Mark Lane *Lying By Omission* About Charles Brehm in RTJ Film!

[tims...@gmail.com]

Hi All,

Say, according to this video interview by Mark Lane, Charles Brehm was
never called before the Warren Commission to testify:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YcPzPt8XcM

All well and good, but what Lane FAILS to tell the viewer is that
Brehm's DPD interview DID appear in the Warren Commission volumes.
Here it is, right here, right hand side of page:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0434a.htm

Continues here, left hand side of page:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0434b.htm

Lane is simply LYING BY OMISSION in this footage, pretending that the
Warren Commission TOTALLY ignored Brehm and what he had to say. That
is not the case at all!

In fact, the guy who TOTALLY IGNORED what Brehm had to say was MARK
LANE! Brehm said the shots came from the general direction of the
TSBD, not the Grassy Knoll, and took UMBRAGE with the way Lane had
quoted him in a later interview for CBS!

Lane is a TOTAL research FRAUD, in my view. No wonder the KGB assisted
in funding his <snicker> *research* (if we could dignify it with such
a name...).

Regards,

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

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 17:07:20 -0700 (PDT), tims...@gmail.com wrote:

>Hi All,
>
>Say, according to this video interview by Mark Lane, Charles Brehm was
>never called before the Warren Commission to testify:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YcPzPt8XcM
>
>All well and good, but what Lane FAILS to tell the viewer is that
>Brehm's DPD interview DID appear in the Warren Commission volumes.
>Here it is, right here, right hand side of page:

So you acknowledge that Mark Lane told the truth...

Good.

You pretend he lied by not offering relevant information on the topic?

Fine.

What did the Warren Commission argue regarding Oswald's use of the
iron sights or the scope?

Can't have it both ways, moron.

If you want to argue that Mark Lane's a liar by ommission - THEN
YOU'RE QUITE STUPID TO CONTINUE OMMITTING WHAT THE WARREN COMMISSION
ARGUED CONCERNING OSWALD'S USE OF THE SIGHTS OR SCOPE.

So tell us Timmy... what's the answer?

[tims...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 15 July 2018 01:45:35 UTC+10, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 17:07:20 -0700 (PDT), tims...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >Hi All,
> >
> >Say, according to this video interview by Mark Lane, Charles Brehm was
> >never called before the Warren Commission to testify:
> >
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YcPzPt8XcM
> >
> >All well and good, but what Lane FAILS to tell the viewer is that
> >Brehm's DPD interview DID appear in the Warren Commission volumes.
> >Here it is, right here, right hand side of page:
>
> So you acknowledge that Mark Lane told the truth...
>

Hmm, well NO, Benny. If I'm starting a thread saying that he *lied by omission* then I'm implying/stating that I think Lane is DISHONEST.

It's a MORON simple concept, Holmes. Even a PEDESTRIAN intellect such as your own should be able to grasp it.

> Good.
>

I'm glad that you agree that Lane is DISHONEST, Benny!

> You pretend he lied by not offering relevant information on the topic?
>

No, I'm not PRETENDING that he lied; I'm stating that I think Lane is a dishonest person, ie a LIAR.

> Fine.
>

Well I'm glad that you're happy I think your hero is DISHONEST, Holmes!

Balance of off topic GARBAGE ((((((((((((((((snipped))))))))))))))))) Holmes!

The topic is Charles Brehm and the DISHONESTY of Mark Lane in interviewing him, Holmes; NOT the WC and the rifle scope.

If you think the scope is SO important then go start a new thread on it, Holmes.

But DON'T pollute my Brehm/Lane thread with your OT guff, Yellow Pants.

Informative Regards,

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

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane once AGAIN lies in RTJ!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 14 Jul 2018 22:38:00 -0700 (PDT), tims...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Sunday, 15 July 2018 01:45:35 UTC+10, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 17:07:20 -0700 (PDT), tims...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >Hi All,
>> >
>> >Say, according to this video interview by Mark Lane, Charles Brehm was
>> >never called before the Warren Commission to testify:
>> >
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YcPzPt8XcM
>> >
>> >All well and good, but what Lane FAILS to tell the viewer is that
>> >Brehm's DPD interview DID appear in the Warren Commission volumes.
>> >Here it is, right here, right hand side of page:
>>
>> So you acknowledge that Mark Lane told the truth...
>>
>
>Hmm, well NO, Benny.

Calling yourself a liar now, Timmy?

You'll never produce Brehm's testimony... but if Mark Lane didn't tell
the truth, then you should be able to.

Where is it?

[tims...@gmail.com]

Say, Holmes, is it TRUE that the *testimony* that Brehm gave to Lane for RTJ re the source of the shots ended up on the cutting room floor, Holmes?

Concerned Regards,

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

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane LIED!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 18:52:57 -0700 (PDT), tims...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Monday, 16 July 2018 00:55:52 UTC+10, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2018 22:38:00 -0700 (PDT), tims...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, 15 July 2018 01:45:35 UTC+10, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 17:07:20 -0700 (PDT), tims...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Hi All,
>> >> >
>> >> >Say, according to this video interview by Mark Lane, Charles Brehm was
>> >> >never called before the Warren Commission to testify:
>> >> >
>> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YcPzPt8XcM
>> >> >
>> >> >All well and good, but what Lane FAILS to tell the viewer is that
>> >> >Brehm's DPD interview DID appear in the Warren Commission volumes.
>> >> >Here it is, right here, right hand side of page:
>> >>
>> >> So you acknowledge that Mark Lane told the truth...
>> >>
>> >
>> >Hmm, well NO, Benny.
>>
>>
>> Calling yourself a liar now, Timmy?
>>
>> You'll never produce Brehm's testimony... but if Mark Lane didn't tell
>> the truth, then you should be able to.
>>
>> Where is it?
>
> Say, Holmes, is it TRUE that the *testimony* that Brehm gave to Lane
> for RTJ re the source of the shots ended up on the cutting room floor,
> Holmes?

Mark Lane was simply telling the truth when he stated that Charles
Brehm was never called to testify.

And you're so *DISHONEST* that you can't acknowledge that simple fact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YcPzPt8XcM

[tims...@gmail.com]

I'll ask the question AGAIN, Holmes, as it appears you were simply so *DISHONEST* and *AFRAID* of it that you DESPERATELY tried to change the subject:

Say, Holmes, is it TRUE that the *testimony* that Brehm gave to Lane for RTJ re the SOURCE of the shots ended up on the cutting room floor?

A YES or NO answer will SUFFICE, Holmes.

Or better yet, your trademark *NOPE* which is when we REALLY know you are lying, Holmes.

Informative Regards,

[Ben Holmes]

>I'll ask the question AGAIN, Holmes...

If you cannot admit that you told a lie, then all I can do is point it
out again.

Mark Lane was 100% correct that Brehm was never called to testify.

And no amount of whining will change that fact...


Nor the fact that you can't explain why the Warren Commission did
this.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Say, Holmes, is it TRUE that the *testimony* that Brehm gave to Lane for RTJ re the SOURCE of the shots ended up on the cutting room floor?

If it ended up on the cutting room floor then no one saw it, cancer cell. James Simmons didn't end up there, though. He stated exactly where the source of the shots came from, and you can see it in the film. Care to watch along with me?
Mockin' Regards,

"Boris"
Planet Earth
Criticus Terribilus

“*SIMMONS advised that it was his opinion the shots came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository Building*”
From FBI Report, 3/19/64 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 100-10461
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1416.htm

And yet when he was asked on camera to mark the area where he thought the shots came from, this is what he indicated:
https://youtu.be/0w4sQtwWfBo?t=2175

X marks the spot where the FBI LIED!

[tims...@gmail.com]

Naw, I think you'll find that it was Mark Lane who lied, Holmes. And YOU!

> Mark Lane was 100% correct that Brehm was never called to testify.
>
> And no amount of whining will change that fact...
>
>

Hmm, well I don't think that Brehm HIMSELF was very impressed with the way that Lane handled his testimony, Holmes.

Or are you going to label that as a LIE as well?

> Nor the fact that you can't explain why the Warren Commission did
> this.

Try to stay on topic, Holmes. A simple YES or NO answer is required from you, Holmes. Did Brehm's testimony in RTJ re the direction of the shots end up on the cutting room floor?

YES or NO, Holmes?

Lane is simply a LIAR, isn't he, Ben.

Informative Regards,

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

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where *KGB funded* Mark Lane LIED in RTJ!!

[tims...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 3 August 2018 07:18:49 UTC+10, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Say, Holmes, is it TRUE that the *testimony* that Brehm gave to Lane for RTJ re the SOURCE of the shots ended up on the cutting room floor?
>
> If it ended up on the cutting room floor then no one saw it, cancer cell.

Say, if it DID, though, AND Brehm said the shots came from the TSBD, would you still conclude that Lane was a truthful guy?

James Simmons didn't end up there, though. He stated exactly where the source of the shots came from, and you can see it in the film. Care to watch along with me?

Doesn't Simmons come across as almost entirely INSIPID in his RTJ segment, Boris?

Sure a SHAME he couldn't NAD UP when the Fee Bees were questioning him eh?

> Mockin' Regards,
>
> "Boris"
> Planet Earth
> Criticus Terribilus
>
> “*SIMMONS advised that it was his opinion the shots came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository Building*”
> From FBI Report, 3/19/64 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 100-10461
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1416.htm
>
> And yet when he was asked on camera to mark the area where he thought the shots came from, this is what he indicated:
> https://youtu.be/0w4sQtwWfBo?t=2175
>
> X marks the spot where the FBI LIED!

