"David Von Pein" Demonstrates His Mathematical Illiteracy...

[Ben Holmes]

"DVP" claimed:

>> Anyone looking at these two photographs side-by-side who still thinks
>> that Specter's rod isn't even close to the real wound is, frankly, a
>> fool:
>>
>> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gM9IKl4-Rug/T4ygetB8U0I/AAAAAAAAH0g/yyG62_M...

Since Spector is demonstrating roughly a 20 degree down angle, (not a 17.5 angle
as "DVP" tried to claim) and the width of the body is about 5.5 inches, simple
trig tells us that the back wound must have been 2 inches higher than the neck
wound.

Seems that the HSCA put that myth to rest.

"Pathetic" is the right word...

Watch as all the gutlessly yellow cowards run away... starting with DVP and
going through Bill Clarke. (And "Bud", "Tim", and the rest of the kooks)


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

[Bud]

On Apr 19, 8:29 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> "DVP" claimed:
>
> >> Anyone looking at these two photographs side-by-side who still thinks
> >> that Specter's rod isn't even close to the real wound is, frankly, a
> >> fool:
>
> >>http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gM9IKl4-Rug/T4ygetB8U0I/AAAAAAAAH0g/yyG62_M...
>
> Since Spector is demonstrating roughly a 20 degree down angle, (not a 17.5 angle
> as "DVP" tried to claim)

Isn`t 17.5 roughly 20 degrees, retard?

> and the width of the body is about 5.5 inches, simple
> trig tells us that the back wound must have been 2 inches higher than the neck
> wound.

Are you assuming Kennedy was perfectly upright and not the slightest
bit bent forward?

> Seems that the HSCA put that myth to rest.

Ben always vaguely alludes to support because when he actually
produces it it doesn`t support his assertions.

> "Pathetic" is the right word...

Yah, you are.

> Watch as all the gutlessly yellow cowards run away... starting with DVP and
> going through Bill Clarke. (And "Bud", "Tim", and the rest of the kooks)

Best you hide from us if this is the best you can muster,
chickenshit.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Since Spector [sic] is demonstrating roughly a 20 degree down angle, (not a 17.5 angle as "DVP" tried to claim)..." <<<

Arlen Specter's rod is angled at 17.725 degrees downward. The rod is
perfectly parallel with the string on the wall in the background of
CE903, and that string is angled at 17d-43m-30s (which equals 17.725
degrees).

Benjamin Holmes, being the retarded conspiracy-giddy kook that he is,
apparently thinks that the WC and Lyndal Shaneyfelt just made up the
very specific and detailed testimony concerning the angles seen in
CE903 that can be found in Shaneyfelt's WC testimony session:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "I now hand you a photograph which has been marked as
Commission Exhibit No. 903 and ask you if you know who the
photographer was?"

LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT -- "Yes; I took this photograph."

MR. SPECTER -- "When was that photograph taken?"

MR. SHANEYFELT -- "It was taken Sunday afternoon, May 24, 1964."

MR. SPECTER -- "Is there a white string which is apparent in the
background of that photograph?"

MR. SHANEYFELT -- "That is correct."

MR. SPECTER -- "What is the angle of declination of that string?"

MR. SHANEYFELT -- "That string was placed along the wall by the
surveyor at an angle of 17 degrees-43'-30''." ....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm

MR. SPECTER -- "Did the surveyor make that placement in your
presence?"

MR. SHANEYFELT -- "He did."

MR. SPECTER -- "Were the stand-ins for President Kennedy and Governor
Connally positioned in the same relative positions as those occupied
by President Kennedy and Governor Connally depicted in the Zapruder
films?"

MR. SHANEYFELT -- "Yes; these positions were approximately the
position of the President and Governor Connally in the Zapruder films
in the area around frame 225 as they go behind the signboard and as
they emerge from the signboard."

MR. SPECTER -- "Was the rod which is held in that photograph
positioned at an angle as closely parallel to the white string as it
could be positioned?"

MR. SHANEYFELT -- "Yes."

MR. SPECTER -- "And through what positions did that rod pass?"

MR. SHANEYFELT -- "The rod passed through a position on the back of
the stand-in for the President at a point approximating that of the
entrance wound, exited along about the knot of the tie or the button
of the coat or button of the shirt, and the end of the rod was
inserted in the entrance hole on the back of Governor Connally's coat
which was being worn by the stand-in for Governor Connally."

