Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Provable Lies of Mark Lane
68 views
Skip to first unread message
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Mar 12, 2013, 9:00:49 PM3/12/13
to
Here is a definition of a logical fallacy:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
A straw argument is used to rebut a position that is not the position
stated by your opponent, but something else. The straw man argument is
constructed because one cannot rebut the position stated, but doesn't
want to admit that, so one re-states the position as something else,
and rebuts that new position. But the original proposition is not
rebutted.
Mark Lane committed that very LOGICAL FALLACY in attempting to rebut
claim one in his original defense of Oswald, published in the National
Guardian and reproduced here:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/lane/Natl-Guardian/Natl_Guardian.html
((((((( QUOTE ))))))))
...we now examine the "airtight case," the "absolute confirmation of
Oswald's guilt." Wade presented 15 assertions, some mere conclusions,
some with a source not revealed, some documented.
Here are the 15 assertions:
1-A number of witnesses saw Oswald at the window of the sixth floor of
the Texas School Book Depository.
2-Oswald's palm print appeared on the rifle.
3-Oswald's palm print appeared on a cardboard box found at the window.
4-Paraffin tests on both hands showed that Oswald had fired a gun
recently.
5-The rifle, an Italian carbine, had been purchased by Oswald, through
the mail, under an assumed name.
6-Oswald had in his possession an identification card with the name
Hidell.
7-Oswald was seen in the building by a police officer just after the
President had been shot.
8-Oswald's wife said that his rifle was missing Friday morning.
9-Oswald had a package under his arm Friday.
10-Oswald, while taking a bus from the scene, laughed loudly as he
told a woman passenger that the President had been shot.
11-A taxi driver, Darryl Click, took Oswald home, where he changed his
clothes.
12-Oswald shot and killed a police officer.
13-A witness saw Oswald enter the Texas theater.
14-Oswald drew a pistol and attempted to kill the arresting officer.
15-A map was found in Oswald's possession showing the scene of the
assassination and the bullet's proposed trajectory.
Perused lightly, the list seems impressive. But in capital cases evidence
is not perused lightly. It is subject to probing cross- examination, study
and analysis. The most effective tool available to any defendant,
cross-examination, is not available in this case. We rely instead upon
press reports of statements made, not by witnesses for the defense, not by
the defendant, but by the district attorney, police officers or FBI
agents. With this oppressive restriction in mind, we move on to an
analysis of the evidence. ((((((((( UNQUOTE )))))))
Here's the entire article: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/lane/Natl-Guardian/Natl_Guardian.html
With that in mind, let's examine how Lane handled point one by Henry
Wade:
Henry Wade stated, in his press conference (and as quoted by Lane):
"Wade was unequivocal, stating, 'First, there was a number of
witnesses that saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor of the
bookstore building, in the window-detailing the window-where he was
looking out.' "
Lane did not attack this position, as it is correct and truthful.
Instead, Lane rebuilt the statement into something else, creating a
straw argument, and attacked that. Lane claimed that Wade actually
said: "A number of witnesses saw Oswald at the window of the sixth
floor of the Texas School Book Depository."
That is a mis-statement of Wade's position, and it is done for no
other reason that to build an apparent rebuttal argument. Wade did not
mention Oswald at all in point one, and claimed merely that numerous
witnesses "saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor of the
bookstore building." Lane redefined it as mentioning Oswald, and
attacked a claim Wade did not make. "A number of witnesses saw Oswald
at the window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository."
That is the very definition of a straw argument.
In effect, one could say Wade's point one is still standing, because
Lane never laid a glove on it. Lane never even got in the ring with
point one. Instead, Lane went after point one's trainer, and tried to
take him out.
