Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Mark Lane #60
31 views
Skip to first unread message
John McAdams
Aug 3, 2012, 9:13:22 PM8/3/12
to
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 15:40:56 -0700 (PDT), timstter <tims...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Aug 3, 11:39 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Warren Commission, faced with
>> evidence that could demonstrate multiple assassins, overcame that problem by
>> moving JFK's wounds from their actual locations.
>>
>> "In the foreword to its Report, the Commission acknowledged having received at
>> the outset of the investigation 'an increasing volume of reports from Federal
>> and State investigative agencies. Of principal importance was the five-volume
>> report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, submitted on December 9, 1963,
>> which summarized the results of the investigation conducted by the Bureau
>> immediately after the assassination.' The Commission never again referred to
>> this FBI document and, although it did publish hundreds of other reports
>> submitted by that agency, it failed to print the report conceded to be of
>> 'principle importance'."
>>
>> Mark Lane is pointing out the fact that the Warren Commission, although
>> acknowledging the importance of the original five-volume FBI report, strangely
>> left it out of its final report.
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ben Holmes
>> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>
>Wasn't that report simply a Commission Document?
Yes.
>
>Presumably they used much material from it within the pages of their
>26 volumes and the report itself.
>
Indeed.
>Looks like yet another *lie by omission* by Lane has been exposed.
>
This is bizarre, since Lane seems to believe that the FBI was part of
the "cover-up" and nothing they said should be believed.
But then he bitches that the WC did not pay any attention to them!
This reminds me of the story of the lawyer whose client has been
charged with rape. The lawyer addresses the jury:
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client is innocent. He never
laid *eyes* on this woman until she came forward with these
scurrilous, scurrilous charges."
"And besides, she consented to have sex with him."
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>On Aug 3, 11:39 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Warren Commission, faced with
>> evidence that could demonstrate multiple assassins, overcame that problem by
>> moving JFK's wounds from their actual locations.
>>
>> "In the foreword to its Report, the Commission acknowledged having received at
>> the outset of the investigation 'an increasing volume of reports from Federal
>> and State investigative agencies. Of principal importance was the five-volume
>> report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, submitted on December 9, 1963,
>> which summarized the results of the investigation conducted by the Bureau
>> immediately after the assassination.' The Commission never again referred to
>> this FBI document and, although it did publish hundreds of other reports
>> submitted by that agency, it failed to print the report conceded to be of
>> 'principle importance'."
>>
>> Mark Lane is pointing out the fact that the Warren Commission, although
>> acknowledging the importance of the original five-volume FBI report, strangely
>> left it out of its final report.
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ben Holmes
>> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>
>Wasn't that report simply a Commission Document?
Yes.
>
>Presumably they used much material from it within the pages of their
>26 volumes and the report itself.
>
Indeed.
>Looks like yet another *lie by omission* by Lane has been exposed.
>
This is bizarre, since Lane seems to believe that the FBI was part of
the "cover-up" and nothing they said should be believed.
But then he bitches that the WC did not pay any attention to them!
This reminds me of the story of the lawyer whose client has been
charged with rape. The lawyer addresses the jury:
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client is innocent. He never
laid *eyes* on this woman until she came forward with these
scurrilous, scurrilous charges."
"And besides, she consented to have sex with him."
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ben Holmes
Aug 3, 2012, 9:58:34 PM8/3/12
to
In article <0jto18d5t46vkud57...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>
>On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 15:40:56 -0700 (PDT), timstter <tims...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Aug 3, 11:39 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>>In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Warren Commission, faced with
>>> evidence that could demonstrate multiple assassins, overcame that problem by
>>> moving JFK's wounds from their actual locations.
>>>
>>>"In the foreword to its Report, the Commission acknowledged having received at
>>>the outset of the investigation 'an increasing volume of reports from Federal
>>>and State investigative agencies. Of principal importance was the five-volume
>>>report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, submitted on December 9, 1963,
>>> which summarized the results of the investigation conducted by the Bureau
>>> immediately after the assassination.' The Commission never again referred to
>>> this FBI document and, although it did publish hundreds of other reports
>>> submitted by that agency, it failed to print the report conceded to be of
>>> 'principle importance'."
>>>
>>> Mark Lane is pointing out the fact that the Warren Commission, although
>>>acknowledging the importance of the original five-volume FBI report, strangely
>>> left it out of its final report.
>>>
>>
>On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 15:40:56 -0700 (PDT), timstter <tims...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Aug 3, 11:39 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>>In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Warren Commission, faced with
>>> evidence that could demonstrate multiple assassins, overcame that problem by
>>> moving JFK's wounds from their actual locations.
