Received: by 10.66.74.39 with SMTP id q7mr2556855pav.29.1349491389179;
        Fri, 05 Oct 2012 19:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: Lying The Mark Lane Way # 4 (Rush To Judgment Book)
Date: 5 Oct 2012 22:43:08 -0400
Lines: 61
Approved: jmcad...@shell.core.com
Message-ID: <506f8c58$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
References: <d413f9be-a4e7-4578-89ce-08c852e92605@c6g2000pba.googlegroups.com>
Return-Path: <anthony.ma...@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: aa...@panix.com
Delivered-To: aa...@panix.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d413f9be-a4e7-4578-89ce-08c852e92605@c6g2000pba.googlegroups.com>
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.61.15.155
X-Original-Trace: 5 Oct 2012 20:41:44 -0500, 24.61.15.155
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.2
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.2
X-Trace: mcadams.posc.mu.edu 1349491389 166.84.1.2 (5 Oct 2012 21:43:09 -0500)
X-Original-Trace: 5 Oct 2012 21:43:09 -0500, 166.84.1.2
Path: t10ni23617469pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news.glorb.com!news2.arglkargh.de!news.albasani.net!mcadams.posc.mu.edu!panix2.panix.com!not-for-mail
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 10/5/2012 9:06 PM, timstter wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> On page 108 of Rush To Judgment (Penguin edition) Lane states:
>
> QUOTE ON:
>
> What do we know about Oswald's proficiency with a rifle? That he was a
> relatively poor shot and betrayed a dislike of weapons to a Marine Corps
> friend.
>
> QUOTE OFF
>
> The evidence, though, is that Oswald must have been a *fairly good
> shot* to have qualified as a USMC Sharpshooter, per this three page
> letter from the USMC's AG Folsom to the Warren Commission:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0017b.htm
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0018a.htm
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0018b.htm
>
> In fact, Major Eugene Anderson, the assistant head of the Marksmanship
> Branch, Headquarters Marine Corps and himself a USMC shooting expert and
> master rifleshot in the NRA, testified that Oswald would have been
> *considered a good to excellent shot* in comparison to the average citizen
> in his WC testimony:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/html/WC_Vol11_0158a.htm
>
> Lane simply LIES by omission, by precluding any description of Oswald's
> shooting outside of the mediocre.
>

And what do you call it when you omit Folsom's letter where he states:

Consequently a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor "shot" 
and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good "shot".

> Lying by OMISSION is Mark Lane's modus operandi.
>
> When he is not lying OVERTLY, that is...
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
> neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
> Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
>
> And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
>
> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
>