The Warren Report and the Internet
RICLAND
The Warren Commission Report would never play today. Because of the
internet the public would instantly reject it.
But back in 1964-65 few had access to its 26 volumes. This meant the
general public was unable to evaluate its content and conclusions.
The internet has changed all that. Today the public can watch Mark
Lane's series of filmed interviews and ask questions such as "Why wasn't
Ms. Clemons' testimony included in the WC?" "Why was portions of Bower's
testimony excluded?"
In other words, a lot of the shortcuts the WC took then buried in its 26
volumes have now, thanks to the internet, been laid bare.
The Warren Commission Report is a flawed document and its this notion
that is the heart of the debate.
The Warren Commission Report is frozen in time and this means the people
who quote from it are using a source that's no longer valid.
Vincent Bugliosi is a good example of this. Bugliosi has dedicated his
life to defending every word of the Warren Commission Report. The man
acts not dissimilar to Islamic fundamentalists who insist there can be
no deviation from the Holy Koran.
No matter that several more recent and better informed government bodies
(HSCA, etc) have issued reports saying there WAS a conspiracy, Bugliosi
and his acolytes reject them all in favor of the almost half-a-century
old Warren Commission Report.
Enlightenment? Progress? Advancing the ball?
Nah...
ricland
--
Who Shot JFK?
http://tinyurl.com/247ybb
David Von Pein
There is no "etc.". If you think there is, what's the "etc."
represent?
And you should know that the HSCA fully backed-up the WC re. the
bullets that hit any victims (totalling 2, both from the TSBD, and
both from Oswald's gun, with Oz shooting).
The only thing in favor of conspiracy for the HSCA was the last-minute
acoustics nightmare, which has been totally dismantled since '79. At
the very LEAST, Ric, the "Dictabelt" stuff is highly questionable
evidence. .....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/acoustic.htm
>>> "Bugliosi has dedicated his life to defending every word of the Warren Commission Report." <<<
<chuckle>
As if you ever even knew VB was involved in any way with the JFK case
before the middle of this month.
>>> "The man acts not dissimilar to Islamic fundamentalists who insist there can be no deviation from the Holy Koran. ... Bugliosi and his acolytes reject them all in favor of the almost half-a-century old Warren Commission Report." <<<
Why don't you just use the nearest tree and string him up for telling
the "LN" truth! Geez.
RICLAND
>>>> "No matter that several more recent and better-informed government bodies (HSCA, etc) have issued reports saying there WAS a conspiracy..." <<<
>
> There is no "etc.". If you think there is, what's the "etc."
> represent?
>
> And you should know that the HSCA fully backed-up the WC re. the
> bullets that hit any victims (totalling 2, both from the TSBD, and
> both from Oswald's gun, with Oz shooting).
>
> The only thing in favor of conspiracy for the HSCA was the last-minute
> acoustics nightmare, which has been totally dismantled since '79. At
> the very LEAST, Ric, the "Dictabelt" stuff is highly questionable
> evidence. .....
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/acoustic.htm
The HSCA concluded the assassination was a conspiracy. That's the major
difference between it and the WRC.
Now in a rational world that would mean the 26 volumes of the Warren
Commission Report is rendered as useful as the 1963 Yellow Pages. The
problem is we have people like Bugliosi who want the WCR to be the final
word on the assassination till the end of time.
Well, that's not progress; that's some guy sticking his ass in the
middle of the aisle so nobody can pass.
aeffects
> >>> "No matter that several more recent and better-informed government bodies (HSCA, etc) have issued reports saying there WAS a conspiracy..." <<<
>
> There is no "etc.". If you think there is, what's the "etc."
> represent?
would: "...government body (HSCA) have issued a report, as well as
hundreds of books during the past40+ years saying there WAS a
conspiracy..." be less offensive, David?
> And you should know that the HSCA fully backed-up the WC re. the
> bullets that hit any victims (totalling 2, both from the TSBD, and
> both from Oswald's gun, with Oz shooting).
>
> The only thing in favor of conspiracy for the HSCA was the last-minute
> acoustics nightmare, which has been totally dismantled since '79. At
> the very LEAST, Ric, the "Dictabelt" stuff is highly questionable
> evidence. .....
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/acoustic.htm
>
> >>> "Bugliosi has dedicated his life to defending every word of the Warren Commission Report." <<<
>
> <chuckle>
with fresh eye, that's the image.
> As if you ever even knew VB was involved in any way with the JFK case
> before the middle of this month.
>
> >>> "The man acts not dissimilar to Islamic fundamentalists who insist there can be no deviation from the Holy Koran. ... Bugliosi and his acolytes reject them all in favor of the almost half-a-century old Warren Commission Report." <<<
>
> Why don't you just use the nearest tree and string him up for telling
> the "LN" truth! Geez.
don't be silly.... how 'bout this: Bugliosi debating (on-camera, for
public consumption) Mark Lane? Better yet, how about a NEW and
IMPROVED LHO "mock" tial (if there is such a beast) this time LANE
defending - Bugliosi prosecuting, on-camera of course...
Todd W. Vaughan
Lane wouldn't stand a chance.
David Von Pein
I'd love that indeed. Then Vince can make Mr. Lane look like a fool
when VB uses these comments on Lane (rather than Spence) this time:
"If the FBI and CIA were covering-up -- they'd be the ones who
murdered the President, right? Why doesn't Mr. {Lane} come right out
and say it? Why doesn't he accuse the CIA and the FBI of murdering the
President? One thing you can say about Mr. {Lane}, he's not a shy man.
He knows how to exercise his First-Amendment freedom of speech....but
he doesn't SAY it. Because he's very intelligent; very wise. I'll tell
you why he doesn't say it -- because he KNOWS that if he said that the
FBI murdered the President, or the CIA murdered the President....it
would sound downright SILLY! You'd LAUGH at him!" -- VB
And then Vince can call Helen Markham to the stand. (This assumes
Helen suddenly got her memory back and could recall her telephone
conversation with Mark Lane in early March of 1964; she told the WC
she never even heard of Mr. Lane; but for the purpose of the following
mock testimony, let's assume she does again remember Lane.).....
BUGLIOSI -- "The prosecution calls Mrs. Helen Markham, Your
Honor. ..... Mrs. Markham, I believe you had a phone conversation with
the lead defense attorney in this case, Mark Lane, in March of 1964,
while you were working at your job at the Eat-Well Cafe in Dallas,
Texas, is that correct, ma'am?"
MARKHAM -- "Yes, that's right."
BUGLIOSI -- "And during this phone call, did Mr. Lane talk to you
about your observations on Nov. 22nd, 1963, when you saw a police
officer shot and killed in Oak Cliff on Tenth Street?"
MARKHAM -- "Yes, he did."
BUGLIOSI -- "And during the course of that conversation, did Mr. Lane
ever say anything to you about the policeman's killer having 'bushy
hair' and being 'heavy-set' or 'stocky'?"
MARKHAM -- "Yes, Mr. Lane was quite emphatic about those terms, in
fact. He kept wanting me to describe the murderer in ways I had not
described before."
BUGLIOSI -- "Alright, thank you. So you, Mrs. Markham, had the
impression that Mr. Lane was trying to put words in your mouth, isn't
that pretty much the gist of it here?"
MARKHAM -- "Well, yes, I'd say that was accurate. He was doing that."
BUGLIOSI -- "Mrs. Markham, can you state for the record now whether
you ever described Officer Tippit's killer as having 'bushy hair' or
having been of a 'stocky' or 'heavy-set' build?"
MARKHAM -- "As far as I can recall, I don't ever remember saying those
things about the policeman's murderer."
BUGLIOSI -- "Did you, in fact, Mrs. Markham, positively identify the
policeman's killer as a man named Lee Harvey Oswald?"
MARKHAM -- "Yes, I did."
BUGLIOSI -- "And as you saw him killing Officer Tippit in 1963, did
you think that Oswald was 'heavy set' or 'stocky'?"
MARKHAM -- "No, he wasn't very heavy at all. He weighed, as I recall,
around 150 pounds. So, no, he wasn't very heavy."
BUGLIOSI -- "But Mr. Lane, on the phone, kept wanting you to say that
YOU had previously said to news reporters that Tippit's killer WAS, in
fact, 'stocky'; isn't that correct?"
MARKHAM -- "Yes, Mr. Lane went over that several times as I recall.
But I kept telling him that the killer wasn't heavy."
BUGLIOSI -- "And as you can recall right now, did Oswald--that is
Officer Tippit's killer--have 'bushy' type hair?"
MARKHAM -- "Not really 'bushy'; as I told the Warren Commission when I
talked with them, his hair was more what I'd call 'windblown' or
messed up, sort of...he didn't have very much hair really...but the
hair he had seemed out of place, as if the wind had been blowing it or
something."
BUGLIOSI -- "Thank you very much, Mrs. Markham. No further questions."
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vincent can then call Wesley Frazier to the stand (if Billy Lovelady
were alive, he'd use him instead), and using Frazier's testimony,
Bugliosi can then rip Lane to shreds on the "Doorway Man" matter....a
theory that Lane was still peddling as late as 1967 in his film
version of "Rush To Judgment".
Whether Lane still believes Oswald was in the doorway (instead of the
man who was really there, Lovelady) I'm not quite sure. But, old and
tired theories seem to die hard with Mark...so, who knows.
And then Vince can move on to Mary Bledsoe and Cecil
McWatters...regarding the "Was Oswald Really On The Bus?" matter.
And then Vince can get back into the "CIA" thing some more. That's
always good for a few more laughs, in light of Lane's "Plausible
Denial" book.
And when Mr. Bugliosi is through ripping Lane a new asshole in front
of the jury during a scathing Final Summation, I imagine Lane (if he
has any good sense) would be trying to slither out the courtroom door--
unnoticed.
tomnln
WHO is toad vaughan?>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
Proven Liar all in his own words.
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1175274945.9...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
RICLAND
Vincent Bugliosi is schlock. He's an embarrassment to the legal
profession. His performance was an example of lawyering at its worst.
The mock trial was supposed to be a learning experience. He turned it
into The Lawyer from Hell does Dallas.
During trial, lawyers do things -- unsavory things -- to save their
client's life or to earn their paycheck. These things include badgering
witnesses, bullying, character assassination, harrying, harassment and a
host of other tactics meant to intimidate and disorient witnesses whose
testimony is unfavorable to the lawyer's case.
Bugliosi's cross-examination of Conspiracy Theorist Cyril Wecht, MD,
illustrates what I'm talking about. This is from the YouTube "Grassy
Knoll Hoax --Part 2" except from "The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald."
Now, I would have loved to have seen Bugliosi obliterate Dr. Wecht's
testimony, not because I ascribe to the Lone Gunman theory, but because
I love a great battle of the wits. But that's not what Bugliosi gave us.
His cross-examination wasn't skillful, it was rude. He'd ask a
question and before Wecht could answer, he'd cut him off. He'd say
things like "So you're right, Dr. Wecht, and everybody else is wrong."
In short, he did not cross examine Dr. Wecht about the medical evidence,
rather, he prevented any discussion about the medical evidence, just
shut it out.
Were I a member of the jury I'd have found this insulting to my
intelligence. Were I a member of the jury I'd have seen Bugliosi's
antics for exactly what they were -- tactics meant to keep key
information from my ears.
This was not brilliant lawyering. If you want an example of brilliant
lawyering read how Mark Lane obliterated E. Howard Hunt during Hunt's
defamation suit against Liberty Lobby's Spotlight Magazine. No
grandstanding. No histrionics. No bullying. Lane just gave Hunt enough
rope until the man hung himself.
Reading that was a tremendous learning experience. Watching Bugliosi's
stupid pet tricks was an exercise in disgust.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "How about a NEW and IMPROVED LHO "mock" trial -- this time LANE defending & Bugliosi prosecuting, on-camera of course." <<<
>
> I'd love that indeed. Then Vince can make Mr. Lane look like a fool
> when VB uses these comments on Lane (rather than Spence) this time:
>
> "If the FBI and CIA were covering-up -- they'd be the ones who
> murdered the President, right? Why doesn't Mr. {Lane} come right out
> and say it? Why doesn't he accuse the CIA and the FBI of murdering the
> President? One thing you can say about Mr. {Lane}, he's not a shy man.
