No wonder the KGB saw fit to partially fund his research.
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.
> 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.
>> 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.
> > What Mark Lane FAILS to tell the viewer is that Dodd's FBI interview
> > DID appear in the Warren Commission volumes:
> Do you understand the difference between an affidavit and testimony?
Do you understand the difference between the words "mentioned" and "interview," the words Tim used, and the word "testimony," which only you used, Anthony?
> > No wonder the KGB saw fit to partially fund his research.
> That is a lie by the CIA.
Then why did the information come from British intelligence?
You should stop making stuff up, Marsh.
Concerned 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.
> 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.
I'm afraid Lane is not the one who's full of crap. He stated the following:
?Your name is not listed in the index and there is no reference in the whole 888 pages that you were up there and you saw what you saw and you heard what you heard.?
He was talking about the short version of the report which was sold all over the world, to countless thousands of people. Almost no one bought the full volume set which contained mostly unindexed documents and reports.
It was that version that the public had easy access to, that Lane was referring to. Once again, he was telling the absolute truth - unlike most of his critics.
> >>> No wonder the KGB saw fit to partially fund his research.
> >> That is a lie by the CIA.
> > Then why did the information come from British intelligence?
> Because they are lackies licking the boots of the CIA.
> > You should stop making stuff up, Marsh.
> > Concerned 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.
That still has nothing to do with your claim that the information came
from the CIA, Marsh.
Your blind hatred of the CIA led you to make a wild accusation, Marsh.
Christopher Andrew published the information about Lane, which he got
from British intelligence, who got it from a KGB mole.
NOTHING to do with the CIA, Marsh.
Corrective 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.
>I'm afraid Lane is not the one who's full of crap. He stated the >following:
>?Your name is not listed in the index and there is no reference in the >whole 888 pages that you were up there and you saw what you saw and you >heard what you heard.?
>He was talking about the short version of the report which was sold all >over the world, to countless thousands of people. Almost no one bought the >full volume set which contained mostly unindexed documents and reports.
>It was that version that the public had easy access to, that Lane was >referring to. Once again, he was telling the absolute truth - unlike most >of his critics.
He was trying to give the audience the impression that the WC somehow
failed to learn about Dodd, or ignored him intentionally.
Are you familiar with the concept "lying by omission?"
If not, how about "intentionally misleading your audience."
> >I'm afraid Lane is not the one who's full of crap. He stated the > >following:
> >?Your name is not listed in the index and there is no reference in the > >whole 888 pages that you were up there and you saw what you saw and you > >heard what you heard.?
> >He was talking about the short version of the report which was sold all > >over the world, to countless thousands of people. Almost no one bought the > >full volume set which contained mostly unindexed documents and reports.
> >It was that version that the public had easy access to, that Lane was > >referring to. Once again, he was telling the absolute truth - unlike most > >of his critics.
> He was trying to give the audience the impression that the WC somehow
> failed to learn about Dodd, or ignored him intentionally.
He said nothing of the kind. Why do you keep attacking him for things he never said or did?
> Are you familiar with the concept "lying by omission?"
Of course. But it doesn't matter that an FBI report on Dodd was buried somewhere in the 15 volumes that almost no one ever read or purchased.
What matters is the short version which was for sale in every drug store and supermarket in America. And Lane made it very clear that he was talking about that one.
Tell me something John, in your own book you talked about Mrs. Connally's error, failing to realize that her husband had already been wounded when she turned around to look at JFK.
Does it bother you just a tad that you omitted information about that which was a thousand times more important than what Lane omitted?
> I'm afraid Lane is not the one who's full of crap. He stated the
> following:
> ?Your name is not listed in the index and there is no reference in the
> whole 888 pages that you were up there and you saw what you saw and you
> heard what you heard.?
What did Dodd say he heard. Seems Lane is trying to make it seem
like Dodd heard shots from the knoll.
> He was talking about the short version of the report which was sold all
> over the world, to countless thousands of people. Almost no one bought the
> full volume set which contained mostly unindexed documents and reports.
Yes, if the short version contained everything the long version did
they would have been identical, and would not have sold around the
world. In order to make the long version the short version some
information would need to be left out.
> It was that version that the public had easy access to, that Lane was
> referring to. Once again, he was telling the absolute truth - unlike most
> of his critics.
> I'm afraid Lane is not the one who's full of crap. He stated the
> following:
> ?Your name is not listed in the index and there is no reference in the
> whole 888 pages that you were up there and you saw what you saw and you
> heard what you heard.?
