Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Lying The Mark Lane Way # 5 (Rush To Judgment Book)
26 views
Skip to first unread message
timstter
Oct 6, 2012, 6:52:46 PM10/6/12
to
Hi All,
In the Thunder's Mouth edition of his book, Rush To Judgment, on page 129,
Mark Lane makes the following statement in discussing the expert shooting
tests that the Warren Commission conducted using Oswald's rifle:
QUOTE ON:
No one who has read this far will be surprised to hear that the Commission
concluded that *the probability of hitting the targets* was *very high*.
This probability remained *very high* in spite of the fact that not one of
the three experts was able to strike the head or neck of the target even
once.
QUOTE OFF
To support the latter part of this statement, Lane footnotes to the WC
volumes, XVII 261-262.
And what does XVII, 261-262 show?:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
It shows two of the targets used in the tests AND showing hits to the
head! Lane's statement [emphasis added] that NOT ONE OF THE THREE EXPERTS
WAS ABLE TO STRIKE THE HEAD OR NECK OF THE TARGET EVEN ONCE must be one of
the most BLATANT lies ever in JFK assassination research!
Case closed on whether Mark Lane lied in Rush To Judgment or not!
X marks the spot that shows that he did.
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!
In the Thunder's Mouth edition of his book, Rush To Judgment, on page 129,
Mark Lane makes the following statement in discussing the expert shooting
tests that the Warren Commission conducted using Oswald's rifle:
QUOTE ON:
No one who has read this far will be surprised to hear that the Commission
concluded that *the probability of hitting the targets* was *very high*.
This probability remained *very high* in spite of the fact that not one of
the three experts was able to strike the head or neck of the target even
once.
QUOTE OFF
To support the latter part of this statement, Lane footnotes to the WC
volumes, XVII 261-262.
And what does XVII, 261-262 show?:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
It shows two of the targets used in the tests AND showing hits to the
head! Lane's statement [emphasis added] that NOT ONE OF THE THREE EXPERTS
WAS ABLE TO STRIKE THE HEAD OR NECK OF THE TARGET EVEN ONCE must be one of
the most BLATANT lies ever in JFK assassination research!
Case closed on whether Mark Lane lied in Rush To Judgment or not!
X marks the spot that shows that he did.
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!
Robert Harris
Oct 8, 2012, 8:01:48 PM10/8/12
to
timstter wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> In the Thunder's Mouth edition of his book, Rush To Judgment, on page 129,
> Mark Lane makes the following statement in discussing the expert shooting
> tests that the Warren Commission conducted using Oswald's rifle:
>
> QUOTE ON:
>
> No one who has read this far will be surprised to hear that the Commission
> concluded that *the probability of hitting the targets* was *very high*.
> This probability remained *very high* in spite of the fact that not one of
> the three experts was able to strike the head or neck of the target even
> once.
>
> QUOTE OFF
>
> To support the latter part of this statement, Lane footnotes to the WC
> volumes, XVII 261-262.
>
> And what does XVII, 261-262 show?:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
But those shots were not from 270 feet, the distance from the alleged
> Hi All,
>
> In the Thunder's Mouth edition of his book, Rush To Judgment, on page 129,
> Mark Lane makes the following statement in discussing the expert shooting
> tests that the Warren Commission conducted using Oswald's rifle:
>
> QUOTE ON:
>
> No one who has read this far will be surprised to hear that the Commission
> concluded that *the probability of hitting the targets* was *very high*.
> This probability remained *very high* in spite of the fact that not one of
> the three experts was able to strike the head or neck of the target even
> once.
>
> QUOTE OFF
>
> To support the latter part of this statement, Lane footnotes to the WC
> volumes, XVII 261-262.
>
> And what does XVII, 261-262 show?:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
sniper's nest to JFK at 313. What you forgot to show us was the result
of shots fired from the relevant distance,
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144b.htm
What was that you were saying about "lies of ommission"?
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Oct 8, 2012, 9:06:22 PM10/8/12
to
shots IF the target were only 10 feet away and much larger.
