Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mark Lane #37
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Jul 3, 2012, 10:13:13 AM7/3/12
to
In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Commission ignored the medical
evidence and basic science in their efforts to change the ballistic directions.
"The statements of eyewitnesses close to the president tended to confirm the
likelihood that the shots came from the right and not from the rear. Standing to
the left of the President, on the south side of Elm Street, was James W.
Altgens, the Associated Press photographer who snapped the famous still picture
of President Kennedy as he was shot. Altgens told the Commission counsel:
'There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction
from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came
out of the left side of his head."
Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored the eyewitness testimony
about the direction of the shots.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
evidence and basic science in their efforts to change the ballistic directions.
"The statements of eyewitnesses close to the president tended to confirm the
likelihood that the shots came from the right and not from the rear. Standing to
the left of the President, on the south side of Elm Street, was James W.
Altgens, the Associated Press photographer who snapped the famous still picture
of President Kennedy as he was shot. Altgens told the Commission counsel:
'There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction
from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came
out of the left side of his head."
Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored the eyewitness testimony
about the direction of the shots.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
mucher1
Jul 4, 2012, 3:50:42 AM7/4/12
to
On 3 Jul., 16:13, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Commission ignored the medical
> evidence and basic science in their efforts to change the ballistic directions.
>
> "The statements of eyewitnesses close to the president tended to confirm the
> likelihood that the shots came from the right and not from the rear. Standing to
> the left of the President, on the south side of Elm Street, was James W.
> Altgens, the Associated Press photographer who snapped the famous still picture
> of President Kennedy as he was shot. Altgens told the Commission counsel:
>
> 'There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction
> from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came
> out of the left side of his head."
>
> Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored the eyewitness testimony
> about the direction of the shots.
Lane is being extremely deceptive here, by leaving out the information
> In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Commission ignored the medical
> evidence and basic science in their efforts to change the ballistic directions.
>
> "The statements of eyewitnesses close to the president tended to confirm the
> likelihood that the shots came from the right and not from the rear. Standing to
> the left of the President, on the south side of Elm Street, was James W.
> Altgens, the Associated Press photographer who snapped the famous still picture
> of President Kennedy as he was shot. Altgens told the Commission counsel:
>
> 'There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction
> from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came
> out of the left side of his head."
>
> Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored the eyewitness testimony
> about the direction of the shots.
that Altgens' position was also WEST (forward) of the presidential
limo, which would tend to indicate that the shot came from the rear.
See diagram:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/images/DealeyPlaza.gif
aeffects
Jul 4, 2012, 12:31:09 PM7/4/12
to
> See diagram:
>
> http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/images/DealeyPlaza.gif
Ben Holmes
Jul 4, 2012, 1:05:16 PM7/4/12
to
In article <e427d3bd-1113-49e2...@s6g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
I have some extra time on my hands today... so I'll demolish your silliness.
Your position is that because Altgens was forward of Kennedy, that Altgens
couldn't tell the difference between Kennedy's *left* and Kennedy's *front*.
When Altgens stated that the "flesh particles" flew in his direction, he then
forgot where he was standing, so he stated that it seemed to him that the shot
was coming out of Kennedy's "left side" when he really meant 'forehead' or
'face'...
ROTFLMAO!!!
The kook is clearly either illiterate, or believes that Altgens is too stupid to
understand the same reality that most people take for granted.
Mark Lane would be dishonest indeed to make the claim you're making...
>why does conspiracy scare the shit out of you, toots?
>
>> See diagram:
>>
>> http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/images/DealeyPlaza.gif
It's clear that the kooks are getting desperate when they try making arguments
as silly as this one.
But of course, kooks *always* have to play fast and loose with the evidence...
BOH wounds that are occipital-parietal have to lose a word, and become parietal
only. (as merely one of many examples...)
The evidence simply doesn't support their theory, so they *can't* believe the
evidence. And despite their whining to the contrary, Altgens' testimony *IS*
evidence that they cannot accept.
But it's good to see that the kooks are still reading the Mark Lane series,
either openly like this kook, or 'in the closet', like Billy Clarke.
aeffects says...
>
>On Jul 4, 12:50=A0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3 Jul., 16:13, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Commission ignored
>> > the medical evidence and basic science in their efforts to change
>> > the ballistic directions.
