Message from discussion Lying The Mark Lane Way # 1 (Rush To Judgment Film)
Received: by 10.180.84.234 with SMTP id c10mr1601134wiz.4.1350184340291;
Sat, 13 Oct 2012 20:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Lying The Mark Lane Way # 1 (Rush To Judgment Film)
Date: 11 Oct 2012 16:06:31 -0400
References: <email@example.com> <qKadnR_X-P5io-3NnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@earthlink.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <caeruleo-D983DB.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <caeruleo-F143FD.email@example.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
X-Original-Trace: 10 Oct 2012 22:57:56 -0500, 184.108.40.206
X-Trace: mcadams.posc.mu.edu 1349985992 220.127.116.11 (11 Oct 2012 15:06:32 -0500)
X-Original-Trace: 11 Oct 2012 15:06:32 -0500, 18.104.22.168
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
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
>>> 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:
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> ?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
>>>> 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:
>> 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
> 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.
> 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
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. ;-)