Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mark Lane #260 (Billy Clarke Still Running...)
16 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
May 15, 2013, 9:23:47 AM5/15/13
to
In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane pointed out how the Warren Commission did
more than misrepresent their evidence, they flatly lied about some of it. Here's
some more examples:
"Ruby did not serve coffee and soft drinks alone to officers of the Dallas
police. His bartender had standing orders to serve hard liquor to all police
officers who came into the nightclub � an illegal practice. Nancy Perrin Rich,
who told Commission counsel that she 'was actually a bartender' and 'worked
behind the bar mixing and serving drinks', said that while she knew the law
prohibited the sale of hard liquor, she broke the law at Ruby's request. Asked
to whom she served liquor on Ruby's orders, she replied, 'The police
department.'
Q. Are you saying that Jack Ruby told you that when any member of the police
department came in, that there was a standing order that you could serve them
hard liquor?
Rich: That is correct ...
Q, Did they pay?
Rich: Oh, no; of course not.
Q, Was that an order too, from Mr Ruby?
Rich: That was.
'When they came in, by themselves,' Mrs Rich explained, 'I was to go get the
private stock, as he called it, special stock. They were served whatever they
wanted on the house.' Asked who enjoyed that privilege, Mrs Rich replied,
'Anyone that came in from the police department. Including certain attorneys in
town.'
Mrs Rich's testimony contradicted the Commission's conclusions and some of it
attacked the foundations of its reasoning. The Commission effectively rejected
her testimony by failing to publish a word of it in the Report. When the
Commission found material disconcerting, it often handled it in one of two ways.
It either minimized the importance of the evidence, here presenting it out of
context, there ignoring it altogether; or it challenged the probity of the
witness. The latter method, when equitably applied, is a commendable � often
valuable � procedure.
But were Commission witnesses fairly investigated? There is no certain way of
telling. Not one page of the Report or of the 26 volumes yields a definitive
answer. How many persons did the FBI and the Secret Service visit to secure
background information? Who selected the list of persons to be visited? On what
basis were they chosen? A final judgment of the fairness of the background
investigations must be withheld. However, the decision to conduct such
investigations appears to have often been unfair. Those whose testimony
conformed to the Commission's case were not investigated, while those whose
testimony challenged it almost invariably were. Howard Brennan, who stated that
he saw Oswald on the sixth floor of the Book Depository, was not investigated.
But when Arnold Rowland stated that he saw two men on the sixth floor, the
Commission went so far as to call Rowland's wife and ask her if her husband ever
told her fibs about his report cards from school."
Mark Lane is now pointing out that not only did the Warren Commission
misrepresent their own evidence, they flatly lied about much of it... kooks such
as Billy Clarke have no answer to this...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
more than misrepresent their evidence, they flatly lied about some of it. Here's
some more examples:
"Ruby did not serve coffee and soft drinks alone to officers of the Dallas
police. His bartender had standing orders to serve hard liquor to all police
officers who came into the nightclub � an illegal practice. Nancy Perrin Rich,
who told Commission counsel that she 'was actually a bartender' and 'worked
behind the bar mixing and serving drinks', said that while she knew the law
prohibited the sale of hard liquor, she broke the law at Ruby's request. Asked
to whom she served liquor on Ruby's orders, she replied, 'The police
department.'
Q. Are you saying that Jack Ruby told you that when any member of the police
department came in, that there was a standing order that you could serve them
hard liquor?
Rich: That is correct ...
Q, Did they pay?
Rich: Oh, no; of course not.
Q, Was that an order too, from Mr Ruby?
Rich: That was.
'When they came in, by themselves,' Mrs Rich explained, 'I was to go get the
private stock, as he called it, special stock. They were served whatever they
wanted on the house.' Asked who enjoyed that privilege, Mrs Rich replied,
'Anyone that came in from the police department. Including certain attorneys in
town.'
Mrs Rich's testimony contradicted the Commission's conclusions and some of it
attacked the foundations of its reasoning. The Commission effectively rejected
her testimony by failing to publish a word of it in the Report. When the
Commission found material disconcerting, it often handled it in one of two ways.
