Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Mark Lane #126
24 views
Skip to first unread message
Bud
Nov 6, 2012, 3:58:00 PM11/6/12
to
On Nov 6, 9:06 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane pointed out that the great majority of
> eyewitness statements from the TSBD don't include their opinion about the origin
> of the shots - they weren't asked.
>
> "Another omission characteristic of these statements all of which comprise
> Commission Exhibit 1381 is revealed when the statement prepared by the FBI for
> William H. Shelley is contrasted with his testimony before Commission counsel.
> In his FBI statement Shelley did not refer to where he thought the shots came
> from. Questioned on April 7, 1964, however, he was explicit.
>
> Q. What seemed to be the direction or source of the sound?
> Shelley: Sounded like it came from the west.
> Q. It sounded like it came from the west?
> Shelley: Yes.
>
> Dorothy Ann Garner watched the Presidential motorcade from the fourth floor of
> the Depository. She heard loud reports and 'thought at the time the shots or
> reports came from a point to the west of the building'. Otis N. Williams told
> FBI agents that he was standing on the steps in front of the building. He said,
> 'I thought these blasts or shots came from the direction of the viaduct which
> crosses Elm Street.'"
>
> Mark Lane is starting to point out the grave discrepancies between what the FBI
> provided as 'statements', and what the eyewitnesses actually testified to. Over
> and over again, we'll see that eyewitnesses pointed to an origin of the shots
> that contradicted the WCR's theory.
What can be established by where the shots seemed to come from by
some of the witnesses?
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane pointed out that the great majority of
> eyewitness statements from the TSBD don't include their opinion about the origin
> of the shots - they weren't asked.
>
> "Another omission characteristic of these statements all of which comprise
> Commission Exhibit 1381 is revealed when the statement prepared by the FBI for
> William H. Shelley is contrasted with his testimony before Commission counsel.
> In his FBI statement Shelley did not refer to where he thought the shots came
> from. Questioned on April 7, 1964, however, he was explicit.
>
> Q. What seemed to be the direction or source of the sound?
> Shelley: Sounded like it came from the west.
> Q. It sounded like it came from the west?
> Shelley: Yes.
>
> Dorothy Ann Garner watched the Presidential motorcade from the fourth floor of
> the Depository. She heard loud reports and 'thought at the time the shots or
> reports came from a point to the west of the building'. Otis N. Williams told
> FBI agents that he was standing on the steps in front of the building. He said,
> 'I thought these blasts or shots came from the direction of the viaduct which
> crosses Elm Street.'"
>
> Mark Lane is starting to point out the grave discrepancies between what the FBI
> provided as 'statements', and what the eyewitnesses actually testified to. Over
> and over again, we'll see that eyewitnesses pointed to an origin of the shots
> that contradicted the WCR's theory.
What can be established by where the shots seemed to come from by
some of the witnesses?
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
Anthony Marsh
Nov 6, 2012, 8:58:21 PM11/6/12
to
Bud
Nov 7, 2012, 12:27:09 PM11/7/12
to
it might not be a clue, it could be something that leads away from the
truth. Remember the white van in the Beltway shootings?
> Do you understand the difference?
actually said and erecting a strawman?
Anthony Marsh
Nov 7, 2012, 10:21:06 PM11/7/12
to
>> Do you understand the difference?
>
> Do you understand the difference between addressing what someone
> actually said and erecting a strawman?
>
reading the HSCA studies.
Bud
Nov 8, 2012, 2:50:44 PM11/8/12
to
spout random nonsense that doesn`t pertain to anything I`ve said?
> >> Do you understand the difference?
>
> > Do you understand the difference between addressing what someone
> > actually said and erecting a strawman?
>
> Not a strawman. A correction and clarification.
>You didn't bother
> reading the HSCA studies.
0 new messages