>>
>> > "The statements of eyewitnesses close to the president tended
>> > to confirm the likelihood that the shots came from the right and
>> > not from the rear. Standing to the left of the President, on the
>> > south side of Elm Street, was James W. Altgens, the Associated Press
>> > photographer who snapped the famous still picture of President
>> > Kennedy as he was shot. Altgens told the Commission counsel:
>>
>> > 'There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in
>> > my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated
>> > to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head."
>>
>> > Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored the eyewitness
>> > testimony about the direction of the shots.
>>
>> Lane is being extremely deceptive here, by leaving out the information
>> that Altgens' position was also WEST (forward) of the presidential
>> limo, which would tend to indicate that the shot came from the rear.
That is such ridiculous garbage that I was tempted to ignore it... but why not,
>On Jul 4, 12:50=A0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3 Jul., 16:13, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Commission ignored
>> > the medical evidence and basic science in their efforts to change
>> > the ballistic directions.
>>
>> > "The statements of eyewitnesses close to the president tended
>> > to confirm the likelihood that the shots came from the right and
>> > not from the rear. Standing to the left of the President, on the
>> > south side of Elm Street, was James W. Altgens, the Associated Press
>> > photographer who snapped the famous still picture of President
>> > Kennedy as he was shot. Altgens told the Commission counsel:
>>
>> > 'There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in
>> > my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated
>> > to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head."
>>
>> > Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored the eyewitness
>> > testimony about the direction of the shots.
>>
>> Lane is being extremely deceptive here, by leaving out the information
>> that Altgens' position was also WEST (forward) of the presidential
>> limo, which would tend to indicate that the shot came from the rear.
I have some extra time on my hands today... so I'll demolish your silliness.
Your position is that because Altgens was forward of Kennedy, that Altgens
couldn't tell the difference between Kennedy's *left* and Kennedy's *front*.
When Altgens stated that the "flesh particles" flew in his direction, he then
forgot where he was standing, so he stated that it seemed to him that the shot
was coming out of Kennedy's "left side" when he really meant 'forehead' or
'face'...
ROTFLMAO!!!
The kook is clearly either illiterate, or believes that Altgens is too stupid to
understand the same reality that most people take for granted.
Mark Lane would be dishonest indeed to make the claim you're making...
>why does conspiracy scare the shit out of you, toots?
>
>> See diagram:
>>
>> http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/images/DealeyPlaza.gif
as silly as this one.
But of course, kooks *always* have to play fast and loose with the evidence...
BOH wounds that are occipital-parietal have to lose a word, and become parietal
only. (as merely one of many examples...)
The evidence simply doesn't support their theory, so they *can't* believe the
evidence. And despite their whining to the contrary, Altgens' testimony *IS*
evidence that they cannot accept.
But it's good to see that the kooks are still reading the Mark Lane series,
either openly like this kook, or 'in the closet', like Billy Clarke.
Ben Holmes
Jul 4, 2012, 3:38:54 PM7/4/12
to
Found in the censored (alt.assassination.jfk) forum:
In article <mq39v71sf13dskpqb...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>
>On 3 Jul 2012 07:13:13 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>> In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Commission ignored
>> the medical evidence and basic science in their efforts to change the
>> ballistic directions.
>>
>> "The statements of eyewitnesses close to the president tended to confirm
>> the likelihood that the shots came from the right and not from the rear.
>> Standing to the left of the President, on the south side of Elm Street,
>> was James W. Altgens, the Associated Press photographer who snapped the
>> famous still picture of President Kennedy as he was shot. Altgens told
>> the Commission counsel:
>>
>> 'There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my
>> direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me
>> that the shot came out of the left side of his head."
>>
>> Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored the eyewitness
>> testimony about the direction of the shots.
>
> Of course, literally *nobody* today actually believes that a bullet
>
>> In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Commission ignored
>> the medical evidence and basic science in their efforts to change the
>> ballistic directions.
>>
>> "The statements of eyewitnesses close to the president tended to confirm
>> the likelihood that the shots came from the right and not from the rear.
>> Standing to the left of the President, on the south side of Elm Street,
>> was James W. Altgens, the Associated Press photographer who snapped the
>> famous still picture of President Kennedy as he was shot. Altgens told
>> the Commission counsel:
>>
>> 'There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my
>> direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me
>> that the shot came out of the left side of his head."
>>
>> Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored the eyewitness
>> testimony about the direction of the shots.
>
> exited on the left side of Altgens head.
Nor has anyone other than *YOU* tried to claim this. What a kook!!!
