Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mark Lane #158
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Dec 20, 2012, 9:27:40 AM12/20/12
to
In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane pointed out that Chief Curry was unaware
of any "Hidell" ID on the 23rd.
"Thus the origin of both the name and the cards bearing it remains in doubt.
These doubts cannot be entirely dispelled by prosecution experts associated with
the FBI and the Secret Service who offered opinions as to the authenticity of
handprinting or handwriting. The Commission found that the documents were
forged, citing such experts as proof that Oswald in their opinion was
responsible. Clearly the documents may have been forged, but the Commission's
refusal to permit independent experts to examine them, along with the suspicions
aroused by their rather mysterious arrival and tardy disclosure, leaves
unresolved the question — by whom?"
Mark Lane is continuing to point out the descrepancies in the "Hidell"
identification timeline. The kooks continue to run...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
of any "Hidell" ID on the 23rd.
"Thus the origin of both the name and the cards bearing it remains in doubt.
These doubts cannot be entirely dispelled by prosecution experts associated with
the FBI and the Secret Service who offered opinions as to the authenticity of
handprinting or handwriting. The Commission found that the documents were
forged, citing such experts as proof that Oswald in their opinion was
responsible. Clearly the documents may have been forged, but the Commission's
refusal to permit independent experts to examine them, along with the suspicions
aroused by their rather mysterious arrival and tardy disclosure, leaves
unresolved the question — by whom?"
Mark Lane is continuing to point out the descrepancies in the "Hidell"
identification timeline. The kooks continue to run...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
doc
Dec 20, 2012, 10:23:21 AM12/20/12
to
Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane pointed out that Chief Curry was
> unaware of any "Hidell" ID on the 23rd.
Well, not exactly. Curry said he didn't know if Oswald had "used" the name
> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane pointed out that Chief Curry was
> unaware of any "Hidell" ID on the 23rd.
Hidell before. Lane never questioned Curry about that, preferring to
question the public instead through his book but not waiting for answers
before he has the book published. Sneaky!
>
> "Thus the origin of both the name and the cards bearing it remains in
> doubt. These doubts cannot be entirely dispelled by prosecution experts
> associated with the FBI and the Secret Service who offered opinions as to
> the authenticity of handprinting or handwriting. The Commission found
> that the documents were forged, citing such experts as proof that Oswald
> in their opinion was responsible. Clearly the documents may have been
> forged, but the Commission's refusal to permit independent experts to
> examine them, along with the suspicions aroused by their rather
> mysterious arrival and tardy disclosure, leaves unresolved the question �
> by whom?"
examine the documents and were refused? Lane, of course, doesn't say. Nor
does he say which independent experts he would believe. Since Lane believes
there was a conspiracy, he would only believe someone who would disagree
with the findings. Nice little Catch-22 and a scene right out of
Bennyworld: I can only believe you if you agree with me, ergo, if you
disagree you're lying.
>
> Mark Lane is continuing to point out the descrepancies in the "Hidell"
> identification timeline. The kooks continue to run...
timstter
Dec 20, 2012, 2:13:59 PM12/20/12
to
he was arrested.
Oswald had a year long association with the name Hidell on about
twenty grounds.
Case CLOSED!
Corrective 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!
John McAdams
Dec 20, 2012, 9:33:55 PM12/20/12
to
On 20 Dec 2012 15:23:21 GMT, doc <docfa...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane pointed out that Chief Curry was
>> unaware of any "Hidell" ID on the 23rd.
>
>Well, not exactly. Curry said he didn't know if Oswald had "used" the name
>Hidell before. Lane never questioned Curry about that, preferring to
>question the public instead through his book but not waiting for answers
>before he has the book published. Sneaky!
Typical Lane.
>Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane pointed out that Chief Curry was
>> unaware of any "Hidell" ID on the 23rd.
>
>Well, not exactly. Curry said he didn't know if Oswald had "used" the name
>Hidell before. Lane never questioned Curry about that, preferring to
>question the public instead through his book but not waiting for answers
>before he has the book published. Sneaky!
>
>>
>> "Thus the origin of both the name and the cards bearing it remains in
>> doubt. These doubts cannot be entirely dispelled by prosecution experts
>> associated with the FBI and the Secret Service who offered opinions as to
>> the authenticity of handprinting or handwriting. The Commission found
>> that the documents were forged, citing such experts as proof that Oswald
>> in their opinion was responsible. Clearly the documents may have been
>> forged, but the Commission's refusal to permit independent experts to
>> examine them, along with the suspicions aroused by their rather
>> mysterious arrival and tardy disclosure, leaves unresolved the question —
>> by whom?"
>
>Which, of course, leads to the question: Which independent experts asked to
>examine the documents and were refused? Lane, of course, doesn't say.
