Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mark Lane #263 (Billy Clarke Continues To Show His Cowardice... Along with Johnny McAdams & Others...)
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
May 20, 2013, 9:13:45 AM5/20/13
to
In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane gave the statements of 16 people who were
never called as witnesses - despite the fact that they knew facts that
contradicted the Warren Commission's story.
"The Commission did call Joseph W. Johnson, Jr, who told counsel that he had
been
a bandleader at Ruby's nightclub continuously for more than six years. However,
he
was not asked how many police officers Ruby knew or if they frequented the club.
When I conducted a filmed and tape-recorded interview with Johnson in Dallas, I
asked him those questions.
Lane: Did Ruby know many Dallas police officers?
Johnson : Well, yes, he did. I'd say he knew probably half of the people on the
force.
Lane: There were about 1,200 police officers on the force.
Johnson: Yes, well I'm sure he knew about half of them. And he was very nice to
them.
I asked Johnson if police officers visited the club, and he replied, 'Yes, all
the
time. Off duty, on duty, and they were treated royally.'
Chief Curry's guess as to the number of policemen Ruby knew seems modest when
contrasted with the evidence in the Commission's own files. Yet it was the
guess,
not the evidence, upon which the Commission relied."
Mark Lane has just shown an obvious lie on the Warren Commission's part, Billy
Clarke will *CONTINUE* to run - and no LNT'er will dare step up to the plate and
explain why the Warren Commission was so willing to accept a guess on the part
of
a biased witness rather than the broad range of evidence from everyone.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
never called as witnesses - despite the fact that they knew facts that
contradicted the Warren Commission's story.
"The Commission did call Joseph W. Johnson, Jr, who told counsel that he had
been
a bandleader at Ruby's nightclub continuously for more than six years. However,
he
was not asked how many police officers Ruby knew or if they frequented the club.
When I conducted a filmed and tape-recorded interview with Johnson in Dallas, I
asked him those questions.
Lane: Did Ruby know many Dallas police officers?
Johnson : Well, yes, he did. I'd say he knew probably half of the people on the
force.
Lane: There were about 1,200 police officers on the force.
Johnson: Yes, well I'm sure he knew about half of them. And he was very nice to
them.
I asked Johnson if police officers visited the club, and he replied, 'Yes, all
the
time. Off duty, on duty, and they were treated royally.'
Chief Curry's guess as to the number of policemen Ruby knew seems modest when
contrasted with the evidence in the Commission's own files. Yet it was the
guess,
not the evidence, upon which the Commission relied."
Mark Lane has just shown an obvious lie on the Warren Commission's part, Billy
Clarke will *CONTINUE* to run - and no LNT'er will dare step up to the plate and
explain why the Warren Commission was so willing to accept a guess on the part
of
a biased witness rather than the broad range of evidence from everyone.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Bill Clarke
May 20, 2013, 12:33:45 PM5/20/13
to
In article <knd7i...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
Top post. And Benny continues to show what an anal little child he is by
playing with the subject line. No doubt he still sucks his thumb. Among other
things.
Bill Clarke
>
Top post. And Benny continues to show what an anal little child he is by
playing with the subject line. No doubt he still sucks his thumb. Among other
things.
Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
May 21, 2013, 9:09:41 AM5/21/13
to
In article <kndj9...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
subject line?
Again you show your cowardice by refusing to address the topic - thus
illustrating that my subject line is THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
>
>In article <knd7i...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>
>Top post. And Benny continues to show what an anal little child he is by
>playing with the subject line. No doubt he still sucks his thumb. Among other
>things.
>
>Bill Clarke
I write the post - why do you apparently think that I can't also compose the
>In article <knd7i...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>
>Top post. And Benny continues to show what an anal little child he is by
>playing with the subject line. No doubt he still sucks his thumb. Among other
>things.
>
>Bill Clarke
subject line?
Again you show your cowardice by refusing to address the topic - thus
illustrating that my subject line is THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
Bill Clarke
May 21, 2013, 3:25:04 PM5/21/13
to
In article <knfrm...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
juvenile and dirty. It shows, Holmes, what an immature prick you are.
Bill Clarke
>
>In article <kndj9...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>>In article <knd7i...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>
>>
>>Top post. And Benny continues to show what an anal little child he is by
>>playing with the subject line. No doubt he still sucks his thumb. Among other
>>things.
>>
>>Bill Clarke
>
>
>I write the post - why do you apparently think that I can't also compose the
>subject line?
>
>Again you show your cowardice by refusing to address the topic - thus
>illustrating that my subject line is THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
Your playing with the subject line is much like a baby playing in the mud. Both
>In article <kndj9...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>>In article <knd7i...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>
>>
>>Top post. And Benny continues to show what an anal little child he is by
>>playing with the subject line. No doubt he still sucks his thumb. Among other
>>things.
>>
>>Bill Clarke
>
>
>I write the post - why do you apparently think that I can't also compose the
>subject line?
>
>Again you show your cowardice by refusing to address the topic - thus
>illustrating that my subject line is THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
juvenile and dirty. It shows, Holmes, what an immature prick you are.
Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
May 22, 2013, 9:22:38 AM5/22/13
to
In article <knghm...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
headlines are the only way to show that you're a coward, then I'll be happy to
use 'em.
Keep running from what Mark Lane said - it simply proves your cowardice.
>
>In article <knfrm...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>In article <kndj9...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>
>>>In article <knd7i...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>>
>>>
>>>Top post. And Benny continues to show what an anal little child he is by
>>>playing with the subject line. No doubt he still sucks his thumb. Among
other
>>>things.
>>>
>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>>I write the post - why do you apparently think that I can't also compose the
>>subject line?
>>
>>Again you show your cowardice by refusing to address the topic - thus
>>illustrating that my subject line is THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
>
>Your playing with the subject line is much like a baby playing in the mud.
Both
>juvenile and dirty. It shows, Holmes, what an immature prick you are.
>
>Bill Clarke
You're too much of a yellow coward to reply to the subject matter - so if
>In article <knfrm...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>In article <kndj9...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>
>>>In article <knd7i...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>>
>>>
>>>Top post. And Benny continues to show what an anal little child he is by
>>>playing with the subject line. No doubt he still sucks his thumb. Among
other
>>>things.
>>>
>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>>I write the post - why do you apparently think that I can't also compose the
>>subject line?
>>
>>Again you show your cowardice by refusing to address the topic - thus
>>illustrating that my subject line is THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
>
>Your playing with the subject line is much like a baby playing in the mud.
Both
>juvenile and dirty. It shows, Holmes, what an immature prick you are.
>
>Bill Clarke
headlines are the only way to show that you're a coward, then I'll be happy to
use 'em.
Keep running from what Mark Lane said - it simply proves your cowardice.
Bill Clarke
May 22, 2013, 12:09:15 PM5/22/13
to
In article <knigq...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
years now. As such I have no reason to waste time on anything he has to say.
Once a liar always a liar. Just like you.
Bill Clarke
>
>In article <knghm...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>>In article <knfrm...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>
>>>In article <kndj9...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>>
>>>>In article <knd7i...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Top post. And Benny continues to show what an anal little child he is by
>>>>playing with the subject line. No doubt he still sucks his thumb. Among
>other
>>>>things.
>>>>
>>>>Bill Clarke
>>>
>>>
>>>I write the post - why do you apparently think that I can't also compose the
>>>subject line?
>>>
>>>Again you show your cowardice by refusing to address the topic - thus
>>>illustrating that my subject line is THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
>>
>>Your playing with the subject line is much like a baby playing in the mud.
>Both
>>juvenile and dirty. It shows, Holmes, what an immature prick you are.
>>
>>Bill Clarke
>
>
>You're too much of a yellow coward to reply to the subject matter - so if
>headlines are the only way to show that you're a coward, then I'll be happy to
>use 'em.