>>>
>>>"In the foreword to its Report, the Commission acknowledged having received at
>>>the outset of the investigation 'an increasing volume of reports from Federal
>>>and State investigative agencies. Of principal importance was the five-volume
>>>report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, submitted on December 9, 1963,
>>> which summarized the results of the investigation conducted by the Bureau
>>> immediately after the assassination.' The Commission never again referred to
>>> this FBI document and, although it did publish hundreds of other reports
>>> submitted by that agency, it failed to print the report conceded to be of
>>> 'principle importance'."
>>>
>>> Mark Lane is pointing out the fact that the Warren Commission, although
>>>acknowledging the importance of the original five-volume FBI report, strangely
>>> left it out of its final report.
>>>
>>
>>Wasn't that report simply a Commission Document?
>
>Yes.
>
>>
>>Presumably they used much material from it within the pages of their
>>26 volumes and the report itself.
>>
>
>Indeed.
>
>
>>Looks like yet another *lie by omission* by Lane has been exposed.
>>
>
>This is bizarre, since Lane seems to believe that the FBI was part of
>the "cover-up" and nothing they said should be believed.
>
>But then he bitches that the WC did not pay any attention to them!
>
>This reminds me of the story of the lawyer whose client has been
>charged with rape. The lawyer addresses the jury:
>
>"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client is innocent. He never
>laid *eyes* on this woman until she came forward with these
>scurrilous, scurrilous charges."
>
>"And besides, she consented to have sex with him."
Amusingly, *still* no refutation of what Mark Lane stated.
>
>Yes.
>
>>
>>Presumably they used much material from it within the pages of their
>>26 volumes and the report itself.
>>
>
>Indeed.
>
>
>>Looks like yet another *lie by omission* by Lane has been exposed.
>>
>
>This is bizarre, since Lane seems to believe that the FBI was part of
>the "cover-up" and nothing they said should be believed.
>
>But then he bitches that the WC did not pay any attention to them!
>
>This reminds me of the story of the lawyer whose client has been
>charged with rape. The lawyer addresses the jury:
>
>"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client is innocent. He never
>laid *eyes* on this woman until she came forward with these
>scurrilous, scurrilous charges."
>
>"And besides, she consented to have sex with him."
John McAdams
Aug 3, 2012, 10:05:34 PM8/3/12
to
On 3 Aug 2012 21:58:34 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
Ben just doesn't get it.
Lane implied to his readers that the FBI report contained important
information that the WC ignored.
But in fact, the WC used the sources and raw information the FBI
developed.
Anybody can read the FBI report, which is Commission Document 1.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10402
And Ben can't explain why Lane thinks that WC should have accepted
without question the FBI report, since Lane thinks the FBI was at the
center of a huge cover-up.
Your guy Lane is a sleazy character, Ben.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Lane implied to his readers that the FBI report contained important
information that the WC ignored.
But in fact, the WC used the sources and raw information the FBI
developed.
Anybody can read the FBI report, which is Commission Document 1.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10402
And Ben can't explain why Lane thinks that WC should have accepted
without question the FBI report, since Lane thinks the FBI was at the
center of a huge cover-up.
Your guy Lane is a sleazy character, Ben.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ben Holmes
Aug 4, 2012, 12:39:16 PM8/4/12
to
In article <ai0p18tlql38vhcm6...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
Amusingly, *STILL* no refutation of what Mark Lane stated...
Where's your refutation, John?
>Lane implied to his readers that the FBI report contained important
>information that the WC ignored.
No John, he doesn't "imply" any such thing. You clearly haven't taken the
time to actually *read* the chapter I'm quoting.
Could you *really* have possibly believed that this is all Mark Lane says
on the topic???
Is this the sort of logic you teach? Read the first paragraph setting up a
number of points the author raises, then blast the author for not
explaining everything in his FIRST paragraph?
>But in fact, the WC used the sources and raw information the FBI
>developed.
And fails to reveal the contradictions they had with that report. Mark
Lane was merely being accurate, just as you are not.
>Anybody can read the FBI report, which is Commission Document 1.
>
>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10402
>
>And Ben can't explain why Lane thinks that WC should have accepted
>without question the FBI report, since Lane thinks the FBI was at the
>center of a huge cover-up.
Why would I explain any such thing, John?
Why not *YOU* explain your repeated assertions that you've still not
supported regarding Dodd?
>Your guy Lane is a sleazy character, Ben.
You *STILL* refuse to quote a "lie" on his part... why is that, John?
>
>On 3 Aug 2012 21:58:34 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <0jto18d5t46vkud57...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>
>>>On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 15:40:56 -0700 (PDT), timstter <tims...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Aug 3, 11:39?pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>>>>In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Warren Commission, faced with
>>>>>evidence that could demonstrate multiple assassins, overcame that problem by
>>>>> moving JFK's wounds from their actual locations.
