Lying By Omission The Mark Lane Way # 1
timstter
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_Vol22_0433a.htm
He is simply lying by omission, in my view.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Bill Clarke
timstter says...
I think Yellow Pants studied under the master.
Bill Clarke
aeffects
> In article <079b82f9-1785-4802-aab5-dfcba4a75...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> timstter says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >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:
>
>
> >He is simply lying by omission, in my view.
>
> >Regards,
>
> >Tim Brennan
> >Sydney, Australia
> >*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> I think Yellow Pants studied under the master.
you walked into a buzzsaw Bill (even McAdams fails)... Perhaps if Ted
were here, eh, then again Ted ran into Ben Holmes years back--much the
same result...
Supporting lone nut, WCR end-all be-all cluster fucks around here is
frankly, beneath you... can't even get close to a win here unless you
know case evidence...
> Bill Clarke
aeffects
> 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:
>
>
> He is simply lying by omission, in my view.
justme1952 pulling your pud again, fats? Sum-bitch, you found google!
ROTFLMFAO! ! ! ! Keep'em coming Fats!
timstter
> In article <079b82f9-1785-4802-aab5-dfcba4a75...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> timstter says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >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:
>
>
> >He is simply lying by omission, in my view.
>
> >Regards,
>
> >Tim Brennan
> >Sydney, Australia
> >*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> I think Yellow Pants studied under the master.
>
> Bill Clarke
Hi Bill,
That's right! The ability of Holmes to dissemble appears to have been
learnt at the foot of his disinformationist master, Mark Lane.
And Lane seems to parrot the Marxist dissembling of HIS hero, Lee
Harvey Oswald.
No wonder the KGB ensured that funding reached Lane for his JFK work
in the sixties!
Rob Caprio
Shame on you Bill -- the words report and volumes are two DIFFERENT
things. Don't fall for Tim's dishonesty. (Or is it stupidity?)
Rob Caprio
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_Vol22_0433a.htm
>
> He is simply lying by omission, in my view.
You are simply lying! Do you not understand the meaning of the words
"report" and "volumes"? Is this dishonesty or stupidity on your
part?
*HIS* comment was in regards to the REPORT and then you mention the
volumes! He did NOT lie, but we see YOU just did! Thanks for showing
this to all of us!
Satisfied Regards,
Robert
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Aug 31, 8:25=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <079b82f9-1785-4802-aab5-dfcba4a75...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> timstter says...
>>
>> >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:
>>
>> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
>>
>> >He is simply lying by omission, in my view.
Is *this* the best that can be done???
>> >Regards,
>>
>> >Tim Brennan
>> >Sydney, Australia
>> >*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
>> I think Yellow Pants studied under the master.
>
>you walked into a buzzsaw Bill (even McAdams fails)... Perhaps if Ted
>were here, eh, then again Ted ran into Ben Holmes years back--much the
>same result...
>
>Supporting lone nut, WCR end-all be-all cluster fucks around here is
>frankly, beneath you... can't even get close to a win here unless you
>know case evidence...
And are honest...
>> Bill Clarke
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Rob Caprio
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_Vol22_0433a.htm
>
> He is simply lying by omission, in my view.
What Tim Brennan failed to tell the reader is that the REPORT is NOT
the same as the 26 volumes, thus, his statement is the TRUTH!
Do he words "report" and "volumes" confuse Tim? I guess so!
Concerned Regards,
Robert
timstter
> In article <a7becc0b-aa31-475c-885d-6d9cf5bf6...@j4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 31, 8:25=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> In article <079b82f9-1785-4802-aab5-dfcba4a75...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups=
> >.com>,
> >> timstter says...
>
> >> >Hi All,
>
> >> >Say, according to this video, Richard C. Dodd was never mentioned in
> >> >the Warren Commission Report:
>
> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DYODZyI2qRMw
>
> >> >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.
>
> Is *this* the best that can be done???
>
Huh? Lane's MO is to *lie by omission*. This is simply one example of
it. You don't like it? Who cares. You think is was maybe HONEST of
Lane NOT to tell the viewer that even though the interviewee, Dodd,
was not mentioned in the WCR, he WAS mentioned in the 26 volumes AND
had been interviewed by the FBI? LOL! Lying by omission is how Lane
scores his nitpicking, dihonest points. That's why a bloke like YOU
likes him.
