Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Lying The Mark Lane Way # 7 (RTJ Book)
26 views
Skip to first unread message
timstter
Jun 10, 2012, 8:33:00 AM6/10/12
to
Hi All,
Yet MORE evidence of Mark Lane outrightly LYING in his book, Rush To
Judgment has been found. This is from page 44 of the Thunder's Mouth
edition of the book (courtesy of Ben Holmes!):
QUOTE ON:
There is some evidence to suggest that one or more shots may have been
fired from the Book Depository, as the Warren Commission maintained.
It is considerably less compelling than the evidence suggesting that
shots came from behind the fence.
QUOTE OFF
The evidence of a TSBD shooter is CONSIDERABLY LESS COMPELLING than
the evidence suggesting a Grassy Knoll shooter?!!
What planet was Lane on when he wrote THAT?!!
Let's see now, evidence suggesting a TSBD shooter includes several
people seeing either a rifleman in the window, or the rifle being
pulled back inside after the shooting; a man one floor below who heard
three shells hitting the floor above him as the shots were fired;
three recovered shells at the window the shooter was seen in, tying
with three shots as heard by the majority of ear witnesses; a rifle
recovered from the floor the man was seen shooting from; recovered
bullet fragments from the car that was being shot upon that matched
the recovered rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons; a long bag
recovered near the window in question with fingerprints on it that
matched those on the rifle; a trail of evidence showing that the rifle
belonged to an employee of the TSBD; evidence that the employee had
brought a long package into the TSBD that morning; evidence that this
same employee had broken his normal pattern and gone out to retrieve
something from where his wife was living the previous evening;
evidence from his wife that this was a rifle; evidence from his wife
that this man had previously tried to shoot a public figure with this
rifle; evidence that this man was a publicly avowed Marxist; evidence
that this man was a former defector to the Soviet Union; evidence that
this man was diametrically opposed to President Kennedy's policy on
Cuba etc etc.
And the CONSIDERABLY MORE COMPELLING evidence of a Knoll shooter is
what? Someone saw some steam but maybe it was smoke from a policeman's
motorcycle? Someone thought they smelled gunsmoke in the carpark and
someone else thought they did all the way to Parkland Hospital? LOL!
CASE CLOSED on whether Mark Lane ever lied in his book, Rush To
Judgment.
This is simply YET ANOTHER example of him doing just that.
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.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
Yet MORE evidence of Mark Lane outrightly LYING in his book, Rush To
Judgment has been found. This is from page 44 of the Thunder's Mouth
edition of the book (courtesy of Ben Holmes!):
QUOTE ON:
There is some evidence to suggest that one or more shots may have been
fired from the Book Depository, as the Warren Commission maintained.
It is considerably less compelling than the evidence suggesting that
shots came from behind the fence.
QUOTE OFF
The evidence of a TSBD shooter is CONSIDERABLY LESS COMPELLING than
the evidence suggesting a Grassy Knoll shooter?!!
What planet was Lane on when he wrote THAT?!!
Let's see now, evidence suggesting a TSBD shooter includes several
people seeing either a rifleman in the window, or the rifle being
pulled back inside after the shooting; a man one floor below who heard
three shells hitting the floor above him as the shots were fired;
three recovered shells at the window the shooter was seen in, tying
with three shots as heard by the majority of ear witnesses; a rifle
recovered from the floor the man was seen shooting from; recovered
bullet fragments from the car that was being shot upon that matched
the recovered rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons; a long bag
recovered near the window in question with fingerprints on it that
matched those on the rifle; a trail of evidence showing that the rifle
belonged to an employee of the TSBD; evidence that the employee had
brought a long package into the TSBD that morning; evidence that this
same employee had broken his normal pattern and gone out to retrieve
something from where his wife was living the previous evening;
evidence from his wife that this was a rifle; evidence from his wife
that this man had previously tried to shoot a public figure with this
rifle; evidence that this man was a publicly avowed Marxist; evidence
that this man was a former defector to the Soviet Union; evidence that
this man was diametrically opposed to President Kennedy's policy on
Cuba etc etc.
