info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Can Someone Help Jean?
67 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
May 30, 2012, 4:51:13 PM5/30/12
to
In article <2c790b7e-15d0-4761...@n42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Jean says...
>
>On May 17, 8:34=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> "Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower behind the
>> wooden fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in area were
>> those standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the motorcade
>> approached, 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen were on the
>> railroad bridge; the knoll was just to their left.
>
> The 13 railroad employees are Curtis BISHOP, Ewell
>COWSERT, George A. DAVIS, Richard DODD, S. M. HOLLAND, Clemon JOHNSON,
>Austin MILLER, Thomas MURPHY, Nolan POTTER, Frank REILLY, James
>SIMMONS, Royce SKELTON, and Walter WINBORN, according to "Six Seconds
>in Dallas." Their statements are in vol. VI (testimony) and XXII (FBI
>statements), as well as here:
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
Hmmm... I failed to see any refutation of what Mark Lane stated...
Did I miss something?
> Lane continued:
>
>> Not one of the railroad men was called before the
>> Warren Commission. However, four were questioned by counsel for the
>> Commission and nine by agents of the FBI.
>
> This is a typical Lane quibble.
Again, I fail to see that there's any untruth being told here.
Did Mark Lane tell a lie here?
>The Commission listed 552
>witnesses. Some were heard by the Commissioners, but many others gave
>depositions before one or more WC staff lawyers:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0254a.htm
I'm guessing that you don't see any difference between being called in
front of the commission, and having your statement taken by someone.
That's okay... you have a right to your opinion.
But your opinion can't over-ride the historical fact that Mark Lane has
stated.
> Holland, Miller, Reilly, and Skelton are listed there
>as WC witnesses, and their testimony appears in volume VI alongside
>the testimony of Parkland doctors and Tippit witnesses:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh6.htm
>
> Lane says "not one of the railroad men was called
>before the Warren Commission," but look at the first page of Holland's
>testimony:
>
>QUOTE:
>
>Mr. STERN - Mr. Holland, you have received a letter from the
>Commission asking you to come and testify today?
>Mr. HOLLAND - Yes.
>Mr. STERN - As you know, the Commission is inquiring into all of the
>facts concerning the assassination of President Kennedy and we want
>your evidence concerning what you saw at the time of the assassination
>from the place you were standing. May we have, for the record, your
>name and residence address?
>
>UNQUOTE
>
>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0125a=
>.htm
You're kidding, right?
You think that "you have received a letter from the Commission asking you
to come and testify today?" is evidence that he actually testified before
the Commission?
I wonder what you'll assert that Marina did...
> Holland was without doubt a "knoll witness," as were several
>others on the railroad overpass. I'm not disputing that. I'm
>complaining about Lane's methods.
I'm still waiting for you to produce a lie on the part of Mark Lane.
Where is it?
Did I miss it?
> Lane continued:
>
>> Five of them said that shots came from the knoll
>> and six others said that when the shots were fired their attention was
>> immediately attracted to the knoll. It is worth noting that not one of the 13
>> men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll, said that he
>> thought that the shots came from the Book Depository, while 11 of them
>> indicated either explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above the
>> knoll was where they thought the sniper was."
>
> We're into "Mark Lane math" again, because 13 minus 11 is
>two, and there are *at least* three witnesses who did not indicate
>either explicitly or implicitly that they thought there was a sniper
>on the knoll:
>
>
>"COWSERT said he has no idea where the shots came from"
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1423.htm
>
>"Mr. DODD advised that his attention remained on President KENNEDY; he
>did not look up and did not know where the shots came from."
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1420.htm
Interestingly, even McAdams admits that "Later told Mark Lane she [sic]
saw smoke come from Knoll (RTJ)"
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm
You'll find it on page 40 of RTJ.
You can view his filmed interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YODZyI2qRMw
Strangely enough, when you watch the filmed interview, it's quite clear
where Dodd places a shooter. Here's the question: "And did you see
anything that might indicate to you where the shots came from?"
What was Dodd's answer, Jean?
Now Jean, a simple question, "yes" or "no" will suffice... Do your figures
add up?
Or will you deny what you can hear Dodd saying for yourself?
>"Mr. WINBORN stated he was not able to ascertain exactly where the
>shots were fired from .."
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1417.htm
The part you leave out is what *action* took place. He moved where he
could view the Grassy Knoll. While I agree that he's really neither a
Knoll or TSBD witness, he *supports* the Grassy Knoll. (as, in a somewhat
lesser way, he'd support shots from the TSBD)
But this isn't really relevant... once you've heard Dodd stating himself
where he places a shooter, your math is wrong, and once again, Mark Lane
is shown to be correct.
> These are the same documents that Lane was using, so how do
>these figures add up?
That *is* the question that will be embarrassing for you to answer.
You see, I don't have any problems condemning authors if they aren't in
accord with the facts.
Wrone, for example, is a fellow "CT'er", whom I've blasted in the past for
his lies.
I'm sure you're aware of the disdain I have for another CT'er, "Tony
Marsh", [removed for posting in the censored forum]
But LNT'ers don't criticize other LNT'ers... although to be fair to
Bugliosi, he actually has. It's rare, however.
>> The kooks will again refuse to refute these facts brought up by Mark Lane.
>> They keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any evidence.
>>
>> This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the kooks can't
>> refute it.
>
> So who were these 11 witnesses who "indicated either
>explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above the knoll was
>where they thought the sniper was," as Mark Lane claimed?
That's a question I'd be interested to see your answer to, Jean. Since I
just blew your Dodd reference out of the water...
>Jean
Sorry Jean... you're still not making your case.
As a simple example - go here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
Now, which pie chart is accurate?
*This* is the same thing you're doing with Mark Lane.
You'll have to do much better than this if you want to convince the
American public.
It's amusing that you refuse to admit that Bugliosi outright *LIED* about
how Carrico described the throat wound, yet you label your quibbles with
Mark Lane's way of characterizing historical fact as a lie.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Jean says...
>
>On May 17, 8:34=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> "Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower behind the
>> wooden fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in area were
>> those standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the motorcade
>> approached, 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen were on the
>> railroad bridge; the knoll was just to their left.
>
> The 13 railroad employees are Curtis BISHOP, Ewell
>COWSERT, George A. DAVIS, Richard DODD, S. M. HOLLAND, Clemon JOHNSON,
>Austin MILLER, Thomas MURPHY, Nolan POTTER, Frank REILLY, James
>SIMMONS, Royce SKELTON, and Walter WINBORN, according to "Six Seconds
>in Dallas." Their statements are in vol. VI (testimony) and XXII (FBI
>statements), as well as here:
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
Hmmm... I failed to see any refutation of what Mark Lane stated...
Did I miss something?
> Lane continued:
>
>> Not one of the railroad men was called before the
>> Warren Commission. However, four were questioned by counsel for the
>> Commission and nine by agents of the FBI.
>
> This is a typical Lane quibble.
Again, I fail to see that there's any untruth being told here.
Did Mark Lane tell a lie here?
>The Commission listed 552
>witnesses. Some were heard by the Commissioners, but many others gave
>depositions before one or more WC staff lawyers:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0254a.htm
I'm guessing that you don't see any difference between being called in
front of the commission, and having your statement taken by someone.
That's okay... you have a right to your opinion.
But your opinion can't over-ride the historical fact that Mark Lane has
stated.
> Holland, Miller, Reilly, and Skelton are listed there
>as WC witnesses, and their testimony appears in volume VI alongside
>the testimony of Parkland doctors and Tippit witnesses:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh6.htm
>
> Lane says "not one of the railroad men was called
>before the Warren Commission," but look at the first page of Holland's
>testimony:
>
>QUOTE:
>
>Mr. STERN - Mr. Holland, you have received a letter from the
>Commission asking you to come and testify today?
>Mr. HOLLAND - Yes.
>Mr. STERN - As you know, the Commission is inquiring into all of the
>facts concerning the assassination of President Kennedy and we want
>your evidence concerning what you saw at the time of the assassination
>from the place you were standing. May we have, for the record, your
>name and residence address?
>
>UNQUOTE
>
>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0125a=
>.htm
You're kidding, right?
You think that "you have received a letter from the Commission asking you
to come and testify today?" is evidence that he actually testified before
the Commission?
I wonder what you'll assert that Marina did...
> Holland was without doubt a "knoll witness," as were several
>others on the railroad overpass. I'm not disputing that. I'm
>complaining about Lane's methods.
I'm still waiting for you to produce a lie on the part of Mark Lane.
Where is it?
Did I miss it?
> Lane continued:
>
>> Five of them said that shots came from the knoll
>> and six others said that when the shots were fired their attention was
>> immediately attracted to the knoll. It is worth noting that not one of the 13
>> men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll, said that he
>> thought that the shots came from the Book Depository, while 11 of them
>> indicated either explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above the
>> knoll was where they thought the sniper was."
>
> We're into "Mark Lane math" again, because 13 minus 11 is
>two, and there are *at least* three witnesses who did not indicate
>either explicitly or implicitly that they thought there was a sniper
>on the knoll:
>
>
>"COWSERT said he has no idea where the shots came from"
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1423.htm
>
>"Mr. DODD advised that his attention remained on President KENNEDY; he
>did not look up and did not know where the shots came from."
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1420.htm
Interestingly, even McAdams admits that "Later told Mark Lane she [sic]
saw smoke come from Knoll (RTJ)"
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm
You'll find it on page 40 of RTJ.
You can view his filmed interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YODZyI2qRMw
Strangely enough, when you watch the filmed interview, it's quite clear
where Dodd places a shooter. Here's the question: "And did you see
anything that might indicate to you where the shots came from?"
What was Dodd's answer, Jean?
Now Jean, a simple question, "yes" or "no" will suffice... Do your figures
add up?
Or will you deny what you can hear Dodd saying for yourself?
