Lying The Mark Lane Way # 4 (RTJ Book)

[timstter]

Hi All,

On page 108 of Rush To Judgment (Penguin edition) Lane states:

QUOTE ON:

What do we know about Oswald's proficiency with a rifle? That he was a
relatively poor shot and betrayed a dislike of weapons to a Marine
Corps friend.

QUOTE OFF

The evidence, though, is that Oswald must have been a *fairly good
shot* to have qualified as a USMC Sharpshooter, per this three page
letter from the USMC's AG Folsom to the Warren Commission:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0017b.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0018a.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0018b.htm

In fact, Major Eugene Anderson, the assistant head of the Marksmanship
Branch, Headquarters Marine Corps and himself a USMC shooting expert
and master rifleshot in the NRA, testified that Oswald would have been
*considered a good to excellent shot* in comparison to the average
citizen in his WC testimony:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/html/WC_Vol11_0158a.htm

Lane simply LIES by omission, by precluding any description of
Oswald's shooting outside of the mediocre.

Lying by OMISSION is Mark Lane's modus operandi.

When he is not lying OVERTLY, that is.

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

[John McAdams]

He does plenty of both.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Ben Holmes]

In article <jo28s799k9s5tfln7...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...

>
>On Sat, 26 May 2012 01:55:38 -0700 (PDT), timstter
><tims...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi All,
>>
>>On page 108 of Rush To Judgment (Penguin edition) Lane states:
>>
>>QUOTE ON:
>>
>>What do we know about Oswald's proficiency with a rifle? That he was a
>>relatively poor shot and betrayed a dislike of weapons to a Marine
>>Corps friend.
>>
>>QUOTE OFF

And, as a former Marine, one who competed on the West Coast Marine Corps Rifle
Team - I'm quite well qualified to state that Mark Lane is quite accurate here.

>>The evidence, though, is that Oswald must have been a *fairly good
>>shot* to have qualified as a USMC Sharpshooter, per this three page
>>letter from the USMC's AG Folsom to the Warren Commission:

I find it amusing that the kooks don't realize that shooting is a skill, one
that must be *practiced* to be kept up.

The kooks never seem to mention just how long ago, compared to 11/22/63, Oswald
qualified *AS AN AVERAGE MARINE*.

Sharpshooter being right in the middle of the bell curve of Marine Corps
shooting expertise.


The dishonest kooks never seem to want to mention what Oswald's score was
*closest* to 11/22/63. Or the fact that *VASTLY* superior marksmen were called
upon to duplicate "Oswald's feat" - and even with a wee bit o'cheating going on,
still couldn't do it.

>>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0017b.htm
>>
>>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0018a.htm
>>
>>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0018b.htm
>>
>>In fact, Major Eugene Anderson, the assistant head of the Marksmanship
>>Branch, Headquarters Marine Corps and himself a USMC shooting expert
>>and master rifleshot in the NRA, testified that Oswald would have been
>>*considered a good to excellent shot* in comparison to the average
>>citizen in his WC testimony:

Comparing someone who's handled and fired a weapon for score against the average
citizen who's rarely even *seen* a rifle is hardly the comparison an honest
person would make.

Nor does it explain the qualifications of those chosen by the WC to try to
duplicate what Oswald did.

The kooks tend to stay away from facts like those.

>>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/html/WC_Vol11_0158a.htm
>>
>>Lane simply LIES by omission, by precluding any description of
>>Oswald's shooting outside of the mediocre.
>>
>>Lying by OMISSION is Mark Lane's modus operandi.

Indeed, this is *PRECISELY* what's just been done in this post.

>>When he is not lying OVERTLY, that is.
>>
>
>He does plenty of both.
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane

Still waiting for someone to show all these "lies"... and I'm giving the kooks
plenty of chalkboard to do it on.


I see that my Mark Lane series has needled people... when you can get McAdams
running over here to do damage control... it's clear that the kooks are
irritated.


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On May 28, 4:34 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 01:55:38 -0700 (PDT), timstter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Hi All,
>
> >On page 108 of Rush To Judgment (Penguin edition) Lane states:
>
> >QUOTE ON:
>
> >What do we know about Oswald's proficiency with a rifle? That he was a
> >relatively poor shot and betrayed a dislike of weapons to a Marine
> >Corps friend.
>
> >QUOTE OFF
>
> >The evidence, though, is that Oswald must have been a *fairly good
> >shot* to have qualified as a USMC Sharpshooter, per this three page
> >letter from the USMC's AG Folsom to the Warren Commission:
>

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol...
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol...
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol...

>
> >In fact, Major Eugene Anderson, the assistant head of the Marksmanship
> >Branch, Headquarters Marine Corps and himself a USMC shooting expert
> >and master rifleshot in the NRA, testified that Oswald would have been
> >*considered a good to excellent shot* in comparison to the average
> >citizen in his WC testimony:
>

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/html/WC_Vol...

>
> >Lane simply LIES by omission, by precluding any description of
> >Oswald's shooting outside of the mediocre.
>
> >Lying by OMISSION is Mark Lane's modus operandi.
>
> >When he is not lying OVERTLY, that is.
>
> He does plenty of both.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

You need to re-read Folsom's letter. Lane is correct on this point.
The evidence proves that Oswald was not a good shot at the time of the
shooting, and that the WC deliberately deceived the public on this
issue.

From patspeer.com, chapter 3c:

On 6-2-64 Rankin writes a letter to Lt. Col. Allison G. Folsom
requesting an appraisal of Oswald’s shooting ability, based upon
Oswald’s test scores while in the Marines. On 6-8-64, he receives an
unexpected response. Folsom writes “In view of the lapse of time
since Mr. Oswald was separated from the Marine Corps, it would be
impossible to ascertain precisely the number of hours in which he
participated in weapons marksmanship practice or how many rounds of
ammunition he fired.” He then gives a breakdown of the training
received by Oswald and his subsequent tests scores. These show that
Oswald was tested on the M-1 rifle on December 21, 1956 and received a
score of 212, or sharpshooter ranking. This was the test discussed in
Folsom’s 5-1-64 testimony. The record shows that Oswald was tested on
the M-1 rifle a second time on May 6, 1959, however, and received a
score of 191, only 1 point above the bottom of the Marksman ranking.
These were the scores reported by the New York Times on 11-23-63. The
big surprise for Rankin comes in Folsom’s summary. He tells Rankin
“The Marine Corps considers that any reasonable application of the
instructions given to Marines should permit them to become qualified
as a marksman. To become qualified as a sharpshooter, the Marine
Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of
adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified. Consequently,
a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor “shot” and a
sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good “shot.” Folsom was
thus telling Rankin that Oswald was a poor shot when he left the
Marines and would have been an even worse shot after 4 years without
practice.