Your [sic] right about the TERRIBILUS part, Boris. You're <snicker> TERRIBILUS at JFK assassination research, pal!

Chortlin' Regards,

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

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane LIED!!!

[Ben Holmes]

>Naw...

Then there's nothing more to say, is there?

[tims...@gmail.com]

Brehm? RTJ film? Cutting room floor, Holmes?

Pretty NOTICEABLE how you SIMPLY don't want to discuss the matter, Holmes.

That's NO WAY to defend your LYING hero Lane, Holmes!

Informative Regards,

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

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane LIED!!!

[Ben Holmes]

Yep. Mark Lane told the truth... you can't produce the testimony, can
you moron?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > If it ended up on the cutting room floor then no one saw it, cancer cell.
>
> Say, if it DID, though, AND Brehm said the shots came from the TSBD, would you still conclude that Lane was a truthful guy?

My point being if it ended up on the cutting room floor, then you have no idea what was said, what was cut, and are therefore just jumping to the conclusions you need to jump to about what was cut and what wasn't.

> > >
> > > Say, Holmes, is it TRUE that the *testimony* that Brehm gave to Lane for RTJ re the SOURCE of the shots ended up on the cutting room floor?

Strange...how come this part didn't end up on the cutting room floor?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w4sQtwWfBo&feature=youtu.be&t=2453

>
> Doesn't Simmons come across as almost entirely INSIPID in his RTJ segment, Boris?

No.

>
> Sure a SHAME he couldn't NAD UP when the Fee Bees were questioning him eh?

Thanks for playing. I predict you'll run again now.
Chortlin' Regards,

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 21:09:02 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>> >
>> > If it ended up on the cutting room floor then no one saw it, cancer cell.
>>
>> Say, if it DID, though, AND Brehm said the shots came from the
>> TSBD, would you still conclude that Lane was a truthful guy?
>

>My point being if...

Say Boris... why don't *WE* play the "if" game.

What if Oswald were an agent of the CIA?

What if other members of the CIA were involved in the plot to kill
Kennedy?

What if the prosectors were military men who followed orders?

What if the Warren Commission had been honest enough to call the
closest non-limo witness to the murder to testify?

What if the HSCA had dared to call Adm. Burkley, and ask him about his
statement that he had information indicating a conspiracy?

Oh, I can play this "if" game all day long... but sadly, believers
won't play **MY** "if" game... they just like theirs...

[tims...@gmail.com]

Certainly, Holmes. Right here:

QUOTE ON:

BREHM: ...After the first shot hit, then certainly there was no taking my eyes from him.

LANE: What was your first impression as to the origin of the shots?

BREHM: Odd as it may seem, I had thought that the shots had come from the County jail house there. That was the direction they sound..... But it did not seem likely so I had assumed that they came from the Book Depository, but it was very close to that area. uh, I have been questioned as to how I could identify the source - the origin of the sound - from the fact that I said two bullets, the first two hit and the third did not hit anybody - uh - I think we'll have to take it back to the war and infantry and the fact that I was wounded twice and that I had developed a sense of rifle fire and where the shots had come from. So I had - after eliminating the jail - I had decided that they had to come from the book depository.

LANE: You were a ranger, is that correct?

QUOTE OFF

That is from the Reel 18 - Take 74 transcript of the Rush To Judgment film, Holmes, sourced from the Wisconsin Historical Society.

A friend supplied me with a copy a few weeks ago.

Who is the MORON now, Holmes?

And WHAT a LIAR Mark Lane is to PRETEND that Brehm is a witness who SOMEHOW supports Lane's Grassy Knoll shooter scenario!

No WONDER Brehm DENOUNCED Lane to CBS, Holmes.

Case CLOSED on Mark Lane! An INVETERATE liar!

Informative Regards,

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

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane LIED in the RTJ book!!

[Ben Holmes]

You're lying again, Timmy.

Since it's a fact, whether or not you're honest enough to admit it,
that Brehm was, as Mark Lane correctly pointed out, never called to
testify, it's IMPOSSIBLE for you to produce what doesn't exist.

[tims...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, 4 August 2018 14:09:03 UTC+10, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > If it ended up on the cutting room floor then no one saw it, cancer cell.
> >
> > Say, if it DID, though, AND Brehm said the shots came from the TSBD, would you still conclude that Lane was a truthful guy?
>
> My point being if it ended up on the cutting room floor, then you have no idea what was said, what was cut, and are therefore just jumping to the conclusions you need to jump to about what was cut and what wasn't.
>

Well fortunately, Boris, thanks to the Wisconsin Historical Society, we DON'T have to speculate as we have an ACTUAL verbatim transcript of what Brehm said to Lane regarding the source of the shots.

This is from Reel 18 - Take 74 of Lane's Rush To Judgment film:

QUOTE ON:

LANE: What was your first impression as to the origin of the shots?

BREHM: Odd as it may seem, I had thought that the shots had come from the County jail house there. That was the direction they sound..... But it did not seem likely so I had assumed that they came from the Book Depository, but it was very close to that area. uh - I have been questioned as to how I could identify the source - the origin of the sound - from the fact that I said two bullets, the first two hit and the third did not hit anybody - uh - I think we'll have to take it back to the war and infantry and the fact that I was wounded twice and that I had developed a sense of rifle fire and where the shots had come from. So I had - after eliminating the jail - I had decided that they had to come from the book depository.

QUOTE OFF

I DO wonder why that bit hit the cutting room floor, Boris? Maybe because Mark Lane is just such a <snicker> TRUTHFUL guy, eh?

> > > >
> > > > Say, Holmes, is it TRUE that the *testimony* that Brehm gave to Lane for RTJ re the SOURCE of the shots ended up on the cutting room floor?
>
> Strange...how come this part didn't end up on the cutting room floor?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w4sQtwWfBo&feature=youtu.be&t=2453
>

Strange how the other part DID though, eh? What do you think, Boris?

>
>
> >
> > Doesn't Simmons come across as almost entirely INSIPID in his RTJ segment, Boris?
>
> No.
>

Sure seems insipid to me.

> >
> > Sure a SHAME he couldn't NAD UP when the Fee Bees were questioning him eh?
>
> Thanks for playing. I predict you'll run again now.

Moght be time for YOU to run, Boris!

Helpful Regards,

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

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane LIED in the RTJ book!!

> Chortlin' Regards,
>
> "Boris"
> Planet Earth
> Criticus Terribilus
>
> “*SIMMONS advised that it was his opinion the shots came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository Building*”
> From FBI Report, 3/19/64 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 100-10461
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1416.htm
>
> And yet when he was asked on camera to mark the area where he thought the shots came from, this is what he indicated:
> https://youtu.be/0w4sQtwWfBo?t=2175
>
> X marks the spot where the FBI LIED!

ps You are right about the TERRIBILUS part Boris. You are HOPELESS at JFK assassination research. TB

[tims...@gmail.com]

LOL! That dog DON't Hunt, Holmes!

The debate had CLEARLY turned to what Brehm had told Lane in the RTJ film.

You don't like the way things are going so you SNIP and change the context.

Talk about a gutless COWARD!

Run, SNIPPER, run!

Run from Mark Lane's MOUNTING toll of RTJ LIES, Yellow Pants!

Chortlin' Regards,

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

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Benny's hero Mark Lane LIED!!!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
>
> Well fortunately, Boris, thanks to the Wisconsin Historical Society, we DON'T have to speculate as we have an ACTUAL verbatim transcript of what Brehm said to Lane regarding the source of the shots.
>
> This is from Reel 18 - Take 74 of Lane's Rush To Judgment film:

Wait, so your issue here is that Mark Lane didn't put EVERY TAKE OF EVERY REEL in his film? Do you know how long movies would be if filmmakers used every take, stupid? Not to mention repetitive.

>
> QUOTE ON:
>
> LANE: What was your first impression as to the origin of the shots?
>
> BREHM: Odd as it may seem, I had thought that the shots had come from the County jail house there. That was the direction they sound..... But it did not seem likely so I had assumed that they came from the Book Depository, but it was very close to that area. uh - I have been questioned as to how I could identify the source - the origin of the sound - from the fact that I said two bullets, the first two hit and the third did not hit anybody - uh - I think we'll have to take it back to the war and infantry and the fact that I was wounded twice and that I had developed a sense of rifle fire and where the shots had come from. So I had - after eliminating the jail - I had decided that they had to come from the book depository.
>
> QUOTE OFF

And what part of that quote from Brehm do you believe Mark Lane found so damaging to the CT cause? The part where he says he believes shots were fired from the county jailhouse? The part where he says the third bullet didn't hit anybody? The part where he says shots were fired "close to the area" of the TSBD (which is the knoll fence)? Or the part where he says "I had decided that they had to come from the book depository", which is what James Tague said in the extant footage anyway, so it's hardly a revolution in the finished film? Tell us, how much chlorine is in that Outback water you drink?

>
> I DO wonder why that bit hit the cutting room floor, Boris? Maybe because Mark Lane is just such a <snicker> TRUTHFUL guy, eh?

You "wonder" because you're an inbred.

>
> > > > >
> > > > > Say, Holmes, is it TRUE that the *testimony* that Brehm gave to Lane for RTJ re the SOURCE of the shots ended up on the cutting room floor?
> >
> > Strange...how come this part didn't end up on the cutting room floor?
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w4sQtwWfBo&feature=youtu.be&t=2453
> >
>
> Strange how the other part DID though, eh? What do you think, Boris?