>
>
>Keep running from what Mark Lane said - it simply proves your cowardice.
What it proves, you ignorant shit, is that I've know Mark Lane to be a liar for
>In article <knghm...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>>In article <knfrm...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>
>>>In article <kndj9...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>>
>>>>In article <knd7i...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Top post. And Benny continues to show what an anal little child he is by
>>>>playing with the subject line. No doubt he still sucks his thumb. Among
>other
>>>>things.
>>>>
>>>>Bill Clarke
>>>
>>>
>>>I write the post - why do you apparently think that I can't also compose the
>>>subject line?
>>>
>>>Again you show your cowardice by refusing to address the topic - thus
>>>illustrating that my subject line is THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
>>
>>Your playing with the subject line is much like a baby playing in the mud.
>Both
>>juvenile and dirty. It shows, Holmes, what an immature prick you are.
>>
>>Bill Clarke
>
>
>You're too much of a yellow coward to reply to the subject matter - so if
>headlines are the only way to show that you're a coward, then I'll be happy to
>use 'em.
>
>
>Keep running from what Mark Lane said - it simply proves your cowardice.
years now. As such I have no reason to waste time on anything he has to say.
Once a liar always a liar. Just like you.
Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
May 22, 2013, 3:11:32 PM5/22/13
to
In article <kniqj...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
You can "know" Mark Lane is a "liar" - but sadly for your character, you can't
demonstrate it in this forum. No-one here is interested in Vietnam...
Your cowardice in continuing to claim Mark Lane is a "liar" on the topic of the
JFK assassination - with *NO* demonstration of this, simply illustrates *YOUR*
dishonesty.
Keep running from what Mark Lane said - it simply proves your cowardice.
demonstrate it in this forum. No-one here is interested in Vietnam...
Your cowardice in continuing to claim Mark Lane is a "liar" on the topic of the
JFK assassination - with *NO* demonstration of this, simply illustrates *YOUR*
dishonesty.
Keep running from what Mark Lane said - it simply proves your cowardice.
timstter
May 23, 2013, 6:31:23 PM5/23/13
to
On May 23, 5:11 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <kniqjb01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <knigqu0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>In article <knghmg0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>In article <knfrml02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>>In article <kndj9901...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>>>In article <knd7i90...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
I've demonstrated many times on this forum that Mark Lane is a liar on
JFK, Holmes, as have others.
And Bill has read the posts.
Case CLOSED on your blatant IDIOCY re Lane not lying about the JFK
assassination.
Lane couldn't lie straight in bed.
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
> In article <kniqjb01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <knigqu0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>In article <knghmg0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>In article <knfrml02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>>In article <kndj9901...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>>>In article <knd7i90...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
JFK, Holmes, as have others.
And Bill has read the posts.
Case CLOSED on your blatant IDIOCY re Lane not lying about the JFK
assassination.
Lane couldn't lie straight in bed.
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
aeffects
May 23, 2013, 9:13:10 PM5/23/13
to
Bill Clarke. Embarrassing to him because he let a notorious DD221'er
rope him into posting here. A moron who hasn't even read Mark Lane's
tremendous book Rush to Judgement... It (RTJ)simply terrifies .john
lone nut trolls these days.... Hilarious, being scared over a book
published nearly 50 years ago....!
RTJ owns .john-ite lone nut trolls such as yourself. It's amazing
watching you chase your tail as you wander drunkedly through the maze
of case evidence....
<snip the remaining tripe>
Ben Holmes
May 23, 2013, 9:24:44 PM5/23/13
to
In article <70075430-6309-4c17...@qc10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On May 23, 3:31=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> he is by
>> > >>>>>playing with the subject line. =A0No doubt he still sucks his thum=
>b. =A0Among
>> > >>other
>> > >>>>>things.
>>
>> > >>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> > >>>>I write the post - why do you apparently think that I can't also co=
>mpose the
>> > >>>>subject line?
>>
>> > >>>>Again you show your cowardice by refusing to address the topic - th=
>e mud.
>> > >>Both
>> > >>>juvenile and dirty. =A0It shows, Holmes, what an immature prick you =
>are.
>>
>> > >>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> > >>You're too much of a yellow coward to reply to the subject matter - s=
>o if
>> > >>headlines are the only way to show that you're a coward, then I'll be=
> happy to
>> > >>use 'em.
>>
>> > >>Keep running from what Mark Lane said - it simply proves your cowardi=
>ce.
>>
>> > >What it proves, you ignorant shit, is that I've know Mark Lane to be a=
> liar for
>> > >years now. =A0As such I have no reason to waste time on anything he ha=
>s to say.
>> > >Once a liar always a liar. =A0Just like you.
>>
>> > >Bill Clarke
>>
>> > You can "know" Mark Lane is a "liar" - but sadly for your character, yo=
>c of the
>> > JFK assassination - with *NO* demonstration of this, simply illustrates=
> *YOUR*
>> > dishonesty.
>>
>> > Keep running from what Mark Lane said - it simply proves your cowardice=
>.
>>
>> > >>>>>>In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane gave the statements of 16 p=
>eople who
>> > >>>>were
>> > >>>>>>never called as witnesses - despite the fact that they knew facts=
>that he
>> > had
>> > >>>>>>been
>> > >>>>>>a bandleader at Ruby's nightclub continuously for more than six y=
>ears.
>> > >>>>However,
>> > >>>>>>he
>> > >>>>>>was not asked how many police officers Ruby knew or if they frequ=
>ented the
>> > >>>>club.
>> > >>>>>>When I conducted a filmed and tape-recorded interview with Johnso=
> modest
>> > >>when
>> > >>>>>>contrasted with the evidence in the Commission's own files. Yet i=
>s part,
>> > >>Billy
>> > >>>>>>Clarke will *CONTINUE* to run - and no LNT'er will dare step up t=
>o the
>> > plate
>> > >>>>and
>> > >>>>>>explain why the Warren Commission was so willing to accept a gues=
>ryone.
But perhaps this is why Billy refuses to quote any proof of his claim that
others have CITED and provided EVIDENCE for these mythical "lies" of Mark
Lane's.
Indeed, the only *serious* attempt led to Jean fleeing back to the censored
forum without admitting that she'd been proven wrong. I had to chase her into
the censored forum to get her to admit that her 'math' was wrong, and Mark
Lane's was correct.
>> And Bill has read the posts.
>
>Your Mark Lane wetdream-nonsense has to be terribly embarrassing for
>Bill Clarke. Embarrassing to him because he let a notorious DD221'er
>rope him into posting here. A moron who hasn't even read Mark Lane's
>tremendous book Rush to Judgement...
Indeed, he even seems proud of his ignorance...
>It (RTJ)simply terrifies .john
>lone nut trolls these days.... Hilarious, being scared over a book
>published nearly 50 years ago....!
Yep... I'm up past 265 - and you can count on one hand the posts where kooks
have even *tried* to point out errors (and failed).
Of course, if Mark Lane had claimed that Perry and Carrico described the
original bullet wound in JFK's throat to be "ragged" - these kooks would be all
over him for such a lie.
>RTJ owns .john-ite lone nut trolls such as yourself. It's amazing
>watching you chase your tail as you wander drunkedly through the maze
>of case evidence....
>
><snip the remaining tripe>
aeffects says...
>
>On May 23, 3:31=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 23, 5:11=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <kniqjb01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> > >In article <knigqu0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> > >>In article <knghmg0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> > >>>In article <knfrml02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> > >>>>In article <kndj9901...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> > >>>>>In article <knd7i90...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> > >>>>>Top post. =A0And Benny continues to show what an anal little child=
>>
>> > In article <kniqjb01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> > >In article <knigqu0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> > >>In article <knghmg0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> > >>>In article <knfrml02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> > >>>>In article <kndj9901...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> > >>>>>In article <knd7i90...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
> he is by
>> > >>>>>playing with the subject line. =A0No doubt he still sucks his thum=
>b. =A0Among
>> > >>other
>> > >>>>>things.