From later in the chapter:


Elsewhere, on 7-24-64 the Warren Commission engages the Marine Corps
in a little self-protection. To counter Lt. Col. Folsom’s description
of Oswald’s marksmanship as “poor,” they take the testimony of Major
Eugene D. Anderson, an assistant head of the Marksmanship branch of
the Marines, and Master Sergeant James Zahm, an NCO of Marksmanship
Training. Arlen Specter takes their testimony. After being shown
Oswald's test scores, Anderson offers an explanation for Oswald's
lowly score in 1959, shortly before he left the Marines: "It may well
have been a bad day for firing a rifle, windy, rainy, dark. There is
little probability that he had a good, expert coach. and he probably
didn't have as high a motivation because he was no longer in recruit
training and under the care of the drill instructor. There is some
possibility that the rifle he was firing might not have been as good a
rifle as the rifle he was firing in his A course firing. because he
may well have carried this rifle around for some time, and it got
banged around in normal usage." Anderson summarizes Oswald's abilities
as follows: "I would say that as compared to other Marines receiving
the same kind of training, that Oswald was a good shot, somewhat
better than or equal to--better than average let us say. As compared
to a civilian who had not received this intensive training, he would
be considered as a good to excellent shot." Specter then shows
Anderson frames from the Zapruder film and asks him if hitting Kennedy
from the distances determined at the re-enactment would be within
Oswald's capabilities, and Anderson repeatedly says the shots were
within Oswald's capabilities. He then asks him if Oswald could fire
three shots in a time span between 4.8 and 5.6 seconds, and Anderson
once again replies in the affirmative. Specter fails to ask Anderson
the more pertinent question if Oswald could be expected to hit the 2
"not particularly difficult" shots within a 4.8-5.6 second time span
while firing at a moving target with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
Perhaps he already knew the answer. After finishing with Anderson,
Specter makes a point of asking Zahm about Oswald’s ability “based on
the tests.” This avoids that the most recent test was 4 years before
the shooting and that Oswald had failed to keep in practice. Zahm
tells Specter what he undoubtedly wants to hear: “I would say in the
Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as
compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian,
throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.” Clearly,
this is the new company line.

From still later in the chapter:


From a 9-4 WC memo by Wesley Liebeler in which he critiqued the Warren
Report:

14. As I read through the section on rifle capability it appears that
15 different sets of three shots were fired by supposedly expert
riflemen of the FBI and other places. According to my calculations
those 15 sets of shots took a total of 93.8 seconds to be fired. The
average of all 15 is a little over 6.2 seconds. Assuming that time is
calculated commencing with the firing of the first shot, that means
the average time it took to fire the two remaining shots was about 6.2
seconds. That comes to about 3.1 seconds for each shot, not counting
the time consumed by the actual firing, which would not be very much.
I recall that chapter 3 said that the minimum time that had to elapse
between shots was 2.25 seconds, which is pretty close to the one set
of fast shots fired by Frazier of the FBI. The conclusion indicates
that Oswald had the capability to fire three shots with two hits in
from 4.8 to 5.6 seconds. Of the 15 sets of 3 shots described above,
only 3 were fired within 4.8 seconds. A total of five sets, including
the three just mentioned were fired within a total of 5.6 seconds. The
conclusion at its most extreme states that Oswald could fire faster
than the Commission experts fired in 12 of their 15 tries and that in
any event he could fire faster than the experts did in 10 of their 15
tries. If we are going to set forth material such as this, I think we
should set forth some information on how much training and how much
shooting the experts had and did as a whole. The readers could then
have something on which to base their judgments concerning the
relative abilities of the apparently slow firing experts used by the
Commission and the ability of Lee Harvey Oswald.
15. The problems raised by the above analyses should be met at some
point in the text of the report. The figure of 2.25 as a minimum
firing time for each shot used throughout chapter 3. The present
discussion of rifle capability shows that expert riflemen could not
fire the assassination weapon that fast. Only one of the experts
managed to do so, and his shots, like those of the other FBI experts,
were high and to the right of the target. The fact is that most of the
experts were much more proficient with a rifle than Oswald could ever
be expected to be, and the record indicates that fact, according to my
recollection of the response of one of the experts to a question by
Mr. McCloy asking for a comparison of an NRA master marksman to a
Marine Corps sharpshooter.
16. The present section on rifle capability fails to set forth
material in the record tending to indicate that Oswald was not a good
shot and that he was not interested in his rifle while in the Marine
Corps. It does not set forth material indicating that a telescopic
sight must be tested and sighted in after a period of non-use before
it can be expected to be accurate. That problem is emphasized by the
fact that the FBI actually found that there was a defect in the scope
which caused the rifle to fire high and to the right. In spite of the
above the present section takes only part of the material in the
record to show that Oswald was a good shot and that he was interested
in rifles. I submit that the testimony of Delgado that Oswald was not
interested in his rifle while in the Marines is at least as probative
as Alba's testimony that Oswald came into his garage to read rifle--
and hunting--magazines. To put it bluntly that sort of selection from
the record could seriously affect the integrity and credibility of the
entire report.
17. It seems to me that the most honest and the most sensible thing to
do given the present state of the record on Oswald's rifle capability
would be to write a very short section indicating that there is
testimony on both sides of several issues. The Commission could then
conclude that the best evidence that Oswald could fire his rifle as
fast as he did and hit the target is the fact that he did so. It may
have been pure luck. It probably was to a very great extent. But it
happened. He would have had to have been lucky to hit as he did if he
had only 4.8 seconds to fire the shots. Why don't we admit instead of
reaching and using only part of the record to support the propositions
presently set forth in the galleys. Those conclusions will never be
accepted by critical persons anyway.

[Ace Kefford]

On May 28, 7:34 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 01:55:38 -0700 (PDT), timstter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Hi All,
>
> >On page 108 of Rush To Judgment (Penguin edition) Lane states:
>
> >QUOTE ON:
>
> >What do we know about Oswald's proficiency with a rifle? That he was a
> >relatively poor shot and betrayed a dislike of weapons to a Marine
> >Corps friend.
>
> >QUOTE OFF
>
> >The evidence, though, is that Oswald must have been a *fairly good
> >shot* to have qualified as a USMC Sharpshooter, per this three page
> >letter from the USMC's AG Folsom to the Warren Commission:
>

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol...
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol...
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol...
>

> >In fact, Major Eugene Anderson, the assistant head of the Marksmanship
> >Branch, Headquarters Marine Corps and himself a USMC shooting expert
> >and master rifleshot in the NRA, testified that Oswald would have been
> >*considered a good to excellent shot* in comparison to the average
> >citizen in his WC testimony:
>

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/html/WC_Vol...

>
> >Lane simply LIES by omission, by precluding any description of
> >Oswald's shooting outside of the mediocre.
>
> >Lying by OMISSION is Mark Lane's modus operandi.
>
> >When he is not lying OVERTLY, that is.
>
> He does plenty of both.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

It's shooting fish in a barrel (although, if you think about it, that
probably would not be that easy), but it needs to be done. Regardless
of one's position on the conspiracy question, this is about history
and those who create and popularize distortions do not help anyone.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <jq147...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...

>
>In article <jo28s799k9s5tfln7...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 01:55:38 -0700 (PDT), timstter
>><tims...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi All,
>>>
>>>On page 108 of Rush To Judgment (Penguin edition) Lane states:
>>>
>>>QUOTE ON:
>>>
>>>What do we know about Oswald's proficiency with a rifle? That he was a
>>>relatively poor shot and betrayed a dislike of weapons to a Marine
>>>Corps friend.
>>>
>>>QUOTE OFF
>
>
>And, as a former Marine,

Ah gee Benny. You know there are no former Marines. Once a Marine always a
Marine. Right? Or is it different for garrison Marines?

>one who competed on the West Coast Marine Corps Rifle
>Team - I'm quite well qualified to state that Mark Lane is quite accurate here.

Why does you being on the Rifle Team make you "well qualified" to insure the
accuracy of Lane's statement? Was Oswald on the team with you are what? I find
it strange that a man betraying a dislike of weapons would be on the rifle team.

Benny, you are so full of shit your eyes are brown.

Bill Clarke

[Bud]

<snicker> The evidence proves that Oswald was a good enough shot on
the day of the assassination.

