In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to what he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an almost unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing he doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from Lane`s book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he must realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regards to the WCR.
If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police wanted Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have. But I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police wanted Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant if I like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that Lane puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to limit the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a critic and attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when placed in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark Lane*, and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed, and without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
> In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to what >he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an almost >unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing he >doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from Lane`s >book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he must >realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regards to >the WCR.
> If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be >considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police wanted >Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have. But >I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police wanted >Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant if I >like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that Lane >puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to limit >the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a critic and >attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when placed >in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his >opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of >attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark Lane*, >and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and >focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed, and >without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
Good luck with that one Bud. Holmes likes to make up the rules as he goes.
When I pointed out Lane's dishonesty in his Vietnam book Holmes told me I was off topic and acted like I had committed the ultimate crime. He didn't want to handle that one.
In my opinion if we are discussing Lane's dishonesty, and he is a dishonest man, then all cards are on the table.
> In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to what
> he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an almost
> unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing he
> doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from Lane`s
> book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he must
> realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regards to
> the WCR.
No, he didn't. We can point out one error that an author points out without having to believe everything the author says. You WC defenders have the same problem with Posner and Bugliosi.
> If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be
> considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police wanted
> Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have. But
> I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police wanted
> Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant if I
Sure, you can even contest that Kennedy was shot if your only purpose is to obstruct and prove how silly you can be.
> like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that Lane
> puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to limit
> the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a critic and
And of course you go off topic just to attack people.
> attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when placed
> in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
> opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
> attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark Lane*,
> and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
> focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed, and
> without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
On Sep 20, 7:20 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 9/20/2012 12:46 PM, Bud wrote:
> > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to what
> > he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an almost
> > unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing he
> > doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from Lane`s
> > book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he must
> > realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regards to
> > the WCR.
> No, he didn't. We can point out one error that an author points out
> without having to believe everything the author says. You WC defenders
> have the same problem with Posner and Bugliosi.
I have no problem with the WC, Posner or Bugliosi. It`s about what obviously occurred. It`s obvious that Oswald killed Kennedy. I`ve never seen anything presented by a CTer that puts that conclusion in jeopardy.
> > If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be
> > considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police wanted
> > Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have. But
> > I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police wanted
> > Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant if I
> Sure, you can even contest that Kennedy was shot if your only purpose is
> to obstruct and prove how silly you can be.
It was bound to happen sooner or later that you would grasp a point
that I made.
> > like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that Lane
> > puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to limit
> > the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a critic and
> And of course you go off topic just to attack people.
Sometimes people need to be attacked.
> > attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when placed
> > in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
> > opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
> > attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark Lane*,
> > and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
> > focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed, and
> > without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
> In article <c6eed347-f790-4b74-a5dd-79c75210c...@m9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> Bud says...
> > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to what
> >he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an almost
> >unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing he
> >doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from Lane`s
> >book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he must
> >realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regards to
> >the WCR.
> > If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be
> >considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police wanted
> >Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have. But
> >I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police wanted
> >Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant if I
> >like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that Lane
> >puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to limit
> >the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a critic and
> >attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when placed
> >in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
> >opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
> >attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark Lane*,
> >and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
> >focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed, and
> >without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
> Good luck with that one Bud. Holmes likes to make up the rules as he
> goes.
> When I pointed out Lane's dishonesty in his Vietnam book Holmes told me I
> was off topic and acted like I had committed the ultimate crime. He
> didn't want to handle that one.
> In my opinion if we are discussing Lane's dishonesty, and he is a
> dishonest man, then all cards are on the table.
For sure, Bill. Can you imagine if someone tried the argument that it is irrelevant that J. Edgar Hoover was a scumbag, because that is off topic for discussions about the assassination?
I`m interested to see how Ben will treat the black and white example of Lane`s lying about the bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland not being deformed. One thing I know for sure is Ben will not be able to muster the character to admit that what Lane wrote was not true, so I expect a lot of dancing and gnashing of teeth and misdirection and anything to prevent having to admit the fact that what Lane said was untrue. He is already trying to misrepresent the idea as being that the bullet found was less deformed than should be expected of a bullet that did the damage this bullet was alleged to have inflicted. But I`ve seen Ben with his tail caught in cracks like this before, so I have a pretty good idea how he will handle it this time also. He`ll turn up the volume, bluff and bluster and then proceed as if the issue has been settled in his favor.
>This shows an almost >unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing he >doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from Lane`s >book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he must >realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regards to >the WCR.
> If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be >considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police wanted >Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have. But >I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police wanted >Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant if I >like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that Lane >puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to limit >the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a critic and >attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when placed >in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his >opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of >attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark Lane*, >and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and >focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed, and >without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
>On Sep 20, 6:57=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <c6eed347-f790-4b74-a5dd-79c75210c...@m9g2000yqi.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Bud says...
>> > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to wh=
>at
>> >he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an almo=
>st
>> >unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing h=
>e
>> >doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from Lane`=
>s
>> >book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he must
>> >realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regards =
>to
>> >the WCR.
>> > =A0If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be
>> >considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police wanted
>> >Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have. B=
>ut
>> >I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police wante=
>d
>> >Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant if =
>I
>> >like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that Lane
>> >puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to limit
>> >the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a critic a=
>nd
>> >attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when placed
>> >in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
>> >opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
>> >attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark Lane=
>*,
>> >and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
>> >focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed, an=
>d
>> >without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
>> Good luck with that one Bud. =A0Holmes likes to make up the rules as he
>> goes.
>> When I pointed out Lane's dishonesty in his Vietnam book Holmes told me I
>> was off topic and acted like I had committed the ultimate crime. =A0He
>> didn't want to handle that one.