>"Mr. WINBORN stated he was not able to ascertain exactly where the
>shots were fired from .."
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1417.htm
The part you leave out is what *action* took place. He moved where he
could view the Grassy Knoll. While I agree that he's really neither a
Knoll or TSBD witness, he *supports* the Grassy Knoll. (as, in a somewhat
lesser way, he'd support shots from the TSBD)
But this isn't really relevant... once you've heard Dodd stating himself
where he places a shooter, your math is wrong, and once again, Mark Lane
is shown to be correct.
> These are the same documents that Lane was using, so how do
>these figures add up?
That *is* the question that will be embarrassing for you to answer.
You see, I don't have any problems condemning authors if they aren't in
accord with the facts.
Wrone, for example, is a fellow "CT'er", whom I've blasted in the past for
his lies.
I'm sure you're aware of the disdain I have for another CT'er, "Tony
Marsh", [removed for posting in the censored forum]
But LNT'ers don't criticize other LNT'ers... although to be fair to
Bugliosi, he actually has. It's rare, however.
>> The kooks will again refuse to refute these facts brought up by Mark Lane.
>> They keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any evidence.
>>
>> This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the kooks can't
>> refute it.
>
> So who were these 11 witnesses who "indicated either
>explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above the knoll was
>where they thought the sniper was," as Mark Lane claimed?
That's a question I'd be interested to see your answer to, Jean. Since I
just blew your Dodd reference out of the water...
>Jean
Sorry Jean... you're still not making your case.
As a simple example - go here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
Now, which pie chart is accurate?
*This* is the same thing you're doing with Mark Lane.
You'll have to do much better than this if you want to convince the
American public.
It's amusing that you refuse to admit that Bugliosi outright *LIED* about
how Carrico described the throat wound, yet you label your quibbles with
Mark Lane's way of characterizing historical fact as a lie.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Jean Davison
May 31, 2012, 9:35:41 AM5/31/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On May 30, 3:51 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <2c790b7e-15d0-4761-abe7-1a11cf329...@n42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Jean says...
>
>
>
The back story here is that I made the mistake of replying to
Ben on the other forum. I asked him to be civil. He wasn't. My
fault for expecting anything else. I hadn't planned to respond, but
since he's brought the topic here, I will. I want to acknowledge that
I overlooked something in a Mark Lane footnote.
>
> >On May 17, 8:34=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> "Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower behind the
> >> wooden fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in area were
> >> those standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the motorcade
> >> approached, 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen were on the
> >> railroad bridge; the knoll was just to their left.
>
> > The 13 railroad employees are Curtis BISHOP, Ewell
> >COWSERT, George A. DAVIS, Richard DODD, S. M. HOLLAND, Clemon JOHNSON,
> >Austin MILLER, Thomas MURPHY, Nolan POTTER, Frank REILLY, James
> >SIMMONS, Royce SKELTON, and Walter WINBORN, according to "Six Seconds
> >in Dallas." Their statements are in vol. VI (testimony) and XXII (FBI
> >statements), as well as here:
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
>
> Hmmm... I failed to see any refutation of what Mark Lane stated...
>
> Did I miss something?
I named the Lane witnesses you referred to and posted the
cites.
>
> > Lane continued:
>
> >> Not one of the railroad men was called before the
> >> Warren Commission. However, four were questioned by counsel for the
> >> Commission and nine by agents of the FBI.
>
> > This is a typical Lane quibble.
>
> Again, I fail to see that there's any untruth being told here.
>
> Did Mark Lane tell a lie here?
Look up "quibble."
>
> >The Commission listed 552
> >witnesses. Some were heard by the Commissioners, but many others gave
> >depositions before one or more WC staff lawyers:
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0254a.htm
>
> I'm guessing that you don't see any difference between being called in
> front of the commission, and having your statement taken by someone.
Not what I said.
>
> That's okay... you have a right to your opinion.
>
> But your opinion can't over-ride the historical fact that Mark Lane has
> stated.
It's also a fact that the WC considered the four men's
depositions to be testimony, not just "questioning" by the staff.
It's a minor point, not worth pursuing, really.
>
>
> > Holland, Miller, Reilly, and Skelton are listed there
> >as WC witnesses, and their testimony appears in volume VI alongside
> >the testimony of Parkland doctors and Tippit witnesses:
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh6.htm
>
> > Lane says "not one of the railroad men was called
> >before the Warren Commission," but look at the first page of Holland's
> >testimony:
>
> >QUOTE:
>
> >Mr. STERN - Mr. Holland, you have received a letter from the
> >Commission asking you to come and testify today?
> >Mr. HOLLAND - Yes.
> >Mr. STERN - As you know, the Commission is inquiring into all of the
> >facts concerning the assassination of President Kennedy and we want
> >your evidence concerning what you saw at the time of the assassination
> >from the place you were standing. May we have, for the record, your
> >name and residence address?
>
> >UNQUOTE
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6...
was wrong. It is.
Yes, in 1966 Dodd said that he saw smoke come from the
knoll. I overlooked this cite in Lane's footnotes. I apologize for
the error. However, Lane's math is *still* wrong. (Keep reading.)
>
> >"Mr. WINBORN stated he was not able to ascertain exactly where the
> >shots were fired from .."
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1417.htm
>
> The part you leave out is what *action* took place. He moved where he
> could view the Grassy Knoll. While I agree that he's really neither a
> Knoll or TSBD witness, he *supports* the Grassy Knoll. (as, in a somewhat
> lesser way, he'd support shots from the TSBD)
>
> But this isn't really relevant... once you've heard Dodd stating himself
> where he places a shooter, your math is wrong, and once again, Mark Lane
> is shown to be correct.
Not so fast. Lane claimed that six of these men "said
Potter and Bishop
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0432b.htm
Johnson and Cowsert
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0433b.htm
Austin Miller:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0118a.htm
and Walter Winborn:
http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/Witness/witnessMap/Winborn.htm
I challenge you to show that all six implicitly
indicated they thought the shots came from the knoll. Johnson "stated
that he felt" the white smoke he saw "came from a motorcycle
abandoned near the spot by a Dallas policeman." Cowsert "said he has
no idea where the shots came from ... He stated he does recall seeing
several people and a motorcycle policeman run up the grassy area..."
Bishop also recalled seeing a motorcycle cop "drive up the grassy
slope."
Is THAT what Lane meant when he said "their attention
was immediately attracted to the knoll"? How does any of that
indicate that they thought there was a sniper behind the fence?
Everybody in that area would've seen the motorcycle and people running
up the slope-- does that somehow make all of them knoll witnesses??
I'd like to see you defend Lane's numbers here. If I'm
wrong, show me.
>
> > These are the same documents that Lane was using, so how do
> >these figures add up?
>
> That *is* the question that will be embarrassing for you to answer.
You posted the claim. Where is *your* answer?
>
> You see, I don't have any problems condemning authors if they aren't in
> accord with the facts.
We'll see.
>
> Wrone, for example, is a fellow "CT'er", whom I've blasted in the past for
> his lies.
>
> I'm sure you're aware of the disdain I have for another CT'er, "Tony
> Marsh", [removed for posting in the censored forum]
>
> But LNT'ers don't criticize other LNT'ers... although to be fair to
> Bugliosi, he actually has. It's rare, however.
>
> >> The kooks will again refuse to refute these facts brought up by Mark Lane.
> >> They keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any evidence.
>
> >> This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the kooks can't
> >> refute it.
>
> > So who were these 11 witnesses who "indicated either
> >explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above the knoll was
> >where they thought the sniper was," as Mark Lane claimed?
>
> That's a question I'd be interested to see your answer to, Jean. Since I
> just blew your Dodd reference out of the water...
Where is *your* answer? I've given you the links. Quote
away!
>
> >Jean
>
> Sorry Jean... you're still not making your case.
>
> As a simple example - go here:http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
>
> Now, which pie chart is accurate?
>
> *This* is the same thing you're doing with Mark Lane.
>
> You'll have to do much better than this if you want to convince the
> American public.
>
> It's amusing that you refuse to admit that Bugliosi outright *LIED* about
> how Carrico described the throat wound, yet you label your quibbles with
> Mark Lane's way of characterizing historical fact as a lie.
That's not what I said.
It would've been stupid for Bugliosi to lie about a thing
like that, and he's not stupid. If you don't understand that, that's
your problem.
Jean
> In article <2c790b7e-15d0-4761-abe7-1a11cf329...@n42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Jean says...
>
>
>
The back story here is that I made the mistake of replying to
Ben on the other forum. I asked him to be civil. He wasn't. My
fault for expecting anything else. I hadn't planned to respond, but
since he's brought the topic here, I will. I want to acknowledge that
I overlooked something in a Mark Lane footnote.
>
> >On May 17, 8:34=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> "Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower behind the
> >> wooden fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in area were
> >> those standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the motorcade
> >> approached, 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen were on the
> >> railroad bridge; the knoll was just to their left.
>
> > The 13 railroad employees are Curtis BISHOP, Ewell
> >COWSERT, George A. DAVIS, Richard DODD, S. M. HOLLAND, Clemon JOHNSON,
> >Austin MILLER, Thomas MURPHY, Nolan POTTER, Frank REILLY, James
> >SIMMONS, Royce SKELTON, and Walter WINBORN, according to "Six Seconds
> >in Dallas." Their statements are in vol. VI (testimony) and XXII (FBI
> >statements), as well as here:
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
>
> Hmmm... I failed to see any refutation of what Mark Lane stated...
>
> Did I miss something?
cites.
>
> > Lane continued:
>
> >> Not one of the railroad men was called before the
> >> Warren Commission. However, four were questioned by counsel for the
> >> Commission and nine by agents of the FBI.
>
> > This is a typical Lane quibble.
>
> Again, I fail to see that there's any untruth being told here.
>
> Did Mark Lane tell a lie here?