> He knows how to exercise his First-Amendment freedom of speech....but
> he doesn't SAY it. Because he's very intelligent; very wise. I'll tell
> you why he doesn't say it -- because he KNOWS that if he said that the
> FBI murdered the President, or the CIA murdered the President....it
> would sound downright SILLY! You'd LAUGH at him!" -- VB
>
Nonsense. The cover-up was separate from the conspiracy to murder,
needed to prevent WWIII.
Why not ask him or ask someone who knows him?
David Von Pein
>>> "Why not ask him or ask someone who knows him?" <<<
Wouldn't really matter.....because Lane's credibility has already been
shot full of holes via his book & film, when he said he suspected LHO
was Doorway Man YEARS after he HAD to know it was really Lovelady.
Lane WANTED a conspiracy in '66/'67 (and still does today, of
course...too much time, effort, & cash spent on it now to give up the
ship at this 11th hour), so he was injecting a doubt that never really
existed into his audience's mind re. Doorway Dude....just exactly like
Jim Garrison did the very same year (1967), which was three years
after the matter was fully cleared up by Lovelady himself via Billy's
WC testimony.
Via that ONE instance of obvious misrepresentation, Lane's and
Garrison's credibility and honesty are shot to hell. Never to return.
Anthony Marsh
> Re. whether Mark Lane still believes Doorway Man was LHO.....
>
>>>> "Why not ask him or ask someone who knows him?" <<<
>
> Wouldn't really matter.....because Lane's credibility has already been
> shot full of holes via his book & film, when he said he suspected LHO
> was Doorway Man YEARS after he HAD to know it was really Lovelady.
>
Your question is not whether Lane is correct or not. Your question is
what Lane believes. You'd rather make up false statements of what he
believes in order to defame him.
> Lane WANTED a conspiracy in '66/'67 (and still does today, of
> course...too much time, effort, & cash spent on it now to give up the
> ship at this 11th hour), so he was injecting a doubt that never really
> existed into his audience's mind re. Doorway Dude....just exactly like
> Jim Garrison did the very same year (1967), which was three years
> after the matter was fully cleared up by Lovelady himself via Billy's
> WC testimony.
Lane wanted a conspiracy? And waited until 1966? I got news for ya, pal,
a lot of people thought it was a conspiracy within minutes and did not
have to wait for 1966.
Again, you don't know what Lane said or thinks, because you are not a
researcher.
>
> Via that ONE instance of obvious misrepresentation, Lane's and
> Garrison's credibility and honesty are shot to hell. Never to return.
>
The only misrepresentation here is that you constantly lie about what
others have said.
tomnln
WCR Supporters do NOT.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175296854.5...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Well, yeah...it kinda is.
>>> "Your question is what Lane believes. You'd rather make up false statements of what he believes in order to defame him." <<<
I guess I could call that "Turn About Is Fair Play", huh?
But I didn't make up any "false statements", bonehead. Just watch
Lane's '67 movie. He's purporting that Oswald might be Doorway Man...3
years after he knew the truth re. Lovelady (or at least he SHOULD have
known it...if he didn't look it up in the WR volumes, he's even more
the fool, as he would have then gone on camera blindly, lacking any
knowledge of Lovelady's '64 testimony).
>>> "Lane wanted a conspiracy?" <<<
Absolutely. Can there be any doubt, via his Markham arm-bending and
his distortions of fact in "RTJ"? Get real.
>>> "And waited until 1966?" <<<
Takes a while to write a book. Even one filled with shit, like "RTJ".
Do you think Lane wrote the book on a matchbook cover over the weekend
or something?
>>> "I got news for ya, pal, a lot of people thought it was a conspiracy within minutes and did not
have to wait for 1966." <<<
How many of those people were writing (and had completed) 478-page
books "within minutes" of the assassination, "pal"?
Geesh.
>>> "Again, you don't know what Lane said or thinks..." <<<
Sure, I do. And so do you. You just don't want to soil a wonderful CT
buddy like the grandiose Mister Lane, right? Right. Lane's record is
there for all to see. And it's a record of deceit, manipulation, and
conspiracy-for-a-buck. Great guy indeed.
>>> "The only misrepresentation here is that you constantly lie about what others have said." <<<
Fuck you. I haven't lied once, you retarded kook.
But Mr. Marsh, OTOH, has said....what was it about VB's book never,
ever seeing the light of day?? Over & over again.
Go back to the mod. section. I'm already sick of your shit here in the
outhouse.
Rule Rattray
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175273687.9...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
I, for one, would love to watch such a debate, but as for another
mock-trial, forget it. Almost all the material witnesses are dead, so
there's hardly anyone left to testify. (Some died pretty damn quick, too.)
Rule
Rule Rattray
> don't be silly.... how 'bout this: Bugliosi debating (on-camera, for
> public consumption) Mark Lane? Better yet, how about a NEW and
> IMPROVED LHO "mock" tial (if there is such a beast) this time LANE
> defending - Bugliosi prosecuting, on-camera of course...
>
>
>
> "If the FBI and CIA were covering-up -- they'd be the ones who
> murdered the President, right?
How's that follow? Everyone in government had a stake in keeping the lid on,
after the fiat accompli had taken place, whether they had a hand in it or
not. FBI and CIA guys want to keep their jobs too, just like the rest of us,
and they take orders from their bosses, just like we do. Very few of us buck
the boss. It's no way to get ahead.
Why doesn't Mr. {Lane} come right out
> and say it? Why doesn't he accuse the CIA and the FBI of murdering the
> President?
He wouldn't say it because he's got sense enough to know that whole
organizations don't kill people, although certain individuals within those
organizations might.
One thing you can say about Mr. {Lane}, he's not a shy man.
> He knows how to exercise his First-Amendment freedom of speech....but
> he doesn't SAY it. Because he's very intelligent; very
> wise. I'll tell you why he doesn't say it -- because he KNOWS that if
> he said that the FBI murdered the President, or the CIA murdered the
> President....it would sound downright SILLY! You'd LAUGH at him!" --
> VB
And then the "jury" could laugh at VB for being so silly as to resort to ad
hominem argument. (Which is about all you've ever head going for you,
brother.)
>
> And then Vince can call Helen Markham to the stand.
(This assumes
> Helen suddenly got her memory back and could recall her telephone
> conversation with Mark Lane in early March of 1964; she told the WC
> she never even heard of Mr. Lane; but for the purpose of the following
> mock testimony, let's assume she does again remember Lane.).....
A transcript of Helen Markham's conversation with Mark Lane is among
the published evidence. Inconvenient, isn't it?
> BUGLIOSI -- "Thank you very, Mrs. Markham. No further questions."
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don't know much about trial procedure, do you? If you really wanted to be
honest with this fabrication, you would include Lane's cross examination.
> Vincent can then call Wesley Frazier to the stand (if Billy Lovelady
> were alive, he'd use him instead), and using Frazier's testimony,
> Bugliosi can then rip Lane to shreds on the "Doorway Man" matter....a
> theory that Lane was still peddling as late as 1967 in his film
> version of "Rush To Judgment".
Only if everyone let you write the script.
> Whether Lane still believes Oswald was in the doorway (instead of the
> man who was really there, Lovelady) I'm not quite sure. But, old and
> tired theories seem to die hard with Mark...so, who knows.
It was Oswald in the photo, as Lane would probably prove beyond a reasonable
doubt.
>
> And then Vince can move on to Mary Bledsoe and Cecil
> McWatters...regarding the "Was Oswald Really On The Bus?" matter.
>
> And then Vince can get back into the "CIA" thing some more. That's
> always good for a few more laughs, in light of Lane's "Plausible
> Denial" book.
>
> And when Mr. Bugliosi is through ripping Lane a new asshole in front
> of the jury during a scathing Final Summation, I imagine Lane (if he
> has any good sense) would be trying to slither out the courtroom door--
> unnoticed.
You seem to forget that Lane proved his case in "Plausible Denial", and
convinced a jury that certain elements of the CIA did indeed have a hand in
the assassination.
In my opinion, he'd cream Bufliosi. Doesn't matter though. It ain't going to
happen.
Rule
>
Bud
RICLAND wrote:
> I touched on this in another thread I started.
>
> The Warren Commission Report would never play today. Because of the
> internet the public would instantly reject it.
Who do you see reading it? But, the WC offered a reasonable
explaination for the event. There is no way, and no reason, to make
people accept that explaination.
> But back in 1964-65 few had access to its 26 volumes. This meant the
> general public was unable to evaluate its content and conclusions.
Whats stopping them now. Do you think people surfing the net get so
bored, they decide to find the WC report, and read it in it`s
entirety? Who has that kind of time or interest?
> The internet has changed all that. Today the public can watch Mark
> Lane's series of filmed interviews and ask questions such as "Why wasn't
> Ms. Clemons' testimony included in the WC?" "Why was portions of Bower's
> testimony excluded?"
They sure can. They can criticize the WC all they want. Decades of
fanatical kooks have tracked down these people, and filled in these
glaring deficiencies. What was found, any leads? Where did the leads
go?
> In other words, a lot of the shortcuts the WC took then buried in its 26
> volumes have now, thanks to the internet, been laid bare.
Your ability to nit-pick an existing work isn`t as meaningful as
you make it out to be. Anything they produced could have been
critiqued.
> The Warren Commission Report is a flawed document and its this notion
> that is the heart of the debate.
No, whether Oz killed some people that day is the center of the
debate. Kooks have moved the spotlight onto the WC, is all. It`s
easier to attack at sitting duck, much easier than trying to take the
known evidence, and construct a scenario in which Oz is innocent.
> The Warren Commission Report is frozen in time and this means the people
> who quote from it are using a source that's no longer valid.
A stupid thing to say on many levels.
> Vincent Bugliosi is a good example of this. Bugliosi has dedicated his
> life to defending every word of the Warren Commission Report.
Another stupid thing to say.
> The man
> acts not dissimilar to Islamic fundamentalists who insist there can be
> no deviation from the Holy Koran.
And another.
> No matter that several more recent and better informed government bodies
> (HSCA, etc) have issued reports saying there WAS a conspiracy, Bugliosi
> and his acolytes reject them all in favor of the almost half-a-century
> old Warren Commission Report.
People with any sense know that the HSCA reconfirmed the WC`s
findings. Experts said an audio tape contained a gunshot that couldn`t
have been fired by Oz, so they concluded that meant another shooter.
Further testing showed the audio tape evidence to be faulty, thus
nullifying the conclusions drawn from that evidence. Leaving basically
the WC`s findings, with a little more debunking of the conspiracy
crowd`s claims around the time of the HSCA.
> Enlightenment? Progress? Advancing the ball?
How much further do you need to advance the ball once you reach the
end zone?
tomnln
BUD doesn't believe the accused should have any Legal Representation.
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1175337707.3...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Walt
My.... My.....Are we getting testy Pea Brain?.... Could that be
because yer gettin yer ass kicked in nearly every thread you post a
reply to. If yer tired of gettin yer ass kicked perhaps you should
stop lying. I told you yesterday that the lies just won't cut it
anymore...... We've heard em all, and we've learned to rebut them by
quoting the actual testimony of witnesses.
If you could invent some fresh plausible lies you might be able to get
in a punch or two......as it is you're simply gettin yer ass kicked.
Walt
aeffects
wrote:
ROTFLMFAO --- when did you become the comedian?
aeffects
David -- Mark Lane from 1966 forward challenged and debated WC
attorney[s] and their learnered acolytes under severly imposed
restrictions for his side of the argument [read: with his hands tied
behind his back], on-camera and off, in huge public forums...kicked
there ass, everytime... they were terrified of him.
He caught them in multiple misrepresentations.....
Facts being what they are, even J Edgar Hoover, Dir. FBI, in May 1964
attacked Lane (as attorney representing LHO's mother concerns) for
insinuating LHO might be innocent. Why was Hoover so concerned with a
pissant attorney representing the mother of a dead assassin? What did
Hoover know nobody else knew?
Look at it this way, David: if it wasn't for Mark Lane, you wouldn't
be here supporting Lord of-high Manor, Vin Bugliosi -- this board
wouldn't be here...
Nutter's would be out there discussing economic theory for such
bastions of economic growth as Zimbabwie, Africa howEVER you want to
spell it
David Von Pein
<chuckle>
Why don't you fill in those blanks for us (the Internet jury). That
oughta be a laugh, watching Lane try to squirm out of this arm-
twisting incident....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
>>> "It was Oswald in the photo, as Lane would probably prove beyond a reasonable doubt." <<<
Which means that Billy Lovelady was a key/prime conspirator....because
Lovelady positively identified HIMSELF (with an arrow-pointing session
no less) as Doorway Man.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm
BTW, any reason why Oswald failed to mention "I was on the front stoop
at 12:30" when he tried to give an alibi to the police?