I think that by citing that James Tague interview from RTJ, I've totally undermined the subtext of your idiotic argument, that Mark Lane was trying to "hide" something.

>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Doesn't Simmons come across as almost entirely INSIPID in his RTJ segment, Boris?
> >
> > No.
> >
>
> Sure seems insipid to me.

That's because you're a moron. No one would listen to his interview and read your posts back-to-back and think he was the insipid of the two.

>
> Moght be time for YOU to run, Boris!

Moght it? I think noght. Thanks again for playing. Time for you to run once more.

[Ben Holmes]

The facts don't change because you are too dishonest to admit it.

[Ben Holmes]

Looks like I scared Timmy off...

[tims...@gmail.com]

There's no NEED for the IF game in this matter, Holmes.

Not when we have the actual VERBATIM transcript of what Brehm said to Lane about the source of the shots, Holmes.

Let's read it again, shall we?:

QUOTE ON:

LANE: What was your first impression as to the origin of the shots?

BREHM: Odd as it may seem, I had thought that the shots had come from the County jail house there. That was the direction they sound..... But it did not seem likely so I had assumed that they came from the Book Depository, but it was very close to that area. uh - I have been questioned as to how I could identify the source - the origin of the sound - from the fact that I said two bullets, the first two hit and the third did not hit anybody - uh - I think we'll have to take it back to the war and infantry and the fact that I was wounded twice and that I had developed a sense of rifle fire and where the shots had come from. So I had - after eliminating the jail - I had decided that they had to come from the book depository.

QUOTE OFF

That's from Reel 18 - Take 74 of Lane's film Rush To Judgment, courtesy of the Wisconsin Historical Society archives, Holmes.

It PROVES that Brehm's testimony to Lane in the RTJ film re the source of the shots DID end up on the cutting room floor, presumably because Lane didn't like what he heard.

For Lane to then go on and quote the SAME filmed interview with Brehm in his RTJ book and claim Brehm as a Grassy Knoll witness is nothing short of a DISGRACE!

Mark Lane is PROVEN to be a liar on matter after matter in the JFK assassination. There is NO EXCUSE for this deceitful, dishonest man, Mark Lane.

Informative Regards,

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

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks ANOTHER spot where Mark Lane LIED!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 18:46:11 -0700 (PDT), tims...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Sunday, 5 August 2018 00:42:03 UTC+10, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 21:09:02 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >
>> >> > If it ended up on the cutting room floor then no one saw it, cancer cell.
>> >>
>> >> Say, if it DID, though, AND Brehm said the shots came from the
>> >> TSBD, would you still conclude that Lane was a truthful guy?
>> >
>> >My point being if...
>>
>> Say Boris... why don't *WE* play the "if" game.
>>
>> What if Oswald were an agent of the CIA?
>>
>> What if other members of the CIA were involved in the plot to kill
>> Kennedy?
>>
>> What if the prosectors were military men who followed orders?
>>
>> What if the Warren Commission had been honest enough to call the
>> closest non-limo witness to the murder to testify?
>>
>> What if the HSCA had dared to call Adm. Burkley, and ask him about his
>> statement that he had information indicating a conspiracy?
>>
>> Oh, I can play this "if" game all day long... but sadly, believers
>> won't play **MY** "if" game... they just like theirs...
>
>There's no NEED for the IF game in this matter, Holmes.

Then you'll stop playing it?

[tims...@gmail.com]

The IF game HAS been played in this matter, Holmes.

You and Boris lost; simple as that.

I already HAD the transcript BEFORE I proposed the IF scenario to Boris in the first place, Holmes.

And YOU were DUMB enough to stumble into it!

Case CLOSED! Lane is a very DISHONEST man! Get a NEW hero, Holmes.

Informative Regards,

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

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks ANOTHER spot where Mark Lane RTJ LIED!!

[tims...@gmail.com]

Naw, I don't think so, Holmes.

Say, planning on DEALING with what Brehm said about the direction of the shots, Holmes?

Or the great big HOLE it blows in Lane's credibility and that of his RTJ book?

If I can be of FURTHER assistance, Holmes, just ring!

Helpful Regards,

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

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where lyin' Mark Lane LIED!!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Great work Tim.

The money line:

Benny: Yep. Mark Lane told the truth... you can't produce the testimony, can you moron?

Tim: Certainly, Holmes. Right here:

QUOTE ON:

BREHM: ...After the first shot hit, then certainly there was no taking my eyes from him.

LANE: What was your first impression as to the origin of the shots?

BREHM: Odd as it may seem, I had thought that the shots had come from the County jail house there. That was the direction they sound..... But it did not seem likely so I had assumed that they came from the Book Depository, but it was very close to that area. uh, I have been questioned as to how I could identify the source - the origin of the sound - from the fact that I said two bullets, the first two hit and the third did not hit anybody - uh - I think we'll have to take it back to the war and infantry and the fact that I was wounded twice and that I had developed a sense of rifle fire and where the shots had come from. So I had - after eliminating the jail - I had decided that they had to come from the book depository.

LANE: You were a ranger, is that correct?

QUOTE OFF

That is from the Reel 18 - Take 74 transcript of the Rush To Judgment film, Holmes, sourced from the Wisconsin Historical Society.

A friend supplied me with a copy a few weeks ago.

Who is the MORON now, Holmes?

And WHAT a LIAR Mark Lane is to PRETEND that Brehm is a witness who SOMEHOW supports Lane's Grassy Knoll shooter scenario!

No WONDER Brehm DENOUNCED Lane to CBS, Holmes.

Case CLOSED on Mark Lane! An INVETERATE liar!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[tims...@gmail.com]

LOL! Your EMBRYONIC swamp posting efforts are rather endearing, Boris.

And a shot from the Knoll Fence area equates to a shot from the TSBD??

You appear to have COMPLETELY missed the point, Boris.

Have you ever ACTUALLY read Lane's book?

Say, let's examine your blitheringly IDIOTIC statement once again, eh?:

QUOTE ON:

My point being if it ended up on the cutting room floor, then you have no idea what was said, what was cut, and are therefore just jumping to the conclusions you need to jump to about what was cut and what wasn't.

QUOTE OFF

Looks like you sure got THAT one WRONG Boris!

Informative Regards,

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

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks yet ANOTHER spot where Mark Lane lied!!!

[tims...@gmail.com]

The facts don't change because YOU can't read the thread properly, Holmes.

Your hero, Lane, is a LIAR!

And his DISHONEST snipping of Brehm's testimony is RATHER reminiscent of your OWN efforts around here, Holmes.

Informative Regards,

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

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane LIED!!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Benny seems to be "grooming" Boris the Truther as Ben's new sycophantic Partner in Slime, taking the place of David Healy (from Dealey), who's apparently fallen off the sobriety wagon. Again.

Boris the Truther, like Healy from Dealey before him, has even talked with Ben about writing a book on the JFK assassination! Wouldn't that be a hoot?!

Lol!

[tims...@gmail.com]

Hi Chuck,

Cheers mate!

And THANKS for reposting it in FULL and in context because of COURSE our little friend Holmes simply SNIPPED and RAN, all the while touting the HONESTY of Mark Lane to the skies!

I don't think Boris Da Troofer is too much of a sidekick for Holmes.

Seems to be a very BASIC standard JFK researcher!

Cheers mate!

Regards,

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

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks ANOTHER spot where Mark Lane lied!!

[tims...@gmail.com]

Hi Chuck,

If such a book were to ever eventuate it would likely be an even BIGGER piece of GARBAGE than Rush To Judgment is!

Say, maybe they could use a photo of *The Lady In Yellow Pants* on the cover!

That way Benny could wax LYRICAL with his ABSURD thoughts on the matter inside the book while Boris was busy counting TSBD witnesses as GK ones!

Chortlin' Regards,

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

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane LIED!!

[Ben Holmes]

Mark Lane stated that Brehm wasn't called to testify by the Warren
Commission.

Is that a true statement?

[Ben Holmes]

One thing at a time, Timmy.

Was Mark Lane telling the truth when he made the claim that Brehm was
never called to testify by the Warren Commission?

You can keep running, but this is a public forum, and EVERYONE can see
your cowardice.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 19:00:30 -0700 (PDT), tims...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Sunday, 5 August 2018 11:48:50 UTC+10, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 18:46:11 -0700 (PDT), tims...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, 5 August 2018 00:42:03 UTC+10, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 21:09:02 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If it ended up on the cutting room floor then no one saw it, cancer cell.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Say, if it DID, though, AND Brehm said the shots came from the
>> >> >> TSBD, would you still conclude that Lane was a truthful guy?
>> >> >
>> >> >My point being if...
>> >>
>> >> Say Boris... why don't *WE* play the "if" game.
>> >>
>> >> What if Oswald were an agent of the CIA?
>> >>
>> >> What if other members of the CIA were involved in the plot to kill
>> >> Kennedy?
>> >>
>> >> What if the prosectors were military men who followed orders?
>> >>
>> >> What if the Warren Commission had been honest enough to call the
>> >> closest non-limo witness to the murder to testify?
>> >>
>> >> What if the HSCA had dared to call Adm. Burkley, and ask him about his
>> >> statement that he had information indicating a conspiracy?
>> >>
>> >> Oh, I can play this "if" game all day long... but sadly, believers
>> >> won't play **MY** "if" game... they just like theirs...
>> >
>> >There's no NEED for the IF game in this matter, Holmes.
>>
>> Then you'll stop playing it?
>
>The IF game HAS been played in this matter, Holmes.