>>
>> > >>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> > >>>>I write the post - why do you apparently think that I can't also co=
>mpose the
>> > >>>>subject line?
>>
>> > >>>>Again you show your cowardice by refusing to address the topic - th=
>us
>> > >>>>illustrating that my subject line is THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
>>
>> > >>>Your playing with the subject line is much like a baby playing in th=
>> > >>>>illustrating that my subject line is THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
>>
>e mud.
>> > >>Both
>> > >>>juvenile and dirty. =A0It shows, Holmes, what an immature prick you =
>are.
>>
>> > >>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> > >>You're too much of a yellow coward to reply to the subject matter - s=
>o if
>> > >>headlines are the only way to show that you're a coward, then I'll be=
> happy to
>> > >>use 'em.
>>
>> > >>Keep running from what Mark Lane said - it simply proves your cowardi=
>ce.
>>
>> > >What it proves, you ignorant shit, is that I've know Mark Lane to be a=
> liar for
>> > >years now. =A0As such I have no reason to waste time on anything he ha=
>s to say.
>> > >Once a liar always a liar. =A0Just like you.
>>
>> > >Bill Clarke
>>
>> > You can "know" Mark Lane is a "liar" - but sadly for your character, yo=
>u can't
>> > demonstrate it in this forum. No-one here is interested in Vietnam...
>>
>> > Your cowardice in continuing to claim Mark Lane is a "liar" on the topi=
>> > demonstrate it in this forum. No-one here is interested in Vietnam...
>>
>c of the
>> > JFK assassination - with *NO* demonstration of this, simply illustrates=
> *YOUR*
>> > dishonesty.
>>
>> > Keep running from what Mark Lane said - it simply proves your cowardice=
>.
>>
>> > >>>>>>In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane gave the statements of 16 p=
>eople who
>> > >>>>were
>> > >>>>>>never called as witnesses - despite the fact that they knew facts=
> that
>> > >>>>>>contradicted the Warren Commission's story.
>>
>> > >>>>>>"The Commission did call Joseph W. Johnson, Jr, who told counsel =
>> > >>>>>>contradicted the Warren Commission's story.
>>
>that he
>> > had
>> > >>>>>>been
>> > >>>>>>a bandleader at Ruby's nightclub continuously for more than six y=
>ears.
>> > >>>>However,
>> > >>>>>>he
>> > >>>>>>was not asked how many police officers Ruby knew or if they frequ=
>ented the
>> > >>>>club.
>> > >>>>>>When I conducted a filmed and tape-recorded interview with Johnso=
>n in
>> > >>Dallas,
>> > >>>>I
>> > >>>>>>asked him those questions.
>>
>> > >>>>>>Lane: Did Ruby know many Dallas police officers?
>>
>> > >>>>>>Johnson : Well, yes, he did. I'd say he knew probably half of the=
>> > >>Dallas,
>> > >>>>I
>> > >>>>>>asked him those questions.
>>
>> > >>>>>>Lane: Did Ruby know many Dallas police officers?
>>
> people
>> > on
>> > >>>>the
>> > >>>>>>force.
>>
>> > >>>>>>Lane: There were about 1,200 police officers on the force.
>>
>> > >>>>>>Johnson: Yes, well I'm sure he knew about half of them. And he wa=
>> > on
>> > >>>>the
>> > >>>>>>force.
>>
>> > >>>>>>Lane: There were about 1,200 police officers on the force.
>>
>s very
>> > nice
>> > >>>>to
>> > >>>>>>them.
>>
>> > >>>>>>I asked Johnson if police officers visited the club, and he repli=
>> > nice
>> > >>>>to
>> > >>>>>>them.
>>
>ed, 'Yes,
>> > >>all
>> > >>>>>>the
>> > >>>>>>time. Off duty, on duty, and they were treated royally.'
>>
>> > >>>>>>Chief Curry's guess as to the number of policemen Ruby knew seems=
>> > >>all
>> > >>>>>>the
>> > >>>>>>time. Off duty, on duty, and they were treated royally.'
>>
> modest
>> > >>when
>> > >>>>>>contrasted with the evidence in the Commission's own files. Yet i=
>t was the
>> > >>>>>>guess,
>> > >>>>>>not the evidence, upon which the Commission relied."
>>
>> > >>>>>>Mark Lane has just shown an obvious lie on the Warren Commission'=
>> > >>>>>>guess,
>> > >>>>>>not the evidence, upon which the Commission relied."
>>
>s part,
>> > >>Billy
>> > >>>>>>Clarke will *CONTINUE* to run - and no LNT'er will dare step up t=
>o the
>> > plate
>> > >>>>and
>> > >>>>>>explain why the Warren Commission was so willing to accept a gues=
>s on the
>> > >>part
>> > >>>>>>of
>> > >>>>>>a biased witness rather than the broad range of evidence from eve=
>> > >>part
>> > >>>>>>of
>ryone.
>>
>>
>> I've demonstrated many times on this forum that Mark Lane is a liar on
>> JFK, Holmes, as have others.
You're lying again, Timmy...
>>
>> I've demonstrated many times on this forum that Mark Lane is a liar on
>> JFK, Holmes, as have others.
But perhaps this is why Billy refuses to quote any proof of his claim that
others have CITED and provided EVIDENCE for these mythical "lies" of Mark
Lane's.
Indeed, the only *serious* attempt led to Jean fleeing back to the censored
forum without admitting that she'd been proven wrong. I had to chase her into
the censored forum to get her to admit that her 'math' was wrong, and Mark
Lane's was correct.
>> And Bill has read the posts.
>
>Your Mark Lane wetdream-nonsense has to be terribly embarrassing for
>Bill Clarke. Embarrassing to him because he let a notorious DD221'er
>rope him into posting here. A moron who hasn't even read Mark Lane's
>tremendous book Rush to Judgement...
>It (RTJ)simply terrifies .john
>lone nut trolls these days.... Hilarious, being scared over a book
>published nearly 50 years ago....!
have even *tried* to point out errors (and failed).
Of course, if Mark Lane had claimed that Perry and Carrico described the
original bullet wound in JFK's throat to be "ragged" - these kooks would be all
over him for such a lie.
>RTJ owns .john-ite lone nut trolls such as yourself. It's amazing
>watching you chase your tail as you wander drunkedly through the maze
>of case evidence....
>
><snip the remaining tripe>
Mark Ulrik
May 24, 2013, 5:30:22 AM5/24/13
to
On 24 Maj, 03:24, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <70075430-6309-4c17-8b7b-db00d871a...@qc10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
There is nothing mythical about them. Just to cite one example:
LANE: Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the
shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came from the
knoll.
EVIDENCE: Using Lane's own sources (Decker Ex 5323 and CE 2003) and
witness selection criteria (gave statements/affidavits on 11/22 or 23
about the origin of the shots), any honest person can easily find more
than three (25 minus 22) witnesses who DIDN'T point to the knoll.
We've been over this before, of course. Ben ran away when I named 4
witnesses who pointed to the TSBD and asked him to show me his math.
> Indeed, the only *serious* attempt led to Jean fleeing back to the censored
> forum without admitting that she'd been proven wrong. I had to chase her into
> the censored forum to get her to admit that her 'math' was wrong, and Mark
> Lane's was correct.
But Lane's math isn't correct. He was lying, and so are you.
> >> And Bill has read the posts.
>
> >Your Mark Lane wetdream-nonsense has to be terribly embarrassing for
> >Bill Clarke. Embarrassing to him because he let a notorious DD221'er
> >rope him into posting here. A moron who hasn't even read Mark Lane's
> >tremendous book Rush to Judgement...