I guess Oswald was just trying to FRAME HIMSELF when he uttered his
provably-false "I had lunch with Junior" alibi.
Nice guy, that Lee.
>>> "In my opinion, he {Lane} would cream Bugliosi. Doesn't matter though. It ain't going to happen." <<<
You're right. It won't. Lane wouldn't be dumb enough to square-off
against Vince B.; give the man a little credit for having SOME brains
anyway.
That Lovelady/Oswald thing ALONE destroys Lane's credibility re. the
whole JFK case. Always has, IMO.
aeffects
> >>> "Don't know much about trial procedure, do you? If you really wanted to be honest with this fabrication, you would include Lane's cross examination." <<<
>
>
> Why don't you fill in those blanks for us (the Internet jury). That
> incident....
you read the same thread I'm reading? Your sounding like Eddie Cage
now...
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
>
> >>> "It was Oswald in the photo, as Lane would probably prove beyond a reasonable doubt." <<<
>
> Which means that Billy Lovelady was a key/prime conspirator....because
> Lovelady positively identified HIMSELF (with an arrow-pointing session
> no less) as Doorway Man.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm
>
> BTW, any reason why Oswald failed to mention "I was on the front stoop
> at 12:30" when he tried to give an alibi to the police?
>
> I guess Oswald was just trying to FRAME HIMSELF when he uttered his
> provably-false "I had lunch with Junior" alibi.
>
> Nice guy, that Lee.
>
> >>> "In my opinion, he {Lane} would cream Bugliosi. Doesn't matter though. It ain't going to happen." <<<
>
> You're right. It won't. Lane wouldn't be dumb enough to square-off
> against Vince B.; give the man some credit anyway.
Vinnie the experience
David Von Pein
Nah. I was just cranky. It happens. Esp. when confronted daily with
kooks like you.
You truly think anyone's kicked an LN ass in here....for years??? Let
alone YOU doing some of that kicking, with your never-happened "WEST-
END WINDOW" fantasy re. Brennan??
Ever plan on giving up that turd of a theory, Walt? (Even AFTER Vince
Bugliosi proves that you're a kook re. that theory?)
Just wondering.
<amusement break>
>>> "If you could invent some fresh plausible lies you might be able to get in a punch or two...as it is you're simply gettin yer ass kicked." <<<
I need no "lies". You've got the patent on that stuff. The lies and/or
misrepresentations of evidence never cease to flow from you kooks, in
fact. Which would include your make-believe "Brennan" and "smoker's
nook" and "staged attempts on Walker AND JFK" made-up hunks of
bullshit that you peddle as the truth here daily.
Who could ASK for better CT-Kook ass-kicking material than those items
listed above (and then some)?
Funny thing is....you CTers don't even seem to realize (or simply
can't admit) when you've had your own asses kicked from pillar to
"west-end" post.
Sad, isn't it?
Kinda. :(
Walt
Now THAT'S what I'm talkin about!!.... A post that doesn't have one
iota of rebuttal information in it.
Wot we hav heya is a failya tew present any defense... A sure sign of
bankruptcy. Have you run outta lies Von Pea Brain?
Walt
David Von Pein
As if I haven't been on this Brennan/West-End merry-go-round with Walt
The Kook a dozen times previously.
But Walt will merely pretend that none of those other many times I've
destroyed his weak-ass Brennan theory exist in the archives.
It's a new day...so everything is "possible", anew, in Walt's World!
Including dragging an innocent bystander named Jack Dougherty down
into his CT mudhole. (~Barf~)
But, of course, we do have the archives, proving what a kook Walt is
regarding his Brennan theory (again and again...and again):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7d3264251021ff76
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/06c1f09dbba91a91
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f424ace2d7c840c7
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0fe1f79089ea4005
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Don't know much about trial procedure, do you? If you really wanted to be honest with this fabrication, you would include Lane's cross examination." <<<
>
>
> Why don't you fill in those blanks for us (the Internet jury). That
> oughta be a laugh, watching Lane try squirm out of this arm-twisting
> incident....
>
>
>
>>>> "It was Oswald in the photo, as Lane would probably prove beyond a reasonable doubt." <<<
>
> Lovelady positively identified HIMSELF (with an arrow-pointing session
> no less) as Doorway Man.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm
>
> BTW, any reason why Oswald failed to mention "I was on the front stoop
> at 12:30" when he tried to give an alibi to the police?
>
> I guess Oswald was just trying to FRAME HIMSELF when he uttered his
> provably-false "I had lunch with Junior" alibi.
>
> Nice guy, that Lee.
>
>
>>>> "In my opinion, he {Lane} would cream Bugliosi. Doesn't matter though. It ain't going to happen." <<<
>
> You're right. It won't. Lane wouldn't be dumb enough to square-off
> anyway.
>
> whole JFK case. Always has, IMO.
>
Your lying about what Mark Lane said about Lovelady ALONE destroys your
credibility. You think the only way you can win an argument is by lying.
Which is why you admire Bugliosi so much.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Don't know much about trial procedure, do you? If you really wanted to be honest with this fabrication, you would include Lane's cross examination." <<<
>
>
> Why don't you fill in those blanks for us (the Internet jury). That
> oughta be a laugh, watching Lane try squirm out of this arm-twisting
> incident....
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
>
>
>
> Lovelady positively identified HIMSELF (with an arrow-pointing session
> no less) as Doorway Man.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm
>
More lies.
We do not know what Oswald said because the interrogations were not
recorded.
> BTW, any reason why Oswald failed to mention "I was on the front stoop
> at 12:30" when he tried to give an alibi to the police?
>
Why should he need to make up a different alibi?
> I guess Oswald was just trying to FRAME HIMSELF when he uttered his
> provably-false "I had lunch with Junior" alibi.
>
He never said that, liar.
> Nice guy, that Lee.
>
No one is claiming that Lee was a nice guy. Walker was likewise not a
nice guy, but he did not fire any shots at the President.
>
>>>> "In my opinion, he {Lane} would cream Bugliosi. Doesn't matter though. It ain't going to happen." <<<
>
> You're right. It won't. Lane wouldn't be dumb enough to square-off
> against Vince B.; give the man some credit anyway.
David Von Pein
Great. Now VB is a "liar" too, by the above reasoning. Lovely.
Fact is, I never lied. Not once.
Do you have RTJ on video?
Do you truly think that Lane didn't skew the record in that film (re.
Lovelady, the paraffin test, the bus, and other things as well)?
Specifically re. Lovelady/Doorway Man -- Lane HAD to have known that
Lovelady had, in fact, TESTIFIED to the FACT that he (Lovelady) was
indeed Doorway Dude.
Hence, Lane is lying/skewing when he's still purporting in 1966/'67
that the Doorway Man might, indeed, be Lee Harvey Oswald.
Simple.
A bigger question might be:
Why do you wish to defend an obvious evidence-skewer named Mark Lane?
Anthony Marsh
The difference is that in the censored group he is allowed to get away
with his lies with the blessing of the moderators and I am not allowed
to point out his lies. He knows he can't get away with it here where I
am free to call him what he is, a liar.
> Walt
>
David Von Pein
It doesn't matter what OSWALD said in this instance re. Doorway Man.
Because Lovelady HIMSELF identified himself as Doorway Man.
Did Lovelady and Oswald somehow inhabit the very same body on
11/22/63....so that Doorway Man is really BOTH Lee Harvey Oswald AND
Billy Lovelady simultaneously??!!
You're not really this stupid...are you Anthony?
>>> "Why should he {Oswald} need to make up a different alibi?" <<<
If he'd actually been in the Depository doorway at 12:30, ya mean?
Your shit is sounding dumber every minute.
>>> "He {Saint Oswald} never said that {"I had lunch with Junior"}, liar." <<<
Bullshit, Mr. Kook.
Oswald most certainly told the cops he had "lunch" with "Junior" on
November 22, 1963.
Why do you want to defend a double-murderer? A curious hobby indeed.
Addendum -- We DO know what Oswald said too (everything of any
substance anyway), even sans a recording/transcript. And Oswald most
certainly did NOT, at any time, tell anybody that he was on the TSBD
steps at 12:30 on 11/22. If you think he did say this, you're nuts.
And it would also make Lovelady and Oswald occupying the same body,
per Lovelady's testimony.*
* = So Lovelady would be the "liar" via that scenario, right Tony?
IOW: Accept the word of the accused killer FIRST; and disregard other
statements from people whose lives aren't hanging in the balance.
Right?
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Your question is not whether Lane is correct or not." <<<
>
> Well, yeah...it kinda is.
>
>>>> "Your question is what Lane believes. You'd rather make up false statements of what he believes in order to defame him." <<<
>
> I guess I could call that "Turn About Is Fair Play", huh?
>
> But I didn't make up any "false statements", bonehead. Just watch
> Lane's '67 movie. He's purporting that Oswald might be Doorway Man...3
> years after he knew the truth re. Lovelady (or at least he SHOULD have
No such thing. He is criticizing the WC sloppy investigation.
David Von Pein
Bullshit. Lane's full intention, quite obviously, was to leave the
impression in viewers' minds that it just might be LHO in that doorway
after all (despite the WC, and Lovelady, saying it couldn't have been
Oswald).
It's obvious (and provable) that Lane's intention re. the Lovelady/
Doorway matter was to deceive, and not just to show that the WC was
"sloppy".
How is this provable, you ask?
Because the WC was not in the SLIGHTEST way "sloppy" with respect to
firmly and irrevocably establishing the identity of "Doorway Man". The
WC positively established Doorway Man via talking to Doorway Man
himself -- Billy N. Lovelady, and getting Lovelady to draw the visible
arrow on this WC exhibit (CE369)....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0495a.htm
Mr. BALL - I have got a picture here, Commission Exhibit 369. Are you
on that picture?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are.
Mr. LOVELADY - Where I thought the shots are?
Mr. BALL - No; you in the picture.
Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, here (indicating).
Mr. BALL - Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an
arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were
you when the picture was taken?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right there at the entrance of the building standing on
the the step, would be here (indicating).
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm
How in God's name is that "sloppy investigation" by the WC in any way
at all? The Commission, through Lovelady's testimony (and Wes
Frazier's as well), verified the identity of the man in the Depository
doorway.
Lane was deliberately skewing the KNOWN FACTS re. Doorway Man's
identity. Period. And you, Anthony, should be embarrassed as you
feebly try to defend Lane (for some oddball reason).
And Jim Garrison did exactly the same thing the very same year (got
the idea from Lane prob'ly). Let's listen to a sampling of Garrison's
crap re. the "plot" and Doorway Guy.....
"In summation -- There were at least five or six shots fired at the
President from front and rear by at least four gunmen, assisted by
several accomplices, two of whom probably picked up the cartridges and
one of whom created a diversion to draw people's eyes away from the
grassy knoll. At this stage of events, Lee Harvey Oswald was no more
than a spectator to the assassination -- perhaps in a very literal
sense. The {James} Altgens photograph indicates the very real
possibility that at the moment Oswald was supposed to have been
crouching in the sixth-floor window of the Depository shooting
Kennedy, he may actually have been standing outside the front door
watching the Presidential motorcade. ... Somehow or other, the Warren
Commission concluded that this man was actually Billy Lovelady, who
looked very little like Oswald." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2317ac73008b3c8a
"BY AT LEAST FOUR GUNMEN..." -- Garrison
Even the "four-gun" theory didn't make it into Stone's movie (which is
almost entirely based on Garrison's lunacy, some of which is exhibited
above via the excerpt provided from his 1967 Playboy Magazine
interview). I guess adding a fourth gunmen was even too far out for
Mr. Stone. (Amazingly enough.)
Per Mr. Garrison's kookiness, FOUR guns were being aimed at JFK (at
least four! maybe five! or six!)....and ALL WITHIN THE SIMULTANEOUS
CONTEXT OF A PRE-ARRANGED "ONE-PATSY NAMED OSWALD" ASSASSINATION
PLOT!!
You just can't beat Garrison for kooky, never-would-have-happened-in-a-
million-years theories. ;)
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "No such thing. He {Mark Lane} is criticizing the WC sloppy investigation." <<<
>
> Bullshit. Lane's full intention, quite obviously, was to leave the
> impression in viewers' minds that it just might be LHO in that doorway
> after all (despite the WC, and Lovelady, saying it couldn't have been
> Oswald).