This assumes that Oswald was putting his best effort out when he
shot on May 6th, 1959. If he wasn`t then his score does not truly
reflect his true shooting ability. Rankin could not possibly attest to
whether Oswald was trying his best, and neither can anyone else. There
is evidence that Oswald was lax in many aspects of his military
functions at this point in time.

[Anthony Marsh]

> requesting an appraisal of Oswald?s shooting ability, based upon
> Oswald?s test scores while in the Marines. On 6-8-64, he receives an
> unexpected response. Folsom writes ?In view of the lapse of time

> since Mr. Oswald was separated from the Marine Corps, it would be
> impossible to ascertain precisely the number of hours in which he
> participated in weapons marksmanship practice or how many rounds of

> ammunition he fired.? He then gives a breakdown of the training

> received by Oswald and his subsequent tests scores. These show that
> Oswald was tested on the M-1 rifle on December 21, 1956 and received a
> score of 212, or sharpshooter ranking. This was the test discussed in

> Folsom?s 5-1-64 testimony. The record shows that Oswald was tested on

> the M-1 rifle a second time on May 6, 1959, however, and received a
> score of 191, only 1 point above the bottom of the Marksman ranking.
> These were the scores reported by the New York Times on 11-23-63. The

> big surprise for Rankin comes in Folsom?s summary. He tells Rankin
> ?The Marine Corps considers that any reasonable application of the

> instructions given to Marines should permit them to become qualified
> as a marksman. To become qualified as a sharpshooter, the Marine
> Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of
> adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified. Consequently,

> a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor ?shot? and a
> sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good ?shot.? Folsom was

> thus telling Rankin that Oswald was a poor shot when he left the
> Marines and would have been an even worse shot after 4 years without
> practice.
>
> From later in the chapter:
>
>
> Elsewhere, on 7-24-64 the Warren Commission engages the Marine Corps

> in a little self-protection. To counter Lt. Col. Folsom?s description
> of Oswald?s marksmanship as ?poor,? they take the testimony of Major

> Specter makes a point of asking Zahm about Oswald?s ability ?based on
> the tests.? This avoids that the most recent test was 4 years before

> the shooting and that Oswald had failed to keep in practice. Zahm

> tells Specter what he undoubtedly wants to hear: ?I would say in the

> Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as
> compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian,

> throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.? Clearly,

Beyond that many WC defenders make the mistake of saying that since Oswald
was an expert marksman in the Marines he was an expert marksman with the
Mannlicher-Carcano. Not realizing the difference between training with a
semi-automatic rifle and being unfamiliar with a bolt action rifle. I have
even seen a couple of these deadheads say that since Oswald clearly
understood how to adjust his sights on the M-1 and properly zero in the
rifle that he could do the same on the Mannlicher-Carcano. Not realizing
that the iron sights on Oswald's rifle were preset and could not be
adjusted and the scope was damaged and defective.

And most WC defenders still do not realize that the M-1 has a very flat
trajectory as compared to the Mannlicher-Carcano's very high trajectory.
Which means that at closer distances like 100 yards the Mannlicher-Carcano
will shoot a few inches higher than aimed.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <4fc5...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Tony Marsh is a moron... you can keep correcting him, and he'll just keep right
on asserting the same factoid.

Here's a post on this topic:


Found in the censored forum...

************************************************************************

> I agree with almost all of your assessment, except the end when you
> indicate that the 6.5mm was the right choice. In reality, I don't think it
> was a choice at all. Oswald could not possibly have known when he
> purchased the rifle that he would one day be in a position to take out the
> POTUS. I don't know if he bought the Carcano specifically to shoot Walker

I do. He bought it only and specifically to assassinate General Walker.
And he chose the wrong weapon because he was too CHEAP to buy a good
weapon. The Mannlicher-Carcano has one of the worst curved trajectories.
It almost guarantees a miss at the distance from the fence, 120 feet. He
could not have missed with an M-1 and would have fired several shots very
rapidly.

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
*************************************************************************

The kook obviously didn't read his own reference book. On the previous page,
page 93, it gives a trajectory table, where the ACTUAL height of a bullet is
listed at different distances from the theoretical flat trajectory.

The first measurement given is "0.6 inches" at 100 yards. Note, I said YARDS not
feet.

This kook thinks that a Mannlicher Carcano's curved trajectory would cause a
miss at 100 feet. He's clearly never fired a rifle in his life, and didn't
bother to take the time to read "Small Arms Design and Ballistics" by Welen, Vol
II... even though he cites it.

But you won't find anyone correcting this rather stupid error on the censored
forum.

[timstter]

On May 29, 10:11 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <jo28s799k9s5tfln7cnjnbrqme5sgk2...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...

>
>
>
> >On Sat, 26 May 2012 01:55:38 -0700 (PDT), timstter
> ><timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Hi All,
>
> >>On page 108 of Rush To Judgment (Penguin edition) Lane states:
>
> >>QUOTE ON:
>
> >>What do we know about Oswald's proficiency with a rifle? That he was a
> >>relatively poor shot and betrayed a dislike of weapons to a Marine
> >>Corps friend.
>
> >>QUOTE OFF
>
> And, as a former Marine, one who competed on the West Coast Marine Corps Rifle
> Team - I'm quite well qualified to state that Mark Lane is quite accurate here.
>

Why don't you provide proof of your bona fides, Holmes? I say even if
you do it doesn't prove that Mark Lane is not a liar on this matter.
His whole chapter, The Rifle Test, is one lie after the other. It is
quite OUTRAGEOUS stuff!

> >>The evidence, though, is that Oswald must have been a *fairly good
> >>shot* to have qualified as a USMC Sharpshooter, per this three page
> >>letter from the USMC's AG Folsom to the Warren Commission:
>
> I find it amusing that the kooks don't realize that shooting is a skill, one
> that must be *practiced* to be kept up.
>

I find it amusing that you slip straight into unprovoked ad hominem,
calling other posters kooks, then complain about *ad hominem attacks*
when people respond in kind to you.

> The kooks never seem to mention just how long ago, compared to 11/22/63, Oswald
> qualified *AS AN AVERAGE MARINE*.
>

YOU never seem to acknowledge that the evidence is that he practised
with the rifle in 1963. On 11.22.63 he only had four bullets left out
of his box, didn't he? AND he dry fired the rifle HUNDREDS of times
only a month or so before the assassination.

> Sharpshooter being right in the middle of the bell curve of Marine Corps
> shooting expertise.
>

So that makes him a poor shot, does it? Not according to Major
Anderson, who is not a liar like Mark Lane.

> The dishonest kooks never seem to want to mention what Oswald's score was
> *closest* to 11/22/63. Or the fact that *VASTLY* superior marksmen were called
> upon to duplicate "Oswald's feat" - and even with a wee bit o'cheating going on,
> still couldn't do it.
>

That's simply ANOTHER lie by Lane, dealt with in this series. In fact,
they EXCEEDED Oswald's feat, despite all the lies told by Lane.

> >>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol...
>
> >>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol...
>
> >>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol...
>

> >>In fact, Major Eugene Anderson, the assistant head of the Marksmanship
> >>Branch, Headquarters Marine Corps and himself a USMC shooting expert
> >>and master rifleshot in the NRA, testified that Oswald would have been
> >>*considered a good to excellent shot* in comparison to the average
> >>citizen in his WC testimony:
>
> Comparing someone who's handled and fired a weapon for score against the average
> citizen who's rarely even *seen* a rifle is hardly the comparison an honest
> person would make.
>

Well why don't you take that up with Major Anderson? I say you are not
an expert witness and HE is. The question is whether the shooting feat
would have been possible by Oswald on 11.22.63. The evidence is that
it would have been.