The HSCA questioned documents experts looked at these documents, and
authenticated them.
>Nor
>does he say which independent experts he would believe. Since Lane believes
>there was a conspiracy, he would only believe someone who would disagree
>with the findings. Nice little Catch-22 and a scene right out of
>Bennyworld: I can only believe you if you agree with me, ergo, if you
>disagree you're lying.
>
>
>>
>> Mark Lane is continuing to point out the descrepancies in the "Hidell"
>> identification timeline. The kooks continue to run...
>
>Says the guy who turned tail and ran from me!
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ben Holmes
Dec 20, 2012, 11:37:52 PM12/20/12
to
In article <lbi7d894kan4bj23u...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
Nor can Johnny give a credible explanation for what Mark Lane *DID* point out
about Curry and the "Hidell" ID.
>>> "Thus the origin of both the name and the cards bearing it remains in
>>> doubt. These doubts cannot be entirely dispelled by prosecution experts
>>> associated with the FBI and the Secret Service who offered opinions as to
>>> the authenticity of handprinting or handwriting. The Commission found
>>> that the documents were forged, citing such experts as proof that Oswald
>>> in their opinion was responsible. Clearly the documents may have been
>>> forged, but the Commission's refusal to permit independent experts to
>>> examine them, along with the suspicions aroused by their rather
>>> mysterious arrival and tardy disclosure, leaves unresolved the question —
>>> by whom?"
>>
>>Which, of course, leads to the question: Which independent experts asked to
>>examine the documents and were refused? Lane, of course, doesn't say.
>
>Lane is simply lying about "refused."
>
>The HSCA questioned documents experts looked at these documents, and
>authenticated them.
Tell us moron, what year did Lane write his best seller?
Which year did the HSCA conduct *their* investigation? (And promptly classify
much of it).
Just how stupid do you think readers are, Johnny?
Why do you think you can lie so blatantly and get away with it?
>>Nor
>>does he say which independent experts he would believe. Since Lane believes
>>there was a conspiracy, he would only believe someone who would disagree
>>with the findings. Nice little Catch-22 and a scene right out of
>>Bennyworld: I can only believe you if you agree with me, ergo, if you
>>disagree you're lying.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Mark Lane is continuing to point out the descrepancies in the "Hidell"
>>> identification timeline. The kooks continue to run...
>>
>>Says the guy who turned tail and ran from me!
>
>Typical.
Says the coward who refuses to debate... Why is that, Johnny?
>.John
>
>On 20 Dec 2012 15:23:21 GMT, doc <docfa...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>>Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane pointed out that Chief Curry was
>>> unaware of any "Hidell" ID on the 23rd.
>>
>>Well, not exactly. Curry said he didn't know if Oswald had "used" the name
>>Hidell before. Lane never questioned Curry about that, preferring to
>>question the public instead through his book but not waiting for answers
>>before he has the book published. Sneaky!
>
>Typical Lane.
Typical Johnny... he doesn't even know what Lane was referring to.
>On 20 Dec 2012 15:23:21 GMT, doc <docfa...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>>Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane pointed out that Chief Curry was
>>> unaware of any "Hidell" ID on the 23rd.
>>
>>Well, not exactly. Curry said he didn't know if Oswald had "used" the name
>>Hidell before. Lane never questioned Curry about that, preferring to
>>question the public instead through his book but not waiting for answers
>>before he has the book published. Sneaky!
>
>Typical Lane.
Nor can Johnny give a credible explanation for what Mark Lane *DID* point out
about Curry and the "Hidell" ID.
>>> "Thus the origin of both the name and the cards bearing it remains in
>>> doubt. These doubts cannot be entirely dispelled by prosecution experts
>>> associated with the FBI and the Secret Service who offered opinions as to
>>> the authenticity of handprinting or handwriting. The Commission found
>>> that the documents were forged, citing such experts as proof that Oswald
>>> in their opinion was responsible. Clearly the documents may have been
>>> forged, but the Commission's refusal to permit independent experts to
>>> examine them, along with the suspicions aroused by their rather
>>> mysterious arrival and tardy disclosure, leaves unresolved the question —
>>> by whom?"
>>
>>Which, of course, leads to the question: Which independent experts asked to
>>examine the documents and were refused? Lane, of course, doesn't say.
>
>Lane is simply lying about "refused."
>
>The HSCA questioned documents experts looked at these documents, and
>authenticated them.
Which year did the HSCA conduct *their* investigation? (And promptly classify
much of it).
Just how stupid do you think readers are, Johnny?
Why do you think you can lie so blatantly and get away with it?