>> In my opinion if we are discussing Lane's dishonesty, and he is a
>> dishonest man, then all cards are on the table.
> For sure, Bill. Can you imagine if someone tried the argument that it is >irrelevant that J. Edgar Hoover was a scumbag, because that is off topic >for discussions about the assassination?
> I`m interested to see how Ben will treat the black and white example of >Lane`s lying about the bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland not being >deformed. One thing I know for sure is Ben will not be able to muster the >character to admit that what Lane wrote was not true, so I expect a lot of >dancing and gnashing of teeth and misdirection and anything to prevent >having to admit the fact that what Lane said was untrue. He is already >trying to misrepresent the idea as being that the bullet found was less >deformed than should be expected of a bullet that did the damage this >bullet was alleged to have inflicted. But I`ve seen Ben with his tail >caught in cracks like this before, so I have a pretty good idea how he >will handle it this time also. He`ll turn up the volume, bluff and bluster >and then proceed as if the issue has been settled in his favor.
Yes, he always wins!! He can be whipped like a red-headed step child and then stagger up and brag about winning that one. Cracks me up.
> >This shows an almost
> >unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing he
> >doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from Lane`s
> >book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he must
> >realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regards to
> >the WCR.
> > If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be
> >considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police wanted
> >Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have. But
> >I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police wanted
> >Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant if I
> >like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that Lane
> >puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to limit
> >the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a critic and
> >attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when placed
> >in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
> >opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
> >attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark Lane*,
> >and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
> >focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed, and
> >without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>On Sep 20, 8:57=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <c6eed347-f790-4b74-a5dd-79c75210c...@m9g2000yqi.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Bud says...
>> > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to wh=
>at
>> >he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission.
>> I see you've not read the first few pages of Chapter five yet.
>> Get back to me when you do.
> You can run, but you can`t hide. Strike that, you can do that also.
I'm guessing that you've still not read chapter five.
That's okay, you have a compadre on this forum who thinks Mark Lane was
incorrect when he pointed out that the assertions & implications of Wade,
Gannaway, and Curry that Oswald was wanted at 12:45 was untrue and "unacceptable"
Keep running, "Bud". Get back to me when you can admit what the topic is.
>> >This shows an almost
>> >unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing h=
>e
>> >doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from Lane`=
>s
>> >book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he must
>> >realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regards =
>to
>> >the WCR.
>> > =A0If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be
>> >considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police wanted
>> >Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have. B=
>ut
>> >I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police wante=
>d
>> >Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant if =
>I
>> >like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that Lane
>> >puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to limit
>> >the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a critic a=
>nd
>> >attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when placed
>> >in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
>> >opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
>> >attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark Lane=
>*,
>> >and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
>> >focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed, an=
>d
>> >without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ben Holmes
>> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
> In article <62b277d1-a9f6-453a-80e9-ca057b486...@j14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Bud says...
> >On Sep 20, 8:57=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> In article <c6eed347-f790-4b74-a5dd-79c75210c...@m9g2000yqi.googlegroups.=
> >com>,
> >> Bud says...
> >> > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to wh=
> >at
> >> >he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission.
> >> I see you've not read the first few pages of Chapter five yet.
> >> Get back to me when you do.
> > You can run, but you can`t hide. Strike that, you can do that also.
> I'm guessing that you've still not read chapter five.
> That's okay, you have a compadre on this forum who thinks Mark Lane was
> incorrect when he pointed out that the assertions & implications of Wade,
> Gannaway, and Curry that Oswald was wanted at 12:45 was untrue and
> "unacceptable"
> Keep running, "Bud". Get back to me when you can admit what the topic is.
Didn`t you read this post here where I pointed out that I can
contest not only the topic but any idea Lane expresses in his book?
> >> >This shows an almost
> >> >unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing h=
> >e
> >> >doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from Lane`=
> >s
> >> >book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he must
> >> >realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regards =
> >to
> >> >the WCR.
> >> > =A0If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be
> >> >considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police wanted
> >> >Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have. B=
> >ut
> >> >I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police wante=
> >d
> >> >Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant if =
> >I
> >> >like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that Lane
> >> >puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to limit
> >> >the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a critic a=
> >nd
> >> >attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when placed
> >> >in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
> >> >opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
> >> >attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark Lane=
> >*,
> >> >and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
> >> >focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed, an=
> >d
> >> >without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
> >> --
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Ben Holmes
> >> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>On Sep 21, 10:37=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <62b277d1-a9f6-453a-80e9-ca057b486...@j14g2000yqb.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Bud says...
>> >On Sep 20, 8:57=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <c6eed347-f790-4b74-a5dd-79c75210c...@m9g2000yqi.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> Bud says...
>> >> > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to=
> wh=3D
>> >at
>> >> >he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission.
>> >> I see you've not read the first few pages of Chapter five yet.
>> >> Get back to me when you do.
>> > =A0You can run, but you can`t hide. Strike that, you can do that also.
>> I'm guessing that you've still not read chapter five.
>> That's okay, you have a compadre on this forum who thinks Mark Lane was
>> incorrect when he pointed out that the assertions & implications of Wade,
>> Gannaway, and Curry that Oswald was wanted at 12:45 was untrue and
>> "unacceptable"
>> Keep running, "Bud". Get back to me when you can admit what the topic is.
> Didn`t you read this post here where I pointed out that I can
>contest not only the topic but any idea Lane expresses in his book?
You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts. Get back to me when you determine the facts.
>> >> >This shows an almost
>> >> >unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazin=
>g h=3D
>> >e
>> >> >doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from La=
>ne`=3D
>> >s
>> >> >book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he mu=
>st
>> >> >realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regar=
>ds =3D
>> >to
>> >> >the WCR.
