Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Ben Holme`s Fundamental Misunderstanding
100 views
Skip to first unread message
Bud
Sep 20, 2012, 12:46:15 PM9/20/12
to
In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to what
he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an almost
unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing he
doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from Lane`s
book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he must
realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regards to
the WCR.
If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be
considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police wanted
Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have. But
I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police wanted
Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant if I
like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that Lane
puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to limit
the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a critic and
attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when placed
in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark Lane*,
and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed, and
without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an almost
unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing he
doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from Lane`s
book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he must
realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regards to
the WCR.
If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be
considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police wanted
Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have. But
I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police wanted
Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant if I
like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that Lane
puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to limit
the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a critic and
attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when placed
in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark Lane*,
and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed, and
without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
Bill Clarke
Sep 20, 2012, 6:57:42 PM9/20/12
to
In article <c6eed347-f790-4b74...@m9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Bud says...
Good luck with that one Bud. Holmes likes to make up the rules as he
goes.
When I pointed out Lane's dishonesty in his Vietnam book Holmes told me I
was off topic and acted like I had committed the ultimate crime. He
didn't want to handle that one.
In my opinion if we are discussing Lane's dishonesty, and he is a
dishonest man, then all cards are on the table.
Bill Clarke
Bud says...
goes.
When I pointed out Lane's dishonesty in his Vietnam book Holmes told me I
was off topic and acted like I had committed the ultimate crime. He
didn't want to handle that one.
In my opinion if we are discussing Lane's dishonesty, and he is a
dishonest man, then all cards are on the table.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
Sep 20, 2012, 7:20:20 PM9/20/12
to
On 9/20/2012 12:46 PM, Bud wrote:
> In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to what
> he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an almost
> unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing he
> doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from Lane`s
> book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he must
> realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regards to
> the WCR.
No, he didn't. We can point out one error that an author points out
> In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to what
> he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an almost
> unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing he
> doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from Lane`s
> book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he must
> realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regards to
> the WCR.
without having to believe everything the author says. You WC defenders
have the same problem with Posner and Bugliosi.
> If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be
> considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police wanted
> Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have. But
> I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police wanted
> Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant if I
to obstruct and prove how silly you can be.
> like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that Lane
> puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to limit
> the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a critic and
> attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when placed
> in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
> opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
> attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark Lane*,
> and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
> focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed, and
> without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
>
Bud
Sep 20, 2012, 8:51:40 PM9/20/12
to
On Sep 20, 7:20 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 9/20/2012 12:46 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to what
> > he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an almost
> > unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing he
> > doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from Lane`s
> > book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he must
> > realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regards to
> > the WCR.
>
> No, he didn't. We can point out one error that an author points out
> without having to believe everything the author says. You WC defenders
> have the same problem with Posner and Bugliosi.
I have no problem with the WC, Posner or Bugliosi. It`s about what
> On 9/20/2012 12:46 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to what
> > he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an almost
> > unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing he
> > doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from Lane`s
> > book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he must
> > realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regards to
> > the WCR.
>
> No, he didn't. We can point out one error that an author points out
> without having to believe everything the author says. You WC defenders
> have the same problem with Posner and Bugliosi.
obviously occurred. It`s obvious that Oswald killed Kennedy. I`ve never
seen anything presented by a CTer that puts that conclusion in jeopardy.
> > If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be
> > considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police wanted
> > Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have. But
> > I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police wanted
> > Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant if I
>
> Sure, you can even contest that Kennedy was shot if your only purpose is
> to obstruct and prove how silly you can be.
that I made.
> > like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that Lane
> > puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to limit
> > the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a critic and
>
> And of course you go off topic just to attack people.
> > attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when placed
> > in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
> > opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
> > attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark Lane*,
> > and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
> > focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed, and
> > without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
>
> YOU don't get to dictate what is discussed.
Bud
Sep 20, 2012, 8:54:41 PM9/20/12
to
On Sep 20, 6:57 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <c6eed347-f790-4b74-a5dd-79c75210c...@m9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
For sure, Bill. Can you imagine if someone tried the argument that it is
irrelevant that J. Edgar Hoover was a scumbag, because that is off topic
for discussions about the assassination?
I`m interested to see how Ben will treat the black and white example of
Lane`s lying about the bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland not being
deformed. One thing I know for sure is Ben will not be able to muster the
character to admit that what Lane wrote was not true, so I expect a lot of
dancing and gnashing of teeth and misdirection and anything to prevent
having to admit the fact that what Lane said was untrue. He is already
trying to misrepresent the idea as being that the bullet found was less
deformed than should be expected of a bullet that did the damage this
bullet was alleged to have inflicted. But I`ve seen Ben with his tail
caught in cracks like this before, so I have a pretty good idea how he
will handle it this time also. He`ll turn up the volume, bluff and bluster
and then proceed as if the issue has been settled in his favor.
> In article <c6eed347-f790-4b74-a5dd-79c75210c...@m9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
irrelevant that J. Edgar Hoover was a scumbag, because that is off topic
for discussions about the assassination?
I`m interested to see how Ben will treat the black and white example of
Lane`s lying about the bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland not being
deformed. One thing I know for sure is Ben will not be able to muster the
character to admit that what Lane wrote was not true, so I expect a lot of
dancing and gnashing of teeth and misdirection and anything to prevent
having to admit the fact that what Lane said was untrue. He is already
trying to misrepresent the idea as being that the bullet found was less
deformed than should be expected of a bullet that did the damage this
bullet was alleged to have inflicted. But I`ve seen Ben with his tail
caught in cracks like this before, so I have a pretty good idea how he
will handle it this time also. He`ll turn up the volume, bluff and bluster
and then proceed as if the issue has been settled in his favor.
Ben Holmes
Sep 20, 2012, 8:57:13 PM9/20/12
to
> In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to what
>he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission.
I see you've not read the first few pages of Chapter five yet.
>he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission.
Get back to me when you do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Bill Clarke
Sep 21, 2012, 1:21:04 PM9/21/12
to
In article <7af2e965-284c-4010...@j14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Bud says...