>
As usual for a WC defender caught libeling someone, your fallback
position is that maybe you can't prove the person said what you claimed
he said, so you infer that it was his intention.
And in an earlier posting you lied when you said that Lane was not aware
that Lovelady identified himself in the photo.
Maybe you've never actually read Rush to Judgment or you don't have your
copy handy to quote. I do. Here is what Mark Lane actually wrote:
In the background of this picture were several employees
watching the parade from the steps of the Depository Building.
One of these employees was alleged to resemble Lee Harvey
Oswald. The Commission has determined that the employee
was in fact Billy Nolan Lovelady, who identified himself in the
picture.
You lied to manufacture a fake controversy.
> It's obvious (and provable) that Lane's intention re. the Lovelady/
> Doorway matter was to deceive, and not just to show that the WC was
> "sloppy".
>
> How is this provable, you ask?
>
> Because the WC was not in the SLIGHTEST way "sloppy" with respect to
> firmly and irrevocably establishing the identity of "Doorway Man". The
> WC positively established Doorway Man via talking to Doorway Man
> himself -- Billy N. Lovelady, and getting Lovelady to draw the visible
> arrow on this WC exhibit (CE369)....
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0495a.htm
>
> Mr. BALL - I have got a picture here, Commission Exhibit 369. Are you
> on that picture?
> Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir.
> Mr. BALL - Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are.
> Mr. LOVELADY - Where I thought the shots are?
> Mr. BALL - No; you in the picture.
> Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, here (indicating).
> Mr. BALL - Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an
> arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were
> you when the picture was taken?
> Mr. LOVELADY - Right there at the entrance of the building standing on
> the the step, would be here (indicating).
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm
>
The WC was just as sloppy here as they were in establishing Brennan's
position at the time of the shots. He was NOT where he marked himself in
a recreation photo. The Zapruder film shows him at a slightly different
position.
And it took the HSCA and Robert Groden to nail down Lovelady and the
correct shirt.
> How in God's name is that "sloppy investigation" by the WC in any way
> at all? The Commission, through Lovelady's testimony (and Wes
> Frazier's as well), verified the identity of the man in the Depository
> doorway.
>
> Lane was deliberately skewing the KNOWN FACTS re. Doorway Man's
> identity. Period. And you, Anthony, should be embarrassed as you
> feebly try to defend Lane (for some oddball reason).
>
Lane was calling for a new investigation to shore up loose ends like
this. And with my help and others, that's what he got in the HSCA, which
did close up loose ends including this.
> And Jim Garrison did exactly the same thing the very same year (got
> the idea from Lane prob'ly). Let's listen to a sampling of Garrison's
> crap re. the "plot" and Doorway Guy.....
>
Garrison was gullible enough to believe every conspiracy allegation
which came down the pike. Stick to Mark Lane. That was your allegation.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "More lies. We do not know what Oswald said because the interrogations were not recorded." <<<
>
> It doesn't matter what OSWALD said in this instance re. Doorway Man.
> Because Lovelady HIMSELF identified himself as Doorway Man.
>
Yeah right, because we know that no witness ever lies under oath?
I might remind you that it was Robert Groden of the HSCA who finally
cleared up this matter.
> Did Lovelady and Oswald somehow inhabit the very same body on
> 11/22/63....so that Doorway Man is really BOTH Lee Harvey Oswald AND
> Billy Lovelady simultaneously??!!
>
> You're not really this stupid...are you Anthony?
>
False claim. I never said anything about Oswald being Lovelady.
I never said anything about Lovelady being Oswald.
I never said anything about Lovelady impersonating Oswald.
I never said anything about Oswald being outside on the steps of the
TSBD during the shooting.
I have ALWAYS said it was Lovelady.
What other lies are you going to make up?
>>>> "Why should he {Oswald} need to make up a different alibi?" <<<
>
> If he'd actually been in the Depository doorway at 12:30, ya mean?
>
His alibi was being in the Domino room. How can he be both in the Domino
room and also out front at the same time? Use a little common sense, you
dumb shit.
> Your shit is sounding dumber every minute.
>
>>>> "He {Saint Oswald} never said that {"I had lunch with Junior"}, liar." <<<
>
> Bullshit, Mr. Kook.
>
> Oswald most certainly told the cops he had "lunch" with "Junior" on
> November 22, 1963.
>
No, he did not. You are a liar.
> Why do you want to defend a double-murderer? A curious hobby indeed.
>
Here we go with another typical WC defender tactic. If anyone dares to
criticize the official story, accuse them of defending a murderer.
I readily admit that Oswald murdered Tippit. I have never defended that.
I don't know that he murdered the President. YOU assume that. Fine.
> Addendum -- We DO know what Oswald said too (everything of any
> substance anyway), even sans a recording/transcript. And Oswald most
No, we don't know what Oswald said. Cops lie. Stories conflict.
You lie about what the cops said.
> certainly did NOT, at any time, tell anybody that he was on the TSBD
> steps at 12:30 on 11/22. If you think he did say this, you're nuts.
You lie about what I say. I never said a single word about Oswald being
on the steps at 12:30 on 11/22. I have always said it was Lovelady.
But you are so bereft of facts that you need to lie.
> And it would also make Lovelady and Oswald occupying the same body,
> per Lovelady's testimony.*
>
> * = So Lovelady would be the "liar" via that scenario, right Tony?
What scenario? Not mine?
> IOW: Accept the word of the accused killer FIRST; and disregard other
> statements from people whose lives aren't hanging in the balance.
> Right?
>
You are the one who is nuts if you think you can win an argument by
falsely claiming what your opponent said.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Your lying about what Mark Lane said about Lovelady ALONE destroys your credibility. You think the only way you can win an argument is by lying. Which is why you admire Bugliosi so much." <<<
>
> Great. Now VB is a "liar" too, by the above reasoning. Lovely.
>
Of course Bugliosi is a liar. Such as on page 732 when he repeats the WC
defender lie that modern firearms never emit any smoke.
But I do not think that he can pack his book with 100% lies. That is too
great a task for any man.
> Fact is, I never lied. Not once.
>
You may not be able to fill all your postings with 100% lies, but you
surely will give it a good try.
> Do you have RTJ on video?
>
Rush to Judgment on VHS tape. Yes. Not sure it is out on DVD. I can
transfer it to DVD for you.
> Do you truly think that Lane didn't skew the record in that film (re.
> Lovelady, the paraffin test, the bus, and other things as well)?
>
Skew the record? No. Make fun of the sloppy WC investigation? Yes.
> Specifically re. Lovelady/Doorway Man -- Lane HAD to have known that
> Lovelady had, in fact, TESTIFIED to the FACT that he (Lovelady) was
> indeed Doorway Dude.
>
Not exactly testified, but yes Mark Lane wrote that in his book, which
obviously you've never bothered to read, but which I quoted for you.
Yet you continue to lie about what Mark Lane said.
> Hence, Lane is lying/skewing when he's still purporting in 1966/'67
> that the Doorway Man might, indeed, be Lee Harvey Oswald.
>
Quote? Citation?
> Simple.
>
> A bigger question might be:
>
> Why do you wish to defend an obvious evidence-skewer named Mark Lane?
>
Evidence-skewer? Mighty strong words coming from a proven liar.
Salvador Astucia
Zapruder film available for the world to see.
Stable version of the Zapruder film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozx4_4DZp38
Regular Zapruder film: (NOTE: You have to click to make it start when
the limo is blocked by the sign.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg07N9OrKW8
Salvador Astucia
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0...
> > million-years theories. ;)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Von Pein
>>> "He {Mark Lane} is criticizing the WC sloppy investigation {in his 1967 movie}." <<<
DVP (A NON-KOOK) SAYS:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0495a.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2317ac73008b3c8a
And don't ya just love this quote by Garrison? (I sure do.).....
"Somehow or other, the Warren Commission concluded that this man was
actually Billy Lovelady."
<laugh>
"SOMEHOW OR OTHER"???
I guess Lovelady HIMSELF pointing to himself in the Altgens photo
during Lovelady's official WC testimony equates to "somehow or other"
to a fellow named Garrison.
All together now:
"GEESH!!"
David Von Pein
In the background of this picture were several employees watching the
parade from the steps of the Depository Building. One of these
employees was alleged to resemble Lee Harvey Oswald. The Commission
has determined that the employee was in fact Billy Nolan Lovelady, who
identified himself in the picture.
You lied to manufacture a fake controversy." <<<
<huge laugh>
The RTJ (book) quote that Marsh-Kook provided is only FURTHER proving
my point re. Lane's lying tactics!
Via that quote we KNOW for a FACT that Lane knew for a FACT that Billy
Lovelady himself IDed himself as Doorway Man...hence, there was
ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR EVEN BRINGING UP THE WHOLE TOPIC OF "DOORWAY
MAN" IN EITHER LANE'S BOOK OR HIS FILM. Period.
IOW--It was a total NON-ISSUE that was being brought up by Mark Lane
in both his book and film. And in the film version of the book, Lane
is positively hinting that the WC got it wrong re. Doorway Man's
identity. There is no question that that was Lane's whole reason for
bringing up the topic in the first place.
What OTHER reason would Lane (a rabid CTer) have for bringing up
Doorway Man at all? To point out something that HARMS his pro-CT
cause? Nonsense. He obviously brought it up to mislead his film
audience into thinking that the "DM" matter maybe wasn't resolved
after all.
Does anybody really think that Lane was merely trying to clear up the
record re. Doorway Man? Or was he trying to plant a seed of doubt
where not the SLIGHTEST bit of doubt ever existed after Lovelady's
April 1964 testimony?
You decide.
But if you decide on anything other than that latter option I just
mentioned above, you're just plain nuts.
>>> "It took the HSCA and Robert Groden to nail down Lovelady and the correct shirt." <<<
<even bigger laugh this time>
I guess LOVELADY'S OWN WORDS weren't good enough, huh? The horse's
"Doorway Man" mouth wasn't good enough, was it?
It took Groden's photographic expertise re. the shirt colors to nail
down Doorway Man's identity, huh?
God, what a kook.
Lovelady cleared up DM's identity on April the 7th of 1964, 14 years
before the HSCA and "Grodenscoping", and yet some kook has just said
it wasn't until 1978 that the mystery surrounding Doorway Man was
finally resolved.
It's a wonder you kooks can find your way home each day. Jesus H.
Christ.
>>> "Lane was calling for a new investigation to shore up loose ends like this. And with my help and others, that's what he got in the HSCA, which did close up loose ends including this." <<<
Make Marsh stop! It hurts to laugh this much within one single post
full of Marsh-crap!!
If you think the Doorway Man issue was a "loose end" as of 1978, you
are ready for the funniest of funny farms. It was a fully-resolved
issue the moment Lovelady drew the arrow on this picture....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0495a.htm
>>> "Garrison was gullible enough to believe every conspiracy allegation which came down the pike. Stick to Mark Lane. That was your allegation." <<<
And Lane was/is only about 1% less of a deceiver, evidence-
manipulator, and CT-Kook than was Mr. Garrison. (Maybe only half-a-
percent less.)
David Von Pein
You haven't read page 732 of "Reclaiming History", you lying sack (or
page 1 even). Why are you giving us the impression you have read page
732? A liar, aren't you?
>>> "But I do not think that he can pack his book with 100% lies. That is too great a task for any man." <<<
The above quote proves you haven't set eyes on VB's book (page 732 or
any other page). Kook.
BTW, filling a book with 100% lies isn't so difficult -- just go ask
Groden. He's pert-near done just that.
>>> "You may not be able to fill all your postings with 100% lies, but you surely will give it a good try." <<<
You're one arrogant sumbitch, aren't you Mr. Kook? ;)
>>> "Rush to Judgment on VHS tape. Yes. Not sure it is out on DVD. I can transfer it to DVD for you." <<<
Don't do me any favors, Mr. Kook. I wouldn't want anything you've
touched anyway. Any DVD I got from you would likely make my DVD player
explode upon immediate disc insertion. So, no thanks, Mr. Kook.
>>> "Not exactly testified, but yes Mark Lane wrote that in his book, which obviously you've never bothered to read, but which I quoted for you. Yet you continue to lie about what Mark Lane said." <<<
I never once lied. In fact, I specifically stated earlier that Lane
HAD TO HAVE KNOWN ABOUT LOVELADY'S 1964 WC TESTIMONY. And IF he hadn't
known, he was an even bigger fool for not researching the facts before
making an ass of himself on film.