And the CONSIDERABLY MORE COMPELLING evidence of a Knoll shooter is
what? Someone saw some steam but maybe it was smoke from a policeman's
motorcycle? Someone thought they smelled gunsmoke in the carpark and
someone else thought they did all the way to Parkland Hospital? LOL!
CASE CLOSED on whether Mark Lane ever lied in his book, Rush To
Judgment.
This is simply YET ANOTHER example of him doing just that.
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.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
Research
Jun 10, 2012, 3:08:27 PM6/10/12
to
Now that you posted a link to the re-enactment, can you explain the
graphic interpretation on the following page p. 263? Because none of the
FBI expert shooters could perform the feats you and other LNers claim
Oswald did? The photos you exhibited showed the "experts" did not hit the
target head? A 4 centimeter area @ 270 yards. That is nearly impossible
for an amateur like Oswald. But Even FBI experts couldn't accomplish. DID
the re-enactors stop the target before the head shot? As stated by many
eyewitnesses saw Greer stop the limo?
Other important eyewitnesses claimed the shots came from the knoll. But
then the LNers claimed their judgment couldn't be trusted. But yet you
rely on some eyewitnesses that say they saw a gun in the window. Enius is
one. But you can't find him in the position he claimed. So now he claimed
that when he "heard the first shot" he ran behind the pillow for his own
defense. Yet if you check the Bell film Enius is not on the corner of
Huston and Elm as he claimed to be? So I think he lied. And I think he
lied about seeing the rifle in the window. That you claimed to be many
earwitnesses. I also think ANYONE WHO believes these foolish liars are
themselves fools. You have been duped.
"timstter" <tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4c281123-6d12-4c64...@pr7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
graphic interpretation on the following page p. 263? Because none of the
FBI expert shooters could perform the feats you and other LNers claim
Oswald did? The photos you exhibited showed the "experts" did not hit the
target head? A 4 centimeter area @ 270 yards. That is nearly impossible
for an amateur like Oswald. But Even FBI experts couldn't accomplish. DID
the re-enactors stop the target before the head shot? As stated by many
eyewitnesses saw Greer stop the limo?
Other important eyewitnesses claimed the shots came from the knoll. But
then the LNers claimed their judgment couldn't be trusted. But yet you
rely on some eyewitnesses that say they saw a gun in the window. Enius is
one. But you can't find him in the position he claimed. So now he claimed
that when he "heard the first shot" he ran behind the pillow for his own
defense. Yet if you check the Bell film Enius is not on the corner of
Huston and Elm as he claimed to be? So I think he lied. And I think he
lied about seeing the rifle in the window. That you claimed to be many
earwitnesses. I also think ANYONE WHO believes these foolish liars are
themselves fools. You have been duped.
"timstter" <tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4c281123-6d12-4c64...@pr7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
Jun 10, 2012, 3:11:33 PM6/10/12
to
Just the fact that there was a rifle in the TSBD does not prove that it
was fired during the assassination. The HSCA proved that in 1978 with
their acoustical tests that proved that three shots were fired from the
sniper's nest. A more refined analysis might even confirm what type of
rifle was fired.
ThePuttKing
Jun 10, 2012, 11:42:38 PM6/10/12
to
of course there was shots from the TSBD !
To say otherwise is stupid !
Too many witnesses heard the shots !
Canuck
Jun 10, 2012, 11:43:21 PM6/10/12
to
Tim, I'm not sure why you and others at this site, who are absolutely
convinced that the Warren Report came to the correct conclusions,
bother to express your opinion(s) over and over again. Or is there
possibly some nagging doubt that keeps you responding? - prwhitmey
Anthony Marsh
Jun 10, 2012, 11:44:16 PM6/10/12
to
On 6/10/2012 3:08 PM, Research wrote:
> Now that you posted a link to the re-enactment, can you explain the
> graphic interpretation on the following page p. 263? Because none of the
> FBI expert shooters could perform the feats you and other LNers claim
> Oswald did? The photos you exhibited showed the "experts" did not hit the
> target head? A 4 centimeter area @ 270 yards. That is nearly impossible
> for an amateur like Oswald. But Even FBI experts couldn't accomplish. DID
> the re-enactors stop the target before the head shot? As stated by many
> eyewitnesses saw Greer stop the limo?
