Message from discussion Lying The Mark Lane Way # 6 (Rush To Judgment Book)
Received: by 10.14.215.132 with SMTP id e4mr8830567eep.3.1350184371472;
Sat, 13 Oct 2012 20:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Lying The Mark Lane Way # 6 (Rush To Judgment Book)
Date: 11 Oct 2012 22:46:19 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
X-Original-Trace: 11 Oct 2012 17:31:08 -0500, 22.214.171.124
X-Trace: mcadams.posc.mu.edu 1350009979 126.96.36.199 (11 Oct 2012 21:46:19 -0500)
X-Original-Trace: 11 Oct 2012 21:46:19 -0500, 188.8.131.52
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 10/11/2012 4:14 PM, timstter wrote:
> Hi All,
> Say, in the Thunder's Mouth reprint of his book, Rush To Judgment,
> Mark Lane posits the following re Lee Harvey Oswald's shooting ability
> on page 125:
> QUOTE ON:
> What do we know about Oswald's proficiency with a rifle? That he has a
> relatively poor shot and betrayed a dislike of weapons to a Marine
> Corps friend.
> QUOTE OFF
> The first part of this statement, Oswald being *a relatively poor
> shot*, has been dealt with in # 4 of this series, where it was
> demonstrated that Lane LIED BY OMISSION by ignoring the whole gamut of
> the USMC assessment of Oswald's shooting ability, which ran from a
> *fairly good shot* to *rather a poor shot*.
What do you call it then you you omit Folsom's statement that Oswald was
a "rather poor shot"?
Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but don't
consider the beam that is in your own eye?
> In fact, under WC questioning, one USMC expert stated that Oswald
> would have been an EXCELLENT shot in comparison to the general public
> but Lane ignores this.
> Let us now turn to the second part of Lane's statement, that Oswald
> BETRAYED A DISLIKE OF WEAPONS TO A MARINE CORPS FRIEND and see if that
> is backed up by the evidence.
> That is a pretty strong statement about a gun owner like Oswald. To
> back it up, Lane cites footnote 48, which translates as WC VIII, 235.
> Here is the relevant WC volume page:
> Can anyone explain to me, after reading that page, where Oswald
> BETRAYED A DISLIKE OF WEAPONS TO A MARINE CORPS FRIEND? Because I
> can't see it.
> He may have been unenthusiastic about rifle practice, he may have shot
> a lot of *Maggie's drawers* but that does not constitute BETRAYING A
> DISLIKE OF WEAPONS TO A MARINE CORPS FRIEND.
> In fact, discussion of weapons with Oswald, and his opinion of them,
> is NEVER MENTIONED on the page Lane cites to back up his statement!
And you never dare to quote Delgado.
> Lane must have thought the WC volumes would never be as freely
> available as they are today when he made that statement.
That is certainly what the WC hoped at the time and it was the fact that
he dealt with at the time. The WC could get away with all their lies
because the hid the evidence.
> Perhaps that's why he thought he could get away with it.
> 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...
> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!