Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mark Lane #261 (Billy Clarke Continues Showing His Cowardice...)
9 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
May 16, 2013, 9:27:41 AM5/16/13
to
In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane pointed out how the Warren Commission
mislead it's readers on the evidence, and rather unfairly critized eyewitnesses
*NOT* based on their character, but rather what they had to report.
"I have noted that the Commission either deprecated obnoxious evidence or else
challenged the witness. In the case of Mrs Rich, the Commission used both
methods.
Her testimony was not mentioned in the Warren Commission Report. Her name
appeared
along with 551 others in the 'List of Witnesses' but nowhere else, and there was
no indication in the Report of either the substance or significance of what she
had said. In addition, the federal police investigated her background. Some of
the
persons they interviewed told the investigators that Mrs Rich was unreliable and
given to fantasy. She was not confronted with their opinions and so was unable
to
refute them.
Those who read the Report will not learn about Mrs Rich; those who read all the
volumes will find her testimony complemented by comments disparaging its
credibility. Yet a scrupulous and painstaking reading of the testimony and the
FBI
reports reveals that each major point made by Mrs Rich was corroborated at least
in part by other witnesses. When the Commission rejected Mrs Rich's testimony
regarding Ruby's close relationship with the Dallas police and accepted instead
the emollient words of Jesse Curry, it did so in the teeth of the evidence.
Curry told the Commission that Ruby knew no more than 25 to 50 of the Dallas
police. 'I am guessing, perhaps 25 men,' he said. 'This is merely a guess on my
part... I would say less, I believe less than 50 people knew him.' Curry was
under
fire. Many thought that he should resign. He had a conspicuous motive for
belittling Ruby's relations with the police. It seems absurd that the Commission
should have relied at all on his guess as to the number of policemen Ruby knew
and
believed that Ruby gave the police no more than coffee and soft drinks."
Mark Lane is continuing to point out just how much the Warren Commission
misrepresented their evidence... to the point, clearly, where they were simply
lying.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
mislead it's readers on the evidence, and rather unfairly critized eyewitnesses
*NOT* based on their character, but rather what they had to report.
"I have noted that the Commission either deprecated obnoxious evidence or else
challenged the witness. In the case of Mrs Rich, the Commission used both
methods.
Her testimony was not mentioned in the Warren Commission Report. Her name
appeared
along with 551 others in the 'List of Witnesses' but nowhere else, and there was
no indication in the Report of either the substance or significance of what she
had said. In addition, the federal police investigated her background. Some of
the
persons they interviewed told the investigators that Mrs Rich was unreliable and
given to fantasy. She was not confronted with their opinions and so was unable
to
refute them.
Those who read the Report will not learn about Mrs Rich; those who read all the
volumes will find her testimony complemented by comments disparaging its
credibility. Yet a scrupulous and painstaking reading of the testimony and the
FBI
reports reveals that each major point made by Mrs Rich was corroborated at least
in part by other witnesses. When the Commission rejected Mrs Rich's testimony
regarding Ruby's close relationship with the Dallas police and accepted instead
the emollient words of Jesse Curry, it did so in the teeth of the evidence.
Curry told the Commission that Ruby knew no more than 25 to 50 of the Dallas
police. 'I am guessing, perhaps 25 men,' he said. 'This is merely a guess on my
part... I would say less, I believe less than 50 people knew him.' Curry was
under
fire. Many thought that he should resign. He had a conspicuous motive for
belittling Ruby's relations with the police. It seems absurd that the Commission
should have relied at all on his guess as to the number of policemen Ruby knew
and
believed that Ruby gave the police no more than coffee and soft drinks."
Mark Lane is continuing to point out just how much the Warren Commission
misrepresented their evidence... to the point, clearly, where they were simply
lying.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
timstter
May 17, 2013, 5:39:22 PM5/17/13
to
paste function!
KUTGW, Yellow Pants!