>
> Indeed, he even seems proud of his ignorance...
Translation: Unable to defend the lies in RTJ, Ben and his obedient
manservant have no choice but to run from "inconvenient" posts by Tim,
Bud, Hank and others who point them out. Instead, the foul-mouthed duo
attacks the one poster here who has professed no desire to read the
book, as if this somehow vindicates Lane.
> >It (RTJ)simply terrifies .john
> >lone nut trolls these days.... Hilarious, being scared over a book
> >published nearly 50 years ago....!
>
> Yep... I'm up past 265 - and you can count on one hand the posts where kooks
> have even *tried* to point out errors (and failed).
You're lying again, Yellow Pants.
> Of course, if Mark Lane had claimed that Perry and Carrico described the
> original bullet wound in JFK's throat to be "ragged" - these kooks would be all
> over him for such a lie.
How about focusing on his actual lies (of which there is no shortage)
instead of inventing new ones?
> In article <70075430-6309-4c17-8b7b-db00d871a...@qc10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
LANE: Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the
shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came from the
knoll.
EVIDENCE: Using Lane's own sources (Decker Ex 5323 and CE 2003) and
witness selection criteria (gave statements/affidavits on 11/22 or 23
about the origin of the shots), any honest person can easily find more
than three (25 minus 22) witnesses who DIDN'T point to the knoll.
We've been over this before, of course. Ben ran away when I named 4
witnesses who pointed to the TSBD and asked him to show me his math.
> Indeed, the only *serious* attempt led to Jean fleeing back to the censored
> forum without admitting that she'd been proven wrong. I had to chase her into
> the censored forum to get her to admit that her 'math' was wrong, and Mark
> Lane's was correct.
> >> And Bill has read the posts.
>
> >Your Mark Lane wetdream-nonsense has to be terribly embarrassing for
> >Bill Clarke. Embarrassing to him because he let a notorious DD221'er
> >rope him into posting here. A moron who hasn't even read Mark Lane's
> >tremendous book Rush to Judgement...
>
> Indeed, he even seems proud of his ignorance...
manservant have no choice but to run from "inconvenient" posts by Tim,
Bud, Hank and others who point them out. Instead, the foul-mouthed duo
attacks the one poster here who has professed no desire to read the
book, as if this somehow vindicates Lane.
> >It (RTJ)simply terrifies .john
> >lone nut trolls these days.... Hilarious, being scared over a book
> >published nearly 50 years ago....!
>
> Yep... I'm up past 265 - and you can count on one hand the posts where kooks
> have even *tried* to point out errors (and failed).
> Of course, if Mark Lane had claimed that Perry and Carrico described the
> original bullet wound in JFK's throat to be "ragged" - these kooks would be all
> over him for such a lie.
instead of inventing new ones?
aeffects
May 24, 2013, 2:34:57 PM5/24/13
to
angst is misplaced, Lane knows PR and PR coupled with truth regarding
this case is devastating to the lone nut/SBT/WCR/LHO did it all by his
lonesome case. Crawl back in you Paul May hideout-aliases (Jason Burke-
Mark Ulrik). Your faux rising to the occasion makes you look the damn
fool.... so.... please continue! LMFAO!
Ben Holmes
May 24, 2013, 3:03:39 PM5/24/13
to
In article <ea85c6eb-7644-47f3...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>ups.com>,
>> > aeffects says...
>>
>> > >On May 23, 3:31=3DA0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>e child=3D
>> > > he is by
>> > >> > >>>>>playing with the subject line. =3DA0No doubt he still sucks h=
>is thum=3D
>> > >b. =3DA0Among
>> > >> > >>other
>> > >> > >>>>>things.
>>
>> > >> > >>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> > >> > >>>>I write the post - why do you apparently think that I can't al=
>so co=3D
>> > >mpose the
>> > >> > >>>>subject line?
>>
>> > >> > >>>>Again you show your cowardice by refusing to address the topic=
> - th=3D
>in th=3D
>> > >e mud.
>> > >> > >>Both
>> > >> > >>>juvenile and dirty. =3DA0It shows, Holmes, what an immature pri=
>ck you =3D
>> > >are.
>>
>> > >> > >>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> > >> > >>You're too much of a yellow coward to reply to the subject matte=
>r - s=3D
>> > >o if
>> > >> > >>headlines are the only way to show that you're a coward, then I'=
>ll be=3D
>> > > happy to
>> > >> > >>use 'em.
>>
>> > >> > >>Keep running from what Mark Lane said - it simply proves your co=
>wardi=3D
>> > >ce.
>>
>> > >> > >What it proves, you ignorant shit, is that I've know Mark Lane to=
> be a=3D
>> > > liar for
>> > >> > >years now. =3DA0As such I have no reason to waste time on anythin=
>g he ha=3D
>> > >s to say.
>> > >> > >Once a liar always a liar. =3DA0Just like you.
>>
>> > >> > >Bill Clarke
>>
>> > >> > You can "know" Mark Lane is a "liar" - but sadly for your characte=
>r, yo=3D
>> > >u can't
>> > >> > demonstrate it in this forum. No-one here is interested in Vietnam=
>...
>>
>> > >> > Your cowardice in continuing to claim Mark Lane is a "liar" on the=
> topi=3D
>> > >c of the
>> > >> > JFK assassination - with *NO* demonstration of this, simply illust=
>rates=3D
>> > > *YOUR*
>> > >> > dishonesty.
>>
>> > >> > Keep running from what Mark Lane said - it simply proves your cowa=
>rdice=3D
>> > >.
>>
>> > >> > >>>>>>In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane gave the statements of=
> 16 p=3D
>> > >eople who
>> > >> > >>>>were
>> > >> > >>>>>>never called as witnesses - despite the fact that they knew =
>facts=3D
>nsel =3D
>> > >that he
>> > >> > had
>> > >> > >>>>>>been
>> > >> > >>>>>>a bandleader at Ruby's nightclub continuously for more than =
>six y=3D
>> > >ears.
>> > >> > >>>>However,
>> > >> > >>>>>>he
>> > >> > >>>>>>was not asked how many police officers Ruby knew or if they =
>frequ=3D
>> > >ented the
>> > >> > >>>>club.
>> > >> > >>>>>>When I conducted a filmed and tape-recorded interview with J=
>ohnso=3D
>f the=3D
>he wa=3D
>repli=3D
>seems=3D
>> > > modest
>> > >> > >>when
>> > >> > >>>>>>contrasted with the evidence in the Commission's own files. =
>Yet i=3D
>sion'=3D
>> > >s part,
>> > >> > >>Billy
>> > >> > >>>>>>Clarke will *CONTINUE* to run - and no LNT'er will dare step=
> up t=3D
>> > >o the
>> > >> > plate
>> > >> > >>>>and
>> > >> > >>>>>>explain why the Warren Commission was so willing to accept a=
> gues=3D
>m eve=3D
>> > >ryone.
>>
>> > >> I've demonstrated many times on this forum that Mark Lane is a liar =
>hat
>> > others have CITED and provided EVIDENCE for these mythical "lies" of Ma=
If it weren't you'd be able to QUOTE Billy quoting such an example.
But you can't... you're a troll.
>> LANE: Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
>> affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the
>> shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came from the
>> knoll.
>>
>> EVIDENCE: Using Lane's own sources (Decker Ex 5323 and CE 2003) and
>> witness selection criteria (gave statements/affidavits on 11/22 or 23
>> about the origin of the shots), any honest person can easily find more
>> than three (25 minus 22) witnesses who DIDN'T point to the knoll.
You're lying...
You see, if you were telling the truth, YOU'D SIMPLY QUOTE & CITE 4 EYEWITNESS
STATEMENTS.
Instead, you're doing exactly as Billy is - making unsupportable assertions.