>>>>>
>>>>>"In the foreword to its Report, the Commission acknowledged having received at
>>>>>the outset of the investigation 'an ?increasing volume of reports from Federal
>On 3 Aug 2012 21:58:34 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <0jto18d5t46vkud57...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>
>>>On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 15:40:56 -0700 (PDT), timstter <tims...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Aug 3, 11:39?pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>>>>In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Warren Commission, faced with
>>>>>evidence that could demonstrate multiple assassins, overcame that problem by
>>>>> moving JFK's wounds from their actual locations.
>>>>>
>>>>>"In the foreword to its Report, the Commission acknowledged having received at
Where's your refutation, John?
>Lane implied to his readers that the FBI report contained important
>information that the WC ignored.
time to actually *read* the chapter I'm quoting.
Could you *really* have possibly believed that this is all Mark Lane says
on the topic???
Is this the sort of logic you teach? Read the first paragraph setting up a
number of points the author raises, then blast the author for not
explaining everything in his FIRST paragraph?
>But in fact, the WC used the sources and raw information the FBI
>developed.
Lane was merely being accurate, just as you are not.
>Anybody can read the FBI report, which is Commission Document 1.
>
>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10402
>
>And Ben can't explain why Lane thinks that WC should have accepted
>without question the FBI report, since Lane thinks the FBI was at the
>center of a huge cover-up.
Why not *YOU* explain your repeated assertions that you've still not
supported regarding Dodd?
>Your guy Lane is a sleazy character, Ben.
Anthony Marsh
Aug 4, 2012, 12:43:10 PM8/4/12
to
John McAdams
Aug 6, 2012, 4:03:57 PM8/6/12
to
On 4 Aug 2012 12:39:16 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
wrote:
He implied there was all kinds of important information in the FBI
report (CD 1) which the WC ignored.
But in fact, the WC used the primary sources the FBI compiled (while
not merely using the FBI's conclusions).
>Where's your refutation, John?
>
See above.
>
>>Lane implied to his readers that the FBI report contained important
>>information that the WC ignored.
>
>
>No John, he doesn't "imply" any such thing. You clearly haven't taken the
>time to actually *read* the chapter I'm quoting.
>
I've read what you posted.
If his point isn't to imply that the WC improperly ignored the FBI
report, what *was* his point?
I'm betting you dodge this issue, since you know perfectly well that
I'm right.
>Could you *really* have possibly believed that this is all Mark Lane says
>on the topic???
>
>
>Is this the sort of logic you teach? Read the first paragraph setting up a
>number of points the author raises, then blast the author for not
>explaining everything in his FIRST paragraph?
>
What was his point?
Was your post misleading about the nature of what Lane said?
>
>>But in fact, the WC used the sources and raw information the FBI
>>developed.
>
>
>And fails to reveal the contradictions they had with that report. Mark
>Lane was merely being accurate, just as you are not.
>
"Fails to reveal the contraditions?" What does that mean?
The WC used the primary sources the FBI developed, and came to their
own conclusions.
>
>
>>Anybody can read the FBI report, which is Commission Document 1.
>>
>>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10402
>>
>>And Ben can't explain why Lane thinks that WC should have accepted
>>without question the FBI report, since Lane thinks the FBI was at the
>>center of a huge cover-up.
>
>
>Why would I explain any such thing, John?
>
Because it would be necessary to defend Lane.
But you really can't do that, can you?
>Why not *YOU* explain your repeated assertions that you've still not
>supported regarding Dodd?
>
I've done it multiple times, but you ignore it.
>
>
>>Your guy Lane is a sleazy character, Ben.
>
>
>You *STILL* refuse to quote a "lie" on his part... why is that, John?
>
>
I most certainly have. You just don't accept it.
That's your problem.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>>>>>Looks like yet another *lie by omission* by Lane has been exposed.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is bizarre, since Lane seems to believe that the FBI was part of
>>>>the "cover-up" and nothing they said should be believed.
>>>>
>>>>But then he bitches that the WC did not pay any attention to them!
>>>>
>>>>This reminds me of the story of the lawyer whose client has been
>>>>charged with rape. The lawyer addresses the jury:
>>>>
>>>>"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client is innocent. He never
>>>>laid *eyes* on this woman until she came forward with these
>>>>scurrilous, scurrilous charges."
>>>>
>>>>"And besides, she consented to have sex with him."
>>>
>>>
>>>Amusingly, *still* no refutation of what Mark Lane stated.
>>
>>Ben just doesn't get it.