Okay, so Lane knew that Lovelady WAS, in fact, Doorway Man, circa
1966-1967. So why is the topic even brought up AT ALL in a conspiracy-
tinged book like RTJ, or in his film, which is ALL pro-CT??
I'd like to see the verbiage in RTJ that immediately follows the
quoted passage you produced earlier re. Lovelady. Let me guess...Lane
casts some "doubt" about whether Lovelady could really identify
himself in the Altgens picture. Right?
I've gotta be right! Or else why would he even bring the subject up AT
ALL?
And you're right...I haven't read the book version of RTJ. I wouldn't
touch a hideous CT tome like that with a 60-foot pole. But Lane's film
I do definitely enjoy for its mid-60s "feel" and the great views of DP
circa 1967. The conspiracy tripe throughout is bogus
(naturally)...esp. the Lovelady stuff.
>>> "Quote? Citation?" <<<
Why is a quote or citation even NEEDED? Lane is ALL CONSPIRACY, ALL
THE TIME. Anything in his film is going to be put there to further the
notion of possible conspiracy. Therefore, the mere fact that Doorway
Man is even brought up in his film (or book) means that Lane wants to
cast doubt on the veracity of DM's (Lovelady's) identity.
Do you need a road map to see this, for Christ sake?
>>> "Evidence-skewer? Mighty strong words coming from a proven liar." <<<
Would you prefer "rotten lowlife, conspiracy-loving scumbag"??
Yeah, that DOES sound better, come to think of it.
Those words fit a kook named Marsh too.
Now, back to bed you go, Mr. Marsh. Lane and Fetzer and Groden are
getting cold without you there in bed to warm them.
aeffects
David VonPein....
Why do you find it necessary to change the thread title at least 3
times in your last 4 posts?
You need that much attention?
Childish, don't you think....
tomnln
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175379479.4...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "More lies. We do not know what Oswald said because the interrogations
>>>> were not recorded." <<<
>
> It doesn't matter what OSWALD said in this instance re. Doorway Man.
> Because Lovelady HIMSELF identified himself as Doorway Man.
>
> Did Lovelady and Oswald somehow inhabit the very same body on
> 11/22/63....so that Doorway Man is really BOTH Lee Harvey Oswald AND
> Billy Lovelady simultaneously??!!
>
> You're not really this stupid...are you Anthony?
>
>
>>>> "Why should he {Oswald} need to make up a different alibi?" <<<
>
> If he'd actually been in the Depository doorway at 12:30, ya mean?
>
> Your shit is sounding dumber every minute.
>
>
>>>> "He {Saint Oswald} never said that {"I had lunch with Junior"}, liar."
>>>> <<<
>
> Bullshit, Mr. Kook.
>
> Oswald most certainly told the cops he had "lunch" with "Junior" on
> November 22, 1963.
>
> Why do you want to defend a double-murderer? A curious hobby indeed.
>
>
> Addendum -- We DO know what Oswald said too (everything of any
> substance anyway), even sans a recording/transcript. And Oswald most
> certainly did NOT, at any time, tell anybody that he was on the TSBD
> steps at 12:30 on 11/22. If you think he did say this, you're nuts.
> And it would also make Lovelady and Oswald occupying the same body,
> per Lovelady's testimony.
>
> * = So Lovelady would be the "liar" via that scenario, right Tony?
Rule Rattray
>>>> "Don't know much about trial procedure, do you? If you really wanted to
>>>> be honest with this fabrication, you would include Lane's cross
>>>> examination." <<<
>
> <chuckle>
>
> Why don't you fill in those blanks for us (the Internet jury).
Because unlike you, who apparently think yourself justified in putting words
in other people's mouths, I would not presume to speak for anyone else but
myself.
(By the way; nice snips up there.)
That
> oughta be a laugh, watching Lane try squirm out of this arm-twisting
> incident....
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
>
>
>>>> "It was Oswald in the photo, as Lane would probably prove beyond a
>>>> reasonable doubt." <<<
>
> Which means that Billy Lovelady was a key/prime conspirator.
How silly. Of course it doesn't. All it takes to convince a witness to
cooperate, (which is a far cry from conspiring,) is a couple of credentialed
fitness-nuts showing up at his door and an observation along the line of
"Nice family you've got, sir. Be a shame if something happened to them."
For most of us, that alone would make us think twice about bucking the
authorities. And, if you're never called to testify under oath, that's where
it ends.
Was Lovelady intimidated or otherwise coerced? How should I, (or you) know.
We'd have to ask him, and what he replied might very well depend on whether
it did happen or not and whether he is still scared if it did. It would also
depend in large part on the accuracy of his own memory decades after he
"identified" himself.
Catch 22.
In any case, there's no reason to think both men might have been on those
steps at or very near the same time, or that Oswald may not have turned on
his heel and immediately gone up to the lunchroom. What would it take?
Fifteen seconds?
Why would Oswald do that? You'd have to ask him.
(I can think of several reasons why he might, but "mights" don't count for
much in this world.)
.
...because
> Lovelady positively identified HIMSELF (with an arrow-pointing session
> no less) as Doorway Man.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm
>
> BTW, any reason why Oswald failed to mention "I was on the front stoop
> at 12:30" when he tried to give an alibi to the police?
>
> I guess Oswald was just trying to FRAME HIMSELF when he uttered his
> provably-false "I had lunch with Junior" alibi.
Where'd you get that as an alibi used by Oswald? New one on me. Please cite
your source.
> Nice guy, that Lee.
Can't resist sneering at every turn, can you?
>>>> "In my opinion, he {Lane} would cream Bugliosi. Doesn't matter though.
>>>> It ain't going to happen." <<<
>
> You're right. It won't. Lane wouldn't be dumb enough to square-off
> against Vince B.; give the man some credit anyway.
>
> That Lovelady/Oswald thing ALONE destroys Lane's credibility re. the
> whole JFK case. Always has, IMO.
I hate to have be the one to tell you this, but the fact that YOU hold an
opinion does not necessarily make that opinion valid.
I suggest you follow the link tomlin furnished further down in this thread
and respond to it.
Here it is again:
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
Go ahead. Gather up your courage, move your mouse and click on it. It is, I
think, one of the FBI reports Lane might use to refute Lovelady's
self-identification if it ever came up in a debate with Bugliosi.
(Which it won't.)
Rule
>
David Von Pein
You're not attempting to "put words into another person's mouth", are
ya there, Rattray? ;)
>>> "Was Lovelady intimidated or otherwise coerced? How should I, (or you) know?" <<<
I know. He wasn't.
And there's no reason to believe he wasn't telling the truth when he
(under oath) drew an arrow to himself on the Altgens picture.
But you, like many CTers in the world, evidently think that the mere
POSSIBILITY of an extraordinary event occurring with regard to the JFK
case is enough of a reason to accept it with wide-open arms.*
* = In this particular instance, the extraordinary event being:
Lovelady having been man-handled by the evil U.S. Government into
falsely stating he was in the doorway on November 22, 1963.
>>> "We'd have to ask him {Lovelady}, and what he replied might very well depend on whether it did happen or not and whether he is still scared if it did. It would also depend in large part on the accuracy of his own memory decades after he "identified" himself." <<<
He identified himself in April 1964....just 4.5 months after
Assassination Day. Billy's dead now. So we can't ask him anything. He
passed away more than 20 years ago.
But we really wouldn't need to rely on Billy's memory at all. The
Altgens photo, plus Wes Frazier's testimony, tell us it was Lovelady
and not Oswald on the steps. Frazier saw Lovelady there on the steps.
So the photo plus Frazier corroborate each other, even without
Lovelady's testimony.
But, of course, Lovelady's own words to the WC serve as the BEST
evidence that it was Billy on the steps. (A CT-Kook's skepticism re.
strong-arming tactics notwithstanding.)
>>> "In any case, there's no reason to think both men might {not} have been on those steps at or very near the same time." <<<
Sure there is. There's EVERY reason to think that both men were not on
the steps at the same time at 12:30.
Those reasons include: Lovelady's testimony, Frazier's testimony, the
testimony of other "TSBD steps" witnesses (none of whom saw Oswald out
in front of the building), Brennan seeing Oswald on the 6th Floor,
Oswald's prints and shells and gun being on the 6th Floor, and one of
THE biggest reasons of them all.....
OSWALD NEVER SAID TO THE POLICE, "I WAS ON THE STEPS AT 12:30".
>>> "Where'd you get that as an alibi used by Oswald? New one on me. Please cite your source." <<<
The source is easily located...Will Fritz of the DPD. Via his WC
testimony, he spells out the "Junior" alibi, plain as day.....
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. Well, he told me about the same story about this lunch.
Mr. BALL. He mentioned who he was having lunch with, did he not?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he told me he was having lunch when the President
was shot.
Mr. BALL. With whom?
Mr. FRITZ. With someone called Junior, someone he worked with down
there, but he didn't remember the other boy's name.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fritz1.htm
>>> "Can't resist sneering at every turn, can you?" <<<
When I'm talking about a double-murdering bastard named
Oswald....no....I can't resist that.
>>> "The fact that YOU hold an opinion does not necessarily make that opinion valid." <<<
In this case it does. Because, given the evidence staring at us in
this case, there's no other REASONABLE opinion to hold, other than the
"LN" one I currently hold.
>>> "Go ahead. Gather up your courage, move your mouse and click on it." <<<
I've seen it already. (And once was more than enough.)
Every page on Tom Rossley's "site" is a "sight". And that's not a
compliment, believe me. He fails to point out gobs of stuff that make
every one of his arguments fall to pieces instantly...as he, instead,
decides to perform the ol' "piecemeal info is best" tactic with regard
to every page on his weak-ass website.
Pathetic is too nice a term for Tom's "research". Especially re. his
Tippit page. That one's really a "sight". And a howl, too.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "And in an earlier posting you lied when you said that Lane was not aware that Lovelady identified himself in the photo. Maybe you've never actually read Rush to Judgment or you don't have your copy handy to quote. I do. Here is what Mark Lane actually wrote:
>
> In the background of this picture were several employees watching the
> parade from the steps of the Depository Building. One of these
> employees was alleged to resemble Lee Harvey Oswald. The Commission
> has determined that the employee was in fact Billy Nolan Lovelady, who
> identified himself in the picture.
>
> You lied to manufacture a fake controversy." <<<
>
> <huge laugh>
>
> The RTJ (book) quote that Marsh-Kook provided is only FURTHER proving
> my point re. Lane's lying tactics!
>
> Via that quote we KNOW for a FACT that Lane knew for a FACT that Billy
> Lovelady himself IDed himself as Doorway Man...hence, there was
> ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR EVEN BRINGING UP THE WHOLE TOPIC OF "DOORWAY
> MAN" IN EITHER LANE'S BOOK OR HIS FILM. Period.
>
Wrong. Just because Lovelady made the claim is not proof that the claim
is true. He was criticizing the WC for not investigating the claim
thoroughly.
> IOW--It was a total NON-ISSUE that was being brought up by Mark Lane
> in both his book and film. And in the film version of the book, Lane
> is positively hinting that the WC got it wrong re. Doorway Man's
> identity. There is no question that that was Lane's whole reason for
> bringing up the topic in the first place.
>
You claim what Mark Lane was hinting. That is your opinion, not fact.
And designed only to defame him.
> What OTHER reason would Lane (a rabid CTer) have for bringing up
> Doorway Man at all? To point out something that HARMS his pro-CT
> cause? Nonsense. He obviously brought it up to mislead his film
> audience into thinking that the "DM" matter maybe wasn't resolved
> after all.
>
> Does anybody really think that Lane was merely trying to clear up the
> record re. Doorway Man? Or was he trying to plant a seed of doubt
> where not the SLIGHTEST bit of doubt ever existed after Lovelady's
> April 1964 testimony?
>
It was just another in a long list of the WC's sloppiness.
> You decide.
>
> But if you decide on anything other than that latter option I just
> mentioned above, you're just plain nuts.
>
>
>>>> "It took the HSCA and Robert Groden to nail down Lovelady and the correct shirt." <<<
>
> <even bigger laugh this time>
>
> I guess LOVELADY'S OWN WORDS weren't good enough, huh? The horse's
> "Doorway Man" mouth wasn't good enough, was it?
>
No, his words are not good enough. You don't base facts on just what a
person claims.
> It took Groden's photographic expertise re. the shirt colors to nail
> down Doorway Man's identity, huh?
>
> God, what a kook.
