Lying The Mark Lane Way # 1 (Rush To Judgment Film) - alt.assassination.jfk

The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
alt.assassination.jfk
Message from discussion Lying The Mark Lane Way # 1 (Rush To Judgment Film)
From: Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: Lying The Mark Lane Way # 1 (Rush To Judgment Film)
Date: 11 Oct 2012 16:06:31 -0400
Lines: 144
Approved: jmcad...@shell.core.com
Message-ID: <507643c4$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
References: <dd9bccaf-17d4-460f-a152-d13ac30a537d@ql4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> <qKadnR_X-P5io-3NnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@earthlink.com> <ae4cfbe8-36ee-4a92-9473-39bc4102436a@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com> <caeruleo-D983DB.10493708102012@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <50738362$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <caeruleo-F143FD.19382710102012@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
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: <caeruleo-F143FD.19382710102012@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.3
Path: q11ni134302993wiw.1!nntp.google.com!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!85.12.40.131.MISMATCH!xlned.com!feeder3.xlned.com!news.astraweb.com!border5.a.newsrouter.astraweb.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nrc-news.nrc.ca!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.albasani.net!mcadams.posc.mu.edu!panix3.panix.com!not-for-mail
Bytes: 7644
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 10/10/2012 9:45 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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...
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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:
>
> 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

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. ;-)
>
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Account Options