>
>
>Amusingly, *STILL* no refutation of what Mark Lane stated...
>
>
The problem is that Lane intentionally mislead his readers.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is bizarre, since Lane seems to believe that the FBI was part of
>>>>the "cover-up" and nothing they said should be believed.
>>>>
>>>>But then he bitches that the WC did not pay any attention to them!
>>>>
>>>>This reminds me of the story of the lawyer whose client has been
>>>>charged with rape. The lawyer addresses the jury:
>>>>
>>>>"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client is innocent. He never
>>>>laid *eyes* on this woman until she came forward with these
>>>>scurrilous, scurrilous charges."
>>>>
>>>>"And besides, she consented to have sex with him."
>>>
>>>
>>>Amusingly, *still* no refutation of what Mark Lane stated.
>>
>>Ben just doesn't get it.
>
>
>Amusingly, *STILL* no refutation of what Mark Lane stated...
>
>
He implied there was all kinds of important information in the FBI
report (CD 1) which the WC ignored.
But in fact, the WC used the primary sources the FBI compiled (while
not merely using the FBI's conclusions).
>Where's your refutation, John?
>
>
>>Lane implied to his readers that the FBI report contained important
>>information that the WC ignored.
>
>
>No John, he doesn't "imply" any such thing. You clearly haven't taken the
>time to actually *read* the chapter I'm quoting.
>
If his point isn't to imply that the WC improperly ignored the FBI
report, what *was* his point?
I'm betting you dodge this issue, since you know perfectly well that
I'm right.
>Could you *really* have possibly believed that this is all Mark Lane says
>on the topic???
>
>
>Is this the sort of logic you teach? Read the first paragraph setting up a
>number of points the author raises, then blast the author for not
>explaining everything in his FIRST paragraph?
>
Was your post misleading about the nature of what Lane said?
>
>>But in fact, the WC used the sources and raw information the FBI
>>developed.
>
>
>And fails to reveal the contradictions they had with that report. Mark
>Lane was merely being accurate, just as you are not.
>
The WC used the primary sources the FBI developed, and came to their
own conclusions.
>
>
>>Anybody can read the FBI report, which is Commission Document 1.
>>
>>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10402
>>
>>And Ben can't explain why Lane thinks that WC should have accepted
>>without question the FBI report, since Lane thinks the FBI was at the
>>center of a huge cover-up.
>
>
>Why would I explain any such thing, John?
>
But you really can't do that, can you?
>Why not *YOU* explain your repeated assertions that you've still not
>supported regarding Dodd?
>
>
>
>>Your guy Lane is a sleazy character, Ben.
>
>
>You *STILL* refuse to quote a "lie" on his part... why is that, John?
>
>
That's your problem.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ben Holmes
Aug 6, 2012, 5:44:33 PM8/6/12
to
In article <502021d4....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>He implied there was all kinds of important information in the FBI
>report (CD 1) which the WC ignored.
No, he didn't "imply" it at all... he went on to discuss EXACTLY what the
WC never included in their report.
I find it amusing that you can draw conclusions based on the initial
paragraph of a topic discussion.
>But in fact, the WC used the primary sources the FBI compiled (while
>not merely using the FBI's conclusions).
And did EXACTLY what Mark Lane stated that they did.
>>Where's your refutation, John?
>>
>
>
>See above.
You'll have to do better than this if you want to convince anyone other
than your students.
I'm *STILL* waiting for the quote of Mark Lane "implying" that Dodd heard
anything.
>>>Lane implied to his readers that the FBI report contained important
>>>information that the WC ignored.
>>
>>
>>No John, he doesn't "imply" any such thing. You clearly haven't taken the
>>time to actually *read* the chapter I'm quoting.
>>
>
>I've read what you posted.
Then don't you think you should wait until the entire *topic* has been
posted?
>If his point isn't to imply that the WC improperly ignored the FBI
>report, what *was* his point?
Speaking as someone who wrote about logic, is it "logical" to comment on
an initial paragraph without reading the rest of the paragraphs that deal
with the topic being discussed?
>I'm betting you dodge this issue, since you know perfectly well that
>I'm right.
I'm betting that if you don't like what I say, you'll censor it without
any notice, as you've been doing.
>>Could you *really* have possibly believed that this is all Mark Lane says
>>on the topic???
>>
>>
>>Is this the sort of logic you teach? Read the first paragraph setting up a
>>number of points the author raises, then blast the author for not
>>explaining everything in his FIRST paragraph?
>>
>
>
>What was his point?
>
>Was your post misleading about the nature of what Lane said?
>
>>
>>>But in fact, the WC used the sources and raw information the FBI
>>>developed.