And you ran away...

Not answering *any* of my "ifs"...

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> LOL! Your EMBRYONIC swamp posting efforts are rather endearing, Boris.

I think only 4 out of 37 posts in this thread are mine, but yeah, swamp posting, whatever.

>
> And a shot from the Knoll Fence area equates to a shot from the TSBD??

Brehm said "very close to" the TSBD. You don't even know how to properly quote your own citation after the fact, you idiot.

>
> You appear to have COMPLETELY missed the point, Boris.

As did you. I annihilated your claim that Mark Lane was trying to "hide" the truth by quoting the exact thing in his film you gloat he was trying to hide from. And you can't deny it, and you had nothing to say on the matter.

>
> Have you ever ACTUALLY read Lane's book?
>
> Say, let's examine your blitheringly IDIOTIC statement once again, eh?:

Sure. Let's start here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/SPnEIHup0i0/XqLtknCvDAAJ

Try refuting some of it. I dick-slapped you with evidence, and you had NOTHING to say. I proved your argument flawed, and Dumb Fuck Chuck had NOTHING to say. Nor did your inability to defend your stupid lies prevent either of you from slipping into a gang-bang of weak-willed ad hominems designed to create the illusion that you refuted something. You're an inbred, Tim. And I know you are, because Chuck supports you. And hey, how do you like my sig! You still haven't commented on it.
Amusin' Regards,

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 13, 2018 at 5:07:21 PM UTC-7, tims...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Say, according to this video interview by Mark Lane, Charles Brehm was
> never called before the Warren Commission to testify:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YcPzPt8XcM
>
> All well and good, but what Lane FAILS to tell the viewer is that
> Brehm's DPD interview DID appear in the Warren Commission volumes.
> Here it is, right here, right hand side of page:
>

> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0434a.htm
>
> Continues here, left hand side of page:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0434b.htm
>
> Lane is simply LYING BY OMISSION in this footage, pretending that the
> Warren Commission TOTALLY ignored Brehm and what he had to say. That
> is not the case at all!
>
> In fact, the guy who TOTALLY IGNORED what Brehm had to say was MARK
> LANE! Brehm said the shots came from the general direction of the
> TSBD, not the Grassy Knoll, and took UMBRAGE with the way Lane had
> quoted him in a later interview for CBS!
>
> Lane is a TOTAL research FRAUD, in my view. No wonder the KGB assisted
> in funding his <snicker> *research* (if we could dignify it with such
> a name...).

>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
> neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
> Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
>
> And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
>

> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

Have you told the lurkers hereabouts, that you're posting through an Aussie remailer? That you a cantankerous janitor at a junior college in upper state New Yawk? Over weight and bound to a 1985 dootle-bug. Did I forget and madly in love with Chuckie daShoe? You are priceless...

[tims...@gmail.com]

Read the FIRST post in the thread, Holmes.

Are you suddenly DEFICIENT in the ENGLISH language, Holmes?

All that SEMANTIC snipping and SPAM posting of the words and phrases coward, cowardice, liar, moron and you're lying appear to have affected your GRASP on REALITY, Holmes!

The MORON is YOU, Holmes!

And the LIAR is MARK LANE!

Informative Regards,

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

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane LIED IN RTJ!!!

[Jason Burke]

Are you *actually* retarded, Healy?
Or are you just the dumbest creature on earth?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

That's fine, Tim. Ignoring the evidence I presented is the same as not being able to answer it at all. Actually, I get more satisfaction when you don't answer, since the posts you do provide are so obviously the ramblings of a psychotic.

Anyway, since you've been TOTALLY DEBUNKED, I understand if you don't want to address this post: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/SPnEIHup0i0/XqLtknCvDAAJ

I predict your response, if any, will be the "fast food" of forum responses...devoid of substance.
Patient Regards,

"Boris"
Planet Earth
Criticus Terribilus

“*SIMMONS advised that it was his opinion the shots came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository Building*”
From FBI Report, 3/19/64 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 100-10461
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1416.htm

And yet when he was asked on camera to mark the area where he thought the shots came from, this is what he indicated:
https://youtu.be/0w4sQtwWfBo?t=2175

X marks the spot where the FBI LIED!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Still no case from Boris.

Amazing.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> Still no case from Boris.
>
> Amazing.

Some asshole keeps reminding me that we're not Johnny Cochrane, and this isn't a court of law.

Same asshole demands a "case"...which even he can't define.

Then COMPLETELY IGNORES the thread's topic to do it.

Amazing.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 2:32:19 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > Still no case from Boris.
> >
> > Amazing.
>
> Some asshole keeps reminding me that we're not Johnny Cochrane, and this isn't a court of law.

So stop treating it like lee Harvey Oswald is your client and you're trying to find reasonable doubt.

>
> Same asshole demands a "case"...which even he can't define.

I did define it.

>
> Then COMPLETELY IGNORES the thread's topic to do it.

So what? Every thread here dissolves into insults.

>
> Amazing.


Who killed JFK Boris?



Where's your case?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> Who killed JFK Boris?
>
>
>
> Where's your case?

Some asshole keeps whining that CTers focus on "unimportant retard" evidence.

Some other asshole reminds us that we only focus on "freaky looking sh!t", and keeps whining that we always say "what about this? / what about that? / what about this?"

Two assholes that whine they want to see a case. Then whine as we're compiling it right in front of them.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Lol, you just said at another thread that you know who DIDN'T do it! And there's one name on the list, probably: Lee Oswald, your hero.


Boris, you're just a turd. Really.

Flush.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Some asshole keeps whining that CTers focus on "unimportant retard" evidence.
> >
> > Some other asshole reminds us that we only focus on "freaky looking sh!t", and keeps whining that we always say "what about this? / what about that? / what about this?"
> >
> > Two assholes that whine they want to see a case. Then whine as we're compiling it right in front of them.
>
> Lol, you just said at another thread that you know who DIDN'T do it! And there's one name on the list, probably: Lee Oswald, your hero.
>
>
> Boris, you're just a turd. Really.
>
> Flush.

Dumb Fuck Chuck won't admit a case has been put out there ad nauseum. To him, there is more value in pretending otherwise, so that he can say the "where's your case?" talking point without having to do anything else.

Chuck is a coward. He not only believes stupid things, he can't even believe in them well.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 12:07:13 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

Still no case from Chuckles...

Amazing!

[tims...@gmail.com]

Well, Holmes, I think if you read the very FIRST post in this thread, where I introduced the topic, you will FIND your answer, Holmes.

You suddenly deficient in English comprehension, Holmes?

Yes, this IS a public forum and EVERYONE can see your blithering IDIOCY and LACK of simple READING comprehension, Holmes!

Not to mention YOUR cowardice for running from further discussion of your *The Lady In Yellow Pants* FIASCO for MORE than TEN YEARS, Holmes!

Just who TF do you think you are FOOLING, Benny?

Well you sure AIN'T fooling ME, Holmes.

Informative Regards,

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

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Benny's hero Mark Lane LIED!!!

[tims...@gmail.com]

Lord HELP us! It's DAVE! Dave/Ringo Healy, that is. He of the plastic Beatles servo wig, apparently highlighted with a a bit of Kiwi boot polish from time to time!

Now, Dave, I'm so GLAD you're here. Benny *Yellow Pants* Holmes seems to have picked up a new sidekick by the name of <snicker> *Boris Badenov*. This CLOWN'S posts elevate the GARBAGE HEAP standard of the posts of the likes of Gil *Bald Goose* Jesus and ol' tomnln almost to HIGH ART in comparison!

I URGE you, Dave/Ringo, to STEP in and HELP Benny see the error of his ways!

This Badenov fellow is leading him down the rabbit hole; into even WORSE research ERRORS than his *Lady In Yellow Pants* FIASCO of ten years ago!

It's up to YOU, Dave/Ringo. Can YOU help Benny out with a bit of <snicker> CASE EVIDENCE as opposed to ridiculous 9/11 TROOFER standard reasoning?

I'm crossing my fingers for you, Dave/Ringo. Crossing my fingers...

Concerned Regards,

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

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane LIED!!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

I have no case separate from the historically accepted narrative. No DPD assassins, no knoll gunmen, no mystery shooters from storm drains or the Dal-Tex building. No intriguing Mob connections or anti-Castro (or pro-Castro) connections, etc.

So I carry no burden.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 4:46:43 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Some asshole keeps whining that CTers focus on "unimportant retard" evidence.
> > >
> > > Some other asshole reminds us that we only focus on "freaky looking sh!t", and keeps whining that we always say "what about this? / what about that? / what about this?"
> > >
> > > Two assholes that whine they want to see a case. Then whine as we're compiling it right in front of them.
> >
> > Lol, you just said at another thread that you know who DIDN'T do it! And there's one name on the list, probably: Lee Oswald, your hero.
> >
> >
> > Boris, you're just a turd. Really.
> >
> > Flush.
>
> Dumb Fuck Chuck won't admit a case has been put out there ad nauseum.

A million so-called cases have been put out there, ad nauseum. Why do you lie and say I won't "admit" this? The cases contradict each other and they don't have evidence in their which would overturn the Oswald Alone narrative. This has been pointed out to you many, many times.

>To him, there is more value in pretending otherwise, so that he can say the "where's your case?" talking >point without having to do anything else.

You've spent countless hours at this board asking someone to explain freaky looking sh!t to you, and you've produced nary a paragraph on who killed JFK.