> Nor does it explain the qualifications of those chosen by the WC to try to
> duplicate what Oswald did.
>

Why do YOU stay away from the FACTS that they EXCEEDED what Oswald did
AND Mark Lane lied about it?

> The kooks tend to stay away from facts like those.
>

More ad hominem rubbish. Why do YOU stay away from the FACT that
Oswald dry fired the rifle HUNDREDS of times on his front porch in New
Orleans during August and September, making him VERY familiar with
heavy action of the bolt on the rifle?

Why do YOU stay away from the FACT that the expert shooters commented
on the heavy action of the bolt and had only a few minutes to
familiarise themselves with it before the test began? Because FACTS
like that are inconvenient to you and Lane.

> >>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/html/WC_Vol...

>
> >>Lane simply LIES by omission, by precluding any description of
> >>Oswald's shooting outside of the mediocre.
>
> >>Lying by OMISSION is Mark Lane's modus operandi.
>
> Indeed, this is *PRECISELY* what's just been done in this post.
>

LOL! Sure thing, Holmes. You seem to have omitted a few FACTS
yourself, eh?

> >>When he is not lying OVERTLY, that is.
>
> >He does plenty of both.
>

Yes he does!

> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
>
> Still waiting for someone to show all these "lies"... and I'm giving the kooks
> plenty of chalkboard to do it on.
>

Enjoy the series, Benny!

> I see that my Mark Lane series has needled people... when you can get McAdams
> running over here to do damage control... it's clear that the kooks are
> irritated.
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com

LOL! Naw, your series hasn't needled people. It's AMUSING seeing you
hiding behind your killfilter, not knowing the half of what is going
on. You're blind without a cane, as it were.

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

[timstter]

On May 29, 9:34 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 01:55:38 -0700 (PDT), timstter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Hi All,
>
> >On page 108 of Rush To Judgment (Penguin edition) Lane states:
>
> >QUOTE ON:
>
> >What do we know about Oswald's proficiency with a rifle? That he was a
> >relatively poor shot and betrayed a dislike of weapons to a Marine
> >Corps friend.
>
> >QUOTE OFF
>
> >The evidence, though, is that Oswald must have been a *fairly good
> >shot* to have qualified as a USMC Sharpshooter, per this three page
> >letter from the USMC's AG Folsom to the Warren Commission:
>

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol...
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol...
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol...
>

> >In fact, Major Eugene Anderson, the assistant head of the Marksmanship
> >Branch, Headquarters Marine Corps and himself a USMC shooting expert
> >and master rifleshot in the NRA, testified that Oswald would have been
> >*considered a good to excellent shot* in comparison to the average
> >citizen in his WC testimony:
>

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/html/WC_Vol...

>
> >Lane simply LIES by omission, by precluding any description of
> >Oswald's shooting outside of the mediocre.
>
> >Lying by OMISSION is Mark Lane's modus operandi.
>
> >When he is not lying OVERTLY, that is.
>
> He does plenty of both.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Hi .John,

Sorry for the late response. Yes he does!

Great webpage and thanks for supplying the link.

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

[Bill Clarke]

In article <4fc5...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>

Assuming that I'm one of these "deadheads" let me set the record straight
and try for the millionth time to un-confuse you here.

I know that the M/C sights are preset. That doesn't keep one from making
an accurate shot at less distance than the rifle was zeroed for (In this
case 200 meters and the head shot to Kennedy being roughly 80-100 meters
or whatever Marsh decides it is today). I think it safe to say that
Oswald fired 15 or so practice rounds with his M/C. Most public ranges
have 100 yard targets at a maximum, very few having 200 yard targets due
to space. So Oswald observes his round hit 4 or 5 or 6 inches high at 100
yards, approximately the range he will make his assassination shots. Say
they even shoot to the left a bit. So now, pay attention Marsh, the man
knows enough to know that he will need to hold a few inches low at 100
yards and a bit to the right to compensate for the leftward bullet strike.
Did you get it this time?

You don't know if the scope was defective when Oswald made his shots.
Perhaps it was damaged by the authorities. You can't tell me if Oswald
used the open sights or the scope.

>And most WC defenders still do not realize that the M-1 has a very flat
>trajectory as compared to the Mannlicher-Carcano's very high trajectory.
>Which means that at closer distances like 100 yards the
Mannlicher-Carcano >will shoot a few inches higher than aimed.

See above. Also when you think you are ready to understand battle zero
let me know and I'll explain it to you again.

You seem to think, Marsh, that bullets always go where they are aimed and
that they always strike the same place, just one hole in the target for 3
rounds so to speak. This is funny.

Bill Clarke

[Ben Holmes]

In article <jr30...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...

You mean, of course, that you're speculating WITH NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

There's a profound lack of evidence that Oswald *EVER* fired that rifle, as
anyone who's studied the evidence knows.

It seems that you're just trying to mislead people.


So why not *CITE* the evidence that Oswald *EVER* fired that rifle.

>Most public ranges
>have 100 yard targets at a maximum, very few having 200 yard targets due
>to space. So Oswald observes his round hit 4 or 5 or 6 inches high at 100
>yards, approximately the range he will make his assassination shots. Say
>they even shoot to the left a bit. So now, pay attention Marsh, the man
>knows enough to know that he will need to hold a few inches low at 100
>yards and a bit to the right to compensate for the leftward bullet strike.
>Did you get it this time?
>
>You don't know if the scope was defective when Oswald made his shots.

Only the police or FBI could have damaged the scope.

The evidence is quite clear that the rifle wasn't tossed where it was hidden.

>Perhaps it was damaged by the authorities.

Yep... and one would *think* that they'd admit it - since the damaged scope
*DOES NOT HELP THEIR CASE AT ALL*.

>You can't tell me if Oswald
>used the open sights or the scope.

Disputing the WCR?

>>And most WC defenders still do not realize that the M-1 has a very flat
>>trajectory as compared to the Mannlicher-Carcano's very high trajectory.
>>Which means that at closer distances like 100 yards the
>Mannlicher-Carcano >will shoot a few inches higher than aimed.

That's an outright lie on Tony's part. It's been corrected before, using the
same resource that Tony Marsh uses. ("Small Arms Design & Ballistics" Townsend
Whelen, Vol II. See page 93)

>See above. Also when you think you are ready to understand battle zero
>let me know and I'll explain it to you again.
>
>You seem to think, Marsh, that bullets always go where they are aimed and
>that they always strike the same place, just one hole in the target for 3
>rounds so to speak. This is funny.
>
>Bill Clarke

[timstter]

TOP POST

Pat, the thing you duck is that Oswald practiced his shooting in 1963
AND dry fired the murder weapon HUNDREDS of times on his front porch
during August and September of 1963 in New Orleans, mere weeks before
Kennedy's assassination.

You need to include stuff like THAT in your thinking. Your excuses for
Lane and/or Oswald are not convincing.