>It's not honest to quote Altgens with testimony that contradicts the WC,
A little Freudian slip there... silly, but this kook really believes it.
>but *also* flatly contradicts what the conspiracist quoting him believes.
Nah, kook... you're merely lying again. The witness stated his impression, AND
MADE IT CLEAR THAT IT WAS AN IMPRESSION, that the shot exited the left side of
JFK's head BECAUSE of the "flesh particles" that flew out that direction.
You're a liar to state that this contradicts what we believe. I have no trouble
at all accepting that Altgens got this impression.
You see, I can easily understand the difference between what a person says he
actually *SAW* and *HEARD*, with what he states was his *IMPRESSION* based on
what he *SAW* or *HEARD*.
You're a liar to suggest otherwise, and smart enough to stay away from a forum
where your lies and stupidity will be quickly pointed out.
mucher1
Jul 4, 2012, 5:16:12 PM7/4/12
to
On 4 Jul., 19:05, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <e427d3bd-1113-49e2-8f83-ce7bbb11b...@s6g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
> Your position is that because Altgens was forward of Kennedy, that Altgens
> couldn't tell the difference between Kennedy's *left* and Kennedy's *front*.
This has to be one of the most ridiculous strawman arguments, I've
ever seen. For starters, left and front are not mutually exclusive
concepts. Also, and perhaps you're too illiterate to understand this,
I neither said nor implied anything about Altgens' state of mind. I
did, however, point out that your hero Lane was withholding pertinent
information from his readers.
Some objective information that can be determined from testimony and
photographic evidence:
(a) Altgens was hit by ejecta from the head shot
(b) Altgens was to the left of JFK
(c) Altgens was forward of JFK
Are you with me so far? Well, Lane introduced Altgens as a "shots from
the RIGHT and NOT from the REAR" witness, citing (a) and (b) as
indicators of the head shot having come from the RIGHT. The problem?
Lane neglected to mention (c) which by the same logic indicates that
the shot ALSO came from the REAR. Do you understand the significance?
Here's a hint: the RIGHT REAR is where your Marine buddy was shooting
from.
> When Altgens stated that the "flesh particles" flew in his direction, he then
> forgot where he was standing, so he stated that it seemed to him that the shot
> was coming out of Kennedy's "left side" when he really meant 'forehead' or
> 'face'...
Flogging a dead strawman... Also, why ridicule the idea that ejecta
could travel forward, but not the idea that it could go left? Do you
believe there was an exit hole in the left side of the head?
> ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> The kook is clearly either illiterate, or believes that Altgens is too stupid to
> understand the same reality that most people take for granted.
>
> Mark Lane would be dishonest indeed to make the claim you're making...
Lane is blatantly dishonest. You are clearly both illiterate and
dishonest.
> In article <e427d3bd-1113-49e2-8f83-ce7bbb11b...@s6g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
> >On Jul 4, 12:50=A0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 3 Jul., 16:13, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> >> > In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Commission ignored
> >> > the medical evidence and basic science in their efforts to change
> >> > the ballistic directions.
>
> >> > "The statements of eyewitnesses close to the president tended
> >> > to confirm the likelihood that the shots came from the right and
> >> > not from the rear. Standing to the left of the President, on the
> >> > south side of Elm Street, was James W. Altgens, the Associated Press
> >> > photographer who snapped the famous still picture of President
> >> > Kennedy as he was shot. Altgens told the Commission counsel:
>
> >> > 'There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in
> >> > my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated
> >> > to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head."
>
> >> > Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored the eyewitness
> >> > testimony about the direction of the shots.
>
> >> Lane is being extremely deceptive here, by leaving out the information
> >> that Altgens' position was also WEST (forward) of the presidential
> >> limo, which would tend to indicate that the shot came from the rear.
>
> That is such ridiculous garbage that I was tempted to ignore it... but why not,
> I have some extra time on my hands today... so I'll demolish your silliness.
Oh sure. Don't spare my feelings.
>
> >On Jul 4, 12:50=A0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 3 Jul., 16:13, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> >> > In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Commission ignored
> >> > the medical evidence and basic science in their efforts to change
> >> > the ballistic directions.
>
> >> > "The statements of eyewitnesses close to the president tended
> >> > to confirm the likelihood that the shots came from the right and
> >> > not from the rear. Standing to the left of the President, on the
> >> > south side of Elm Street, was James W. Altgens, the Associated Press
> >> > photographer who snapped the famous still picture of President
> >> > Kennedy as he was shot. Altgens told the Commission counsel:
>
> >> > 'There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in
> >> > my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated
> >> > to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head."