It either minimized the importance of the evidence, here presenting it out of
context, there ignoring it altogether; or it challenged the probity of the
witness. The latter method, when equitably applied, is a commendable � often
valuable � procedure.
But were Commission witnesses fairly investigated? There is no certain way of
telling. Not one page of the Report or of the 26 volumes yields a definitive
answer. How many persons did the FBI and the Secret Service visit to secure
background information? Who selected the list of persons to be visited? On what
basis were they chosen? A final judgment of the fairness of the background
investigations must be withheld. However, the decision to conduct such
investigations appears to have often been unfair. Those whose testimony
conformed to the Commission's case were not investigated, while those whose
testimony challenged it almost invariably were. Howard Brennan, who stated that
he saw Oswald on the sixth floor of the Book Depository, was not investigated.
But when Arnold Rowland stated that he saw two men on the sixth floor, the
Commission went so far as to call Rowland's wife and ask her if her husband ever
told her fibs about his report cards from school."
Mark Lane is now pointing out that not only did the Warren Commission
misrepresent their own evidence, they flatly lied about much of it... kooks such
as Billy Clarke have no answer to this...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
aeffects
May 15, 2013, 11:06:01 AM5/15/13
to
simply don't have the nads to deal with Mark Lane's Rush to
Judgement... DENIAL, lone nut action word for the past 25
years.... .john-ite wimps!
Bill Clarke
May 15, 2013, 1:28:19 PM5/15/13
to
In article <kn029...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
I got your answer right here, dipshit. GROW UP.
Bill Clarke
>
I got your answer right here, dipshit. GROW UP.
Bill Clarke
timstter
May 15, 2013, 3:44:45 PM5/15/13
to
It is to laugh, as they say.
BTW, Mark Lane is a brazen LIAR!
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
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
Ben Holmes
May 16, 2013, 9:25:34 AM5/16/13
to
In article <kn0gj...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
>In article <kn029...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>
>I got your answer right here, dipshit. GROW UP.
>
>Bill Clarke
Still running, eh coward?
>In article <kn029...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>
>I got your answer right here, dipshit. GROW UP.
>
>Bill Clarke
aeffects
May 16, 2013, 11:22:18 AM5/16/13
to
On May 15, 10:28 am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <kn02930...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
Shell failed standup comic) eh?
Nothing like having someone familiar with case evidence (if you can
call Moise familiar) to pull wannabe-nutter fat out of the fire...
> In article <kn02930...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
>
>
> I got your answer right here, dipshit. GROW UP.
perhaps Dr.Moise can come and rescue you and Chubbs Brennan (aka Tim
>
>
> I got your answer right here, dipshit. GROW UP.
Shell failed standup comic) eh?
Nothing like having someone familiar with case evidence (if you can
call Moise familiar) to pull wannabe-nutter fat out of the fire...
Bill Clarke
May 16, 2013, 12:13:10 PM5/16/13
to
In article <85c9689e-6dd3-445d...@hc4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>>
>> >In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane pointed out how the Warren Commiss=
>ion did
>> >more than misrepresent their evidence, they flatly lied about some of it=
>as
>> >police. His bartender had standing orders to serve hard liquor to all po=
>lice
>> >officers who came into the nightclub an illegal practice. Nancy Perrin R=
>ich,
>> >who told Commission counsel that she 'was actually a bartender' and 'wor=
>ked
>> >behind the bar mixing and serving drinks', said that while she knew the =
>law
>> >prohibited the sale of hard liquor, she broke the law at Ruby's request.=
>lice
>> >department came in, that there was a standing order that you could serve=
> the
>> >private stock, as he called it, special stock. They were served whatever=
> they
>> >wanted on the house.' Asked who enjoyed that privilege, Mrs Rich replied=
>,
>> >'Anyone that came in from the police department. Including certain attor=
>neys in
>> >town.'
>>
>> >Mrs Rich's testimony contradicted the Commission's conclusions and some =
>of it
>> >attacked the foundations of its reasoning. The Commission effectively re=
>wo ways.
>> >It either minimized the importance of the evidence, here presenting it o=
>ut of
>> >context, there ignoring it altogether; or it challenged the probity of t=
>he
>> >witness. The latter method, when equitably applied, is a commendable oft=
>en
>> >valuable procedure.