BTW, this sound familar?:
QUOTE ON:
Persons diagnosed with a Narcissistic Personality Disorder are
characterized by unwarranted feelings of self-importance. They have a
sense of entitlement and demonstrate grandiosity in their beliefs and
behavior. They have a strong need for admiration, but lack feelings of
empathy for others. These qualities are usually defenses against a
deep feeling of inferiority and of being unloved.
QUOTE OFF
Have a great day, Holmes!
LMFAO@U 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!
aeffects
May 17, 2013, 8:35:50 PM5/17/13
to
On May 17, 2:39 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 11:27 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
...
> On May 16, 11:27 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> QUOTE ON:
>
> Persons diagnosed with a Narcissistic Personality Disorder are
> characterized by unwarranted feelings of self-importance. They have a
> sense of entitlement and demonstrate grandiosity in their beliefs and
> behavior. They have a strong need for admiration, but lack feelings of
> empathy for others. These qualities are usually defenses against a
> deep feeling of inferiority and of being unloved.
>
> QUOTE OFF
...
>
> Persons diagnosed with a Narcissistic Personality Disorder are
> characterized by unwarranted feelings of self-importance. They have a
> sense of entitlement and demonstrate grandiosity in their beliefs and
> behavior. They have a strong need for admiration, but lack feelings of
> empathy for others. These qualities are usually defenses against a
> deep feeling of inferiority and of being unloved.
>
> QUOTE OFF
and THIS is what our weak-kneed, .john wannabe, lone nut sisters put
forth on a JFK assassination forum. The simple minded turds should be
able to do better than the above. Now the failed stand up comic (Tim
Shell--aka Tim Brennan) can't even get his comedic routine down these
days, dumb gets "dumber, is you can believe that!....
carry on fruit loop...
how sad for .john mcadams (aka Paul Nolan) and his merry band of
aliases. Mark Lanes keep knocking'em down!
timstter
May 17, 2013, 9:26:13 PM5/17/13
to
by the KGB back in the sixties?
BTW, speaking of aliases, isn't it true that your name is David G.
Healy but that you've posted here as both GordonD and aeffects and
that you RARELY sign your real name?
Can you spell HYPOCRITE, Dave/Ringo?
Informative Regards,
Bill Clarke
May 17, 2013, 11:12:30 PM5/17/13
to
In article <e1459052-5e2f-4dee...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>,
timstter says...
>
>On May 16, 11:27=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane pointed out how the Warren Commissi=
>on
>> mislead it's readers on the evidence, and rather unfairly critized eyewit=
>ere was
>> no indication in the Report of either the substance or significance of wh=
>at she
>> had said. In addition, the federal police investigated her background. So=
>me of
>> the
>> persons they interviewed told the investigators that Mrs Rich was unrelia=
>ble and
>> given to fantasy. She was not confronted with their opinions and so was u=
>nable
>> to
>> refute them.
>>
>> Those who read the Report will not learn about Mrs Rich; those who read a=
>d the
>> FBI
>> reports reveals that each major point made by Mrs Rich was corroborated a=
>t least
>> in part by other witnesses. When the Commission rejected Mrs Rich's testi=
>mony
>> regarding Ruby's close relationship with the Dallas police and accepted i=
>nstead
>> the emollient words of Jesse Curry, it did so in the teeth of the evidenc=
>e.
>>
>> Curry told the Commission that Ruby knew no more than 25 to 50 of the Dal=
>las
>> police. 'I am guessing, perhaps 25 men,' he said. 'This is merely a guess=
> on my
>> part... I would say less, I believe less than 50 people knew him.' Curry =
>mission
>> should have relied at all on his guess as to the number of policemen Ruby=
Bill Clarke
>Have a great day, Holmes!
>
>LMFAO@U 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_014=
timstter says...
>
>On May 16, 11:27=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane pointed out how the Warren Commissi=
>on
>> mislead it's readers on the evidence, and rather unfairly critized eyewit=
>nesses
>> *NOT* based on their character, but rather what they had to report.
