info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mark Lane's 1964 Debate Vs. Joseph Ball
55 views
Skip to first unread message
David Von Pein
Sep 20, 2012, 2:27:27 AM9/20/12
to
Excerpt from Mark Lane's 12/4/64 debate against Joseph Ball of the
Warren Commission:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phY63cL25KQ
Just take note of the despicable deception that Lane attempts to get
away with in the above program. Two prime examples:
1.) Lane doesn't consider William Scoggins to be an adequate
eyewitness to Tippit's murder at all. He doesn't even count Scoggins
as a "Tippit Murder Witness" because of the fact there was a bush
between Scoggins and Tippit's murderer (Oswald). Joe Ball nicely
corrects Lane's deception and tries to exhibit some common sense when
evaluating Scoggins' testimony.
2.) Re: Oswald's rifle purchase: Lane totally ignores Waldman Exhibit
No. 7, which verifies that Rifle C2766 was sent to Oswald's PO Box in
Dallas. Ball again sets Liar Lane straight.
Why is it that no CTer will exhibit the slightest bit of ordinary,
average common sense when evaluating this very simple murder case
(both the JFK killing and Tippit's too)?
As all CT kooks do, Mark Lane harps on the fact that the assassination
rifle (C2766) wasn't the exact model ordered by Oswald...which is,
indeed, a fact. But Lane then totally ignores (or discounts as "fake"
evidently) the crucial document unearthed by Klein's Sporting Goods
within just hours of the assassination--Waldman #7, which proves that
on Mar. 13, 1963, Klein's received and processed an order they
received from "A. Hidell" of Dallas, Texas; with Waldman 7 further
proving for all eternity that Klein's then shipped the eventual
assassination weapon (Carcano #C2766) to Hidell/Oswald on March 20th.
Waldman #7, in effect, renders Lane's argument about Klein's sending
the wrong model to Oswald totally meaningless and moot. For, why does
it matter what model Oswald actually ordered? The key is: What rifle
did Oswald/"Hidell" ultimately end up receiving from Klein's? And the
answer to that rests in Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which the "Anybody But
Oswald" nuts like Mark Lane have no choice but to pretend is a fake
and fraudulent document (sans a speck of evidence to prove such a
charge).
http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/mark-lane.html
Warren Commission:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phY63cL25KQ
Just take note of the despicable deception that Lane attempts to get
away with in the above program. Two prime examples:
1.) Lane doesn't consider William Scoggins to be an adequate
eyewitness to Tippit's murder at all. He doesn't even count Scoggins
as a "Tippit Murder Witness" because of the fact there was a bush
between Scoggins and Tippit's murderer (Oswald). Joe Ball nicely
corrects Lane's deception and tries to exhibit some common sense when
evaluating Scoggins' testimony.
2.) Re: Oswald's rifle purchase: Lane totally ignores Waldman Exhibit
No. 7, which verifies that Rifle C2766 was sent to Oswald's PO Box in
Dallas. Ball again sets Liar Lane straight.
Why is it that no CTer will exhibit the slightest bit of ordinary,
average common sense when evaluating this very simple murder case
(both the JFK killing and Tippit's too)?
As all CT kooks do, Mark Lane harps on the fact that the assassination
rifle (C2766) wasn't the exact model ordered by Oswald...which is,
indeed, a fact. But Lane then totally ignores (or discounts as "fake"
evidently) the crucial document unearthed by Klein's Sporting Goods
within just hours of the assassination--Waldman #7, which proves that
on Mar. 13, 1963, Klein's received and processed an order they
received from "A. Hidell" of Dallas, Texas; with Waldman 7 further
proving for all eternity that Klein's then shipped the eventual
assassination weapon (Carcano #C2766) to Hidell/Oswald on March 20th.
Waldman #7, in effect, renders Lane's argument about Klein's sending
the wrong model to Oswald totally meaningless and moot. For, why does
it matter what model Oswald actually ordered? The key is: What rifle
did Oswald/"Hidell" ultimately end up receiving from Klein's? And the
answer to that rests in Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which the "Anybody But
Oswald" nuts like Mark Lane have no choice but to pretend is a fake
and fraudulent document (sans a speck of evidence to prove such a
charge).
http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/mark-lane.html
Phil Ossofee
Sep 20, 2012, 1:41:54 PM9/20/12
to
Von Pein you really think Joe Ball has a better argument than Mark Lane
does? Are you seriously retarded? Do you have a big wand to try and
swipe away reality?
Get with the program son, we had a coup. Phil D.
does? Are you seriously retarded? Do you have a big wand to try and
swipe away reality?
Get with the program son, we had a coup. Phil D.
aeffects
Sep 20, 2012, 3:17:38 PM9/20/12
to
On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:27:28 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
<snip the lone nut idiocy>
dipso, are you still inhaling KFC chicken fat? Get off the regular, hit the crispy... you, as thee prime nutter-troll around here should know better!
<snip the lone nut idiocy>
dipso, are you still inhaling KFC chicken fat? Get off the regular, hit the crispy... you, as thee prime nutter-troll around here should know better!
David Von Pein
Sep 20, 2012, 3:56:55 PM9/20/12
to
>>> "Von Pein, you really think Joe Ball has a better argument than Mark Lane does?" <<<
Unquestionably so, yes.
The two items I mentioned in my first post prove that Lane wasn't
willing to tell the Beverly Hills audience the whole story regarding
those two matters on December 4, 1964.
To claim that Bill Scoggins is useless and worthless as a witness to
Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the Tippit murder (which is essentially
what Lane was claiming) is almost the same as telling the audience
that JFK and Tippit weren't murdered at all.
mainframetech
Sep 20, 2012, 9:10:23 PM9/20/12
to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaCCd0hzLsY
Chris
0 new messages