>
> >The Commission listed 552
> >witnesses. Some were heard by the Commissioners, but many others gave
> >depositions before one or more WC staff lawyers:
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0254a.htm
>
> I'm guessing that you don't see any difference between being called in
> front of the commission, and having your statement taken by someone.
>
> That's okay... you have a right to your opinion.
>
> But your opinion can't over-ride the historical fact that Mark Lane has
> stated.
depositions to be testimony, not just "questioning" by the staff.
It's a minor point, not worth pursuing, really.
>
>
> > Holland, Miller, Reilly, and Skelton are listed there
> >as WC witnesses, and their testimony appears in volume VI alongside
> >the testimony of Parkland doctors and Tippit witnesses:
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh6.htm
>
> > Lane says "not one of the railroad men was called
> >before the Warren Commission," but look at the first page of Holland's
> >testimony:
>
> >QUOTE:
>
> >Mr. STERN - Mr. Holland, you have received a letter from the
> >Commission asking you to come and testify today?
> >Mr. HOLLAND - Yes.
> >Mr. STERN - As you know, the Commission is inquiring into all of the
> >facts concerning the assassination of President Kennedy and we want
> >your evidence concerning what you saw at the time of the assassination
> >from the place you were standing. May we have, for the record, your
> >name and residence address?
>
> >UNQUOTE
>
> >.htm
>
> You're kidding, right?
>
> You think that "you have received a letter from the Commission asking you
> to come and testify today?" is evidence that he actually testified before
> the Commission?
>
> I wonder what you'll assert that Marina did...
>
> > Holland was without doubt a "knoll witness," as were several
> >others on the railroad overpass. I'm not disputing that. I'm
> >complaining about Lane's methods.
>
> I'm still waiting for you to produce a lie on the part of Mark Lane.
>
> Where is it?
>
> Did I miss it?
You're the one in love with the word "lie." I said his math
>
> You're kidding, right?
>
> You think that "you have received a letter from the Commission asking you
> to come and testify today?" is evidence that he actually testified before
> the Commission?
>
> I wonder what you'll assert that Marina did...
>
> > Holland was without doubt a "knoll witness," as were several
> >others on the railroad overpass. I'm not disputing that. I'm
> >complaining about Lane's methods.
>
> I'm still waiting for you to produce a lie on the part of Mark Lane.
>
> Where is it?
>
> Did I miss it?
was wrong. It is.
knoll. I overlooked this cite in Lane's footnotes. I apologize for
the error. However, Lane's math is *still* wrong. (Keep reading.)
>
> >"Mr. WINBORN stated he was not able to ascertain exactly where the
> >shots were fired from .."
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1417.htm
>
> The part you leave out is what *action* took place. He moved where he
> could view the Grassy Knoll. While I agree that he's really neither a
> Knoll or TSBD witness, he *supports* the Grassy Knoll. (as, in a somewhat
> lesser way, he'd support shots from the TSBD)
>
> But this isn't really relevant... once you've heard Dodd stating himself
> where he places a shooter, your math is wrong, and once again, Mark Lane
> is shown to be correct.
that when the shots were fired their attention was immediately
attracted to the knoll," and that they implicitly indicated "that the
fenced-in area above the knoll was where they thought the sniper
was." His footnote indicates he's talking about these six:
Potter and Bishop
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0432b.htm
Johnson and Cowsert
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0433b.htm
Austin Miller:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0118a.htm
and Walter Winborn:
http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/Witness/witnessMap/Winborn.htm
I challenge you to show that all six implicitly
indicated they thought the shots came from the knoll. Johnson "stated
that he felt" the white smoke he saw "came from a motorcycle
abandoned near the spot by a Dallas policeman." Cowsert "said he has
no idea where the shots came from ... He stated he does recall seeing
several people and a motorcycle policeman run up the grassy area..."
Bishop also recalled seeing a motorcycle cop "drive up the grassy
slope."
Is THAT what Lane meant when he said "their attention
was immediately attracted to the knoll"? How does any of that
indicate that they thought there was a sniper behind the fence?
Everybody in that area would've seen the motorcycle and people running
up the slope-- does that somehow make all of them knoll witnesses??
I'd like to see you defend Lane's numbers here. If I'm
wrong, show me.
>
> > These are the same documents that Lane was using, so how do
> >these figures add up?
>
> That *is* the question that will be embarrassing for you to answer.
>
> You see, I don't have any problems condemning authors if they aren't in
> accord with the facts.
>
> Wrone, for example, is a fellow "CT'er", whom I've blasted in the past for
> his lies.
>
> I'm sure you're aware of the disdain I have for another CT'er, "Tony
> Marsh", [removed for posting in the censored forum]
>
> But LNT'ers don't criticize other LNT'ers... although to be fair to
> Bugliosi, he actually has. It's rare, however.
>
> >> The kooks will again refuse to refute these facts brought up by Mark Lane.
> >> They keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any evidence.
>
> >> This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the kooks can't
> >> refute it.
>
> > So who were these 11 witnesses who "indicated either
> >explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above the knoll was
> >where they thought the sniper was," as Mark Lane claimed?
>
> That's a question I'd be interested to see your answer to, Jean. Since I
> just blew your Dodd reference out of the water...
away!
>
> >Jean
>
> Sorry Jean... you're still not making your case.
>
> As a simple example - go here:http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
>
> Now, which pie chart is accurate?
>
> *This* is the same thing you're doing with Mark Lane.
>
> You'll have to do much better than this if you want to convince the
> American public.
>
> It's amusing that you refuse to admit that Bugliosi outright *LIED* about
> how Carrico described the throat wound, yet you label your quibbles with
> Mark Lane's way of characterizing historical fact as a lie.
It would've been stupid for Bugliosi to lie about a thing
like that, and he's not stupid. If you don't understand that, that's
your problem.
Jean
Ace Kefford
May 31, 2012, 5:29:49 PM5/31/12
to
>
> Johnson and Cowsert
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
>
> Austin Miller:
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...
>
> read more »
I don't know why you bother, but (as far as I read into the email) you
were making very good points. In particular I like the one about Lane
using not appearing before the Warren Commission to imply that they were
not questioned as part of the commission's inquiry. I am very certain
most people would read Lane's text that way. This is subtle deception.
Jean Davison
May 31, 2012, 7:08:43 PM5/31/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
to make about Lane's "subtle deception."
Jean
Jean Davison
Jun 1, 2012, 1:31:01 PM6/1/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
Ben Holmes started a thread here, but after I responded he went
back to alt.conspiracy. Over there he failed to answer the main point,
which was this:
>>>>
> Not so fast. Lane claimed that six of these men "said
> that when the shots were fired their attention was immediately
> attracted to the knoll," and that they implicitly indicated "that the
> fenced-in area above the knoll was where they thought the sniper
>
> Potter and Bishop
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
>
> Johnson and Cowsert
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
>
> Austin Miller:
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...
>
>
> Johnson and Cowsert
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
>
> Austin Miller:
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...
>
> and Walter Winborn:
> http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/Witness/witnessMap/Winborn.htm
>
> I challenge you to show that all six implicitly
> indicated they thought the shots came from the knoll. Johnson "stated
> that he felt" the white smoke he saw "came from a motorcycle
> abandoned near the spot by a Dallas policeman." Cowsert "said he has
> no idea where the shots came from ... He stated he does recall seeing
> several people and a motorcycle policeman run up the grassy area..."
> Bishop also recalled seeing a motorcycle cop "drive up the grassy
> slope."
>
> Is THAT what Lane meant when he said "their attention
> was immediately attracted to the knoll"? How does any of that
> indicate that they thought there was a sniper behind the fence?
> Everybody in that area would've seen the motorcycle and people running
> up the slope-- does that somehow make all of them knoll witnesses??
>
> I'd like to see you defend Lane's numbers here. If I'm
> wrong, show me.
>
Ben replied:
> http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/Witness/witnessMap/Winborn.htm
>
> I challenge you to show that all six implicitly
> indicated they thought the shots came from the knoll. Johnson "stated
> that he felt" the white smoke he saw "came from a motorcycle
> abandoned near the spot by a Dallas policeman." Cowsert "said he has
> no idea where the shots came from ... He stated he does recall seeing
> several people and a motorcycle policeman run up the grassy area..."
> Bishop also recalled seeing a motorcycle cop "drive up the grassy
> slope."
>
> Is THAT what Lane meant when he said "their attention
> was immediately attracted to the knoll"? How does any of that
> indicate that they thought there was a sniper behind the fence?
> Everybody in that area would've seen the motorcycle and people running
> up the slope-- does that somehow make all of them knoll witnesses??
>
> I'd like to see you defend Lane's numbers here. If I'm
> wrong, show me.
>
QUOTE
Since you're no longer around to respond - there's not much of a need to
make the argument, is there?
UNQUOTE
Which is a silly evasion, since he started a thread HERE and
could respond here or over there, if he actually had an answer. Not
insults, but an *answer*.
Jean
P.S. Thanks to Bud for pointing this out on the other forum.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 1, 2012, 8:45:44 PM6/1/12
to
On 5/31/2012 9:35 AM, Jean Davison wrote:
> On May 30, 3:51 pm, Ben Holmes<ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article<2c790b7e-15d0-4761-abe7-1a11cf329...@n42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>> Jean says...
>>
>>
>>
>
> The back story here is that I made the mistake of replying to
> Ben on the other forum. I asked him to be civil. He wasn't. My
How naughty of you. Why would you go to the Nuthouse and ask someone to be
> On May 30, 3:51 pm, Ben Holmes<ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article<2c790b7e-15d0-4761-abe7-1a11cf329...@n42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>> Jean says...
>>
>>
>>
>
> The back story here is that I made the mistake of replying to
> Ben on the other forum. I asked him to be civil. He wasn't. My
civil? You think it is more important to be civil than to tell the truth?
testimony? Do you understand the difference?