Hank
(originally posted below, and ducked by Ben Holmes ever since).
http://www.amazon.com/Kennedy-erratic-drifter-Harvey-Oswald-/forum/Fx1PW7HP0SZ0SAA/Tx3BQKN094W8XC2/12/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&asin=0805096663&cdMsgID=Mx3QSL0M6AELBJL&cdMsgNo=280&cdSort=oldest#Mx3QSL0M6AELBJL
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
A straw argument is used to rebut a position that is not the position
stated by your opponent, but something else. The straw man argument is
constructed because one cannot rebut the position stated, but doesn't
want to admit that, so one re-states the position as something else,
and rebuts that new position. But the original proposition is not
rebutted.
Mark Lane committed that very LOGICAL FALLACY in attempting to rebut
claim one in his original defense of Oswald, published in the National
Guardian and reproduced here:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/lane/Natl-Guardian/Natl_Guardian.html
((((((( QUOTE ))))))))
...we now examine the "airtight case," the "absolute confirmation of
Oswald's guilt." Wade presented 15 assertions, some mere conclusions,
some with a source not revealed, some documented.
Here are the 15 assertions:
1-A number of witnesses saw Oswald at the window of the sixth floor of
the Texas School Book Depository.
2-Oswald's palm print appeared on the rifle.
3-Oswald's palm print appeared on a cardboard box found at the window.
4-Paraffin tests on both hands showed that Oswald had fired a gun
recently.
5-The rifle, an Italian carbine, had been purchased by Oswald, through
the mail, under an assumed name.
6-Oswald had in his possession an identification card with the name
Hidell.
7-Oswald was seen in the building by a police officer just after the
President had been shot.
8-Oswald's wife said that his rifle was missing Friday morning.
9-Oswald had a package under his arm Friday.
10-Oswald, while taking a bus from the scene, laughed loudly as he
told a woman passenger that the President had been shot.
11-A taxi driver, Darryl Click, took Oswald home, where he changed his
clothes.
12-Oswald shot and killed a police officer.
13-A witness saw Oswald enter the Texas theater.
14-Oswald drew a pistol and attempted to kill the arresting officer.
15-A map was found in Oswald's possession showing the scene of the
assassination and the bullet's proposed trajectory.
Perused lightly, the list seems impressive. But in capital cases evidence
is not perused lightly. It is subject to probing cross- examination, study
and analysis. The most effective tool available to any defendant,
cross-examination, is not available in this case. We rely instead upon
press reports of statements made, not by witnesses for the defense, not by
the defendant, but by the district attorney, police officers or FBI
agents. With this oppressive restriction in mind, we move on to an
analysis of the evidence. ((((((((( UNQUOTE )))))))
Here's the entire article: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/lane/Natl-Guardian/Natl_Guardian.html
With that in mind, let's examine how Lane handled point one by Henry
Wade:
Henry Wade stated, in his press conference (and as quoted by Lane):
"Wade was unequivocal, stating, 'First, there was a number of
witnesses that saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor of the
bookstore building, in the window-detailing the window-where he was
looking out.' "
Lane did not attack this position, as it is correct and truthful.
Instead, Lane rebuilt the statement into something else, creating a
straw argument, and attacked that. Lane claimed that Wade actually
said: "A number of witnesses saw Oswald at the window of the sixth
floor of the Texas School Book Depository."
That is a mis-statement of Wade's position, and it is done for no
other reason that to build an apparent rebuttal argument. Wade did not
mention Oswald at all in point one, and claimed merely that numerous
witnesses "saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor of the
bookstore building." Lane redefined it as mentioning Oswald, and
attacked a claim Wade did not make. "A number of witnesses saw Oswald
at the window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository."
That is the very definition of a straw argument.
In effect, one could say Wade's point one is still standing, because
Lane never laid a glove on it. Lane never even got in the ring with
point one. Instead, Lane went after point one's trainer, and tried to
take him out.