>>Nor
>>does he say which independent experts he would believe. Since Lane believes
>>there was a conspiracy, he would only believe someone who would disagree
>>with the findings. Nice little Catch-22 and a scene right out of
>>Bennyworld: I can only believe you if you agree with me, ergo, if you
>>disagree you're lying.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Mark Lane is continuing to point out the descrepancies in the "Hidell"
>>> identification timeline. The kooks continue to run...
>>
>>Says the guy who turned tail and ran from me!
>
>Typical.
>.John
Bill Clarke
Dec 20, 2012, 11:47:35 PM12/20/12
to
In article <kb0p3...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
I just hate it when a grown man whines like a baby. Nut up Holmes.
Bill Clarke
>
I just hate it when a grown man whines like a baby. Nut up Holmes.
Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
Dec 21, 2012, 9:45:08 AM12/21/12
to
In article <kb0pl...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
opinion.
I know I do...
It's certainly a FACT that Billy can't defend Johnny's stupidity in this post...
Johnny tried to refute a book written in 1966 with an investigation first
conducted in 1976... a decade later.
Perhaps Johnny and Billy think that Mark Lane should be indicted for his failure
as a future reading psychic.
I think that it's far less of a stretch to indict Johnny and Billy for their
incredibly poor logic.
And the funny thing is... Johnny is applauded by *ANOTHER* kook who refuses to
debate. Cowardice runs rampant in the kook fraternity.
>
>In article <kb0p3...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>
>I just hate it when a grown man whines like a baby. Nut up Holmes.
>
>Bill Clarke
I suspect that most intelligent readers despise someone who can't support his
>In article <kb0p3...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>
>I just hate it when a grown man whines like a baby. Nut up Holmes.
>
>Bill Clarke
opinion.
I know I do...
It's certainly a FACT that Billy can't defend Johnny's stupidity in this post...
Johnny tried to refute a book written in 1966 with an investigation first
conducted in 1976... a decade later.
Perhaps Johnny and Billy think that Mark Lane should be indicted for his failure
as a future reading psychic.
I think that it's far less of a stretch to indict Johnny and Billy for their
incredibly poor logic.
debate. Cowardice runs rampant in the kook fraternity.
Bill Clarke
Dec 21, 2012, 11:22:38 AM12/21/12
to
In article <kb1sl...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
joke, Benny.
Bill Clarke
>
>In article <kb0pl...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>>In article <kb0p3...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>
>>
>>I just hate it when a grown man whines like a baby. Nut up Holmes.
>>
>>Bill Clarke
>
>
>I suspect that most intelligent readers despise someone who can't support his
>opinion.
>
>I know I do...
But since you are not an intelligent reader you don't count. You are just a sad
>In article <kb0pl...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>>In article <kb0p3...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>
>>
>>I just hate it when a grown man whines like a baby. Nut up Holmes.
>>
>>Bill Clarke
>
>
>I suspect that most intelligent readers despise someone who can't support his
>opinion.
>
>I know I do...
joke, Benny.
Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
Dec 21, 2012, 1:24:36 PM12/21/12
to
In article <kb22c...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
>In article <kb1sl...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>In article <kb0pl...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>
>>>In article <kb0p3...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>>
>>>
>>>I just hate it when a grown man whines like a baby. Nut up Holmes.
>>>
>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>>I suspect that most intelligent readers despise someone who can't support his
>>opinion.
>>
>>I know I do...
>
>But since you are not an intelligent reader you don't count. You are just a sad
>joke, Benny.
>
>Bill Clarke
How many times do you have to be told that ad hominem never replaces refutation?
>In article <kb1sl...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>In article <kb0pl...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>
>>>In article <kb0p3...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>>
>>>
>>>I just hate it when a grown man whines like a baby. Nut up Holmes.
>>>
>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>>I suspect that most intelligent readers despise someone who can't support his
>>opinion.
>>
>>I know I do...
>
>But since you are not an intelligent reader you don't count. You are just a sad
>joke, Benny.
>
>Bill Clarke
aeffects
Dec 22, 2012, 4:05:03 AM12/22/12
to
On Dec 20, 8:47 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <kb0p3002...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
clue what Rush to Judgement is about. No surprise there....
> Bill Clarke
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <lbi7d894kan4bj23u5p38q9ga45tp0u...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
> In article <kb0p3002...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
>
>
> I just hate it when a grown man whines like a baby. Nut up Holmes.
perhaps it's time for McAdams to "nut up". I suspect the dolt hasn't a
>
>
> I just hate it when a grown man whines like a baby. Nut up Holmes.
clue what Rush to Judgement is about. No surprise there....
> Bill Clarke
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <lbi7d894kan4bj23u5p38q9ga45tp0u...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
aeffects
Dec 22, 2012, 4:08:57 AM12/22/12
to
On Dec 21, 6:45 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <kb0pl702...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
>
>
> >In article <kb0p3002...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
ya think McAdams and Bill Clarke know what happened when members of
the WC staff debated Mark Lane concerning the report? They got their
asses kicked--on stage in front of a public audience.