>>
>>> The Commission listed 552
>>> witnesses. Some were heard by the Commissioners, but many others gave
>>> depositions before one or more WC staff lawyers:
>>
>>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0254a.htm
>>
>> I'm guessing that you don't see any difference between being called in
>> front of the commission, and having your statement taken by someone.
>
> Not what I said.
>
>>
>> That's okay... you have a right to your opinion.
>>
>> But your opinion can't over-ride the historical fact that Mark Lane has
>> stated.
>
> It's also a fact that the WC considered the four men's
> depositions to be testimony, not just "questioning" by the staff.
> It's a minor point, not worth pursuing, really.
>
anyone testify at all?
Burkely was questioned by the HSCA staff, but refused to testify.
witnesses. Just an honest mistake or selection bias?
did?
> I challenge you to show that all six implicitly
> indicated they thought the shots came from the knoll. Johnson "stated
> that he felt" the white smoke he saw "came from a motorcycle
> abandoned near the spot by a Dallas policeman." Cowsert "said he has
> no idea where the shots came from ... He stated he does recall seeing
> several people and a motorcycle policeman run up the grassy area..."
> Bishop also recalled seeing a motorcycle cop "drive up the grassy
> slope."
>
> Is THAT what Lane meant when he said "their attention
> was immediately attracted to the knoll"? How does any of that
> indicate that they thought there was a sniper behind the fence?
looking for the assassin.
> Everybody in that area would've seen the motorcycle and people running
> up the slope-- does that somehow make all of them knoll witnesses??
>
> I'd like to see you defend Lane's numbers here. If I'm
> wrong, show me.
>
> It would've been stupid for Bugliosi to lie about a thing
> like that, and he's not stupid. If you don't understand that, that's
> your problem.
>
liar to his face and prove it.
Ben Holmes
Jun 1, 2012, 8:54:14 PM6/1/12
to
In article <eafc0016-a1d1-4607...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison says...
>x:
>>
>> Potter and Bishop
>> =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html=
>/WH_Vol...
>>
>> Johnson and Cowsert
>> =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html=
>/WH_Vol...
>>
>> Austin Miller:
>> =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html=
>/WH_Vol...
>>
>> and Walter Winborn:
>> =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/Witness/witnessMap/Win=
>born.htm
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 I challenge you to show that all six implicit=
>ly
>> indicated they thought the shots came from the knoll. =A0Johnson "stated
>> that he felt" =A0the white smoke he saw "came from a motorcycle
>> abandoned near the spot by a Dallas policeman." =A0Cowsert =A0"said he ha=
>ttention
>> was immediately attracted to the knoll"? =A0How does any of that
>e. =A0If I'm
Indeed, you've learned the lesson repeatedly...
Jean Davison says...
>
>
> Ben Holmes started a thread here, but after I responded he went
>back to alt.conspiracy. Over there he failed to answer the main point,
>which was this:
>
>
>>>>>
>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Not so fast. =A0 Lane claimed that six of these me=
>
> Ben Holmes started a thread here, but after I responded he went
>back to alt.conspiracy. Over there he failed to answer the main point,
>which was this:
>
>
>>>>>
>
>n "said
>> that when the shots were fired their attention was immediately
>> attracted to the knoll," and that they implicitly indicated "that the
>> fenced-in area above the knoll was where they thought the sniper
>> was." =A0[p. 39, RTJ] His footnote indicates he's talking about these si=
>> that when the shots were fired their attention was immediately
>> attracted to the knoll," and that they implicitly indicated "that the
>> fenced-in area above the knoll was where they thought the sniper
>x:
>>
>> Potter and Bishop
>> =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html=
>/WH_Vol...
>>
>> Johnson and Cowsert
>> =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html=
>/WH_Vol...
>>
>> Austin Miller:
>> =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html=
>/WH_Vol...
>>
>> and Walter Winborn:
>> =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/Witness/witnessMap/Win=
>born.htm
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 I challenge you to show that all six implicit=
>ly
>> indicated they thought the shots came from the knoll. =A0Johnson "stated
>> that he felt" =A0the white smoke he saw "came from a motorcycle
>> abandoned near the spot by a Dallas policeman." =A0Cowsert =A0"said he ha=
>s
>> no idea where the shots came from ... He stated he does recall seeing
>> several people and a motorcycle policeman run up the grassy area..."
>> Bishop also recalled seeing a motorcycle cop "drive up the grassy
>> slope."
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Is THAT what Lane meant when he said "their a=
>> no idea where the shots came from ... He stated he does recall seeing
>> several people and a motorcycle policeman run up the grassy area..."
>> Bishop also recalled seeing a motorcycle cop "drive up the grassy
>> slope."
>>
>ttention
>> was immediately attracted to the knoll"? =A0How does any of that
>> indicate that they thought there was a sniper behind the fence?
>> Everybody in that area would've seen the motorcycle and people running
>> up the slope-- does that somehow make all of them knoll witnesses??
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 I'd like to see you defend Lane's numbers her=
>> Everybody in that area would've seen the motorcycle and people running
>> up the slope-- does that somehow make all of them knoll witnesses??
>>
>e. =A0If I'm
>> wrong, show me.
>>
>
> Ben replied:
>
>QUOTE
>
>Since you're no longer around to respond - there's not much of a need to
>make the argument, is there?
>
>UNQUOTE
>
> Which is a silly evasion, since he started a thread HERE and
>could respond here or over there, if he actually had an answer. Not
>insults, but an *answer*.
>
>
>Jean
>
>P.S. Thanks to Bud for pointing this out on the other forum.
Sorry Jean, but you know very well why I don't respond to most posts here.
>>
>
> Ben replied:
>
>QUOTE
>
>Since you're no longer around to respond - there's not much of a need to
>make the argument, is there?
>
>UNQUOTE
>
> Which is a silly evasion, since he started a thread HERE and
>could respond here or over there, if he actually had an answer. Not
>insults, but an *answer*.
>
>
>Jean
>
>P.S. Thanks to Bud for pointing this out on the other forum.
Indeed, you've learned the lesson repeatedly...
Bud
Jun 1, 2012, 8:54:57 PM6/1/12
to
reasons. <snicker>
Bill Clarke
Jun 1, 2012, 8:55:33 PM6/1/12
to
> Ben Holmes started a thread here, but after I responded he went
>back to alt.conspiracy. Over there he failed to answer the main point,
>which was this:
Top post. I believe that Ben is beyond the help of mortal man.
>back to alt.conspiracy. Over there he failed to answer the main point,
>which was this:
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
Jun 1, 2012, 9:40:37 PM6/1/12
to
In article <4fc8e909$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
Hitler?s Panzer Divisions. I always wondered if this was the height of
courage or the height of an inability to reason. I wonder the same when
you mess with Jean. She has rolled over you every time you tangle with
her. Rolled over you like a Panzer Division. She did the same to Holmes.
Like you he is still trying to defend but it is rather laughable.
Bill Clarke
>
>On 5/31/2012 9:35 AM, Jean Davison wrote:
>> On May 30, 3:51 pm, Ben Holmes<ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>>In article<2c790b7e-15d0-4761-abe7-1a11cf329...@n42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Jean says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The back story here is that I made the mistake of replying to
>> Ben on the other forum. I asked him to be civil. He wasn't. My
>
>How naughty of you. Why would you go to the Nuthouse and ask someone to be
>civil? You think it is more important to be civil than to tell the truth?
Top post. They tell me the Polish Horse Cavalry tried to defend against
>On 5/31/2012 9:35 AM, Jean Davison wrote:
>> On May 30, 3:51 pm, Ben Holmes<ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>>In article<2c790b7e-15d0-4761-abe7-1a11cf329...@n42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Jean says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The back story here is that I made the mistake of replying to
>> Ben on the other forum. I asked him to be civil. He wasn't. My
>
>How naughty of you. Why would you go to the Nuthouse and ask someone to be
>civil? You think it is more important to be civil than to tell the truth?
Hitler?s Panzer Divisions. I always wondered if this was the height of
courage or the height of an inability to reason. I wonder the same when
you mess with Jean. She has rolled over you every time you tangle with
her. Rolled over you like a Panzer Division. She did the same to Holmes.
Like you he is still trying to defend but it is rather laughable.
Bill Clarke
Bud
Jun 1, 2012, 9:42:26 PM6/1/12
to
On Jun 1, 8:45 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/31/2012 9:35 AM, Jean Davison wrote:
>
> > On May 30, 3:51 pm, Ben Holmes<ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> In article<2c790b7e-15d0-4761-abe7-1a11cf329...@n42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Jean says...
>
> > The back story here is that I made the mistake of replying to
> > Ben on the other forum. I asked him to be civil. He wasn't. My
>
> How naughty of you. Why would you go to the Nuthouse and ask someone to be
> civil? You think it is more important to be civil than to tell the truth?
For you either might be a challenge.
> On 5/31/2012 9:35 AM, Jean Davison wrote:
>
> > On May 30, 3:51 pm, Ben Holmes<ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> In article<2c790b7e-15d0-4761-abe7-1a11cf329...@n42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Jean says...
>
> > The back story here is that I made the mistake of replying to
> > Ben on the other forum. I asked him to be civil. He wasn't. My
>
> How naughty of you. Why would you go to the Nuthouse and ask someone to be
> civil? You think it is more important to be civil than to tell the truth?
> >>> The Commission listed 552
> >>> witnesses. Some were heard by the Commissioners, but many others gave
> >>> depositions before one or more WC staff lawyers:
>
> >>>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0254a.htm
>
> >> I'm guessing that you don't see any difference between being called in
> >> front of the commission, and having your statement taken by someone.
>
> > Not what I said.
>
> You're quibbling again.
> >> That's okay... you have a right to your opinion.
>
> >> But your opinion can't over-ride the historical fact that Mark Lane has
> >> stated.
>
> > It's also a fact that the WC considered the four men's
> > depositions to be testimony, not just "questioning" by the staff.
> > It's a minor point, not worth pursuing, really.
>
> Oh really? Do you think that is proper?