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

On May 29, 10:53 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
> On May 28, 4:34 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 26 May 2012 01:55:38 -0700 (PDT), timstter
>
> > <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Hi All,
>
> > >On page 108 of Rush To Judgment (Penguin edition)Lanestates:
>
> > >QUOTE ON:
>
> > >What do we know about Oswald's proficiency with a rifle? That he was a
> > >relatively poor shot and betrayed a dislike of weapons to a Marine
> > >Corps friend.
>
> > >QUOTE OFF
>
> > >The evidence, though, is that Oswald must have been a *fairly good
> > >shot* to have qualified as a USMC Sharpshooter, per this three page
> > >letter from the USMC's AG Folsom to the Warren Commission:
>
> > >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol...
>
> > >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol...
>
> > >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol...
>
> > >In fact, Major Eugene Anderson, the assistant head of the Marksmanship
> > >Branch, Headquarters Marine Corps and himself a USMC shooting expert
> > >and master rifleshot in the NRA, testified that Oswald would have been
> > >*considered a good to excellent shot* in comparison to the average
> > >citizen in his WC testimony:
>
> > >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/html/WC_Vol...
>

> > >Lanesimply LIES by omission, by precluding any description of

> > >Oswald's shooting outside of the mediocre.
>
> > >Lyingby OMISSION isMarkLane'smodus operandi.
>

> > >When he is notlyingOVERTLY, that is.

>
> > He does plenty of both.
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
>
> > .John
> > --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

> You need to re-read Folsom's letter.Laneis correct on this point.

> and hunting--magazines. To put it bluntly that sort ...
>
> read more »

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/18/2012 11:04 AM, timstter wrote:
> TOP POST
>
> Pat, the thing you duck is that Oswald practiced his shooting in 1963
> AND dry fired the murder weapon HUNDREDS of times on his front porch
> during August and September of 1963 in New Orleans, mere weeks before
> Kennedy's assassination.
>

FYI, dry firing does not tell him how inaccurate his rifle is or help
him adjust the scope.

[aeffects]

On Jun 18, 12:04 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 6/18/2012 11:04 AM, timstter wrote:
>
> > TOP POST
>
> > Pat, the thing you duck is that Oswald practiced his shooting in 1963
> > AND dry fired the murder weapon HUNDREDS of times on his front porch
> > during August and September of 1963 in New Orleans, mere weeks before
> > Kennedy's assassination.
>
> FYI, dry firing does not tell him how inaccurate his rifle is or help
> him adjust the scope.

Idiot stick Tim Brennan (aka Tim Shell [failed standup comic] &
timstter) now infamous for the DD221 fuckup, hasn't a clue about
things military or firearms for that matter... the screwed up idiot is
an alien, forgive him....

> > Regards,
>
> > Tim Brennan
> > Sydney, Australia
> > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> > *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
> > neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
> > Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
>
> > And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

> >> requesting an appraisal of Oswald�s shooting ability, based upon
> >> Oswald�s test scores while in the Marines. On 6-8-64, he receives an
> >> unexpected response.  Folsom writes �In view of the lapse of time

> >> since Mr. Oswald was separated from the Marine Corps, it would be
> >> impossible to ascertain precisely the number of hours in which he
> >> participated in weapons marksmanship practice or how many rounds of

> >> ammunition he fired.� He then gives a breakdown of the training

> >> received by Oswald and his subsequent tests scores.  These show that
> >> Oswald was tested on the M-1 rifle on December 21, 1956 and received a
> >> score of 212, or sharpshooter ranking.  This was the test discussed in

> >> Folsom�s 5-1-64 testimony.  The record shows that Oswald was tested on

> >> the M-1 rifle a second time on May 6, 1959, however, and received a
> >> score of 191, only 1 point above the bottom of the Marksman ranking.
> >> These were the scores reported by the New York Times on 11-23-63. The

> >> big surprise for Rankin comes in Folsom�s summary. He tells Rankin
> >> �The Marine Corps considers that any reasonable application of the

> >> instructions given to Marines should permit them to become qualified
> >> as a marksman.  To become qualified as a sharpshooter, the Marine
> >> Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of
> >> adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified.  Consequently,

> >> a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor �shot� and a
> >> sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good �shot.� Folsom was

> >> thus telling Rankin that Oswald was a poor shot when he left the
> >> Marines and would have been an even worse shot after 4 years without
> >> practice.
>
> >>  From later in the chapter:
>
> >> Elsewhere, on 7-24-64 the Warren Commission engages the Marine Corps

> >> in a little self-protection. To counter Lt. Col. Folsom�s description
> >> of Oswald�s marksmanship as �poor,� they take the testimony of Major

> >> Specter makes a point of asking Zahm about Oswald�s ability �based on
> >> the tests.� This avoids that the most recent test was 4 years before

> >> the shooting and that Oswald had failed to keep in practice.  Zahm

> >> tells Specter what he undoubtedly wants to hear: �I would say in the

> >> Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as
> >> compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian,

> >> throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.� Clearly,

> >> read more �

[Ben Holmes]

In article <bafeeb8a-f812-4c69...@re8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...

>
>On Jun 18, 12:04=A0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 6/18/2012 11:04 AM, timstter wrote:
>>
>> > TOP POST
>>
>> > Pat, the thing you duck is that Oswald practiced his shooting in 1963
>> > AND dry fired the murder weapon HUNDREDS of times on his front porch
>> > during August and September of 1963 in New Orleans, mere weeks before
>> > Kennedy's assassination.

The evidence for that is somewhat less than stellar. Indeed, virtually
non-existent.

If you're stupid enough, we can go into the evidence for this, and show your
stupidity more clearly...

>> FYI, dry firing does not tell him how inaccurate his rifle is or help
>> him adjust the scope.
>
>Idiot stick Tim Brennan (aka Tim Shell [failed standup comic] &
>timstter) now infamous for the DD221 fuckup, hasn't a clue about
>things military or firearms for that matter... the screwed up idiot is
>an alien, forgive him....
>
>
>
>> > Regards,
>>
>> > Tim Brennan
>> > Sydney, Australia
>> > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
>> > *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
>> > neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
>> > Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
>>
>> > And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
>> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...
>>

>> > On May 29, 10:53 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM> =A0wrote:
>> >> On May 28, 4:34 pm, John McAdams<john.mcad...@marquette.edu> =A0wrote:

>>
>> >>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 01:55:38 -0700 (PDT), timstter
>>

>> >>> <timst...@gmail.com> =A0wrote:

>> >>>> Hi All,
>>
>> >>>> On page 108 of Rush To Judgment (Penguin edition)Lanestates:
>>
>> >>>> QUOTE ON:
>>

>> >>>> What do we know about Oswald's proficiency with a rifle? That he was=

> a
>> >>>> relatively poor shot and betrayed a dislike of weapons to a Marine
>> >>>> Corps friend.
>>
>> >>>> QUOTE OFF
>>
>> >>>> The evidence, though, is that Oswald must have been a *fairly good
>> >>>> shot* to have qualified as a USMC Sharpshooter, per this three page
>> >>>> letter from the USMC's AG Folsom to the Warren Commission:
>>

>> >>>>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol=
>...
>>
>> >>>>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol=
>...
>>
>> >>>>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol=
>...
>>
>> >>>> In fact, Major Eugene Anderson, the assistant head of the Marksmansh=

>ip
>> >>>> Branch, Headquarters Marine Corps and himself a USMC shooting expert

>> >>>> and master rifleshot in the NRA, testified that Oswald would have be=

>en
>> >>>> *considered a good to excellent shot* in comparison to the average
>> >>>> citizen in his WC testimony:
>>