>
> >> > Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored the eyewitness
> >> > testimony about the direction of the shots.
>
> >> Lane is being extremely deceptive here, by leaving out the information
> >> that Altgens' position was also WEST (forward) of the presidential
> >> limo, which would tend to indicate that the shot came from the rear.
>
> That is such ridiculous garbage that I was tempted to ignore it... but why not,
> I have some extra time on my hands today... so I'll demolish your silliness.
> Your position is that because Altgens was forward of Kennedy, that Altgens
> couldn't tell the difference between Kennedy's *left* and Kennedy's *front*.
ever seen. For starters, left and front are not mutually exclusive
concepts. Also, and perhaps you're too illiterate to understand this,
I neither said nor implied anything about Altgens' state of mind. I
did, however, point out that your hero Lane was withholding pertinent
information from his readers.
Some objective information that can be determined from testimony and
photographic evidence:
(a) Altgens was hit by ejecta from the head shot
(b) Altgens was to the left of JFK
(c) Altgens was forward of JFK
Are you with me so far? Well, Lane introduced Altgens as a "shots from
the RIGHT and NOT from the REAR" witness, citing (a) and (b) as
indicators of the head shot having come from the RIGHT. The problem?
Lane neglected to mention (c) which by the same logic indicates that
the shot ALSO came from the REAR. Do you understand the significance?
Here's a hint: the RIGHT REAR is where your Marine buddy was shooting
from.
> When Altgens stated that the "flesh particles" flew in his direction, he then
> forgot where he was standing, so he stated that it seemed to him that the shot
> was coming out of Kennedy's "left side" when he really meant 'forehead' or
> 'face'...
could travel forward, but not the idea that it could go left? Do you
believe there was an exit hole in the left side of the head?
> ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> The kook is clearly either illiterate, or believes that Altgens is too stupid to
> understand the same reality that most people take for granted.
>
> Mark Lane would be dishonest indeed to make the claim you're making...
dishonest.
timstter
Jul 5, 2012, 4:50:01 PM7/5/12
to
said he thought the shots came from BEHIND the President, ie from the
Depository building:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0263b.htm
Lane didn't bother to include that bit because it wouldn't have
contributed to the fantasy he was trying to weave.
Corrective 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
John McAdams
Jul 6, 2012, 10:45:56 PM7/6/12
to
On 4 Jul 2012 12:38:54 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
You're a coward who won't and can't debate civilly, which is why you
hide out here on The Nuthouse.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
hide out here on The Nuthouse.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
timstter
Jul 6, 2012, 10:48:56 PM7/6/12
to
On Jul 6, 6:50 am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 12:13 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Commission ignored the medical
> > evidence and basic science in their efforts to change the ballistic directions.
>
> > "The statements of eyewitnesses close to the president tended to confirm the
> > likelihood that the shots came from the right and not from the rear. Standing to
> > the left of the President, on the south side of Elm Street, was James W.
> > Altgens, the Associated Press photographer who snapped the famous still picture
> > of President Kennedy as he was shot. Altgens told the Commission counsel:
>
> > 'There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction
> > from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came
> > out of the left side of his head."
>
> > Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored the eyewitness testimony
> > about the direction of the shots.
>
> > --
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Ben Holmes
> > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>
> Lane forget to include the bit from the testimony of Altgens where he
> said he thought the shots came from BEHIND the President, ie from the
> Depository building:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7...
> On Jul 4, 12:13 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Commission ignored the medical
> > evidence and basic science in their efforts to change the ballistic directions.
>
> > "The statements of eyewitnesses close to the president tended to confirm the
> > likelihood that the shots came from the right and not from the rear. Standing to
> > the left of the President, on the south side of Elm Street, was James W.
> > Altgens, the Associated Press photographer who snapped the famous still picture
> > of President Kennedy as he was shot. Altgens told the Commission counsel:
>
> > 'There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction
> > from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came
> > out of the left side of his head."
>
> > Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored the eyewitness testimony
> > about the direction of the shots.
>
> > --
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Ben Holmes
> > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>
> Lane forget to include the bit from the testimony of Altgens where he
> said he thought the shots came from BEHIND the President, ie from the
> Depository building:
>
>
> Lane didn't bother to include that bit because it wouldn't have
> contributed to the fantasy he was trying to weave.