>>
>> "I have noted that the Commission either deprecated obnoxious evidence or=
>> *NOT* based on their character, but rather what they had to report.
>>
> else
>> challenged the witness. In the case of Mrs Rich, the Commission used both
>> methods.
>> Her testimony was not mentioned in the Warren Commission Report. Her name
>> appeared
>> along with 551 others in the 'List of Witnesses' but nowhere else, and th=
>> challenged the witness. In the case of Mrs Rich, the Commission used both
>> methods.
>> Her testimony was not mentioned in the Warren Commission Report. Her name
>> appeared
>ere was
>> no indication in the Report of either the substance or significance of wh=
>at she
>> had said. In addition, the federal police investigated her background. So=
>me of
>> the
>> persons they interviewed told the investigators that Mrs Rich was unrelia=
>ble and
>> given to fantasy. She was not confronted with their opinions and so was u=
>nable
>> to
>> refute them.
>>
>> Those who read the Report will not learn about Mrs Rich; those who read a=
>ll the
>> volumes will find her testimony complemented by comments disparaging its
>> credibility. Yet a scrupulous and painstaking reading of the testimony an=
>> volumes will find her testimony complemented by comments disparaging its
>d the
>> FBI
>> reports reveals that each major point made by Mrs Rich was corroborated a=
>t least
>> in part by other witnesses. When the Commission rejected Mrs Rich's testi=
>mony
>> regarding Ruby's close relationship with the Dallas police and accepted i=
>nstead
>> the emollient words of Jesse Curry, it did so in the teeth of the evidenc=
>e.
>>
>> Curry told the Commission that Ruby knew no more than 25 to 50 of the Dal=
>las
>> police. 'I am guessing, perhaps 25 men,' he said. 'This is merely a guess=
> on my
>> part... I would say less, I believe less than 50 people knew him.' Curry =
>was
>> under
>> fire. Many thought that he should resign. He had a conspicuous motive for
>> belittling Ruby's relations with the police. It seems absurd that the Com=
>> under
>> fire. Many thought that he should resign. He had a conspicuous motive for
>mission
>> should have relied at all on his guess as to the number of policemen Ruby=
> knew
>> and
>> believed that Ruby gave the police no more than coffee and soft drinks."
>>
>> Mark Lane is continuing to point out just how much the Warren Commission
>> misrepresented their evidence... to the point, clearly, where they were s=
>> and
>> believed that Ruby gave the police no more than coffee and soft drinks."
>>
>> Mark Lane is continuing to point out just how much the Warren Commission
>imply
>> lying.
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ben Holmes
>> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>
>Benny proves, for the 251st time, that he STILL can't master the cut &
>paste function!
>
>KUTGW, Yellow Pants!
>
>BTW, this sound familar?:
>
>QUOTE ON:
>
>Persons diagnosed with a Narcissistic Personality Disorder are
>characterized by unwarranted feelings of self-importance. They have a
>sense of entitlement and demonstrate grandiosity in their beliefs and
>behavior. They have a strong need for admiration, but lack feelings of
>empathy for others. These qualities are usually defenses against a
>deep feeling of inferiority and of being unloved.
>
>QUOTE OFF
Heh! Benny's feelings of self-importance is damn sure unwarranted. To the max.
>> lying.
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ben Holmes
>> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>
>Benny proves, for the 251st time, that he STILL can't master the cut &
>paste function!
>
>KUTGW, Yellow Pants!
>
>BTW, this sound familar?:
>
>QUOTE ON:
>
>Persons diagnosed with a Narcissistic Personality Disorder are
>characterized by unwarranted feelings of self-importance. They have a
>sense of entitlement and demonstrate grandiosity in their beliefs and
>behavior. They have a strong need for admiration, but lack feelings of
>empathy for others. These qualities are usually defenses against a
>deep feeling of inferiority and of being unloved.
>
>QUOTE OFF
Bill Clarke
>Have a great day, Holmes!