>>
>> >But were Commission witnesses fairly investigated? There is no certain w=
>ay of
>> >telling. Not one page of the Report or of the 26 volumes yields a defini=
>tive
>> >answer. How many persons did the FBI and the Secret Service visit to sec=
>ure
>> >background information? Who selected the list of persons to be visited? =
>On what
>> >basis were they chosen? A final judgment of the fairness of the backgrou=
>ose
>> >testimony challenged it almost invariably were. Howard Brennan, who stat=
>ed that
>> >he saw Oswald on the sixth floor of the Book Depository, was not investi=
>gated.
>> >But when Arnold Rowland stated that he saw two men on the sixth floor, t=
>he
>> >Commission went so far as to call Rowland's wife and ask her if her husb=
aeffects says...
>
>On May 15, 10:28=A0am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <kn02930...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>
>>
>> I got your answer right here, dipshit. =A0GROW UP.
>On May 15, 10:28=A0am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <kn02930...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>
>>
>
>perhaps Dr.Moise can come and rescue you and Chubbs Brennan (aka Tim
>Shell failed standup comic) eh?
>Nothing like having someone familiar with case evidence (if you can
>call Moise familiar) to pull wannabe-nutter fat out of the fire...
Dr. Moise wrote an acclaimed book. You and Benny....not much.
>perhaps Dr.Moise can come and rescue you and Chubbs Brennan (aka Tim
>Shell failed standup comic) eh?
>Nothing like having someone familiar with case evidence (if you can
>call Moise familiar) to pull wannabe-nutter fat out of the fire...
Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>>
>> >In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane pointed out how the Warren Commiss=
>ion did
>> >more than misrepresent their evidence, they flatly lied about some of it=
>. Here's
>> >some more examples:
>>
>> >"Ruby did not serve coffee and soft drinks alone to officers of the Dall=
>> >some more examples:
>>
>as
>> >police. His bartender had standing orders to serve hard liquor to all po=
>lice
>> >officers who came into the nightclub an illegal practice. Nancy Perrin R=
>ich,
>> >who told Commission counsel that she 'was actually a bartender' and 'wor=
>ked
>> >behind the bar mixing and serving drinks', said that while she knew the =
>law
>> >prohibited the sale of hard liquor, she broke the law at Ruby's request.=
> Asked
>> >to whom she served liquor on Ruby's orders, she replied, 'The police
>> >department.'
>>
>> >Q. Are you saying that Jack Ruby told you that when any member of the po=
>> >to whom she served liquor on Ruby's orders, she replied, 'The police
>> >department.'
>>
>lice
>> >department came in, that there was a standing order that you could serve=
> them
>> >hard liquor?
>>
>> >Rich: That is correct ...
>>
>> >Q, Did they pay?
>>
>> >Rich: Oh, no; of course not.
>>
>> >Q, Was that an order too, from Mr Ruby?
>>
>> >Rich: That was.
>>
>> >'When they came in, by themselves,' Mrs Rich explained, 'I was to go get=
>> >hard liquor?
>>
>> >Rich: That is correct ...
>>
>> >Q, Did they pay?
>>
>> >Rich: Oh, no; of course not.
>>
>> >Q, Was that an order too, from Mr Ruby?
>>
>> >Rich: That was.
>>
> the
>> >private stock, as he called it, special stock. They were served whatever=
> they
>> >wanted on the house.' Asked who enjoyed that privilege, Mrs Rich replied=
>,
>> >'Anyone that came in from the police department. Including certain attor=
>neys in
>> >town.'
>>
>> >Mrs Rich's testimony contradicted the Commission's conclusions and some =
>of it
>> >attacked the foundations of its reasoning. The Commission effectively re=
>jected
>> >her testimony by failing to publish a word of it in the Report. When the
>> >Commission found material disconcerting, it often handled it in one of t=
>> >her testimony by failing to publish a word of it in the Report. When the
>wo ways.
>> >It either minimized the importance of the evidence, here presenting it o=
>ut of
>> >context, there ignoring it altogether; or it challenged the probity of t=
>he
>> >witness. The latter method, when equitably applied, is a commendable oft=
>en
>> >valuable procedure.
