FOR BEN AND DAVID (LIKE BEN AND JERRY BUT DIFFERET): MARK LANE, YOUR OWN LYING SACK OF SHIT
Todd W. Vaughan
One has only to look at the posts here of late to see Ben Holmes and
David Healy stumbling over each other to tout the virtues of Mark
Lane's and his recent critique of Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History.
But just how honest is the mighty Mark Lane?
Here's but just one example.
Rush to Judgment's chapter 9 is title "The Rifle Test", and deals with
the Warren Commission's test firing of Oswald's C2766 Carcano. At one
point Lane writes:
"Not one of the 18 (test) shots...struck the head or neck of the
target."
So important is this claim to Lane's case that he repeats it yet again
in the very next paragraph:
"Not one of them struck the enlarged head or neck on the target even
once..."
The citation for both versions of Lanes claim, numbers 89 and 91, are
found on page 432 of Rush to Judgment. Both cite the 26 volumes at
17H261-262. When one goes to 17H261-262, they find CEs 582, 583, and
584, each a photograph of a human back/shoulder/head silhouette target
mounted on a piece of plywood.
But what of Lane's claim that they all lack a hit to the head or neck?
In fact both CEs 582 and 583 each contain a hit to the head of the
target, each hit being denoted by an "X" having been drawn on the
target, the handwritten legend written on the plywood explaining that
an "X' represented a shot using the iron sights of the rifle rather
than the scope.
So Ben and David, how virtuous do you find this outright lie of Mark
Lane's? What do you think, and how do you feel about his technique of
lying here? Do you support it?
Careful boys, don't hurt yourselves going assholes over elbows to beat
each other to the answer.
Todd
aeffects
> One has only to look at the posts here of late to see Ben Holmes and
> David Healy stumbling over each other to tout the virtues of Mark
> Lane's and his recent critique of Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming
> History.
>
> But just how honest is the mighty Mark Lane?
>
> Here's but just one example.
>
> Rush to Judgment's chapter 9 is title "The Rifle Test", and deals with
> the Warren Commission's test firing of Oswald's C2766 Carcano. At one
>
> point Lane writes:
>
> "Not one of the 18 (test) shots...struck the head or neck of the
> target."
>
> So important is this claim to Lane's case that he repeats it yet again
> in the very next paragraph:
>
> "Not one of them struck the enlarged head or neck on the target even
> once..."
"enlarged head", huh?
> The citation for both versions of Lanes claim, numbers 89 and 91, are
> found on page 432 of Rush to Judgment. Both cite the 26 volumes at
> 17H261-262. When one goes to 17H261-262, they find CEs 582, 583, and
> 584, each a photograph of a human back/shoulder/head silhouette target
> mounted on a piece of plywood.
boll us over with numbers Todd, please..... look son, no one, NO ONE
cites this case, now or EVER better than Mark Lane -- you're pissing
up a rope...
> But what of Lane's claim that they all lack a hit to the head or neck?
>
> In fact both CEs 582 and 583 each contain a hit to the head of the
> target, each hit being denoted by an "X" having been drawn on the
> target, the handwritten legend written on the plywood explaining that
> an "X' represented a shot using the iron sights of the rifle rather
> than the scope.
the enlarged version head or regular sized version?
> So Ben and David, how virtuous do you find this outright lie of Mark
> Lane's? What do you think, and how do you feel about his technique of
> lying here? Do you support it?
virtuous? Todd, you're scambling need a CT throw you a life preserver?
> Careful boys, don't hurt yourselves going assholes over elbows to beat
> each other to the answer.
don't worry Todd no one will break a sweat... after all, Lane has
probably forgot more concerning the WCR than you'll ever KNOW
concerning same -- what a ludicrous post Todd!
p.s. btw, when it comes to shooting at a] moving target b] downhill c]
target going away from the shooters position, I have a tendency to go
with a certified, known *sniper* pro... Carlos Hathcock (you may find
his qualifications onthe net, a simple google will get you there) who
at one time, evidently, re-created the entire scenario, including
proper height, angle and distance specifications. Didn't Hathcock say,
he nor any of his folks could duplicate Amazi'n Lee *Sgt. York*
Oswalds' (LHO's handle mine) shooting feat?
"Careful boys, don't hurt yourselves going assholes over elbows to
beat each other to the answer" LMFAO!
> Todd
tomnln
SEE his Lies>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
ALL in his own words.