>
>LMFAO@U 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...
Ben Holmes
May 18, 2013, 1:01:48 AM5/18/13
to
In article <kn6ri...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>Benny proves, for the 251st time, that he STILL can't master the cut &
>>paste function!
>>
>>KUTGW, Yellow Pants!
>>
>>BTW, this sound familar?:
>>
>>QUOTE ON:
>>
>>Persons diagnosed with a Narcissistic Personality Disorder are
>>characterized by unwarranted feelings of self-importance. They have a
>>sense of entitlement and demonstrate grandiosity in their beliefs and
>>behavior. They have a strong need for admiration, but lack feelings of
>>empathy for others. These qualities are usually defenses against a
>>deep feeling of inferiority and of being unloved.
>>
>>QUOTE OFF
>
>Heh! Benny's feelings of self-importance is damn sure unwarranted. To the
max.
>
>Bill Clarke
Still a coward, eh Billy?
>>paste function!
>>
>>KUTGW, Yellow Pants!
>>
>>BTW, this sound familar?:
>>
>>QUOTE ON:
>>
>>Persons diagnosed with a Narcissistic Personality Disorder are
>>characterized by unwarranted feelings of self-importance. They have a
>>sense of entitlement and demonstrate grandiosity in their beliefs and
>>behavior. They have a strong need for admiration, but lack feelings of
>>empathy for others. These qualities are usually defenses against a
>>deep feeling of inferiority and of being unloved.
>>
>>QUOTE OFF
>
>Heh! Benny's feelings of self-importance is damn sure unwarranted. To the
max.
>
>Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
May 18, 2013, 8:50:03 AM5/18/13
to
In article <kn71v...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
Still an obnoxious asshole, eh Benny?
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
May 18, 2013, 9:21:40 PM5/18/13
to
In article <kn7td...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
662e2f...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>,
Is that what you call someone who points out the truth?
>
>In article <kn71v...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>In article <kn6ri...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>
>>>In article <e1459052-5e2f-4dee-a019-
>In article <kn71v...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>In article <kn6ri...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>
662e2f...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Clarke
May 19, 2013, 12:37:31 AM5/19/13
to
In article <kn99f...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
Who told you that you point out the truth? Affects?
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
aeffects
May 19, 2013, 4:27:05 PM5/19/13
to
On May 18, 9:37 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <kn99f40...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <kn7tdr01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>In article <kn71vs02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>In article <kn6riu02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>>In article <e1459052-5e2f-4dee-a019-
> >662e2f34c...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>,
that's spelled aeffects, Bill... and we do understand you're
struggling with Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement, as demonstrated right
here on ACJ (told ya you wouldn't slide by on this board as you do-did
on AWV... Ya ought to buy the damn book and simply read it.
You can thank nutless-chubbs Tim Brennan (aka Tim Shell failed standup
comic) for that! LMFAO!
> Bill Clarke
> In article <kn99f40...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <kn7tdr01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>In article <kn71vs02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>In article <kn6riu02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>>In article <e1459052-5e2f-4dee-a019-
> >662e2f34c...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>,
struggling with Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement, as demonstrated right
here on ACJ (told ya you wouldn't slide by on this board as you do-did
on AWV... Ya ought to buy the damn book and simply read it.
You can thank nutless-chubbs Tim Brennan (aka Tim Shell failed standup
comic) for that! LMFAO!
> Bill Clarke
timstter
May 19, 2013, 4:36:33 PM5/19/13
to
his LUDICROUS Lane series, Dave/Ringo.
He basically skulks behind his killfilter while you appear semi-
coherent most of the time.
Some champion of Mark Lane you two TURKEYS are!
KUTGW, Dave/Ringo!
LMFAO@U 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...
Ben Holmes
May 19, 2013, 9:20:39 PM5/19/13
to
In article <kn9ku...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
Did the Warren Report use Curry to decide how many police officers Ruby was
associated with... or did they use the witness testimony of Linthicum,
Cavagnaro, Cola, Groom, O'Donnell, Fleming, McBee, Mrs Pullman, Smith, Castro,
Mrs Jones, Proeber, Rhodes, Bonds, Sherin and Davidson?