>>
>>
>>And fails to reveal the contradictions they had with that report. Mark
>>Lane was merely being accurate, just as you are not.
>>
>
>"Fails to reveal the contraditions?" What does that mean?
Exactly what I said. Can you point out, in the WCR, where the WCR revealed
the contradictions they had with *their* theory, and the FBI report's
theory?
>The WC used the primary sources the FBI developed, and came to their
>own conclusions.
And failed to reveal the contradictions... just as I stated. (and as Mark
Lane points out)
>>>Anybody can read the FBI report, which is Commission Document 1.
>>>
>>>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10402
>>>
>>>And Ben can't explain why Lane thinks that WC should have accepted
>>>without question the FBI report, since Lane thinks the FBI was at the
>>>center of a huge cover-up.
>>
>>
>>Why would I explain any such thing, John?
>>
>
>Because it would be necessary to defend Lane.
You mean, of course, that it would be necessary to defend what *YOU* think
Lane is saying.
>But you really can't do that, can you?
Nope. And have no intention of doing so.
I'll stick with defending what Mark Lane *DID* say.
>>Why not *YOU* explain your repeated assertions that you've still not
>>supported regarding Dodd?
>>
>
>I've done it multiple times, but you ignore it.
Then simply QUOTE your previous response where you quoted Mark Lane
"implying" that Dodd heard anything...
I predict here and now that you won't.
>>>Your guy Lane is a sleazy character, Ben.
>>
>>
>>You *STILL* refuse to quote a "lie" on his part... why is that, John?
>>
>>
>
>I most certainly have. You just don't accept it.
Then QUOTE IT... for if you truly have, wouldn't you want to make me look
silly by simply quoting it again each time I make the point that you've
not given it?
>That's your problem.
>
>.John
Actually, my problem is that you're censoring posts with no notice, and
almost certainly without anyone else checking up on you.
That would explain Peter's silence on a question I directed at him.
>
>On 4 Aug 2012 12:39:16 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <ai0p18tlql38vhcm6...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Looks like yet another *lie by omission* by Lane has been exposed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>This is bizarre, since Lane seems to believe that the FBI was part of
>>>>>the "cover-up" and nothing they said should be believed.
>>>>>
>>>>>But then he bitches that the WC did not pay any attention to them!
>>>>>
>>>>>This reminds me of the story of the lawyer whose client has been
>>>>>charged with rape. The lawyer addresses the jury:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client is innocent. He never
>>>>>laid *eyes* on this woman until she came forward with these
>>>>>scurrilous, scurrilous charges."
>>>>>
>>>>>"And besides, she consented to have sex with him."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Amusingly, *still* no refutation of what Mark Lane stated.
>>>
>>>Ben just doesn't get it.
>>
>>
>>Amusingly, *STILL* no refutation of what Mark Lane stated...
>>
>>
>
>The problem is that Lane intentionally mislead his readers.
You keep saying this, yet refuse to quote any examples.
>On 4 Aug 2012 12:39:16 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <ai0p18tlql38vhcm6...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Looks like yet another *lie by omission* by Lane has been exposed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>This is bizarre, since Lane seems to believe that the FBI was part of
>>>>>the "cover-up" and nothing they said should be believed.
>>>>>
>>>>>But then he bitches that the WC did not pay any attention to them!
>>>>>
>>>>>This reminds me of the story of the lawyer whose client has been
>>>>>charged with rape. The lawyer addresses the jury:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client is innocent. He never
>>>>>laid *eyes* on this woman until she came forward with these
>>>>>scurrilous, scurrilous charges."
>>>>>
>>>>>"And besides, she consented to have sex with him."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Amusingly, *still* no refutation of what Mark Lane stated.
>>>
>>>Ben just doesn't get it.
>>
>>
>>Amusingly, *STILL* no refutation of what Mark Lane stated...
>>
>>
>
>The problem is that Lane intentionally mislead his readers.
>He implied there was all kinds of important information in the FBI
>report (CD 1) which the WC ignored.
WC never included in their report.
I find it amusing that you can draw conclusions based on the initial
paragraph of a topic discussion.
>But in fact, the WC used the primary sources the FBI compiled (while
>not merely using the FBI's conclusions).
>>Where's your refutation, John?
>>
>
>
>See above.
than your students.
I'm *STILL* waiting for the quote of Mark Lane "implying" that Dodd heard
anything.
>>>Lane implied to his readers that the FBI report contained important
>>>information that the WC ignored.
>>
>>
>>No John, he doesn't "imply" any such thing. You clearly haven't taken the
>>time to actually *read* the chapter I'm quoting.
>>
>
>I've read what you posted.
posted?
