I have a few questions I would like to ask Mark Lane. Is there a way
bobr
I suppose there are many others that would like to ask him some questions.
I know before this forum has hosted live debates.
Is there a way you could host a live question and answer session with Mark
Lane?
After Mark Lane I have some questions for Robert Groden.
I think it would be a very good idea to create an environment where some
of these original researchers are made available to the newer researchers.
What do you think?
bigdog
I would be very surprised if a charlatan like Mark Lane would ever
subject himself to skeptics.
Anthony Marsh
This type of environment is much too hostile for them to participate.
Usually death threats crop up.
John McAdams
Mark Lane showed up on the Education Forum and expressed a willingness
to converse.
But then he promptly disappeared.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Mitch Todd
Why not ask Gerald Posner? They seem to be getting along famously these
days.
Mitch Todd
It wasn't Lane. It was a double planted by Them (and we all know who They are)
to discredit the man.
Chuck Schuyler
Why do Lane and Groden threaten to kill people?
timstter
That's right! I mean he could run into a posting by tomnln, for
example.
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Bud
> On 5/13/2011 7:28 PM, bobr wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I have a few questions that I would like to ask Mark Lane.
>
> > I suppose there are many others that would like to ask him some questions.
>
>
> > Is there a way you could host a live question and answer session with Mark
> > Lane?
>
> > After Mark Lane I have some questions for Robert Groden.
>
> > I think it would be a very good idea to create an environment where some
> > of these original researchers are made available to the newer researchers.
>
> > What do you think?
>
> This type of environment is much too hostile for them to participate.
> Usually death threats crop up.
I think the moderation would prevent any death threats issued by
Lane from appearing.
pjsp...@aol.com
You are correct, John. I asked him about something I learned about on
this newsgroup, with no malice intended. I asked him about the editing
of Lee Bowers' statements in Rush to Judgment, which ended up changing
the meaning of his words.
Shortly before that time, I'd asked Tink Thompson about a similar
mistake in Six Seconds in Dallas, and he acknowledged his mistake. I
expected Lane to do the same. I was disappointed he did not.
As a CT, I'd like to believe CTs are more interested in the truth than
LNs, and, as a result, more willing to admit their mistakes when they
are exposed. Sadly, however, that is far from the reality.
bobr
What did Mark Lane say about editing the Lee Bowers transcripts?
pjsp...@aol.com
Several researchers, including Dale Myers and Gary Mack, have seen the
unedited transcripts of the Lee Bowers interview presented in Lane's film
Rush To Judgment. Several sections were left out of the film. The net
result was that the men Bowers saw on the knoll between his tower and Elm
St. were presented as being behind the fence, when he actually saw them on
the far side of the fence...from him. Conspiracy legend #1 is that.there
were men behind the fence and they were seen by Bowers. That Bowers
actually said they were on the far side of the fence-and that he was
therefore almost certainly describing the men seen on the steps in the
Muchmore film and Moorman photo--destroys this legend.
So, when I asked Lane about it, I expected him to either say he didn't
recall that part of the interview...OR...like Thompson, admit his mistake.
Instead he split. I can't say for sure I was the cause, but I have my
suspicions.
And I'm not proud of it, if that's what you're thinking. I would love for
Lane to have been an active member of the Ed Forum, and to have been able
to pick his brain on certain subjects. Unfortunately, I blew it by leading
with a hard one.
John McAdams
wrote:
>>
>> > You are correct, John. I asked him about something I learned about on
>> > this newsgroup, with no malice intended. I asked him about the editing
>> > of Lee Bowers' statements in Rush to Judgment, which ended up changing
>> > the meaning of his words.
>>
>> > Shortly before that time, I'd asked Tink Thompson about a similar
>> > mistake in Six Seconds in Dallas, and he acknowledged his mistake. I
>> > expected Lane to do the same. I was disappointed he did not.
>>
>> > As a CT, I'd like to believe CTs are more interested in the truth than
>> > LNs, and, as a result, more willing to admit their mistakes when they
>> > are exposed. Sadly, however, that is far from the reality.
>>
>> What did Mark Lane say about editing the Lee Bowers transcripts?
>
>Several researchers, including Dale Myers and Gary Mack, have seen the
>unedited transcripts of the Lee Bowers interview presented in Lane's film
>Rush To Judgment. Several sections were left out of the film. The net
>result was that the men Bowers saw on the knoll between his tower and Elm
>St. were presented as being behind the fence, when he actually saw them on
>the far side of the fence...from him. Conspiracy legend #1 is that.there
>were men behind the fence and they were seen by Bowers. That Bowers
>actually said they were on the far side of the fence-and that he was
>therefore almost certainly describing the men seen on the steps in the
>Muchmore film and Moorman photo--destroys this legend.
>
These transcripts are with the Wisconsin Historical Society in
Madison.
I had a student examine them a year or two ago.
What bothers me is that Bowers WC testimony clearly seems to put the
guys *behind* the Stockade Fence.
