3D
> >> >> > would
> >> >> >> > have been obliged to fire through the glass. As the window pane w=
> >as int=3D
> >> >> >act, the
> >> >> >> > Commission was compelled to concede that 'although Brennan testif=
> >ied th=3D
> >> >> >at the
> >> >> >> > man in the window was standing when he fired the shots, most prob=
> >ably h=3D
> >> >> >e was
> >> >> >> > either sitting or kneeling.'"
> >> >> >> > Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission was forced to contradi=
> >ct its=3D
> >> >> > own star
> >> >> >> > witness.
> >> >> >> On one detail, big deal. Brennan thought the guys on the 5th floor
> >> >> >> were standing and they were kneeling also.
> >> >> >Lane's wording is designed to paint Brennan in the worst light
> >> >> >possible. Brennan didn't "swear" (insist)
> >> >> You *do* know what testimony taken under oath is, right?
> >> >Like Brennan's? Yeah. But Lane used the word "swore" to imply
> >> >something else.
> >> In fevered imagination, of course he did.
> >> If this is the best that can be done to show that Mark Lane was a liar...
> >> that he simply told the truth, you're not convincing anyone.
> >> >Do you understand the difference between swearing that
> >> >the man was standing and testifying (whether under oath or not) that
> >> >the man *appeared* to be standing? Lane certainly does.
> >> Do you understand the difference between testifying under oath, and
> >> "insisting" on something?
> Dead silence...
> >> >> Why then, do you attempt to give it another meaning?
> >> >Because Lane used "swore" to imply that Brennan was more emphatic than
> >> >he really was.
> >> It's good that mind reading is alive and well.
> >> The average person will simply have to read Mark Lane's perfectly
> >> understandable English words, and understand them for what they say.
> Dead silence...
> >> >> Indeed, it's an outright *lie* on this kook's part to try to
> >> >> misrepresent sworn testimony as someone "insisting" on something.
> >> >> Two completely different concepts.
> >> >You are very close to calling your hero Lane a kook.
> >> You seem confused on who the "kook" is. Trust me, I certainly did *not*
> >> have Mark Lane in mind when I used the term.
> More dead silence...
> >> >> Embarrassing that the kooks are so far under water that they have to
> >> >> simply lie about grammar.
> >> >Well, Lane *is* a lawyer. This is about semantics, btw, not grammar.
> >> Does it embarrass you that I'm speaking about facts, and you're arguing
> >> grammar and semantics?
> Rhetorical question, I never expect LNT'ers to be willing to answer...
> > The fact is that Lane choose the word "swore" to make it appear to
> >the reader to be more than it really was.
> Nope. My personal mind reader whom I have on a monthly retainer, has
> assured me that this is absolutely false.
> >> Does it embarrass you that another lawyer, Vincent Bugliosi, provably
> >> *LIED* about Carrico & Perry's testimony?
> Another question that LNT'ers simply cannot answer...
> > Lane provably lied about CE 399 being "undeformed", but that doesn`t
> >seem to bother you.
> Come up with the topic, and I'll be happy to explain it to you. My
> suspicion is that you really aren't interested in the explanation... and
> will forever avoid stating the topic that Mark Lane was discussing.
> >> >> >that the man was standing;
> >> >> >he testified that that was how it appeared to him. That impression was
> >> >> >wrong, of course, but (as Lane fails to acknowledge) it was an easy
> >> >> >mistake to make under the circumstances.
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>> >> >> >> > In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren C=
>omm=3D
>> >ission=3D3D
>> >> >> > guessed
>> >> >> >> > that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wantin=
>g O=3D
>> >swald.
>> >> >> >> > "Brennan swore to the Commission that the man he saw fire from=
> th=3D
>> >e wind=3D3D
>> >> >> >ow 'was
>> >> >> >> > standing up and resting against the left window sill'. However=
>, t=3D
>> >here c=3D3D
>> >> >> >ould not
>> >> >> >> > have been a man standing and firing from there because, as pho=
>tog=3D
>> >raphs =3D3D
>> >> >> >of the
>> >> >> >> > building taken within seconds of the assassination prove, the =
>win=3D
>> >dow wa=3D3D
>> >> >> >s open
>> >> >> >> > only partially at the bottom, and one shooting from a standing=
> po=3D
>> >sition=3D3D
>> >> >> > would
>> >> >> >> > have been obliged to fire through the glass. As the window pan=
>e w=3D
>> >as int=3D3D
>> >> >> >act, the
>> >> >> >> > Commission was compelled to concede that 'although Brennan tes=
>tif=3D
>> >ied th=3D3D
>> >> >> >at the
>> >> >> >> > man in the window was standing when he fired the shots, most p=
>rob=3D
>> >ably h=3D3D
>> >> >> >e was
>> >> >> >> > either sitting or kneeling.'"