>> >>>>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/html/WC_Vol=

>...
>>
>> >>>> Lanesimply LIES by omission, by precluding any description of
>> >>>> Oswald's shooting outside of the mediocre.
>>
>> >>>> Lyingby OMISSION isMarkLane'smodus operandi.
>>
>> >>>> When he is notlyingOVERTLY, that is.
>>
>> >>> He does plenty of both.
>>
>> >>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
>>
>> >>> .John
>> >>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>> >> You need to re-read Folsom's letter.Laneis correct on this point.
>> >> The evidence proves that Oswald was not a good shot at the time of the
>> >> shooting, and that the WC deliberately deceived the public on this
>> >> issue.
>>

>> >> =A0From patspeer.com, chapter 3c:

>>
>> >> On 6-2-64 Rankin writes a letter to Lt. Col. Allison G. Folsom

>> >> requesting an appraisal of Oswald=EF=BF=BDs shooting ability, based up=
>on
>> >> Oswald=EF=BF=BDs test scores while in the Marines. On 6-8-64, he recei=
>ves an
>> >> unexpected response. =A0Folsom writes =EF=BF=BDIn view of the lapse of=

> time
>> >> since Mr. Oswald was separated from the Marine Corps, it would be
>> >> impossible to ascertain precisely the number of hours in which he
>> >> participated in weapons marksmanship practice or how many rounds of

>> >> ammunition he fired.=EF=BF=BD He then gives a breakdown of the trainin=
>g
>> >> received by Oswald and his subsequent tests scores. =A0These show that

>> >> Oswald was tested on the M-1 rifle on December 21, 1956 and received a

>> >> score of 212, or sharpshooter ranking. =A0This was the test discussed =
>in
>> >> Folsom=EF=BF=BDs 5-1-64 testimony. =A0The record shows that Oswald was=

> tested on
>> >> the M-1 rifle a second time on May 6, 1959, however, and received a
>> >> score of 191, only 1 point above the bottom of the Marksman ranking.
>> >> These were the scores reported by the New York Times on 11-23-63. The

>> >> big surprise for Rankin comes in Folsom=EF=BF=BDs summary. He tells Ra=
>nkin
>> >> =EF=BF=BDThe Marine Corps considers that any reasonable application of=

> the
>> >> instructions given to Marines should permit them to become qualified

>> >> as a marksman. =A0To become qualified as a sharpshooter, the Marine

>> >> Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of

>> >> adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified. =A0Consequentl=
>y,
>> >> a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor =EF=BF=BDshot=EF=
>=BF=BD and a
>> >> sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good =EF=BF=BDshot.=EF=
>=BF=BD Folsom was

>> >> thus telling Rankin that Oswald was a poor shot when he left the
>> >> Marines and would have been an even worse shot after 4 years without
>> >> practice.
>>

>> >> =A0From later in the chapter:

>>
>> >> Elsewhere, on 7-24-64 the Warren Commission engages the Marine Corps

>> >> in a little self-protection. To counter Lt. Col. Folsom=EF=BF=BDs desc=
>ription
>> >> of Oswald=EF=BF=BDs marksmanship as =EF=BF=BDpoor,=EF=BF=BD they take =

>the testimony of Major
>> >> Eugene D. Anderson, an assistant head of the Marksmanship branch of

>> >> the Marines, and =A0Master Sergeant James Zahm, an NCO of Marksmanship
>> >> Training. =A0Arlen Specter takes their testimony. After being shown

>> >> Oswald's test scores, Anderson offers an explanation for Oswald's

>> >> lowly score in 1959, shortly before he left the Marines: =A0"It may we=

>ll
>> >> have been a bad day for firing a rifle, windy, rainy, dark. There is
>> >> little probability that he had a good, expert coach. and he probably
>> >> didn't have as high a motivation because he was no longer in recruit

>> >> training and under the care of the drill instructor. =A0There is some

>> >> possibility that the rifle he was firing might not have been as good a
>> >> rifle as the rifle he was firing in his A course firing. because he
>> >> may well have carried this rifle around for some time, and it got
>> >> banged around in normal usage." Anderson summarizes Oswald's abilities

>> >> as follows: =A0"I would say that as compared to other Marines receivin=

>g
>> >> the same kind of training, that Oswald was a good shot, somewhat

>> >> better than or equal to--better than average let us say. =A0As compare=

>d
>> >> to a civilian who had not received this intensive training, he would
>> >> be considered as a good to excellent shot." Specter then shows
>> >> Anderson frames from the Zapruder film and asks him if hitting Kennedy
>> >> from the distances determined at the re-enactment would be within
>> >> Oswald's capabilities, and Anderson repeatedly says the shots were
>> >> within Oswald's capabilities. He then asks him if Oswald could fire
>> >> three shots in a time span between 4.8 and 5.6 seconds, and Anderson
>> >> once again replies in the affirmative. Specter fails to ask Anderson
>> >> the more pertinent question if Oswald could be expected to hit the 2

>> >> "not particularly difficult" shots within a 4.8-5.6 =A0second time spa=

>n
>> >> while firing at a moving target with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

>> >> Perhaps he already knew the answer. =A0After finishing with Anderson,
>> >> Specter makes a point of asking Zahm about Oswald=EF=BF=BDs ability =
>=EF=BF=BDbased on
>> >> the tests.=EF=BF=BD This avoids that the most recent test was 4 years =
>before
>> >> the shooting and that Oswald had failed to keep in practice. =A0Zahm
>> >> tells Specter what he undoubtedly wants to hear: =EF=BF=BDI would say =

>in the
>> >> Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as
>> >> compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian,

>> >> throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.=EF=BF=BD C=

>learly,
>> >> this is the new company line.
>>

>> >> =A0From still later in the chapter:
>>
>> >> =A0From a 9-4 WC memo by Wesley Liebeler in which he critiqued the War=

>> >> read more =EF=BF=BD

[timstter]

On Jun 19, 5:57 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <bafeeb8a-f812-4c69-b735-251603bdf...@re8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

> ...
>
> read more »

The evidence for THAT is a lot more solid than for Mark Lane's claim
that NOT ONE of the WC expert shooters hit the ENLARGED head or neck
of the target EVEN ONCE, Holmes.

Why don't YOU demonstrate your stupidity and make a horse race out of
that?

Because you CAN'T, Holmes.

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

[aeffects]

are you dancing or what shithead....? ROTFLMFAO! ! ! ! !

> ...
>
> read more »

[Bill Clarke]

In article <4fdf5339$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 6/18/2012 11:04 AM, timstter wrote:
>> TOP POST
>>
>> Pat, the thing you duck is that Oswald practiced his shooting in 1963
>> AND dry fired the murder weapon HUNDREDS of times on his front porch
>> during August and September of 1963 in New Orleans, mere weeks before
>> Kennedy's assassination.
>>
>
>FYI, dry firing does not tell him how inaccurate his rifle is or help
>him adjust the scope.

So where did the other 15 rounds of ammo go that was in the box? They
don't sell them one round at a time you know. How do you know he used the
scope?

Bill Clarke

[Ben Holmes]

In article <610c5728-7f88-47fa...@u1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...

>
>are you dancing or what shithead....? ROTFLMFAO! ! ! ! !

I can't see Timmy's response, it was cut off... but I'm guessing that he's
stupid enough to engage in a debate about the evidence.

So let's examine it:


>On Jun 18, 2:33=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 19, 5:57=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <bafeeb8a-f812-4c69-b735-251603bdf...@re8g2000pbc.googlegrou=
>ps.com>,
>> > aeffects says...
>>
>> > >On Jun 18, 12:04=3DA0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wro=

>te:
>> > >> On 6/18/2012 11:04 AM, timstter wrote:
>>
>> > >> > TOP POST
>>
>> > >> > Pat, the thing you duck is that Oswald practiced his shooting in 1963
>> > >> > AND dry fired the murder weapon HUNDREDS of times on his front porch
>> > >> > during August and September of 1963 in New Orleans, mere weeks before
>> > >> > Kennedy's assassination.
>>
>> > The evidence for that is somewhat less than stellar. Indeed, virtually
>> > non-existent.
>>
>> > If you're stupid enough, we can go into the evidence for this, and
>> > show your stupidity more clearly...