It also says there were *not* together, and neither of them was doing
anything suspecious.
In my book, I pretty much ignore his Mark Lane testimony (even the
unedited testimony) and use his WC testimony.
>So, when I asked Lane about it, I expected him to either say he didn't
>recall that part of the interview...OR...like Thompson, admit his mistake.
>Instead he split. I can't say for sure I was the cause, but I have my
>suspicions.
>
Tink is the class act among conspiracy authors.
>And I'm not proud of it, if that's what you're thinking. I would love for
>Lane to have been an active member of the Ed Forum, and to have been able
>to pick his brain on certain subjects. Unfortunately, I blew it by leading
>with a hard one.
But what is the point of having him around *unless* he'll answer the
tough questions?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
bobr
Thanks.
Did he say anything at all about it? Anything?
I am aware of those unedited transcripts and I have only read small
portions of them that have appeared on the internet.
You can read some of it on JFKLancer at the following link...
http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=84447&mesg_id=84447&listing_type=search
I do not think the men that Lee Bowers described were on the steps. That
is an assumption you are making.
Lee Bowers could not see the men on the steps from his location. He also
described one man as going in and out of his sight as he walked back and
forth. The men on the steps were not walking back and forth. He also
specifically says that the two men he saw were at the top of the incline.
In the film version of Rush To Judgement Mark Lane does place an "X" in
what could be the correct location, but the "X" is so large it could be
interpreted as referring to someone behind the fence or in front of the
fence. Regardless, the "X" is place in a place that makes it easy to say
that it was not the men on the steps that were being described. Here is a
picture of a frame from Rush To Judgement that shows the "X" as placed by
Bowers description.
http://pressbusone.com/images/bowers_men_location2.png
bobr
> On 19 May 2011 10:41:58 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
John,
You cannot "clearly seem" to do anything. I sure hope you did not make a
statement like that in your new book!
Neglecting any information which could clear up a ambiguous statement is
not a good procedure. Please tell me you do not teach your students to do
this.
Lee Bowers statement to the WC was ambiguous. You should teach you
students to try to find other information which will help them dis-
ambiguate the statement. And you should teach them to learn how to
identify statements which may be ambiguous.
Having said all that , I hope your book does well.
His
Anthony Marsh
What is the point of having YOU around when you won't answer the tough
Anthony Marsh
Yeah, and so what? The entire film was 98 minutes long. Maybe you don't
know how films are made. They shoot HUNDREDS of hours of footage and then
EDIT it all down to fit into a fixed length of time for viewing by the
audience, usually about an hour and a half. Few filmmakers have the power
to make their films longer than two hours.
So something has to be cut out. You know there are people in Hollywood who
get paid to make decisions like that and win awards for how skillfully
they do it. Someone has to trim two hours of an interview down to a
5-minute segment. They also do the same thing on TV. That is why you never
see the show 60 minutes going on for 10 hours.
> result was that the men Bowers saw on the knoll between his tower and Elm
> St. were presented as being behind the fence, when he actually saw them on
> the far side of the fence...from him. Conspiracy legend #1 is that.there
> were men behind the fence and they were seen by Bowers. That Bowers
> actually said they were on the far side of the fence-and that he was
> therefore almost certainly describing the men seen on the steps in the
> Muchmore film and Moorman photo--destroys this legend.
>
> So, when I asked Lane about it, I expected him to either say he didn't
> recall that part of the interview...OR...like Thompson, admit his mistake.
> Instead he split. I can't say for sure I was the cause, but I have my
> suspicions.
>
> And I'm not proud of it, if that's what you're thinking. I would love for
> Lane to have been an active member of the Ed Forum, and to have been able
> to pick his brain on certain subjects. Unfortunately, I blew it by leading
> with a hard one.
>
And that's why you don't see them here. Word gets around that this is a WC
defender forum designed to attack and defame conspiracy researchers.
Thanks for ruining it.
bobr
>
> I do not think the men that Lee Bowers described were on the steps. That
> is an assumption you are making.
>
> Lee Bowers could not see the men on the steps from his location. He also
> described one man as going in and out of his sight as he walked back and
> forth. The men on the steps were not walking back and forth. He also
> specifically says that the two men he saw were at the top of the incline.
> In the film version of Rush To Judgement Mark Lane does place an "X" in
> what could be the correct location, but the "X" is so large it could be
> interpreted as referring to someone behind the fence or in front of the
> fence. Regardless, the "X" is place in a place that makes it easy to say
> that it was not the men on the steps that were being described. Here is a
> picture of a frame from Rush To Judgement that shows the "X" as placed by
> Bowers description.
>
> http://pressbusone.com/images/bowers_men_location2.png
I would just like to add to my argument that the men on the steps ARE
NOT the men Lee Bowers is describing the following....
Lee Bowers said that the two men were about 15 feet apart and did not
appear to be associated.
Clealy, the two men Lee Bowers was describing were not the men the 3
men on the steps.