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba084059-c964-41cf...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:18816812-3bae-42ae...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Who ever would'a thunk it?
toad vaughan Proven to be an Asshole Liar AGAIN.
http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bud
Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> One has only to look at the posts here of late to see Ben Holmes and
> David Healy stumbling over each other to tout the virtues of Mark
> Lane's and his recent critique of Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming
> History.
>
> But just how honest is the mighty Mark Lane?
>
> Here's but just one example.
>
> Rush to Judgment's chapter 9 is title "The Rifle Test", and deals with
> the Warren Commission's test firing of Oswald's C2766 Carcano. At one
> point Lane writes:
>
>
> "Not one of the 18 (test) shots...struck the head or neck of the
> target."
My question would be whether they were trying for head shots. The
shots look tightly grouped center mass, like shooters who shoot people
are taught to shoot.
> So important is this claim to Lane's case that he repeats it yet again
> in the very next paragraph:
>
>
> "Not one of them struck the enlarged head or neck on the target even
> once..."
>
>
> The citation for both versions of Lanes claim, numbers 89 and 91, are
> found on page 432 of Rush to Judgment. Both cite the 26 volumes at
> 17H261-262. When one goes to 17H261-262, they find CEs 582, 583, and
> 584, each a photograph of a human back/shoulder/head silhouette target
> mounted on a piece of plywood.
Heres a link to that evidence...
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=139087
> But what of Lane's claim that they all lack a hit to the head or neck?
>
> In fact both CEs 582 and 583 each contain a hit to the head of the
> target, each hit being denoted by an "X" having been drawn on the
> target, the handwritten legend written on the plywood explaining that
> an "X' represented a shot using the iron sights of the rifle rather
> than the scope.
>
> So Ben and David, how virtuous do you find this outright lie of Mark
> Lane's? What do you think, and how do you feel about his technique of
> lying here? Do you support it?
As Ben is prone to ask "Why does the truth need lies to support it?"
Todd W. Vaughan
> On Mar 16, 7:45 am, "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > One has only to look at the posts here of late to see Ben Holmes and
> > David Healy stumbling over each other to tout the virtues of Mark
> > Lane's and his recent critique of Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming
> > History.
>
> > But just how honest is the mighty Mark Lane?
>
> > Here's but just one example.
>
> > Rush to Judgment's chapter 9 is title "The Rifle Test", and deals with
> > the Warren Commission's test firing of Oswald's C2766 Carcano. At one
>
> > point Lane writes:
>
> > "Not one of the 18 (test) shots...struck the head or neck of the
> > target."
>
> > So important is this claim to Lane's case that he repeats it yet again
> > in the very next paragraph:
>
> > "Not one of them struck the enlarged head or neck on the target even
> > once..."
>
> "enlarged head", huh?
Lane's words, not mine or the Commissions or anyone elses that I know
of.
The fact of the matter is that targets were standard human back/
shoulder/head silhouette used by the military and law enforcement.
>
> > The citation for both versions of Lanes claim, numbers 89 and 91, are
> > found on page 432 of Rush to Judgment. Both cite the 26 volumes at
> > 17H261-262. When one goes to 17H261-262, they find CEs 582, 583, and
> > 584, each a photograph of a human back/shoulder/head silhouette target
> > mounted on a piece of plywood.
>
> boll us over with numbers Todd, please..... look son, no one, NO ONE
> cites this case, now or EVER better than Mark Lane -- you're pissing
> up a rope...
What are you saying here, in confusing Healy-speak?
Are you claiming that Lane has more citations in RTJ than anyone else
in any other book?
>
> > But what of Lane's claim that they all lack a hit to the head or neck?
>
> > In fact both CEs 582 and 583 each contain a hit to the head of the
> > target, each hit being denoted by an "X" having been drawn on the
> > target, the handwritten legend written on the plywood explaining that
> > an "X' represented a shot using the iron sights of the rifle rather
> > than the scope.
>
> the enlarged version head or regular sized version?
Again, Lane's words.
Again, the targets were standard human back/shoulder/head silhouette
used by the military and law enforcement.
You're free to ask your boy Lane why he wrote it that way, but I know
you won't. You don't have the balls to rasie the type of question to
Lane that he might take as a questioning by you of the veracity of
what he said.
>
> > So Ben and David, how virtuous do you find this outright lie of Mark
> > Lane's? What do you think, and how do you feel about his technique of
> > lying here? Do you support it?