MR. SPECTER -- "And was Governor Connally's stand-in seated in the
position where the point of exit would have been below the right
nipple at the approximate point described by Governor Connally's
doctors?"

MR. SHANEYFELT -- "That is correct."

=================================================

Holmes probably is thinking that 20 degrees is the correct angle in
CE903 due to the fact that Elm Street has a slope of about 3 degrees
(3d-9m to be exact, which equates to 3.15 degrees).

But the picture seen in CE903 was taken in a garage in Dallas--and
there's obviously no 3.15-degree "slope" evident in the garage. So,
the 3.15-degree slope of Elm Street was subtracted from the angle for
the purposes of the garage demonstration seen in CE903. Therefore, the
angle (sans the Elm St. slope) is between 17 and 18 degrees.

If we were to add the 3.15-degree street grade back into the equation,
the angle would be 20.875 degrees. But the angle seen in CE903 is
definitely not 20+ degrees -- it's 17+ degrees, just as Shaneyfelt
said in his Warren Commission testimony.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903-part-2.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/ce903-part-3.html

[mainframetech]

On Apr 20, 12:24 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Since Spector [sic] is demonstrating roughly a 20 degree down angle, (not a 17.5 angle as "DVP" tried to claim)..." <<<
>
> Arlen Specter's rod is angled at 17.725 degrees downward. The rod is
> perfectly parallel with the string on the wall in the background of
> CE903, and that string is angled at 17d-43m-30s (which equals 17.725
> degrees).
>
> Benjamin Holmes, being the retarded conspiracy-giddy kook that he is,
> apparently thinks that the WC and Lyndal Shaneyfelt just made up the
> very specific and detailed testimony concerning the angles seen in
> CE903 that can be found in Shaneyfelt's WC testimony session:
>
> ARLEN SPECTER -- "I now hand you a photograph which has been marked as
> Commission Exhibit No. 903 and ask you if you know who the
> photographer was?"
>
> LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT -- "Yes; I took this photograph."
>
> MR. SPECTER -- "When was that photograph taken?"
>
> MR. SHANEYFELT -- "It was taken Sunday afternoon, May 24, 1964."
>
> MR. SPECTER -- "Is there a white string which is apparent in the
> background of that photograph?"
>
> MR. SHANEYFELT -- "That is correct."
>
> MR. SPECTER -- "What is the angle of declination of that string?"
>
> MR. SHANEYFELT -- "That string was placed along the wall by the
> surveyor at an angle of 17 degrees-43'-30''." ....
>

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903-part...
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/ce903-part-3.html

WOW! 20 degrees! That lines up beautifully with the 2nd-3rd floor
of the Daltex building! DVP might have accidentally stumbled onto
something! The TSBD 6th floor is more than 20 degrees...maybe 30-35
degrees. Of course, once a bullet is moving in flesh, it might change
it's direction a bit and make it look like it was fired from as high
as the Daltex 3rd floor, but it might also have come from the GK and
simply moved within the body to give a higher angle if looked at from
behind. Or maybe the bullet was diverted by the 'ragged trachea' upon
entry to the throat...:)

Chris

[Bud]

<snicker> These retards can`t even figure out the very basics of
what occurred.

[aeffects]

<son> snicker--you need help. why do you feel the need to support the
WCR? some sort of weird security blank'ee or sumpin? (just curious)

[Ben Holmes]

In article <60ef9ec7-dd1c-45c7...@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On Apr 20, 5:56=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Apr 20, 8:04=A0am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>
>> > On Apr 20, 12:24=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >>> "Since Spector [sic] is demonstrating roughly a 20 degree down
>> > > >>> angle, (not a 17.5 angle as "DVP" tried to claim)..." <<<

I see that no one has credibly tried to refute this yet...

Simply referring back to INCORRECT testimony won't do the trick.

>> > > Arlen Specter's rod is angled at 17.725 degrees downward. The rod is
>> > > perfectly parallel with the string on the wall in the background of
>> > > CE903, and that string is angled at 17d-43m-30s (which equals 17.725
>> > > degrees).
>>
>> > > Benjamin Holmes, being the retarded conspiracy-giddy kook that he is,
>> > > apparently thinks that the WC and Lyndal Shaneyfelt just made up the
>> > > very specific and detailed testimony concerning the angles seen in
>> > > CE903 that can be found in Shaneyfelt's WC testimony session:

This photo is easily examined by anyone with a half-decent photo editing
program. It's very easy to verify that the angle is quite close to 20 degrees...
not "17.5"

This is simply a fact.