My guess - you'll run like the coward you are rather than answer that simple
question.
associated with... or did they use the witness testimony of Linthicum,
Cavagnaro, Cola, Groom, O'Donnell, Fleming, McBee, Mrs Pullman, Smith, Castro,
Mrs Jones, Proeber, Rhodes, Bonds, Sherin and Davidson?
My guess - you'll run like the coward you are rather than answer that simple
question.
Bill Clarke
May 19, 2013, 11:33:39 PM5/19/13
to
In article <knbtp...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
I don't know, numnuts. I don't care. Why does it even make a shit? What makes
you think you make a shit. You're a joke Benny.
Bill Clarke
you think you make a shit. You're a joke Benny.
Bill Clarke
aeffects
May 20, 2013, 12:28:08 AM5/20/13
to
On May 19, 8:33 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <knbtp701...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <kn9kub01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>In article <kn99f40...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>In article <kn7tdr01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>>In article <kn71vs02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>>>In article <kn6riu02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>>>>In article <e1459052-5e2f-4dee-a019-
> >>>662e2f34c...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>,
my goodness, you are lost, Bill, What's up with that? You forget where
you are posting? Seems doing a favor for Tim Brennan (aka Tim Shell)
has gotten off on a personal track and costing you way more than you
wanted to expend.
Just tell Tim Brennan-Shell: get fucked, you got peppers to plant!
> Bill Clarke
> In article <knbtp701...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <kn9kub01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>In article <kn99f40...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>In article <kn7tdr01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>>In article <kn71vs02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>>>In article <kn6riu02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>>>>In article <e1459052-5e2f-4dee-a019-
> >>>662e2f34c...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>,
you are posting? Seems doing a favor for Tim Brennan (aka Tim Shell)
has gotten off on a personal track and costing you way more than you
wanted to expend.
Just tell Tim Brennan-Shell: get fucked, you got peppers to plant!
> Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
May 20, 2013, 9:11:28 AM5/20/13
to
In article <knc5i...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
Yeah, I knew you'd run again... the question, of course, is that if you don't
know, then YOU DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH IF IT SLAPS YOU IN THE FACE.
You imply that I don't tell the truth - yet you *provably* can't differentiate.
Either through ignorance, cowardice, or dishonesty...
Run Billy... RUN!!!
know, then YOU DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH IF IT SLAPS YOU IN THE FACE.
You imply that I don't tell the truth - yet you *provably* can't differentiate.
Either through ignorance, cowardice, or dishonesty...
Run Billy... RUN!!!
Bill Clarke
May 20, 2013, 12:39:44 PM5/20/13
to
In article <knd7e...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
Or by reading the many rebuttals to your horseshit from many different people
here in this newsgroup. BINGO! You have had your ass kicked so many times I'd
feel sorry for you if you wasn't such an asshole.
Bill Clarke
here in this newsgroup. BINGO! You have had your ass kicked so many times I'd
feel sorry for you if you wasn't such an asshole.
Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
May 21, 2013, 9:11:29 AM5/21/13
to
In article <kndjk...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
Sorry Billy, but if *YOU* don't know the truth, then it matters little whether
I'm stating it, or, as you believe, someone else is - YOU STILL WOULDN'T BE ABLE
TO MAKE A JUDGMENT.
So tell us Billy... is it because of ignorance, cowardice, or dishonesty?
I'm stating it, or, as you believe, someone else is - YOU STILL WOULDN'T BE ABLE
TO MAKE A JUDGMENT.
So tell us Billy... is it because of ignorance, cowardice, or dishonesty?
Bill Clarke
May 21, 2013, 3:19:16 PM5/21/13
to
In article <knfrq...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
Mostly dipshit it is because there have been an army of the people here kicking
your ass and they do it with references and evidence that I can read and make
judgement on. On top of that I have found these people to be honest in their
dealings here. You and Lane have not been found so honest.
