Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Lying The Mark Lane Way # 1 (Rush To Judgment Film)
93 views
Skip to first unread message
timstter
Sep 30, 2012, 4:45:12 PM9/30/12
to
Hi All,
Say, according to this video, Richard C. Dodd was NEVER mentioned in
the Warren Commission Report:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YODZyI2qRMw
What Mark Lane FAILS to tell the viewer is that Dodd's FBI interview
DID appear in the Warren Commission volumes:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0433a.htm
He is simply LYING by omission, in my view.
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.
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!
Say, according to this video, Richard C. Dodd was NEVER mentioned in
the Warren Commission Report:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YODZyI2qRMw
What Mark Lane FAILS to tell the viewer is that Dodd's FBI interview
DID appear in the Warren Commission volumes:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0433a.htm
He is simply LYING by omission, in my view.
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.
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!
Anthony Marsh
Sep 30, 2012, 11:04:52 PM9/30/12
to
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:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YODZyI2qRMw
>
> 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?
> Hi All,
>
> Say, according to this video, Richard C. Dodd was NEVER mentioned in
> the Warren Commission Report:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YODZyI2qRMw
>
> What Mark Lane FAILS to tell the viewer is that Dodd's FBI interview
> DID appear in the Warren Commission volumes:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0433a.htm
>
> He is simply LYING by omission, in my view.
>
> No wonder the KGB saw fit to partially fund his research.
>
Sandy McCroskey
Oct 1, 2012, 1:55:47 PM10/1/12
to
Anthony Marsh 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:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YODZyI2qRMw
>>
>> 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?
>
>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0433a.htm
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
Prove it.
> 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:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YODZyI2qRMw
>>
>> 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?
>
>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0433a.htm
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
John Reagor King
Oct 1, 2012, 1:58:00 PM10/1/12
to
In article <5068ec54$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
"interview," the words Tim used, and the word "testimony," which only
you used, Anthony?
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@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:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YODZyI2qRMw
> >
> > 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
> 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:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YODZyI2qRMw
> >
> > 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?
"interview," the words Tim used, and the word "testimony," which only
you used, Anthony?
timstter
Oct 3, 2012, 9:00:18 PM10/3/12
to
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:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YODZyI2qRMw
>
> > 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 concept of lying by omission?
> 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:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YODZyI2qRMw
>
> > 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?
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
>
> > 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?
> > 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.
>
You should stop making stuff up, Marsh.
Concerned Regards,
Anthony Marsh
Oct 4, 2012, 10:41:15 PM10/4/12
to
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:
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YODZyI2qRMw
>>
>>> 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 concept of lying by omission?
>
I understand the concept of lying by misrepresenting what someone claimed.
> 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:
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YODZyI2qRMw
>>
>>> 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 concept of lying by omission?
>
>>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
>>
>>> 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?
>
Robert Harris
Oct 6, 2012, 4:49:35 PM10/6/12
to
timstter wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Say, according to this video, Richard C. Dodd was NEVER mentioned in
> the Warren Commission Report:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YODZyI2qRMw
>
> What Mark Lane FAILS to tell the viewer is that Dodd's FBI interview
> DID appear in the Warren Commission volumes:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0433a.htm
>
> 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
> Hi All,
>
> Say, according to this video, Richard C. Dodd was NEVER mentioned in
> the Warren Commission Report:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YODZyI2qRMw
>
> What Mark Lane FAILS to tell the viewer is that Dodd's FBI interview
> DID appear in the Warren Commission volumes:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0433a.htm
>
> He is simply LYING by omission, in my view.
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
timstter
Oct 6, 2012, 6:52:04 PM10/6/12
to
>
> > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
That still has nothing to do with your claim that the information came
> > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
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,
John McAdams
Oct 6, 2012, 8:54:09 PM10/6/12
to
On 6 Oct 2012 16:49:35 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
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."
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
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."
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Robert Harris
Oct 7, 2012, 11:08:55 AM10/7/12
to
In article <sik1789gjhshr3kak...@4ax.com>,
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?
Robert Harris
never said or did?
>
> Are you familiar with the concept "lying by omission?"
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?
Robert Harris
Bud
Oct 7, 2012, 11:12:09 AM10/7/12
to
On Oct 6, 4:49 pm, 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:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YODZyI2qRMw
>
> > What Mark Lane FAILS to tell the viewer is that Dodd's FBI interview
> > DID appear in the Warren Commission volumes:
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
> timstter wrote:
> > Hi All,
>
> > Say, according to this video, Richard C. Dodd was NEVER mentioned in
> > the Warren Commission Report:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YODZyI2qRMw
>
> > What Mark Lane FAILS to tell the viewer is that Dodd's FBI interview
> > DID appear in the Warren Commission volumes:
>
>
> > 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.?
What did Dodd say he heard. Seems Lane is trying to make it seem
> > 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.?
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.
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.
> Robert Harris
timstter
Oct 8, 2012, 12:12:10 AM10/8/12
to
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:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YODZyI2qRMw
>
> > What Mark Lane FAILS to tell the viewer is that Dodd's FBI interview
> > DID appear in the Warren Commission volumes:
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
> timstter wrote:
> > Hi All,
>
> > Say, according to this video, Richard C. Dodd was NEVER mentioned in
> > the Warren Commission Report:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YODZyI2qRMw
>
> > What Mark Lane FAILS to tell the viewer is that Dodd's FBI interview
> > DID appear in the Warren Commission volumes:
>
>
> > 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
> > 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
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,
Anthony Marsh
Oct 8, 2012, 5:19:46 PM10/8/12
to
InterNet.
> 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.
>
John Reagor King
Oct 8, 2012, 8:56:32 PM10/8/12
to
In article
<ae4cfbe8-36ee-4a92...@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com>,
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.
<ae4cfbe8-36ee-4a92...@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com>,
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.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 9, 2012, 9:49:58 AM10/9/12
to
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."
John Reagor King
Oct 9, 2012, 9:00:35 PM10/9/12
to
In article <5071f529$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
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?
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?
Anthony Marsh
Oct 10, 2012, 4:12:12 PM10/10/12
to
booklet. I think people are starting to catch onto your tactic of ignoring
evidence.
John Reagor King
Oct 10, 2012, 9:45:20 PM10/10/12
to
In article <50738362$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
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:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/archive_holdings.htm
> 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. ;-)
"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:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/archive_holdings.htm
> It is not Volume 1.
> The 26 volumes are the testimonies, exhibits and report which are
> SUPPLEMENTAL to the Report.
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.
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."
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. ;-)
Anthony Marsh
Oct 11, 2012, 4:06:31 PM10/11/12
to
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.
>
You need to impress your fellow WC defenders who are losing faith in you.
0 new messages