In the Thunder's Mouth edition of his book, Rush To Judgment, on page 129, Mark Lane makes the following statement in discussing the expert shooting tests that the Warren Commission conducted using Oswald's rifle:
QUOTE ON:
No one who has read this far will be surprised to hear that the Commission concluded that *the probability of hitting the targets* was *very high*. This probability remained *very high* in spite of the fact that not one of the three experts was able to strike the head or neck of the target even once.
QUOTE OFF
To support the latter part of this statement, Lane footnotes to the WC
volumes, XVII 261-262.
It shows two of the targets used in the tests AND showing hits to the head! Lane's statement [emphasis added] that NOT ONE OF THE THREE EXPERTS WAS ABLE TO STRIKE THE HEAD OR NECK OF THE TARGET EVEN ONCE must be one of the most BLATANT lies ever in JFK assassination research!
Case closed on whether Mark Lane lied in Rush To Judgment or not!
X marks the spot that shows that he did.
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 Thunder's Mouth edition of his book, Rush To Judgment, on page 129,
> Mark Lane makes the following statement in discussing the expert shooting
> tests that the Warren Commission conducted using Oswald's rifle:
> QUOTE ON:
> No one who has read this far will be surprised to hear that the Commission
> concluded that *the probability of hitting the targets* was *very high*.
> This probability remained *very high* in spite of the fact that not one of
> the three experts was able to strike the head or neck of the target even
> once.
> QUOTE OFF
> To support the latter part of this statement, Lane footnotes to the WC
> volumes, XVII 261-262.
But those shots were not from 270 feet, the distance from the alleged sniper's nest to JFK at 313. What you forgot to show us was the result of shots fired from the relevant distance,
>> In the Thunder's Mouth edition of his book, Rush To Judgment, on page
>> 129,
>> Mark Lane makes the following statement in discussing the expert shooting
>> tests that the Warren Commission conducted using Oswald's rifle:
>> QUOTE ON:
>> No one who has read this far will be surprised to hear that the
>> Commission
>> concluded that *the probability of hitting the targets* was *very high*.
>> This probability remained *very high* in spite of the fact that not
>> one of
>> the three experts was able to strike the head or neck of the target even
>> once.
>> QUOTE OFF
>> To support the latter part of this statement, Lane footnotes to the WC
>> volumes, XVII 261-262.
> But those shots were not from 270 feet, the distance from the alleged
> sniper's nest to JFK at 313. What you forgot to show us was the result
> of shots fired from the relevant distance,
> What was that you were saying about "lies of ommission"?
> Robert Harris
But I'd be willing to bet that the experts COULD get 3 hits out of 2 shots IF the target were only 10 feet away and much larger.
Then the WC would publish the targets and say they were 270 feet away.
> > In the Thunder's Mouth edition of his book, Rush To Judgment, on page 129,
> > Mark Lane makes the following statement in discussing the expert shooting
> > tests that the Warren Commission conducted using Oswald's rifle:
> > QUOTE ON:
> > No one who has read this far will be surprised to hear that the Commission
> > concluded that *the probability of hitting the targets* was *very high*.
> > This probability remained *very high* in spite of the fact that not one of
> > the three experts was able to strike the head or neck of the target even
> > once.
> > QUOTE OFF
> > To support the latter part of this statement, Lane footnotes to the WC
> > volumes, XVII 261-262.
> But those shots were not from 270 feet, the distance from the alleged
> sniper's nest to JFK at 313. What you forgot to show us was the result
> of shots fired from the relevant distance,
> What was that you were saying about "lies of ommission"?
> Robert Harris
Well the question was whether or not the expert shooters were able to hit the target in the head AT ALL. Clearly they WERE and Lane is simply flat out LYING in claiming that they didn't. Amazingly, he then has the gall to cite an exhibit that PROVES he is lying!
As for *lies of omission*, Lane never bothers to tell the reader that the expert shooters were simply told to acquire the targets and shoot as quickly as they could. Presumably if they'd been asked to SPECIFICALLY go for a head shot the reults would have been different.
It's just another *lie of omission* by Mark Lane that he didn't point this out, but then his book is inherently dishonest.
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.
> On Oct 9, 11:01 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> timstter wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>> In the Thunder's Mouth edition of his book, Rush To Judgment, on page 129,
>>> Mark Lane makes the following statement in discussing the expert shooting
>>> tests that the Warren Commission conducted using Oswald's rifle:
>>> QUOTE ON:
>>> No one who has read this far will be surprised to hear that the Commission
>>> concluded that *the probability of hitting the targets* was *very high*.
>>> This probability remained *very high* in spite of the fact that not one of
>>> the three experts was able to strike the head or neck of the target even
>>> once.
>>> QUOTE OFF
>>> To support the latter part of this statement, Lane footnotes to the WC
>>> volumes, XVII 261-262.
>> But those shots were not from 270 feet, the distance from the alleged
>> sniper's nest to JFK at 313. What you forgot to show us was the result
>> of shots fired from the relevant distance,
>> What was that you were saying about "lies of ommission"?
>> Robert Harris
> Well the question was whether or not the expert shooters were able to hit
> the target in the head AT ALL. Clearly they WERE and Lane is simply flat
> out LYING in claiming that they didn't. Amazingly, he then has the gall to
> cite an exhibit that PROVES he is lying!
> As for *lies of omission*, Lane never bothers to tell the reader that the
> expert shooters were simply told to acquire the targets and shoot as
> quickly as they could. Presumably if they'd been asked to SPECIFICALLY go
> for a head shot the reults would have been different.
That's right. They were told to not aim at all because accuracy was not being tested, just speed.
> It's just another *lie of omission* by Mark Lane that he didn't point this
> out, but then his book is inherently dishonest.
> 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.
timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 9, 11:01 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > timstter wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > > In the Thunder's Mouth edition of his book, Rush To Judgment, on page > > > 129,
> > > Mark Lane makes the following statement in discussing the expert shooting
> > > tests that the Warren Commission conducted using Oswald's rifle:
> > > QUOTE ON:
> > > No one who has read this far will be surprised to hear that the > > > Commission
> > > concluded that *the probability of hitting the targets* was *very high*.
> > > This probability remained *very high* in spite of the fact that not one > > > of
> > > the three experts was able to strike the head or neck of the target even
> > > once.
> > > QUOTE OFF
> > > To support the latter part of this statement, Lane footnotes to the WC
> > > volumes, XVII 261-262.
> > But those shots were not from 270 feet, the distance from the alleged
> > sniper's nest to JFK at 313. What you forgot to show us was the result
> > of shots fired from the relevant distance,
> > What was that you were saying about "lies of ommission"?
> > Robert Harris
> Well the question was whether or not the expert shooters were able to hit > the target in the head AT ALL.
I don't think so.
It doesn't matter that they could hit the target at distances that were not relevant to Oswald's alleged performance. When the WC claimed the probability of Oswald making the head shot was "very high", they were talking about a shot at the actual distance between the alleged SN and JFK.
Nothing else counts.
But you still haven't explained why you did not make that clear in your post and why you only linked to the results of tests fired at closer range. Don't you think you should have also linked to the test at the appropriate range, in which none of the testers scored a head shot??
For someone so concerned about "lies of omission" that's a bit disappointing Tim.
