Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Lying The Mark Lane Way # 2 (RTJ Film)

4 views
Skip to first unread message

timstter

unread,
May 23, 2012, 5:37:45 PM5/23/12
to
Hi All,

Say, according to this video, James L. Simmons was NEVER mentioned in
the Warren Commission Report:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5No9Jiu0GI

What Mark Lane fails to tell the viewer is that Simmons's FBI
interview DID appear in the Warren Commission VOLUMES. Here it is,
right here (left hand side of page):

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0432a.htm

Lane is simply lying by omission, pretending that the Warren
Commission totally ignored Simmons!

The fellow is a total research FRAUD, in my view.

Regards,

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

Bill Clarke

unread,
May 24, 2012, 9:55:27 AM5/24/12
to
In article <6971481a-2334-42db...@o3g2000pby.googlegroups.com>,
timstter says...
>
>Hi All,
>
>Say, according to this video, James L. Simmons was NEVER mentioned in
>the Warren Commission Report:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5No9Jiu0GI
>
>What Mark Lane fails to tell the viewer is that Simmons's FBI
>interview DID appear in the Warren Commission VOLUMES. Here it is,
>right here (left hand side of page):
>
>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0432a.htm
>
>Lane is simply lying by omission, pretending that the Warren
>Commission totally ignored Simmons!
>
>The fellow is a total research FRAUD, in my view.

Not to mention what an asshole he is.

Bill Clarke

Ben Holmes

unread,
May 24, 2012, 10:04:22 AM5/24/12
to
In article <jple...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
>In article <6971481a-2334-42db...@o3g2000pby.googlegroups.com>,
>timstter says...
>>
>>Hi All,
>>
>>Say, according to this video, James L. Simmons was NEVER mentioned in
>>the Warren Commission Report:
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5No9Jiu0GI
>>
>>What Mark Lane fails to tell the viewer is that Simmons's FBI
>>interview DID appear in the Warren Commission VOLUMES. Here it is,
>>right here (left hand side of page):


So you're admitting that Mark Lane was absolutely correct... that Simmons was
NEVER mentioned in the WCR.

But merely mentioning the 100% correctness of a single point that Mark Lane made
isn't good enough...

You'll have to start doing it for *ALL* of the quotes I'm providing...


>>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0432a.htm
>>
>>Lane is simply lying by omission, pretending that the Warren
>>Commission totally ignored Simmons!


You've decided what Mark Lane was "doing" by speculating, then you attack your
own speculation.

This is the frequent 'strawman' argument that kooks commonly use.


>>The fellow is a total research FRAUD, in my view.
>
>Not to mention what an asshole he is.



Instead of defining an "asshole" as someone who states a perfectly correct fact,
wouldn't it be better to define it as someone who's attacking a book he's never
read, doesn't own, and has no intention of ever reading?



>Bill Clarke



Billy... your cowardice is on display here...


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

Ben Holmes

unread,
May 24, 2012, 12:45:31 PM5/24/12
to


Jean... just checking your character...

Is it correct to label Mark Lane a liar for stating that James L. Simmons was
NEVER mentioned in the Warren Commission Report when in fact that's simply the
truth?

I jump on CT'ers regularly when they spew nonsense... I wonder if any LNT'ers
will do the same to their fellow LNT'ers...


>In article <6971481a-2334-42db...@o3g2000pby.googlegroups.com>,
>timstter says...
>>
>>Hi All,
>>
>>Say, according to this video, James L. Simmons was NEVER mentioned in
>>the Warren Commission Report:
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5No9Jiu0GI
>>
>>What Mark Lane fails to tell the viewer is that Simmons's FBI
>>interview DID appear in the Warren Commission VOLUMES. Here it is,
>>right here (left hand side of page):
>>
>>http://www.history-
matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0432a.htm
>>
>>Lane is simply lying by omission, pretending that the Warren
>>Commission totally ignored Simmons!
>>
>>The fellow is a total research FRAUD, in my view.


aeffects

unread,
May 26, 2012, 4:03:31 AM5/26/12
to
On May 24, 6:55 am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <6971481a-2334-42db-a518-7242c884f...@o3g2000pby.googlegroups.com>,
> timstter says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Hi All,
>
> >Say, according to this video, James L. Simmons was NEVER mentioned in
> >the Warren Commission Report:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5No9Jiu0GI
>
> >What Mark Lane fails to tell the viewer is that Simmons's FBI
> >interview DID appear in the Warren Commission VOLUMES. Here it is,
> >right here (left hand side of page):
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
>
> >Lane is simply lying by omission, pretending that the Warren
> >Commission totally ignored Simmons!
>
> >The fellow is a total research FRAUD, in my view.
>
> Not to mention what an asshole he is.

you've been simply outclassed here dude.... and Tim (aka Tim Shell)
Brennan holding your jock looks the blithering idiot!

Ben Holmes

unread,
May 26, 2012, 11:44:06 AM5/26/12
to
In article <57775761-0a0c-48af...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On May 24, 6:55=A0am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <6971481a-2334-42db-a518-7242c884f...@o3g2000pby.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> timstter says...
>>
>> >Hi All,
>>
>> >Say, according to this video, James L. Simmons was NEVER mentioned in
>> >the Warren Commission Report:
>>
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dz5No9Jiu0GI
>>
>> >What Mark Lane fails to tell the viewer is that Simmons's FBI
>> >interview DID appear in the Warren Commission VOLUMES. Here it is,
>> >right here (left hand side of page):
>>
>> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
>>
>> >Lane is simply lying by omission, pretending that the Warren
>> >Commission totally ignored Simmons!
>>
>> >The fellow is a total research FRAUD, in my view.
>>
>> Not to mention what an asshole he is.
>
>you've been simply outclassed here dude.... and Tim (aka Tim Shell)
>Brennan holding your jock looks the blithering idiot!