Now does your simple small mind understand? I'm sure it doesn't.
Bill Clarke
your ass and they do it with references and evidence that I can read and make
judgement on. On top of that I have found these people to be honest in their
dealings here. You and Lane have not been found so honest.
Now does your simple small mind understand? I'm sure it doesn't.
Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
May 22, 2013, 9:21:07 AM5/22/13
to
In article <knghb...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
But if *YOU* don't know the facts, then you can't make an informed decision.
So tell us, Did the Warren Report use Curry to decide how many police officers
*read* what Mark Lane stated, then you have *NOTHING* on which to make a
judgment.
Looks like my question has been answered - it's a combination of dishonesty and
cowardice.
>Now does your simple small mind understand? I'm sure it doesn't.
>
>Bill Clarke
Tell us moron - how can you make a judgment of who's right and who's wrong WHEN
YOU DON'T KNOW THE FACTS?
So tell us, Did the Warren Report use Curry to decide how many police officers
Ruby was associated with... or did they use the witness testimony of Linthicum,
Cavagnaro, Cola, Groom, O'Donnell, Fleming, McBee, Mrs Pullman, Smith, Castro,
Mrs Jones, Proeber, Rhodes, Bonds, Sherin and Davidson?
Cavagnaro, Cola, Groom, O'Donnell, Fleming, McBee, Mrs Pullman, Smith, Castro,
Mrs Jones, Proeber, Rhodes, Bonds, Sherin and Davidson?
>On top of that I have found these people to be honest in their
>dealings here. You and Lane have not been found so honest.
You're lying, Billy. If you don't know the facts, and you simply REFUSE to even
>dealings here. You and Lane have not been found so honest.
*read* what Mark Lane stated, then you have *NOTHING* on which to make a
judgment.
Looks like my question has been answered - it's a combination of dishonesty and
cowardice.
>Now does your simple small mind understand? I'm sure it doesn't.
>
>Bill Clarke
YOU DON'T KNOW THE FACTS?
Bill Clarke
May 22, 2013, 12:13:02 PM5/22/13
to
In article <knigo...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
I'll go slow here for your stupid ass. I read what the people here provide as
evidence to show that you and Lane are liars. These are the "facts". Now do
you understand?
Bill Clarke
evidence to show that you and Lane are liars. These are the "facts". Now do
you understand?
Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
May 22, 2013, 3:21:53 PM5/22/13
to
In article <kniqq...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
And I'll go even slower for your demonstrated stupidity. If one person says that
the bullet struck JFK four inches down from the right shoulder, and someone else
says the bullet struck the base of the neck... BASED ON THAT INFORMATION ALONE,
YOU HAVE NO WAY TO DETERMINE WHO TOLD THE TRUTH.
Now, if you were smart - you'd know the topic about which you pretend to be able
to differentiate truth from lies. If you *knew* the facts & evidence, then you'd
know whether Bennett or Ford told the truth.
Did I go too fast for your cowardly brain?
By the way, you'll *NEVER* provide the "evidence" you claim others have put
forth... because you're simply lying. And *THAT* is a fact.
Proven by your silence on this issue...
the bullet struck JFK four inches down from the right shoulder, and someone else
says the bullet struck the base of the neck... BASED ON THAT INFORMATION ALONE,
YOU HAVE NO WAY TO DETERMINE WHO TOLD THE TRUTH.
Now, if you were smart - you'd know the topic about which you pretend to be able
to differentiate truth from lies. If you *knew* the facts & evidence, then you'd
know whether Bennett or Ford told the truth.
Did I go too fast for your cowardly brain?
By the way, you'll *NEVER* provide the "evidence" you claim others have put
forth... because you're simply lying. And *THAT* is a fact.
Proven by your silence on this issue...