The kooks who accepted the testimony without examining it to see how accurate it
was are simply demonstrating their stupidity.

It's a FACT that the photo DVP referenced shows the pointer at 20 degrees, not
"17.5".


It's a FACT that simple math will show you that the back wound would have to be
2 inches above the throat wound.


>> > > ARLEN SPECTER -- "I now hand you a photograph which has been marked a=

>s
>> > > Commission Exhibit No. 903 and ask you if you know who the
>> > > photographer was?"
>>
>> > > LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT -- "Yes; I took this photograph."
>>
>> > > MR. SPECTER -- "When was that photograph taken?"
>>
>> > > MR. SHANEYFELT -- "It was taken Sunday afternoon, May 24, 1964."
>>
>> > > MR. SPECTER -- "Is there a white string which is apparent in the
>> > > background of that photograph?"
>>
>> > > MR. SHANEYFELT -- "That is correct."
>>
>> > > MR. SPECTER -- "What is the angle of declination of that string?"
>>
>> > > MR. SHANEYFELT -- "That string was placed along the wall by the
>> > > surveyor at an angle of 17 degrees-43'-30''." ....

LOL!!

It's a *PROVABLE* fact that the pointer isn't at "17.5" degrees.

It can be easily shown by anyone with simple photo editing skills just what the
angle is.

Just create a blank box as wide or wider than the photo... do a 'fill' of total
black paint... rotate the black box by 17.5 degrees clockwise, use a mask and
invert it so that you have just the black box at the 17.5 degree angle, and copy
it into the photo with Spector and his pointer, as a new layer... move it close
to the pointer, and it will be CRYSTAL CLEAR that DVP never double-checked what
he's asserting.

And that the kooks are yet again demonstrated to be liars...

So now we know that the wounds matched up TO THE WRONG ANGLE!

>> > > Holmes probably is thinking that 20 degrees is the correct angle in
>> > > CE903 due to the fact that Elm Street has a slope of about 3 degrees
>> > > (3d-9m to be exact, which equates to 3.15 degrees).

Nope. I simply did what the kooks never tried to do... I MEASURED it.


Why don't you *MEASURE* the angle, and get back to us.

>> > > But the picture seen in CE903 was taken in a garage in Dallas--and
>> > > there's obviously no 3.15-degree "slope" evident in the garage. So,
>> > > the 3.15-degree slope of Elm Street was subtracted from the angle for
>> > > the purposes of the garage demonstration seen in CE903. Therefore, the
>> > > angle (sans the Elm St. slope) is between 17 and 18 degrees.

This still doesn't change the facts...

The angle seen in the photo is *NOT* "17.5"... therefore the asserted agreement
with the wound locations WOULD BE DIFFERENT!

And, of course, even with 17.5 degrees, you need a back wound that's 1.73
inches ABOVE the throat wound.

Where did the HSCA put it again???

>> > > If we were to add the 3.15-degree street grade back into the equation,
>> > > the angle would be 20.875 degrees. But the angle seen in CE903 is
>> > > definitely not 20+ degrees -- it's 17+ degrees, just as Shaneyfelt
>> > > said in his Warren Commission testimony.

You're lying.

The angle shown in the photo is 20 degrees... as I stated, I MEASURED it.

Something you seem incapable of doing.



>> > >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html
>>
>> > >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903-part.=
>..
>>
>> > >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/ce903-part-3.html
>>
>> > WOW! =A020 degrees! That lines up beautifully with the 2nd-3rd floor

>> > of the Daltex building! DVP might have accidentally stumbled onto
>> > something! The TSBD 6th floor is more than 20 degrees...maybe 30-35
>> > degrees. Of course, once a bullet is moving in flesh, it might change
>> > it's direction a bit and make it look like it was fired from as high
>> > as the Daltex 3rd floor, but it might also have come from the GK and
>> > simply moved within the body to give a higher angle if looked at from
>> > behind. Or maybe the bullet was diverted by the 'ragged trachea' upon
>> > entry to the throat...:)
>>
>> > Chris
>>
>> <snicker> These retards can`t even figure out the very basics of
>> what occurred.
>
><son> snicker--you need help. why do you feel the need to support the
>WCR? some sort of weird security blank'ee or sumpin? (just curious)

"Bud" can't measure angles, or do simple math.

Yet he doesn't seem embarrassed...