> >> >Regards,
>
> >> >Tim Brennan
> >> >Sydney, Australia
> >> >*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> >> I think Yellow Pants studied under the master.
>
> >you walked into a buzzsaw Bill (even McAdams fails)... Perhaps if Ted
> >were here, eh, then again Ted ran into Ben Holmes years back--much the
> >same result...
>
> >Supporting lone nut, WCR end-all be-all cluster fucks around here is
> >frankly, beneath you... can't even get close to a win here unless you
> >know case evidence...
>
> And are honest...
>
What, like lying about an distorting quotes like YOU did? You are
nothing but a fraudster, Holmes. And a hypocrite.
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> >> Bill Clarke
timstter
LOL! Where TF is lil' Benny Holmes, that guy who is so OUTRAGED by ad
hominen, on this vile display by Healy? MIA, THAT'S where. The little
deadbeat is NOTHING BUT A HYPOCRITE, as is his inebriated clown of a
mate, Healy.
Speaking of Fats, check the out little short guy on the right, bottom
picture:
http://www.kolasinski.de/j62002/phumalbum2002.html
Keep 'em coming, Dave! Jerk...
Contemptuous Regards,
timstter
> 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:
>
>
> > He is simply lying by omission, in my view.
>
> You are simply lying! Do you not understand the meaning of the words
> "report" and "volumes"? Is this dishonesty or stupidity on your
> part?
>
> *HIS* comment was in regards to the REPORT and then you mention the
> volumes! He did NOT lie, but we see YOU just did! Thanks for showing
> this to all of us!
>
> Satisfied Regards,
>
> Robert
Er, Rob, my point is EXACTLY that.
Lane makes a big show of the guy not being in the Warren Commission
REPORT, ergo the witness has been IGNORED by the Warren Commission,
according to Lane.
However, the guy HAS been mentioned in the Warren Commission VOLUMES,
which Lane doesn't point out to the viewer because that would give the
lie to Lane's implication that the witness was COMPLETELY IGNORED by
the Warren Commission.
That's called lying by omission, Rob.
God, can you REALLY be THIS stupid?! I guess you can...
Concerned Regards,
aeffects
> On Sep 1, 6:13 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 31, 6:11 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> 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.
>
> > justme1952 pulling your pud again, fats? Sum-bitch, you found google!
> > ROTFLMFAO! ! ! ! Keep'em coming Fats!
>
> > > Regards,
>
> > > Tim Brennan
> > > Sydney, Australia
> > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> LOL! Where TF is lil' Benny Holmes, that guy who is so OUTRAGED by ad
> hominen, on this vile display by Healy? MIA, THAT'S where. The little
> deadbeat is NOTHING BUT A HYPOCRITE, as is his inebriated clown of a
> mate, Healy.
tsk-tsk.... hey fats you're pissed off because you been pissed ON.....
listen dipshit, you haven't a clue about the assassination, you're
fodder asshole..... ya gotta have something to give here, you got
shit....so waddle on back to .john's
> Speaking of Fats, check the out little short guy on the right, bottom
> picture:
now I KNOW you're in love -- gawd your a freak! you're not scared of
tough guys are ya, hon?
timstter
LOL! Er, Dave, does any of what you posted have anything to do with
the fact that Mark Lane lied by omission?
If, as you claim, you *can't even get close to a win here unless you
know case evidence* why don't you demonstrate your knowledge of *case
evidence* to knock down what I said about Lane?
All anyone sees of you here is ad hominen and trailing around the
board after Ben Holmes, trying to prop up his stupid arguments that no
one is interested in responding to.
Must be why no one has ever seen you even get close to a win around
here in all the years you've posted, Dave.
Informative Regards,
timstter
> 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:
>
> > He is simply lying by omission, in my view.
>
> What Tim Brennan failed to tell the reader is that the REPORT is NOT
> the same as the 26 volumes, thus, his statement is the TRUTH!
>
> Do he words "report" and "volumes" confuse Tim? I guess so!
>
> Concerned Regards,
>
> Robert
Why did you make such a HASH of understanding what I posted?
The fact is, lying by OMISSION is Mark Lane's MODUS OPERANDI.
Informative Regards,