> In article <kb0pl702...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
>
>
> >In article <kb0p3002...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >I just hate it when a grown man whines like a baby. Nut up Holmes.
>
> >Bill Clarke
>
> I suspect that most intelligent readers despise someone who can't support his
> opinion.
>
> I know I do...
>
> It's certainly a FACT that Billy can't defend Johnny's stupidity in this post...
> Johnny tried to refute a book written in 1966 with an investigation first
> conducted in 1976... a decade later.
>
> Perhaps Johnny and Billy think that Mark Lane should be indicted for his failure
> as a future reading psychic.
>
> I think that it's far less of a stretch to indict Johnny and Billy for their
> incredibly poor logic.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>In article <lbi7d894kan4bj23u5p38q9ga45tp0u...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
> >I just hate it when a grown man whines like a baby. Nut up Holmes.
>
> >Bill Clarke
>
> I suspect that most intelligent readers despise someone who can't support his
> opinion.
>
> I know I do...
>
> It's certainly a FACT that Billy can't defend Johnny's stupidity in this post...
> Johnny tried to refute a book written in 1966 with an investigation first
> conducted in 1976... a decade later.
>
> Perhaps Johnny and Billy think that Mark Lane should be indicted for his failure
> as a future reading psychic.
>
> I think that it's far less of a stretch to indict Johnny and Billy for their
> incredibly poor logic.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
the WC staff debated Mark Lane concerning the report? They got their
asses kicked--on stage in front of a public audience.
Ben Holmes
Dec 22, 2012, 9:49:45 AM12/22/12
to
In article <7b58ee99-bd10-4c42...@d2g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
to label Mark Lane a liar, it simply demonstrates how worthless it is to pay
them any attention...
>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> >In article <lbi7d894kan4bj23u5p38q9ga45tp0u...@4ax.com>, John McAdams sa=
>n
>> >>>> doubt. These doubts cannot be entirely dispelled by prosecution expe=
>rts
>> >>>> associated with the FBI and the Secret Service who offered opinions =
>as to
>> >>>> the authenticity of handprinting or handwriting. The Commission foun=
>d
>> >>>> that the documents were forged, citing such experts as proof that Os=
>wald
>> >>>> in their opinion was responsible. Clearly the documents may have bee=
>n
>> >>>> forged, but the Commission's refusal to permit independent experts t=
>ion =97
>> >>>> by whom?"
>>
>> >>>Which, of course, leads to the question: Which independent experts ask=
>ieves
>> >>>there was a conspiracy, he would only believe someone who would disagr=
aeffects says...
>
>On Dec 20, 8:47=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <kb0p3002...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>
>>
>> I just hate it when a grown man whines like a baby. =A0Nut up Holmes.
>On Dec 20, 8:47=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <kb0p3002...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>
>>
>
>perhaps it's time for McAdams to "nut up". I suspect the dolt hasn't a
>clue what Rush to Judgement is about. No surprise there....
When cowards like Billy can't admit that Johnny was trying to use an anacronism
>perhaps it's time for McAdams to "nut up". I suspect the dolt hasn't a
>clue what Rush to Judgement is about. No surprise there....
to label Mark Lane a liar, it simply demonstrates how worthless it is to pay
them any attention...
>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> >In article <lbi7d894kan4bj23u5p38q9ga45tp0u...@4ax.com>, John McAdams sa=
>ys...
>>
>> >>On 20 Dec 2012 15:23:21 GMT, doc <docfarq...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >>>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane pointed out that Chief Curry w=
>>
>> >>On 20 Dec 2012 15:23:21 GMT, doc <docfarq...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>as
>> >>>> unaware of any "Hidell" ID on the 23rd.
>>
>> >>>Well, not exactly. Curry said he didn't know if Oswald had "used" the =
>> >>>> unaware of any "Hidell" ID on the 23rd.
>>
>name
>> >>>Hidell before. Lane never questioned Curry about that, preferring to
>> >>>question the public instead through his book but not waiting for answe=
>> >>>Hidell before. Lane never questioned Curry about that, preferring to
>rs
>> >>>before he has the book published. Sneaky!
>>
>> >>Typical Lane.
>>
>> >Typical Johnny... he doesn't even know what Lane was referring to.
>>
>> >Nor can Johnny give a credible explanation for what Mark Lane *DID* poin=
>> >>>before he has the book published. Sneaky!
>>
>> >>Typical Lane.
>>
>> >Typical Johnny... he doesn't even know what Lane was referring to.
>>
>t out
>> >about Curry and the "Hidell" ID.