>> We've been over this before, of course. Ben ran away when I named 4
>> witnesses who pointed to the TSBD and asked him to show me his math.
Never happened... you're lying again.
Indeed, Jean, when nailed on this point, admitted that she was unfamiliar with a
Youtube interview that proved her wrong. AFTER running away to the censored
forum...
This was ages ago... it's interesting that you can't teach these kooks
anything... Jean will admit it, but no-one else will...
And, of course, we have over 265 posts now, and presuming that it was accepted
that kooks have a point on *this* issue, it still leaves over 265 posts
unanswered.
>> > Indeed, the only *serious* attempt led to Jean fleeing back to the cens=
>ored
>> > forum without admitting that she'd been proven wrong. I had to chase he=
>r into
>> > the censored forum to get her to admit that her 'math' was wrong, and M=
>> > >> And Bill has read the posts.
>>
>> > >Your Mark Lane wetdream-nonsense has to be terribly embarrassing for
>> > >Bill Clarke. Embarrassing to him because he let a notorious DD221'er
>> > >rope him into posting here. A moron who hasn't even read Mark Lane's
>> > >tremendous book Rush to Judgement...
>>
>> > Indeed, he even seems proud of his ignorance...
>>
>> Translation: Unable to defend the lies in RTJ,
Your "translation" leaves a lot to be desired... Billy's pride in his ignorance
of what Mark Lane said has nothing to do with what you "translated".
>> Ben and his obedient
>> manservant have no choice but to run from "inconvenient" posts by Tim,
>> Bud, Hank and others who point them out.
Post 'em here... CITE for them... then be ready to defend it.
But you can't... you're a troll
>> Instead, the foul-mouthed duo
>> attacks the one poster here who has professed no desire to read the
>> book, as if this somehow vindicates Lane.
You seem to have an honesty issue here... Billy is willing to label Mark Lane a
liar EVEN THOUGH HE REFUSES TO READ ANYTHING HE WROTE.
If I labeled Bugliosi a liar - then admitted that I'd never read his book, you'd
have a valid argument and complaint to lay against me. (Of course, I *HAVE* read
his book, and he *IS* a liar...)
So tell us, why is it okay for Billy to refuse to read Mark Lane's book, yet
continue repeatedly to label him a liar?
>> > >It (RTJ)simply terrifies .john
>> > >lone nut trolls these days.... Hilarious, being scared over a book
>> > >published nearly 50 years ago....!
>>
>> > Yep... I'm up past 265 - and you can count on one hand the posts where =
refutations.
>> > Of course, if Mark Lane had claimed that Perry and Carrico described
>> > the original bullet wound in JFK's throat to be "ragged" - these kooks
>> > would be all over him for such a lie.
>>
>> How about focusing on his actual lies (of which there is no shortage)
>> instead of inventing new ones?
Since this was *actually* said by Bugliosi - it seems that you're *ALMOST*
willing to state for the record that Bugliosi lied.
But you won't.
>and YOU troll KNOW Lane has lone nut trolls by the short ones, your
>angst is misplaced, Lane knows PR and PR coupled with truth regarding
>this case is devastating to the lone nut/SBT/WCR/LHO did it all by his
>lonesome case. Crawl back in you Paul May hideout-aliases (Jason Burke-
>Mark Ulrik). Your faux rising to the occasion makes you look the damn
>fool.... so.... please continue! LMFAO!
Nothing but ignorant trolls left, these days...
Most of the Warren Commission defenders have run away from the Amazon forums...
>> > >RTJ owns .john-ite lone nut trolls such as yourself. It's amazing
>> > >watching you chase your tail as you wander drunkedly through the maze
>> > >of case evidence....
>>
>> > ><snip the remaining tripe>
>
aeffects says...
>
>On May 24, 2:30=A0am, Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk> wrote:
>> On 24 Maj, 03:24, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> > In article <70075430-6309-4c17-8b7b-db00d871a...@qc10g2000pbb.googlegro=
>On May 24, 2:30=A0am, Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk> wrote:
>> On 24 Maj, 03:24, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>ups.com>,
>> > aeffects says...
>>
>> > >On May 23, 3:31=3DA0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> On May 23, 5:11=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > In article <kniqjb01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> > >> > >In article <knigqu0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> > >> > >>In article <knghmg0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> > >> > >>>In article <knfrml02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> > >> > >>>>In article <kndj9901...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> > >> > >>>>>In article <knd7i90...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> > >> > >>>>>Top post. =3DA0And Benny continues to show what an anal littl=
>>
>> > >> > In article <kniqjb01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> > >> > >In article <knigqu0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> > >> > >>In article <knghmg0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> > >> > >>>In article <knfrml02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> > >> > >>>>In article <kndj9901...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> > >> > >>>>>In article <knd7i90...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>e child=3D
>> > > he is by
>> > >> > >>>>>playing with the subject line. =3DA0No doubt he still sucks h=
>is thum=3D
>> > >b. =3DA0Among
>> > >> > >>other
>> > >> > >>>>>things.
>>
>> > >> > >>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> > >> > >>>>I write the post - why do you apparently think that I can't al=
>so co=3D
>> > >mpose the
>> > >> > >>>>subject line?
>>
>> > >> > >>>>Again you show your cowardice by refusing to address the topic=
> - th=3D
>> > >us
>> > >> > >>>>illustrating that my subject line is THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
>>
>> > >> > >>>Your playing with the subject line is much like a baby playing =
>> > >> > >>>>illustrating that my subject line is THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
>>
>in th=3D
>> > >e mud.
>> > >> > >>Both
>> > >> > >>>juvenile and dirty. =3DA0It shows, Holmes, what an immature pri=
>ck you =3D
>> > >are.
>>
>> > >> > >>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> > >> > >>You're too much of a yellow coward to reply to the subject matte=
>r - s=3D
>> > >o if
>> > >> > >>headlines are the only way to show that you're a coward, then I'=
>ll be=3D
>> > > happy to
>> > >> > >>use 'em.
>>
>> > >> > >>Keep running from what Mark Lane said - it simply proves your co=
>wardi=3D
>> > >ce.
>>
>> > >> > >What it proves, you ignorant shit, is that I've know Mark Lane to=
> be a=3D
>> > > liar for
>> > >> > >years now. =3DA0As such I have no reason to waste time on anythin=
>g he ha=3D
>> > >s to say.
>> > >> > >Once a liar always a liar. =3DA0Just like you.
>>
>> > >> > >Bill Clarke
>>
>> > >> > You can "know" Mark Lane is a "liar" - but sadly for your characte=
>r, yo=3D
>> > >u can't
>> > >> > demonstrate it in this forum. No-one here is interested in Vietnam=
>...
>>
>> > >> > Your cowardice in continuing to claim Mark Lane is a "liar" on the=
> topi=3D
>> > >c of the
>> > >> > JFK assassination - with *NO* demonstration of this, simply illust=
>rates=3D
>> > > *YOUR*
>> > >> > dishonesty.
>>
>> > >> > Keep running from what Mark Lane said - it simply proves your cowa=
>rdice=3D
>> > >.
>>
>> > >> > >>>>>>In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane gave the statements of=
> 16 p=3D
>> > >eople who
>> > >> > >>>>were
>> > >> > >>>>>>never called as witnesses - despite the fact that they knew =
>facts=3D
>> > > that
>> > >> > >>>>>>contradicted the Warren Commission's story.
>>
>> > >> > >>>>>>"The Commission did call Joseph W. Johnson, Jr, who told cou=
>> > >> > >>>>>>contradicted the Warren Commission's story.
>>
>nsel =3D
>> > >that he
>> > >> > had
>> > >> > >>>>>>been
>> > >> > >>>>>>a bandleader at Ruby's nightclub continuously for more than =
>six y=3D
>> > >ears.