>
>On Sep 20, 6:57=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <c6eed347-f790-4b74-a5dd-79c75210c...@m9g2000yqi.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Bud says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to wh=
>at
>> >he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an almo=
>st
>> >unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing h=
>e
>> >doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from Lane`=
>to
>> >the WCR.
>> > =A0If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be
>ut
>> >I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police wante=
>d
>> >Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant if =
then stagger up and brag about winning that one. Cracks me up.
Bill Clarke
Bud says...
>
>On Sep 20, 6:57=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <c6eed347-f790-4b74-a5dd-79c75210c...@m9g2000yqi.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Bud says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to wh=
>at
>> >he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an almo=
>st
>> >unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing h=
>e
>> >doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from Lane`=
>s
>> >book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he must
>> >realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regards =
>> >book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he must
>to
>> >the WCR.
>> > =A0If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be
>> >considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police wanted
>> >Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have. B=
>ut
>> >I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police wante=
>d
>> >Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant if =
>I
>> >like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that Lane
>> >puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to limit
>> >the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a critic a=
>> >like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that Lane
>> >puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to limit
>nd
>> >attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when placed
>> >in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
>> >opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
>> >attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark Lane=
>> >attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when placed
>> >in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
>> >opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
>*,
>> >and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
>> >focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed, an=
>> >and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
>d
>> >without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
>>
>> Good luck with that one Bud. =A0Holmes likes to make up the rules as he
>> >without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
>>
>> goes.
>>
>> When I pointed out Lane's dishonesty in his Vietnam book Holmes told me I
>> was off topic and acted like I had committed the ultimate crime. =A0He
>>
>> When I pointed out Lane's dishonesty in his Vietnam book Holmes told me I
>> didn't want to handle that one.
>>
>> In my opinion if we are discussing Lane's dishonesty, and he is a
>> dishonest man, then all cards are on the table.
>
> For sure, Bill. Can you imagine if someone tried the argument that it is
>irrelevant that J. Edgar Hoover was a scumbag, because that is off topic
>for discussions about the assassination?
>
> I`m interested to see how Ben will treat the black and white example of
>Lane`s lying about the bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland not being
>deformed. One thing I know for sure is Ben will not be able to muster the
>character to admit that what Lane wrote was not true, so I expect a lot of
>dancing and gnashing of teeth and misdirection and anything to prevent
>having to admit the fact that what Lane said was untrue. He is already
>trying to misrepresent the idea as being that the bullet found was less
>deformed than should be expected of a bullet that did the damage this
>bullet was alleged to have inflicted. But I`ve seen Ben with his tail
>caught in cracks like this before, so I have a pretty good idea how he
>will handle it this time also. He`ll turn up the volume, bluff and bluster
>and then proceed as if the issue has been settled in his favor.
>
Yes, he always wins!! He can be whipped like a red-headed step child and
>>
>> In my opinion if we are discussing Lane's dishonesty, and he is a
>> dishonest man, then all cards are on the table.
>
> For sure, Bill. Can you imagine if someone tried the argument that it is
>irrelevant that J. Edgar Hoover was a scumbag, because that is off topic
>for discussions about the assassination?
>
> I`m interested to see how Ben will treat the black and white example of
>Lane`s lying about the bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland not being
>deformed. One thing I know for sure is Ben will not be able to muster the
>character to admit that what Lane wrote was not true, so I expect a lot of
>dancing and gnashing of teeth and misdirection and anything to prevent
>having to admit the fact that what Lane said was untrue. He is already
>trying to misrepresent the idea as being that the bullet found was less
>deformed than should be expected of a bullet that did the damage this
>bullet was alleged to have inflicted. But I`ve seen Ben with his tail
>caught in cracks like this before, so I have a pretty good idea how he
>will handle it this time also. He`ll turn up the volume, bluff and bluster
>and then proceed as if the issue has been settled in his favor.
>
then stagger up and brag about winning that one. Cracks me up.
Bill Clarke
Bud
Sep 21, 2012, 6:25:43 PM9/21/12
to
On Sep 20, 8:57 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <c6eed347-f790-4b74-a5dd-79c75210c...@m9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> In article <c6eed347-f790-4b74-a5dd-79c75210c...@m9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> Bud says...
>
>
>
> > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to what
> >he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission.
>
> I see you've not read the first few pages of Chapter five yet.
>
> Get back to me when you do.
You can run, but you can`t hide. Strike that, you can do that also.
>
>
>
> > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to what
> >he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission.
>
> I see you've not read the first few pages of Chapter five yet.
>
> Get back to me when you do.
Ben Holmes
Sep 21, 2012, 10:37:39 PM9/21/12
to
In article <62b277d1-a9f6-453a...@j14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Bud says...
>
>On Sep 20, 8:57=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <c6eed347-f790-4b74-a5dd-79c75210c...@m9g2000yqi.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Bud says...
>>
>>
>>
>> > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to wh=
That's okay, you have a compadre on this forum who thinks Mark Lane was
incorrect when he pointed out that the assertions & implications of Wade,
Gannaway, and Curry that Oswald was wanted at 12:45 was untrue and
"unacceptable"
Keep running, "Bud". Get back to me when you can admit what the topic is.
>> >This shows an almost
>> >unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing h=
>e
>> >doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from Lane`=
>ut
>> >I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police wante=
>d
>> >Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant if =
Bud says...
>
>On Sep 20, 8:57=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <c6eed347-f790-4b74-a5dd-79c75210c...@m9g2000yqi.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Bud says...
>>
>>
>>
>> > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to wh=
>at
>> >he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission.
>>
>> I see you've not read the first few pages of Chapter five yet.
>>
>> Get back to me when you do.
>
> You can run, but you can`t hide. Strike that, you can do that also.
I'm guessing that you've still not read chapter five.
>> >he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission.
>>
>> I see you've not read the first few pages of Chapter five yet.
>>
>> Get back to me when you do.
>
> You can run, but you can`t hide. Strike that, you can do that also.
That's okay, you have a compadre on this forum who thinks Mark Lane was
incorrect when he pointed out that the assertions & implications of Wade,
Gannaway, and Curry that Oswald was wanted at 12:45 was untrue and
"unacceptable"
Keep running, "Bud". Get back to me when you can admit what the topic is.