>>
>> >>>> "Thus the origin of both the name and the cards bearing it remains i=
>> >about Curry and the "Hidell" ID.
>>
>n
>> >>>> doubt. These doubts cannot be entirely dispelled by prosecution expe=
>rts
>> >>>> associated with the FBI and the Secret Service who offered opinions =
>as to
>> >>>> the authenticity of handprinting or handwriting. The Commission foun=
>d
>> >>>> that the documents were forged, citing such experts as proof that Os=
>wald
>> >>>> in their opinion was responsible. Clearly the documents may have bee=
>n
>> >>>> forged, but the Commission's refusal to permit independent experts t=
>o
>> >>>> examine them, along with the suspicions aroused by their rather
>> >>>> mysterious arrival and tardy disclosure, leaves unresolved the quest=
>> >>>> examine them, along with the suspicions aroused by their rather
>ion =97
>> >>>> by whom?"
>>
>> >>>Which, of course, leads to the question: Which independent experts ask=
>ed to
>> >>>examine the documents and were refused? Lane, of course, doesn't say.
>>
>> >>Lane is simply lying about "refused."
>>
>> >>The HSCA questioned documents experts looked at these documents, and
>> >>authenticated them.
>>
>> >Tell us moron, what year did Lane write his best seller?
>>
>> >Which year did the HSCA conduct *their* investigation? (And promptly cla=
>> >>>examine the documents and were refused? Lane, of course, doesn't say.
>>
>> >>Lane is simply lying about "refused."
>>
>> >>The HSCA questioned documents experts looked at these documents, and
>> >>authenticated them.
>>
>> >Tell us moron, what year did Lane write his best seller?
>>
>ssify
>> >much of it).
>>
>> >Just how stupid do you think readers are, Johnny?
>>
>> >Why do you think you can lie so blatantly and get away with it?
>>
>> >>>Nor
>> >>>does he say which independent experts he would believe. Since Lane bel=
>> >much of it).
>>
>> >Just how stupid do you think readers are, Johnny?
>>
>> >Why do you think you can lie so blatantly and get away with it?
>>
>> >>>Nor
>ieves
>> >>>there was a conspiracy, he would only believe someone who would disagr=
>ee
>> >>>with the findings. Nice little Catch-22 and a scene right out of
>> >>>Bennyworld: I can only believe you if you agree with me, ergo, if you
>> >>>disagree you're lying.
>>
>> >>>> Mark Lane is continuing to point out the descrepancies in the "Hidel=
>> >>>with the findings. Nice little Catch-22 and a scene right out of
>> >>>Bennyworld: I can only believe you if you agree with me, ergo, if you
>> >>>disagree you're lying.
>>
>l"
>> >>>> identification timeline. The kooks continue to run...
>>
>> >>>Says the guy who turned tail and ran from me!
>>
>> >>Typical.
>>
>> >Says the coward who refuses to debate... Why is that, Johnny?
>>
>> >>.John
>
>> >>>> identification timeline. The kooks continue to run...
>>
>> >>>Says the guy who turned tail and ran from me!
>>
>> >>Typical.
>>
>> >Says the coward who refuses to debate... Why is that, Johnny?
>>
>> >>.John
>
Ben Holmes
Dec 22, 2012, 9:51:20 AM12/22/12
to
In article <462414c4-ada2-4c9a...@r4g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>>
>> >Bill Clarke
>>
>> I suspect that most intelligent readers despise someone who can't support=
>eir
>> incredibly poor logic.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >>In article <lbi7d894kan4bj23u5p38q9ga45tp0u...@4ax.com>, John McAdams s=
>in
>> >>>>> doubt. These doubts cannot be entirely dispelled by prosecution exp=
>erts
>> >>>>> associated with the FBI and the Secret Service who offered opinions=
> as to
>> >>>>> the authenticity of handprinting or handwriting. The Commission fou=
>nd
>> >>>>> that the documents were forged, citing such experts as proof that O=
>swald
>> >>>>> in their opinion was responsible. Clearly the documents may have be=
>en
>> >>>>> forged, but the Commission's refusal to permit independent experts =
>tion =97
>> >>>>> by whom?"
>>
>> >>>>Which, of course, leads to the question: Which independent experts as=
>lieves
>> >>>>there was a conspiracy, he would only believe someone who would disag=
But you're right... Mark Lane makes fools of 'em all.
aeffects says...
>
>On Dec 21, 6:45=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <kb0pl702...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >In article <kb0p3002...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >I just hate it when a grown man whines like a baby. =A0Nut up Holmes.
>On Dec 21, 6:45=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <kb0pl702...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >In article <kb0p3002...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>
>> >Bill Clarke
>>
>> I suspect that most intelligent readers despise someone who can't support=
> his
>> opinion.
>>
>> I know I do...