>>
>> >But were Commission witnesses fairly investigated? There is no certain w=
>ay of
>> >telling. Not one page of the Report or of the 26 volumes yields a defini=
>tive
>> >answer. How many persons did the FBI and the Secret Service visit to sec=
>ure
>> >background information? Who selected the list of persons to be visited? =
>On what
>> >basis were they chosen? A final judgment of the fairness of the backgrou=
>nd
>> >investigations must be withheld. However, the decision to conduct such
>> >investigations appears to have often been unfair. Those whose testimony
>> >conformed to the Commission's case were not investigated, while those wh=
>> >investigations must be withheld. However, the decision to conduct such
>> >investigations appears to have often been unfair. Those whose testimony
>ose
>> >testimony challenged it almost invariably were. Howard Brennan, who stat=
>ed that
>> >he saw Oswald on the sixth floor of the Book Depository, was not investi=
>gated.
>> >But when Arnold Rowland stated that he saw two men on the sixth floor, t=
>he
>> >Commission went so far as to call Rowland's wife and ask her if her husb=
>and ever
>> >told her fibs about his report cards from school."
>>
>> >Mark Lane is now pointing out that not only did the Warren Commission
>> >misrepresent their own evidence, they flatly lied about much of it... ko=
>> >told her fibs about his report cards from school."
>>
>> >Mark Lane is now pointing out that not only did the Warren Commission
Ben Holmes
May 16, 2013, 9:59:06 PM5/16/13
to
In article <kn30i...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
>In article <85c9689e-6dd3-445d...@hc4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
>aeffects says...
>>
>>On May 15, 10:28=A0am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> In article <kn02930...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I got your answer right here, dipshit. =A0GROW UP.
>>
>>perhaps Dr.Moise can come and rescue you and Chubbs Brennan (aka Tim
>>Shell failed standup comic) eh?
>>Nothing like having someone familiar with case evidence (if you can
>>call Moise familiar) to pull wannabe-nutter fat out of the fire...
>
>Dr. Moise wrote an acclaimed book. You and Benny....not much.
>
>Bill Clarke
Just enough writing to allow you to show your cowardice...
>In article <85c9689e-6dd3-445d...@hc4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
>aeffects says...
>>
>>On May 15, 10:28=A0am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> In article <kn02930...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I got your answer right here, dipshit. =A0GROW UP.
>>
>>perhaps Dr.Moise can come and rescue you and Chubbs Brennan (aka Tim
>>Shell failed standup comic) eh?
>>Nothing like having someone familiar with case evidence (if you can
>>call Moise familiar) to pull wannabe-nutter fat out of the fire...
>
>Dr. Moise wrote an acclaimed book. You and Benny....not much.
>
>Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
May 16, 2013, 11:49:18 PM5/16/13
to
In article <kn42t...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
Bill Clarke
>
>In article <kn30i...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>>In article <85c9689e-6dd3-445d...@hc4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
>>aeffects says...
>>>
>>>On May 15, 10:28=A0am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <kn02930...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I got your answer right here, dipshit. =A0GROW UP.
>>>
>>>perhaps Dr.Moise can come and rescue you and Chubbs Brennan (aka Tim
>>>Shell failed standup comic) eh?
>>>Nothing like having someone familiar with case evidence (if you can
>>>call Moise familiar) to pull wannabe-nutter fat out of the fire...
>>
>>Dr. Moise wrote an acclaimed book. You and Benny....not much.
>>
>>Bill Clarke
>
>
>Just enough writing to allow you to show your cowardice...
Your writing is a joke Holmes. So are you.
>In article <kn30i...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>>In article <85c9689e-6dd3-445d...@hc4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
>>aeffects says...
>>>
>>>On May 15, 10:28=A0am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <kn02930...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I got your answer right here, dipshit. =A0GROW UP.
>>>
>>>perhaps Dr.Moise can come and rescue you and Chubbs Brennan (aka Tim
>>>Shell failed standup comic) eh?
>>>Nothing like having someone familiar with case evidence (if you can
>>>call Moise familiar) to pull wannabe-nutter fat out of the fire...
>>
>>Dr. Moise wrote an acclaimed book. You and Benny....not much.