>> >This shows an almost
>> >unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing h=
>e
>> >doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from Lane`=
>s
>> >book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he must
>> >book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he must
>> >realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regards =
>to
>> >the WCR.
>> > =A0If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be
>to
>> >the WCR.
>> >considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police wanted
>> >Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have. B=
>ut
>> >I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police wante=
>d
>> >Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant if =
>I
>> >like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that Lane
>> >puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to limit
>> >the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a critic a=
>> >like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that Lane
>> >puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to limit
>nd
>> >attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when placed
>> >in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
>> >opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
>> >attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark Lane=
>> >attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when placed
>> >in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
>> >opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
>*,
>> >and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
>> >focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed, an=
>> >and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
Bud
Sep 22, 2012, 9:58:46 AM9/22/12
to
On Sep 21, 10:37 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <62b277d1-a9f6-453a-80e9-ca057b486...@j14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
contest not only the topic but any idea Lane expresses in his book?
> In article <62b277d1-a9f6-453a-80e9-ca057b486...@j14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Bud says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 20, 8:57=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> In article <c6eed347-f790-4b74-a5dd-79c75210c...@m9g2000yqi.googlegroups.=
> >com>,
> >> Bud says...
>
> >> > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to wh=
> >at
> >> >he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission.
>
> >> I see you've not read the first few pages of Chapter five yet.
>
> >> Get back to me when you do.
>
> > You can run, but you can`t hide. Strike that, you can do that also.
>
> I'm guessing that you've still not read chapter five.
>
> That's okay, you have a compadre on this forum who thinks Mark Lane was
> incorrect when he pointed out that the assertions & implications of Wade,
> Gannaway, and Curry that Oswald was wanted at 12:45 was untrue and
> "unacceptable"
>
> Keep running, "Bud". Get back to me when you can admit what the topic is.
Didn`t you read this post here where I pointed out that I can
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 20, 8:57=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> In article <c6eed347-f790-4b74-a5dd-79c75210c...@m9g2000yqi.googlegroups.=
> >com>,
> >> Bud says...
>
> >> > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to wh=
> >at
> >> >he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission.
>
> >> I see you've not read the first few pages of Chapter five yet.
>
> >> Get back to me when you do.
>
> > You can run, but you can`t hide. Strike that, you can do that also.
>
> I'm guessing that you've still not read chapter five.
>
> That's okay, you have a compadre on this forum who thinks Mark Lane was
> incorrect when he pointed out that the assertions & implications of Wade,
> Gannaway, and Curry that Oswald was wanted at 12:45 was untrue and
> "unacceptable"
>
> Keep running, "Bud". Get back to me when you can admit what the topic is.
contest not only the topic but any idea Lane expresses in his book?
Ben Holmes
Sep 22, 2012, 2:38:53 PM9/22/12
to
In article <8e970d1e-534c-44a7...@h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
Bud says...
>
>On Sep 21, 10:37=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <62b277d1-a9f6-453a-80e9-ca057b486...@j14g2000yqb.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Bud says...
>> >On Sep 20, 8:57=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <c6eed347-f790-4b74-a5dd-79c75210c...@m9g2000yqi.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> Bud says...
>>
>> >> > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to=
> wh=3D
to me when you determine the facts.
>> >> >This shows an almost
>> >> >unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazin=
>g h=3D
>> >e
>> >> >doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from La=
>ne`=3D
>> >s
>> >> >book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he mu=
>st
>> >> >realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regar=
>ds =3D
>> >to
>> >> >the WCR.
>> >> > =3DA0If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must=
> be
>> >> >considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police wan=
>ted
>> >> >Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have=
>. B=3D
>> >ut
>> >> >I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police wa=
>nte=3D
>> >d
>> >> >Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant =
>if =3D
>> >I
>> >> >like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that L=
>ane
>> >> >puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to lim=
>it
>> >> >the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a criti=
>c a=3D
>> >nd
>> >> >attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when pla=
>ane=3D
> an=3D
Bud says...
>
>On Sep 21, 10:37=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <62b277d1-a9f6-453a-80e9-ca057b486...@j14g2000yqb.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Bud says...
>> >On Sep 20, 8:57=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <c6eed347-f790-4b74-a5dd-79c75210c...@m9g2000yqi.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> Bud says...
>>
>> >> > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to=
> wh=3D
>> >at
>> >> >he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission.
>>
>> >> I see you've not read the first few pages of Chapter five yet.
>>
>> >> Get back to me when you do.
>>
>> > =A0You can run, but you can`t hide. Strike that, you can do that also.
>> >> >he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission.
>>
>> >> I see you've not read the first few pages of Chapter five yet.
>>
>> >> Get back to me when you do.
>>
>>
>> I'm guessing that you've still not read chapter five.
>>
>> That's okay, you have a compadre on this forum who thinks Mark Lane was
>> incorrect when he pointed out that the assertions & implications of Wade,
>> Gannaway, and Curry that Oswald was wanted at 12:45 was untrue and
>> "unacceptable"
>>
>> Keep running, "Bud". Get back to me when you can admit what the topic is.
>
>
> Didn`t you read this post here where I pointed out that I can
>contest not only the topic but any idea Lane expresses in his book?
You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts. Get back
>> I'm guessing that you've still not read chapter five.
>>
>> That's okay, you have a compadre on this forum who thinks Mark Lane was
>> incorrect when he pointed out that the assertions & implications of Wade,
>> Gannaway, and Curry that Oswald was wanted at 12:45 was untrue and
>> "unacceptable"
>>
>> Keep running, "Bud". Get back to me when you can admit what the topic is.
>
>
> Didn`t you read this post here where I pointed out that I can
>contest not only the topic but any idea Lane expresses in his book?
to me when you determine the facts.
>> >> >This shows an almost
>> >> >unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazin=
>g h=3D
>> >e
>> >> >doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from La=
>ne`=3D
>> >s
>> >> >book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he mu=
>st
>> >> >realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regar=
>ds =3D
>> >to
>> >> >the WCR.