>> >> >> >> > Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission was forced to contr=
>adi=3D
>> >ct its=3D3D
>> >> >> > own star
>> >> >> >> > witness.
>> >> >> >> On one detail, big deal. Brennan thought the guys on the 5th flo=
>or
>> >> >> >> were standing and they were kneeling also.
>> >> >> >Lane's wording is designed to paint Brennan in the worst light
>> >> >> >possible. Brennan didn't "swear" (insist)
>> >> >> You *do* know what testimony taken under oath is, right?
>> >> >Like Brennan's? Yeah. But Lane used the word "swore" to imply
>> >> >something else.
>> >> In fevered imagination, of course he did.
>> >> If this is the best that can be done to show that Mark Lane was a liar=
>...
>> >> that he simply told the truth, you're not convincing anyone.
>> >> >Do you understand the difference between swearing that
>> >> >the man was standing and testifying (whether under oath or not) that
>> >> >the man *appeared* to be standing? Lane certainly does.
>> >> Do you understand the difference between testifying under oath, and
>> >> "insisting" on something?
>> Dead silence...
>> >> >> Why then, do you attempt to give it another meaning?
>> >> >Because Lane used "swore" to imply that Brennan was more emphatic tha=
>n
>> >> >he really was.
>> >> It's good that mind reading is alive and well.
>> >> The average person will simply have to read Mark Lane's perfectly
>> >> understandable English words, and understand them for what they say.
>> Dead silence...
>> >> >> Indeed, it's an outright *lie* on this kook's part to try to
>> >> >> misrepresent sworn testimony as someone "insisting" on something.
>> >> >> Two completely different concepts.
>> >> >You are very close to calling your hero Lane a kook.
>> >> You seem confused on who the "kook" is. Trust me, I certainly did *not=
>*
>> >> have Mark Lane in mind when I used the term.
>> More dead silence...
>> >> >> Embarrassing that the kooks are so far under water that they have t=
>o
>> >> >> simply lie about grammar.
>> >> >Well, Lane *is* a lawyer. This is about semantics, btw, not grammar.
>> >> Does it embarrass you that I'm speaking about facts, and you're arguin=
>g
>> >> grammar and semantics?
>> Rhetorical question, I never expect LNT'ers to be willing to answer...
>> > =A0The fact is that Lane choose the word "swore" to make it appear to
>> >the reader to be more than it really was.
>> Nope. My personal mind reader whom I have on a monthly retainer, has
>> assured me that this is absolutely false.
>> >> Does it embarrass you that another lawyer, Vincent Bugliosi, provably
>> >> *LIED* about Carrico & Perry's testimony?
>> Another question that LNT'ers simply cannot answer...
>> > =A0Lane provably lied about CE 399 being "undeformed", but that doesn`t
>> >seem to bother you.
>> Come up with the topic, and I'll be happy to explain it to you. My
>> suspicion is that you really aren't interested in the explanation... and
>> will forever avoid stating the topic that Mark Lane was discussing.
> Lies are lies, regardless of the topic.
Still running from that topic... Seems that my suspicion is absolutely correct.
>> >> >> >that the man was standing;
>> >> >> >he testified that that was how it appeared to him. That impression=
> was
>> >> >> >wrong, of course, but (as Lane fails to acknowledge) it was an eas=
>y
>> >> >> >mistake to make under the circumstances.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
> >> >> >> >> > In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren C=
> >omm=3D
> >> >ission=3D3D
> >> >> >> > guessed
> >> >> >> >> > that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wantin=
> >g O=3D
> >> >swald.
> >> >> >> >> > "Brennan swore to the Commission that the man he saw fire from=
> > th=3D
> >> >e wind=3D3D
> >> >> >> >ow 'was
> >> >> >> >> > standing up and resting against the left window sill'. However=
> >, t=3D
> >> >here c=3D3D
> >> >> >> >ould not
> >> >> >> >> > have been a man standing and firing from there because, as pho=
> >tog=3D
> >> >raphs =3D3D
> >> >> >> >of the
> >> >> >> >> > building taken within seconds of the assassination prove, the =
> >win=3D
> >> >dow wa=3D3D
> >> >> >> >s open
> >> >> >> >> > only partially at the bottom, and one shooting from a standing=
> > po=3D
> >> >sition=3D3D
> >> >> >> > would
> >> >> >> >> > have been obliged to fire through the glass. As the window pan=
> >e w=3D
> >> >as int=3D3D
> >> >> >> >act, the
> >> >> >> >> > Commission was compelled to concede that 'although Brennan tes=
> >tif=3D
> >> >ied th=3D3D
> >> >> >> >at the
> >> >> >> >> > man in the window was standing when he fired the shots, most p=
> >rob=3D
> >> >ably h=3D3D
> >> >> >> >e was
> >> >> >> >> > either sitting or kneeling.'"