>>
>> It's certainly a FACT that Billy can't defend Johnny's stupidity in this =
>> opinion.
>>
>> I know I do...
>>
>post...
>> Johnny tried to refute a book written in 1966 with an investigation first
>> conducted in 1976... a decade later.
>>
>> Perhaps Johnny and Billy think that Mark Lane should be indicted for his =
>> Johnny tried to refute a book written in 1966 with an investigation first
>> conducted in 1976... a decade later.
>>
>failure
>> as a future reading psychic.
>>
>> I think that it's far less of a stretch to indict Johnny and Billy for th=
>> as a future reading psychic.
>>
>eir
>> incredibly poor logic.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >>In article <lbi7d894kan4bj23u5p38q9ga45tp0u...@4ax.com>, John McAdams s=
>ays...
>>
>> >>>On 20 Dec 2012 15:23:21 GMT, doc <docfarq...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane pointed out that Chief Curry =
>>
>> >>>On 20 Dec 2012 15:23:21 GMT, doc <docfarq...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>was
>> >>>>> unaware of any "Hidell" ID on the 23rd.
>>
>> >>>>Well, not exactly. Curry said he didn't know if Oswald had "used" the=
>> >>>>> unaware of any "Hidell" ID on the 23rd.
>>
> name
>> >>>>Hidell before. Lane never questioned Curry about that, preferring to
>> >>>>question the public instead through his book but not waiting for answ=
>> >>>>Hidell before. Lane never questioned Curry about that, preferring to
>ers
>> >>>>before he has the book published. Sneaky!
>>
>> >>>Typical Lane.
>>
>> >>Typical Johnny... he doesn't even know what Lane was referring to.
>>
>> >>Nor can Johnny give a credible explanation for what Mark Lane *DID* poi=
>> >>>>before he has the book published. Sneaky!
>>
>> >>>Typical Lane.
>>
>> >>Typical Johnny... he doesn't even know what Lane was referring to.
>>
>nt out
>> >>about Curry and the "Hidell" ID.
>>
>> >>>>> "Thus the origin of both the name and the cards bearing it remains =
>> >>about Curry and the "Hidell" ID.
>>
>in
>> >>>>> doubt. These doubts cannot be entirely dispelled by prosecution exp=
>erts
>> >>>>> associated with the FBI and the Secret Service who offered opinions=
> as to
>> >>>>> the authenticity of handprinting or handwriting. The Commission fou=
>nd
>> >>>>> that the documents were forged, citing such experts as proof that O=
>swald
>> >>>>> in their opinion was responsible. Clearly the documents may have be=
>en
>> >>>>> forged, but the Commission's refusal to permit independent experts =
>to
>> >>>>> examine them, along with the suspicions aroused by their rather
>> >>>>> mysterious arrival and tardy disclosure, leaves unresolved the ques=
>> >>>>> examine them, along with the suspicions aroused by their rather
>tion =97
>> >>>>> by whom?"
>>
>> >>>>Which, of course, leads to the question: Which independent experts as=
>ked to
>> >>>>examine the documents and were refused? Lane, of course, doesn't say.
>>
>> >>>Lane is simply lying about "refused."
>>
>> >>>The HSCA questioned documents experts looked at these documents, and
>> >>>authenticated them.
>>
>> >>Tell us moron, what year did Lane write his best seller?
>>
>> >>Which year did the HSCA conduct *their* investigation? (And promptly cl=
>> >>>>examine the documents and were refused? Lane, of course, doesn't say.
>>
>> >>>Lane is simply lying about "refused."
>>
>> >>>The HSCA questioned documents experts looked at these documents, and
>> >>>authenticated them.
>>
>> >>Tell us moron, what year did Lane write his best seller?
>>
>assify
>> >>much of it).
>>
>> >>Just how stupid do you think readers are, Johnny?
>>
>> >>Why do you think you can lie so blatantly and get away with it?
>>
>> >>>>Nor
>> >>>>does he say which independent experts he would believe. Since Lane be=
>> >>much of it).
>>
>> >>Just how stupid do you think readers are, Johnny?
>>
>> >>Why do you think you can lie so blatantly and get away with it?
>>
>> >>>>Nor
>lieves
>> >>>>there was a conspiracy, he would only believe someone who would disag=
>ree
>> >>>>with the findings. Nice little Catch-22 and a scene right out of
>> >>>>Bennyworld: I can only believe you if you agree with me, ergo, if you
>> >>>>disagree you're lying.
>>
>> >>>>> Mark Lane is continuing to point out the descrepancies in the "Hide=
>> >>>>with the findings. Nice little Catch-22 and a scene right out of
>> >>>>Bennyworld: I can only believe you if you agree with me, ergo, if you
>> >>>>disagree you're lying.