>> >> > =3DA0If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must=
> be
>> >> >considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police wan=
>ted
>> >> >Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have=
>. B=3D
>> >ut
>> >> >I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police wa=
>nte=3D
>> >d
>> >> >Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant =
>if =3D
>> >I
>> >> >like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that L=
>ane
>> >> >puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to lim=
>it
>> >> >the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a criti=
>c a=3D
>> >nd
>> >> >attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when pla=
>ced
>> >> >in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
>> >> >opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
>> >> >attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark L=
>ane=3D
>> >*,
>> >> >and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
>> >> >focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed,=
> an=3D
>> >d
>> >> >without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
> > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to > > what
> > he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an > > almost
> > unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing > > he
> > doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from > > Lane`s
> > book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he must
> > realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regards > > to
> > the WCR.
> No, he didn't. We can point out one error that an author points out
> without having to believe everything the author says. You WC defenders
> have the same problem with Posner and Bugliosi.
I have no problem with the WC, Posner or Bugliosi. It`s about what
obviously occurred. It`s obvious that Oswald killed Kennedy. I`ve never
seen anything presented by a CTer that puts that conclusion in jeopardy.
> > If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be
> > considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police wanted
> > Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have. > > But
> > I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police > > wanted
> > Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant if > > I
> Sure, you can even contest that Kennedy was shot if your only purpose is
> to obstruct and prove how silly you can be.
It was bound to happen sooner or later that you would grasp a point
that I made.
> > like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that Lane
> > puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to limit
> > the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a critic > > and
> And of course you go off topic just to attack people.
Sometimes people need to be attacked.
Discuessing the issues is the fundamental purpose of message boards. Is it not? Making personal attacks on this board is permitted. It shouldn't be a board for your personal bitching and gripping. McAdams only moderates what he feels he wants too. I have posted many time on subjects that were never posted to the board. There were not attacks like this article, and others I have seen.
> > attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when placed
> > in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
> > opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
> > attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark > > Lane*,
> > and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
> > focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed, > > and
> > without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
> YOU don't get to dictate what is discussed.
I disagree, I do dictate what I discuss.
Holmes should just neglect your article if he don't want to listen to your revanting the WC.
> In article > <62b277d1-a9f6-453a-80e9-ca057b486...@j14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Bud says...
> >On Sep 20, 8:57=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> In article > >> <c6eed347-f790-4b74-a5dd-79c75210c...@m9g2000yqi.googlegroups.=
> >com>,
> >> Bud says...
> >> > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to > >> > wh=
> >at
> >> >he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission.
> >> I see you've not read the first few pages of Chapter five yet.
> >> Get back to me when you do.
> > You can run, but you can`t hide. Strike that, you can do that also.
> I'm guessing that you've still not read chapter five.
> That's okay, you have a compadre on this forum who thinks Mark Lane was
> incorrect when he pointed out that the assertions & implications of Wade,
> Gannaway, and Curry that Oswald was wanted at 12:45 was untrue and
> "unacceptable"
> Keep running, "Bud". Get back to me when you can admit what the topic is.
Didn`t you read this post here where I pointed out that I can contest not only the topic but any idea Lane expresses in his book?
I've seen this type of avoidance here before. And when the other person mades a comment you don't agree with, you change the subject and avoid the issue. Not only you but the other defenders use this tactic quite often. People have set that trap for me as well. And being new to the game, I did fall for it once. But I see how they operate now and keeping an eye out for it.
> >> >> > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to=
> > wh=3D
> >> >at
> >> >> >he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission.
> >> >> I see you've not read the first few pages of Chapter five yet.
> >> >> Get back to me when you do.
> >> > =A0You can run, but you can`t hide. Strike that, you can do that also.
> >> I'm guessing that you've still not read chapter five.
> >> That's okay, you have a compadre on this forum who thinks Mark Lane was
> >> incorrect when he pointed out that the assertions & implications of Wade,
> >> Gannaway, and Curry that Oswald was wanted at 12:45 was untrue and
> >> "unacceptable"
> >> Keep running, "Bud". Get back to me when you can admit what the topic is.
> > Didn`t you read this post here where I pointed out that I can
> >contest not only the topic but any idea Lane expresses in his book?
> You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts.
I`m willing to share, you can use them also.
> Get back
> to me when you determine the facts.
I explained the facts to you. The fact is the Lane`s book is a collection of ideas. I can dispute any of those ideas I like. If Lane call CE 399 "undeformed" I can accurately label that idea a lie. I can dispute any of the ideas he expresses in any way I see fit. That you can only run and hide when I do this only serves to show the weakness of your position.
> >> >> >This shows an almost
> >> >> >unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazin=
> >g h=3D
> >> >e
> >> >> >doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from La=
> >ne`=3D
> >> >s
> >> >> >book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he mu=
> >st
> >> >> >realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regar=
> >ds =3D
> >> >to
> >> >> >the WCR.
> >> >> > =3DA0If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must=
> > be
> >> >> >considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police wan=
> >ted
> >> >> >Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have=
> >. B=3D
> >> >ut
> >> >> >I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police wa=
> >nte=3D
> >> >d
> >> >> >Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant =
> >if =3D
> >> >I
> >> >> >like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that L=
> >ane
> >> >> >puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to lim=
> >it
> >> >> >the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a criti=
> >c a=3D
> >> >nd
> >> >> >attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when pla=
> >ced
> >> >> >in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
> >> >> >opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
> >> >> >attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark L=
> >ane=3D
> >> >*,
> >> >> >and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
> >> >> >focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed,=
> > an=3D
> >> >d
> >> >> >without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
> > > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to
> > > what
> > > he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an
> > > almost
> > > unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing
> > > he
> > > doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from
> > > Lane`s
> > > book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he must
> > > realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regards
> > > to
> > > the WCR.