[Bud]

What do you idiots gain from being purposely retarded?

After nearly fifty years the most obvious and basic facts are beyond
your reach. Youse can`t figure out where the shots were fired from or
which direction the bullets were travelling. Perhaps if someone saw
the shooter and where he was at, and a rifle was found there that was
ballistically matched to the bullet fragments found in the limo. What
a minute, you idiots have that. I know you dunces were all thrown off
because Ozzie claimed he didn`t do it, but I`m beginning to wonder if
you could figure it out had he confessed.

[Bud]

On Apr 20, 3:23 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <60ef9ec7-dd1c-45c7-8718-df8cc5b5d...@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

All I saw you was make some more claims that you won`t support.
Every post you make is full of them.

You say "anyone can do this" and "it`s easy" to do that, yet when
the post is done you`ve produced nothing but hot air.

> Yet he doesn't seem embarrassed...

I`m not the one pushing the retarded ideas.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "It's a *PROVABLE* fact that the pointer isn't at "17.5" degrees." <<<

So, Shaneyfelt's a lying bastard, right Holmes?

>>> "And, of course, even with 17.5 degrees, you need a back wound that's 1.73 inches ABOVE the throat wound." <<<

JFK's upper-back wound is at least 1.73 inches above the throat wound
(anatomically). That fact is proven by simply looking at the autopsy
photos, side-by-side:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TDBDx7IShhI/AAAAAAAAEqQ/HhFdDmgCav4/s1600/JFK-Autopsy-Photos.jpg

[timstter]

Aww, Benny's all upset that his hero, Mark Lane, has been exposed as a
serial liar in the matter of the JFK assassination AND that Benny's
absurd Zapruder film alteration theories starring The Lady In Yellow
Pants and Officer Chaney have collapsed in a heap.

Cheer up, Benny. I'm sure The Lapdog will come a-yappin' in a post or
so to prop up your pathetic nonsense.

Helpful Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

ps Holmes, how blatant was that lie you told about TLIYP being close
enough to Zapruder to appear in his film? TB

[Bud]

On Apr 20, 3:23 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:

> In article <60ef9ec7-dd1c-45c7-8718-df8cc5b5d...@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

> aeffects says...
>
>
>
> >On Apr 20, 5:56=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> On Apr 20, 8:04=A0am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Apr 20, 12:24=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > >>> "Since Spector [sic] is demonstrating roughly a 20 degree down
> >> > > >>> angle, (not a 17.5 angle as "DVP" tried to claim)..." <<<
>
> I see that no one has credibly tried to refute this yet...

You named four people and you have three of them killfiled. How do
you expect to see responses from people you have killfiled, dunce?

[mainframetech]

> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TDBDx7IShhI/AAAAAAAAEqQ/HhFdDmg...

DVP says:
"JFK's upper-back wound is at least 1.73 inches above the throat
wound
(anatomically). That fact is proven by simply looking at the autopsy
photos, side-by-side"

Chris says:
DVP actually came up with a useful idea, so let's try it out.

Using the autopsy photos from here so we have them from a more
neutral source:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html

We do a comparison between photos BE1_HI and BE5_HI, and using the
deep crease in the back of the neck of JFK (the lowest and deepest
one), we see that the Throat wound in BE1 is 3 inches down from the
crease, and looking at BE5_HI we see that the hole in the back is
about 3 inches down from the crease. Really about the same distance.

This comparison is showing us that the bullet that made the throat
and back wounds (no matter which direction it was traveling) was
traveling almost level. JFK was sitting slightly back in his seat in
frames 180 thru 226, in a somewhat relaxed pose before the bullet
struck, and even after for a bit. That puts the shooter (if in front)
slaightly higher than JFK. The GK is a good possibility for that.
However, the 6th floor of the TSBD won't make it in any world. Here
are the frame selections used:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

Chris

[Ben Holmes]

In article <60ef9ec7-dd1c-45c7...@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On Apr 20, 5:56=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Apr 20, 8:04=A0am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 20, 12:24=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >>> "Since Spector [sic] is demonstrating roughly a 20 degree down an=