>
The witnesses were wrong. Greer did not stop the limo. The films prove
> Now that you posted a link to the re-enactment, can you explain the
> graphic interpretation on the following page p. 263? Because none of the
> FBI expert shooters could perform the feats you and other LNers claim
> Oswald did? The photos you exhibited showed the "experts" did not hit the
> target head? A 4 centimeter area @ 270 yards. That is nearly impossible
> for an amateur like Oswald. But Even FBI experts couldn't accomplish. DID
> the re-enactors stop the target before the head shot? As stated by many
> eyewitnesses saw Greer stop the limo?
>
that. Witnesses often make mistakes like this.
The FBI experts were shooting at stationary targets. So were the Army
experts.
In an effort to test the rifle under conditions that matched the
assassination, the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the U.S. Army's
Ballistics Research Laboratory had expert riflemen fire the assassination
weapon from a tower at three silhouette targets at distances of 175, 240,
and 265 feet (81 m).[69] Using the assassination rifle mounted with the
telescopic sight, three marksmen, rated as master by the National Rifle
Association, each fired two series of three shots. In the first series the
firers required time spans of 4.6, 6.75, and 8.25 seconds respectively. On
the second series they required 5.15, 6.45, and 7 seconds. The marksmen
took as much time as they wanted for the first target at 175 feet (53 m),
and all hit the target. For the first four attempts, the firers missed the
second shot at 240 feet (73 m) by several inches. Five of the six shots
hit the third target at 265 feet (81 m), the distance of President Kennedy
from the sixth floor window when he was struck in the head.[70] None of
the marksmen had any practice with the assassination weapon beforehand
except to work the bolt.
> Other important eyewitnesses claimed the shots came from the knoll. But
matter of whether you like what they said or not?
> then the LNers claimed their judgment couldn't be trusted. But yet you
> rely on some eyewitnesses that say they saw a gun in the window. Enius is
> one. But you can't find him in the position he claimed. So now he claimed
> that when he "heard the first shot" he ran behind the pillow for his own
> defense. Yet if you check the Bell film Enius is not on the corner of
near that pillar.
> Huston and Elm as he claimed to be? So I think he lied. And I think he
> lied about seeing the rifle in the window. That you claimed to be many
> earwitnesses. I also think ANYONE WHO believes these foolish liars are
> themselves fools. You have been duped.
>
Anthony Marsh
Jun 11, 2012, 8:58:41 AM6/11/12
to
> To say otherwise is stupid !
>
> Too many witnesses heard the shots !
>
Never rely on witnesses. If you think witnesses prove a fact then you
must also believe that there was a shot from the grassy knoll.
ThePuttKing
Jun 12, 2012, 12:01:31 AM6/12/12
to
and they make mistakes. I think alot of the grassy knoll witnesses truely
believe they heard / saw shots. I don't think they are lying.
You'll never know what happened. It's really pointless debating it.
Nothing can be proved either way. Why waste time on this ?
Anthony Marsh
Jun 12, 2012, 9:08:37 AM6/12/12
to
timstter
Jun 15, 2012, 11:43:26 PM6/15/12
to
On Jun 11, 5:08 am, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Now that you posted a link to the re-enactment, can you explain the
> graphic interpretation on the following page p. 263? Because none of the
> FBI expert shooters could perform the feats you and other LNers claim
> Oswald did? The photos you exhibited showed the "experts" did not hit the
> target head? A 4 centimeter area @ 270 yards. That is nearly impossible
> for an amateur like Oswald. But Even FBI experts couldn't accomplish. DID
> the re-enactors stop the target before the head shot? As stated by many
> eyewitnesses saw Greer stop the limo?