>> >> > =3DA0If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must=
> be
>> >> >considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police wan=
>ted
>> >> >Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have=
>. B=3D
>> >ut
>> >> >I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police wa=
>nte=3D
>> >d
>> >> >Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant =
>if =3D
>> >I
>> >> >like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that L=
>ane
>> >> >puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to lim=
>it
>> >> >the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a criti=
>c a=3D
>> >nd
>> >> >attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when pla=
>ced
>> >> >in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
>> >> >opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
>> >> >attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark L=
>> >> >in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
>> >> >opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
>ane=3D
>> >*,
>> >> >and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
>> >> >focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed,=
>> >> >and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
> an=3D
>> >d
>> >> >without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------=
>> >> >without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
>>
>> >> --
Research
Sep 22, 2012, 5:17:05 PM9/22/12
to
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:2e72e8e5-9b79-41db...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
not? Making personal attacks on this board is permitted. It shouldn't be a
board for your personal bitching and gripping. McAdams only moderates what
he feels he wants too. I have posted many time on subjects that were never
posted to the board. There were not attacks like this article, and others I
have seen.
> > attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when placed
> > in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
> > opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
> > attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark
> > Lane*,
> > and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
> > focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed,
> > and
> > without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
>
> YOU don't get to dictate what is discussed.
I disagree, I do dictate what I discuss.
revanting the WC.
Research
Sep 22, 2012, 5:17:37 PM9/22/12
to
news:8e970d1e-534c-44a7...@h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
mades a comment you don't agree with, you change the subject and avoid the
issue. Not only you but the other defenders use this tactic quite often.
People have set that trap for me as well. And being new to the game, I did
fall for it once. But I see how they operate now and keeping an eye out
for it.
On Sep 21, 10:37 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article
> <62b277d1-a9f6-453a-80e9-ca057b486...@j14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Bud says...
> >On Sep 20, 8:57=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <c6eed347-f790-4b74-a5dd-79c75210c...@m9g2000yqi.googlegroups.=
> >com>,
> >> Bud says...
>
> >> > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to
> >> > wh=
> >at
> >> >he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission.
>
> >> I see you've not read the first few pages of Chapter five yet.
>
> >> Get back to me when you do.
>
> > You can run, but you can`t hide. Strike that, you can do that also.
>
> I'm guessing that you've still not read chapter five.
>
> That's okay, you have a compadre on this forum who thinks Mark Lane was
> incorrect when he pointed out that the assertions & implications of Wade,
> Gannaway, and Curry that Oswald was wanted at 12:45 was untrue and
> "unacceptable"
>
> Keep running, "Bud". Get back to me when you can admit what the topic is.
Didn`t you read this post here where I pointed out that I can contest
not only the topic but any idea Lane expresses in his book?
I've seen this type of avoidance here before. And when the other person
> In article
> <62b277d1-a9f6-453a-80e9-ca057b486...@j14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Bud says...
> >On Sep 20, 8:57=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <c6eed347-f790-4b74-a5dd-79c75210c...@m9g2000yqi.googlegroups.=
> >com>,
> >> Bud says...
>
> >> > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to
> >> > wh=
> >at
> >> >he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission.
>
> >> I see you've not read the first few pages of Chapter five yet.
>
> >> Get back to me when you do.
>
> > You can run, but you can`t hide. Strike that, you can do that also.
>
> I'm guessing that you've still not read chapter five.
>
> That's okay, you have a compadre on this forum who thinks Mark Lane was
> incorrect when he pointed out that the assertions & implications of Wade,
> Gannaway, and Curry that Oswald was wanted at 12:45 was untrue and
> "unacceptable"
>
> Keep running, "Bud". Get back to me when you can admit what the topic is.
Didn`t you read this post here where I pointed out that I can contest
not only the topic but any idea Lane expresses in his book?
mades a comment you don't agree with, you change the subject and avoid the
issue. Not only you but the other defenders use this tactic quite often.
People have set that trap for me as well. And being new to the game, I did
fall for it once. But I see how they operate now and keeping an eye out
for it.
Bud
Sep 22, 2012, 7:33:38 PM9/22/12
to
On Sep 22, 2:38 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <8e970d1e-534c-44a7-8130-da2843b97...@h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
I`m willing to share, you can use them also.
> Get back
> to me when you determine the facts.
I explained the facts to you. The fact is the Lane`s book is a
collection of ideas. I can dispute any of those ideas I like. If Lane call
CE 399 "undeformed" I can accurately label that idea a lie. I can dispute
any of the ideas he expresses in any way I see fit. That you can only run
and hide when I do this only serves to show the weakness of your position.
> In article <8e970d1e-534c-44a7-8130-da2843b97...@h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> Get back
> to me when you determine the facts.
collection of ideas. I can dispute any of those ideas I like. If Lane call
CE 399 "undeformed" I can accurately label that idea a lie. I can dispute
any of the ideas he expresses in any way I see fit. That you can only run
and hide when I do this only serves to show the weakness of your position.
Bud
Sep 22, 2012, 7:33:51 PM9/22/12
to
On Sep 22, 5:17 pm, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
He has taken to running and hiding like you suggest.
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
Bud
Sep 22, 2012, 7:34:30 PM9/22/12
to
On Sep 22, 5:17 pm, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
like 10 straight posts. You seem to be confused about what is going on
here also. Ben has taken to breaking down Lane`s book Rush to Judgment
into bite-sized articles. Each of these articles contain dozens of
expressed ideas, claims and assertions. I can contest or dispute any
one of these things, regardless of what the topic of the chapter the
excerpts were lifted from is. That you and he cannot grasp this very
simple concept is no fault of mine.
> And when the other person
> mades a comment you don't agree with, you change the subject and avoid the
> issue. Not only you but the other defenders use this tactic quite often.
reality it is the opposite that is true. Often I address something a
CTer says, and they just flit away to a different subject.
Ben Holmes
Sep 22, 2012, 9:44:09 PM9/22/12
to
In article <e67f263c-f026-42be...@h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
Bud says...
>st
>> > > realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regar=
>ted
>> > > Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have=
>if
>> > > I
>>
>> > Sure, you can even contest that Kennedy was shot if your only purpose i=
>> that I made.