>Then why did they bother having
> anyone testify at all?
> > http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
>
> > Johnson and Cowsert
> > http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
>
> > Austin Miller:
> > http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...
>
>
> > Johnson and Cowsert
> > http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
>
> > Austin Miller:
> > http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...
>
> > and Walter Winborn:
> > http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/Witness/witnessMap/Winborn.htm
>
> Then why is McAdams demanding that we list those witnesses when you just
> did?
Because Jean provides cites to support her contentions and you
> > http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/Witness/witnessMap/Winborn.htm
>
> Then why is McAdams demanding that we list those witnesses when you just
> did?
don`t.
> > I challenge you to show that all six implicitly
> > indicated they thought the shots came from the knoll. Johnson "stated
> > that he felt" the white smoke he saw "came from a motorcycle
> > abandoned near the spot by a Dallas policeman." Cowsert "said he has
> > no idea where the shots came from ... He stated he does recall seeing
> > several people and a motorcycle policeman run up the grassy area..."
> > Bishop also recalled seeing a motorcycle cop "drive up the grassy
> > slope."
>
> > Is THAT what Lane meant when he said "their attention
> > was immediately attracted to the knoll"? How does any of that
> > indicate that they thought there was a sniper behind the fence?
>
> Inference.
>The fact that the cops went to the grassy knoll immediately
> looking for the assassin.
shots came from there.
> > Everybody in that area would've seen the motorcycle and people running
> > up the slope-- does that somehow make all of them knoll witnesses??
>
> Not everyone gave a statement.
saying didn`t have anything to do with statements or handedness.
> > I'd like to see you defend Lane's numbers here. If I'm
> > wrong, show me.
>
> You did that yourself. Thanks.
> >>> These are the same documents that Lane was using, so how do
> >>> these figures add up?
>
> >> That *is* the question that will be embarrassing for you to answer.
>
> > You posted the claim. Where is *your* answer?
>
> >> You see, I don't have any problems condemning authors if they aren't in
> >> accord with the facts.
>
> > We'll see.
>
> >> Wrone, for example, is a fellow "CT'er", whom I've blasted in the past for
> >> his lies.
>
> >> I'm sure you're aware of the disdain I have for another CT'er, "Tony
> >> Marsh", [removed for posting in the censored forum]
> > It would've been stupid for Bugliosi to lie about a thing
> > like that, and he's not stupid. If you don't understand that, that's
> > your problem.
>
> Of course he is. And I am the only person brave enough to call him a
> liar to his face and prove it.
Sandy McCroskey
Jun 1, 2012, 10:08:13 PM6/1/12
to
Sandy McCroskey
Jun 1, 2012, 10:08:21 PM6/1/12
to
Jason Burke
Jun 1, 2012, 10:08:32 PM6/1/12
to
Anthony Marsh
Jun 2, 2012, 9:52:50 AM6/2/12
to
>
>>> It would've been stupid for Bugliosi to lie about a thing
>>> like that, and he's not stupid. If you don't understand that, that's
>>> your problem.
>>
>> Of course he is. And I am the only person brave enough to call him a
>> liar to his face and prove it.
>
> You talk to your copy of "Reclaiming History"?
>
Jean Davison
Jun 2, 2012, 10:14:32 AM6/2/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On Jun 1, 7:54 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <eafc0016-a1d1-4607-b38d-823c83b07...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
That may be the lamest excuse I've ever heard. I repeat: You
could post your answer here or in the other forum, if you actually had an
answer. Not insults, facts.
Jean
> In article <eafc0016-a1d1-4607-b38d-823c83b07...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
could post your answer here or in the other forum, if you actually had an
answer. Not insults, facts.
Jean
Anthony Marsh
Jun 2, 2012, 10:14:40 AM6/2/12
to
> Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
Jun 2, 2012, 1:56:22 PM6/2/12
to
> Ben Holmes started a thread here,
No Jean... that is simply untrue.
I'd *like* to label it for what it really is - but my post would be
censored.
For it's a FACT that the thread "started" here was merely the post that
you refused to answer in the forum with the original thread.
>but after I responded he went
>back to alt.conspiracy.
>Over there he failed to answer the main point,
respond to you, Jean.
If you're concerned with someone "helping" me, simply finish what you
started in the open forum.
You already discovered that I needed no help.
<snipped>
timstter
Jun 2, 2012, 1:57:37 PM6/2/12
to
On Jun 2, 10:54 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <eafc0016-a1d1-4607-b38d-823c83b07...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
LOL! What a PITIFUL response, Holmes.
Say, I've heard that you label other posters as *gutless cowards* and
the like over @ The Nuthouse.
I don't think I would be doing that anymore, if I were you.
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> In article <eafc0016-a1d1-4607-b38d-823c83b07...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Say, I've heard that you label other posters as *gutless cowards* and
the like over @ The Nuthouse.
I don't think I would be doing that anymore, if I were you.
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
John McAdams
Jun 2, 2012, 2:05:16 PM6/2/12
to
On 2 Jun 2012 13:56:22 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
wrote:
>In article <eafc0016-a1d1-4607...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>Jean Davison says...
>>
>>
>> Ben Holmes started a thread here,
>
>
>No Jean... that is simply untrue.
>
>I'd *like* to label it for what it really is - but my post would be
>censored.
>
>For it's a FACT that the thread "started" here was merely the post that
>you refused to answer in the forum with the original thread.
>
>
>>but after I responded he went
>>back to alt.conspiracy.
>
>
>Which is where the original thread still is.
>
>
>
>>Over there he failed to answer the main point,
>
>
>Again, untrue. Simply cite the post in that forum where I failed to
>respond to you, Jean.
>
>
>If you're concerned with someone "helping" me, simply finish what you
>started in the open forum.
>
>You already discovered that I needed no help.
>
>
><snipped>
>
>
Holmes has been hanging around here a lot, bitching that he won't
discuss the evidence here, but he always claims to have discussed it
in the "open forum" (The Nuthouse).
Why does he utterly refuse to discuss evidence here?
Quite simply, he wants the option to call people who disagree with him
"liars," and he doesn't have that here.
He *could* discuss evidence. But somewhere deep down he realizes that
if he tried to do that he would quickly be on the defensive, badly
outclassed by people who know a lot more than he does.
It's blantantly obvious. And what he thinks he gains by coming here
and flatly refusing to discuss evidence is an interesting question.
What he actually creates is the impression that he's simply and
utterly incapable of discussing evidence without resorting to nasty
insults.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>In article <eafc0016-a1d1-4607...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>Jean Davison says...
>>
>>
>> Ben Holmes started a thread here,
>
>
>No Jean... that is simply untrue.
>
>I'd *like* to label it for what it really is - but my post would be
>censored.
>
>For it's a FACT that the thread "started" here was merely the post that
>you refused to answer in the forum with the original thread.
>
>
>>but after I responded he went
>>back to alt.conspiracy.
>
>
>Which is where the original thread still is.
>
>
>
>>Over there he failed to answer the main point,
>
>
>Again, untrue. Simply cite the post in that forum where I failed to
>respond to you, Jean.
>
>
>If you're concerned with someone "helping" me, simply finish what you
>started in the open forum.
>
>You already discovered that I needed no help.
>
>
><snipped>
>
>
discuss the evidence here, but he always claims to have discussed it
in the "open forum" (The Nuthouse).
Why does he utterly refuse to discuss evidence here?
Quite simply, he wants the option to call people who disagree with him
"liars," and he doesn't have that here.
He *could* discuss evidence. But somewhere deep down he realizes that
if he tried to do that he would quickly be on the defensive, badly
outclassed by people who know a lot more than he does.
It's blantantly obvious. And what he thinks he gains by coming here
and flatly refusing to discuss evidence is an interesting question.
What he actually creates is the impression that he's simply and
utterly incapable of discussing evidence without resorting to nasty
insults.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Jun 2, 2012, 5:54:15 PM6/2/12
to
> Quite simply, he wants the option to call people who disagree with him
> "liars," and he doesn't have that here.
>
message you'll say that we are not allowed to say that someone's post
was deceptive or dishonest. You add the banned words on a whim depending
on who used them.
> He *could* discuss evidence. But somewhere deep down he realizes that
> if he tried to do that he would quickly be on the defensive, badly
> outclassed by people who know a lot more than he does.
>
your mob to lynch him. You have no concept of a fair fight.
> It's blantantly obvious. And what he thinks he gains by coming here
> and flatly refusing to discuss evidence is an interesting question.
>
It would show that the WC was lying.
> What he actually creates is the impression that he's simply and
> utterly incapable of discussing evidence without resorting to nasty
> insults.
>
day, because they keep lying about the evidence.
That's why you don't want anyone discussing the evidence. You need to
protect the liars.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 2, 2012, 5:54:56 PM6/2/12
to
be allowed to do that, but WC defenders are encouraged by the moderators
to do that. Does he need any more proof that there is not a level playing
field here?
Anthony Marsh
Jun 2, 2012, 5:56:39 PM6/2/12
to
On 6/2/2012 1:56 PM, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article<eafc0016-a1d1-4607...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Jean Davison says...
>>
>>
>> Ben Holmes started a thread here,
>
>
> No Jean... that is simply untrue.
>
> I'd *like* to label it for what it really is - but my post would be
> censored.
>
Yes, just as all my posts are. McAdams can unilaterally decided that
> In article<eafc0016-a1d1-4607...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Jean Davison says...
>>
>>
>> Ben Holmes started a thread here,
>
>
> No Jean... that is simply untrue.
>
> I'd *like* to label it for what it really is - but my post would be
> censored.
>
merely saying that her statement is simply untrue means the same thing as
calling her a liar and delete your post.
> For it's a FACT that the thread "started" here was merely the post that
> you refused to answer in the forum with the original thread.
>
But when we do our messages are erased. And they feel that they never
have to respond to our points or answer our questions because they are
protected.