>
The photo I posted showed hits to the head. Did you miss it? I'll post it
> Now that you posted a link to the re-enactment, can you explain the
> graphic interpretation on the following page p. 263? Because none of the
> FBI expert shooters could perform the feats you and other LNers claim
> Oswald did? The photos you exhibited showed the "experts" did not hit the
> target head? A 4 centimeter area @ 270 yards. That is nearly impossible
> for an amateur like Oswald. But Even FBI experts couldn't accomplish. DID
> the re-enactors stop the target before the head shot? As stated by many
> eyewitnesses saw Greer stop the limo?
>
again at the end of this message. These experts weren't FBI, they were
from the armed forces. There were several tests. They bettered Oswald's
attributed times several times. Oswald WASN'T an amatuer. He had been
trained by the USMC and attained Sharpshooter level.
> Other important eyewitnesses claimed the shots came from the knoll. But
> then the LNers claimed their judgment couldn't be trusted. But yet you
> rely on some eyewitnesses that say they saw a gun in the window. Enius is
> one. But you can't find him in the position he claimed. So now he claimed
> that when he "heard the first shot" he ran behind the pillow for his own
> defense. Yet if you check the Bell film Enius is not on the corner of
> Huston and Elm as he claimed to be? So I think he lied. And I think he
> lied about seeing the rifle in the window. That you claimed to be many
> earwitnesses. I also think ANYONE WHO believes these foolish liars are
> themselves fools. You have been duped.
>
in the window in question. Seasoned newsmen did. You really need to do a
little bit of reading before trotting out tired old Mark Lane type ideas
that NO ONE could better Oswald's feat with the rifle. Lane simply lied on
that matter.
> "timstter" <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
In fact, Lane lies on mnay, many matters.
Corrective Regards,
ThePuttKing
Jun 16, 2012, 10:38:02 AM6/16/12
to
Just except Oswald did the shooting from the TBSD and he probably acted alone. He fired 3 shots and thats it. Any sensible person will come to this conclusion.
There are far more interesting things to learn about. It's a puzzle that will never be solved. Do you think that one day you will prove Oswald didn't act alone or there was a shot from the grassy knoll ?
Anthony Marsh
Jun 16, 2012, 9:16:57 PM6/16/12
to
1978. Where ya been? Hiding under a rock. Can you explain how a shot from
the grassy knoll does not prove conspiracy? You have some theory about how
Oswald could have fired from the TSBD and also the grassy knoll?
timstter
Jul 7, 2012, 10:19:53 AM7/7/12
to
On Jun 11, 1:43 pm, Canuck <prwhit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 10, 5:33 am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi All,
>
> > Yet MORE evidence ofMarkLaneoutrightlyLYINGin his book, Rush To
> On Jun 10, 5:33 am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi All,
>
> > Judgment has been found. This is from page 44 of the Thunder's Mouth
> > edition of the book (courtesy of Ben Holmes!):
>
> > QUOTE ON:
>
> > There is some evidence to suggest that one or more shots may have been
> > fired from the Book Depository, as the Warren Commission maintained.
> > It is considerably less compelling than the evidence suggesting that
> > shots came from behind the fence.
>
> > QUOTE OFF
>
> > The evidence of a TSBD shooter is CONSIDERABLY LESS COMPELLING than
> > the evidence suggesting a Grassy Knoll shooter?!!
>
> > What planet wasLaneon when he wrote THAT?!!
> > edition of the book (courtesy of Ben Holmes!):
>
> > QUOTE ON:
>
> > There is some evidence to suggest that one or more shots may have been
> > fired from the Book Depository, as the Warren Commission maintained.
> > It is considerably less compelling than the evidence suggesting that
> > shots came from behind the fence.
>
> > QUOTE OFF
>
> > The evidence of a TSBD shooter is CONSIDERABLY LESS COMPELLING than
> > the evidence suggesting a Grassy Knoll shooter?!!