We'll start with the general hypothesis that the earliest eyewitness statements
are generally far more likely to be reliable than later statements... As I
recall, Posner agreed, and it wouldn't surprise me if Bugliosi agrees too.

The sad fact is that most LNT'ers would agree with the statement, then go right
ahead and pick anything that fits their theory anyway.

So let's examine the *ONLY* testimony that relates to Oswald practicing with his
rifle, Marina's. (I disregard for obvious reasons the De Mohrenschildt's
assertions)

And, I might note: *in* chronological order:

12/3/62, FBI report of interview with Marina: "Marina said she had never seen
Oswald practice with his rifle or any other firearm and he had never told her
that he was going to practice." (22H763)

12/4/63, Secret Service report of interview with Marina: "The reporting agent
interviewed Marina Oswald as to whether she knew of any place or of a rifle
range where her husband could do some practicing with a rifle, and whether she
ever saw her husband taking the rifle out of the house. She said that she never
saw Lee going out or coming in to the house with a rifle and that he never
mentioned to her doing any practice with a rifle." (23H393)

12/10/63, Secret Service report of interview with Marina: "Marina Oswald was
asked if she ever saw her husband doing any dry practice with the rifle either
in their apartments or any place else, and she replied in the negative."
(23H402)

12/16/63, FBI report of interview with Marina: "She cannot recall that [Oswald]
ever practiced firing the rifle either in New Orleans or in Dallas." (22H778)

2/3/64, Marina makes her first appearance before the Commission:
Mr. Rankin: Did you learn at any time that he had been practicing with the
rifle?
Mrs. Oswald: I think he went once or twice. I didn't actually see him take the
rifle, but I knew he was practicing.
Mr. Rankin: Could you give us a little help on how you knew?
Mrs. Oswald: He told me. And he would mention that in passing ... he would say,
"Well, today I will take the rifle along for practice." (1H14-15)

2/17/64, FBI report of interview with Marina: "Marina advised Oswald had told
her after the Walker incident that he had practiced with his rifle in a field
near Dallas. She said further that in the beginning of January, 1963, at the
Neely Street address, he on one occasion was cleaning his rifle and he said he
had been practicing that day." [The rifle was not mailed until the end of March,
1963.]
"Marina was asked if she had ever seen Oswald take the rifle from the house and
she replied that she had not. She was asked if she had ever known the rifle to
have been gone from the house at the same time Oswald was gone from the house.
She replied that she could not recall any such incident. She was then asked if
it were true then that she had never seen Oswald take the rifle from the house
nor knew any occasion when he might have had the rifle at a place other than at
home. She then admitted that she did know of such an occasion. She said this
occasion occurred on an evening in March, 1963. On this evening, she and June
[their daughter] and Oswald left the house at about 6:00 PM. Oswald had his
rifle wrapped up in a raincoat... When Oswald returned about 9:00 PM, he told
her he had practiced with his rifle." (22H197)

2/18/64, FBI report of interview with Marina: "She advised she had been mistaken
on February 117, 1964, when she said she had recalled Oswald cleaning his rifle
at Neely Street, at which time he made the statement he had been practicing. She
said she is now able to place the date... as being shortly before the Walker
incident... At one of the four or five times that she observed Oswald cleaning
his rifle at their home on Neely Street... he told her he had been practicing
with the rifle but he did not say when he had practiced. On the other occasions
of his cleaning the rifle... he did not say he had been practicing. Marina
deduced that he might have been practicing with the rifle." (22H785)

6/11/64, Marina again testifies before the Commission:
"Lee didn't tell me when he was going out to practice. I only remember one time
distinctly that he went out because he took the bus. I don't know if he went to
Love Field at that time. I don't - after all this testimony, after all this
testimony, when I was asked did he clean his gun a lot, and I answered yes, I
came to the conclusion that he was practicing with his gun because he was
cleaning it afterwards." (5H397)

Sen. Cooper: Did he ever tell you that he was practicing with a rifle?
Mrs. Oswald: Only after I saw him take the gun that one time. (5H398)

So what we see here is that for three months, Marina consistently denied any
knowledge WHATSOEVER of Oswald's rifle practice. He never told her he was
practicing, she never saw him practicing, she knew of no practicing AT ALL.

It was only when she appeared before the Commission that her story changed. I
hardly need to remind *intelligent* readers of the historical fact of her
virtual house arrest, and the implied threats that she'd be deported to Russia.

Before the Commission, she suddenly knew of one or two instances when Oswald
mentioned the was going to practice, even though she never saw him take the
rifle from the house. That wasn't good enough for the Commission... so she was
undoubtedly induced to provide more "detail"...

Now she saw Oswald cleaning the rifle before he'd ordered it. (I'm sure the FBI
loved *that* story!) She also 'admitted' an incident where she saw Oswald remove
the rifle, concealed in a raincoat, to practice *AT NIGHT*.

Anyone who's ever fired a rifle before knows what a crock that is.

I suspect that the FBI nudged Marina a tad, because the next day she retracted
her statement that she'd seen Oswald back in January [before the rifle was even
mailed] with a rifle he couldn't have had.

Her final version was that Oswald had told her *ONCE* that he was going out to
practice (despite months of saying the opposite), and that she *DEDUCED* (as the
FBI put it) that he'd practiced other times.


Now let's address the three days of testimony where Marina talked about the
porch dry-firing:

Feb 3rd:
I know that we had a kind of a porch with a - a screened-in porch, and I know
that sometimes evenings after dark he would sit there with his rifle. I don't
know what he did with it. I came there only by chance once and saw him just
sitting there with his rifle. I thought he is merely sitting there and
resting...
Mr. Rankin: From what you observed about this having the rifle on the back
porch, in the dark, could you tell whether or not he was trying to practice with
telescopic lens?
Mrs. Oswald: Yes (1H21-22)

Feb 4th:
Mr. Rankin: Did you ever see him working the bolt, the action that opens the
rifle, where you can put in a shell in and push it back - during those times [on
the porch]?
Mrs. Oswald: I did not see it, because it was dark, and I would be in the room
at that time. But I did hear the noise from time to time - not often. (1H54)

Feb 5th:
Mr. Rankin: You have told us abut his practicing with the rifle, the telescopic
lens, on the back porch at New Orleans, an also his using the bolt action that
you hear from time to time. Will you describe that a little more fully to us, as
best you remember?
Mrs. Oswald: I cannot describe that in greater detail. I can only say that Lee
would sit there with the rifle and open and close the bolt and clean it. No, he
didn't clean it at that time. Yes - twice he did clean it.
Mr. Rankin: And did he seem to be practicing with the telescopic lens, too, and
sighting the gun on different objects?
Mrs. Oswald: I don't know. The rifle was always with this. I don't know exactly
how he practiced, because I was in the house, I was busy. I just knew that he
sits there with his rifle. I was not interested in it (1H65)

Of course, *originally* Marina denied *any* such porch practice. But if you want
to believe this, then Oswald practiced sighting with his rifle *IN TOTAL
DARKNESS* on a screened porch.