>If his point isn't to imply that the WC improperly ignored the FBI
>report, what *was* his point?
an initial paragraph without reading the rest of the paragraphs that deal
with the topic being discussed?
>I'm betting you dodge this issue, since you know perfectly well that
>I'm right.
any notice, as you've been doing.
>>Could you *really* have possibly believed that this is all Mark Lane says
>>on the topic???
>>
>>
>>Is this the sort of logic you teach? Read the first paragraph setting up a
>>number of points the author raises, then blast the author for not
>>explaining everything in his FIRST paragraph?
>>
>
>
>What was his point?
>
>Was your post misleading about the nature of what Lane said?
>
>>
>>>But in fact, the WC used the sources and raw information the FBI
>>>developed.
>>
>>
>>And fails to reveal the contradictions they had with that report. Mark
>>Lane was merely being accurate, just as you are not.
>>
>
>"Fails to reveal the contraditions?" What does that mean?
the contradictions they had with *their* theory, and the FBI report's
theory?
>The WC used the primary sources the FBI developed, and came to their
>own conclusions.
Lane points out)
>>>Anybody can read the FBI report, which is Commission Document 1.
>>>
>>>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10402
>>>
>>>And Ben can't explain why Lane thinks that WC should have accepted
>>>without question the FBI report, since Lane thinks the FBI was at the
>>>center of a huge cover-up.
>>
>>
>>Why would I explain any such thing, John?
>>
>
>Because it would be necessary to defend Lane.
Lane is saying.
>But you really can't do that, can you?
I'll stick with defending what Mark Lane *DID* say.
>>Why not *YOU* explain your repeated assertions that you've still not
>>supported regarding Dodd?
>>
>
>I've done it multiple times, but you ignore it.
"implying" that Dodd heard anything...
I predict here and now that you won't.
>>>Your guy Lane is a sleazy character, Ben.
>>
>>
>>You *STILL* refuse to quote a "lie" on his part... why is that, John?
>>
>>
>
>I most certainly have. You just don't accept it.
silly by simply quoting it again each time I make the point that you've
not given it?
>That's your problem.
>
>.John
almost certainly without anyone else checking up on you.
That would explain Peter's silence on a question I directed at him.
timstter
Aug 14, 2012, 7:48:01 AM8/14/12
to
TOP POST
Holmes is trying to *swamp post* his way out of trouble.
Earth to Holmes.
McAdams responded to what YOU posted.
It demonstrated that Mark Lane was lying yet AGAIN in his book Rush to
Judgment.
What bit out of THAT don't you understand, Holmes?
Your bleating that he should go back and read more of what YOU never
posted in the first place to make your argument is downright
LAUGHABLE, Holmes.
Lane, pure and simple, is a serial LIAR in RTJ, Holmes.
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.
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
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
On Aug 7, 7:44 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <502021d4.1043268...@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
Holmes is trying to *swamp post* his way out of trouble.
Earth to Holmes.
McAdams responded to what YOU posted.
It demonstrated that Mark Lane was lying yet AGAIN in his book Rush to
Judgment.
What bit out of THAT don't you understand, Holmes?
Your bleating that he should go back and read more of what YOU never
posted in the first place to make your argument is downright
LAUGHABLE, Holmes.
Lane, pure and simple, is a serial LIAR in RTJ, Holmes.
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.
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
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
On Aug 7, 7:44 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <502021d4.1043268...@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 4 Aug 2012 12:39:16 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>In article <ai0p18tlql38vhcm6d8vjk8a9gsgchr...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 4 Aug 2012 12:39:16 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
> >wrote:
>
Ben Holmes
Aug 14, 2012, 11:30:31 AM8/14/12
to
In article <30c0d33c-f79a-499f...@nc9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
timstter says...
raised.
>Earth to Holmes.
>
>McAdams responded to what YOU posted.
And then refuses to respond to my refutation.
You see, John is surely aware that I'm quoting paragraph by paragraph, so he
*KNOWS* that the answers to his questions are coming up.
>It demonstrated that Mark Lane was lying yet AGAIN in his book Rush to
>Judgment.
You first have to demonstrate it, not merely keep claiming it.
>What bit out of THAT don't you understand, Holmes?
I understand that John knew quite well that he was responding to the first
paragraph of a long line of paragraphs discussing a particular issue.
I understand that *YOU* refused to deal with any of it.
I understand that John refuses to respond to my refutation.
What bit out of THAT don't you understand, Tim?
>Your bleating that he should go back and read more of what YOU never
>posted in the first place to make your argument is downright
>LAUGHABLE, Holmes.
Your whining that John wasn't intelligent enough to understand that I'm
*quoting* from a book he should be quite familiar with is downright
LAUGHABLE, Tim.