>
>
> > Let's see now, evidence suggesting a TSBD shooter includes several
> > people seeing either a rifleman in the window, or the rifle being
> > pulled back inside after the shooting; a man one floor below who heard
> > three shells hitting the floor above him as the shots were fired;
> > three recovered shells at the window the shooter was seen in, tying
> > with three shots as heard by the majority of ear witnesses; a rifle
> > recovered from the floor the man was seen shooting from; recovered
> > bullet fragments from the car that was being shot upon that matched
> > the recovered rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons; a long bag
> > recovered near the window in question with fingerprints on it that
> > matched those on the rifle; a trail of evidence showing that the rifle
> > belonged to an employee of the TSBD; evidence that the employee had
> > brought a long package into the TSBD that morning; evidence that this
> > same employee had broken his normal pattern and gone out to retrieve
> > something from where his wife was living the previous evening;
> > evidence from his wife that this was a rifle; evidence from his wife
> > that this man had previously tried to shoot a public figure with this
> > rifle; evidence that this man was a publicly avowed Marxist; evidence
> > that this man was a former defector to the Soviet Union; evidence that
> > this man was diametrically opposed to President Kennedy's policy on
> > Cuba etc etc.
>
> > And the CONSIDERABLY MORE COMPELLING evidence of a Knoll shooter is
> > what? Someone saw some steam but maybe it was smoke from a policeman's
> > motorcycle? Someone thought they smelled gunsmoke in the carpark and
> > someone else thought they did all thewayto Parkland Hospital? LOL!
> > Let's see now, evidence suggesting a TSBD shooter includes several
> > people seeing either a rifleman in the window, or the rifle being
> > pulled back inside after the shooting; a man one floor below who heard
> > three shells hitting the floor above him as the shots were fired;
> > three recovered shells at the window the shooter was seen in, tying
> > with three shots as heard by the majority of ear witnesses; a rifle
> > recovered from the floor the man was seen shooting from; recovered
> > bullet fragments from the car that was being shot upon that matched
> > the recovered rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons; a long bag
> > recovered near the window in question with fingerprints on it that
> > matched those on the rifle; a trail of evidence showing that the rifle
> > belonged to an employee of the TSBD; evidence that the employee had
> > brought a long package into the TSBD that morning; evidence that this
> > same employee had broken his normal pattern and gone out to retrieve
> > something from where his wife was living the previous evening;
> > evidence from his wife that this was a rifle; evidence from his wife
> > that this man had previously tried to shoot a public figure with this
> > rifle; evidence that this man was a publicly avowed Marxist; evidence
> > that this man was a former defector to the Soviet Union; evidence that
> > this man was diametrically opposed to President Kennedy's policy on
> > Cuba etc etc.
>
> > And the CONSIDERABLY MORE COMPELLING evidence of a Knoll shooter is
> > what? Someone saw some steam but maybe it was smoke from a policeman's
> > motorcycle? Someone thought they smelled gunsmoke in the carpark and
>
> > CASE CLOSED on whetherMarkLaneever lied in his book, Rush To
> > Judgment.
>
> > This is simply YET ANOTHER example of him doing just that.
>
> > 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).
> >MarkLane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
>
> > This is simply YET ANOTHER example of him doing just that.
>
> > 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).
>
> > And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...
>
> Tim, I'm not sure why you and others at this site, who are absolutely
> convinced that the Warren Report came to the correct conclusions,
> bother to express your opinion(s) over and over again. Or is there
> possibly some nagging doubt that keeps you responding? - prwhitmey
Hi Peter,
> > And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...
>
> Tim, I'm not sure why you and others at this site, who are absolutely
> convinced that the Warren Report came to the correct conclusions,
> bother to express your opinion(s) over and over again. Or is there
> possibly some nagging doubt that keeps you responding? - prwhitmey
There seem to be some folks around that don't understand how many lies
Mark Lane told in Rush To Judgment and other of his works.
I enjoy setting the record straight on that.
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.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
Anthony Marsh
Jul 7, 2012, 4:33:47 PM7/7/12
to
> I enjoy setting the record straight on that.
>
timstter
Jul 7, 2012, 6:04:38 PM7/7/12
to
I'm attacking Mark Lane and his published nonsense. What's wrong with
that? The fellow is quite simply a blatant serial LIAR in the matter
of the JFK assassination.