Hank
(originally posted below, and ducked by Ben Holmes ever since).
http://www.amazon.com/Kennedy-erratic-drifter-Harvey-Oswald-/forum/Fx1PW7HP0SZ0SAA/Tx3BQKN094W8XC2/12/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&asin=0805096663&cdMsgID=Mx3QSL0M6AELBJL&cdMsgNo=280&cdSort=oldest#Mx3QSL0M6AELBJL
Robert Harris
Mar 13, 2013, 4:06:44 PM3/13/13
to
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> Here is a definition of a logical fallacy:
>
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
>
> A straw argument is used to rebut a position that is not the position
> stated by your opponent, but something else. The straw man argument is
> constructed because one cannot rebut the position stated, but doesn't
> want to admit that, so one re-states the position as something else,
> and rebuts that new position. But the original proposition is not
> rebutted.
>
> Mark Lane committed that very LOGICAL FALLACY in attempting to rebut
> claim one in his original defense of Oswald, published in the National
> Guardian and reproduced here:
>
> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/lane/Natl-Guardian/Natl_Guardian.html
>
> ((((((( QUOTE ))))))))
> ...we now examine the "airtight case," the "absolute confirmation of
> Oswald's guilt." Wade presented 15 assertions, some mere conclusions,
> some with a source not revealed, some documented.
>
> Here are the 15 assertions:
>
> 1-A number of witnesses saw Oswald at the window of the sixth floor of
> the Texas School Book Depository.
Wade was obviously referring to Oswald when he said, "First, there was a
> Here is a definition of a logical fallacy:
>
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
>
> A straw argument is used to rebut a position that is not the position
> stated by your opponent, but something else. The straw man argument is
> constructed because one cannot rebut the position stated, but doesn't
> want to admit that, so one re-states the position as something else,
> and rebuts that new position. But the original proposition is not
> rebutted.
>
> Mark Lane committed that very LOGICAL FALLACY in attempting to rebut
> claim one in his original defense of Oswald, published in the National
> Guardian and reproduced here:
>
> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/lane/Natl-Guardian/Natl_Guardian.html
>
> ((((((( QUOTE ))))))))
> ...we now examine the "airtight case," the "absolute confirmation of
> Oswald's guilt." Wade presented 15 assertions, some mere conclusions,
> some with a source not revealed, some documented.
>
> Here are the 15 assertions:
>
> 1-A number of witnesses saw Oswald at the window of the sixth floor of
> the Texas School Book Depository.
number of witnesses that saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor
of the bookstore building.."
Notice that he said, "THE" person with a gun, whereas a more objective
and honest statement would be that witnesses saw "A" person with a gun.
The difference is not trivial.
There wasn't a person on the planet who didn't realize that Wade was
talking about Oswald and if he had been asked, we both know that he
would have confirmed that.
I think you're picking nits here. Lane's argument was that only one
person claimed to ID Oswald and that Brennan originally said he couldn't
identify him. Right or wrong, that was a reasonable argument and there
was nothing dishonest about it.
Robert Harris
Walt
Mar 13, 2013, 4:10:20 PM3/13/13
to
On Mar 12, 8:00 pm, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
> Here's the entire article:http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/lane/Natl-Guardian/Natl_Guar...
if it's "correct and truthful"
A) First, there was a number of witnesses that saw the person with the
gun....
This is NOT a true steatement because it says "THE GUN" as if all
witnesses agreed that they had all seen the mannlicher carcano.
Howard Brennan said that the gun was a "high powered rifle of some kind"
Brennan described the "high powered" rifle as a rifle that he "could see
ALL OF THE BARREL of the rifle from the muzzle clear back to the man's
hand "as he aimed the rifle from the window.
Amos Euins said that it looked like a "pipe like thing" sticking out of a
window", Euins seems to be describing an exposed metal barrel ( ie; a
pipe, like water pipe)
Arnold Rowland said the man was holding a high powered deer hunting rifle
with a large telescopic sight .....
James Worrell saw several inches of the barrel sticking out of a
window........
In truth NONE of the witnesses described a military rifle as the gun they
had seen.......
But don't let a fact like this get in your way, Hank........
B)..... First, there was a number of witnesses that saw the person with
the gun....
In the sentence Wade states....... "witnesses that saw the person" ....