Bill Clarke
May 22, 2013, 4:35:38 PM5/22/13
to
In article <knj5s...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
Well Dumbo, why should it be "BASED ON THAT INFORMATION ALONE"? What part of
"they present evidence and references" is it that your stupid ass is incapable
of understanding?
And I must ask, Benny; why do you choose to spend so much time with me instead
of these people that consistently kick your ass? You got them all kill filed or
what?
Bill Clarke
"they present evidence and references" is it that your stupid ass is incapable
of understanding?
And I must ask, Benny; why do you choose to spend so much time with me instead
of these people that consistently kick your ass? You got them all kill filed or
what?
Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
May 22, 2013, 9:44:36 PM5/22/13
to
In article <knja6...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
Interestingly, you were too yellow to give the answer to that one.
>Well Dumbo, why should it be "BASED ON THAT INFORMATION ALONE"?
It's really simple moron - If I say one thing, and one of your kooky friends
says something else - then you either have to know the actual FACTS to determine
the honest person, or you have to have *some* other corroborating evidence.
>What part of "they present evidence and references" is it that your stupid
>ass is incapable of understanding?
I understand lies quite well, Billy... I predicted below that you'd run from
citing *ANYTHING* to support this lie of yours... and sure enough, you ran like
the yellow coward that you are.
>And I must ask, Benny; why do you choose to spend so much time with me instead
>of these people that consistently kick your ass? You got them all kill filed or
>what?
Does it embarrass you to have your cowardice pointed out?
>Bill Clarke
>
>
>> Now, if you were smart - you'd know the topic about which you pretend to
>> be able to differentiate truth from lies. If you *knew* the facts &
>> evidence, then you'd know whether Bennett or Ford told the truth.
And, yellow coward that you are - you ran from this. Tell us Billy, are *ALL*
former Army as cowardly as you?
I sure hope not.
>>Did I go too fast for your cowardly brain?
>>
>>By the way, you'll *NEVER* provide the "evidence" you claim others have put
>>forth... because you're simply lying. And *THAT* is a fact.
>>
>>Proven by your silence on this issue...
Run Billy... RUN!!!
>Well Dumbo, why should it be "BASED ON THAT INFORMATION ALONE"?
says something else - then you either have to know the actual FACTS to determine
the honest person, or you have to have *some* other corroborating evidence.
>What part of "they present evidence and references" is it that your stupid
>ass is incapable of understanding?
citing *ANYTHING* to support this lie of yours... and sure enough, you ran like
the yellow coward that you are.
>And I must ask, Benny; why do you choose to spend so much time with me instead
>of these people that consistently kick your ass? You got them all kill filed or
>what?
>Bill Clarke
>
>
>> Now, if you were smart - you'd know the topic about which you pretend to
>> be able to differentiate truth from lies. If you *knew* the facts &
>> evidence, then you'd know whether Bennett or Ford told the truth.
former Army as cowardly as you?
I sure hope not.
>>Did I go too fast for your cowardly brain?
>>
>>By the way, you'll *NEVER* provide the "evidence" you claim others have put
>>forth... because you're simply lying. And *THAT* is a fact.
>>
>>Proven by your silence on this issue...
Bill Clarke
May 22, 2013, 11:48:43 PM5/22/13
to
In article <knjsa...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
Are all Marines as big an asshole as you? No, they are not, I've know many
Marines. I'm surprised you made it through boot camp. Recycled?
Bill Clarke
Marines. I'm surprised you made it through boot camp. Recycled?
Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
May 23, 2013, 9:25:37 AM5/23/13
to
In article <knk3i...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
*STILL* too yellow to answer...
>>>Well Dumbo, why should it be "BASED ON THAT INFORMATION ALONE"?
>>
>>
>> It's really simple moron - If I say one thing, and one of your kooky friends
>> says something else - then you either have to know the actual FACTS to
>> determine the honest person, or you have to have *some* other corroborating
>> evidence.
Whether you were smart enough to understand that or not, you certainly refused
to debate it.