Informative Regards,
Anthony Marsh
Jul 7, 2012, 8:27:13 PM7/7/12
to
caeruleo
Jul 11, 2012, 11:13:24 PM7/11/12
to
On Jun 10, 2:08 pm, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Now that you posted a link to the re-enactment, can you explain the
> graphic interpretation on the following page p. 263? Because none of the
> FBI expert shooters could perform the feats you and other LNers claim
> Oswald did? The photos you exhibited showed the "experts" did not hit the
> target head? A 4 centimeter area @ 270 yards. That is nearly impossible
> for an amateur like Oswald.
That Oswald was an "amateur" is a myth. He scored at "sharpshooter" level
> Now that you posted a link to the re-enactment, can you explain the
> graphic interpretation on the following page p. 263? Because none of the
> FBI expert shooters could perform the feats you and other LNers claim
> Oswald did? The photos you exhibited showed the "experts" did not hit the
> target head? A 4 centimeter area @ 270 yards. That is nearly impossible
> for an amateur like Oswald.
in more than one official Marine shooting test. The myth that he was a
"poor shot" originates from people like Nelson Delgado, who freely
admitted to the WC that he never once saw Oswald shoot any type of firearm
in any official shooting exercise, but instead only saw Oswald shoot in
casual circumstances in which Oswald himself made it plain that he was
bored and was not making the slightest attempt to shoot at anywhere close
to his best.
caeruleo
Jul 12, 2012, 9:17:17 AM7/12/12
to
who have any opinion whatsoever about the assassination, no matter
what that opinion is, have formed their opinions almost exclusively
from watching the movie "JFK," and/or reading no more than three books
about the assassination, and/or reading no more than three webpages
about the assassination, and or watching no more than three Youtube
videos about the assassination. Since even the majority of serious
conspiracy researchers freely acknowledge that the vast majority of
books, webpages, etc. devoted to the assassination are often wildly
inaccurate, it is little wonder that some of us feel a continuous
compulsion to set the record straight. I myself have long ago lost
count of how many times I've heard and seen people continue to repeat
and repeat and repeat, mindlessly, the proven myths:
The motorcade route was suddenly changed less than 24 hours in advance
to pass by the TSBD. Provably false beyond all possible doubt.
The Warren Commission claimed that the single bullet paused and
changed direction multiple times; Kevin Costner is given lines in
"JFK" claiming this exact thing. Provably false beyond all possible
doubt: the Warren Commission never claimed anything even remotely like
that.
The shadow of the rifle in 133-b, one of the "backyard photos," is
clear evidence of fakery. Provably false beyond all possible doubt.
The average 10-year-old child, with absurd ease, can duplicate the
same effect merely by facing the sun at any time of day on any day of
the year whenever the sun is not directly overhead by tilting any long
narrow object to the right AND forward; I myself demonstrated this
conclusively in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AuNDNpY4f4
Still to this day, as far as I know, not one person, not one, has even
tried to post a video anywhere on the Internet that comes within one-
million light-years of refuting this. I do, however, know of several
conspiracy believers who have specifically told me that they
absolutely refuse to even try to prove me wrong, and absolutely refuse
to go outside in any type of sunlight to even try to find out if I
really am wrong or not.
Another myth: Jack Ruby kept hinting, and hinting, and hinting, that
he knew about a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, and that this was the
reason he begged Earl Warren to bring him to Washington. Provably
false beyond all possible doubt. What Ruby actually said (and what
the conspiracy authors NEVER quote) was that he believed that right-
wing groups in Dallas such as the John Birch Society were trying to
implicate him in the assassination of the President because he was
Jewish, and for this reason he said he felt safer testifying in
Washington rather than in Dallas. Also, when he kept saying over and
over and over that the world would never know of his claims, it was
quite obviously because he was never told at the time that his WC
testimony would eventually be published. Look at the testimony if you
don't believe me: nowhere does anyone tell him that his testimony will
be published, ever.