"THE PERSON"
Here again Wade implies that all witnesses were in complete agreement
about the identity of "the person"
It's not at all difficult to look up the descriptions that the various
witnesses gave for the man in a sixth floor window and find that the
descrptions vary from witness to witness..... So this part of Wades
statement is also untrue
> Instead, Lane rebuilt the statement into something else, creating a
> straw argument, and attacked that. Lane claimed that Wade actually
> said: "A number of witnesses saw Oswald at the window of the sixth
> floor of the Texas School Book Depository."
>
> That is a mis-statement of Wade's position, and it is done for no
> other reason that to build an apparent rebuttal argument. Wade did not
> mention Oswald at all in point one, and claimed merely that numerous
> witnesses "saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor of the
> bookstore building." Lane redefined it as mentioning Oswald, and
> attacked a claim Wade did not make. "A number of witnesses saw Oswald
> at the window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository."
>
> That is the very definition of a straw argument.
>
> In effect, one could say Wade's point one is still standing, because
> Lane never laid a glove on it. Lane never even got in the ring with
> point one. Instead, Lane went after point one's trainer, and tried to
> take him out.
>
> Hank
> (originally posted below, and ducked by Ben Holmes ever since).http://www.amazon.com/Kennedy-erratic-drifter-Harvey-Oswald-/forum/Fx...
<hsienz...@Aol.com> wrote:
> Here is a definition of a logical fallacy:
>
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
>
> A straw argument is used to rebut a position that is not the position
> stated by your opponent, but something else. The straw man argument is
> constructed because one cannot rebut the position stated, but doesn't
> want to admit that, so one re-states the position as something else,
> and rebuts that new position. But the original proposition is not
> rebutted.
>
> Mark Lane committed that very LOGICAL FALLACY in attempting to rebut
> claim one in his original defense of Oswald, published in the National
> Guardian and reproduced here:
>
> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/lane/Natl-Guardian/Natl_Guar...
> Here is a definition of a logical fallacy:
>
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
>
> A straw argument is used to rebut a position that is not the position
> stated by your opponent, but something else. The straw man argument is
> constructed because one cannot rebut the position stated, but doesn't
> want to admit that, so one re-states the position as something else,
> and rebuts that new position. But the original proposition is not
> rebutted.
>
> Mark Lane committed that very LOGICAL FALLACY in attempting to rebut
> claim one in his original defense of Oswald, published in the National
> Guardian and reproduced here:
>
>
> With that in mind, let's examine how Lane handled point one by Henry
> Wade:
>
> Henry Wade stated, in his press conference (and as quoted by Lane):
> "Wade was unequivocal, stating, 'First, there was a number of
> witnesses that saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor of the
> bookstore building, in the window-detailing the window-where he was
> looking out.' "
>
> Lane did not attack this position, as it is correct and truthful.
So lane didn't pick Wades statement apart....Let's do it now.... Let's see
> With that in mind, let's examine how Lane handled point one by Henry
> Wade:
>
> Henry Wade stated, in his press conference (and as quoted by Lane):
> "Wade was unequivocal, stating, 'First, there was a number of
> witnesses that saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor of the
> bookstore building, in the window-detailing the window-where he was
> looking out.' "
>
> Lane did not attack this position, as it is correct and truthful.
if it's "correct and truthful"
A) First, there was a number of witnesses that saw the person with the
gun....
This is NOT a true steatement because it says "THE GUN" as if all
witnesses agreed that they had all seen the mannlicher carcano.
Howard Brennan said that the gun was a "high powered rifle of some kind"
Brennan described the "high powered" rifle as a rifle that he "could see
ALL OF THE BARREL of the rifle from the muzzle clear back to the man's
hand "as he aimed the rifle from the window.
Amos Euins said that it looked like a "pipe like thing" sticking out of a
window", Euins seems to be describing an exposed metal barrel ( ie; a
pipe, like water pipe)
Arnold Rowland said the man was holding a high powered deer hunting rifle
with a large telescopic sight .....
James Worrell saw several inches of the barrel sticking out of a
window........
In truth NONE of the witnesses described a military rifle as the gun they
had seen.......