>
> Corrective 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_Vol...
> Lane didn't bother to include that bit because it wouldn't have
> contributed to the fantasy he was trying to weave.
>
> Corrective 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.
>
BUMP! YOO HOO! HOLMES!
Why did Lane leave that bit out where Altgens said that the shots must
have come from BEHIND Kennedy, from the direction of the Book
Depository?
Because Lane is honest?
I don't think so, Holmes.
I don't think so for a damn minute.
Informative Regards,
Ben Holmes
Jul 7, 2012, 12:06:48 AM7/7/12
to
In article <tl8fv7lhvvuq2pdq5...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>It's not honest to quote Altgens with testimony that contradicts the WC,
>>
>>
>>A little Freudian slip there... silly, but this kook really believes it.
More dead silence. Clearly, this kook really believes this nonsense.
>>>but *also* flatly contradicts what the conspiracist quoting him believes.
>>
>>
>>Nah, kook... you're merely lying again. The witness stated his impression, AND
>>MADE IT CLEAR THAT IT WAS AN IMPRESSION, that the shot exited the left side of
>>JFK's head BECAUSE of the "flesh particles" that flew out that direction.
>>
>>You're a liar to state that this contradicts what we believe. I have no
>>trouble at all accepting that Altgens got this impression.
John got caught lying rather stupidly... and he can't reply.
Rather cowardly of him, isn't it?
For someone who authored a book that allegedly discusses logic, this kook has a
very poor grasp of it.
>>You see, I can easily understand the difference between what a person says he
>>actually *SAW* and *HEARD*, with what he states was his *IMPRESSION* based on
>>what he *SAW* or *HEARD*.
>>
>>You're a liar to suggest otherwise, and smart enough to stay away from a forum
>>where your lies and stupidity will be quickly pointed out.
>
>You're a coward who won't and can't debate civilly, which is why you
>hide out here on The Nuthouse.
How can one "hide" in a forum that's wide open?
I can't censor you, yet you *STILL* run away like the coward that you are.
You see, the *truth* is that it's *YOU* that hides in the censored forum... you
censored me for merely illustrating that you were running from the points I'd
raised, and you called it "badgering".
Now why can't you handle my refutation of your reply, John? Why can't *YOU* tell
the difference between what someone saw, and what their impression was of what
they saw?
Why the cowardice, John?
Could it be that you can't censor me here?
You've read my response... you *KNOW* that you've tried to assert a flat
falsehood... and yet you refuse to retract it... or even *try* to refute it.
Why the cowardice, John?
>
>On 4 Jul 2012 12:38:54 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Found in the censored (alt.assassination.jfk) forum:
>>
>>
>>In article <mq39v71sf13dskpqb...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>
>>>On 3 Jul 2012 07:13:13 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Commission ignored
>>>> the medical evidence and basic science in their efforts to change the
>>>> ballistic directions.
>>>>
>>>> "The statements of eyewitnesses close to the president tended to confirm
>>>> the likelihood that the shots came from the right and not from the rear.
>>>> Standing to the left of the President, on the south side of Elm Street,
>>>> was James W. Altgens, the Associated Press photographer who snapped the
>>>> famous still picture of President Kennedy as he was shot. Altgens told
>>>> the Commission counsel:
>>>>
>>>> 'There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my
>>>> direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me
>>>> that the shot came out of the left side of his head."
>>>>
>>>> Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored the eyewitness
>>>> testimony about the direction of the shots.
>>>
>>> Of course, literally *nobody* today actually believes that a bullet
>>> exited on the left side of Altgens head.
>>
>>
>>Nor has anyone other than *YOU* tried to claim this. What a kook!!!
Dead silence... and no explanation.
>On 4 Jul 2012 12:38:54 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Found in the censored (alt.assassination.jfk) forum:
>>
>>
>>In article <mq39v71sf13dskpqb...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>
>>>On 3 Jul 2012 07:13:13 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Commission ignored
>>>> the medical evidence and basic science in their efforts to change the
>>>> ballistic directions.
>>>>
>>>> "The statements of eyewitnesses close to the president tended to confirm
>>>> the likelihood that the shots came from the right and not from the rear.
>>>> Standing to the left of the President, on the south side of Elm Street,
>>>> was James W. Altgens, the Associated Press photographer who snapped the
>>>> famous still picture of President Kennedy as he was shot. Altgens told
>>>> the Commission counsel:
>>>>
>>>> 'There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my
>>>> direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me
>>>> that the shot came out of the left side of his head."