>> > >> > >>>>However,
>> > >> > >>>>>>he
>> > >> > >>>>>>was not asked how many police officers Ruby knew or if they =
>frequ=3D
>> > >ented the
>> > >> > >>>>club.
>> > >> > >>>>>>When I conducted a filmed and tape-recorded interview with J=
>ohnso=3D
>> > >n in
>> > >> > >>Dallas,
>> > >> > >>>>I
>> > >> > >>>>>>asked him those questions.
>>
>> > >> > >>>>>>Lane: Did Ruby know many Dallas police officers?
>>
>> > >> > >>>>>>Johnson : Well, yes, he did. I'd say he knew probably half o=
>> > >> > >>Dallas,
>> > >> > >>>>I
>> > >> > >>>>>>asked him those questions.
>>
>> > >> > >>>>>>Lane: Did Ruby know many Dallas police officers?
>>
>f the=3D
>> > > people
>> > >> > on
>> > >> > >>>>the
>> > >> > >>>>>>force.
>>
>> > >> > >>>>>>Lane: There were about 1,200 police officers on the force.
>>
>> > >> > >>>>>>Johnson: Yes, well I'm sure he knew about half of them. And =
>> > >> > on
>> > >> > >>>>the
>> > >> > >>>>>>force.
>>
>> > >> > >>>>>>Lane: There were about 1,200 police officers on the force.
>>
>he wa=3D
>> > >s very
>> > >> > nice
>> > >> > >>>>to
>> > >> > >>>>>>them.
>>
>> > >> > >>>>>>I asked Johnson if police officers visited the club, and he =
>> > >> > nice
>> > >> > >>>>to
>> > >> > >>>>>>them.
>>
>repli=3D
>> > >ed, 'Yes,
>> > >> > >>all
>> > >> > >>>>>>the
>> > >> > >>>>>>time. Off duty, on duty, and they were treated royally.'
>>
>> > >> > >>>>>>Chief Curry's guess as to the number of policemen Ruby knew =
>> > >> > >>all
>> > >> > >>>>>>the
>> > >> > >>>>>>time. Off duty, on duty, and they were treated royally.'
>>
>seems=3D
>> > > modest
>> > >> > >>when
>> > >> > >>>>>>contrasted with the evidence in the Commission's own files. =
>Yet i=3D
>> > >t was the
>> > >> > >>>>>>guess,
>> > >> > >>>>>>not the evidence, upon which the Commission relied."
>>
>> > >> > >>>>>>Mark Lane has just shown an obvious lie on the Warren Commis=
>> > >> > >>>>>>guess,
>> > >> > >>>>>>not the evidence, upon which the Commission relied."
>>
>sion'=3D
>> > >s part,
>> > >> > >>Billy
>> > >> > >>>>>>Clarke will *CONTINUE* to run - and no LNT'er will dare step=
> up t=3D
>> > >o the
>> > >> > plate
>> > >> > >>>>and
>> > >> > >>>>>>explain why the Warren Commission was so willing to accept a=
> gues=3D
>> > >s on the
>> > >> > >>part
>> > >> > >>>>>>of
>> > >> > >>>>>>a biased witness rather than the broad range of evidence fro=
>> > >> > >>part
>> > >> > >>>>>>of
>m eve=3D
>> > >ryone.
>>
>> > >> I've demonstrated many times on this forum that Mark Lane is a liar =
>on
>> > >> JFK, Holmes, as have others.
>>
>> > You're lying again, Timmy...
>>
>> > But perhaps this is why Billy refuses to quote any proof of his claim t=
>> > >> JFK, Holmes, as have others.
>>
>> > You're lying again, Timmy...
>>
>hat
>> > others have CITED and provided EVIDENCE for these mythical "lies" of Ma=
>rk
>> > Lane's.
>>
>> There is nothing mythical about them. Just to cite one example:
Of *course* it's mythical.
>> > Lane's.
>>
>> There is nothing mythical about them. Just to cite one example:
If it weren't you'd be able to QUOTE Billy quoting such an example.
But you can't... you're a troll.
>> LANE: Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
>> affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the
>> shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came from the
>> knoll.
>>
>> EVIDENCE: Using Lane's own sources (Decker Ex 5323 and CE 2003) and
>> witness selection criteria (gave statements/affidavits on 11/22 or 23
>> about the origin of the shots), any honest person can easily find more
>> than three (25 minus 22) witnesses who DIDN'T point to the knoll.
You see, if you were telling the truth, YOU'D SIMPLY QUOTE & CITE 4 EYEWITNESS
STATEMENTS.
Instead, you're doing exactly as Billy is - making unsupportable assertions.
>> We've been over this before, of course. Ben ran away when I named 4
>> witnesses who pointed to the TSBD and asked him to show me his math.
Indeed, Jean, when nailed on this point, admitted that she was unfamiliar with a
Youtube interview that proved her wrong. AFTER running away to the censored
forum...
This was ages ago... it's interesting that you can't teach these kooks
anything... Jean will admit it, but no-one else will...
And, of course, we have over 265 posts now, and presuming that it was accepted
that kooks have a point on *this* issue, it still leaves over 265 posts
unanswered.
>> > Indeed, the only *serious* attempt led to Jean fleeing back to the cens=
>ored
>> > forum without admitting that she'd been proven wrong. I had to chase he=
>r into
>> > the censored forum to get her to admit that her 'math' was wrong, and M=
>ark
>> > Lane's was correct.
>>
>> But Lane's math isn't correct. He was lying, and so are you.
So go and tell Jean that she's lying...
>> > Lane's was correct.
>>
>> But Lane's math isn't correct. He was lying, and so are you.
>> > >> And Bill has read the posts.
>>
>> > >Your Mark Lane wetdream-nonsense has to be terribly embarrassing for
>> > >Bill Clarke. Embarrassing to him because he let a notorious DD221'er
>> > >rope him into posting here. A moron who hasn't even read Mark Lane's
>> > >tremendous book Rush to Judgement...
>>
>> > Indeed, he even seems proud of his ignorance...
>>
>> Translation: Unable to defend the lies in RTJ,
of what Mark Lane said has nothing to do with what you "translated".
>> Ben and his obedient
>> manservant have no choice but to run from "inconvenient" posts by Tim,
>> Bud, Hank and others who point them out.
But you can't... you're a troll
>> Instead, the foul-mouthed duo
>> attacks the one poster here who has professed no desire to read the
>> book, as if this somehow vindicates Lane.
liar EVEN THOUGH HE REFUSES TO READ ANYTHING HE WROTE.
If I labeled Bugliosi a liar - then admitted that I'd never read his book, you'd
have a valid argument and complaint to lay against me. (Of course, I *HAVE* read
his book, and he *IS* a liar...)
So tell us, why is it okay for Billy to refuse to read Mark Lane's book, yet
continue repeatedly to label him a liar?
>> > >It (RTJ)simply terrifies .john
>> > >lone nut trolls these days.... Hilarious, being scared over a book
>> > >published nearly 50 years ago....!
>>
>kooks
>> > have even *tried* to point out errors (and failed).
>>
>> You're lying again, Yellow Pants.
It would be simple indeed to prove me wrong... just CITE the relevant
>> > have even *tried* to point out errors (and failed).
>>
>> You're lying again, Yellow Pants.
refutations.
>> > Of course, if Mark Lane had claimed that Perry and Carrico described
>> > the original bullet wound in JFK's throat to be "ragged" - these kooks
>> > would be all over him for such a lie.
>>
>> How about focusing on his actual lies (of which there is no shortage)
>> instead of inventing new ones?
willing to state for the record that Bugliosi lied.
But you won't.
>and YOU troll KNOW Lane has lone nut trolls by the short ones, your
>angst is misplaced, Lane knows PR and PR coupled with truth regarding
>this case is devastating to the lone nut/SBT/WCR/LHO did it all by his
>lonesome case. Crawl back in you Paul May hideout-aliases (Jason Burke-
>Mark Ulrik). Your faux rising to the occasion makes you look the damn
>fool.... so.... please continue! LMFAO!