> > No, he didn't. We can point out one error that an author points out
> > without having to believe everything the author says. You WC defenders
> > have the same problem with Posner and Bugliosi.
> I have no problem with the WC, Posner or Bugliosi. It`s about what
> obviously occurred. It`s obvious that Oswald killed Kennedy. I`ve never
> seen anything presented by a CTer that puts that conclusion in jeopardy.
> > > If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be
> > > considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police wanted
> > > Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have.
> > > But
> > > I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police
> > > wanted
> > > Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant if
> > > I
> > Sure, you can even contest that Kennedy was shot if your only purpose is
> > to obstruct and prove how silly you can be.
> It was bound to happen sooner or later that you would grasp a point
> that I made.
> > > like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that Lane
> > > puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to limit
> > > the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a critic
> > > and
> > And of course you go off topic just to attack people.
> Sometimes people need to be attacked.
> Discuessing the issues is the fundamental purpose of message boards. Is it
> not? Making personal attacks on this board is permitted. It shouldn't be a
> board for your personal bitching and gripping. McAdams only moderates what
> he feels he wants too. I have posted many time on subjects that were never
> posted to the board. There were not attacks like this article, and others I
> have seen.
> > > attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when placed
> > > in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
> > > opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
> > > attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark
> > > Lane*,
> > > and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
> > > focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed,
> > > and
> > > without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
> > YOU don't get to dictate what is discussed.
> I disagree, I do dictate what I discuss.
> Holmes should just neglect your article if he don't want to listen to your
> revanting the WC.
He has taken to running and hiding like you suggest.
> > >> > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to
> > >> > wh=
> > >at
> > >> >he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission.
> > >> I see you've not read the first few pages of Chapter five yet.
> > >> Get back to me when you do.
> > > You can run, but you can`t hide. Strike that, you can do that also.
> > I'm guessing that you've still not read chapter five.
> > That's okay, you have a compadre on this forum who thinks Mark Lane was
> > incorrect when he pointed out that the assertions & implications of Wade,
> > Gannaway, and Curry that Oswald was wanted at 12:45 was untrue and
> > "unacceptable"
> > Keep running, "Bud". Get back to me when you can admit what the topic is.
> Didn`t you read this post here where I pointed out that I can contest
> not only the topic but any idea Lane expresses in his book?
> I've seen this type of avoidance here before.
What have I avoided? I`ve beaten one idea like a drum for something
like 10 straight posts. You seem to be confused about what is going on
here also. Ben has taken to breaking down Lane`s book Rush to Judgment
into bite-sized articles. Each of these articles contain dozens of
expressed ideas, claims and assertions. I can contest or dispute any
one of these things, regardless of what the topic of the chapter the
excerpts were lifted from is. That you and he cannot grasp this very
simple concept is no fault of mine.
> And when the other person
> mades a comment you don't agree with, you change the subject and avoid the
> issue. Not only you but the other defenders use this tactic quite often.
I assure you, it is only your bias that makes it appear that way. In
reality it is the opposite that is true. Often I address something a
CTer says, and they just flit away to a different subject.
> People have set that trap for me as well. And being new to the game, I did
> fall for it once. But I see how they operate now and keeping an eye out
> for it.
>> > > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to
>> > > what
>> > > he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an
>> > > almost
>> > > unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazin=
>g
>> > > he
>> > > doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from
>> > > Lane`s
>> > > book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he mu=
>st
>> > > realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regar=
>ds
>> > > to
>> > > the WCR.
>> > No, he didn't. We can point out one error that an author points out
>> > without having to believe everything the author says. You WC defenders
>> > have the same problem with Posner and Bugliosi.
>> =A0 I have no problem with the WC, Posner or Bugliosi. It`s about what
>> obviously occurred. It`s obvious that Oswald killed Kennedy. I`ve never
>> seen anything presented by a CTer that puts that conclusion in jeopardy.
>> > > If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be
>> > > considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police wan=
>ted
>> > > Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have=
>.
>> > > But
>> > > I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police
>> > > wanted
>> > > Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant =
>if
>> > > I
>> > Sure, you can even contest that Kennedy was shot if your only purpose i=
>s
>> > to obstruct and prove how silly you can be.
>> =A0 It was bound to happen sooner or later that you would grasp a point
>> that I made.
>> > > like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that L=
>ane
>> > > puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to lim=
>it
>> > > the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a criti=
>c
>> > > and
>> > And of course you go off topic just to attack people.
>> =A0 =A0Sometimes people need to be attacked.
>> Discuessing the issues is the fundamental purpose of message boards. Is i=
>t
>> not? Making personal attacks on this board is permitted. It shouldn't be =
>a
>> board for your personal bitching and gripping. McAdams only moderates wha=
>t
>> he feels he wants too. I have posted many time on subjects that were neve=
>r
>> posted to the board. There were not attacks like this article, and others=
> I
>> have seen.
>> > > attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when pla=
>ced
>> > > in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
>> > > opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
>> > > attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark
>> > > Lane*,
>> > > and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
>> > > focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed,
>> > > and
>> > > without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
>> > YOU don't get to dictate what is discussed.
>> =A0 I disagree, I do dictate what I discuss.
>> Holmes should just neglect your article if he don't want to listen to you=
>r
>> revanting the WC.
> He has taken to running and hiding like you suggest.
The one who is running is the person who refuses to admit what the topic is.
Get back to me when you're willing to do that. Otherwise, run away...
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Bud wrote:
> In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to what
> he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an almost
> unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing he
> doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from Lane`s
> book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it.