>>
>ll"
>> >>>>> identification timeline. The kooks continue to run...
>>
>> >>>>Says the guy who turned tail and ran from me!
>>
>> >>>Typical.
>>
>> >>Says the coward who refuses to debate... Why is that, Johnny?
>>
>> And the funny thing is... Johnny is applauded by *ANOTHER* kook who refus=
>> >>>>> identification timeline. The kooks continue to run...
>>
>> >>>>Says the guy who turned tail and ran from me!
>>
>> >>>Typical.
>>
>> >>Says the coward who refuses to debate... Why is that, Johnny?
>>
>es to
>> debate. Cowardice runs rampant in the kook fraternity.
>
>ya think McAdams and Bill Clarke know what happened when members of
>the WC staff debated Mark Lane concerning the report? They got their
>asses kicked--on stage in front of a public audience.
I'm more interested in the fact that both Johnny and Billy refuse to debate me.
>> debate. Cowardice runs rampant in the kook fraternity.
>
>ya think McAdams and Bill Clarke know what happened when members of
>the WC staff debated Mark Lane concerning the report? They got their
>asses kicked--on stage in front of a public audience.
But you're right... Mark Lane makes fools of 'em all.
Bill Clarke
Dec 22, 2012, 1:29:57 PM12/22/12
to
In article <kb4hd...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
You stupid shit, the only people Mark Lane has ever made a fool of are the
people like you stupid enough to buy his bullshit.
He certainly did not make a fool of Neil Sheehan.
Bill Clarke
people like you stupid enough to buy his bullshit.
He certainly did not make a fool of Neil Sheehan.
Bill Clarke
Bud
Dec 22, 2012, 3:24:02 PM12/22/12
to
On Dec 22, 9:51 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <462414c4-ada2-4c9a-a20b-4d1963b7f...@r4g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
I will, Nancy.
> In article <462414c4-ada2-4c9a-a20b-4d1963b7f...@r4g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
Ben Holmes
Dec 22, 2012, 3:34:32 PM12/22/12
to
In article <kb4u7...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
Notice that Billy proves my point. He *STILL* refuses to acknowledge that Johnny
used an anacronism to label Mark Lane a liar.
Perhaps "anacronism" is too big a word for Billy to understand...
Or perhaps he's just a dishonest coward...
>>But you're right... Mark Lane makes fools of 'em all.
>
>You stupid shit, the only people Mark Lane has ever made a fool of are the
>people like you stupid enough to buy his bullshit.
His "BS" is so impressive, that you can't seem to refute it using citation and
facts. Why is that, coward?
>He certainly did not make a fool of Neil Sheehan.
What did Neil Sheehan have to say about the Warren Commission?
>Bill Clarke
used an anacronism to label Mark Lane a liar.
Perhaps "anacronism" is too big a word for Billy to understand...
Or perhaps he's just a dishonest coward...
>>But you're right... Mark Lane makes fools of 'em all.
>
>You stupid shit, the only people Mark Lane has ever made a fool of are the
>people like you stupid enough to buy his bullshit.
facts. Why is that, coward?
>He certainly did not make a fool of Neil Sheehan.
>Bill Clarke
Bud
Dec 22, 2012, 3:35:20 PM12/22/12
to
On Dec 22, 9:49 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <7b58ee99-bd10-4c42-8664-32667e088...@d2g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
two ideas (Funny how that retards can do this when Oswald claims he
was arrested for having been in the Soviet Union and that he was a
patsy but not elsewhere). Here are the relevant exchanges that baffled
Nancy...
>>> "Thus the origin of both the name and the cards bearing it
remains in
>>> doubt. These doubts cannot be entirely dispelled by prosecution experts
>>> associated with the FBI and the Secret Service who offered opinions as to
>>> the authenticity of handprinting or handwriting. The Commission found
>>> that the documents were forged, citing such experts as proof that Oswald
>>> in their opinion was responsible. Clearly the documents may have been
>>> forged, but the Commission's refusal to permit independent experts to
>>> by whom?"
>>Which, of course, leads to the question: Which independent experts asked to
experts were "refused". He then goes on to inform that when this
evidence was examined it was found to be authentic, but he isn`t using
that as the basis for calling Lane a liar. All these years on usenet
wasted on this dumbass.
> In article <7b58ee99-bd10-4c42-8664-32667e088...@d2g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
>
>
> >On Dec 20, 8:47=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> In article <kb0p3002...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >> I just hate it when a grown man whines like a baby. =A0Nut up Holmes.
>
> >perhaps it's time for McAdams to "nut up". I suspect the dolt hasn't a
> >clue what Rush to Judgement is about. No surprise there....