But don't let a fact like this get in your way, Hank........
B)..... First, there was a number of witnesses that saw the person with
the gun....
In the sentence Wade states....... "witnesses that saw the person" ....
"THE PERSON"
Here again Wade implies that all witnesses were in complete agreement
about the identity of "the person"
It's not at all difficult to look up the descriptions that the various
witnesses gave for the man in a sixth floor window and find that the
descrptions vary from witness to witness..... So this part of Wades
statement is also untrue
> Instead, Lane rebuilt the statement into something else, creating a
> straw argument, and attacked that. Lane claimed that Wade actually
> said: "A number of witnesses saw Oswald at the window of the sixth
> floor of the Texas School Book Depository."
>
> That is a mis-statement of Wade's position, and it is done for no
> other reason that to build an apparent rebuttal argument. Wade did not
> mention Oswald at all in point one, and claimed merely that numerous
> witnesses "saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor of the
> bookstore building." Lane redefined it as mentioning Oswald, and
> attacked a claim Wade did not make. "A number of witnesses saw Oswald
> at the window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository."
>
> That is the very definition of a straw argument.
>
> In effect, one could say Wade's point one is still standing, because
> Lane never laid a glove on it. Lane never even got in the ring with
> point one. Instead, Lane went after point one's trainer, and tried to
> take him out.
>
> Hank
Walt
Mar 13, 2013, 9:14:33 PM3/13/13
to
On Mar 13, 3:06 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Here is a definition of a logical fallacy:
>
> >http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
>
> > A straw argument is used to rebut a position that is not the position
> > stated by your opponent, but something else. The straw man argument is
> > constructed because one cannot rebut the position stated, but doesn't
> > want to admit that, so one re-states the position as something else,
> > and rebuts that new position. But the original proposition is not
> > rebutted.
>
> > Mark Lane committed that very LOGICAL FALLACY in attempting to rebut
> > claim one in his original defense of Oswald, published in the National
> > Guardian and reproduced here:
>
> >http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/lane/Natl-Guardian/Natl_Guar...
> Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Here is a definition of a logical fallacy:
>
> >http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
>
> > A straw argument is used to rebut a position that is not the position
> > stated by your opponent, but something else. The straw man argument is
> > constructed because one cannot rebut the position stated, but doesn't
> > want to admit that, so one re-states the position as something else,
> > and rebuts that new position. But the original proposition is not
> > rebutted.
>
> > Mark Lane committed that very LOGICAL FALLACY in attempting to rebut
> > claim one in his original defense of Oswald, published in the National
> > Guardian and reproduced here:
>
>
> > ((((((( QUOTE ))))))))
> > ...we now examine the "airtight case," the "absolute confirmation of
> > Oswald's guilt." Wade presented 15 assertions, some mere conclusions,
> > some with a source not revealed, some documented.
>
> > Here are the 15 assertions:
>
> > 1-A number of witnesses saw Oswald at the window of the sixth floor of
> > the Texas School Book Depository.
>
> Wade was obviously referring to Oswald when he said, "First, there was a
> number of witnesses that saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor
> of the bookstore building.."
>
> Notice that he said, "THE" person with a gun, whereas a more objective
> and honest statement would be that witnesses saw "A" person with a gun.
> The difference is not trivial.
Hey Robert..... If I had known you were reading my mind I wouldn't
> > ((((((( QUOTE ))))))))
> > ...we now examine the "airtight case," the "absolute confirmation of
> > Oswald's guilt." Wade presented 15 assertions, some mere conclusions,
> > some with a source not revealed, some documented.
>
> > Here are the 15 assertions:
>
> > 1-A number of witnesses saw Oswald at the window of the sixth floor of
> > the Texas School Book Depository.
>
> Wade was obviously referring to Oswald when he said, "First, there was a
> number of witnesses that saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor
> of the bookstore building.."
>
> Notice that he said, "THE" person with a gun, whereas a more objective
> and honest statement would be that witnesses saw "A" person with a gun.