>>>What part of "they present evidence and references" is it that your stupid
>>>ass is incapable of understanding?
>>
>>
>> I understand lies quite well, Billy... I predicted below that you'd run from
>> citing *ANYTHING* to support this lie of yours... and sure enough, you ran
>> like the yellow coward that you are.
Once again, you clearly *KNOW* that you're lying - you make no attempt to defend
your lie, or even *try* to show that you're telling the truth...
Tell us Billy... how does someone as dishonest and yellow as you live with
yourself?
>>>And I must ask, Benny; why do you choose to spend so much time with me
instead
>>>of these people that consistently kick your ass? You got them all kill filed
or
>>>what?
>>
>>
>>Does it embarrass you to have your cowardice pointed out?
Rhetorical question - I didn't expect nor get an answer...
>>>Bill Clarke
>>>
>>>
>>>> Now, if you were smart - you'd know the topic about which you pretend to
>>>> be able to differentiate truth from lies. If you *knew* the facts &
>>>> evidence, then you'd know whether Bennett or Ford told the truth.
>>
>>
>>And, yellow coward that you are - you ran from this.
Interestingly, you refused to refute this simple fact. Why can't you tell
everyone whether it was Bennett or Ford who told the truth, Billy?
>> Tell us Billy, are *ALL* former Army as cowardly as you?
>
>Are all Marines as big an asshole as you? No, they are not, I've know many
>Marines. I'm surprised you made it through boot camp. Recycled?
>
>Bill Clarke
Nope... went through my first attempt... now, who was telling the truth, Bennett
or Ford?
And why are you running from so many of the points I raise?
>>I sure hope not.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Did I go too fast for your cowardly brain?
>>>>
>>>>By the way, you'll *NEVER* provide the "evidence" you claim others have put
>>>>forth... because you're simply lying. And *THAT* is a fact.
>>>>
>>>>Proven by your silence on this issue...
>>
>>Run Billy... RUN!!!
>>
>>
>
>>>Well Dumbo, why should it be "BASED ON THAT INFORMATION ALONE"?
>>
>>
>> It's really simple moron - If I say one thing, and one of your kooky friends
>> says something else - then you either have to know the actual FACTS to
>> determine the honest person, or you have to have *some* other corroborating
>> evidence.
to debate it.
>>>What part of "they present evidence and references" is it that your stupid
>>>ass is incapable of understanding?
>>
>>
>> I understand lies quite well, Billy... I predicted below that you'd run from
>> citing *ANYTHING* to support this lie of yours... and sure enough, you ran
>> like the yellow coward that you are.
your lie, or even *try* to show that you're telling the truth...
Tell us Billy... how does someone as dishonest and yellow as you live with
yourself?
>>>And I must ask, Benny; why do you choose to spend so much time with me
instead
>>>of these people that consistently kick your ass? You got them all kill filed
or
>>>what?
>>
>>
>>Does it embarrass you to have your cowardice pointed out?
>>>Bill Clarke
>>>
>>>
>>>> Now, if you were smart - you'd know the topic about which you pretend to
>>>> be able to differentiate truth from lies. If you *knew* the facts &
>>>> evidence, then you'd know whether Bennett or Ford told the truth.
>>
>>
>>And, yellow coward that you are - you ran from this.
everyone whether it was Bennett or Ford who told the truth, Billy?
>> Tell us Billy, are *ALL* former Army as cowardly as you?
>
>Are all Marines as big an asshole as you? No, they are not, I've know many
>Marines. I'm surprised you made it through boot camp. Recycled?
>
>Bill Clarke
or Ford?
And why are you running from so many of the points I raise?
>>I sure hope not.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Did I go too fast for your cowardly brain?
>>>>
>>>>By the way, you'll *NEVER* provide the "evidence" you claim others have put
>>>>forth... because you're simply lying. And *THAT* is a fact.
>>>>
>>>>Proven by your silence on this issue...
>>
>>Run Billy... RUN!!!
>>
>>
>
0 new messages