>>>>
>>>> Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored the eyewitness
>>>> testimony about the direction of the shots.
>>>
>>> Of course, literally *nobody* today actually believes that a bullet
>>> exited on the left side of Altgens head.
>>
>>
>>Nor has anyone other than *YOU* tried to claim this. What a kook!!!
>>>It's not honest to quote Altgens with testimony that contradicts the WC,
>>
>>
>>A little Freudian slip there... silly, but this kook really believes it.
>>>but *also* flatly contradicts what the conspiracist quoting him believes.
>>
>>
>>Nah, kook... you're merely lying again. The witness stated his impression, AND
>>MADE IT CLEAR THAT IT WAS AN IMPRESSION, that the shot exited the left side of
>>JFK's head BECAUSE of the "flesh particles" that flew out that direction.
>>
>>You're a liar to state that this contradicts what we believe. I have no
>>trouble at all accepting that Altgens got this impression.
Rather cowardly of him, isn't it?
For someone who authored a book that allegedly discusses logic, this kook has a
very poor grasp of it.
>>You see, I can easily understand the difference between what a person says he
>>actually *SAW* and *HEARD*, with what he states was his *IMPRESSION* based on
>>what he *SAW* or *HEARD*.
>>
>>You're a liar to suggest otherwise, and smart enough to stay away from a forum
>>where your lies and stupidity will be quickly pointed out.
>
>You're a coward who won't and can't debate civilly, which is why you
>hide out here on The Nuthouse.
I can't censor you, yet you *STILL* run away like the coward that you are.
You see, the *truth* is that it's *YOU* that hides in the censored forum... you
censored me for merely illustrating that you were running from the points I'd
raised, and you called it "badgering".
Now why can't you handle my refutation of your reply, John? Why can't *YOU* tell
the difference between what someone saw, and what their impression was of what
they saw?
Why the cowardice, John?
Could it be that you can't censor me here?
You've read my response... you *KNOW* that you've tried to assert a flat
falsehood... and yet you refuse to retract it... or even *try* to refute it.
Why the cowardice, John?
timstter
Jul 7, 2012, 12:59:05 AM7/7/12
to
On Jul 7, 2:06 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <tl8fv7lhvvuq2pdq51kmadkl7i358ad...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
Hey Holmes, your hero, Lane, appears to have forgotten THIS bit of the
testimony of Altgens that directly PRECEDED the quote Lane gave in his
book. This is from 7 H 518:
QUOTE ON:
Mr. ALTGENS. Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from
behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as
he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at
the time- well, he was in a position-sort of immobile. He wasn't
upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have
just lodged-it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or
something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came
right on down. There was flesh particles...etc
QUOTE OFF
How does THIS support the contention of Lane, as quoted by you above,
that *the statements of eyewitnesses close to the president tended to
Mark Lane has been caught in YET ANOTHER demonstrable lie in his book,
Rush To Judgment.
> In article <tl8fv7lhvvuq2pdq51kmadkl7i358ad...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 4 Jul 2012 12:38:54 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>Found in the censored (alt.assassination.jfk) forum:
>
> >>In article <mq39v71sf13dskpqb1c55katafgcv72...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 4 Jul 2012 12:38:54 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>Found in the censored (alt.assassination.jfk) forum:
>
testimony of Altgens that directly PRECEDED the quote Lane gave in his
book. This is from 7 H 518:
QUOTE ON:
Mr. ALTGENS. Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from
behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as
he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at
the time- well, he was in a position-sort of immobile. He wasn't
upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have
just lodged-it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or
something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came
right on down. There was flesh particles...etc
QUOTE OFF
How does THIS support the contention of Lane, as quoted by you above,
that *the statements of eyewitnesses close to the president tended to
confirm the likelihood that the shots came from the right and not from
the rear* Holmes?
Mark Lane has been caught in YET ANOTHER demonstrable lie in his book,
Rush To Judgment.
mucher1
Jul 7, 2012, 6:04:02 AM7/7/12
to
Altgens is clearly a "right rear" witness, yet Lane touts him as a
"right side or front" witness. Shameless.
> 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.
>
timstter
Jul 7, 2012, 7:23:35 PM7/7/12
to
Liar, that is.
No wonder Holmes idolises him!
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...
0 new messages