Why? Because this is a game. Taking a position on JFK's death would force you close down all of the other exciting, spellbinding combinations of weapons, motives, killers, shot locations, etc. and defend YOUR theory against the evidence the WC contended pointed to Oswald.

And you don't want to do that. You just want to shoot spitballs at the WCR. All theories about who killed JFK carry equal weight, have equal merit, etc. except the Oswald Alone narrative. Thus the knoll sniper could be James Files. Or Lucien Sarti, the Corsican killer. Or maybe Roscoe White (code name Mandarin! How exciting!!! A code name!) or any number of other assassins. It's much more fun for you to stay unemployed in mommy's basement smoking weed, propeller on the tinfoil beanie rotating at high speed, while you "investigate" 911 or the "unsolved" JFK murder.

>
> Chuck is a coward. He not only believes stupid things, he can't even believe in them well.

Until you can produce a case that better explains the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald as the shooter that day, you're just a fruitcake with an internet connection.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 05:48:43 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 6:16:38 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 12:07:13 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 2:00:59 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> That's fine, Tim. Ignoring the evidence I presented is the same as not being able to answer it at all. Actually, I get more satisfaction when you don't answer, since the posts you do provide are so obviously the ramblings of a psychotic.
>> >>
>> >> Anyway, since you've been TOTALLY DEBUNKED, I understand if you don't want to address this post: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/SPnEIHup0i0/XqLtknCvDAAJ
>> >>
>> >> I predict your response, if any, will be the "fast food" of forum responses...devoid of substance.
>> >> Patient Regards,
>> >>
>> >> "Boris"
>> >> Planet Earth
>> >> Criticus Terribilus
>> >>
>> >> “*SIMMONS advised that it was his opinion the shots came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository Building*”
>> >> From FBI Report, 3/19/64 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 100-10461
>> >> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1416.htm
>> >>
>> >> And yet when he was asked on camera to mark the area where he thought the shots came from, this is what he indicated:
>> >> https://youtu.be/0w4sQtwWfBo?t=2175
>> >>
>> >> X marks the spot where the FBI LIED!
>> >
>> >
>> >Still no case from Boris.
>> >
>> >Amazing.
>>
>> Still no case from Chuckles...
>>
>> Amazing!
>
>

>I have no case separate ...


You're lying again, Chuckles.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Prove it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:47:46 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Already did... you ran.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Who killed JFK?

Ben: The snipers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 11:44:38 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

That's not a refutation of what I stated. Either deny it, or admit it
Chuckles... that's *YOUR* burden!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Word Salad.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 12:50:51 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Coward.

Liar too... since you do ** NOT ** accept the WCR in it's entirety.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Distinction without a Difference fallacy.

No investigation this size can be perfect and not have flaws.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:01:42 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

You refuse to acknowledge any "flaws" - you're lying again, Chuckles!

Quite the coward, aren't you?

Believers NEVER acknowledge any actual specific failures of the Warren
Commission - because that's a slippery slope - and will soon get to
where you have to acknowledge outright lies by the Commission.

They even lied to their own Commissioners in their successful attempt
to have a unanimous "conclusion."

And you can't defend those lies...

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Since I can't "defend those lies" to your satisfaction, why not just start putting together your LBJ/Hoover/Guy Persnell/DPD snipers/bodysnatchers/Z-film alterationist/fake autopsy/Jack Thompson killed JDT/planted 6.5mm object in the x-ray case?

Ignore the WC "lies" and just build your case.

Or you can just run.

Who killed JFK?

Ben: The snipers.

Isn't Ben a hoot?

[tims...@gmail.com]

BUMP! YOO HOO!! HOLMES!!!

You appear to have simply RUN like a KOOK, Yellow Pants!

What a LIAR Mark Lane is! And YOU!!

Informative Regards,

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

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Benny's HERO Mark Lane LIED!!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 22:33:30 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Has nothing to do with me, or "my satisfaction" - you can't offer
explanations that **ANYONE** would accept.

And that fact tells the tale.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

It has everything to do with your satisfaction, and I don't need to offer any explanations because Oswald Alone is already the null hypothesis, the standard, the accepted historical narrative.

There isn't any perfect investigation, especially one the size and scope the WC took on. Shooting spitballs at it since 1964 has gotten you kooks no where.

Don't like their conclusion? Fine, PRODUCE a case that accounts for all of the flaws you see, the anomalies you notice, the interviews that weren't conducted, the tests that should have been done in your eyes, and COMPARE what you've come up with against the Oswald Alone conclusion.

But you won't do this, because it's just a hobby, and you're a buff, playing games.

How about breaking your case down and produce all the research you can, all of the interviews, etc. regarding your claim that Jack Thompson (no middle name!) killed JD Tippit. Let's see your work. Just focus on that.

Ready?

GO!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 06:16:44 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

You're lying again, Chuckles. You've offered **NOTHING** so you have
no idea what I'd be "satisfied" with.

You're just spouting an excuse for your cowardice.

> There isn't any perfect investigation, especially one the size and
> scope the WC took on. Shooting spitballs at it since 1964 has gotten
> you kooks no where.

You're lying again, Chuckles. You ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to publicly agree
with any specific points where the WC failed... you CERTAINLY refuse
to acknowledge the blatant lies they told.

As for it "getting us anywhere" - it's gotten most of America to
accept a conspiracy... it even got the GOVERNMENT to admit a
conspiracy, even though they still couldn't be honest about it.

> Don't like their conclusion? Fine, PRODUCE a case that accounts for
> all of the flaws you see, the anomalies you notice, the interviews
> that weren't conducted, the tests that should have been done in your
> eyes, and COMPARE what you've come up with against the Oswald Alone
> conclusion. But you won't do this, because it's just a hobby, and
> you're a buff, playing games. How about breaking your case down and
> produce all the research you can, all of the interviews, etc.
> regarding your claim that Jack Thompson (no middle name!) killed JD
> Tippit. Let's see your work. Just focus on that. Ready? GO!

More word salad.

The case that I HAVE ALREADY PRODUCED does account for all the known
evidence. You can't cite even a *SINGLE* piece of evidence that isn't
accounted for in the critic's conspiracy theory.

Watch... I'm going to predict again: YOU WON'T EVEN **TRY** TO PRODUCE
EVIDENCE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE VIEWPOINT OF A CONSPIRACY.

It's trivial to produce evidence that *YOU* can't explain.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> But you won't do this, because it's just a hobby, and you're a buff, playing games.

Chuck's right. Why study history at all?

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 2:53:11 AM UTC-7, Jason Burke wrote:

> On 8/5/2018 10:52 PM, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, July 13, 2018 at 5:07:21 PM UTC-7, tims...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> Say, according to this video interview by Mark Lane, Charles Brehm was
> >> never called before the Warren Commission to testify:
> >>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YcPzPt8XcM
> >>
> >> All well and good, but what Lane FAILS to tell the viewer is that
> >> Brehm's DPD interview DID appear in the Warren Commission volumes.
> >> Here it is, right here, right hand side of page:
> >>
> >> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0434a.htm
> >>
> >> Continues here, left hand side of page:
> >>
> >> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0434b.htm
> >>
> >> Lane is simply LYING BY OMISSION in this footage, pretending that the
> >> Warren Commission TOTALLY ignored Brehm and what he had to say. That
> >> is not the case at all!
> >>
> >> In fact, the guy who TOTALLY IGNORED what Brehm had to say was MARK
> >> LANE! Brehm said the shots came from the general direction of the
> >> TSBD, not the Grassy Knoll, and took UMBRAGE with the way Lane had
> >> quoted him in a later interview for CBS!
> >>
> >> Lane is a TOTAL research FRAUD, in my view. No wonder the KGB assisted
> >> in funding his <snicker> *research* (if we could dignify it with such
> >> a name...).
> >>

> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Tim Brennan
> >> Sydney, Australia
> >> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> >>
> >> *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
> >> neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
> >> Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
> >>
> >> And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
> >> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
> >>

> >> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
> >
> > Have you told the lurkers hereabouts, that you're posting through an Aussie remailer? That you a cantankerous janitor at a junior college in upper state New Yawk? Over weight and bound to a 1985 dootle-bug. Did I forget and madly in love with Chuckie daShoe? You are priceless...
> >
>

> Are you *actually* retarded, Healy?
> Or are you just the dumbest creature on earth?

I noticed you're still using the alias Mark Ulrik. Why Sluggo? I know, I klnow, because you're a coward that's why!

[healyd...@gmail.com]

Ben needs no help from me, son. Ben and Boris are sweeping up the place nicely. I can't believe you loon nut turds are still supporting .John's LHO did it all by his lonesome nonsense... Such a waste of time even for a third rate novice Junior College janitor such as yourself. You aren't going to get those student loans paid off defending the 1964 WCR conclusions. But you remain fully attached to .john's jock strap, it's still fun watching you get batted around here...

[Bud]

Only so-so cleaning the toilets.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Present your case that some guy named Jack Thompson killed JD Tippit.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 1:27:16 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > But you won't do this, because it's just a hobby, and you're a buff, playing games.
>
> Chuck's right. Why study history at all?

It's a lot more fun to play make-believe like you and Ben. LBJ ordering JFK's assassination, MK Ultra projects killing RFK, planted explosive devices in the WTCs killing thousands for an insurance scheme, etc.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> It's a lot more fun to play make-believe like you and Ben. LBJ ordering JFK's assassination, MK Ultra projects killing RFK, planted explosive devices in the WTCs killing thousands for an insurance scheme, etc.

