Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Lying The Mark Lane Way # 4 (Rush To Judgment Book)
18 views
Skip to first unread message
timstter
Oct 5, 2012, 9:06:44 PM10/5/12
to
Hi All,
On page 108 of Rush To Judgment (Penguin edition) Lane states:
QUOTE ON:
What do we know about Oswald's proficiency with a rifle? That he was a
relatively poor shot and betrayed a dislike of weapons to a Marine Corps
friend.
QUOTE OFF
The evidence, though, is that Oswald must have been a *fairly good
shot* to have qualified as a USMC Sharpshooter, per this three page
letter from the USMC's AG Folsom to the Warren Commission:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0017b.htm
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0018a.htm
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0018b.htm
In fact, Major Eugene Anderson, the assistant head of the Marksmanship
Branch, Headquarters Marine Corps and himself a USMC shooting expert and
master rifleshot in the NRA, testified that Oswald would have been
*considered a good to excellent shot* in comparison to the average citizen
in his WC testimony:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/html/WC_Vol11_0158a.htm
Lane simply LIES by omission, by precluding any description of Oswald's
shooting outside of the mediocre.
Lying by OMISSION is Mark Lane's modus operandi.
When he is not lying OVERTLY, that is...
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!
On page 108 of Rush To Judgment (Penguin edition) Lane states:
QUOTE ON:
What do we know about Oswald's proficiency with a rifle? That he was a
relatively poor shot and betrayed a dislike of weapons to a Marine Corps
friend.
QUOTE OFF
The evidence, though, is that Oswald must have been a *fairly good
shot* to have qualified as a USMC Sharpshooter, per this three page
letter from the USMC's AG Folsom to the Warren Commission:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0017b.htm
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0018a.htm
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0018b.htm
In fact, Major Eugene Anderson, the assistant head of the Marksmanship
Branch, Headquarters Marine Corps and himself a USMC shooting expert and
master rifleshot in the NRA, testified that Oswald would have been
*considered a good to excellent shot* in comparison to the average citizen
in his WC testimony:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/html/WC_Vol11_0158a.htm
Lane simply LIES by omission, by precluding any description of Oswald's
shooting outside of the mediocre.
Lying by OMISSION is Mark Lane's modus operandi.
When he is not lying OVERTLY, that is...
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!
Anthony Marsh
Oct 5, 2012, 10:43:08 PM10/5/12
to
On 10/5/2012 9:06 PM, timstter wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> On page 108 of Rush To Judgment (Penguin edition) Lane states:
>
> QUOTE ON:
>
> What do we know about Oswald's proficiency with a rifle? That he was a
> relatively poor shot and betrayed a dislike of weapons to a Marine Corps
> friend.
>
> QUOTE OFF
>
> The evidence, though, is that Oswald must have been a *fairly good
> shot* to have qualified as a USMC Sharpshooter, per this three page
> letter from the USMC's AG Folsom to the Warren Commission:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0017b.htm
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0018a.htm
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0018b.htm
>
> In fact, Major Eugene Anderson, the assistant head of the Marksmanship
> Branch, Headquarters Marine Corps and himself a USMC shooting expert and
> master rifleshot in the NRA, testified that Oswald would have been
> *considered a good to excellent shot* in comparison to the average citizen
> in his WC testimony:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/html/WC_Vol11_0158a.htm
>
> Lane simply LIES by omission, by precluding any description of Oswald's
> shooting outside of the mediocre.
>
And what do you call it when you omit Folsom's letter where he states:
> Hi All,
>
> On page 108 of Rush To Judgment (Penguin edition) Lane states:
>
> QUOTE ON:
>
> What do we know about Oswald's proficiency with a rifle? That he was a
> relatively poor shot and betrayed a dislike of weapons to a Marine Corps
> friend.
>
> QUOTE OFF
>
> The evidence, though, is that Oswald must have been a *fairly good
> shot* to have qualified as a USMC Sharpshooter, per this three page
> letter from the USMC's AG Folsom to the Warren Commission:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0017b.htm
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0018a.htm
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0018b.htm
>
> In fact, Major Eugene Anderson, the assistant head of the Marksmanship
> Branch, Headquarters Marine Corps and himself a USMC shooting expert and
> master rifleshot in the NRA, testified that Oswald would have been
> *considered a good to excellent shot* in comparison to the average citizen
> in his WC testimony:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/html/WC_Vol11_0158a.htm
>
> Lane simply LIES by omission, by precluding any description of Oswald's
> shooting outside of the mediocre.
>
Consequently a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor "shot"
and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good "shot".
timstter
Oct 8, 2012, 12:11:55 AM10/8/12
to
On Oct 6, 1:43 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/5/2012 9:06 PM, timstter wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi All,
>
> > On page 108 of Rush To Judgment (Penguin edition) Lane states:
>
> > QUOTE ON:
>
> > What do we know about Oswald's proficiency with a rifle? That he was a
> > relatively poor shot and betrayed a dislike of weapons to a Marine Corps
> > friend.
>
> > QUOTE OFF
>
> > The evidence, though, is that Oswald must have been a *fairly good
> > shot* to have qualified as a USMC Sharpshooter, per this three page
> > letter from the USMC's AG Folsom to the Warren Commission:
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol...
> On 10/5/2012 9:06 PM, timstter wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi All,
>
> > On page 108 of Rush To Judgment (Penguin edition) Lane states:
>
> > QUOTE ON:
>
> > What do we know about Oswald's proficiency with a rifle? That he was a
> > relatively poor shot and betrayed a dislike of weapons to a Marine Corps
> > friend.
>
> > QUOTE OFF
>
> > The evidence, though, is that Oswald must have been a *fairly good
> > shot* to have qualified as a USMC Sharpshooter, per this three page
> > letter from the USMC's AG Folsom to the Warren Commission:
>
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol...
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol...
>
> > In fact, Major Eugene Anderson, the assistant head of the Marksmanship
> > Branch, Headquarters Marine Corps and himself a USMC shooting expert and
> > master rifleshot in the NRA, testified that Oswald would have been
> > *considered a good to excellent shot* in comparison to the average citizen
> > in his WC testimony:
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/html/WC_Vol...
> > In fact, Major Eugene Anderson, the assistant head of the Marksmanship
> > Branch, Headquarters Marine Corps and himself a USMC shooting expert and
> > master rifleshot in the NRA, testified that Oswald would have been
> > *considered a good to excellent shot* in comparison to the average citizen
> > in his WC testimony:
>
>
> > Lane simply LIES by omission, by precluding any description of Oswald's
> > shooting outside of the mediocre.
>
> And what do you call it when you omit Folsom's letter where he states:
>
> Consequently a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor "shot"
> and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good "shot".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Lying by OMISSION is Mark Lane's modus operandi.
>
> > When he is not lying OVERTLY, that is...
>
> > 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 simply LIES by omission, by precluding any description of Oswald's
> > shooting outside of the mediocre.
>
> And what do you call it when you omit Folsom's letter where he states:
>
> Consequently a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor "shot"
> and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good "shot".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Lying by OMISSION is Mark Lane's modus operandi.
>
> > When he is not lying OVERTLY, that is...
>
> > 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...
>
> > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
Huh? How have I omitted it when I linked to all three pages of the
> > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
letter?
Got any evidence to back up your claim that it was the CIA who said
Lane received KGB funding yet, Marsh?
I didn't think so.
Informative Regards,
0 new messages