>>
>> > > like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that L=
>ane
>> > > puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to lim=
>it
>> > > the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a criti=
>>
>> Discuessing the issues is the fundamental purpose of message boards. Is i=
>t
>> not? Making personal attacks on this board is permitted. It shouldn't be =
>a
>> board for your personal bitching and gripping. McAdams only moderates wha=
>t
>> he feels he wants too. I have posted many time on subjects that were neve=
>r
>> posted to the board. There were not attacks like this article, and others=
> I
>> have seen.
>>
>> > > attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when pla=
>>
>> Holmes should just neglect your article if he don't want to listen to you=
is.
Get back to me when you're willing to do that. Otherwise, run away...
Bud says...
>
>On Sep 22, 5:17=A0pm, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2e72e8e5-9b79-41db...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 20, 7:20 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 9/20/2012 12:46 PM, Bud wrote:
>>
>> > > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to
>> > > what
>> > > he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an
>> > > almost
>> > > unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazin=
>On Sep 22, 5:17=A0pm, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2e72e8e5-9b79-41db...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 20, 7:20 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 9/20/2012 12:46 PM, Bud wrote:
>>
>> > > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to
>> > > what
>> > > he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an
>> > > almost
>g
>> > > he
>> > > doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from
>> > > Lane`s
>> > > book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he mu=
>> > > he
>> > > doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from
>> > > Lane`s
>st
>> > > realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with regar=
>ds
>> > > to
>> > > the WCR.
>>
>> > No, he didn't. We can point out one error that an author points out
>> > without having to believe everything the author says. You WC defenders
>> > have the same problem with Posner and Bugliosi.
>>
>> =A0 I have no problem with the WC, Posner or Bugliosi. It`s about what
>> > > to
>> > > the WCR.
>>
>> > No, he didn't. We can point out one error that an author points out
>> > without having to believe everything the author says. You WC defenders
>> > have the same problem with Posner and Bugliosi.
>>
>> obviously occurred. It`s obvious that Oswald killed Kennedy. I`ve never
>> seen anything presented by a CTer that puts that conclusion in jeopardy.
>>
>> > > If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be
>> > > considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police wan=
>> seen anything presented by a CTer that puts that conclusion in jeopardy.
>>
>> > > If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be
>ted
>> > > Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I have=
>.
>> > > But
>> > > I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police
>> > > wanted
>> > > Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is relevant =
>> > > But
>> > > I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police
>> > > wanted
>if
>> > > I
>>
>> > Sure, you can even contest that Kennedy was shot if your only purpose i=
>s
>> > to obstruct and prove how silly you can be.
>>
>> =A0 It was bound to happen sooner or later that you would grasp a point
>> > to obstruct and prove how silly you can be.
>>
>> that I made.
>>
>> > > like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea that L=
>ane
>> > > puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to lim=
>it
>> > > the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a criti=
>c
>> > > and
>>
>> > And of course you go off topic just to attack people.
>>
>> =A0 =A0Sometimes people need to be attacked.
>> > > and
>>
>> > And of course you go off topic just to attack people.
>>
>>
>> Discuessing the issues is the fundamental purpose of message boards. Is i=
>t
>> not? Making personal attacks on this board is permitted. It shouldn't be =
>a
>> board for your personal bitching and gripping. McAdams only moderates wha=
>t
>> he feels he wants too. I have posted many time on subjects that were neve=
>r
>> posted to the board. There were not attacks like this article, and others=
> I
>> have seen.
>>
>> > > attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when pla=
>ced
>> > > in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
>> > > opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
>> > > attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark
>> > > Lane*,
>> > > and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
>> > > focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed,
>> > > and
>> > > without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
>>
>> > YOU don't get to dictate what is discussed.
>>
>> =A0 I disagree, I do dictate what I discuss.
>> > > in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
>> > > opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role of
>> > > attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mark
>> > > Lane*,
>> > > and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept and
>> > > focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discussed,
>> > > and
>> > > without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
>>
>> > YOU don't get to dictate what is discussed.
>>
>>
>> Holmes should just neglect your article if he don't want to listen to you=
>r
>> revanting the WC.
>
> He has taken to running and hiding like you suggest.
The one who is running is the person who refuses to admit what the topic
>> revanting the WC.
>
> He has taken to running and hiding like you suggest.
is.
Get back to me when you're willing to do that. Otherwise, run away...
Robert Harris
Sep 23, 2012, 6:30:57 PM9/23/12
to
Bud wrote:
> In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to what
> he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an almost
> unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing he
> doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from Lane`s
> book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it.
Holmes is not exactly the picture of perfection. In many ways, he is
> In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to what
> he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an almost
> unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing he
> doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from Lane`s
> book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it.
your mirror image.
But none of that is important. Nor is it important whether Lane was or
was not a jerk. What matters are the case related issues. If Lane was
wrong about a hundred things, but right about just a single fact that
proves conspiracy, then that is the issue that needs to be considered.
To defend the LN theory, you accept the obligation to refute or prove
insufficient, ALL arguments for conspiracy. Those who believe/realize
that this was a conspiracy, are only obligated to provide one argument
which demonstrates that Oswald did not act alone.
That may not seem fair, but that's just the way it is.
There is no logical reason why a proconspiracy person should be
obligated to defend every statement that Lane or any other author ever
made. The proposition is not whether Mark Lane was infallible. It is
about whether or not this assassination was a conspiracy.
Robert Harris
Bud
Sep 23, 2012, 9:19:50 PM9/23/12
to
On Sep 23, 6:30 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to what
> > he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an almost
> > unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing he
> > doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from Lane`s
> > book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it.
>
> Holmes is not exactly the picture of perfection. In many ways, he is
> your mirror image.
Please, elaborate. And don`t bother to try to spare my feelings now.
> Bud wrote:
> > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to what
> > he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an almost
> > unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing he
> > doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from Lane`s
> > book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it.
>
> Holmes is not exactly the picture of perfection. In many ways, he is
> your mirror image.
> But none of that is important.
> Nor is it important whether Lane was or
> was not a jerk.