Jean Davison
Jun 2, 2012, 7:21:27 PM6/2/12
to
On Jun 2, 12:56 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <eafc0016-a1d1-4607-b38d-823c83b07...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
when you started this thread I acknowledged in post 2 that you'd "brought
the topic here" from the other forum. So what is your point??
>
> >but after I responded he went
> >back to alt.conspiracy.
>
> Which is where the original thread still is.
>
> >Over there he failed to answer the main point,
>
> Again, untrue. Simply cite the post in that forum where I failed to
> respond to you, Jean.
Your reply there didn't answer the question.
>
> If you're concerned with someone "helping" me, simply finish what you
> started in the open forum.
>
> You already discovered that I needed no help.
>
> <snipped>
You've said that Lane's math is correct because I overlooked
the interview with Dodd. But that's not so. Dodd is one of five
witnesses Lane counted as "explicit" knoll witnesses (along with Holland,
Reilly, Simmons, and Murphy). I accept that. It's his six "implicit"
knoll witnesses that don't add up.
If you can show, using Lane's own references, that all six were
implicitly knoll witnesses, I'll admit I was wrong. Why wouldn't you want
to support a statement that you yourself posted? Don't you want to know
if it's true or not?
Here are the cites one last time.
QUOTE:
UNQUOTE
If you ignore this again, I'm done.
Jean
> In article <eafc0016-a1d1-4607-b38d-823c83b07...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Jean Davison says...
>
>
>
> > Ben Holmes started a thread here,
>
> No Jean... that is simply untrue.
>
> I'd *like* to label it for what it really is - but my post would be
> censored.
>
> For it's a FACT that the thread "started" here was merely the post that
> you refused to answer in the forum with the original thread.
Go to the top of this tree in Google Groups and you'll see that
>
>
>
> > Ben Holmes started a thread here,
>
> No Jean... that is simply untrue.
>
> I'd *like* to label it for what it really is - but my post would be
> censored.
>
> For it's a FACT that the thread "started" here was merely the post that
> you refused to answer in the forum with the original thread.
when you started this thread I acknowledged in post 2 that you'd "brought
the topic here" from the other forum. So what is your point??
>
> >but after I responded he went
> >back to alt.conspiracy.
>
> Which is where the original thread still is.
>
> >Over there he failed to answer the main point,
>
> Again, untrue. Simply cite the post in that forum where I failed to
> respond to you, Jean.
>
> If you're concerned with someone "helping" me, simply finish what you
> started in the open forum.
>
> You already discovered that I needed no help.
>
> <snipped>
the interview with Dodd. But that's not so. Dodd is one of five
witnesses Lane counted as "explicit" knoll witnesses (along with Holland,
Reilly, Simmons, and Murphy). I accept that. It's his six "implicit"
knoll witnesses that don't add up.
If you can show, using Lane's own references, that all six were
implicitly knoll witnesses, I'll admit I was wrong. Why wouldn't you want
to support a statement that you yourself posted? Don't you want to know
if it's true or not?
Here are the cites one last time.
QUOTE:
If you ignore this again, I'm done.
Jean
drummist1965
Jun 2, 2012, 9:56:53 PM6/2/12
to
murder in here!
Sandy McCroskey
Jun 2, 2012, 9:59:58 PM6/2/12
to
Tim clearly meant that Ben would sure seem ridiculous if he went on
"label[ing] other posters as *gutless cowards*..." etc.
Of course, I'm convinced that Ben doesn't mind seeming ridiculous.
And I'd guess Tim is also.
Of course Ben is going to go on... being Ben.
See the *irony* ?
But no "physical threat." Not in the slightest.
What an imagination you have!
/sm
timstter
Jun 3, 2012, 7:52:40 PM6/3/12
to
I was referring to the FACT that he ROUTINELY labels other posters as
cowards and gutless cowards over @ The Nuthouse. In fact, he recently
started a recent thread there, labelling a poster from here just that.
Even a researcher of YOUR acumen should be able to locate it, Marsh.
Given his refusal to respond to Jean, behaviour that would cause Holmes to
immedately label any other poster as a coward, I was simply suggesting
that that was not a very clever idea anymore.
It was now a non-operational way for Ben Holmes to continue to behave, if
you like. If he didn't want opprobrium to rain down upon his head, that
is.
It's a simple concept, Marsh, but try to grasp it, OK?
Anthony Marsh
Jun 3, 2012, 7:55:51 PM6/3/12
to
physical threat against his victim.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 3, 2012, 7:57:19 PM6/3/12
to
you've never been in the real world where evil lurks. Someone does not
have to actually commit the act of violence in order to make the threat of
committing the act of violence. When I was being prepared to testify in a
criminal case of felony theft, I was threatened by a friend of the
accused. As I walked past him at a shopping center he said to his friends,
"He'd better not testify if he knows what's good for him." The detective
on the case took this seriously and tried to find out who the guy was.
Threatening a witness is a felony.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 3, 2012, 9:47:49 PM6/3/12
to
> If you can show, using Lane's own references, that all six were
> implicitly knoll witnesses, I'll admit I was wrong. Why wouldn't you want
> to support a statement that you yourself posted? Don't you want to know
> if it's true or not?
>
> Here are the cites one last time.
>
> QUOTE:
>
>>>>>>
> Lane claimed that six of these men "said that
> when the shots were fired their attention was immediately attracted to the
> knoll," and that they implicitly indicated "that the fenced-in area above
> the knoll was where they thought the sniper was." [p. 39, RTJ] His
> footnote indicates he's talking about these six:
>
> Potter and Bishop
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
>
>
> Johnson and Cowsert
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
>
>
> Austin Miller:
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...
>
>
> and Walter Winborn:
> http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/Witness/witnessMap/Winborn.htm
>
>
> I challenge you to show that all six implicitly indicated
> they thought the shots came from the knoll. Johnson "stated that he felt"
Just that their attention was immediately attracted to the knoll.
> the white smoke he saw "came from a motorcycle abandoned near the spot by
> a Dallas policeman." Cowsert "said he has no idea where the shots came
> from ... He stated he does recall seeing several people and a motorcycle
> policeman run up the grassy area..." Bishop also recalled seeing a
> motorcycle cop "drive up the grassy slope."
>
> Is THAT what Lane meant when he said "their attention was
> immediately attracted to the knoll"? How does any of that indicate that
> they thought there was a sniper behind the fence? Everybody in that area
You are putting words in his mouth because you lost the argument.
> would've seen the motorcycle and people running up the slope-- does that
> somehow make all of them knoll witnesses??
>
slope immediately.
> I'd like to see you defend Lane's numbers here. If I'm
> wrong, show me.
>
>>>>>
> UNQUOTE
>
> If you ignore this again, I'm done.
>
> Jean
>
>
Sandy McCroskey
Jun 4, 2012, 6:20:16 PM6/4/12
to
Ha ha ha.
Hardly,
Bud
Jun 4, 2012, 6:21:19 PM6/4/12
to
> > If you can show, using Lane's own references, that all six were
> > implicitly knoll witnesses, I'll admit I was wrong. Why wouldn't you want
> > to support a statement that you yourself posted? Don't you want to know
> > if it's true or not?
>
> > Here are the cites one last time.
>
> > QUOTE:
>
> > Lane claimed that six of these men "said that
> > when the shots were fired their attention was immediately attracted to the
> > knoll," and that they implicitly indicated "that the fenced-in area above
> > the knoll was where they thought the sniper was." [p. 39, RTJ] His
> > footnote indicates he's talking about these six:
>
> > Potter and Bishop
> > http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
>
> > Johnson and Cowsert
> > http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
>
> > Austin Miller:
> > http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...
>
> > and Walter Winborn:
> > http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/Witness/witnessMap/Winborn.htm
>
> > I challenge you to show that all six implicitly indicated
> > they thought the shots came from the knoll. Johnson "stated that he felt"
>
> He didn't claim that all six thought the shots came from the knoll.
they thought the sniper was."
> Just that their attention was immediately attracted to the knoll.
No, he claims that they all concluded the shooter was on the knoll.
On examination it is clear they didn`t all draw that conclusion.
> > the white smoke he saw "came from a motorcycle abandoned near the spot by
> > a Dallas policeman." Cowsert "said he has no idea where the shots came
> > from ... He stated he does recall seeing several people and a motorcycle
> > policeman run up the grassy area..." Bishop also recalled seeing a
> > motorcycle cop "drive up the grassy slope."
>
> > Is THAT what Lane meant when he said "their attention was
> > immediately attracted to the knoll"? How does any of that indicate that
> > they thought there was a sniper behind the fence? Everybody in that area
>
> He did not claim that they thought there was a sniper behind the fence.
follow a discussion.
> You are putting words in his mouth because you lost the argument.
> > would've seen the motorcycle and people running up the slope-- does that
> > somehow make all of them knoll witnesses??
>
> He is talking about immediate impressions.
immediate impression that the shooter was on the knoll.
> Everyone did not run up the
> slope immediately.
>
> > I'd like to see you defend Lane's numbers here. If I'm
> > wrong, show me.
>
> > UNQUOTE
>
> > If you ignore this again, I'm done.
>
> Run away, run away.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jean
drummist1965
Jun 4, 2012, 6:22:45 PM6/4/12
to
Anthony Marsh
Jun 4, 2012, 10:53:05 PM6/4/12
to
reword my messages to slip them past the censors.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 4, 2012, 10:55:00 PM6/4/12
to
to see six.
>>> If you can show, using Lane's own references, that all six were
>>> implicitly knoll witnesses, I'll admit I was wrong. Why wouldn't you want
>>> to support a statement that you yourself posted? Don't you want to know
>>> if it's true or not?
>>
>>> Here are the cites one last time.