>
> virtuous? Todd, you're scambling need a CT throw you a life preserver?
Yes, "virtuous". I said in my opening paragraph that you were
"...tout(ing) the virtues of Mark
Lane..."
Try and keep up.
Now, you avoided the question, as I fully expected.
Lane's claim is not supported by his citation.
In fact, the citation proves the opposite of what Lane claims.
That makes it an outright lie.
I ask again.
What do you think, and how do you feel about his technique of
lying here? Do you support it?
>
> > Careful boys, don't hurt yourselves going assholes over elbows to beat
> > each other to the answer.
>
> don't worry Todd no one will break a sweat... after all, Lane has
> probably forgot more concerning the WCR than you'll ever KNOW
> concerning same --
I've been at this case for 35 years continuous. Lane's been at it in
on and off periods.
I'll match what Lane knows against what I know any day of the week.
Hell, we can even through
you into the mix, Healy-turt. We can start with the topic of the photo
evidence in Deaely Plaza.
>what a ludicrous post Todd!
The only thing ludicrous about it is how you so cowardly failed to
answer the question that was clearly asked of you.
I ask again.
What do you think, and how do you feel about his technique of
lying here? Do you support it?
>
> p.s. btw, when it comes to shooting at a] moving target b] downhill c]
> target going away from the shooters position, I have a tendency to go
> with a certified, known *sniper* pro... Carlos Hathcock (you may find
> his qualifications onthe net, a simple google will get you there) who
> at one time, evidently, re-created the entire scenario, including
> proper height, angle and distance specifications. Didn't Hathcock say,
> he nor any of his folks could duplicate Amazi'n Lee *Sgt. York*
> Oswalds' (LHO's handle mine) shooting feat?
>
> "Careful boys, don't hurt yourselves going assholes over elbows to
> beat each other to the answer" LMFAO!
>
>
>
> > Todd- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Mar 16, 7:45 am, "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> One has only to look at the posts here of late to see Ben Holmes and
>> David Healy stumbling over each other to tout the virtues of Mark
>> Lane's and his recent critique of Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming
>> History.
Can you cite a single example, Toddy?
This is why you've been killfiled, you can't tell the truth.
I wonder why you'd think I'd bother to even take the time to research this and
answer when you've wasted years with your mythical files?
>> how virtuous do you find this outright lie of Mark
>> Lane's? What do you think, and how do you feel about his technique of
>> lying here? Do you support it?
>
>virtuous? Todd, you're scambling need a CT throw you a life preserver?
>
>
>> Careful boys, don't hurt yourselves going assholes over elbows to beat
>> each other to the answer.
>
>don't worry Todd no one will break a sweat... after all, Lane has
>probably forgot more concerning the WCR than you'll ever KNOW
>concerning same -- what a ludicrous post Todd!
Yep... Toddy can't respond to Mark Lane, any more than he can to the
knowledgeable CT'ers here.
Todd W. Vaughan
> In article <18816812-3bae-42ae-a6cc-5ba31ceeb...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just like witth Healy-nut, this is what I expected from you, Ben, not
a sinbgle word about Lane's lying citation.
aeffects
shuck and jive, duck and swerve... hide behind anything you can find
to avoid bad news.... that's a cowards ploy Todd. Got a personal
question for you Todd, did McAdams get a woody when he fired the MC?
(just curious)
Todd W. Vaughan
I "wood"'nt know, but your curiosity speaks volimes.
LMAO!
Also, I see STILL no answer to my questions re Lane and his phony
citation.
tomnln
ALL in his own words.
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b1f857e6-f0a7-4e66...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
"Ben Holmes" <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote in message
news:frk6m...@drn.newsguy.com...
Todd W. Vaughan
> WHO is toad vaughan?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
Hear you gave Ellen the clap after you caught it form your mom. Is
that true Tommy?
>
> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote in message
>
> news:frk6m...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <18816812-3bae-42ae-a6cc-5ba31ceeb...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
tomnln
On Mar 16, 10:14 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> WHO is toad vaughan?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
********************
Hear you gave Ellen the clap after you caught it form your mom. Is
that true Tommy?
Poor toad never gets ANYTHING right! ! !
I got the clap in a Lumber camp where your wife/mom worked.
(@ $0.35 A WHACK)
Did you forget these AGAIN?>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
Scared I'll beat the shit outta you AGAIN like I did with Lee J. Bowers???
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Toddy gets caught in a lie, and can't be a man and retract his statement... how
sad.