> He was talking about the short version of the report which was sold all
> over the world, to countless thousands of people. Almost no one bought the
> full volume set which contained mostly unindexed documents and reports.
> It was that version that the public had easy access to, that Lane was
> referring to. Once again, he was telling the absolute truth - unlike most
> of his critics.
> Robert Harris
Lane was *lying by omission* by pretending that this fellow had been
completely IGNORED by the Warren Commission.
The reality is that they published what he had to say.
Lane CONTINUALLY lies in his publications, both through omission AND
overtly.
He is a very dishonest fellow.
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.
>>>>> No wonder the KGB saw fit to partially fund his research.
>>>> That is a lie by the CIA.
>>> Then why did the information come from British intelligence?
>> Because they are lackies licking the boots of the CIA.
>>> You should stop making stuff up, Marsh.
>>> Concerned 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.
> 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.
> > I'm afraid Lane is not the one who's full of crap. He stated the
> > following:
> > ?Your name is not listed in the index and there is no reference in the
> > whole 888 pages that you were up there and you saw what you saw and you
> > heard what you heard.?
> > He was talking about the short version of the report which was sold all
> > over the world, to countless thousands of people. Almost no one bought the
> > full volume set which contained mostly unindexed documents and reports.
> > It was that version that the public had easy access to, that Lane was
> > referring to. Once again, he was telling the absolute truth - unlike most
> > of his critics.
> > Robert Harris
> Lane was *lying by omission* by pretending that this fellow had been
> completely IGNORED by the Warren Commission.
> The reality is that they published what he had to say.
> Lane CONTINUALLY lies in his publications, both through omission AND
> overtly.
> He is a very dishonest fellow.
I agree. Just because someone isn't listed in the Report in Volume 1 only, the part that most people read, doesn't excuse Lane from still admitting that that person's statement *does* appear in at least one of the other volumes.
>>> I'm afraid Lane is not the one who's full of crap. He stated the
>>> following:
>>> ?Your name is not listed in the index and there is no reference in the
>>> whole 888 pages that you were up there and you saw what you saw and you
>>> heard what you heard.?
>>> He was talking about the short version of the report which was sold all
>>> over the world, to countless thousands of people. Almost no one bought the
>>> full volume set which contained mostly unindexed documents and reports.
>>> It was that version that the public had easy access to, that Lane was
>>> referring to. Once again, he was telling the absolute truth - unlike most
>>> of his critics.
>>> Robert Harris
>> Lane was *lying by omission* by pretending that this fellow had been
>> completely IGNORED by the Warren Commission.
>> The reality is that they published what he had to say.
>> Lane CONTINUALLY lies in his publications, both through omission AND
>> overtly.
>> He is a very dishonest fellow.
> I agree. Just because someone isn't listed in the Report in Volume 1
> only, the part that most people read, doesn't excuse Lane from still
> admitting that that person's statement *does* appear in at least one of
> the other volumes.
Ah ha, and now the truth finally comes out. You don't actually have the Warren Commission Report. It is not Volume 1.
The 26 volumes are the testimonies, exhibits and report which are SUPPLEMENTAL to the Report.
You don't even know what you are agreeing with. But it SOUNDS like conspiracy bashing to you so you want to jump in with your "me too."
> >>>>> He is simply LYING by omission, in my view.
> >>>>> No wonder the KGB saw fit to partially fund his research.
> >>>> That is a lie by the CIA.
> >>> Then why did the information come from British intelligence?
> >> Because they are lackies licking the boots of the CIA.
> >>> You should stop making stuff up, Marsh.
> >>> Concerned 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.
> > That still has nothing to do with your claim that the information came
> > from the CIA, Marsh.
> Ned Dolan, CIA agent is the one who has been spreading this on the > InterNet.
You've never proven that Dolan ever worked for the CIA in any capacity whatsoever.
So why is it taking you a week to finally admit that I never said that JFK already had his hands up by Z225, Anthony? Afraid to admit that you made an obvious mistake? Could that also be the reason you're afraid to admit that you never proved that Dolan was in any way connected with the CIA?
> In article <5071f52...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/6/2012 6:52 PM, timstter wrote:
>>> On Oct 5, 1:41 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 10/3/2012 9:00 PM, timstter wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 1, 1:04 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/30/2012 4:45 PM, timstter wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>> Say, according to this video, Richard C. Dodd was NEVER mentioned in
>>>>>>> the Warren Commission Report:
>>>>>>> He is simply LYING by omission, in my view.
>>>>>>> No wonder the KGB saw fit to partially fund his research.
>>>>>> That is a lie by the CIA.