>>
>>> QUOTE:
>>
>>> Lane claimed that six of these men "said that
>>> when the shots were fired their attention was immediately attracted to the
>>> knoll," and that they implicitly indicated "that the fenced-in area above
>>> the knoll was where they thought the sniper was." [p. 39, RTJ] His
>>> footnote indicates he's talking about these six:
>>
>>> Potter and Bishop
>>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
>>
>>> Johnson and Cowsert
>>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
>>
>>> Austin Miller:
>>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...
>>
>>> and Walter Winborn:
>>> http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/Witness/witnessMap/Winborn.htm
>>
>>> I challenge you to show that all six implicitly indicated
>>> they thought the shots came from the knoll. Johnson "stated that he felt"
>>
>> He didn't claim that all six thought the shots came from the knoll.
>
> Yah, he did. "that the fenced-in area above the knoll was where
> they thought the sniper was."
>
>> Just that their attention was immediately attracted to the knoll.
>
> No, he claims that they all concluded the shooter was on the knoll.
> On examination it is clear they didn`t all draw that conclusion.
>
attention was drawn to the knoll.
Lane also point out the actions of the cops running to the grassy knoll
and the DPD radio message to send personnel there.
>>> the white smoke he saw "came from a motorcycle abandoned near the spot by
>>> a Dallas policeman." Cowsert "said he has no idea where the shots came
>>> from ... He stated he does recall seeing several people and a motorcycle
>>> policeman run up the grassy area..." Bishop also recalled seeing a
>>> motorcycle cop "drive up the grassy slope."
>>
>>> Is THAT what Lane meant when he said "their attention was
>>> immediately attracted to the knoll"? How does any of that indicate that
>>> they thought there was a sniper behind the fence? Everybody in that area
>>
>> He did not claim that they thought there was a sniper behind the fence.
>
> She quoted him saying just that. You really do need to learn how to
> follow a discussion.
>
>> You are putting words in his mouth because you lost the argument.
>
> By putting Lane`s words in Lane`s mouth she won the argument.
>
what someone said.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 4, 2012, 10:55:38 PM6/4/12
to
Sandy McCroskey
Jun 4, 2012, 11:33:17 PM6/4/12
to
...Oh, now I see that in a reply to someone else you claim to have heard
someone use a similar phrase to imply a physical threat. So what? No one
but you interpreted what Tim said that way.
And it was rather amazing that you did so.
/sm
Anthony Marsh
Jun 5, 2012, 2:26:06 PM6/5/12
to
> ...Oh, now I see that in a reply to someone else you claim to have heard
> someone use a similar phrase to imply a physical threat. So what? No one
> but you interpreted what Tim said that way.
>
Bud
Jun 5, 2012, 3:49:19 PM6/5/12
to
you can determine the significance of the people Jean named in this
discussion. If you can`t do it ask me for help and I will take you by
the hand and walk you through it.
> >> Just that their attention was immediately attracted to the knoll.
>
> > No, he claims that they all concluded the shooter was on the knoll.
> > On examination it is clear they didn`t all draw that conclusion.
>
> No, that is not how he phrased it. He said that several witnesses'
> attention was drawn to the knoll.
"that the fenced-in area above the knoll was where they thought the
sniper was." [p. 39, RTJ]
> Lane also point out the actions of the cops running to the grassy knoll
> and the DPD radio message to send personnel there.
> >>> the white smoke he saw "came from a motorcycle abandoned near the spot by
> >>> a Dallas policeman." Cowsert "said he has no idea where the shots came
> >>> from ... He stated he does recall seeing several people and a motorcycle
> >>> policeman run up the grassy area..." Bishop also recalled seeing a
> >>> motorcycle cop "drive up the grassy slope."
>
> >>> Is THAT what Lane meant when he said "their attention was
> >>> immediately attracted to the knoll"? How does any of that indicate that
> >>> they thought there was a sniper behind the fence? Everybody in that area
>
> >> He did not claim that they thought there was a sniper behind the fence.
>
> > She quoted him saying just that. You really do need to learn how to
> > follow a discussion.
>
> >> You are putting words in his mouth because you lost the argument.
>
> > By putting Lane`s words in Lane`s mouth she won the argument.
>
> That is not an [CENSORED] way to win an argument, by misrepresenting
> what someone said.
sometime.
Sandy McCroskey
Jun 5, 2012, 3:52:08 PM6/5/12
to
And I'm sure Holmes didn't.
/sm
Jean Davison
Jun 5, 2012, 5:50:28 PM6/5/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
Did Ben Holmes reply to this? I don't mean his "liar, liar"
handwaving, but anything substantive to support the Mark Lane claim that
he posted? If I missed it, someone please point it out.
Jean
Bill Clarke
Jun 5, 2012, 5:52:00 PM6/5/12
to
In article <4fcd4c1a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
I have to do the same thing when I reply to your messages. So what is
your problem.
Bill Clarke
your problem.
Bill Clarke
timstter
Jun 6, 2012, 7:06:08 PM6/6/12
to
it, Marsh?
Concerned Regards,
Anthony Marsh
Jun 7, 2012, 10:00:17 AM6/7/12
to
story.
timstter
Jun 7, 2012, 5:38:22 PM6/7/12
to
On Jun 2, 12:08 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Because you *can't*. Evidently.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Indeed, you've learned the lesson repeatedly...
LOL! You got that 100% right, Sandy.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Indeed, you've learned the lesson repeatedly...
caeruleo
Jun 8, 2012, 9:06:12 PM6/8/12
to
On May 31, 6:08 pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 4:29 pm, Ace Kefford <bglobe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > read more »
>
> > I don't know why you bother, but (as far as I read into the email)
Hmmm, it wasn't an email, it was a newsgroup posting. Hoping that I am
not giving offense, I have seen people being obviously confused over which
is which since at least 2002, the year that I received an email from a
person obviously replying to a newsgroup article, and who obviously didn't
know that he/she had her/his newsreader set to something like "reply
privately" or whatever that option is. ;-)
> you
> > were making very good points. In particular I like the one about Lane
> > using not appearing before the Warren Commission to imply that they were
> > not questioned as part of the commission's inquiry. I am very certain
> > most people would read Lane's text that way. This is subtle deception.
>
> Thank you, Ace. I'm glad you got the point I was trying
> to make about Lane's "subtle deception."
And it wasn't so subtle. Btw, Jean, you da bomb. I've been saying so
for years.
Haven't I?
:P
John King
> On May 31, 4:29 pm, Ace Kefford <bglobe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > read more »
>
> > I don't know why you bother, but (as far as I read into the email)
Hmmm, it wasn't an email, it was a newsgroup posting. Hoping that I am
not giving offense, I have seen people being obviously confused over which
is which since at least 2002, the year that I received an email from a
person obviously replying to a newsgroup article, and who obviously didn't
know that he/she had her/his newsreader set to something like "reply
privately" or whatever that option is. ;-)
> you
> > were making very good points. In particular I like the one about Lane
> > using not appearing before the Warren Commission to imply that they were
> > not questioned as part of the commission's inquiry. I am very certain
> > most people would read Lane's text that way. This is subtle deception.
>
> Thank you, Ace. I'm glad you got the point I was trying
> to make about Lane's "subtle deception."
And it wasn't so subtle. Btw, Jean, you da bomb. I've been saying so
for years.
Haven't I?
:P
John King
caeruleo
Jun 8, 2012, 9:06:23 PM6/8/12
to
> Subject: Can Someone Help Ben?
No.
John King
No.
John King
caeruleo
Jun 9, 2012, 12:14:07 AM6/9/12
to
On Jun 3, 6:52 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 7:54 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > So it's ok for you to physically threaten other posters here? I wouldn't
> > be allowed to do that, but WC defenders are encouraged by the moderators
> > to do that. Does he need any more proof that there is not a level playing
> > field here?
>
> Huh? How have I physically threatened Holmes?
You are *still* responding to Mr. Marsh? How droll. I abandoned that
> On Jun 3, 7:54 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > So it's ok for you to physically threaten other posters here? I wouldn't
> > be allowed to do that, but WC defenders are encouraged by the moderators
> > to do that. Does he need any more proof that there is not a level playing
> > field here?
>
> Huh? How have I physically threatened Holmes?
years (plural) ago. Let me explain, yet again, why.
Nine years ago, Mr. Marsh kept claiming, over and over and over, that I
had said things I had never said. Even after I had proved to him, beyond
all possible doubt, using the Deja archives which afterwards became the
Google Groups archives, that I had not said what he claimed I said, he
still failed to admit that he had made a mistake. So I put him on
killfile for a month. When I resumed reading his articles he still
claimed I had said things I never said. So I put him on killfile for two
months. When I resumed reading his articles after that he STILL claimed I
had said things I never said. So I put him on killfile for three months.
When I resumed reading his articles he ***STILL*** continued to claim I
had said things I never said. So finally, at last, I made it permanent,
and never since then have I knowingly read any articles by him, only some
of the replies to him. I simply decided that it is not a constructive use
of my time to continue to read, and most especially to reply to, such
nonsense. Some posters, such as CurtJester, erroneously assumed that this
was because I am "unable to refute" the arguments proposed in such
articles. No such a thing. This is a typical argument by those who are
the true ones who are at a loss: when it is in actual reality they who are
saying things that are patently ridiculous, they will put out the spin
that those who turn away, and walk away, cannot possibly be doing so
unless they are "unable to refute" the arguments being made against them.
In reality, it is a common occurrence for people to dismiss others when
these others are making obviously ridiculous arguments, and to refuse to
engage them further. We've seen this vividly demonstrated when Gaddafi
claimed before his death that his people's uprising was due to foreign
influences rather than to what was obviously more plausible: the majority
of his people obviously were objecting to extremely oppressive policies of
the Libyan government (people have a natural tendency to object to
oppression, throughout all the history of people on this planet), and that
idiot, Assad, of Syria, continues to say essentially the same thing.
According to him, it "cannot possibly" be that the Syrians themselves
intrinsically object to extreme oppression; instead it "just has to be"
that "foreign influences" alone, and nothing else, have brought the Arab
Spring to Syria.