> >> >> >> >> > Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission was forced to contr=
> >adi=3D
> >> >ct its=3D3D
> >> >> >> > own star
> >> >> >> >> > witness.
> >> >> >> >> On one detail, big deal. Brennan thought the guys on the 5th flo=
> >or
> >> >> >> >> were standing and they were kneeling also.
> >> >> >> >Lane's wording is designed to paint Brennan in the worst light
> >> >> >> >possible. Brennan didn't "swear" (insist)
> >> >> >> You *do* know what testimony taken under oath is, right?
> >> >> >Like Brennan's? Yeah. But Lane used the word "swore" to imply
> >> >> >something else.
> >> >> In fevered imagination, of course he did.
> >> >> If this is the best that can be done to show that Mark Lane was a liar=
> >...
> >> >> that he simply told the truth, you're not convincing anyone.
> >> >> >Do you understand the difference between swearing that
> >> >> >the man was standing and testifying (whether under oath or not) that
> >> >> >the man *appeared* to be standing? Lane certainly does.
> >> >> Do you understand the difference between testifying under oath, and
> >> >> "insisting" on something?
> >> Dead silence...
> >> >> >> Why then, do you attempt to give it another meaning?
> >> >> >Because Lane used "swore" to imply that Brennan was more emphatic tha=
> >n
> >> >> >he really was.
> >> >> It's good that mind reading is alive and well.
> >> >> The average person will simply have to read Mark Lane's perfectly
> >> >> understandable English words, and understand them for what they say.
> >> Dead silence...
> >> >> >> Indeed, it's an outright *lie* on this kook's part to try to
> >> >> >> misrepresent sworn testimony as someone "insisting" on something.
> >> >> >> Two completely different concepts.
> >> >> >You are very close to calling your hero Lane a kook.
> >> >> You seem confused on who the "kook" is. Trust me, I certainly did *not=
> >*
> >> >> have Mark Lane in mind when I used the term.
> >> More dead silence...
> >> >> >> Embarrassing that the kooks are so far under water that they have t=
> >o
> >> >> >> simply lie about grammar.
> >> >> >Well, Lane *is* a lawyer. This is about semantics, btw, not grammar.
> >> >> Does it embarrass you that I'm speaking about facts, and you're arguin=
> >g
> >> >> grammar and semantics?
> >> Rhetorical question, I never expect LNT'ers to be willing to answer...
> >> > =A0The fact is that Lane choose the word "swore" to make it appear to
> >> >the reader to be more than it really was.
> >> Nope. My personal mind reader whom I have on a monthly retainer, has
> >> assured me that this is absolutely false.
> >> >> Does it embarrass you that another lawyer, Vincent Bugliosi, provably
> >> >> *LIED* about Carrico & Perry's testimony?
> >> Another question that LNT'ers simply cannot answer...
> >> > =A0Lane provably lied about CE 399 being "undeformed", but that doesn`t
> >> >seem to bother you.
> >> Come up with the topic, and I'll be happy to explain it to you. My
> >> suspicion is that you really aren't interested in the explanation... and
> >> will forever avoid stating the topic that Mark Lane was discussing.
> > Lies are lies, regardless of the topic.
> Still running from that topic...
You are running from the truth that I just wrote. Lies are lies
regardless of the topic.
> >> >> >> >that the man was standing;
> >> >> >> >he testified that that was how it appeared to him. That impression=
> > was
> >> >> >> >wrong, of course, but (as Lane fails to acknowledge) it was an eas=
> >y
> >> >> >> >mistake to make under the circumstances.
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>> >> >> >> >> > In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warre=
>n C=3D
>> >omm=3D3D
>> >> >ission=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > guessed
>> >> >> >> >> > that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wan=
>tin=3D
>> >g O=3D3D
>> >> >swald.
>> >> >> >> >> > "Brennan swore to the Commission that the man he saw fire f=
>rom=3D
>> > th=3D3D
>> >> >e wind=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >ow 'was
>> >> >> >> >> > standing up and resting against the left window sill'. Howe=
>ver=3D
>> >, t=3D3D
>> >> >here c=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >ould not
>> >> >> >> >> > have been a man standing and firing from there because, as =
>pho=3D
>> >tog=3D3D
>> >> >raphs =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >of the
>> >> >> >> >> > building taken within seconds of the assassination prove, t=
>he =3D
>> >win=3D3D
>> >> >dow wa=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >s open
>> >> >> >> >> > only partially at the bottom, and one shooting from a stand=
>ing=3D
>> > po=3D3D
>> >> >sition=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > would
>> >> >> >> >> > have been obliged to fire through the glass. As the window =
>pan=3D
>> >e w=3D3D
>> >> >as int=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >act, the
>> >> >> >> >> > Commission was compelled to concede that 'although Brennan =
>tes=3D
>> >tif=3D3D
>> >> >ied th=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >at the
>> >> >> >> >> > man in the window was standing when he fired the shots, mos=
>t p=3D
>> >rob=3D3D
>> >> >ably h=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >e was
>> >> >> >> >> > either sitting or kneeling.'"