>
> Lovelady cleared up DM's identity on April the 7th of 1964, 14 years
> before the HSCA and "Grodenscoping", and yet some kook has just said
> it wasn't until 1978 that the mystery surrounding Doorway Man was
> finally resolved.
>
> It's a wonder you kooks can find your way home each day. Jesus H.
> Christ.
>
>
>>>> "Lane was calling for a new investigation to shore up loose ends like this. And with my help and others, that's what he got in the HSCA, which did close up loose ends including this." <<<
>
>
> Make Marsh stop! It hurts to laugh this much within one single post
> full of Marsh-crap!!
>
> If you think the Doorway Man issue was a "loose end" as of 1978, you
> are ready for the funniest of funny farms. It was a fully-resolved
> issue the moment Lovelady drew the arrow on this picture....
>
The HSCA thought it was a loose end which is why it investigated it
along with many other myths it wanted to put to rest.
David Von Pein
Kinda like when Oswald said "I'm just a patsy" and "I didn't shoot
anybody" and "I've never owned a rifle" and "I didn't tell Wesley I
had any curtain rods" (paraphrasing)...right?
Just because Oswald said those things doesn't make them true, does it?
But back to Lovelady and the WC.....
The WC investigated "Doorway Man" as well as they could (or as well as
could be expected). They talked to Lovelady. They got Lovelady, under
oath, to say "That's me". They got Lovelady to mark an exhibit,
pointing to himself. The WC got further corroborative testimony from
Buell Frazier, who said he also saw Lovelady on the steps, buttressing
Billy's own claim.
And the WC talked to other witnesses who said they never saw Oswald on
the steps at 12:30 or just afterward...Bill Shelley being one of them,
with Shelley also confirming that Billy Lovelady was out in front of
the TSBD during the shooting itself, further buttressing Lovelady's
testimony.
What the hell else was the WC supposed to do? Invent a "Wayback
Machine", and set it to "12:30 PM; 11/22/63; Dealey Plaza; Dallas;
TSBD Front Stoop"?
Geeeesh.
>>> "That is your opinion, not fact. And designed only to defame him {Mark Lane}." <<<
Which is a very, very easy thing to do, as we all know.
>>> "No, his {Lovelady's} words are not good enough." <<<
Bullshit. What better witness is there to Doorway Man's identity than
Doorway Man himself? And, as I mentioned above, the WC interrogated
OTHER witnesses too who back up Lovelady's "doorway" account.
I wonder if CTers would believe their own grandmother if she was under
oath?
tomnln
"With Broad red & white Vertical stripes".
2 page FBI Report w/pictires are HERE>>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/altgens.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175562747.4...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/altgens.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175551959.6...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
photographing Lovelady in the shirt he wore that day (the WC photographed
him in the wrong shirt), and compared it to the Martin film and the Altgens
photo. Later, blowups from the Hughes film confirmed the match.
Martin
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:54udnXFtdIzfPIzb...@comcast.com...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:RikQh.10146$YJ4....@newsfe23.lga...
tomnln
I Produced the actual 2 page FBI report.
HERE>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/altgens.htm
As for Groden.....Read his words on p[age 68 of Volume I of their HSCA
Found HERE>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
Or, would you rather discuss the Bruno Magli shoes?
Get back to your Judith Baker bullshit.
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:uZnQh.13346$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
tomnln
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/altgens.htm
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:JXnQh.13344$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
Anthony Marsh
> The FBI said Lovelady was wearing a "Short-Sleeved Shirt" on 11/22/63
>
Huh?
And you think whatever the FBI says makes it a proven fact?
Just plain nutty!
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Wrong. Just because Lovelady made the claim is not proof that the claim is true. He was criticizing the WC for not investigating the claim thoroughly." <<<
>
> Kinda like when Oswald said "I'm just a patsy" and "I didn't shoot
> anybody" and "I've never owned a rifle" and "I didn't tell Wesley I
> had any curtain rods" (paraphrasing)...right?
>
> Just because Oswald said those things doesn't make them true, does it?
>
Yeah, when did I say otherwise. I have said many times that I leave open
the possibility that Oswald was involved.
> But back to Lovelady and the WC.....
>
> The WC investigated "Doorway Man" as well as they could (or as well as
> could be expected). They talked to Lovelady. They got Lovelady, under
As well as they could? That's the whole point. As well as they could
means sloppily. Just like their investigation of the trip to Mexico.
> oath, to say "That's me". They got Lovelady to mark an exhibit,
> pointing to himself. The WC got further corroborative testimony from
> Buell Frazier, who said he also saw Lovelady on the steps, buttressing
> Billy's own claim.
>
Again, all of that is not conclusive proof. Just the person making the
claim. You also want scientific evidence, which the WC did not pursue.
Someone claimed that Milteer was in Dealey Plaza. The HSCA applied
scientific analysis to disprove it. Many people said that there were
shots from the grassy knoll. The HSCA applied scientific analysis and
found that indeed one shot was fired from the grassy knoll.
> And the WC talked to other witnesses who said they never saw Oswald on
> the steps at 12:30 or just afterward...Bill Shelley being one of them,
> with Shelley also confirming that Billy Lovelady was out in front of
> the TSBD during the shooting itself, further buttressing Lovelady's
> testimony.
>
Well, yes, that gets a little bit better. But it's like bribing and
threatening Givens to say that he saw Oswald on the sixth floor or
Junior to say that he did not see Oswald in the Domino room.
> What the hell else was the WC supposed to do? Invent a "Wayback
> Machine", and set it to "12:30 PM; 11/22/63; Dealey Plaza; Dallas;
> TSBD Front Stoop"?
>
> Geeeesh.
>
>
>>>> "That is your opinion, not fact. And designed only to defame him {Mark Lane}." <<<
>
> Which is a very, very easy thing to do, as we all know.
>
>
>>>> "No, his {Lovelady's} words are not good enough." <<<
>
> Bullshit. What better witness is there to Doorway Man's identity than
> Doorway Man himself? And, as I mentioned above, the WC interrogated
> OTHER witnesses too who back up Lovelady's "doorway" account.
>
Self-serving, like Brennan.
> I wonder if CTers would believe their own grandmother if she was under
> oath?
>
I know that WC defenders will believe whatever lie is put out by the WC.
Todd W. Vaughan
> On Mar 30, 10:15 am, "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 30, 12:54 pm, "aeffects" <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 30, 8:43 am, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >>> "No matter that several more recent and better-informed government bodies (HSCA, etc) have issued reports saying there WAS a conspiracy..." <<<
>
> > > > There is no "etc.". If you think there is, what's the "etc."
> > > > represent?
>
> > > would: "...government body (HSCA) have issued a report, as well as
> > > hundreds of books during the past40+ years saying there WAS a
> > > conspiracy..." be less offensive, David?
>
> > > > And you should know that the HSCA fully backed-up the WC re. the
> > > > bullets that hit any victims (totalling 2, both from the TSBD, and
> > > > both from Oswald's gun, with Oz shooting).
>
> > > > The only thing in favor of conspiracy for the HSCA was the last-minute
> > > > acoustics nightmare, which has been totally dismantled since '79. At
> > > > the very LEAST, Ric, the "Dictabelt" stuff is highly questionable
> > > > evidence. .....
>
> > > >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/acoustic.htm
>
> > > > >>> "Bugliosi has dedicated his life to defending every word of the Warren Commission Report." <<<
>
> > > > <chuckle>
>
> > > with fresh eye, that's the image.
>
> > > > As if you ever even knew VB was involved in any way with the JFK case
> > > > before the middle of this month.
>
> > > > >>> "The man acts not dissimilar to Islamic fundamentalists who insist there can be no deviation from the Holy Koran. ... Bugliosi and his acolytes reject them all in favor of the almost half-a-century old Warren Commission Report." <<<
>
> > > > Why don't you just use the nearest tree and string him up for telling
> > > > the "LN" truth! Geez.
>
> > > don't be silly.... how 'bout this: Bugliosi debating (on-camera, for
> > > public consumption) Mark Lane? Better yet, how about a NEW and
> > > IMPROVED LHO "mock" tial (if there is such a beast) this time LANE
> > > defending - Bugliosi prosecuting, on-camera of course...
>
> > Lane wouldn't stand a chance.
>
> ROTFLMFAO --- when did you become the comedian?
Right after I read how Mark Lane tried to deceive Helen Markham - I
had to do something to keep from crying.
David Von Pein
Gee, that's mighty big of you.
That's like saying "I'm leaving open the possibility the sun's gonna
rise in the east tomorrow".
>>> "As well as they could means sloppily. Just like their investigation of the trip to Mexico." <<<
Which was also thoroughly investigated by the WC, even though you're
saying it wasn't for some reason all your own. ~shrug~
>>> "Again, all of that is not conclusive proof. Just the person making the claim. You also want scientific evidence, which the WC did not pursue." <<<
<laugh>
"Scientific evidence" is needed to confirm what multiple witnesses
confirmed without a shred of a doubt (including the man who pointed to
HIMSELF in a picture)?
Maybe you should re-think this one.
>>> "The HSCA applied scientific analysis and found that indeed one shot was fired from the grassy knoll." <<<
You really want to use this example? Maybe you should re-think this
one.
>>> "But it's like bribing and threatening Givens to say that he saw Oswald on the sixth floor or Junior to say that he did not see Oswald in the Domino room." <<<
<laugh>
Wanna re-think the stupidity of the above accusations too? I think you
should.
aeffects
I recall UCLA's Leibler commenting on the THOUSANDS of errors he and
his team found in their analysis of Mark Lanes "massive" work. You do
recall who Leibler was, don't you?
Leibler and Lane met for a deabte at UCLA on Jan 25th 1967.... by that
time Leibler was in full retreat concerning the Lane error analysis,
which somehow had been reduced to 15 errors the day of the debate. He
also said he welcomed the opportunity to confornt Lane, personally....
by concluding remarks Leibler had not pointed to a single, alleged
inaccuracy in Lane's book.... The same result at the Stanford debate a
few weeks late.
note: less than one-fifth of the students queried at both debates
(UCLA-Stanford) supported the WCR...
So Todd, if Leibler couldn't do it in '67, what makes you think
Neutered Nutter's can, today?
When you throw the term 'deceive', pick your spots carfully. You're
showing outright ignorance here, which does not bode well for your
side!
Todd W. Vaughan
Do I recall who "Leibler" was?
LOL!
Do you recall how to spell his name?
It's spelled Liebeler.
>
> Leibler
It's spelled Liebeler.
Do you recall how to spell his name?
>and Lane met for a deabte at UCLA on Jan 25th 1967.... by that
> time Leibler
It's spelled Liebeler.
Do you recall how to spell his name?
>was in full retreat concerning the Lane error analysis,
> which somehow had been reduced to 15 errors the day of the debate. He
> also said he welcomed the opportunity to confornt Lane, personally....
> by concluding remarks Leibler
It's spelled Liebeler.
Do you recall how to spell his name?
> had not pointed to a single, alleged
> inaccuracy in Lane's book.... The same result at the Stanford debate a
> few weeks late.
Source?
>
> note: less than one-fifth of the students queried at both debates
> (UCLA-Stanford) supported the WCR...
Source?
>
> So Todd, if Leibler
It's spelled Liebeler.
Do you recall how to spell his name?
>couldn't do it in '67, what makes you think
> Neutered Nutter's can, today?
We're not talking about randon "Nutter's", and we're not talking about
1967. We're talking about Bugliosi in 2007. And Bugliosi is no
Liebeler.
>
> When you throw the term 'deceive', pick your spots carfully.
I always do.
>You're
> showing outright ignorance here, which does not bode well for your
> side!-
LOL.
I'm showing ignorance?
It's spelled Liebeler.
LOL.
aeffects
actually it's spelled, Idiot-stick....
>
> > Leibler
>
> It's spelled Liebeler.
>
> Do you recall how to spell his name?
>
> >and Lane met for a deabte at UCLA on Jan 25th 1967.... by that
> > time Leibler
>
> It's spelled Liebeler.
>
> Do you recall how to spell his name?
>
> >was in full retreat concerning the Lane error analysis,
> > which somehow had been reduced to 15 errors the day of the debate. He
> > also said he welcomed the opportunity to confornt Lane, personally....
> > by concluding remarks Leibler
>
> It's spelled Liebeler.
oh-my goodness, your dodging a weaving there Toddster..... LMAO
> Do you recall how to spell his name?
>
> > had not pointed to a single, alleged
> > inaccuracy in Lane's book.... The same result at the Stanford debate a
> > few weeks late.