And possibly the biggest myth of all:
A substantial number of Dealey Plaza witnesses said they thought that
the sounds of the shots came from multiple directions. Provably false
beyond all possible doubt. More than 90% of the witnesses who thought
shots came from any direction even remotely consistent with the
"grassy knoll" specifically said that they thought ALL of the shots
sounded as if they came from there, or else named no other direction
in their statements. More than 90% of the witnesses who thought shots
came from any direction even remotely consistent with the TSBD
specifically said that they thought ALL of the shots came from there,
or else named no other direction in their statements. More than 90%
of the witnesses who thought shots came from any direction even
remotely consistent with the railroad yards specifically said that
they thought ALL of the shots came from there, or else named no other
direction in their statements. More than 90% of the witnesses who
thought shots came from any direction even remotely consistent with
the Triple Underpass specifically said that they thought ALL of the
shots came from there, or else named no other direction in their
statements. In short, no matter what direction each individual
witness named in her/his statements, more than 90% of them
individually named only one direction for all of the sounds of
gunfire, no matter how many or how few shots they said they recalled.
There was a firm consensus that all of the gunfire came from a single
location. The lack of consensus was simply one which location that
was.
John King
Anthony Marsh
Jul 12, 2012, 9:18:53 AM7/12/12
to
letter that he sent to the WC which I posted? He called Oswald "a rather
poor shot."
If you are going to make claims then back them up.
Post the dates of every time that Oswald qualified for Sharpshooter and
document it.
Anthony Marsh
Jul 13, 2012, 9:06:01 AM7/13/12
to
longer before the movie "JFK" came out. Many because of the writings in
alternative newspapers and the anti-war movement.
Many young people only know the moview "JFK."
> about the assassination, and/or reading no more than three webpages
> about the assassination, and or watching no more than three Youtube
> videos about the assassination. Since even the majority of serious
> conspiracy researchers freely acknowledge that the vast majority of
> books, webpages, etc. devoted to the assassination are often wildly
> inaccurate, it is little wonder that some of us feel a continuous
> compulsion to set the record straight. I myself have long ago lost
> count of how many times I've heard and seen people continue to repeat
> and repeat and repeat, mindlessly, the proven myths:
>
> The motorcade route was suddenly changed less than 24 hours in advance
> to pass by the TSBD. Provably false beyond all possible doubt.
>
> The Warren Commission claimed that the single bullet paused and
> changed direction multiple times; Kevin Costner is given lines in
> "JFK" claiming this exact thing. Provably false beyond all possible
> doubt: the Warren Commission never claimed anything even remotely like
> that.
You have the luxury of being a WC defender so it's easy for you to
attack any and all conspiracy believers. As a conspiracy believer myself
it is awkward having to chide friends.
>
> The shadow of the rifle in 133-b, one of the "backyard photos," is
> clear evidence of fakery. Provably false beyond all possible doubt.
> The average 10-year-old child, with absurd ease, can duplicate the
> same effect merely by facing the sun at any time of day on any day of
> the year whenever the sun is not directly overhead by tilting any long
> narrow object to the right AND forward; I myself demonstrated this
> conclusively in this video:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AuNDNpY4f4
>
> Still to this day, as far as I know, not one person, not one, has even
> tried to post a video anywhere on the Internet that comes within one-
> million light-years of refuting this. I do, however, know of several
> conspiracy believers who have specifically told me that they
> absolutely refuse to even try to prove me wrong, and absolutely refuse
> to go outside in any type of sunlight to even try to find out if I
> really am wrong or not.
>
opinions of things, as Robert Groden did when he got to see the evidence
first hand while working for the HSCA.
> Another myth: Jack Ruby kept hinting, and hinting, and hinting, that
> he knew about a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, and that this was the
> reason he begged Earl Warren to bring him to Washington. Provably
to bring him to Washington. His hook was that he would tell them more
about the conspiracy. But a lot of it was in his imagination.
> false beyond all possible doubt. What Ruby actually said (and what
> the conspiracy authors NEVER quote) was that he believed that right-
> wing groups in Dallas such as the John Birch Society were trying to
> implicate him in the assassination of the President because he was
> Jewish, and for this reason he said he felt safer testifying in
> Washington rather than in Dallas. Also, when he kept saying over and
> over and over that the world would never know of his claims, it was
> quite obviously because he was never told at the time that his WC
> testimony would eventually be published. Look at the testimony if you
was supposed to be kept secret for 75 years and even today some is being
withheld.