>
> When cowards like Billy can't admit that Johnny was trying to use an anacronism
> to label Mark Lane a liar, it simply demonstrates how worthless it is to pay
> them any attention...
You are too stupid to understand .John`s response. He separated the
>
>
>
> >On Dec 20, 8:47=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> In article <kb0p3002...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >> I just hate it when a grown man whines like a baby. =A0Nut up Holmes.
>
> >perhaps it's time for McAdams to "nut up". I suspect the dolt hasn't a
> >clue what Rush to Judgement is about. No surprise there....
>
> When cowards like Billy can't admit that Johnny was trying to use an anacronism
> to label Mark Lane a liar, it simply demonstrates how worthless it is to pay
> them any attention...
two ideas (Funny how that retards can do this when Oswald claims he
was arrested for having been in the Soviet Union and that he was a
patsy but not elsewhere). Here are the relevant exchanges that baffled
Nancy...
>>> "Thus the origin of both the name and the cards bearing it
>>> doubt. These doubts cannot be entirely dispelled by prosecution experts
>>> associated with the FBI and the Secret Service who offered opinions as to
>>> the authenticity of handprinting or handwriting. The Commission found
>>> that the documents were forged, citing such experts as proof that Oswald
>>> in their opinion was responsible. Clearly the documents may have been
>>> forged, but the Commission's refusal to permit independent experts to
>>> examine them, along with the suspicions aroused by their rather
>>> mysterious arrival and tardy disclosure, leaves unresolved the question —
>>> by whom?"
>>Which, of course, leads to the question: Which independent experts asked to
>>examine the documents and were refused? Lane, of course, doesn't say.
>Lane is simply lying about "refused."
>The HSCA questioned documents experts looked at these documents, and
>authenticated them.
.John is first pointing out that Lane is lying that independent
>Lane is simply lying about "refused."
>The HSCA questioned documents experts looked at these documents, and
>authenticated them.
experts were "refused". He then goes on to inform that when this
evidence was examined it was found to be authentic, but he isn`t using
that as the basis for calling Lane a liar. All these years on usenet
wasted on this dumbass.
Ben Holmes
Dec 22, 2012, 3:40:08 PM12/22/12
to
[Below this is a duplicate of what I posted to the censored forum, AND WAS
CENSORED! Even though there's nothing in the post that is against the censored
forum's rules, Johnny decided he didn't like it.]
[The man is a despicable coward...]
interested can view my rebuttal in the *open* forum.
doc
Dec 22, 2012, 6:32:18 PM12/22/12
to
refute you and that you run away from them when they stick around and the
heat gets too high for you.
Plonk your magic twanger, Froggie!
timstter
Dec 23, 2012, 2:36:40 PM12/23/12
to
On Dec 23, 7:40 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> [Below this is a duplicate of what I posted to the censored forum, AND WAS
> CENSORED! Even though there's nothing in the post that is against the censored
> forum's rules, Johnny decided he didn't like it.]
>
> [The man is a despicable coward...]
>
> In article <lbi7d894kan4bj23u5p38q9ga45tp0u...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
> [Below this is a duplicate of what I posted to the censored forum, AND WAS
> CENSORED! Even though there's nothing in the post that is against the censored
> forum's rules, Johnny decided he didn't like it.]
>
> [The man is a despicable coward...]
>
OIC, it applies to everyone but YOU, does it, Holmes?
You are nothing but a despicable HYPOCRITE, Holmes.
And your hero, Lane, is a PROVEN liar.
Informative Regards,
Ben Holmes
Dec 24, 2012, 9:01:42 AM12/24/12
to
[Below this is a duplicate of what I posted to the censored forum, AND WAS
CENSORED! Even though there's nothing in the post that is against the censored
forum's rules, Johnny decided he didn't like it.]
[The man is a despicable coward...]
CENSORED! Even though there's nothing in the post that is against the censored
forum's rules, Johnny decided he didn't like it.]
[The man is a despicable coward...]
The full answer to this post cannot be made in a censored forum - anyone
interested can view my rebuttal in the *open* forum.
interested can view my rebuttal in the *open* forum.
timstter
Dec 24, 2012, 3:46:59 PM12/24/12
to
On Dec 25, 1:01 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> [Below this is a duplicate of what I posted to the censored forum, AND WAS
> CENSORED! Even though there's nothing in the post that is against the censored
> forum's rules, Johnny decided he didn't like it.]
>
> [The man is a despicable coward...]
>
> In article <lbi7d894kan4bj23u5p38q9ga45tp0u...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
> [Below this is a duplicate of what I posted to the censored forum, AND WAS
> CENSORED! Even though there's nothing in the post that is against the censored
> forum's rules, Johnny decided he didn't like it.]
>
> [The man is a despicable coward...]
>
You're nothing but a laughing stock, Holmes.
0 new messages