>What matters are the case related issues. If Lane was
> wrong about a hundred things, but right about just a single fact that
> proves conspiracy, then that is the issue that needs to be considered.
need to be true for bigfoot to exist. The problem you folks is that the
only thing you can prove is that you really, really like the idea that a
conspiracy took Kennedy`s life.
> To defend the LN theory, you accept the obligation to refute or prove
> insufficient, ALL arguments for conspiracy.
point out that you can`t put anything on the table that shows a conspiracy
took Kennedy`s life.
> Those who believe/realize
> that this was a conspiracy, are only obligated to provide one argument
> which demonstrates that Oswald did not act alone.
> That may not seem fair, but that's just the way it is.
to other people`s satisfaction, not just your own.
> There is no logical reason why a proconspiracy person should be
> obligated to defend every statement that Lane or any other author ever
> made.
and Marsh has weighed in and now Harris has weighed in and none of them
seem to have the slightest clue on what is going on here. Ben is offering
what Lane wrote as meaningful, so *yes*, if Ben is going to represent what
Lane wrote as honest and accurate he *does* have to defend every statement
Lane made in that book. Anyone else can either join in and help Ben defend
Lane, or attack Lane, but there is no obligation to do either on anyones
part. This is just terrible thinking on your part, Harris, and terrible
ideas. It has gotten to the point where it is impossible to talk ideas
with you folks because you just *can`t*.
> The proposition is not whether Mark Lane was infallible.
> It is
> about whether or not this assassination was a conspiracy.
You see a speck in a photograph and imagine it`s a sniper, are you going
to nominate yourself as the voice of reason?
> Robert Harris
Bud
Sep 23, 2012, 9:20:07 PM9/23/12
to
On Sep 22, 9:44 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <e67f263c-f026-42be-9a94-58d61588b...@h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
The person who is running is the one pretending that only one of
Lane`s ideas can be contested.
> Get back to me when you're willing to do that. Otherwise, run away...
<snicker> Was CE399 "undeformed", Ben? Weren`t you challenging
people to show that Lane lied? What now?
> In article <e67f263c-f026-42be-9a94-58d61588b...@h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
Lane`s ideas can be contested.
> Get back to me when you're willing to do that. Otherwise, run away...
people to show that Lane lied? What now?
Ben Holmes
Sep 24, 2012, 4:09:25 PM9/24/12
to
In article <a7ce1bc4-a5c2-4eff...@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Bud says...
>
>On Sep 22, 9:44=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <e67f263c-f026-42be-9a94-58d61588b...@h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Bud says...
>to
>> >> > > what
>> >> > > he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows a=
>n
>> >> > > almost
>> >> > > unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is ama=
>zin=3D
> mu=3D
>> >st
>> >> > > realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with re=
>gar=3D
>at
>> >> obviously occurred. It`s obvious that Oswald killed Kennedy. I`ve neve=
>r
>> >> seen anything presented by a CTer that puts that conclusion in jeopard=
>wan=3D
>> >ted
>> >> > > Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I h=
>ave=3D
>nt =3D
>> >if
>> >> > > I
>>
>> >> > Sure, you can even contest that Kennedy was shot if your only purpos=
>e i=3D
>int
>> >> that I made.
>>
>> >> > > like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea tha=
>t L=3D
>> >ane
>> >> > > puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to =
>lim=3D
>> >it
>> >> > > the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a cr=
>iti=3D
>>
>> >> Discuessing the issues is the fundamental purpose of message boards. I=
>s i=3D
>> >t
>> >> not? Making personal attacks on this board is permitted. It shouldn't =
>be =3D
>> >a
>> >> board for your personal bitching and gripping. McAdams only moderates =
>wha=3D
>> >t
>> >> he feels he wants too. I have posted many time on subjects that were n=
>eve=3D
>> >r
>> >> posted to the board. There were not attacks like this article, and oth=
>ers=3D
>> > I
>> >> have seen.
>>
>> >> > > attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when =
>pla=3D
> of
>> >> > > attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mar=
>k
>> >> > > Lane*,
>> >> > > and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept =
>and
>> >> > > focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discuss=
>>
>> >> Holmes should just neglect your article if he don't want to listen to =
>you=3D
>> >r
>> >> revanting the WC.
>>
>> > =A0He has taken to running and hiding like you suggest.
What *IS* true is that you continue to refuse to admit what Mark Lane's
topic was.
>> Get back to me when you're willing to do that. Otherwise, run away...
>
> <snicker> Was CE399 "undeformed", Ben? Weren`t you challenging
>people to show that Lane lied? What now?
I can't *force* John to respond to me.
Bud says...
>
>On Sep 22, 9:44=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <e67f263c-f026-42be-9a94-58d61588b...@h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Bud says...
>>
>> >On Sep 22, 5:17=3DA0pm, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:2e72e8e5-9b79-41db...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.=
>> >On Sep 22, 5:17=3DA0pm, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
>>
>..
>> >> On Sep 20, 7:20 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On 9/20/2012 12:46 PM, Bud wrote:
>>
>> >> > > In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick =
>> >> On Sep 20, 7:20 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On 9/20/2012 12:46 PM, Bud wrote:
>>
>to
>> >> > > what
>> >> > > he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows a=
>n
>> >> > > almost
>> >> > > unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is ama=
>zin=3D
>> >g
>> >> > > he
>> >> > > doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from
>> >> > > Lane`s
>> >> > > book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it. Surely he=
>> >> > > he
>> >> > > doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts from
>> >> > > Lane`s
> mu=3D
>> >st
>> >> > > realize that this is the position he tries to put LNers in with re=
>gar=3D
>> >ds
>> >> > > to
>> >> > > the WCR.
>>
>> >> > No, he didn't. We can point out one error that an author points out
>> >> > without having to believe everything the author says. You WC defende=
>> >> > > to
>> >> > > the WCR.
>>
>> >> > No, he didn't. We can point out one error that an author points out
>rs
>> >> > have the same problem with Posner and Bugliosi.
>>
>> >> =3DA0 I have no problem with the WC, Posner or Bugliosi. It`s about wh=
>> >> > have the same problem with Posner and Bugliosi.