Holmes is not exactly the picture of perfection. In many ways, he is your mirror image.
But none of that is important. Nor is it important whether Lane was or was not a jerk. What matters are the case related issues. If Lane was wrong about a hundred things, but right about just a single fact that proves conspiracy, then that is the issue that needs to be considered.
To defend the LN theory, you accept the obligation to refute or prove insufficient, ALL arguments for conspiracy. Those who believe/realize that this was a conspiracy, are only obligated to provide one argument which demonstrates that Oswald did not act alone.
That may not seem fair, but that's just the way it is.
There is no logical reason why a proconspiracy person should be obligated to defend every statement that Lane or any other author ever made. The proposition is not whether Mark Lane was infallible. It is about whether or not this assassination was a conspiracy.
On Sep 23, 6:30 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to what
> > he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an almost
> > unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing he
> > doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from Lane`s
> > book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it.
> Holmes is not exactly the picture of perfection. In many ways, he is
> your mirror image.
Please, elaborate. And don`t bother to try to spare my feelings now.
> But none of that is important.
Little written here is.
> Nor is it important whether Lane was or
> was not a jerk.
Didn`t know that was an idea anyone was tying to advance.
>What matters are the case related issues. If Lane was
> wrong about a hundred things, but right about just a single fact that
> proves conspiracy, then that is the issue that needs to be considered.
Yes, if there are a hundred claimed bigfoot sightings only one of them need to be true for bigfoot to exist. The problem you folks is that the only thing you can prove is that you really, really like the idea that a conspiracy took Kennedy`s life.
> To defend the LN theory, you accept the obligation to refute or prove
> insufficient, ALL arguments for conspiracy.
No, we don`t need to put out fires and prove negatives. We only need to point out that you can`t put anything on the table that shows a conspiracy took Kennedy`s life.
> Those who believe/realize
> that this was a conspiracy, are only obligated to provide one argument
> which demonstrates that Oswald did not act alone.
Everyone reading this will be dust and this will never be done.
> That may not seem fair, but that's just the way it is.
Demonstrate away, Harris. Just recognize you have to demonstrate it
to other people`s satisfaction, not just your own.
> There is no logical reason why a proconspiracy person should be
> obligated to defend every statement that Lane or any other author ever
> made.
Ok, it`s seems that Ben has weighed in, and "Research" has weighed in, and Marsh has weighed in and now Harris has weighed in and none of them seem to have the slightest clue on what is going on here. Ben is offering what Lane wrote as meaningful, so *yes*, if Ben is going to represent what Lane wrote as honest and accurate he *does* have to defend every statement Lane made in that book. Anyone else can either join in and help Ben defend Lane, or attack Lane, but there is no obligation to do either on anyones part. This is just terrible thinking on your part, Harris, and terrible ideas. It has gotten to the point where it is impossible to talk ideas with you folks because you just *can`t*.
> The proposition is not whether Mark Lane was infallible.
And never was. But how would you know that?
> It is
> about whether or not this assassination was a conspiracy.
You can`t make a case that isn`t the product of bias and desperation. You see a speck in a photograph and imagine it`s a sniper, are you going to nominate yourself as the voice of reason?
> >> > > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to
> >> > > what
> >> > > he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an
> >> > > almost
> >> > > unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazin=
> >g
> >> > > he
> >> > > doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from
> >> > > Lane`s
> >> > > book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he mu=
> >st
> >> > > realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regar=
> >ds
> >> > > to
> >> > > the WCR.
> >> > No, he didn't. We can point out one error that an author points out
> >> > without having to believe everything the author says. You WC defenders
> >> > have the same problem with Posner and Bugliosi.
> >> =A0 I have no problem with the WC, Posner or Bugliosi. It`s about what
> >> obviously occurred. It`s obvious that Oswald killed Kennedy. I`ve never
> >> seen anything presented by a CTer that puts that conclusion in jeopardy.
> >> > > If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be
> >> > > considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police wan=
> >ted
> >> > > Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have=
> >.
> >> > > But
> >> > > I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police
> >> > > wanted
> >> > > Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant =
> >if
> >> > > I
> >> > Sure, you can even contest that Kennedy was shot if your only purpose i=
> >s
> >> > to obstruct and prove how silly you can be.
> >> =A0 It was bound to happen sooner or later that you would grasp a point
> >> that I made.
> >> > > like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that L=
> >ane
> >> > > puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to lim=
> >it
> >> > > the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a criti=
> >c
> >> > > and
> >> > And of course you go off topic just to attack people.
> >> =A0 =A0Sometimes people need to be attacked.
> >> Discuessing the issues is the fundamental purpose of message boards. Is i=
> >t
> >> not? Making personal attacks on this board is permitted. It shouldn't be =
> >a
> >> board for your personal bitching and gripping. McAdams only moderates wha=
> >t
> >> he feels he wants too. I have posted many time on subjects that were neve=
> >r
> >> posted to the board. There were not attacks like this article, and others=
> > I
> >> have seen.
> >> > > attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when pla=
> >ced
> >> > > in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
> >> > > opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
> >> > > attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark
> >> > > Lane*,
> >> > > and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
> >> > > focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed,
> >> > > and
> >> > > without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
> >> > YOU don't get to dictate what is discussed.
> >> =A0 I disagree, I do dictate what I discuss.
> >> Holmes should just neglect your article if he don't want to listen to you=
> >r
> >> revanting the WC.
> > He has taken to running and hiding like you suggest.
> The one who is running is the person who refuses to admit what the topic
> is.
The person who is running is the one pretending that only one of
Lane`s ideas can be contested.
> Get back to me when you're willing to do that. Otherwise, run away...