And as we all know, such things have never happened in the whole history of the world.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 3:57:39 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > It's a lot more fun to play make-believe like you and Ben. LBJ ordering JFK's assassination, MK Ultra projects killing RFK, planted explosive devices in the WTCs killing thousands for an insurance scheme, etc.
>
> And as we all know, such things have never happened in the whole history of the world.

This is the part where you just. don't get. it.

Conspiracies DO happen. 911 was a conspiracy hatched by radical Muslims and they achieved their goal of killing thousands in a spectacular terrorism strike. That's a conspiracy.

Saying unknown companies planted mysterious demolition charges in the WTC for a Jewish businessman's insurance fraud scheme, and that Bush and Cheney and company hit the Pentagon with a missile, and that the FDNY, Port Authority, NYPD, politicians from both parties, etc. all conspired to do this is NOT a conspiracy. It is a disease called conspiracism.

You believe nothing happens by accident and that what happens in the world is intentional, by evil design. Nothing is as it seems, and whoever is in control disguises their role and their identity. Everything is connected and part of an intricate, evil design that allows for no accidents, no coincidences, and the patterns of evil are all interconnected with each other. You believe you and Ben and Healy and a very special cadre of other truth seekers uniquely have the ability to see these patterns of numbers, designs, events, or activities everywhere, once one knows what to look for, from faked moon landings, to false flag operations at the WTC, to political assassinations hatched in secret but involving thousands.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> This is the part where you just. don't get. it.
>
> Conspiracies DO happen. 911 was a conspiracy hatched by radical Muslims and they achieved their goal of killing thousands in a spectacular terrorism strike. That's a conspiracy.

I meant coups and insurance schemes. Happens all the time. And MKUltra does exist, for a fact.

>
> Saying unknown companies planted mysterious demolition charges in the WTC for a Jewish businessman's insurance fraud scheme, and that Bush and Cheney and company hit the Pentagon with a missile, and that the FDNY, Port Authority, NYPD, politicians from both parties, etc. all conspired to do this is NOT a conspiracy. It is a disease called conspiracism.

Then maybe you should stop saying it, asshole. You're the only one here who does.

>
> You believe nothing happens by accident and that what happens in the world is intentional, by evil design.

So JFK's assassination was unintentional?

>
> Nothing is as it seems, and whoever is in control disguises their role and their identity.

You've convinced me, asshole. Now I believe EVERYTHING is as it seems, all the time.

And by the way, it doesn't even SEEM like Oswald is the sole assassin anymore. Also, Jim Crow is not a thing anymore. Get your ass out of 1963 already.

>
> Everything is connected and part of an intricate, evil design that allows for no accidents, no coincidences, and the patterns of evil are all interconnected with each other.

Whines the believer of the SBT, the biggest "coincidence" in history.

>
> You believe you and Ben and Healy and a very special cadre of other truth seekers uniquely have the ability to see these patterns of numbers, designs, events, or activities everywhere, once one knows what to look for, from faked moon landings, to false flag operations at the WTC, to political assassinations hatched in secret but involving thousands.

We're not unique at all. We have all the same information at our disposal that you do. We just choose to study it.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 5:45:15 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > This is the part where you just. don't get. it.
> >
> > Conspiracies DO happen. 911 was a conspiracy hatched by radical Muslims and they achieved their goal of killing thousands in a spectacular terrorism strike. That's a conspiracy.
>
> I meant coups and insurance schemes. Happens all the time. And MKUltra does exist, for a fact.

Does that existence somehow render any retarded thought that pops into your head valid?

> >
> > Saying unknown companies planted mysterious demolition charges in the WTC for a Jewish businessman's insurance fraud scheme, and that Bush and Cheney and company hit the Pentagon with a missile, and that the FDNY, Port Authority, NYPD, politicians from both parties, etc. all conspired to do this is NOT a conspiracy. It is a disease called conspiracism.
>
> Then maybe you should stop saying it, asshole. You're the only one here who does.
>
> >
> > You believe nothing happens by accident and that what happens in the world is intentional, by evil design.
>
> So JFK's assassination was unintentional?
>
> >
> > Nothing is as it seems, and whoever is in control disguises their role and their identity.
>
> You've convinced me, asshole. Now I believe EVERYTHING is as it seems, all the time.
>
> And by the way, it doesn't even SEEM like Oswald is the sole assassin anymore. Also, Jim Crow is not a thing anymore. Get your ass out of 1963 already.
>
>
> >
> > Everything is connected and part of an intricate, evil design that allows for no accidents, no coincidences, and the patterns of evil are all interconnected with each other.
>
> Whines the believer of the SBT, the biggest "coincidence" in history.

Happenstance, stupid, not coincidence. You believe in coincidence, the men were just coincidentally lined up one in front of the other from where a person was seen shooting, the victims coincidentally jerk at the same time in the film, the results of the shooting demonstration in the "Beyond The magic Bullet" program were coincidence, ect.

> > You believe you and Ben and Healy and a very special cadre of other truth seekers uniquely have the ability to see these patterns of numbers, designs, events, or activities everywhere, once one knows what to look for, from faked moon landings, to false flag operations at the WTC, to political assassinations hatched in secret but involving thousands.
>
> We're not unique at all. We have all the same information at our disposal that you do. We just choose to study it.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_uya2HjMfMzU/S_HCNHR1abI/AAAAAAAABUg/KqNv1jZcS-M/s320/blocks.jpg

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 4:45:15 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > This is the part where you just. don't get. it.
> >
> > Conspiracies DO happen. 911 was a conspiracy hatched by radical Muslims and they achieved their goal of killing thousands in a spectacular terrorism strike. That's a conspiracy.
>
> I meant coups and insurance schemes. Happens all the time. And MKUltra does exist, for a fact.

There is retarded, and there is Extra-Strength BORIS retarded.

>
> >
> > Saying unknown companies planted mysterious demolition charges in the WTC for a Jewish businessman's insurance fraud scheme, and that Bush and Cheney and company hit the Pentagon with a missile, and that the FDNY, Port Authority, NYPD, politicians from both parties, etc. all conspired to do this is NOT a conspiracy. It is a disease called conspiracism.
>
> Then maybe you should stop saying it, asshole. You're the only one here who does.

I think you need to learn how to read for comprehension, Truther.

>
> >
> > You believe nothing happens by accident and that what happens in the world is intentional, by evil design.
>
> So JFK's assassination was unintentional?

You're just writing to write.

>
> >
> > Nothing is as it seems, and whoever is in control disguises their role and their identity.
>
> You've convinced me, asshole. Now I believe EVERYTHING is as it seems, all the time.

Is that the context?

>
> And by the way, it doesn't even SEEM like Oswald is the sole assassin anymore.

Dunning-Kruger effect. Again.

Also, Jim Crow is not a thing anymore. Get your ass out of 1963 already.

Tell us about MK Ultra. Wasn't that the 1950s?

>
>
> >
> > Everything is connected and part of an intricate, evil design that allows for no accidents, no coincidences, and the patterns of evil are all interconnected with each other.
>
> Whines the believer of the SBT, the biggest "coincidence" in history.

Boris throws up more chaff. The bullet went where it was aimed, Truther. A deliberate act of violence you try and push off on innocent people.

>
> >
> > You believe you and Ben and Healy and a very special cadre of other truth seekers uniquely have the ability to see these patterns of numbers, designs, events, or activities everywhere, once one knows what to look for, from faked moon landings, to false flag operations at the WTC, to political assassinations hatched in secret but involving thousands.
>
> We're not unique at all. We have all the same information at our disposal that you do. We just choose to study it.

Dunning Kruger effect. Again.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

An idiot says....

nothing.

This part was funny, though...

> >
> > We're not unique at all. We have all the same information at our disposal that you do. We just choose to study it.
>
> Dunning Kruger effect. Again.

It's not Dunning Kruger to say we studied something, Dumb Fuck Chuck. If you're going to dry-hump such an obviously stonewalling talking point, use it properly. Dumb fuck. We study it. You don't. You ignore it. You take MEASURES to ensure you ignore it.

Just like you continue to ignore this...

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/SPnEIHup0i0/XqLtknCvDAAJ

Tim's erroneous statement. A lie, actually. A lie so obvious even you can't defend it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 13:49:14 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Certainly.

Just as soon as *YOU* admit you have the same burden I do.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Certainly.
>
> Just as soon as *YOU* admit you have the same burden I do.

Why would the troll ever admit to any position where it would have to actually fight back?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 16:27:38 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

He wouldn't... and I don't blame him... I merely acknowledge it as an
example of his cowardice.

If ** I ** had to rely on the WCR as the basis of what I believe, I'd
demonstrate as much cowardice as believers do. (Fortunately, I'm not a
coward, and not dishonest - so accepting the WCR is simply a
non-starter.)

It's not possible to be an informed and courageous believer.

Or an honest one.

For example, it would be difficult indeed to find a bigger whopper
than this lie told by the Warren Commission:

"Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the
Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there
is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same
bullet which pierced the President's throat also caused Governor
Connally's wounds."

It was, of course **ABSOLUTELY** essential to their findings that
**ONLY** the shot that first hit JFK went on to hit Connally.

IT'S AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY - despite the lie told by the Commission.

There is **NO** other scenario that allows for a lone nut.

And Chuckles won't give it.

Nor will Pud, or any other kook in this forum.