>>
>at
>> >> obviously occurred. It`s obvious that Oswald killed Kennedy. I`ve neve=
>r
>> >> seen anything presented by a CTer that puts that conclusion in jeopard=
>y.
>>
>> >> > > If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be
>> >> > > considered the authority on the question of why the Dallas police =
>>
>> >> > > If Lane says something like "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be
>wan=3D
>> >ted
>> >> > > Oswald...", I can contest that Curry was "the authority", like I h=
>ave=3D
>> >.
>> >> > > But
>> >> > > I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police
>> >> > > wanted
>> >> > > Oswald if I like. I can contest whether this information is releva=
>> >> > > But
>> >> > > I can also contest that Curry was police chief, or that the police
>> >> > > wanted
>nt =3D
>> >if
>> >> > > I
>>
>> >> > Sure, you can even contest that Kennedy was shot if your only purpos=
>e i=3D
>> >s
>> >> > to obstruct and prove how silly you can be.
>>
>> >> =3DA0 It was bound to happen sooner or later that you would grasp a po=
>> >> > to obstruct and prove how silly you can be.
>>
>int
>> >> that I made.
>>
>> >> > > like. Ben, seeing he is a loser if he has to defend every idea tha=
>t L=3D
>> >ane
>> >> > > puts forth is trying to choose what can be contested. He wants to =
>lim=3D
>> >it
>> >> > > the discussion to what he chooses the topic to be. Used to be a cr=
>iti=3D
>> >c
>> >> > > and
>>
>> >> > And of course you go off topic just to attack people.
>>
>> >> =3DA0 =3DA0Sometimes people need to be attacked.
>> >> > > and
>>
>> >> > And of course you go off topic just to attack people.
>>
>>
>> >> Discuessing the issues is the fundamental purpose of message boards. I=
>s i=3D
>> >t
>> >> not? Making personal attacks on this board is permitted. It shouldn't =
>be =3D
>> >a
>> >> board for your personal bitching and gripping. McAdams only moderates =
>wha=3D
>> >t
>> >> he feels he wants too. I have posted many time on subjects that were n=
>eve=3D
>> >r
>> >> posted to the board. There were not attacks like this article, and oth=
>ers=3D
>> > I
>> >> have seen.
>>
>> >> > > attacker of the Warren Commission he seems lost and confused when =
>pla=3D
>> >ced
>> >> > > in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
>> >> > > opponents and the WC, so he can get back to his more familiar role=
>> >> > > in the role of defender. He keeps trying to misdirect towards his
> of
>> >> > > attacker. But the *topic* of these articles Ben is posting is *Mar=
>k
>> >> > > Lane*,
>> >> > > and the things he has written in his book, so I suggest he accept =
>and
>> >> > > focus on that role, and stop trying to dictate what can be discuss=
>ed,
>> >> > > and
>> >> > > without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
>>
>> >> > YOU don't get to dictate what is discussed.
>>
>> >> =3DA0 I disagree, I do dictate what I discuss.
>> >> > > and
>> >> > > without trying to misdirect away from the things Lane wrote.
>>
>> >> > YOU don't get to dictate what is discussed.
>>
>>
>> >> Holmes should just neglect your article if he don't want to listen to =
>you=3D
>> >r
>> >> revanting the WC.
>>
>> > =A0He has taken to running and hiding like you suggest.
>>
>> The one who is running is the person who refuses to admit what the topic
>> is.
>
> The person who is running is the one pretending that only one of
>Lane`s ideas can be contested.
That's simply not true.
>> The one who is running is the person who refuses to admit what the topic
>> is.
>
> The person who is running is the one pretending that only one of
>Lane`s ideas can be contested.
What *IS* true is that you continue to refuse to admit what Mark Lane's
topic was.
>> Get back to me when you're willing to do that. Otherwise, run away...
>
> <snicker> Was CE399 "undeformed", Ben? Weren`t you challenging
>people to show that Lane lied? What now?
Anthony Marsh
Sep 24, 2012, 7:19:05 PM9/24/12
to
The issue is HOW it was deformed and to what extent. The deformation does
not match the WC test bullets shot into a wrist bone. So if you can invent
a SBT which does not involved the wrist you might have something.
Bud
Sep 24, 2012, 11:05:32 PM9/24/12
to
On Sep 24, 4:09 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <a7ce1bc4-a5c2-4eff-9ba4-a1c60661d...@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Of course it`s true. You produced Lane`s writing and now are running
from supporting them.
> What *IS* true is that you continue to refuse to admit what Mark Lane's
> topic was.
What difference does it matter what it is if it is built on lies and
deception?
> >> Get back to me when you're willing to do that. Otherwise, run away...
>
> > <snicker> Was CE399 "undeformed", Ben? Weren`t you challenging
> >people to show that Lane lied? What now?
>
> I can't *force* John to respond to me.
Non sequitor.
> In article <a7ce1bc4-a5c2-4eff-9ba4-a1c60661d...@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
from supporting them.
> What *IS* true is that you continue to refuse to admit what Mark Lane's
> topic was.
deception?
> >> Get back to me when you're willing to do that. Otherwise, run away...
>
> > <snicker> Was CE399 "undeformed", Ben? Weren`t you challenging
> >people to show that Lane lied? What now?
>
> I can't *force* John to respond to me.
Bud
Sep 24, 2012, 11:05:56 PM9/24/12
to
> The issue is HOW it was deformed and to what extent.
>The deformation does
> not match the WC test bullets shot into a wrist bone.
> So if you can invent
> a SBT which does not involved the wrist you might have something.
Robert Harris
Sep 28, 2012, 4:26:54 PM9/28/12
to
I have no idea how to reply to such a screwball post. You presume that all
arguments for conspiracy are the equivalent to bigfoot sightings, but feel
no compulsion to even try to prove them wrong.
The simple fact that you refuse to address issues that you know you cannot
refute, pretty much settles this.
But in case you change your mind, perhaps you will be willing to explain
why no one was startled by gunshots prior to frame 285, when we know for a
fact that shots from Oswald's rifle generated sound levels 16 times
greater than the level at which involuntary startle reactions must occur.
Trashtalk and misplaced sarcasm don't get it Bud. Would you like to have a
discussion about whether it was even possible for Oswald to have fired all
the shots?