>>
>>Bill Clarke
>
>
>Just enough writing to allow you to show your cowardice...
Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
May 17, 2013, 9:09:00 AM5/17/13
to
In article <kn49b...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
b52094...@hc4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Today's Mark Lane post will illustrate another whopper of a lie from the Warren
Commission - but you're too gutless to try to defend the Warren Commission, or
admit that they misled you.
>
>In article <kn42t...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>In article <kn30i...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>
>>>In article <85c9689e-6dd3-445d-b09c-
>In article <kn42t...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>In article <kn30i...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>
b52094...@hc4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
>>>aeffects says...
>>>>
>>>>On May 15, 10:28=A0am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article <kn02930...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I got your answer right here, dipshit. =A0GROW UP.
>>>>
>>>>perhaps Dr.Moise can come and rescue you and Chubbs Brennan (aka Tim
>>>>Shell failed standup comic) eh?
>>>>Nothing like having someone familiar with case evidence (if you can
>>>>call Moise familiar) to pull wannabe-nutter fat out of the fire...
>>>
>>>Dr. Moise wrote an acclaimed book. You and Benny....not much.
>>>
>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>>Just enough writing to allow you to show your cowardice...
>
>Your writing is a joke Holmes. So are you.
>
>Bill Clarke
And yet, you keep running away from the content... coward, aren't you?
>>>>
>>>>On May 15, 10:28=A0am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article <kn02930...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I got your answer right here, dipshit. =A0GROW UP.
>>>>
>>>>perhaps Dr.Moise can come and rescue you and Chubbs Brennan (aka Tim
>>>>Shell failed standup comic) eh?
>>>>Nothing like having someone familiar with case evidence (if you can
>>>>call Moise familiar) to pull wannabe-nutter fat out of the fire...
>>>
>>>Dr. Moise wrote an acclaimed book. You and Benny....not much.
>>>
>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>>Just enough writing to allow you to show your cowardice...
>
>Your writing is a joke Holmes. So are you.
>
>Bill Clarke
Today's Mark Lane post will illustrate another whopper of a lie from the Warren
Commission - but you're too gutless to try to defend the Warren Commission, or
admit that they misled you.
Bill Clarke
May 17, 2013, 1:14:01 PM5/17/13
to
In article <kn5a5...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
Bill Clarke
>
>In article <kn49b...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>>In article <kn42t...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>
>>>In article <kn30i...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>>
>>>>In article <85c9689e-6dd3-445d-b09c-
>b52094...@hc4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>aeffects says...
>>>>>
>>>>>On May 15, 10:28=A0am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <kn02930...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I got your answer right here, dipshit. =A0GROW UP.
>>>>>
>>>>>perhaps Dr.Moise can come and rescue you and Chubbs Brennan (aka Tim
>>>>>Shell failed standup comic) eh?
>>>>>Nothing like having someone familiar with case evidence (if you can
>>>>>call Moise familiar) to pull wannabe-nutter fat out of the fire...
>>>>
>>>>Dr. Moise wrote an acclaimed book. You and Benny....not much.
>>>>
>>>>Bill Clarke
>>>
>>>
>>>Just enough writing to allow you to show your cowardice...
>>
>>Your writing is a joke Holmes. So are you.
>>
>>Bill Clarke
>
>
>And yet, you keep running away from the content... coward, aren't you?
A little fat REMF boy calling me a coward. Funny Benny.
>In article <kn49b...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>>In article <kn42t...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>
>>>In article <kn30i...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>>
>>>>In article <85c9689e-6dd3-445d-b09c-
>b52094...@hc4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>aeffects says...
>>>>>
>>>>>On May 15, 10:28=A0am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <kn02930...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I got your answer right here, dipshit. =A0GROW UP.
>>>>>
>>>>>perhaps Dr.Moise can come and rescue you and Chubbs Brennan (aka Tim
>>>>>Shell failed standup comic) eh?
>>>>>Nothing like having someone familiar with case evidence (if you can
>>>>>call Moise familiar) to pull wannabe-nutter fat out of the fire...
>>>>
>>>>Dr. Moise wrote an acclaimed book. You and Benny....not much.