>>>>> Then why did the information come from British intelligence?
>>>> Because they are lackies licking the boots of the CIA.
>>>>> You should stop making stuff up, Marsh.
>>>>> Concerned 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.
>>> That still has nothing to do with your claim that the information came
>>> from the CIA, Marsh.
>> Ned Dolan, CIA agent is the one who has been spreading this on the
>> InterNet.
> You've never proven that Dolan ever worked for the CIA in any capacity
> whatsoever.
I just did or are you blind? I uploaded his biography from the AFIO booklet. I think people are starting to catch onto your tactic of ignoring evidence.
> So why is it taking you a week to finally admit that I never said that
> JFK already had his hands up by Z225, Anthony? Afraid to admit that you
> made an obvious mistake? Could that also be the reason you're afraid to
> admit that you never proved that Dolan was in any way connected with the
> CIA?
> >>>> He is simply LYING by omission, in my view.
> >>> I'm afraid Lane is not the one who's full of crap. He stated the
> >>> following:
> >>> ?Your name is not listed in the index and there is no reference in the
> >>> whole 888 pages that you were up there and you saw what you saw and you
> >>> heard what you heard.?
> >>> He was talking about the short version of the report which was sold all
> >>> over the world, to countless thousands of people. Almost no one bought the
> >>> full volume set which contained mostly unindexed documents and reports.
> >>> It was that version that the public had easy access to, that Lane was
> >>> referring to. Once again, he was telling the absolute truth - unlike most
> >>> of his critics.
> >>> Robert Harris
> >> Lane was *lying by omission* by pretending that this fellow had been
> >> completely IGNORED by the Warren Commission.
> >> The reality is that they published what he had to say.
> >> Lane CONTINUALLY lies in his publications, both through omission AND
> >> overtly.
> >> He is a very dishonest fellow.
> > I agree. Just because someone isn't listed in the Report in Volume 1
> > only, the part that most people read, doesn't excuse Lane from still
> > admitting that that person's statement *does* appear in at least one of
> > the other volumes.
> Ah ha, and now the truth finally comes out. You don't actually have the > Warren Commission Report.
Well, just a minor quibble, Tony: I don't actually have to literally "have" the Report, if by that you mean my own physical copy of it, because it and all the other volumes have been right here for more than a decade, as I have known quite well for more than a decade, known it, in fact, for at about two years before I began posting here for the first time in October, 2002, almost exactly a decade ago now:
> It is not Volume 1.
> The 26 volumes are the testimonies, exhibits and report which are > SUPPLEMENTAL to the Report.
You are absolutely correct. My apologies. I had forgotten that the Report is not in one of the numbered volumes.
Now, see how, once again, I admit my mistake in the
very
first
reply
that I post after the very first time I saw your correction? It is sooo weepingly sad, Anthony, that you cannot bring yourself to show me the same courtesy. In your first reply to me after I corrected you on your false claim that I ever said that JFK already had his hands up by Z225, something I've never said, instead of unhesitatingly apologizing to me and admitting your mistake, as I have just done with you here, you said I wasn't sincere because...oh, what was the ridiculous reason you gave?...ah yes, because I typed in all caps.
ROFL.
In several subsequent replies you still refused to admit your blatantly obvious mistake, so obvious that it would be like missing the sun rising when you're looking right at it, you quoted a sentence of mine in which I did *not* say that JFK already had his fists up by Z225, and in fact was a sentence in which no form of the word "fist," singular or plural, even appeared. I've reminded you about your stunningly obvious mistake several times a day, every day since, for the past eight days, and still as of today I have not seen you admit this mistake.
I'm able to admit my mistakes the very next day after you correct me, and you still can't admit yours in eight days?
What are you trying to hide?
What are you afraid of?
> You don't even know what you are agreeing with.
Actually I did, because aside from the single mistake of which volume the Report is in, everything else I said remains perfectly valid. Just because a witness statement doesn't appear in the Report itself (a great many of them don't appear in the Report actually, since the witness statements are primarily in the *other* volumes), no matter what volume the Report is or isn't in, doesn't excuse Lane from still informing his viewers that the witness's statement *does* appear in one of the other volumes.
> But it SOUNDS like > conspiracy bashing to you so you want to jump in with your "me too."
No, but that may have been similar to what you have been doing eight days ago when you decided to do some LN bashing by stooping to the level of claiming I said something I never said and then continuously refusing to admit your mistake for eight days, and probably till doomsday, the way things are looking. ;-)
> In article <5073836...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/8/2012 8:56 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <ae4cfbe8-36ee-4a92-9473-39bc41024...@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com>,
>>> timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Oct 7, 7:49 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> timstter wrote:
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>> Say, according to this video, Richard C. Dodd was NEVER mentioned in
>>>>>> the Warren Commission Report:
>>>>>> He is simply LYING by omission, in my view.