>Lane, pure and simple, is a serial LIAR in RTJ, Holmes.
You can't get to "serial" without getting past *one*.
>On Aug 7, 7:44=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <502021d4.1043268...@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>> >On 4 Aug 2012 12:39:16 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >>In article <ai0p18tlql38vhcm6d8vjk8a9gsgchr...@4ax.com>, John McAdams s=
>>
>> >>>>>"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client is innocent. =A0He neve=
>> >>No John, he doesn't "imply" any such thing. You clearly haven't taken t=
>ys
>> >>on the topic???
>>
>> >>Is this the sort of logic you teach? Read the first paragraph setting u=
And censoring posts that follow the rules?
Can you explain why Peter isn't seeing these posts?
timstter says...
>
>TOP POST
>
>Holmes is trying to *swamp post* his way out of trouble.
"Swamp posting" is the description of someone answering every point
>TOP POST
>
>Holmes is trying to *swamp post* his way out of trouble.
raised.
>Earth to Holmes.
>
>McAdams responded to what YOU posted.
You see, John is surely aware that I'm quoting paragraph by paragraph, so he
*KNOWS* that the answers to his questions are coming up.
>It demonstrated that Mark Lane was lying yet AGAIN in his book Rush to
>Judgment.
>What bit out of THAT don't you understand, Holmes?
paragraph of a long line of paragraphs discussing a particular issue.
I understand that *YOU* refused to deal with any of it.
I understand that John refuses to respond to my refutation.
What bit out of THAT don't you understand, Tim?
>Your bleating that he should go back and read more of what YOU never
>posted in the first place to make your argument is downright
>LAUGHABLE, Holmes.
*quoting* from a book he should be quite familiar with is downright
LAUGHABLE, Tim.
>Lane, pure and simple, is a serial LIAR in RTJ, Holmes.
>On Aug 7, 7:44=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <502021d4.1043268...@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>> >On 4 Aug 2012 12:39:16 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>> >wrote:
>>
>ays...
>>
>> >>>>>>Looks like yet another *lie by omission* by Lane has been exposed.
>>
>> >>>>>This is bizarre, since Lane seems to believe that the FBI was part o=
>>
>> >>>>>>Looks like yet another *lie by omission* by Lane has been exposed.
>>
>f
>> >>>>>the "cover-up" and nothing they said should be believed.
>>
>> >>>>>But then he bitches that the WC did not pay any attention to them!
>>
>> >>>>>This reminds me of the story of the lawyer whose client has been
>> >>>>>charged with rape. =A0The lawyer addresses the jury:
>> >>>>>the "cover-up" and nothing they said should be believed.
>>
>> >>>>>But then he bitches that the WC did not pay any attention to them!
>>
>> >>>>>This reminds me of the story of the lawyer whose client has been
>>
>> >>>>>"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client is innocent. =A0He neve=
>he
>> >>time to actually *read* the chapter I'm quoting.
>>
>> >I've read what you posted.
>>
>> Then don't you think you should wait until the entire *topic* has been
>> posted?
>>
>> >If his point isn't to imply that the WC improperly ignored the FBI
>> >report, what *was* his point?
>>
>> Speaking as someone who wrote about logic, is it "logical" to comment on
>> an initial paragraph without reading the rest of the paragraphs that deal
>> with the topic being discussed?
>>
>> >I'm betting you dodge this issue, since you know perfectly well that
>> >I'm right.
>>
>> I'm betting that if you don't like what I say, you'll censor it without
>> any notice, as you've been doing.
>>
>> >>Could you *really* have possibly believed that this is all Mark Lane sa=
>> >>time to actually *read* the chapter I'm quoting.
>>
>> >I've read what you posted.
>>
>> Then don't you think you should wait until the entire *topic* has been
>> posted?
>>
>> >If his point isn't to imply that the WC improperly ignored the FBI
>> >report, what *was* his point?
>>
>> Speaking as someone who wrote about logic, is it "logical" to comment on
>> an initial paragraph without reading the rest of the paragraphs that deal
>> with the topic being discussed?
>>
>> >I'm betting you dodge this issue, since you know perfectly well that
>> >I'm right.
>>
>> I'm betting that if you don't like what I say, you'll censor it without
>> any notice, as you've been doing.
>>
>ys
>> >>on the topic???
>>
>> >>Is this the sort of logic you teach? Read the first paragraph setting u=
>p a
>> >>number of points the author raises, then blast the author for not
>> >>explaining everything in his FIRST paragraph?
>>
>> >What was his point?
>>
>> >Was your post misleading about the nature of what Lane said?
>>
>> >>>But in fact, the WC used the sources and raw information the FBI
>> >>>developed.