> The difference is not trivial.
have posted this same idea :)
Bud
Mar 13, 2013, 9:14:51 PM3/13/13
to
On Mar 13, 4:06 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Here is a definition of a logical fallacy:
>
> >http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
>
> > A straw argument is used to rebut a position that is not the position
> > stated by your opponent, but something else. The straw man argument is
> > constructed because one cannot rebut the position stated, but doesn't
> > want to admit that, so one re-states the position as something else,
> > and rebuts that new position. But the original proposition is not
> > rebutted.
>
> > Mark Lane committed that very LOGICAL FALLACY in attempting to rebut
> > claim one in his original defense of Oswald, published in the National
> > Guardian and reproduced here:
>
> >http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/lane/Natl-Guardian/Natl_Guar...
> Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Here is a definition of a logical fallacy:
>
> >http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
>
> > A straw argument is used to rebut a position that is not the position
> > stated by your opponent, but something else. The straw man argument is
> > constructed because one cannot rebut the position stated, but doesn't
> > want to admit that, so one re-states the position as something else,
> > and rebuts that new position. But the original proposition is not
> > rebutted.
>
> > Mark Lane committed that very LOGICAL FALLACY in attempting to rebut
> > claim one in his original defense of Oswald, published in the National
> > Guardian and reproduced here:
>
>
> > ((((((( QUOTE ))))))))
> > ...we now examine the "airtight case," the "absolute confirmation of
> > Oswald's guilt." Wade presented 15 assertions, some mere conclusions,
> > some with a source not revealed, some documented.
>
> > Here are the 15 assertions:
>
> > 1-A number of witnesses saw Oswald at the window of the sixth floor of
> > the Texas School Book Depository.
>
> Wade was obviously referring to Oswald when he said, "First, there was a
> number of witnesses that saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor
> of the bookstore building.."
>
> Notice that he said, "THE" person with a gun, whereas a more objective
> and honest statement would be that witnesses saw "A" person with a gun.
> The difference is not trivial.
I suspect that Wade was saying "person with the gun" as an
> > ((((((( QUOTE ))))))))
> > ...we now examine the "airtight case," the "absolute confirmation of
> > Oswald's guilt." Wade presented 15 assertions, some mere conclusions,
> > some with a source not revealed, some documented.
>
> > Here are the 15 assertions:
>
> > 1-A number of witnesses saw Oswald at the window of the sixth floor of
> > the Texas School Book Depository.
>
> Wade was obviously referring to Oswald when he said, "First, there was a
> number of witnesses that saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor
> of the bookstore building.."
>
> Notice that he said, "THE" person with a gun, whereas a more objective
> and honest statement would be that witnesses saw "A" person with a gun.
> The difference is not trivial.
identifier, and maybe should have used "shooter". I think his point
was that Edwards saw "the person with a gun", even though he wasn`t
brandishing a rifle when Edwards saw him. Same for Fischer. I think
they both saw the shooter. They just didn`t see him shooting. But it`s
pretty clear they saw the same man Brennan did, the man with the gun.
Walt
Mar 13, 2013, 11:09:31 PM3/13/13
to
man with a gun eventhough they never said anything of the kind?
>
> > There wasn't a person on the planet who didn't realize that Wade was
> > talking about Oswald and if he had been asked, we both know that he
> > would have confirmed that.
said..." there was a number of witnesses that saw THE PERSON with the gun
on the sixth floor." But it's clear that NONE of the witnesses descriped
Lee Oswald.....and they most certainly NOT in agreement about their
descriptions of the man.
Bud
Mar 14, 2013, 11:54:13 AM3/14/13
to
"man in the window" it doesn`t say much when there are men in a lot of
the windows. He wants to be specific about which man, so he used the
thing that set him apart from the others, that he had a rifle. Like I
also said, it is extremely likely that the man Edwards and Fischer saw
is the same man Brennan saw shooting so it is likely he had a rifle
whether Edwards or Fischer saw it.