Nor will any of the kooks demonstrate enough honesty to publicly
acknowledge this lie on the part of the Commission. They can't
acknowledge it, they can't refute it... they can only run from it.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> He wouldn't... and I don't blame him... I merely acknowledge it as an
> example of his cowardice.
>
> If ** I ** had to rely on the WCR as the basis of what I believe, I'd
> demonstrate as much cowardice as believers do. (Fortunately, I'm not a
> coward, and not dishonest - so accepting the WCR is simply a
> non-starter.)
>
> It's not possible to be an informed and courageous believer.
>
> Or an honest one.
>
> For example, it would be difficult indeed to find a bigger whopper
> than this lie told by the Warren Commission:
>
> "Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the
> Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there
> is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same
> bullet which pierced the President's throat also caused Governor
> Connally's wounds."
>
> It was, of course **ABSOLUTELY** essential to their findings that
> **ONLY** the shot that first hit JFK went on to hit Connally.
>
> IT'S AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY - despite the lie told by the Commission.
>
> There is **NO** other scenario that allows for a lone nut.
>
> And Chuckles won't give it.
>
> Nor will Pud, or any other kook in this forum.
>
> Nor will any of the kooks demonstrate enough honesty to publicly
> acknowledge this lie on the part of the Commission. They can't
> acknowledge it, they can't refute it... they can only run from it.

No doubt where Dumb Fuck Chuck got the wording for his "very persuasive evidence from the experts" comeback. And since that's about as specific as the WC can get, it is therefore as specific is Dumb Fuck Chuck is able to get.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 7:55:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 16:27:38 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Certainly.
> >>
> >> Just as soon as *YOU* admit you have the same burden I do.
> >
> > Why would the troll ever admit to any position where it would have
> > to actually fight back?
>
> He wouldn't... and I don't blame him... I merely acknowledge it as an
> example of his cowardice.
>
> If ** I ** had to rely on the WCR as the basis of what I believe, I'd
> demonstrate as much cowardice as believers do. (Fortunately, I'm not a
> coward, and not dishonest - so accepting the WCR is simply a
> non-starter.)

And if **I** was a conspiracy retard who made a silly hobby out of the deaths of these men, I would spend all my time trashing an investigation conducted over half a century ago, lurkers.

> It's not possible to be an informed and courageous believer.
>
> Or an honest one.

Meaningless declarations by a coward and a liar, lurkers.

> For example, it would be difficult indeed to find a bigger whopper
> than this lie told by the Warren Commission:
>
> "Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the
> Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there
> is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same
> bullet which pierced the President's throat also caused Governor
> Connally's wounds."
>
> It was, of course **ABSOLUTELY** essential to their findings that
> **ONLY** the shot that first hit JFK went on to hit Connally.

They said it wasn`t, a retard says it was, lurkers.

> IT'S AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY - despite the lie told by the Commission.

No, lurkers, they weren`t tasked with determining when bullets entered victims.

> There is **NO** other scenario that allows for a lone nut.
>
> And Chuckles won't give it.
>
> Nor will Pud, or any other kook in this forum.

The WCR was not tasked with presenting an absolutely accurate shooting scenario, lurkers. They *said* that wasn`t what they were attempting to do. A retard doesn`t accept this. What could matter less?

> Nor will any of the kooks demonstrate enough honesty to publicly
> acknowledge this lie on the part of the Commission. They can't
> acknowledge it, they can't refute it... they can only run from it.

We can understand it, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 17:00:55 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

No... if Chuckles were an honest man, he could simply reference all
expert witnesses who were asked questions on the topic.

But he's not an honest man - because he knows EXACTLY what such a list
of witnesses would show...

And Chuckles doesn't like to prove himself a liar...

[tims...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 5 August 2018 11:26:33 UTC+10, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Well fortunately, Boris, thanks to the Wisconsin Historical Society, we DON'T have to speculate as we have an ACTUAL verbatim transcript of what Brehm said to Lane regarding the source of the shots.
> >
> > This is from Reel 18 - Take 74 of Lane's Rush To Judgment film:
>
> Wait, so your issue here is that Mark Lane didn't put EVERY TAKE OF EVERY REEL in his film? Do you know how long movies would be if filmmakers used every take, stupid? Not to mention repetitive.
>

Hmmm? Why would I propose something as STUPID as that?! My ISSUE was that Mark Lane deliberately snipped testimony from Brehm, ie that the shots came from the TSBD, that DIAMETRICALLY opposed what Lane wrote about Brehm in his book, Rush To Judgment!

> >
> > QUOTE ON:
> >
> > LANE: What was your first impression as to the origin of the shots?
> >
> > BREHM: Odd as it may seem, I had thought that the shots had come from the County jail house there. That was the direction they sound..... But it did not seem likely so I had assumed that they came from the Book Depository, but it was very close to that area. uh - I have been questioned as to how I could identify the source - the origin of the sound - from the fact that I said two bullets, the first two hit and the third did not hit anybody - uh - I think we'll have to take it back to the war and infantry and the fact that I was wounded twice and that I had developed a sense of rifle fire and where the shots had come from. So I had - after eliminating the jail - I had decided that they had to come from the book depository.
> >
> > QUOTE OFF
>
> And what part of that quote from Brehm do you believe Mark Lane found so damaging to the CT cause? The part where he says he believes shots were fired from the county jailhouse? The part where he says the third bullet didn't hit anybody? The part where he says shots were fired "close to the area" of the TSBD (which is the knoll fence)? Or the part where he says "I had decided that they had to come from the book depository", which is what James Tague said in the extant footage anyway, so it's hardly a revolution in the finished film? Tell us, how much chlorine is in that Outback water you drink?
>

Well given that on page 56 of of his book *Rush To Judgment* Mark Lane is using Brehm's words from the very SAME filmed interview to prop up the idea of a Grassy Knoll shooter, I'd imagine that the part of that quote from Brehm that I believe that Mark Lane found so damaging to the CT cause was where Brehm SPECIFICALLY says that the shots HAD to have come from the book depository, ie the TSBD, Boris.

Which is why, presumably, those comments ended up on the cutting room floor.

You can't COMPREHEND that Mark Lane found THAT damaging to his cause? Seriously?

Lane is using BREHM to prop up his Knoll shooter fantasy on page 56 of RTJ, not TAGUE!

> >
> > I DO wonder why that bit hit the cutting room floor, Boris? Maybe because Mark Lane is just such a <snicker> TRUTHFUL guy, eh?
>
> You "wonder" because you're an inbred.
>

Looks like a bit of casual racism thrown in there, eh, Boris? Australians are INBRED, is that it? PATHETIC! Pity YOU didn't have the GUTS to answer the question, though, Boris. There is no need for ANY of us to WONDER. From the above we KNOW that Mark Lane lied in Rush To Judgment, both book AND film.

> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Say, Holmes, is it TRUE that the *testimony* that Brehm gave to Lane for RTJ re the SOURCE of the shots ended up on the cutting room floor?
> > >
> > > Strange...how come this part didn't end up on the cutting room floor?
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w4sQtwWfBo&feature=youtu.be&t=2453
> > >
> >
> > Strange how the other part DID though, eh? What do you think, Boris?
>
> I think that by citing that James Tague interview from RTJ, I've totally undermined the subtext of your idiotic argument, that Mark Lane was trying to "hide" something.
>

Hmmm? Nah, I don't think so, Boris. For the reason given above. Say, let's SPELL it out for you again, eh, Boris? As you seem to lack BASIC reading comprehension:

QUOTE ON:

Lane is using BREHM to prop up his Knoll shooter fantasy on page 56 of RTJ, not TAGUE!

QUOTE OFF

And the idea that Mark Lane ISN'T trying to HIDE something is LAUGHABLE, Boris! He is quite CLEARLY trying to HIDE the FACT that Brehm thinks that the shots came from the TSBD! So he simply CUT it from his lying film! It ended up on the cutting room floor!!

> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't Simmons come across as almost entirely INSIPID in his RTJ segment, Boris?
> > >
> > > No.
> > >
> >
> > Sure seems insipid to me.
>
> That's because you're a moron. No one would listen to his interview and read your posts back-to-back and think he was the insipid of the two.
>

Awwww. Say, Simmons looks like a frightened rabbit in the headlights to me, Boris. AND he is DAMNED by his OWN words in his FBI statement!

>
> >
> > Moght be time for YOU to run, Boris!
>
> Moght it? I think noght. Thanks again for playing. Time for you to run once more.

LOL! The BEST you can do is a TYPO?! Absolutely PATHETIC!!

> > > Chortlin' Regards,

> > >
> > > "Boris"
> > > Planet Earth
> > > Criticus Terribilus
> > >
> > > “*SIMMONS advised that it was his opinion the shots came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository Building*”
> > > From FBI Report, 3/19/64 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 100-10461
> > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1416.htm
> > >
> > > And yet when he was asked on camera to mark the area where he thought the shots came from, this is what he indicated:
> > > https://youtu.be/0w4sQtwWfBo?t=2175
> > >
> > > X marks the spot where the FBI LIED!

You sure got the *Terribilus* bit right, mate! If you WEREN'T so <snicker> *Terribilus* at JFK assassination research you would KNOW how to link to the original FBI statement of Simmons in the WC volumes, Boris.

But you DON'T because you ARE so <snicker> TERRIBILUS @ JFK assassination research, Boris, as WELL as appearing to have NO IDEA as to how deductive thought works.

I'll give you a HINT, Boris. Mark Lane is a DEMONSTRATED liar!

Case CLOSED on his blithering and multiple LIES and DECEIT in Rush To Judgment, book AND film!