>>
>> >>And fails to reveal the contradictions they had with that report. Mark
>> >>Lane was merely being accurate, just as you are not.
>>
>> >"Fails to reveal the contraditions?" What does that mean?
>>
>> Exactly what I said. Can you point out, in the WCR, where the WCR revealed
>> the contradictions they had with *their* theory, and the FBI report's
>> theory?
>>
>> >The WC used the primary sources the FBI developed, and came to their
>> >own conclusions.
>>
>> And failed to reveal the contradictions... just as I stated. (and as Mark
>> Lane points out)
>>
>> >>>Anybody can read the FBI report, which is Commission Document 1.
>>
>> >>>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D10=
>> >>number of points the author raises, then blast the author for not
>> >>explaining everything in his FIRST paragraph?
>>
>> >What was his point?
>>
>> >Was your post misleading about the nature of what Lane said?
>>
>> >>>But in fact, the WC used the sources and raw information the FBI
>> >>>developed.
>>
>> >>And fails to reveal the contradictions they had with that report. Mark
>> >>Lane was merely being accurate, just as you are not.
>>
>> >"Fails to reveal the contraditions?" What does that mean?
>>
>> Exactly what I said. Can you point out, in the WCR, where the WCR revealed
>> the contradictions they had with *their* theory, and the FBI report's
>> theory?
>>
>> >The WC used the primary sources the FBI developed, and came to their
>> >own conclusions.
>>
>> And failed to reveal the contradictions... just as I stated. (and as Mark
>> Lane points out)
>>
>> >>>Anybody can read the FBI report, which is Commission Document 1.
>>
>402
>>
>> >>>And Ben can't explain why Lane thinks that WC should have accepted
>> >>>without question the FBI report, since Lane thinks the FBI was at the
>> >>>center of a huge cover-up.
>>
>> >>Why would I explain any such thing, John?
>>
>> >Because it would be necessary to defend Lane.
>>
>> You mean, of course, that it would be necessary to defend what *YOU* thin=
>>
>> >>>And Ben can't explain why Lane thinks that WC should have accepted
>> >>>without question the FBI report, since Lane thinks the FBI was at the
>> >>>center of a huge cover-up.
>>
>> >>Why would I explain any such thing, John?
>>
>> >Because it would be necessary to defend Lane.
>>
>k
>> Lane is saying.
>>
>> >But you really can't do that, can you?
>>
>> Nope. And have no intention of doing so.
>>
>> I'll stick with defending what Mark Lane *DID* say.
>>
>> >>Why not *YOU* explain your repeated assertions that you've still not
>> >>supported regarding Dodd?
>>
>> >I've done it multiple times, but you ignore it.
>>
>> Then simply QUOTE your previous response where you quoted Mark Lane
>> "implying" that Dodd heard anything...
>>
>> I predict here and now that you won't.
>>
>> >>>Your guy Lane is a sleazy character, Ben.
>>
>> >>You *STILL* refuse to quote a "lie" on his part... why is that, John?
>>
>> >I most certainly have. =A0You just don't accept it.
>> Lane is saying.
>>
>> >But you really can't do that, can you?
>>
>> Nope. And have no intention of doing so.
>>
>> I'll stick with defending what Mark Lane *DID* say.
>>
>> >>Why not *YOU* explain your repeated assertions that you've still not
>> >>supported regarding Dodd?
>>
>> >I've done it multiple times, but you ignore it.
>>
>> Then simply QUOTE your previous response where you quoted Mark Lane
>> "implying" that Dodd heard anything...
>>
>> I predict here and now that you won't.
>>
>> >>>Your guy Lane is a sleazy character, Ben.
>>
>> >>You *STILL* refuse to quote a "lie" on his part... why is that, John?
>>
>>
>> Then QUOTE IT... for if you truly have, wouldn't you want to make me look
>> silly by simply quoting it again each time I make the point that you've
>> not given it?
>>
>> >That's your problem.
>>
>> >.John
>>
>> Actually, my problem is that you're censoring posts with no notice, and
>> almost certainly without anyone else checking up on you.
>>
>> That would explain Peter's silence on a question I directed at him.
Tell us John, why are you censoring without any notice whatsoever?
>> Then QUOTE IT... for if you truly have, wouldn't you want to make me look
>> silly by simply quoting it again each time I make the point that you've
>> not given it?
>>
>> >That's your problem.
>>
>> >.John
>>
>> Actually, my problem is that you're censoring posts with no notice, and
>> almost certainly without anyone else checking up on you.
>>
>> That would explain Peter's silence on a question I directed at him.
And censoring posts that follow the rules?
Can you explain why Peter isn't seeing these posts?
0 new messages