>
> Source?
>
check Leiblers papers
>
> > note: less than one-fifth of the students queried at both debates
> > (UCLA-Stanford) supported the WCR...
>
> Source?
>
check Lanes A Citizens Dissent....
>
> > So Todd, if Leibler
>
> It's spelled Liebeler.
>
> Do you recall how to spell his name?
>
> >couldn't do it in '67, what makes you think
> > Neutered Nutter's can, today?
>
> We're not talking about randon "Nutter's", and we're not talking about
> 1967. We're talking about Bugliosi in 2007. And Bugliosi is no
> Liebeler.
Bugliosi, hm, was he a WC investigator?
>
>
>
> > When you throw the term 'deceive', pick your spots carfully.
>
> I always do.
>
> >You're
> > showing outright ignorance here, which does not bode well for your
> > side!-
>
> LOL.
>
> I'm showing ignorance?
you betch'a Red Rider
> It's spelled Liebeler.
who cares -- he and his minions couldn't carry the day while
challenging Lane in formal debate -- thousands of witnesses.... tough
act to follow there, Webster! LMAO
> LOL.
>
> Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
So, I see your dodging the ball....that the best the Neuter's can do
-- correct spelling? Kind of takes you and daBug out of the debate
doesn't it
Todd W. Vaughan
LOL.
You tried to call me out on whether or not I remembered/knew who
Liebeler was. In doing so you misspelled his name, not once, but 5
times! Now YOU want to call someone an "Idiot-stick", whatever that
is.
LMAO!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Leibler
>
> > It's spelled Liebeler.
>
> > Do you recall how to spell his name?
>
> > >and Lane met for a deabte at UCLA on Jan 25th 1967.... by that
> > > time Leibler
>
> > It's spelled Liebeler.
>
> > Do you recall how to spell his name?
>
> > >was in full retreat concerning the Lane error analysis,
> > > which somehow had been reduced to 15 errors the day of the debate. He
> > > also said he welcomed the opportunity to confornt Lane, personally....
> > > by concluding remarks Leibler
>
> > It's spelled Liebeler.
>
> oh-my goodness, your dodging a weaving there Toddster..... LMAO
Hey Dave, I never said a word about Liebeler - I was talking about
Bugliosi. I'm under no obligation to defend Liebeler.
>
> > Do you recall how to spell his name?
>
> > > had not pointed to a single, alleged
> > > inaccuracy in Lane's book.... The same result at the Stanford debate a
> > > few weeks late.
>
> > Source?
>
> check Leiblers papers
It's spelled Liebeler.
So then your source is Liebeler's papers - you've researched them,
yes?
>
>
>
> > > note: less than one-fifth of the students queried at both debates
> > > (UCLA-Stanford) supported the WCR...
>
> > Source?
>
> check Lanes A Citizens Dissent....
Will do.
Page number?
>
>
>
> > > So Todd, if Leibler
>
> > It's spelled Liebeler.
>
> > Do you recall how to spell his name?
>
> > >couldn't do it in '67, what makes you think
> > > Neutered Nutter's can, today?
>
> > We're not talking about randon "Nutter's", and we're not talking about
> > 1967. We're talking about Bugliosi in 2007. And Bugliosi is no
> > Liebeler.
>
> Bugliosi, hm, was he a WC investigator?
Nope. Nor did I claim he was, and you never said that was a pre-
requisite to debvate Lane.
So, your point?
>
>
>
> > > When you throw the term 'deceive', pick your spots carfully.
>
> > I always do.
>
> > >You're
> > > showing outright ignorance here, which does not bode well for your
> > > side!-
>
> > LOL.
>
> > I'm showing ignorance?
>
> you betch'a Red Rider
>
> > It's spelled Liebeler.
>
> who cares --
Apparently you don't. But he probably would have. As would/does anyone
who respectfully, and factually, wants to refer to him.
Is that you? Do you deal in respect or fact, eh?
>he and his minions couldn't carry the day while
> challenging Lane in formal debate
I've seen Lane debate.
Have you?
I've seen Bugliosi debate.
Have you?
I've met and spoken with both men.
Have you?
It's my opinion that Bugliosi would destroy Lane.
That's my opinion.
Sorry if you don't like it.
> -- thousands of witnesses....
????
>tough
> act to follow there, Webster! LMAO
LMAO! The name "Liebeler" does not appear in Websters.
>
> > LOL.
>
> > Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> So, I see your dodging the ball....that the best the Neuter's can do
> -- correct spelling? Kind of takes you and daBug out of the debate
> doesn't it-
No it does not. I'M the one correcting YOUR spelling here, Dave, not
"daBug". So how can that take him out of the debate?
Is the above a true look into your skills at logic and reasoning?
If so, frankly, they suck.
Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
yeah, Leibler = idiot-stick
> LMAO!
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Leibler
>
> > > It's spelled Liebeler.
>
> > > Do you recall how to spell his name?
>
> > > >and Lane met for a deabte at UCLA on Jan 25th 1967.... by that
> > > > time Leibler
>
> > > It's spelled Liebeler.
>
> > > Do you recall how to spell his name?
>
> > > >was in full retreat concerning the Lane error analysis,
> > > > which somehow had been reduced to 15 errors the day of the debate. He
> > > > also said he welcomed the opportunity to confornt Lane, personally....
> > > > by concluding remarks Leibler
>
> > > It's spelled Liebeler.
>
> > oh-my goodness, your dodging a weaving there Toddster..... LMAO
>
> Hey Dave, I never said a word about Liebeler - I was talking about
> Bugliosi. I'm under no obligation to defend Liebeler.
>
here all along I thought this thread was title "The Warren Report...",
sooooo, who was Leibler again? How did daBugliosi get caught up in
this mix, unless of course daBug had a hand in writing-investigating
for the Warren Commission....
>
> > > Do you recall how to spell his name?
>
> > > > had not pointed to a single, alleged
> > > > inaccuracy in Lane's book.... The same result at the Stanford debate a
> > > > few weeks late.
>
> > > Source?
>
> > check Leiblers papers
>
> It's spelled Liebeler.
>
> So then your source is Liebeler's papers - you've researched them,
> yes?
>
if the comment is wrong Todd, just show us the error of my way...
>
> > > > note: less than one-fifth of the students queried at both debates
> > > > (UCLA-Stanford) supported the WCR...
>
> > > Source?
>
> > check Lanes A Citizens Dissent....
>
> Will do.
>
> Page numbe
not your gopher Todd. Step on the wildside, read a little... know thy
enemy - best offense, when you have NO defense!
Todd W. Vaughan
What is with you CT'ers who seem to have so much trouble following
these rather simple threads? Is it really that hard? Are you all
really that unable? Or are you, David, just unwilling?
Well, anyway, here we go, turtle, try and follow along.
It was you yourself who above suggested a Lane/Bugliosi debate.
I then stated "Lane wouldn't stand a chance."
You then engaged me in discourse with your absurd "when did you become
the comedian".
So don't now act all surprised or taken back when I remind you that I
was talking about Bugliosi.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Do you recall how to spell his name?
>
> > > > > had not pointed to a single, alleged
> > > > > inaccuracy in Lane's book.... The same result at the Stanford debate a
> > > > > few weeks late.
>
> > > > Source?
>
> > > check Leiblers papers
>
> > It's spelled Liebeler.
>
> > So then your source is Liebeler's papers - you've researched them,
> > yes?
>
> if the comment is wrong Todd, just show us the error of my way...
Don't want to answer, I see.
I'm kind of coming to expect that from you these days.
Regardless, I'll take that as a "No, I've not researched Liebeler's
papers, but I like to make it look like I might have, or could have.
Probably."
>
>
>
> > > > > note: less than one-fifth of the students queried at both debates
> > > > > (UCLA-Stanford) supported the WCR...
>
> > > > Source?
>
> > > check Lanes A Citizens Dissent....
>
> > Will do.
>
> > Page numbe
>
> not your gopher Todd. Step on the wildside, read a little... know thy
> enemy - best offense, when you have NO defense!
No, you're not my gopher, David. But then, ironically, neither am I
yours, especially in regards to Dale Myers 3D data files (ALERT DAVID
- ALERT DAVID - this is referencing an altogether different topic and
an altogether different thread - I wouldn't want you to get confused
here, I know how youy have trouble following along). If you want them
(and we're talking about Dale's files), then YOU ask HIM for them, not
ME - for while you're clearly a hypocrite, I'm certainly not anyone's
gopher.
That said, it's a common courtesy to provide a complete citation if
asked, and if possible.
That you can't provide one (or again are unwilling) makes me wonder
about you David.
And you telling me to "read a little"? That's th pot calling the
kettle balck, eh? What do you suggest I start with, the collected
works of John Francis Kennedy, or the papers of Wesley J. Leibler?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > So Todd, if Leibler
>
> > > > It's spelled Liebeler.
>
> > > > Do you recall how to spell his name?
>
> > > > >couldn't do it in '67, what makes you think
> > > > > Neutered Nutter's can, today?
>
> > > > We're not talking about randon "Nutter's", and we're not talking about
> > > > 1967. We're talking about Bugliosi in 2007. And Bugliosi is no
> > > > Liebeler.
>
> > > Bugliosi, hm, was he a WC investigator?
>
> > Nope. Nor did I claim he was, and you never said that was a pre-
> > requisite to debvate Lane.
>
> > So, your point?
Silence, I see.
>
> > > > > When you throw the term 'deceive', pick your spots carfully.
>
> > > > I always do.
>
> > > > >You're
> > > > > showing outright ignorance here, which does not bode well for your
> > > > > side!-
>
> > > > LOL.
>
> > > > I'm showing ignorance?
>
> > > you betch'a Red Rider
>
> > > > It's spelled Liebeler.
>
> > > who cares --
>
> > Apparently you don't. But he probably would have. As would/does anyone
> > who respectfully, and factually, wants to refer to him.
>
> > Is that you? Do you deal in respect or fact, eh?
>
> > >he and his minions couldn't carry the day while
> > > challenging Lane in formal debate
>
> > I've seen Lane debate.
>
> > Have you?
Silence, I see.
>
> > I've seen Bugliosi debate.
>
> > Have you?
Silence, I see.
>
> > I've met and spoken with both men.
>
> > Have you?
Silence, I see.
>
> > It's my opinion that Bugliosi would destroy Lane.
>
> > That's my opinion.
>
> > Sorry if you don't like it.
Silence, I see.
>
> > > -- thousands of witnesses....
>
> > ????
Silence, I see.
>
> > >tough
> > > act to follow there, Webster! LMAO
>
> > LMAO! The name "Liebeler" does not appear in Websters.
>
> > > > LOL.
>
> > > > Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > So, I see your dodging the ball....that the best the Neuter's can do
> > > -- correct spelling? Kind of takes you and daBug out of the debate
> > > doesn't it-
>
> > No it does not. I'M the one correcting YOUR spelling here, Dave, not
> > "daBug". So how can that take him out of the debate?
>
> > Is the above a true look into your skills at logic and reasoning?
>
> > If so, frankly, they suck.
Silence, I see.
Rule Rattray
>>>> "All it takes to convince a witness to cooperate is a couple of
>>>> credentialed fitness nuts showing up at his door and an observation
>>>> along the line of "Nice family you've got, sir. Be a shame if something
>>>> happened to them"." <<<
>
> You're not attempting to "put words into another person's mouth", are
> ya there, Rattray? ;)
Nope. Just offering what such a hypothetical fitness-nut might say to
intimidate a witness.
>>>> "Was Lovelady intimidated or otherwise coerced? How should I, (or you)
>>>> know?" <<<
>
> I know. He wasn't.
There is no way on earth for you to "know" this in any real sense.
> And there's no reason to believe he wasn't telling the truth when he
> (under oath) drew an arrow to himself on the Altgens picture.
> But you, like many CTers in the world, evidently think that the mere
> POSSIBILITY of an extraordinary event occurring with regard to the JFK
> case is enough of a reason to accept it with wide-open arms.*
> * = In this particular instance, the extraordinary event being:
> Lovelady having been man-handled by the evil U.S. Government into
> falsely stating he was in the doorway on November 22, 1963.
He may have been, for all I know, but that does not preclude Oswald being
there too.
>>>> "We'd have to ask him {Lovelady}, and what he replied might very well
>>>> depend on whether it did happen or not and whether he is still scared
>>>> if it did. It would also depend in large part on the accuracy of his
>>>> own memory decades after he "identified" himself." <<<
>
> He identified himself in April 1964....just 4.5 months after
> Assassination Day. Billy's dead now. So we can't ask him anything. He
> passed away more than 20 years ago.