Corrective Regards,

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

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane LIED!!!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Wait, so your issue here is that Mark Lane didn't put EVERY TAKE OF EVERY REEL in his film? Do you know how long movies would be if filmmakers used every take, stupid? Not to mention repetitive.
> >
>
> Hmmm? Why would I propose something as STUPID as that?!

Because you're stupid. The two correlate.

>
> My ISSUE was that Mark Lane deliberately snipped testimony from Brehm, ie that the shots came from the TSBD, that DIAMETRICALLY opposed what Lane wrote about Brehm in his book, Rush To Judgment!

You still haven't shown that, whereas I've already shown that Lane is unafraid of witnesses who stated the TSBD. As are most critics, none of whom denied shots were fired from there.

> >
> > And what part of that quote from Brehm do you believe Mark Lane found so damaging to the CT cause? The part where he says he believes shots were fired from the county jailhouse? The part where he says the third bullet didn't hit anybody? The part where he says shots were fired "close to the area" of the TSBD (which is the knoll fence)? Or the part where he says "I had decided that they had to come from the book depository", which is what James Tague said in the extant footage anyway, so it's hardly a revolution in the finished film? Tell us, how much chlorine is in that Outback water you drink?
> >
>
> Well given that on page 56 of of his book *Rush To Judgment* Mark Lane is using Brehm's words from the very SAME filmed interview to prop up the idea of a Grassy Knoll shooter, I'd imagine that the part of that quote from Brehm that I believe that Mark Lane found so damaging to the CT cause was where Brehm SPECIFICALLY says that the shots HAD to have come from the book depository, ie the TSBD, Boris.

Good of you to admit you don't believe a word Brehm said.

>
> Lane is using BREHM to prop up his Knoll shooter fantasy on page 56 of RTJ, not TAGUE!

If Mark Lane was lying or trying to hide something, the Tague interview would have been snipped. It wasn't. Are we following along, Timmy?

>
> > >
> > > I DO wonder why that bit hit the cutting room floor, Boris? Maybe because Mark Lane is just such a <snicker> TRUTHFUL guy, eh?
> >
> > You "wonder" because you're an inbred.
> >
>
> Looks like a bit of casual racism thrown in there, eh, Boris? Australians are INBRED, is that it?

No. Just you.

>
> PATHETIC! Pity YOU didn't have the GUTS to answer the question, though, Boris.

Done in triplicate. And I'll probably have to do it another dozen times, as you continue to ignore everything I say.

>
> Lane is using BREHM to prop up his Knoll shooter fantasy on page 56 of RTJ, not TAGUE!

Is Brehm the only witness he uses to prop up his "fantasy"? Or are there dozens others to help him do that? Even Timmy the Inbred has volunteered to help Lane out with his "only 52 witnesses" comment. Laughable indeed.

>
> Awwww. Say, Simmons looks like a frightened rabbit in the headlights to me, Boris. AND he is DAMNED by his OWN words in his FBI statement!

No, Simmons looked fine. And the FBI lied.

>
> You sure got the *Terribilus* bit right, mate! If you WEREN'T so <snicker> *Terribilus* at JFK assassination research you would KNOW how to link to the original FBI statement of Simmons in the WC volumes, Boris.

So Macadams is a liar? The source was his website.

[Blithering snipped]
Guffawin' Regards,

[tims...@gmail.com]

On Monday, 13 August 2018 00:57:54 UTC+10, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Wait, so your issue here is that Mark Lane didn't put EVERY TAKE OF EVERY REEL in his film? Do you know how long movies would be if filmmakers used every take, stupid? Not to mention repetitive.
> > >
> >
> > Hmmm? Why would I propose something as STUPID as that?!
>
> Because you're stupid. The two correlate.
>

Someone as abjectly STUPID as YOU accuses another of STUPIDITY?! Amazing stuff!

> >
> > My ISSUE was that Mark Lane deliberately snipped testimony from Brehm, ie that the shots came from the TSBD, that DIAMETRICALLY opposed what Lane wrote about Brehm in his book, Rush To Judgment!
>
> You still haven't shown that, whereas I've already shown that Lane is

You've never even read Lane's book, apparently. Lane cites what Brehm has to say as SUPPORT for a Knoll shooter. In fact, Brehm clearly states the shots came from the TSBD, in his opinion. And THAT testimony ended up on the cutting room floor!

unafraid of witnesses who stated the TSBD. As are most critics, none of whom denied shots were fired from there.
>

Lane must've been a BIT afraid of witnesses who stated the TSBD as Brehm's testimony ended up on the cutting room floor! If Lane wasn't afraid of it why did he cut it?

> > >
> > > And what part of that quote from Brehm do you believe Mark Lane found so damaging to the CT cause? The part where he says he believes shots were fired from the county jailhouse? The part where he says the third bullet didn't hit anybody? The part where he says shots were fired "close to the area" of the TSBD (which is the knoll fence)? Or the part where he says "I had decided that they had to come from the book depository", which is what James Tague said in the extant footage anyway, so it's hardly a revolution in the finished film? Tell us, how much chlorine is in that Outback water you drink?
> > >
> >
> > Well given that on page 56 of of his book *Rush To Judgment* Mark Lane is using Brehm's words from the very SAME filmed interview to prop up the idea of a Grassy Knoll shooter, I'd imagine that the part of that quote from Brehm that I believe that Mark Lane found so damaging to the CT cause was where Brehm SPECIFICALLY says that the shots HAD to have come from the book depository, ie the TSBD, Boris.
>
> Good of you to admit you don't believe a word Brehm said.
>

No, Brehm is just fine. Lane is the liar. And Brehm practically called Lane a liar later on CBS!

> >
> > Lane is using BREHM to prop up his Knoll shooter fantasy on page 56 of RTJ, not TAGUE!
>
> If Mark Lane was lying or trying to hide something, the Tague interview would have been snipped. It wasn't. Are we following along, Timmy?
>

Well you OBVIOUSLY didn't read what I said, Boris. Lane was OBVIOUSLY trying to hide what Brehm said, so he snipped it out of his movie. Again, Lane uses BREHM in his book to support the notion of a Knoll shot, not TAGUE.

And then he ALSO uses ALTGENS to support a Knoll shot in the same DISHONEST segment of his book!

Both Brehm and Altgens are TSBD shot witnesses!

> >
> > > >
> > > > I DO wonder why that bit hit the cutting room floor, Boris? Maybe because Mark Lane is just such a <snicker> TRUTHFUL guy, eh?
> > >
> > > You "wonder" because you're an inbred.
> > >
> >
> > Looks like a bit of casual racism thrown in there, eh, Boris? Australians are INBRED, is that it?
>
> No. Just you.
>

Pitiful ad hom from a bloke who BARELY knows what he is talking about.

> >
> > PATHETIC! Pity YOU didn't have the GUTS to answer the question, though, Boris.
>
> Done in triplicate. And I'll probably have to do it another dozen times, as you continue to ignore everything I say.
>

No, you HAVEN'T answered the question even ONCE, Boris! Stop making stuff up!

> >
> > Lane is using BREHM to prop up his Knoll shooter fantasy on page 56 of RTJ, not TAGUE!
>
> Is Brehm the only witness he uses to prop up his "fantasy"? Or are there dozens others to help him do that? Even Timmy the Inbred has volunteered to help Lane out with his "only 52 witnesses" comment. Laughable indeed.
>

Well in that segment of the book Lane SPECIFICALLY cites Brehm and Altgens as KNOLL witnesses when CLEARLY they think the shots came from the TSBD.

That's because Mark Lane is a LIAR.

And Lane is positing close to 100, not 52. Quite simply yet ANOTHER RTJ lie.

>
> >
> > Awwww. Say, Simmons looks like a frightened rabbit in the headlights to me, Boris. AND he is DAMNED by his OWN words in his FBI statement!
>
> No, Simmons looked fine. And the FBI lied.
>

On the face of it it looks like SIMMONS lied!

> >
> > You sure got the *Terribilus* bit right, mate! If you WEREN'T so <snicker> *Terribilus* at JFK assassination research you would KNOW how to link to the original FBI statement of Simmons in the WC volumes, Boris.
>
> So Macadams is a liar? The source was his website.
>

It's McAdams, not Macadams. There is nothing wrong with HIM. I'm simply pointing out that YOU don't seem to know how to find the original document in the WC volumes. That is because YOU are a JFK-CT NEWB with silly delusions of ADEQUACY in the field.

Which is why YOU seem to find nothing WRONG with Brehm's testimony re the shots coming from the TSBD hitting the RTJ cutting room floor!

Well I think that just about everybody ELSE can see what is WRONG with what Lane did! Charles Brehm INCLUDED, by all accounts!

Balance of delusional GUFF (((((((((((((((SNIPPED))))))))))))))!!

Corrective Regards,

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

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane LIED!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 18:09:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 7:55:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 16:27:38 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> Certainly.
>> >>
>> >> Just as soon as *YOU* admit you have the same burden I do.
>> >
>> > Why would the troll ever admit to any position where it would have
>> > to actually fight back?
>>
>> He wouldn't... and I don't blame him... I merely acknowledge it as an
>> example of his cowardice.
>>
>> If ** I ** had to rely on the WCR as the basis of what I believe, I'd
>> demonstrate as much cowardice as believers do. (Fortunately, I'm not a
>> coward, and not dishonest - so accepting the WCR is simply a
>> non-starter.)
>

> And if **I** was a retard ...

Congratulations Pud! You ARE!