Most of the Warren Commission defenders have run away from the Amazon forums...
>> > >RTJ owns .john-ite lone nut trolls such as yourself. It's amazing
>> > >watching you chase your tail as you wander drunkedly through the maze
>> > >of case evidence....
>>
>> > ><snip the remaining tripe>
>
Mark Ulrik
May 24, 2013, 4:11:30 PM5/24/13
to
On 24 Maj, 21:03, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <ea85c6eb-7644-47f3-b8f9-7ca6d77b9...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>,
IOC. You have created an alternative universe where lies can be lies
only if they have been cited by Bill Clarke. And you call *us* kooks?
> But you can't... you're a troll.
>
> >> LANE: Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
> >> affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the
> >> shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came from the
> >> knoll.
>
> >> EVIDENCE: Using Lane's own sources (Decker Ex 5323 and CE 2003) and
> >> witness selection criteria (gave statements/affidavits on 11/22 or 23
> >> about the origin of the shots), any honest person can easily find more
> >> than three (25 minus 22) witnesses who DIDN'T point to the knoll.
>
> You're lying...
>
> You see, if you were telling the truth, YOU'D SIMPLY QUOTE & CITE 4 EYEWITNESS
> STATEMENTS.
Been there, done that.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6e05fbeca81ffe6d
> Instead, you're doing exactly as Billy is - making unsupportable assertions.
>
> >> We've been over this before, of course. Ben ran away when I named 4
> >> witnesses who pointed to the TSBD and asked him to show me his math.
>
> Never happened... you're lying again.
It did happen... you're still running.
> Indeed, Jean, when nailed on this point, admitted that she was unfamiliar with a
> Youtube interview that proved her wrong. AFTER running away to the censored
> forum...
>
> This was ages ago... it's interesting that you can't teach these kooks
> anything... Jean will admit it, but no-one else will...
>
> And, of course, we have over 265 posts now, and presuming that it was accepted
> that kooks have a point on *this* issue, it still leaves over 265 posts
> unanswered.
Your faith will never allow you to concede even that much. In the
alternative universe you have constructed for yourself, your God
(Lane) has to be perfect.
> >> > Indeed, the only *serious* attempt led to Jean fleeing back to the cens=
> >ored
> >> > forum without admitting that she'd been proven wrong. I had to chase he=
> >r into
> >> > the censored forum to get her to admit that her 'math' was wrong, and M=
> >ark
> >> > Lane's was correct.
>
> >> But Lane's math isn't correct. He was lying, and so are you.
>
> So go and tell Jean that she's lying...
Jean never claimed Lane's math was correct. You did.
> >> > >> And Bill has read the posts.
>
> >> > >Your Mark Lane wetdream-nonsense has to be terribly embarrassing for
> >> > >Bill Clarke. Embarrassing to him because he let a notorious DD221'er
> >> > >rope him into posting here. A moron who hasn't even read Mark Lane's
> >> > >tremendous book Rush to Judgement...
>
> >> > Indeed, he even seems proud of his ignorance...
>
> >> Translation: Unable to defend the lies in RTJ,
>
> Your "translation" leaves a lot to be desired... Billy's pride in his ignorance
> of what Mark Lane said has nothing to do with what you "translated".
>
> >> Ben and his obedient
> >> manservant have no choice but to run from "inconvenient" posts by Tim,
> >> Bud, Hank and others who point them out.
>
> Post 'em here... CITE for them... then be ready to defend it.
>
> But you can't... you're a troll
You expect me to debate someone who has me killfiled and won't be able
to read my posts?
If you're serious about this, however, then we can begin with the
example I cited above. Deal?
> >> Instead, the foul-mouthed duo
> >> attacks the one poster here who has professed no desire to read the
> >> book, as if this somehow vindicates Lane.
>
> You seem to have an honesty issue here... Billy is willing to label Mark Lane a
> liar EVEN THOUGH HE REFUSES TO READ ANYTHING HE WROTE.
Are you an idiot? He read "Conversations With Americans" and concluded
that Lane was full of it.
> If I labeled Bugliosi a liar - then admitted that I'd never read his book, you'd
> have a valid argument and complaint to lay against me. (Of course, I *HAVE* read
> his book, and he *IS* a liar...)
Translation: You found *one* error in a 1600+ page book.
> So tell us, why is it okay for Billy to refuse to read Mark Lane's book, yet
> continue repeatedly to label him a liar?
Because Lane is a liar (despite what your religion says).
> >> > >It (RTJ)simply terrifies .john
> >> > >lone nut trolls these days.... Hilarious, being scared over a book
> >> > >published nearly 50 years ago....!
>
> >> > Yep... I'm up past 265 - and you can count on one hand the posts where =
> >kooks
> >> > have even *tried* to point out errors (and failed).
>
> >> You're lying again, Yellow Pants.
>
> It would be simple indeed to prove me wrong... just CITE the relevant
> refutations.
I'll go easy on you. Let's begin with the example I cited above.
> >> > Of course, if Mark Lane had claimed that Perry and Carrico described
> >> > the original bullet wound in JFK's throat to be "ragged" - these kooks
> >> > would be all over him for such a lie.
>
> >> How about focusing on his actual lies (of which there is no shortage)
> >> instead of inventing new ones?
>
> Since this was *actually* said by Bugliosi - it seems that you're *ALMOST*
> willing to state for the record that Bugliosi lied.
>
> But you won't.
Word games is all you have. It's hardly a coincidence that your other
big hobby is judo (which is basically about tripping up your
opponent).
> In article <ea85c6eb-7644-47f3-b8f9-7ca6d77b9...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>,
only if they have been cited by Bill Clarke. And you call *us* kooks?
> But you can't... you're a troll.
>
> >> LANE: Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
> >> affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the
> >> shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came from the
> >> knoll.
>
> >> EVIDENCE: Using Lane's own sources (Decker Ex 5323 and CE 2003) and
> >> witness selection criteria (gave statements/affidavits on 11/22 or 23
> >> about the origin of the shots), any honest person can easily find more
> >> than three (25 minus 22) witnesses who DIDN'T point to the knoll.
>
> You're lying...
>
> You see, if you were telling the truth, YOU'D SIMPLY QUOTE & CITE 4 EYEWITNESS
> STATEMENTS.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6e05fbeca81ffe6d
> Instead, you're doing exactly as Billy is - making unsupportable assertions.
>
> >> We've been over this before, of course. Ben ran away when I named 4
> >> witnesses who pointed to the TSBD and asked him to show me his math.
>
> Never happened... you're lying again.
> Indeed, Jean, when nailed on this point, admitted that she was unfamiliar with a
> Youtube interview that proved her wrong. AFTER running away to the censored
> forum...
>
> This was ages ago... it's interesting that you can't teach these kooks
> anything... Jean will admit it, but no-one else will...
>
> And, of course, we have over 265 posts now, and presuming that it was accepted
> that kooks have a point on *this* issue, it still leaves over 265 posts
> unanswered.
alternative universe you have constructed for yourself, your God
(Lane) has to be perfect.
> >> > Indeed, the only *serious* attempt led to Jean fleeing back to the cens=
> >ored
> >> > forum without admitting that she'd been proven wrong. I had to chase he=
> >r into
> >> > the censored forum to get her to admit that her 'math' was wrong, and M=
> >ark
> >> > Lane's was correct.
>
> >> But Lane's math isn't correct. He was lying, and so are you.
>
> So go and tell Jean that she's lying...
> >> > >> And Bill has read the posts.