> don't believe me: nowhere does anyone tell him that his testimony will
> be published, ever.
>
> And possibly the biggest myth of all:
>
> A substantial number of Dealey Plaza witnesses said they thought that
> the sounds of the shots came from multiple directions. Provably false
> beyond all possible doubt. More than 90% of the witnesses who thought
> shots came from any direction even remotely consistent with the
> "grassy knoll" specifically said that they thought ALL of the shots
> sounded as if they came from there, or else named no other direction
> in their statements. More than 90% of the witnesses who thought shots
cases people would say shots came from the grassy knoll, but they did
not specify that ALL the shots came from the grassy knoll.
> came from any direction even remotely consistent with the TSBD
> specifically said that they thought ALL of the shots came from there,
> or else named no other direction in their statements. More than 90%
> of the witnesses who thought shots came from any direction even
John McAdams
Jul 13, 2012, 9:35:43 PM7/13/12
to
On 13 Jul 2012 09:06:01 -0400, Anthony Marsh
He wanted to go to Washington to convince LBJ that he wasn't part of
any conspiracy.
You should *not* depend on what Mark Lane tells you.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Another myth: Jack Ruby kept hinting, and hinting, and hinting, that
>> he knew about a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, and that this was the
>> reason he begged Earl Warren to bring him to Washington. Provably
>
>Not quite. His personal safety is the reason why he begged Earl Warren
>to bring him to Washington. His hook was that he would tell them more
>about the conspiracy. But a lot of it was in his imagination.
>
That's just not true. You haven't read his testimony.
>
>> Another myth: Jack Ruby kept hinting, and hinting, and hinting, that
>> he knew about a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, and that this was the
>> reason he begged Earl Warren to bring him to Washington. Provably
>
>Not quite. His personal safety is the reason why he begged Earl Warren
>to bring him to Washington. His hook was that he would tell them more
>about the conspiracy. But a lot of it was in his imagination.
>
He wanted to go to Washington to convince LBJ that he wasn't part of
any conspiracy.
You should *not* depend on what Mark Lane tells you.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Jul 14, 2012, 10:09:40 AM7/14/12
to
On 7/13/2012 9:35 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 13 Jul 2012 09:06:01 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Another myth: Jack Ruby kept hinting, and hinting, and hinting, that
>>> he knew about a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, and that this was the
>>> reason he begged Earl Warren to bring him to Washington. Provably
>>
>> Not quite. His personal safety is the reason why he begged Earl Warren
>> to bring him to Washington. His hook was that he would tell them more
>> about the conspiracy. But a lot of it was in his imagination.
>>
>
> That's just not true. You haven't read his testimony.
>
Nonsense. I read Jack Ruby's testimony long before you did and quoted it
> On 13 Jul 2012 09:06:01 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Another myth: Jack Ruby kept hinting, and hinting, and hinting, that
>>> he knew about a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, and that this was the
>>> reason he begged Earl Warren to bring him to Washington. Provably
>>
>> Not quite. His personal safety is the reason why he begged Earl Warren
>> to bring him to Washington. His hook was that he would tell them more
>> about the conspiracy. But a lot of it was in his imagination.
>>
>
> That's just not true. You haven't read his testimony.
>
more often than you have.
> He wanted to go to Washington to convince LBJ that he wasn't part of
> any conspiracy.
>
he didn't have to worry about his safety he could have convinced them of
his innocence right then and there.
timstter
Jul 14, 2012, 7:29:57 PM7/14/12
to
I don't see how I am misrepresenting Lane. He is simply a proven liar.
Let's not forget that his whole agenda is clearing the clearly guilty
Marxist murderer Oswald.
That must be why the KGB saw fit to partially fund his work in the
sixties.
And didn't he receive financial help from Corliss Lamont?
You know, the guy whose pro-Castro/anti-Kennedy pamphlet, The Crime
Against Cuba, Oswald handed out in New Orleans.
Lane runs a political agenda of his own.
Anthony Marsh
Jul 15, 2012, 2:51:34 PM7/15/12
to
> That must be why the KGB saw fit to partially fund his work in the
> sixties.
0 new messages