<snicker> Was CE399 "undeformed", Ben? Weren`t you challenging
people to show that Lane lied? What now?
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>> >> > > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick =
>to
>> >> > > what
>> >> > > he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows a=
>n
>> >> > > almost
>> >> > > unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is ama=
>zin=3D
>> >g
>> >> > > he
>> >> > > doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from
>> >> > > Lane`s
>> >> > > book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he=
> mu=3D
>> >st
>> >> > > realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with re=
>gar=3D
>> >ds
>> >> > > to
>> >> > > the WCR.
>> >> > No, he didn't. We can point out one error that an author points out
>> >> > without having to believe everything the author says. You WC defende=
>rs
>> >> > have the same problem with Posner and Bugliosi.
>> >> =3DA0 I have no problem with the WC, Posner or Bugliosi. It`s about wh=
>at
>> >> obviously occurred. It`s obvious that Oswald killed Kennedy. I`ve neve=
>r
>> >> seen anything presented by a CTer that puts that conclusion in jeopard=
>y.
>> >> > > If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be
>> >> > > considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police =
>wan=3D
>> >ted
>> >> > > Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I h=
>ave=3D
>> >.
>> >> > > But
>> >> > > I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police
>> >> > > wanted
>> >> > > Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is releva=
>nt =3D
>> >if
>> >> > > I
>> >> > Sure, you can even contest that Kennedy was shot if your only purpos=
>e i=3D
>> >s
>> >> > to obstruct and prove how silly you can be.
>> >> =3DA0 It was bound to happen sooner or later that you would grasp a po=
>int
>> >> that I made.
>> >> > > like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea tha=
>t L=3D
>> >ane
>> >> > > puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to =
>lim=3D
>> >it
>> >> > > the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a cr=
>iti=3D
>> >c
>> >> > > and
>> >> > And of course you go off topic just to attack people.
>> >> =3DA0 =3DA0Sometimes people need to be attacked.
>> >> Discuessing the issues is the fundamental purpose of message boards. I=
>s i=3D
>> >t
>> >> not? Making personal attacks on this board is permitted. It shouldn't =
>be =3D
>> >a
>> >> board for your personal bitching and gripping. McAdams only moderates =
>wha=3D
>> >t
>> >> he feels he wants too. I have posted many time on subjects that were n=
>eve=3D
>> >r
>> >> posted to the board. There were not attacks like this article, and oth=
>ers=3D
>> > I
>> >> have seen.
>> >> > > attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when =
>pla=3D
>> >ced
>> >> > > in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
>> >> > > opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role=
> of
>> >> > > attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mar=
>k
>> >> > > Lane*,
>> >> > > and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept =
>and
>> >> > > focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discuss=
>ed,
>> >> > > and
>> >> > > without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
>> >> > YOU don't get to dictate what is discussed.
>> >> =3DA0 I disagree, I do dictate what I discuss.
>> >> Holmes should just neglect your article if he don't want to listen to =
>you=3D
>> >r
>> >> revanting the WC.
>> > =A0He has taken to running and hiding like you suggest.
>> The one who is running is the person who refuses to admit what the topic
>> is.
> The person who is running is the one pretending that only one of
>Lane`s ideas can be contested.
That's simply not true.
What *IS* true is that you continue to refuse to admit what Mark Lane's topic was.
>> Get back to me when you're willing to do that. Otherwise, run away...
> <snicker> Was CE399 "undeformed", Ben? Weren`t you challenging
>people to show that Lane lied? What now?
I can't *force* John to respond to me.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
>>>>>> In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an
>>>>>> almost
>>>>>> unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazin=
>>> g
>>>>>> he
>>>>>> doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from
>>>>>> Lane`s
>>>>>> book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he mu=
>>> st
>>>>>> realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regar=
>>> ds
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> the WCR.
>>>>> No, he didn't. We can point out one error that an author points out
>>>>> without having to believe everything the author says. You WC defenders
>>>>> have the same problem with Posner and Bugliosi.
>>>> =A0 I have no problem with the WC, Posner or Bugliosi. It`s about what
>>>> obviously occurred. It`s obvious that Oswald killed Kennedy. I`ve never
>>>> seen anything presented by a CTer that puts that conclusion in jeopardy.
>>>>>> If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be
>>>>>> considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police wan=
>>> ted
>>>>>> Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have=
>>> .
>>>>>> But
>>>>>> I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police
>>>>>> wanted
>>>>>> Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant =
>>> if
>>>>>> I
>>>>> Sure, you can even contest that Kennedy was shot if your only purpose i=
>>> s
>>>>> to obstruct and prove how silly you can be.
>>>> =A0 It was bound to happen sooner or later that you would grasp a point
>>>> that I made.
>>>>>> like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that L=
>>> ane
>>>>>> puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to lim=
>>> it
>>>>>> the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a criti=
>>> c
>>>>>> and
>>>>> And of course you go off topic just to attack people.
>>>> =A0 =A0Sometimes people need to be attacked.
>>>> Discuessing the issues is the fundamental purpose of message boards. Is i=
>>> t
>>>> not? Making personal attacks on this board is permitted. It shouldn't be =
>>> a
>>>> board for your personal bitching and gripping. McAdams only moderates wha=
>>> t
>>>> he feels he wants too. I have posted many time on subjects that were neve=
>>> r
>>>> posted to the board. There were not attacks like this article, and others=
>>> I
>>>> have seen.
>>>>>> attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when pla=
>>> ced
>>>>>> in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
>>>>>> opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
>>>>>> attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark
>>>>>> Lane*,
>>>>>> and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
>>>>>> focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
>>>>> YOU don't get to dictate what is discussed.
>>>> =A0 I disagree, I do dictate what I discuss.