I will indeed compare some posters here to Assad and Gaddafi, because such
posters quite similarly have their heads in the sand: they assume,
wrongly, that some other posters cease to reply to them, temporarily or
permanently, for any other reason than that their own posts are patently
ridiculous in some ways.
> I was referring to the FACT that he ROUTINELY labels other posters as
> cowards and gutless cowards over @ The Nuthouse. In fact, he recently
> started a recent thread there, labelling a poster from here just that.
> Even a researcher of YOUR acumen should be able to locate it, Marsh.
>
> Given his refusal to respond to Jean, behaviour that would cause Holmes to
> immedately label any other poster as a coward, I was simply suggesting
> that that was not a very clever idea anymore.
>
> It was now a non-operational way for Ben Holmes to continue to behave, if
> you like. If he didn't want opprobrium to rain down upon his head, that
> is.
reply directly to such a poster. It is not a constructive use of time for
the serious researcher on the JFK assassination to do so.
John King
caeruleo
Jun 9, 2012, 12:18:59 AM6/9/12
to
On May 31, 8:35 am, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 3:51 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <2c790b7e-15d0-4761-abe7-1a11cf329...@n42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > Jean says...
>
> The back story here is that I made the mistake of replying to
> Ben on the other forum. I asked him to be civil. He wasn't.
This is, of course, nothing new. Back in 2003 or so he was fairly civil,
at least in certain contexts. I do recall that at that time we had a
quite interesting discussion regarding which people who were present at
the autopsy did or did not know, before the autopsy was concluded, that
the tracheotomy had been done over a bullet wound. But less than a year
ago I saw that he had obviously changed, and for the first time in my
experience with him, he frequently claimed I had said things I never said.
I thus will never knowingly read his articles again: so be it.
> > > Holland was without doubt a "knoll witness," as were several
> > >others on the railroad overpass. I'm not disputing that. I'm
> > >complaining about Lane's methods.
>
> > I'm still waiting for you to produce a lie on the part of Mark Lane.
>
> > Where is it?
>
> > Did I miss it?
>
> You're the one in love with the word "lie." I said his math
> was wrong. It is.
Mr. Holmes very frequently accuses others of lying when they obviously
aren't. But Mr. Lane? A lot more things than his math were wrong, beyond
all possible doubt. Even the majority of respectable conspiracy theorists
today reject most of Lane's claims.
> > >"Mr. WINBORN stated he was not able to ascertain exactly where the
> > >shots were fired from .."
> > >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1417.htm
>
> > The part you leave out is what *action* took place. He moved where he
> > could view the Grassy Knoll. While I agree that he's really neither a
> > Knoll or TSBD witness, he *supports* the Grassy Knoll. (as, in a somewhat
> > lesser way, he'd support shots from the TSBD)
>
> > But this isn't really relevant... once you've heard Dodd stating himself
> > where he places a shooter, your math is wrong, and once again, Mark Lane
> > is shown to be correct.
>
> Not so fast. Lane claimed that six of these men "said
> abandoned near the spot by a Dallas policeman." Cowsert "said he has
the majority of witnesses who thought ANY shot sounded as if it came from
the knoll ALSO thought that ALL OF THE SHOTS CAME FROM THE KNOLL, NO
MATTER HOW MANY OR HOW FEW SHOTS THERE WERE. This claim is so obviously
incorrect, that not only do the majority of conspiracy theorists reject it
(whether they admit so or not), but that it is embarrassing to even
explain aloud, audibly or in print, WHY it is obviously incorrect.
> > Wrone, for example, is a fellow "CT'er", whom I've blasted in the past for
> > his lies.
>
> > I'm sure you're aware of the disdain I have for another CT'er, "Tony
> > Marsh", [removed for posting in the censored forum]
>
> > But LNT'ers don't criticize other LNT'ers...
Mr. Holmes has seen me criticize other LNT'ers hundreds of times on
various issues, and he has known for nearly a decade now that I believe in
a single gunman in the JFK assassination; the Google Groups archives show
him plainly replying to me at least as early as 2003 in such a way as to
make it obvious that he knew that I believed there was only one person
firing shots at the motorcade that day. Yet those same archives show him,
for the first time ever, claiming in 2011 that he had "never" seen me
criticize LNs on any issue prior to that time, even though I have been
criticizing some LNs since 2002 on this nonsense of the Parkland personnel
being "wrong" about what they saw in terms of the obvious hole in the back
of JFK's head, and even though Mr. Holmes has frequently said that he
avidly follows what he characterizes as the "censored group," and the
archives show him doing that well before my first article here. Yet he
somehow "missed" all my hundreds upon hundreds of previous criticisms of
LNs prior to 2011.
John King
> On May 30, 3:51 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <2c790b7e-15d0-4761-abe7-1a11cf329...@n42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > Jean says...
>
> The back story here is that I made the mistake of replying to
> Ben on the other forum. I asked him to be civil. He wasn't.
This is, of course, nothing new. Back in 2003 or so he was fairly civil,
at least in certain contexts. I do recall that at that time we had a
quite interesting discussion regarding which people who were present at
the autopsy did or did not know, before the autopsy was concluded, that
the tracheotomy had been done over a bullet wound. But less than a year
ago I saw that he had obviously changed, and for the first time in my
experience with him, he frequently claimed I had said things I never said.
I thus will never knowingly read his articles again: so be it.
> > > Holland was without doubt a "knoll witness," as were several
> > >others on the railroad overpass. I'm not disputing that. I'm
> > >complaining about Lane's methods.
>
> > I'm still waiting for you to produce a lie on the part of Mark Lane.
>
> > Where is it?
>
> > Did I miss it?
>
> You're the one in love with the word "lie." I said his math
> was wrong. It is.
Mr. Holmes very frequently accuses others of lying when they obviously
aren't. But Mr. Lane? A lot more things than his math were wrong, beyond
all possible doubt. Even the majority of respectable conspiracy theorists
today reject most of Lane's claims.
> > >"Mr. WINBORN stated he was not able to ascertain exactly where the
> > >shots were fired from .."
> > >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1417.htm
>
> > The part you leave out is what *action* took place. He moved where he
> > could view the Grassy Knoll. While I agree that he's really neither a
> > Knoll or TSBD witness, he *supports* the Grassy Knoll. (as, in a somewhat
> > lesser way, he'd support shots from the TSBD)
>
> > But this isn't really relevant... once you've heard Dodd stating himself
> > where he places a shooter, your math is wrong, and once again, Mark Lane
> > is shown to be correct.
>
> Not so fast. Lane claimed that six of these men "said
> that when the shots were fired their attention was immediately
> attracted to the knoll," and that they implicitly indicated "that the
> fenced-in area above the knoll was where they thought the sniper
> was." His footnote indicates he's talking about these six:
> attracted to the knoll," and that they implicitly indicated "that the
> fenced-in area above the knoll was where they thought the sniper
>
> Potter and Bishop
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
>
> Johnson and Cowsert
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
>
> Austin Miller:
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...
>
> and Walter Winborn:
> http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/Witness/witnessMap/Winborn.htm
>
> I challenge you to show that all six implicitly
> indicated they thought the shots came from the knoll. Johnson "stated
> that he felt" the white smoke he saw "came from a motorcycle
> Potter and Bishop
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
>
> Johnson and Cowsert
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
>
> Austin Miller:
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...
>
> and Walter Winborn:
> http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/Witness/witnessMap/Winborn.htm
>
> I challenge you to show that all six implicitly
> indicated they thought the shots came from the knoll. Johnson "stated
> abandoned near the spot by a Dallas policeman." Cowsert "said he has
> no idea where the shots came from ... He stated he does recall seeing
> several people and a motorcycle policeman run up the grassy area..."
> Bishop also recalled seeing a motorcycle cop "drive up the grassy
> slope."
What is obviously also being omitted by Mr. Holmes AND Mr. Lane is that
> several people and a motorcycle policeman run up the grassy area..."
> Bishop also recalled seeing a motorcycle cop "drive up the grassy
> slope."
the majority of witnesses who thought ANY shot sounded as if it came from
the knoll ALSO thought that ALL OF THE SHOTS CAME FROM THE KNOLL, NO
MATTER HOW MANY OR HOW FEW SHOTS THERE WERE. This claim is so obviously
incorrect, that not only do the majority of conspiracy theorists reject it
(whether they admit so or not), but that it is embarrassing to even
explain aloud, audibly or in print, WHY it is obviously incorrect.
> > Wrone, for example, is a fellow "CT'er", whom I've blasted in the past for
> > his lies.
>
> > I'm sure you're aware of the disdain I have for another CT'er, "Tony
> > Marsh", [removed for posting in the censored forum]
>
> > But LNT'ers don't criticize other LNT'ers...
Mr. Holmes has seen me criticize other LNT'ers hundreds of times on
various issues, and he has known for nearly a decade now that I believe in
a single gunman in the JFK assassination; the Google Groups archives show
him plainly replying to me at least as early as 2003 in such a way as to
make it obvious that he knew that I believed there was only one person
firing shots at the motorcade that day. Yet those same archives show him,
for the first time ever, claiming in 2011 that he had "never" seen me
criticize LNs on any issue prior to that time, even though I have been
criticizing some LNs since 2002 on this nonsense of the Parkland personnel
being "wrong" about what they saw in terms of the obvious hole in the back
of JFK's head, and even though Mr. Holmes has frequently said that he
avidly follows what he characterizes as the "censored group," and the
archives show him doing that well before my first article here. Yet he
somehow "missed" all my hundreds upon hundreds of previous criticisms of
LNs prior to 2011.
John King
timstter
Jun 9, 2012, 12:22:16 AM6/9/12
to
Jean Davison
Jun 9, 2012, 12:27:12 AM6/9/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
Jean
timstter
Jun 26, 2012, 11:23:45 PM6/26/12
to
Lacking a sense of humour?
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
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
0 new messages