On 10/13/2012 10:39 AM, timstter wrote:
> Hi All,
> Yet MORE evidence of Mark Lane outrightly LYING in his book, Rush To
> Judgment has been found. This is from page 44 of the Thunder's Mouth
> edition of the book:
> QUOTE ON:
> There is some evidence to suggest that one or more shots may have been
> fired from the Book Depository, as the Warren Commission maintained.
> It is considerably less compelling than the evidence suggesting that
> shots came from behind the fence.
> QUOTE OFF
> The evidence of a TSBD shooter is CONSIDERABLY LESS COMPELLING than
> the evidence suggesting a Grassy Knoll shooter?!!
> What planet was Lane on when he wrote THAT?!!
He was allowing for the possibility that the evidence in the TSBD was
planted there to frame Oswald. Oswald was his client. It's called
reasonable doubt.
> Let's see now, evidence suggesting a TSBD shooter includes several
> people seeing either a rifleman in the window, or the rifle being
Unreliable witnesses. Never rely on witnesses.
> pulled back inside after the shooting; a man one floor below who heard
> three shells hitting the floor above him as the shots were fired;
Some rifle.
> three recovered shells at the window the shooter was seen in, tying
He's thinking those could have have been planted.
> with three shots as heard by the majority of ear witnesses; a rifle
> recovered from the floor the man was seen shooting from; recovered
> bullet fragments from the car that was being shot upon that matched
> the recovered rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons; a long bag
> recovered near the window in question with fingerprints on it that
And yet not photographed in place as the shells and rifle were. And
Fritz seemingly standing right on top of the paper bag no even aware
that it was there.
> matched those on the rifle; a trail of evidence showing that the rifle
> belonged to an employee of the TSBD; evidence that the employee had
> brought a long package into the TSBD that morning; evidence that this
Short package.
> same employee had broken his normal pattern and gone out to retrieve
> something from where his wife was living the previous evening;
Not an absolutely normal pattern. You are misrepresenting historical
evidence to frame someone.
> evidence from his wife that this was a rifle; evidence from his wife
Marina barely knew the differences between rifles.
> that this man had previously tried to shoot a public figure with this
> rifle; evidence that this man was a publicly avowed Marxist; evidence
Oh, so ANY Marxist is automatically a Presidential assassin?
> that this man was a former defector to the Soviet Union; evidence that
> this man was diametrically opposed to President Kennedy's policy on
> Cuba etc etc.
You are compiling a case for conspiracy with Oswald as part of an
"International Communist Conspiracy." You naughty boy. You might trigger
WWIII.
> And the CONSIDERABLY MORE COMPELLING evidence of a Knoll shooter is
> what? Someone saw some steam but maybe it was smoke from a policeman's
> motorcycle? Someone thought they smelled gunsmoke in the carpark and
> someone else thought they did all the way to Parkland Hospital? LOL!
> CASE CLOSED on whether Mark Lane ever lied in his book, Rush To
> Judgment.
Case open on whether WC defenders twist the facts to smear all
conspiracy believers.
> This is simply YET ANOTHER example of him doing just that.
> Regards,
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
> neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
> Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
> And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...
> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