>>>> Holmes should just neglect your article if he don't want to listen to you=
>>> r
>>>> revanting the WC.
>>> He has taken to running and hiding like you suggest.
>> The one who is running is the person who refuses to admit what the topic
>> is.
> The person who is running is the one pretending that only one of
> Lane`s ideas can be contested.
>> Get back to me when you're willing to do that. Otherwise, run away...
> <snicker> Was CE399 "undeformed", Ben? Weren`t you challenging
> people to show that Lane lied? What now?
CE399 was deformed the moment it was fired, by the process of being fired. The issue is HOW it was deformed and to what extent. The deformation does not match the WC test bullets shot into a wrist bone. So if you can invent a SBT which does not involved the wrist you might have something.
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ben Holmes
>> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
> >> >> > > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick =
> >to
> >> >> > > what
> >> >> > > he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows a=
> >n
> >> >> > > almost
> >> >> > > unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is ama=
> >zin=3D
> >> >g
> >> >> > > he
> >> >> > > doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from
> >> >> > > Lane`s
> >> >> > > book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he=
> > mu=3D
> >> >st
> >> >> > > realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with re=
> >gar=3D
> >> >ds
> >> >> > > to
> >> >> > > the WCR.
> >> >> > No, he didn't. We can point out one error that an author points out
> >> >> > without having to believe everything the author says. You WC defende=
> >rs
> >> >> > have the same problem with Posner and Bugliosi.
> >> >> =3DA0 I have no problem with the WC, Posner or Bugliosi. It`s about wh=
> >at
> >> >> obviously occurred. It`s obvious that Oswald killed Kennedy. I`ve neve=
> >r
> >> >> seen anything presented by a CTer that puts that conclusion in jeopard=
> >y.
> >> >> > > If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be
> >> >> > > considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police =
> >wan=3D
> >> >ted
> >> >> > > Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I h=
> >ave=3D
> >> >.
> >> >> > > But
> >> >> > > I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police
> >> >> > > wanted
> >> >> > > Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is releva=
> >nt =3D
> >> >if
> >> >> > > I
> >> >> > Sure, you can even contest that Kennedy was shot if your only purpos=
> >e i=3D
> >> >s
> >> >> > to obstruct and prove how silly you can be.
> >> >> =3DA0 It was bound to happen sooner or later that you would grasp a po=
> >int
> >> >> that I made.
> >> >> > > like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea tha=
> >t L=3D
> >> >ane
> >> >> > > puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to =
> >lim=3D
> >> >it
> >> >> > > the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a cr=
> >iti=3D
> >> >c
> >> >> > > and
> >> >> > And of course you go off topic just to attack people.
> >> >> =3DA0 =3DA0Sometimes people need to be attacked.
> >> >> Discuessing the issues is the fundamental purpose of message boards. I=
> >s i=3D
> >> >t
> >> >> not? Making personal attacks on this board is permitted. It shouldn't =
> >be =3D
> >> >a
> >> >> board for your personal bitching and gripping. McAdams only moderates =
> >wha=3D
> >> >t
> >> >> he feels he wants too. I have posted many time on subjects that were n=
> >eve=3D
> >> >r
> >> >> posted to the board. There were not attacks like this article, and oth=
> >ers=3D
> >> > I
> >> >> have seen.
> >> >> > > attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when =
> >pla=3D
> >> >ced
> >> >> > > in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
> >> >> > > opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role=
> > of
> >> >> > > attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mar=
> >k
> >> >> > > Lane*,
> >> >> > > and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept =
> >and
> >> >> > > focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discuss=
> >ed,
> >> >> > > and
> >> >> > > without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
> >> >> > YOU don't get to dictate what is discussed.
> >> >> =3DA0 I disagree, I do dictate what I discuss.
> >> >> Holmes should just neglect your article if he don't want to listen to =
> >you=3D
> >> >r
> >> >> revanting the WC.
> >> > =A0He has taken to running and hiding like you suggest.
> >> The one who is running is the person who refuses to admit what the topic
> >> is.
> > The person who is running is the one pretending that only one of
> >Lane`s ideas can be contested.
> That's simply not true.
Of course it`s true. You produced Lane`s writing and now are running
from supporting them.
> What *IS* true is that you continue to refuse to admit what Mark Lane's
> topic was.
What difference does it matter what it is if it is built on lies and
deception?
> >> Get back to me when you're willing to do that. Otherwise, run away...
> > <snicker> Was CE399 "undeformed", Ben? Weren`t you challenging
> >people to show that Lane lied? What now?
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
> >>>>>> In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to
> >>>>>> what
> >>>>>> he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an
> >>>>>> almost
> >>>>>> unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazin=
> >>> g
> >>>>>> he
> >>>>>> doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from
> >>>>>> Lane`s
> >>>>>> book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he mu=
> >>> st
> >>>>>> realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regar=
> >>> ds
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> the WCR.
> >>>>> No, he didn't. We can point out one error that an author points out
> >>>>> without having to believe everything the author says. You WC defenders
> >>>>> have the same problem with Posner and Bugliosi.
> >>>> =A0 I have no problem with the WC, Posner or Bugliosi. It`s about what
> >>>> obviously occurred. It`s obvious that Oswald killed Kennedy. I`ve never
> >>>> seen anything presented by a CTer that puts that conclusion in jeopardy.
> >>>>>> If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be
> >>>>>> considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police wan=
> >>> ted
> >>>>>> Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have=
> >>> .
> >>>>>> But
> >>>>>> I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police
> >>>>>> wanted
> >>>>>> Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant =
> >>> if
> >>>>>> I
> >>>>> Sure, you can even contest that Kennedy was shot if your only purpose i=
> >>> s
> >>>>> to obstruct and prove how silly you can be.