R.I.P., Billy.
> But we really wouldn't need to rely on Billy's memory at all. The
> Altgens photo, plus Wes Frazier's testimony, tell us it was Lovelady
> and not Oswald on the steps. Frazier saw Lovelady there on the steps.
> So the photo plus Frazier corroborate each other, even without
> Lovelady's testimony.
>
> But, of course, Lovelady's own words to the WC serve as the BEST
> evidence that it was Billy on the steps. (A CT-Kook's skepticism re.
> strong-arming tactics notwithstanding.)
>
>
>>>> "In any case, there's no reason to think both men might {not} have been
>>>> on those steps at or very near the same time." <<<
>
> Sure there is. There's EVERY reason to think that both men were not on
> the steps at the same time at 12:30.
>
> Those reasons include: Lovelady's testimony, Frazier's testimony, the
> testimony of other "TSBD steps" witnesses (none of whom saw Oswald out
> in front of the building), Brennan seeing Oswald on the 6th Floor,
> Oswald's prints and shells and gun being on the 6th Floor, and one of
> THE biggest reasons of them all.....
>
> OSWALD NEVER SAID TO THE POLICE, "I WAS ON THE STEPS AT 12:30".
How do you know what Oswald said or did not say after his arrest? No notes,
transcripts, recordings or anything else have been released that were taken
while he was in custody.
>>>> "Where'd you get that as an alibi used by Oswald? New one on me. Please
>>>> cite your source." <<<
>
>
> The source is easily located...Will Fritz of the DPD. Via his WC
> testimony, he spells out the "Junior" alibi, plain as day.....
>
> Mr. BALL. What did he say?
> Mr. FRITZ. Well, he told me about the same story about this lunch.
> Mr. BALL. He mentioned who he was having lunch with, did he not?
> Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he told me he was having lunch when the President
> was shot.
> Mr. BALL. With whom?
> Mr. FRITZ. With someone called Junior, someone he worked with down
> there, but he didn't remember the other boy's name.
If Mr. Ball was determined to ascertain the truth, he would have called
Junior himself to testify.The WCR is riddled with such omissions, and that
is one reason why so many of us are skeptical of it.
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fritz1.htm
>
>
>>>> "Can't resist sneering at every turn, can you?" <<<
>
> When I'm talking about a double-murdering bastard named
> Oswald....no....I can't resist that.
You ought to try it sometime. Invective and ad hominem attacks
just make people who use them look stupid.
>>>> "The fact that YOU hold an opinion does not necessarily make that
>>>> opinion valid." <<<
>
> In this case it does. Because, given the evidence staring at us in
> this case, there's no other REASONABLE opinion to hold, other than the
> "LN" one I currently hold.
How childish.
>>>> "Go ahead. Gather up your courage, move your mouse and click on it."
>>>> <<<
>
> I've seen it already. (And once was more than enough.)
>
> Every page on Tom Rossley's "site" is a "sight". And that's not a
> compliment, believe me. He fails to point out gobs of stuff that make
> every one of his arguments fall to pieces instantly...as he, instead,
> decides to perform the ol' "piecemeal info is best" tactic with regard
> to every page on his weak-ass website.
I take it you don't want to try to explain how Lovelady's shirt lost all its
stripes when he went outside. I don't blame you. I wouldn't want to tackle
that either.
> Pathetic is too nice a term for Tom's "research". Especially re. his
> Tippit page. That one's really a "sight". And a howl, too.
I repeat. How childish.
Goodbye.
Rule
>
David Von Pein
>>> "If Mr. Ball was determined to ascertain the truth, he would have called Junior himself to testify. The WCR is riddled with such omissions, and that is one reason why so many of us are skeptical of it." <<<
How childish (and silly) of you to not even bother to check to see if
Jarman ("Junior") DID testify.
Yes, he testified.....
Mr. BALL - After his arrest, he {Oswald} stated to a police officer
that he had had lunch with you. Did you have lunch with him?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir; I didn't.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/jarman.htm
~~~~~~~
Now, any of your other errors you'd like to falsely blame on the WC?
Ben Holmes
>
>tomnln wrote:
>> The FBI said Lovelady was wearing a "Short-Sleeved Shirt" on 11/22/63
>>
>
>Huh?
>And you think whatever the FBI says makes it a proven fact?
>Just plain nutty!
Tony is calling someone "nutty" for citing an FBI report. Tony, on the other
hand - asserts that Dr. Humes was burning paperwork on Saturday morning WITH NO
CITATION EVER GIVEN.
Does "hypocrisy" ring a bell?
Martin Shackelford
As for Groden, read his thorough presentation of this matter in JFK: The
Case for Conspiracy, and stop wasting our time with bullshit.
Judyth Baker has something to say about this case that's worth examining.
Are you jealous?
Martin
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:0UvQh.180309$ia7.1...@newsfe14.lga...
Martin Shackelford
Your faith in the FBI is touching, but misplaced.
Martin
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:0UvQh.180310$ia7.1...@newsfe14.lga...
Martin Shackelford
difference.
Martin
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:euus7...@drn.newsguy.com...
tomnln
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:G0IQh.2815$5e2....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
tomnln
Followed by the Frames. http://www.whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
Choke on it.
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:70IQh.2814$5e2....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Tony is calling them nutty for TRUSTING IMPLICITLY in and FBI report. Big
>difference.
>
>Martin
Tony is *STILL* a hypocrite ... regardless of whether it's "trusting
implicitly", "trusting", or merely citing.
Would *YOU* care to state right here and now that Tony is factually wrong? Or
defend Tony's assertion that Dr. Humes was burning paperwork on Saturday
morning?
Tell the lurkers, Martin - where you stand on Tony's assertion.
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5EPQh.295307$Ju2.2...@newsfe16.lga...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:BFPQh.295318$Ju2....@newsfe16.lga...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:ev0of...@drn.newsguy.com...
Ben Holmes
Tony is *STILL* a hypocrite ... regardless of whether it's "trusting
implicitly", "trusting", or merely citing.
Would *YOU* care to state right here and now that Tony is factually wrong?
Or defend Tony's assertion that Dr. Humes was burning paperwork on Saturday
morning?
Tell the lurkers, Martin - where you stand on Tony's assertion.
In article <6R4Rh.2973$5e2....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, Martin Shackelford
says...
>
>The subject was Lovelady.
Yep... it *was*. It wasn't when you made this statement: "Tony is calling them
nutty for TRUSTING IMPLICITLY in and FBI report. Big difference."
No need to cry now that you're getting whipped by the facts, Martin. If you'd
simply assert that Tony is wrong, then I wouldn't have any thing to say... but
you show your cowardice and basic dishonesty - so I do...
>Try to keep up, Ben.
I'll let lurkers decide who's "keeping up", and who's running away...
>Martin
The subject is the providing of a citation, or lack thereof.
I understand why *YOU'D* want to avoid the truth - but it's a sad fact that Tony
is just like you insofar as LNT'er tactics are concerned.
And one of those tactics is making assertions without providing any citation
whatsoever.
You don't have the strength of charactor to admit that Tony is indeed flatly
wrong, so either you *ALSO* believe Dr. Humes was burning paperwork on Saturday
morning, or you're simply too gutlessly yellow to correct Tony.
Which is it, Martin? Or perhaps there's another answer... feel free to actually
answer rather than run away...
Anthony Marsh
> Here are the words that you refused to respond to:
>
> Tony is *STILL* a hypocrite ... regardless of whether it's "trusting
> implicitly", "trusting", or merely citing.
>
> Would *YOU* care to state right here and now that Tony is factually wrong?
> Or defend Tony's assertion that Dr. Humes was burning paperwork on Saturday
> morning?
>
> Tell the lurkers, Martin - where you stand on Tony's assertion.
>
Talk to Doug Horne about what Humes did. Ask him what was in the first
autopsy report, which was burned.
Ben Holmes
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Here are the words that you refused to respond to:
>>
>> Tony is *STILL* a hypocrite ... regardless of whether it's "trusting
>> implicitly", "trusting", or merely citing.
>>
>> Would *YOU* care to state right here and now that Tony is factually wrong?
>> Or defend Tony's assertion that Dr. Humes was burning paperwork on Saturday
>> morning?
>>
>> Tell the lurkers, Martin - where you stand on Tony's assertion.
>>
>
>Talk to Doug Horne about what Humes did. Ask him what was in the first
>autopsy report, which was burned.
Unless Doug Horne is going to tell me that Dr. Humes was burning paperwork on
SATURDAY MORNING - your "citation" is meaningless.
For *YEARS* you've been running away from this. Why not simply admit that you
made an intentional 24 hour "mistake", and get on with life?
tomnln
Don't reply to the official records I referenced.
If it's your intention to trade Insults with me, Just say so.
I'll bury you so deep that your Guardian Angel won't be able to find you.
HERE it is AGAIN;
HSCA Report Volume I page 168. ("BLOCK BOTTOM OF FRAMES")
Followed by the Frames. http://www.whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
Choke on it
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:mO4Rh.2972$5e2...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
aeff...@hotmail.com
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
> >>> "He {Mark Lane} is criticizing the WC sloppy investigation {in his
>
> 1967 movie}." <<<
>
> DVP SAYS:
>
> Bullshit. Lane's full intention, quite obviously, was to leave the
> impression in viewers' minds that it just might be LHO in that doorway
> after all (despite the WC, and Lovelady, saying it couldn't have been
> Oswald).
>
> It's obvious (and provable) that Lane's intention re. the Lovelady/
> Doorway matter was to deceive, and not just to show that the WC was
> "sloppy".
why don't you save us the grief and post/cite what it is the Lane
actually said, in context...
<snip the window dressing>
Martin Shackelford
your attempts at bullying.
Tony is ten times the researcher you are, Ben. Get used to it.
Martin
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:ev2vs...@drn.newsguy.com...
Martin Shackelford
Oswald was shot.
Maybe Tony made an error on this--your error was to dwell on it endlessly,
Ben.
Martin
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:ev32k...@drn.newsguy.com...
Martin Shackelford
didn't bother to ask Lovelady to wear the same shirt he wore on Nov. 22, and
just assumed he wore the same shirt. Robert Groden's examination of the John
Martin film established that they had photographed the wrong shirt, and
Groden photographed Lovelady in the shirt he actually wore--matching the
Martin film, the Hughes film and the Altgens photo.
Cite all the "official records" you want (touching faith indeed), but
Lovelady wasn't wearing a striped shirt.
Martin
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Jf9Rh.63488$mJ1....@newsfe22.lga...
tomnln
The FBI Report Specifically states that's the shirt Lovelady wore on
11/22/63.
http://whokilledjfk.net/altgens.htm
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:qymRh.3337$5e2...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
Anthony Marsh
> My impression was that the papers were burned on Sunday morning, after
> Oswald was shot.
> Maybe Tony made an error on this--your error was to dwell on it endlessly,
> Ben.
>
There were two autopsy reports. Humes burned the first draft and the
other doctor's notes, after copying them, on Saturday morning. Then he
called Dr. Perry and found out about the throat wound. This forced him
to rewrite the autopsy report and he admitted what he burned on Sunday
morning after he finished the revised autopsy report. Talk to Roger.
tomnln
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/altgens.htm
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:qymRh.3337$5e2...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
Martin Shackelford
The photo evidence from November 22 CONFIRMS that the FBI report is wrong.
I posted it. All you seem able to do is repeat the FBI's errors.
Martin
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:wuvRh.54444$s8.2...@newsfe21.lga...
Martin Shackelford
Finck had reported that he didn't know what had happened to his autopsy
notes.
Humes claimed he burned the papers that had JFK's blood on them, but of
course the autopsy face sheet currently in the files STILL remains stained
with JFK's blood.
Martin
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4-idnTugRPheVYvb...@comcast.com...
Martin Shackelford
That you keep citing it only proves YOU wrong.
Martin
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:yLERh.28981$Ng1....@newsfe19.lga...
tomnln
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:8lJRh.12749$JZ3....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/altgens.htm
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Y_IRh.12745$JZ3...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
Anthony Marsh
> Show us the FBI admittance that it was WRONG Marsh?
>
telling the truth.
Anthony Marsh
> And, you DO have an FBI Report stating so don't you Marsh?
>
>
An FBI report stating WHAT?