>>>>> I'm afraid Lane is not the one who's full of crap. He stated the
>>>>> following:
>>>>> ?Your name is not listed in the index and there is no reference in the
>>>>> whole 888 pages that you were up there and you saw what you saw and you
>>>>> heard what you heard.?
>>>>> He was talking about the short version of the report which was sold all
>>>>> over the world, to countless thousands of people. Almost no one bought the
>>>>> full volume set which contained mostly unindexed documents and reports.
>>>>> It was that version that the public had easy access to, that Lane was
>>>>> referring to. Once again, he was telling the absolute truth - unlike most
>>>>> of his critics.
>>>>> Robert Harris
>>>> Lane was *lying by omission* by pretending that this fellow had been
>>>> completely IGNORED by the Warren Commission.
>>>> The reality is that they published what he had to say.
>>>> Lane CONTINUALLY lies in his publications, both through omission AND
>>>> overtly.
>>>> He is a very dishonest fellow.
>>> I agree. Just because someone isn't listed in the Report in Volume 1
>>> only, the part that most people read, doesn't excuse Lane from still
>>> admitting that that person's statement *does* appear in at least one of
>>> the other volumes.
>> Ah ha, and now the truth finally comes out. You don't actually have the
>> Warren Commission Report.
> Well, just a minor quibble, Tony: I don't actually have to literally
> "have" the Report, if by that you mean my own physical copy of it,
> because it and all the other volumes have been right here for more than
> a decade, as I have known quite well for more than a decade, known it,
> in fact, for at about two years before I began posting here for the
> first time in October, 2002, almost exactly a decade ago now:
>> It is not Volume 1.
>> The 26 volumes are the testimonies, exhibits and report which are
>> SUPPLEMENTAL to the Report.
> You are absolutely correct. My apologies. I had forgotten that the
> Report is not in one of the numbered volumes.
> Now, see how, once again, I admit my mistake in the
> very
> first
> reply
> that I post after the very first time I saw your correction? It is sooo
> weepingly sad, Anthony, that you cannot bring yourself to show me the
> same courtesy. In your first reply to me after I corrected you on your
> false claim that I ever said that JFK already had his hands up by Z225,
> something I've never said, instead of unhesitatingly apologizing to me
> and admitting your mistake, as I have just done with you here, you said
> I wasn't sincere because...oh, what was the ridiculous reason you
> gave?...ah yes, because I typed in all caps.
> ROFL.
> In several subsequent replies you still refused to admit your blatantly
> obvious mistake, so obvious that it would be like missing the sun rising
> when you're looking right at it, you quoted a sentence of mine in which
> I did *not* say that JFK already had his fists up by Z225, and in fact
> was a sentence in which no form of the word "fist," singular or plural,
> even appeared. I've reminded you about your stunningly obvious mistake
> several times a day, every day since, for the past eight days, and still
> as of today I have not seen you admit this mistake.
> I'm able to admit my mistakes the very next day after you correct me,
> and you still can't admit yours in eight days?
> What are you trying to hide?
> What are you afraid of?
>> You don't even know what you are agreeing with.
> Actually I did, because aside from the single mistake of which volume
> the Report is in, everything else I said remains perfectly valid. Just
Well, well, well now. How many decades did it take for you to finally admit that point? I have been making this point for 4 decades and all the WC defenders assure me that it couldn't possibly be true? Why didn't you just tell the truth in the first place. I would have mailed you a copy. I often have 3 or 4 copies of a book to give one to a friend or enemy.
> because a witness statement doesn't appear in the Report itself (a great
> many of them don't appear in the Report actually, since the witness
> statements are primarily in the *other* volumes), no matter what volume
> the Report is or isn't in, doesn't excuse Lane from still informing his
> viewers that the witness's statement *does* appear in one of the other
> volumes.
Keep going. Try to walk back your comment that the Report is volume 1. You need to impress your fellow WC defenders who are losing faith in you.
>> But it SOUNDS like
>> conspiracy bashing to you so you want to jump in with your "me too."
> No, but that may have been similar to what you have been doing eight
> days ago when you decided to do some LN bashing by stooping to the level
> of claiming I said something I never said and then continuously refusing
> to admit your mistake for eight days, and probably till doomsday, the
> way things are looking. ;-)