> >>>> =A0 It was bound to happen sooner or later that you would grasp a point
> >>>> that I made.
> >>>>>> like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that L=
> >>> ane
> >>>>>> puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to lim=
> >>> it
> >>>>>> the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a criti=
> >>> c
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>> And of course you go off topic just to attack people.
> >>>> =A0 =A0Sometimes people need to be attacked.
> >>>> Discuessing the issues is the fundamental purpose of message boards. Is i=
> >>> t
> >>>> not? Making personal attacks on this board is permitted. It shouldn't be =
> >>> a
> >>>> board for your personal bitching and gripping. McAdams only moderates wha=
> >>> t
> >>>> he feels he wants too. I have posted many time on subjects that were neve=
> >>> r
> >>>> posted to the board. There were not attacks like this article, and others=
> >>> I
> >>>> have seen.
> >>>>>> attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when pla=
> >>> ced
> >>>>>> in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
> >>>>>> opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
> >>>>>> attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark
> >>>>>> Lane*,
> >>>>>> and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
> >>>>>> focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed,
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>> without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
> >>>>> YOU don't get to dictate what is discussed.
> >>>> =A0 I disagree, I do dictate what I discuss.
> >>>> Holmes should just neglect your article if he don't want to listen to you=
> >>> r
> >>>> revanting the WC.
> >>> He has taken to running and hiding like you suggest.
> >> The one who is running is the person who refuses to admit what the topic
> >> is.
> > The person who is running is the one pretending that only one of
> > Lane`s ideas can be contested.
> >> Get back to me when you're willing to do that. Otherwise, run away...
> > <snicker> Was CE399 "undeformed", Ben? Weren`t you challenging
> > people to show that Lane lied? What now?
> CE399 was deformed the moment it was fired, by the process of being fired.
So you would say that Lane lied about CE399 being "undeformed"?
> The issue is HOW it was deformed and to what extent.
No, the issue is whether it is a lie to call CE399 "undeformed".
>The deformation does
> not match the WC test bullets shot into a wrist bone.
You think if that was Lane`s point he wouldn`t be able to say this?
> So if you can invent
> a SBT which does not involved the wrist you might have something.
If you can shoot a bullet through Kennedy`s body that hits a wrist
you might have something.
> >> --
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Ben Holmes
> >> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
I have no idea how to reply to such a screwball post. You presume that all arguments for conspiracy are the equivalent to bigfoot sightings, but feel no compulsion to even try to prove them wrong.
The simple fact that you refuse to address issues that you know you cannot refute, pretty much settles this.
But in case you change your mind, perhaps you will be willing to explain why no one was startled by gunshots prior to frame 285, when we know for a fact that shots from Oswald's rifle generated sound levels 16 times greater than the level at which involuntary startle reactions must occur.
Trashtalk and misplaced sarcasm don't get it Bud. Would you like to have a discussion about whether it was even possible for Oswald to have fired all the shots?
I suggest that we start a new thread on the subject and give you a chance to do what causes your friends lack the courage to do.
Would you like to do that Bud, or would you prefer to just make up phony excuses?
Robert Harris
In article <b0f64eee-e668-429f-903c-aaa69d567...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Sep 23, 6:30?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Bud wrote:
> > > ? In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to > > > what
> > > he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an > > > almost
> > > unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing he
> > > doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from Lane`s
> > > book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it.
> > Holmes is not exactly the picture of perfection. In many ways, he is
> > your mirror image.
> Please, elaborate. And don`t bother to try to spare my feelings now.
> > But none of that is important.
> Little written here is.
> > Nor is it important whether Lane was or
> > was not a jerk.
> Didn`t know that was an idea anyone was tying to advance.
> >What matters are the case related issues. If Lane was
> > wrong about a hundred things, but right about just a single fact that
> > proves conspiracy, then that is the issue that needs to be considered.
> Yes, if there are a hundred claimed bigfoot sightings only one of them > need to be true for bigfoot to exist. The problem you folks is that the > only thing you can prove is that you really, really like the idea that a > conspiracy took Kennedy`s life.
> > To defend the LN theory, you accept the obligation to refute or prove
> > insufficient, ALL arguments for conspiracy.
> No, we don`t need to put out fires and prove negatives. We only need to > point out that you can`t put anything on the table that shows a conspiracy > took Kennedy`s life.
> > Those who believe/realize
> > that this was a conspiracy, are only obligated to provide one argument
> > which demonstrates that Oswald did not act alone.
> Everyone reading this will be dust and this will never be done.
> > That may not seem fair, but that's just the way it is.
> Demonstrate away, Harris. Just recognize you have to demonstrate it
> to other people`s satisfaction, not just your own.
> > There is no logical reason why a proconspiracy person should be
> > obligated to defend every statement that Lane or any other author ever
> > made.
> Ok, it`s seems that Ben has weighed in, and "Research" has weighed in, > and Marsh has weighed in and now Harris has weighed in and none of them > seem to have the slightest clue on what is going on here. Ben is offering > what Lane wrote as meaningful, so *yes*, if Ben is going to represent what > Lane wrote as honest and accurate he *does* have to defend every statement > Lane made in that book. Anyone else can either join in and help Ben defend > Lane, or attack Lane, but there is no obligation to do either on anyones > part. This is just terrible thinking on your part, Harris, and terrible > ideas. It has gotten to the point where it is impossible to talk ideas > with you folks because you just *can`t*.
> > The proposition is not whether Mark Lane was infallible.
> And never was. But how would you know that?
> > It is
> > about whether or not this assassination was a conspiracy.
> You can`t make a case that isn`t the product of bias and desperation. > You see a speck in a photograph and imagine it`s a sniper, are you going > to nominate yourself as the voice of reason?