Meaningless, too... I have better things to do than point out the dishonesty of
a troll...
aeffects
> David Healy stumbling over each other to tout the virtues of Mark
> Lane's and his recent critique of Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming
> History.
Good GAWD Todd.... now their calling you a TROLL, all these years and
this is your thanks (not even a lousey stipend for all that work, not
even a college credit, ROTFLMFAO).... this has to be one of the worst
weeks for Lone Nutter's in years.... Reclaiming History in the tank,
Lifton and Lane surfacing to kick ass for one day..... my goodness,
now you're a troll -- disarray son, COMPLETE disarray...
You ready to do a on-camera gig there, pardner?
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <18816812-3bae-42ae-a6cc-5ba31ceeb...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
> >On Mar 16, 7:45 am, "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> One has only to look at the posts here of late to see Ben Holmes and
> >> David Healy stumbling over each other to tout the virtues of Mark
> >> Lane's and his recent critique of Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming
> >> History.
>
> Can you cite a single example, Toddy?
>
> This is why you've been killfiled, you can't tell the truth.
Aeffects gushed:
[March 04]
"does not deserve to stand in the same room as Mark Lane...."
"Mark Lane would kick any Lone Neuters ass on this board or, the idiot
farm [aaj] boards ass in JFK assassination debate, at 78 years old,
while ASLEEP...."
[March 10]
"I suspect if Lane put it in book form it would outsell daBugliosi 50
even 100-1."
"It looks like Mark Lane de-nutted Mr. Bugliosi..."
"(Lane does get Lone Nut hearts going a-pitter-patter, doesn't he?)"
"Lane is a great source for truth regarding the JFK assassination
investigation and exposing WCReport nonsense."
"(his fate is sealed by Mark Lane's review)"
[March 11]
"I believe the topic is Mark Lane does Bugliosi in...."
[March 12]
"Mark Lane has stomped your lights out..."
"this Mark Lane review has them running after their tails."
"the nutter's need something to grasp onto, Walt. After all, they've
been neutered by Mark Lane, AGAIN! fer GAWD sakes..."
[March 14]
"I think the Reclaiming History debacle has these folks in a complete
dither... yesterday Mark Lane capped it off, Lane's fireside chat with
Len Osanic is one of the best overviews of the JFK assassination/WCR
one can get in a 50 minute discussion, it was vintage Mark Lane. I bet
Lane even has his footnotes and cites memorized... He had a few
interesting tidbits concerning HBO and Tom Hanks also -- worth-a-
listen (Len needs some interviewer polish, Lane certainly needs NONE)
on BlackOp Radio."
"David Lifton and Mark Lane recently issued horrible blows to Lone Nut
sensitive egos, everywhere...."
[March 15]
"I'm sure the 03-13-2008 Mark Lane (Black Op Radio) segment has a few
eyes and ears and budgets re-evaluating."
[March 16]
"David Lifton and Mark Lane has the poor old chap (hence Vin Bugliosi)
in a dither...."
"no one, NO ONE cites this case, now or EVER better than Mark Lane."
"Lane has probably forgot more concerning the WCR than you'll ever
KNOW concerning same."
"Thank you Mark Lane, David Lifton and the many others... the TRUTH
always trumps Lone Nut bullshit."
"recently David Lifton and Mark Lane delivered crushing blows to their
collective EGO'S."
[March 17]
"Lifton and Lane surfacing to kick ass."
Holmes boldly asserted:
[March 10]
"Yep... LNT'ers even go to the extent of simply lying about what Mark
Lane has said, because clearly they can't deal with what he *actually*
wrote."
[March 12]
"How interesting that honest people support Mark Lane, and those of
dubious character support Bugliosi..."
[March 14]
"Mark Lane knew this... this is why his books are so well footnoted to
the evidence... cites and quotes abound. And since you *can't* refute
the evidence, neither can you refute Mark Lane."
"You *know* if you try to make a coherent argument against Mark Lane
that you're going to be shafted, point by point, and page by page, by
the actual evidence that Mark Lane brings to the table."
[March 16]
"Yep... Toddy can't respond to Mark Lane, any more than he can to the
knowledgeable CT'ers here."
Will this do?
-Mark
Bud
No, Ben specifically said "single example". These are multiple
examples, leaving an obvious kook loophole. Remember, no matter how
many times the kooks are caught in lies, it is they who are the honest
ones around here.