I suggest that we start a new thread on the subject and give you a chance
to do what causes your friends lack the courage to do.
Would you like to do that Bud, or would you prefer to just make up phony
excuses?
Robert Harris
In article
<b0f64eee-e668-429f...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > ? In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to
Bud
Sep 29, 2012, 9:49:25 PM9/29/12
to
On Sep 28, 4:26 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have no idea how to reply to such a screwball post. You presume that all
> arguments for conspiracy are the equivalent to bigfoot sightings, but feel
> no compulsion to even try to prove them wrong.
It`s an empty claim until it can be shown. Why would the burden be
> I have no idea how to reply to such a screwball post. You presume that all
> arguments for conspiracy are the equivalent to bigfoot sightings, but feel
> no compulsion to even try to prove them wrong.
on me to disprove anything?
> The simple fact that you refuse to address issues that you know you cannot
> refute, pretty much settles this.
fantastic claims, you are the one who has to pony up the support.
> But in case you change your mind, perhaps you will be willing to explain
> why no one was startled by gunshots prior to frame 285, when we know for a
> fact that shots from Oswald's rifle generated sound levels 16 times
> greater than the level at which involuntary startle reactions must occur.
background noise of a motorcade.
And you don`t understand startle reactions.
> Trashtalk and misplaced sarcasm don't get it Bud. Would you like to have a
> discussion about whether it was even possible for Oswald to have fired all
> the shots?
Harris. You are welcome to try.
> I suggest that we start a new thread on the subject and give you a chance
> to do what causes your friends lack the courage to do.
>
> Would you like to do that Bud, or would you prefer to just make up phony
> excuses?
> RobertHarris
>
> In article
> <b0f64eee-e668-429f-903c-aaa69d567...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > On Sep 23, 6:30?pm, RobertHarris<bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Bud wrote:
> > > > ? In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to
> > > > what
> > > > he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an
> > > > almost
> > > > unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing he
> > > > doesn`t seem to know better. When he started posting excerpts fromLane`s
> > > Bud wrote:
> > > > ? In my discussions with Ben he has taken to insisting that I stick to
> > > > what
> > > > he claims is the topic, the 12:45 radio transmission. This shows an
> > > > almost
> > > > unbelievable misunderstanding about how things work, and it is amazing he
> > > > book he opened himself up to defending every idea in it.
>
> > > Holmes is not exactly the picture of perfection. In many ways, he is
> > > your mirror image.
>
> > Please, elaborate. And don`t bother to try to spare my feelings now.
>
> > > But none of that is important.
>
> > Little written here is.
>
> > > Nor is it important whetherLanewas or
>
> > > Holmes is not exactly the picture of perfection. In many ways, he is
> > > your mirror image.
>
> > Please, elaborate. And don`t bother to try to spare my feelings now.
>
> > > But none of that is important.
>
> > Little written here is.
>
> > > was not a jerk.
>
> > Didn`t know that was an idea anyone was tying to advance.
>
> > >What matters are the case related issues. IfLanewas
> > > wrong about a hundred things, but right about just a single fact that
> > > proves conspiracy, then that is the issue that needs to be considered.
>
> > Yes, if there are a hundred claimed bigfoot sightings only one of them
> > need to be true for bigfoot to exist. The problem you folks is that the
> > only thing you can prove is that you really, really like the idea that a
> > conspiracy took Kennedy`s life.
>
> > > To defend the LN theory, you accept the obligation to refute or prove
> > > insufficient, ALL arguments for conspiracy.
>
> > No, we don`t need to put out fires and prove negatives. We only need to
> > point out that you can`t put anything on the table that shows a conspiracy
> > took Kennedy`s life.
>
> > > Those who believe/realize
> > > that this was a conspiracy, are only obligated to provide one argument
> > > which demonstrates that Oswald did not act alone.
>
> > Everyone reading this will be dust and this will never be done.
>
> > > That may not seem fair, but that's just the way it is.
>
> > Demonstrate away,Harris. Just recognize you have to demonstrate it
>
> > Didn`t know that was an idea anyone was tying to advance.
>
> > >What matters are the case related issues. IfLanewas
> > > wrong about a hundred things, but right about just a single fact that
> > > proves conspiracy, then that is the issue that needs to be considered.
>
> > Yes, if there are a hundred claimed bigfoot sightings only one of them
> > need to be true for bigfoot to exist. The problem you folks is that the
> > only thing you can prove is that you really, really like the idea that a
> > conspiracy took Kennedy`s life.
>
> > > To defend the LN theory, you accept the obligation to refute or prove
> > > insufficient, ALL arguments for conspiracy.
>
> > No, we don`t need to put out fires and prove negatives. We only need to
> > point out that you can`t put anything on the table that shows a conspiracy
> > took Kennedy`s life.
>
> > > Those who believe/realize
> > > that this was a conspiracy, are only obligated to provide one argument
> > > which demonstrates that Oswald did not act alone.
>
> > Everyone reading this will be dust and this will never be done.
>
> > > That may not seem fair, but that's just the way it is.
>
> > to other people`s satisfaction, not just your own.
>
> > > There is no logical reason why a proconspiracy person should be
> > > obligated to defend every statement thatLaneor any other author ever
>
> > > There is no logical reason why a proconspiracy person should be
> > > made.
>
> > Ok, it`s seems that Ben has weighed in, and "Research" has weighed in,
> > and Marsh has weighed in and nowHarrishas weighed in and none of them
>
> > Ok, it`s seems that Ben has weighed in, and "Research" has weighed in,
> > seem to have the slightest clue on what is going on here. Ben is offering
> > whatLanewrote as meaningful, so *yes*, if Ben is going to represent what
> >Lanewrote as honest and accurate he *does* have to defend every statement
> >Lanemade in that book. Anyone else can either join in and help Ben defend
> >Lane, or attackLane, but there is no obligation to do either on anyones
> > part. This is just terrible thinking on your part,Harris, and terrible
> > ideas. It has gotten to the point where it is impossible to talk ideas
> > with you folks because you just *can`t*.
>
> > > The proposition is not whether MarkLanewas infallible.
> > with you folks because you just *can`t*.
>
0 new messages