Then the WC would publish the targets and say they were 270 feet away.
timstter
Oct 9, 2012, 8:46:30 PM10/9/12
to
On Oct 9, 11:01 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> timstter wrote:
> > Hi All,
>
> > In the Thunder's Mouth edition of his book, Rush To Judgment, on page 129,
> > Mark Lane makes the following statement in discussing the expert shooting
> > tests that the Warren Commission conducted using Oswald's rifle:
>
> > QUOTE ON:
>
> > No one who has read this far will be surprised to hear that the Commission
> > concluded that *the probability of hitting the targets* was *very high*.
> > This probability remained *very high* in spite of the fact that not one of
> > the three experts was able to strike the head or neck of the target even
> > once.
>
> > QUOTE OFF
>
> > To support the latter part of this statement, Lane footnotes to the WC
> > volumes, XVII 261-262.
>
> > And what does XVII, 261-262 show?:
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...
> timstter wrote:
> > Hi All,
>
> > In the Thunder's Mouth edition of his book, Rush To Judgment, on page 129,
> > Mark Lane makes the following statement in discussing the expert shooting
> > tests that the Warren Commission conducted using Oswald's rifle:
>
> > QUOTE ON:
>
> > No one who has read this far will be surprised to hear that the Commission
> > concluded that *the probability of hitting the targets* was *very high*.
> > This probability remained *very high* in spite of the fact that not one of
> > the three experts was able to strike the head or neck of the target even
> > once.
>
> > QUOTE OFF
>
> > To support the latter part of this statement, Lane footnotes to the WC
> > volumes, XVII 261-262.
>
> > And what does XVII, 261-262 show?:
>
>
> But those shots were not from 270 feet, the distance from the alleged
> sniper's nest to JFK at 313. What you forgot to show us was the result
> of shots fired from the relevant distance,
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...
> But those shots were not from 270 feet, the distance from the alleged
> sniper's nest to JFK at 313. What you forgot to show us was the result
> of shots fired from the relevant distance,
>
>
> What was that you were saying about "lies of ommission"?
>
> Robert Harris
Well the question was whether or not the expert shooters were able to hit
> What was that you were saying about "lies of ommission"?
>
> Robert Harris
the target in the head AT ALL. Clearly they WERE and Lane is simply flat
out LYING in claiming that they didn't. Amazingly, he then has the gall to
cite an exhibit that PROVES he is lying!
As for *lies of omission*, Lane never bothers to tell the reader that the
expert shooters were simply told to acquire the targets and shoot as
quickly as they could. Presumably if they'd been asked to SPECIFICALLY go
for a head shot the reults would have been different.
It's just another *lie of omission* by Mark Lane that he didn't point this
out, but then his book is inherently dishonest.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 10, 2012, 9:16:19 PM10/10/12
to
being tested, just speed.
Robert Harris
Oct 11, 2012, 11:05:33 AM10/11/12
to
In article
<35d65b72-14ba-4da7...@b9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
I don't think so.
It doesn't matter that they could hit the target at distances that were
not relevant to Oswald's alleged performance. When the WC claimed the
probability of Oswald making the head shot was "very high", they were
talking about a shot at the actual distance between the alleged SN and
JFK.
Nothing else counts.
But you still haven't explained why you did not make that clear in your
post and why you only linked to the results of tests fired at closer
range. Don't you think you should have also linked to the test at the
appropriate range, in which none of the testers scored a head shot??
For someone so concerned about "lies of omission" that's a bit
disappointing Tim.
Robert Harris
<35d65b72-14ba-4da7...@b9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
It doesn't matter that they could hit the target at distances that were
not relevant to Oswald's alleged performance. When the WC claimed the
probability of Oswald making the head shot was "very high", they were
talking about a shot at the actual distance between the alleged SN and
JFK.
Nothing else counts.
But you still haven't explained why you did not make that clear in your
post and why you only linked to the results of tests fired at closer
range. Don't you think you should have also linked to the test at the
appropriate range, in which none of the testers scored a head shot??
For someone so concerned about "lies of omission" that's a bit
disappointing Tim.
Robert Harris
0 new messages