>> >> >> >> >> > Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission was forced to co=
>ntr=3D
>> >adi=3D3D
>> >> >ct its=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> > own star
>> >> >> >> >> > witness.
>> >> >> >> >> On one detail, big deal. Brennan thought the guys on the 5th =
>flo=3D
>> >or
>> >> >> >> >> were standing and they were kneeling also.
>> >> >> >> >Lane's wording is designed to paint Brennan in the worst light
>> >> >> >> >possible. Brennan didn't "swear" (insist)
>> >> >> >> You *do* know what testimony taken under oath is, right?
>> >> >> >Like Brennan's? Yeah. But Lane used the word "swore" to imply
>> >> >> >something else.
>> >> >> In fevered imagination, of course he did.
>> >> >> If this is the best that can be done to show that Mark Lane was a l=
>iar=3D
>> >...
>> >> >> that he simply told the truth, you're not convincing anyone.
>> >> >> >Do you understand the difference between swearing that
>> >> >> >the man was standing and testifying (whether under oath or not) th=
>at
>> >> >> >the man *appeared* to be standing? Lane certainly does.
>> >> >> Do you understand the difference between testifying under oath, and
>> >> >> "insisting" on something?
>> >> Dead silence...
>> >> >> >> Why then, do you attempt to give it another meaning?
>> >> >> >Because Lane used "swore" to imply that Brennan was more emphatic =
>tha=3D
>> >n
>> >> >> >he really was.
>> >> >> It's good that mind reading is alive and well.
>> >> >> The average person will simply have to read Mark Lane's perfectly
>> >> >> understandable English words, and understand them for what they say=
>.
>> >> Dead silence...
>> >> >> >> Indeed, it's an outright *lie* on this kook's part to try to
>> >> >> >> misrepresent sworn testimony as someone "insisting" on something=
>.
>> >> >> >> Two completely different concepts.
>> >> >> >You are very close to calling your hero Lane a kook.
>> >> >> You seem confused on who the "kook" is. Trust me, I certainly did *=
>not=3D
>> >*
>> >> >> have Mark Lane in mind when I used the term.
>> >> More dead silence...
>> >> >> >> Embarrassing that the kooks are so far under water that they hav=
>e t=3D
>> >o
>> >> >> >> simply lie about grammar.
>> >> >> >Well, Lane *is* a lawyer. This is about semantics, btw, not gramma=
>r.
>> >> >> Does it embarrass you that I'm speaking about facts, and you're arg=
>uin=3D
>> >g
>> >> >> grammar and semantics?
>> >> Rhetorical question, I never expect LNT'ers to be willing to answer...
>> >> > =3DA0The fact is that Lane choose the word "swore" to make it appear=
> to
>> >> >the reader to be more than it really was.
>> >> Nope. My personal mind reader whom I have on a monthly retainer, has
>> >> assured me that this is absolutely false.
>> >> >> Does it embarrass you that another lawyer, Vincent Bugliosi, provab=
>ly
>> >> >> *LIED* about Carrico & Perry's testimony?
>> >> Another question that LNT'ers simply cannot answer...
>> >> > =3DA0Lane provably lied about CE 399 being "undeformed", but that do=
>esn`t
>> >> >seem to bother you.
>> >> Come up with the topic, and I'll be happy to explain it to you. My
>> >> suspicion is that you really aren't interested in the explanation... a=
>nd
>> >> will forever avoid stating the topic that Mark Lane was discussing.
>> > =A0Lies are lies, regardless of the topic.
>> Still running from that topic...
> You are running from the truth that I just wrote. Lies are lies
>regardless of the topic.
Actually, I *PROVED* that this isn't true, and you refused to respond to it.
Truth or lie: "Queen's Bishop pawn to QB4."
Unless you know the topic, *YOU CAN'T CORRECTLY ANSWER!*
>>Seems that my suspicion is absolutely
>> correct.
>> >> >> >> >that the man was standing;
>> >> >> >> >he testified that that was how it appeared to him. That impress=
>ion=3D
>> > was
>> >> >> >> >wrong, of course, but (as Lane fails to acknowledge) it was an =
>eas=3D
>> >y
>> >> >> >> >mistake to make under the circumstances.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