And I'm sure that the kooks, including Timmy and Billy, will believe this
nonsense, even though Billy at least, knows better.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <jro8c...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...

Better watch out stupid... you're coming dangerously close to understanding
evidence that you can't explain.


You realize, of course, that it *IS* you that has to explain it, right?


The CT'er side *already* has a perfectly valid explanation.

>How do you know he used the scope?

That *is* the claim of the WCR, and thus, it's *your* theory.


>Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

Plinking out at Love Field. 3 fired at Kennedy. 1 left in the rifle. I
think he used the scope to shoot at Walker because it was dark. I don't
think he was firing in Dealey Plaza. Someone else using his rifle would
not even have known if the scope was damaged and defective as the FBI
found it.

[aeffects]

On Jun 18, 4:58 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <4fdf533...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

WCR search is your friend Bill'o.... do we have to educate you, you're
suppose to know this stuff... Have that DD221 moron Tim Brennan (aka
Tim Shell failed standup comic) educate you.

> Bill Clarke

[Sam McClung]

where is the texas legal requirement on 11-22-63 that oswald buy 16 round of
ammunition? sounds like more helium escaping from b.o., good reason to apply
deodorant to b.o.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <jq2u8...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...

>
>In article <jq147...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>In article <jo28s799k9s5tfln7...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>
>>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 01:55:38 -0700 (PDT), timstter
>>><tims...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi All,
>>>>
>>>>On page 108 of Rush To Judgment (Penguin edition) Lane states:
>>>>
>>>>QUOTE ON:
>>>>
>>>>What do we know about Oswald's proficiency with a rifle? That he was a
>>>>relatively poor shot and betrayed a dislike of weapons to a Marine
>>>>Corps friend.
>>>>
>>>>QUOTE OFF
>>
>>
>>And, as a former Marine,
>
>Ah gee Benny. You know there are no former Marines. Once a Marine always a
>Marine. Right? Or is it different for garrison Marines?

I don't blame you for being ignorant on Marine Corps tradition.

The statement is that there are no *EX* Marines. As the Marine Corps Dictionary
on Answers.com puts it: "Former Marine: An acceptable term for a Marine who is
not currently serving, but make no mistake, that person is a Marine and always
will be a Marine." http://www.answers.com/topic/former-marine

Now that you've been schooled, do try to remember the difference between "Ex"
and "Former" - one is incorrect, and one is acceptable.

>> one who competed on the West Coast Marine Corps Rifle Team - I'm quite well
>> qualified to state that Mark Lane is quite accurate here.
>
>Why does you being on the Rifle Team make you "well qualified" to insure the
>accuracy of Lane's statement?

Are you stupid? Or just dishonest?

Indeed, the WCR also listed the qualifications for their rifle expert. Are you
stupid enough to claim that the WCR didn't know what they were doing?

>Was Oswald on the team with you are what? I find it strange that a man
>betraying a dislike of weapons would be on the rifle team.

Enjoy fighting your strawman?

>Benny, you are so full of shit your eyes are brown.
>
>Bill Clarke

It's unfortunate that you'll never apologize for your above assertion based on
ignorance of Marine Corps tradition.


But that's par for your dishonesty, isn't it?

>>>>The evidence, though, is that Oswald must have been a *fairly good
>>>>shot* to have qualified as a USMC Sharpshooter, per this three page
>>>>letter from the USMC's AG Folsom to the Warren Commission:
>>
>>
>>I find it amusing that the kooks don't realize that shooting is a skill, one
>>that must be *practiced* to be kept up.
>>
>>The kooks never seem to mention just how long ago, compared to 11/22/63, Oswald
>>qualified *AS AN AVERAGE MARINE*.
>>
>>Sharpshooter being right in the middle of the bell curve of Marine Corps
>>shooting expertise.

Billy had nothing to say here.

>>The dishonest kooks never seem to want to mention what Oswald's score was
>>*closest* to 11/22/63. Or the fact that *VASTLY* superior marksmen were called
>>upon to duplicate "Oswald's feat" - and even with a wee bit o'cheating going on,
>>still couldn't do it.
>>
>>
>>>>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0017b.htm
>>>>
>>>>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0018a.htm
>>>>
>>>>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0018b.htm
>>>>
>>>>In fact, Major Eugene Anderson, the assistant head of the Marksmanship
>>>>Branch, Headquarters Marine Corps and himself a USMC shooting expert
>>>>and master rifleshot in the NRA, testified that Oswald would have been
>>>>*considered a good to excellent shot* in comparison to the average
>>>>citizen in his WC testimony:

Billy had nothing to say about *this* listing of valid credentials.

>>Comparing someone who's handled and fired a weapon for score against the average
>>citizen who's rarely even *seen* a rifle is hardly the comparison an honest
>>person would make.
>>
>>Nor does it explain the qualifications of those chosen by the WC to try to
>>duplicate what Oswald did.
>>
>>The kooks tend to stay away from facts like those.

Billy ran from this one...

>>>>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/html/WC_Vol11_0158a.htm
>>>>
>>>>Lane simply LIES by omission, by precluding any description of
>>>>Oswald's shooting outside of the mediocre.
>>>>
>>>>Lying by OMISSION is Mark Lane's modus operandi.
>>
>>
>>Indeed, this is *PRECISELY* what's just been done in this post.

Dead silence from Billy again...

>>>>When he is not lying OVERTLY, that is.
>>>>
>>>
>>>He does plenty of both.
>>>
>>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
>>
>>
>>Still waiting for someone to show all these "lies"... and I'm giving the kooks
>>plenty of chalkboard to do it on.
>>
>>
>>I see that my Mark Lane series has needled people... when you can get McAdams
>>running over here to do damage control... it's clear that the kooks are
>>irritated.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <21236862-04db-4343...@wt8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...

>
>On Jun 18, 4:58=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <4fdf533...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 6/18/2012 11:04 AM, timstter wrote:
>> >> TOP POST
>>
>> >> Pat, the thing you duck is that Oswald practiced his shooting in 1963
>> >> AND dry fired the murder weapon HUNDREDS of times on his front porch
>> >> during August and September of 1963 in New Orleans, mere weeks before
>> >> Kennedy's assassination.
>>
>> >FYI, dry firing does not tell him how inaccurate his rifle is or help
>> >him adjust the scope.
>>

>> So where did the other 15 rounds of ammo go that was in the box? =A0They
>> don't sell them one round at a time you know. =A0How do you know he used =

>the
>> scope?
>
>WCR search is your friend Bill'o....

Gee, Benny said it was all lies so I didn't read it. So now you're saying that
it isn't all lies and I should read it? Benny might not like this.

Allow me to tag on a reply to Sam McClung here since we have each other
filtered. Who said anything about 16 rounds you nutty fucker?

Bill Clarke

[Bill Clarke]

In article <f2dea3b4-ab38-4d81...@2g2000pbv.googlegroups.com>,
timstter says...


Tim,

I just received a reply from Benny, Healy and the renowned Sam McClung all for
one message. I realized that we could be having even more fun with these
gentlemen if we made a game of it.

So I’m proposing "CONSPIRACY POKER".

Benny, Healy, McClung and Laz would be a full house. Very full.

If Marsh pops up or Newsboy throws in that would be a Royal Flush.

Three of these esteemed gentlemen would be, of course, three of a kind.

Two of them would be a pair.

I’ve got to fine tune the game but I’m working on it.

So, I’ll see your Benny Holmes and raise you a Sam McClung.

Bill Clarke

[Ben Holmes]

In article <jrq38...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...

If you don't have the truth, I suppose games are entertaining...