>
> >> > >Your Mark Lane wetdream-nonsense has to be terribly embarrassing for
> >> > >Bill Clarke. Embarrassing to him because he let a notorious DD221'er
> >> > >rope him into posting here. A moron who hasn't even read Mark Lane's
> >> > >tremendous book Rush to Judgement...
>
> >> > Indeed, he even seems proud of his ignorance...
>
> >> Translation: Unable to defend the lies in RTJ,
>
> Your "translation" leaves a lot to be desired... Billy's pride in his ignorance
> of what Mark Lane said has nothing to do with what you "translated".
>
> >> Ben and his obedient
> >> manservant have no choice but to run from "inconvenient" posts by Tim,
> >> Bud, Hank and others who point them out.
>
> Post 'em here... CITE for them... then be ready to defend it.
>
> But you can't... you're a troll
to read my posts?
If you're serious about this, however, then we can begin with the
example I cited above. Deal?
> >> Instead, the foul-mouthed duo
> >> attacks the one poster here who has professed no desire to read the
> >> book, as if this somehow vindicates Lane.
>
> You seem to have an honesty issue here... Billy is willing to label Mark Lane a
> liar EVEN THOUGH HE REFUSES TO READ ANYTHING HE WROTE.
that Lane was full of it.
> If I labeled Bugliosi a liar - then admitted that I'd never read his book, you'd
> have a valid argument and complaint to lay against me. (Of course, I *HAVE* read
> his book, and he *IS* a liar...)
> So tell us, why is it okay for Billy to refuse to read Mark Lane's book, yet
> continue repeatedly to label him a liar?
> >> > >It (RTJ)simply terrifies .john
> >> > >lone nut trolls these days.... Hilarious, being scared over a book
> >> > >published nearly 50 years ago....!
>
> >> > Yep... I'm up past 265 - and you can count on one hand the posts where =
> >kooks
> >> > have even *tried* to point out errors (and failed).
>
> >> You're lying again, Yellow Pants.
>
> It would be simple indeed to prove me wrong... just CITE the relevant
> refutations.
> >> > Of course, if Mark Lane had claimed that Perry and Carrico described
> >> > the original bullet wound in JFK's throat to be "ragged" - these kooks
> >> > would be all over him for such a lie.
>
> >> How about focusing on his actual lies (of which there is no shortage)
> >> instead of inventing new ones?
>
> Since this was *actually* said by Bugliosi - it seems that you're *ALMOST*
> willing to state for the record that Bugliosi lied.
>
> But you won't.
big hobby is judo (which is basically about tripping up your
opponent).
timstter
May 24, 2013, 6:19:32 PM5/24/13
to
It's simply AMUSING to see how many blatant LIES there are in it.
Holmes's whole premise, that if he posts 265 times about Lane that
LNers MUST find a lie in every SINGLE one is quite LAUGHABLE, Dave/
Ringo.
We've ALREADY got 15 to 20 DOCUMENTABLE instances of Lane LYING in his
books and all Benny's PITIFUL series has done is simply add to the
number, Dave/Ringo!
That's ALL you need to blow a person's credibility as a trustworthy
writer, Dave/Ringo.
What's Benny got on Bugliosi? Carrico? LOL!
It is to laugh, as they say, Dave/Ringo.
It is to laugh.
timstter
May 25, 2013, 5:36:47 PM5/25/13
to
On May 24, 11:24 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <70075430-6309-4c17-8b7b-db00d871a...@qc10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
No I'm not, Holmes. YOU'RE lying!
> But perhaps this is why Billy refuses to quote any proof of his claim that
> others have CITED and provided EVIDENCE for these mythical "lies" of Mark
> Lane's.
>
Huh? No Bill has read my series *Lying The Mark Lane Way* Holmes. You
probably missed it, skulking behind your killfilter. Over fifteen
items now. Should be able to expand it to about twenty items by the
next run thru, Holmes, at the rate Mark Lane lies are being
highlighted by folks.
> Indeed, the only *serious* attempt led to Jean fleeing back to the censored
> forum without admitting that she'd been proven wrong. I had to chase her into
> the censored forum to get her to admit that her 'math' was wrong, and Mark
> Lane's was correct.
>
What a rewriting of history, Holmes! Mark Ulrik has you pinged on THAT
one, Yellow Pants.
> >> And Bill has read the posts.
>
> >Your Mark Lane wetdream-nonsense has to be terribly embarrassing for
> >Bill Clarke. Embarrassing to him because he let a notorious DD221'er
> >rope him into posting here. A moron who hasn't even read Mark Lane's
> >tremendous book Rush to Judgement...
>
> Indeed, he even seems proud of his ignorance...
>
I'm posting DIRECT quotations from Lane's book and then demonstrating
how they don't gell with WC citations and I'm ignorant? The true
IGNORAMOUS is YOU, Holmes, skulking PATHETICALLY behind your
killfilter, agreeing with your PATHETIC mate Healy.
> >It (RTJ)simply terrifies .john
> >lone nut trolls these days.... Hilarious, being scared over a book
> >published nearly 50 years ago....!
>
> Yep... I'm up past 265 - and you can count on one hand the posts where kooks
> have even *tried* to point out errors (and failed).
>
LOL! Yet another DELUDED lie by you, Holmes. Can't see too much
skulking behind your killfilter can you, Yellow Pants? There's one
you're even runnning from @ the moment, # 231!!
> Of course, if Mark Lane had claimed that Perry and Carrico described the
> original bullet wound in JFK's throat to be "ragged" - these kooks would be all
> over him for such a lie.
>
He's told so many REAL lies we don't need to make any up, Benny.
> >RTJ owns .john-ite lone nut trolls such as yourself. It's amazing
> >watching you chase your tail as you wander drunkedly through the maze
> >of case evidence....
>
> ><snip the remaining tripe>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
You're all BULL, Holmes and your hero, Mark Lane, is a DAMN liar!
Corrective Regards,
> In article <70075430-6309-4c17-8b7b-db00d871a...@qc10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> But perhaps this is why Billy refuses to quote any proof of his claim that
> others have CITED and provided EVIDENCE for these mythical "lies" of Mark
> Lane's.
>
probably missed it, skulking behind your killfilter. Over fifteen
items now. Should be able to expand it to about twenty items by the
next run thru, Holmes, at the rate Mark Lane lies are being
highlighted by folks.
> Indeed, the only *serious* attempt led to Jean fleeing back to the censored
> forum without admitting that she'd been proven wrong. I had to chase her into
> the censored forum to get her to admit that her 'math' was wrong, and Mark
> Lane's was correct.
>
one, Yellow Pants.
> >> And Bill has read the posts.
>
> >Your Mark Lane wetdream-nonsense has to be terribly embarrassing for
> >Bill Clarke. Embarrassing to him because he let a notorious DD221'er
> >rope him into posting here. A moron who hasn't even read Mark Lane's
> >tremendous book Rush to Judgement...
>
> Indeed, he even seems proud of his ignorance...
>
how they don't gell with WC citations and I'm ignorant? The true
IGNORAMOUS is YOU, Holmes, skulking PATHETICALLY behind your
killfilter, agreeing with your PATHETIC mate Healy.
> >It (RTJ)simply terrifies .john
> >lone nut trolls these days.... Hilarious, being scared over a book
> >published nearly 50 years ago....!
>
> Yep... I'm up past 265 - and you can count on one hand the posts where kooks
> have even *tried* to point out errors (and failed).
>
skulking behind your killfilter can you, Yellow Pants? There's one
you're even runnning from @ the moment, # 231!!
> Of course, if Mark Lane had claimed that Perry and Carrico described the
> original bullet wound in JFK's throat to be "ragged" - these kooks would be all
> over him for such a lie.
>
> >RTJ owns .john-ite lone nut trolls such as yourself. It's amazing
> >watching you chase your tail as you wander drunkedly through the maze
> >of case evidence....
>
> ><snip the remaining tripe>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
Corrective Regards,
0 new messages