>>>>
>>>>Bill Clarke
>>>
>>>
>>>Just enough writing to allow you to show your cowardice...
>>
>>Your writing is a joke Holmes. So are you.
>>
>>Bill Clarke
>
>
>And yet, you keep running away from the content... coward, aren't you?
Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
May 17, 2013, 1:40:58 PM5/17/13
to
In article <kn5og...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
You simply cannot refute the truth that Mark Lane brings to the table - coward,
aren't you Billy?
>
>In article <kn5a5...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>In article <kn49b...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>
>>>In article <kn42t...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>>
>>>>In article <kn30i...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>>>
>>>>>In article <85c9689e-6dd3-445d-b09c-
>>b52094...@hc4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>aeffects says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On May 15, 10:28=A0am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <kn02930...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I got your answer right here, dipshit. =A0GROW UP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>perhaps Dr.Moise can come and rescue you and Chubbs Brennan (aka Tim
>>>>>>Shell failed standup comic) eh?
>>>>>>Nothing like having someone familiar with case evidence (if you can
>>>>>>call Moise familiar) to pull wannabe-nutter fat out of the fire...
>>>>>
>>>>>Dr. Moise wrote an acclaimed book. You and Benny....not much.
>>>>>
>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Just enough writing to allow you to show your cowardice...
>>>
>>>Your writing is a joke Holmes. So are you.
>>>
>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>>And yet, you keep running away from the content... coward, aren't you?
>
>A little fat REMF boy calling me a coward. Funny Benny.
>
>Bill Clarke
And yet, you continue to prove yourself a coward...
>In article <kn5a5...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>In article <kn49b...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>
>>>In article <kn42t...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>>
>>>>In article <kn30i...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>>>
>>>>>In article <85c9689e-6dd3-445d-b09c-
>>b52094...@hc4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>aeffects says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On May 15, 10:28=A0am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <kn02930...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I got your answer right here, dipshit. =A0GROW UP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>perhaps Dr.Moise can come and rescue you and Chubbs Brennan (aka Tim
>>>>>>Shell failed standup comic) eh?
>>>>>>Nothing like having someone familiar with case evidence (if you can
>>>>>>call Moise familiar) to pull wannabe-nutter fat out of the fire...
>>>>>
>>>>>Dr. Moise wrote an acclaimed book. You and Benny....not much.
>>>>>
>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Just enough writing to allow you to show your cowardice...
>>>
>>>Your writing is a joke Holmes. So are you.
>>>
>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>>And yet, you keep running away from the content... coward, aren't you?
>
>A little fat REMF boy calling me a coward. Funny Benny.
>
>Bill Clarke
You simply cannot refute the truth that Mark Lane brings to the table - coward,
aren't you Billy?
Bill Clarke
May 17, 2013, 5:40:46 PM5/17/13
to
In article <kn5q3...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
I pointed out to you the lack of truth in Lane's shit book on Vietnam. I gave
you references. You can't refute them so you call a technical like any good
coward would do to avoid getting your ass kicked. Just like a coward.
You are a joke Benny. A sad joke.
Bill Clarke
you references. You can't refute them so you call a technical like any good
coward would do to avoid getting your ass kicked. Just like a coward.
You are a joke Benny. A sad joke.
Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
May 17, 2013, 5:43:55 PM5/17/13
to
In article <kn684...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
Go to a forum about Vietnam and whine.
All you do here is show your cowardice...
>I gave you references.
No stupid, you've given me *NOTHING*. This is a forum on the JFK
assassination... deal with it.
>You can't refute them so you call a technical like any good
>coward would do to avoid getting your ass kicked. Just like a coward.
>
>You are a joke Benny. A sad joke.
>
>Bill Clarke
And still... you run.
How embarrassing!!
All you do here is show your cowardice...
>I gave you references.
No stupid, you've given me *NOTHING*. This is a forum on the JFK
assassination... deal with it.
>You can't refute them so you call a technical like any good
>coward would do to avoid getting your ass kicked. Just like a coward.
>
>You are a joke Benny. A sad joke.
>
>Bill Clarke
How embarrassing!!
Sky Throne 19efppp
Jul 11, 2022, 3:09:33 PM7/11/22
to
bump
0 new messages