>gle, (not a 17.5 angle as "DVP" tried to claim)..." <<<
>>
>> > > Arlen Specter's rod is angled at 17.725 degrees downward. The rod is
>> > > perfectly parallel with the string on the wall in the background of
>> > > CE903, and that string is angled at 17d-43m-30s (which equals 17.725
>> > > degrees).
>>
>> > > Benjamin Holmes, being the retarded conspiracy-giddy kook that he is,
>> > > apparently thinks that the WC and Lyndal Shaneyfelt just made up the
>> > > very specific and detailed testimony concerning the angles seen in
>> > > CE903 that can be found in Shaneyfelt's WC testimony session:
>>

>> > > ARLEN SPECTER -- "I now hand you a photograph which has been marked a=

>s
>> > > Commission Exhibit No. 903 and ask you if you know who the
>> > > photographer was?"
>>
>> > > LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT -- "Yes; I took this photograph."
>>
>> > > MR. SPECTER -- "When was that photograph taken?"
>>
>> > > MR. SHANEYFELT -- "It was taken Sunday afternoon, May 24, 1964."
>>
>> > > MR. SPECTER -- "Is there a white string which is apparent in the
>> > > background of that photograph?"
>>
>> > > MR. SHANEYFELT -- "That is correct."
>>
>> > > MR. SPECTER -- "What is the angle of declination of that string?"
>>
>> > > MR. SHANEYFELT -- "That string was placed along the wall by the
>> > > surveyor at an angle of 17 degrees-43'-30''." ....
>>

>> > >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0.=

>> > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>=3D

>>
>> > > Holmes probably is thinking that 20 degrees is the correct angle in
>> > > CE903 due to the fact that Elm Street has a slope of about 3 degrees
>> > > (3d-9m to be exact, which equates to 3.15 degrees).
>>
>> > > But the picture seen in CE903 was taken in a garage in Dallas--and
>> > > there's obviously no 3.15-degree "slope" evident in the garage. So,
>> > > the 3.15-degree slope of Elm Street was subtracted from the angle for

>> > > the purposes of the garage demonstration seen in CE903. Therefore, th=

>e
>> > > angle (sans the Elm St. slope) is between 17 and 18 degrees.
>>

>> > > If we were to add the 3.15-degree street grade back into the equation=

>,
>> > > the angle would be 20.875 degrees. But the angle seen in CE903 is
>> > > definitely not 20+ degrees -- it's 17+ degrees, just as Shaneyfelt
>> > > said in his Warren Commission testimony.
>>
>> > >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html
>>

>> > >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903-part.=
>..
>>
>> > >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/ce903-part-3.html
>>
>> > =A0 WOW! =A020 degrees! =A0That lines up beautifully with the 2nd-3rd f=
>loor
>> > of the Daltex building! =A0 DVP might have accidentally stumbled onto
>> > something! =A0The TSBD 6th floor is more than 20 degrees...maybe 30-35
>> > degrees. =A0Of course, once a bullet is moving in flesh, it might chang=

>e
>> > it's direction a bit and make it look like it was fired from as high
>> > as the Daltex 3rd floor, but it might also have come from the GK and
>> > simply moved within the body to give a higher angle if looked at from

>> > behind. =A0Or maybe the bullet was diverted by the 'ragged trachea' upo=

>n
>> > entry to the throat...:)
>>
>> > Chris
>>
>> <snicker> These retards can`t even figure out the very basics of
>> what occurred.
>
><son> snicker--you need help. why do you feel the need to support the
>WCR? some sort of weird security blank'ee or sumpin? (just curious)

If the "very basics of what occurred" can only be supported by lies about the
evidence, then the "very basics of what occurred" is a lie, isn't it?

Indeed, the kooks refuse to even admit that lies are being told about the
evidence...

[Bud]

On Apr 20, 10:39 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <60ef9ec7-dd1c-45c7-8718-df8cc5b5d...@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

You shown yourself to have no understanding of the meaning of the
word "lie".

> Indeed, the kooks refuse to even admit that lies are being told about the
> evidence...

They are being told by conspiracy retards such as yourself.

[timstter]

On Apr 21, 5:23 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <60ef9ec7-dd1c-45c7-8718-df8cc5b5d...@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

This sounds like another one of your kook theories like Officer Chaney
is RIGHT NEXT to JFK, Holmes.

Alarmed Regards,

[timstter]

You link doesn't work Benny.

No one can see the nitpicking point you are labouring to make.

Informative Regards,

[timstter]

On Apr 21, 12:39 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <60ef9ec7-dd1c-45c7-8718-df8cc5b5d...@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

Oh lies are certainly being told about the evidence, Holmes.

One of the primary liars about the evidence is your hero, Mark Lane.