Not to mention the fact, again, that both Billy and Timmy are listing an
historical FACT, then shouting 'liar liar' to the person who *correctly* pointed
it out.

I get the impression that they really don't understand the concept of lying,
despite being very good at it themselves.


>> Bill Clarke

aeffects

unread,
May 26, 2012, 4:04:01 PM5/26/12
to
On May 26, 8:44 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <57775761-0a0c-48af-82e6-c3a7e8f9c...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 24, 6:55=A0am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> In article <6971481a-2334-42db-a518-7242c884f...@o3g2000pby.googlegroups.=
> >com>,
> >> timstter says...
>
> >> >Hi All,
>
> >> >Say, according to this video, James L. Simmons was NEVER mentioned in
> >> >the Warren Commission Report:
>
> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dz5No9Jiu0GI
>
> >> >What Mark Lane fails to tell the viewer is that Simmons's FBI
> >> >interview DID appear in the Warren Commission VOLUMES. Here it is,
> >> >right here (left hand side of page):
>
> >> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
>
> >> >Lane is simply lying by omission, pretending that the Warren
> >> >Commission totally ignored Simmons!
>
> >> >The fellow is a total research FRAUD, in my view.
>
> >> Not to mention what an asshole he is.
>
> >you've been simply outclassed here dude....  and Tim (aka Tim Shell)
> >Brennan holding your jock looks the blithering idiot!
>
> Not to mention the fact, again, that both Billy and Timmy are listing an
> historical FACT, then shouting 'liar liar' to the person who *correctly* pointed
> it out.

they're learning.... :)

> I get the impression that they really don't understand the concept of lying,
> despite being very good at it themselves.

"...the eyes of Texas, er, Dallas are upon them, all the live long
day..." lying = a convenience

timstter

unread,
May 26, 2012, 6:21:28 PM5/26/12
to
TOP POST

So, Holmes, you have absolutely NO PROBLEM with Lane LYING BY OMISSION
and PRETENDING to his film audience that Simmons was COMPLETELY
IGNORED by the Warren Commission, eh?

Well there we get a testament as to YOUR honesty as well as that of
Lane, Holmes.

You are really the LAST person who should be going around questioning
the integrity of Bugliosi or anyone ELSE, Holmes.

You are quite simply a liar, JUST LIKE Mark Lane is.

No wonder you admire him so.

Informative Regards,

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




On May 25, 12:04 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <jplekf...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
>
>
> >In article <6971481a-2334-42db-a518-7242c884f...@o3g2000pby.googlegroups.com>,
> >timstter says...
>
> >>Hi All,
>
> >>Say, according to this video, James L. Simmons was NEVER mentioned in
> >>the Warren Commission Report:
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5No9Jiu0GI
>
> >>What Mark Lane fails to tell the viewer is that Simmons's FBI
> >>interview DID appear in the Warren Commission VOLUMES. Here it is,
> >>right here (left hand side of page):
>
> So you're admitting that Mark Lane was absolutely correct... that Simmons was
> NEVER mentioned in the WCR.
>
> But merely mentioning the 100% correctness of a single point that Mark Lane made
> isn't good enough...
>
> You'll have to start doing it for *ALL* of the quotes I'm providing...
>
> >>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...

timstter

unread,
May 27, 2012, 4:08:16 PM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 1:44 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <57775761-0a0c-48af-82e6-c3a7e8f9c...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
You certainly would appear to be showing wilful ignorance of the
practice of *lying by omission* Holmes.

Given that is Mark Lane's MO, you MUST be aware of it.

Informative Regards,

timstter

unread,
May 28, 2012, 3:38:46 PM5/28/12
to
On May 25, 2:45 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> Jean... just checking your character...
>
> Is it correct to label Mark Lane a liar for stating that James L. Simmons was
> NEVER mentioned in the Warren Commission Report when in fact that's simply the
> truth?
>
> I jump on CT'ers regularly when they spew nonsense... I wonder if any LNT'ers
> will do the same to their fellow LNT'ers...
>
> >In article <6971481a-2334-42db-a518-7242c884f...@o3g2000pby.googlegroups.com>,
> >timstter says...
>
> >>Hi All,
>
> >>Say, according to this video, James L. Simmons was NEVER mentioned in
> >>the Warren Commission Report:
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5No9Jiu0GI
>
> >>What Mark Lane fails to tell the viewer is that Simmons's FBI
> >>interview DID appear in the Warren Commission VOLUMES. Here it is,
> >>right here (left hand side of page):
>
> >>http://www.history-
>
> matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0432a.htm
>
>
>
> >>Lane is simply lying by omission, pretending that the Warren
> >>Commission totally ignored Simmons!
>
> >>The fellow is a total research FRAUD, in my view.
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com

You know, Holmes, it's a quite indefensible position you have taken
that Lane was *telling the truth* when he lied by omission about
Simmons to the viewers of his film Rush To Judgment.

It does very little to dispel the notion that Lane is dishonest in his
handling of the evidence in the JFK assassination.

Informative Regards,
0 new messages