And I`m sure I can pull up many instances of you doing the same
thing. It took a very short time to find one of many examples. You
said the following on the nuthouse...
"The truth is ...There was a 30 to 35 year old, 165 to 175 pound,
white
man who was attired in a white shirt and trousers on the sixth floor
just minutes before, and during the shooting. Several witnesses
reported seeing him there."
The truth is you can`t even produce one witness who related
information *as you present it*, let alone several. Do you think it`s
alright that you have been doing this constantly for years and years?
> > > There wasn't a person on the planet who didn't realize that Wade was
> > > talking about Oswald and if he had been asked, we both know that he
> > > would have confirmed that.
>
> THAT is precisely the point ..... Wade was thinking of Lee Oswald when he
> said..." there was a number of witnesses that saw THE PERSON
>with the gun
> on the sixth floor." But it's clear that NONE of the witnesses descriped
> Lee Oswald.....
these witnesses give of Oswald under the conditions of their
observations.
>and they most certainly NOT in agreement about their
> descriptions of the man.
Rowland (although in a different window) and Brennan all (likely) see
the same man but give different descriptions what does that say about
witness supplied information?
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Mar 14, 2013, 5:49:59 PM3/14/13
to
substituting a different claim (that you want to attack) for the
actual claim made by someone.
Wade made this statement (as quoted by Lane himself): "First, there
was a number of witnesses that saw the person with the gun on the
sixth floor of the bookstore building, in the window-detailing the
window-where he was looking out."
Lane pretended Wade made this statement: "A number of witnesses saw
window-where he was looking out."
Oswald at the window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book
Depository."
Quite simply, Lane pretended Wade said "Oswald" when he didn't.
Depository."
Numerous witnesses did see the man with a gun on the sixth floor,
exactly as stated by Wade. But that is NOT the statement Lane
attacked. Quite simply, Lane attacked a straw argument of his own
creation.
Now, can anyone tell me what is wrong with Wade's first statement as
quoted by Lane: "First, there was a number of witnesses that saw the
person with the gun on the sixth floor of the bookstore building, in
the window-detailing the window-where he was looking out."
Anyone? Is there anything wrong therein, based on the information the
the window-detailing the window-where he was looking out."
police had on 11/24/63?
Anyone?
(Don't tell me what you think Wade meant to say. Don't tell me what
you wish Wade had said. Don't tell me what you believe is more
accurate. Just tell me what's wrong with Wade's statement as it
stands. Lane couldn't do it. He had to manufacture a fake statement
and attack that).
Hank
Walt
Mar 14, 2013, 7:27:19 PM3/14/13
to
On Mar 14, 4:49 pm, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
Are you denying that Wade had Lee Oswald in mind when he used the
words...." there was a number of witnesses that saw the person"......?
Are you denying that Wade had the Mannlicher Carcano in mind when he
said...."with the gun"?
Are you denying that Wade was referring to the so called "Sniper's Nest "
window when he said ..."in the window-detailing the window- where he was
looking out."?
"First, there was a number of witnesses that saw the person with the gun
on the sixth floor of the bookstore building, in the window- detailing the
floor.....There were TWO people who saw a man with a HIGH POWERED
rifle.....They were ....` Howard Brennan and Arnold Rowland....
Howard Brennan gave a description of the man and that description DID NOT
fit Lee Oswald. Arnold Rowland gave a different description ( which also
didn't fit Lee Oswald) for the man than Brennan gave, so there obviously
wasn't agreement that they saw THE SAME PERSON, as Wade implied. And
Rowland told the investigators that the man was behind a window at the
WEST end of the sixth floor, while Brennan mere DESCRIBED that WEST end
window in his affidavit.
You need to go back and learn the FACTS, Hank........
words...." there was a number of witnesses that saw the person"......?
Are you denying that Wade had the Mannlicher Carcano in mind when he
said...."with the gun"?
Are you denying that Wade was referring to the so called "Sniper's Nest "
window when he said ..."in the window-detailing the window- where he was
looking out."?
"First, there was a number of witnesses that saw the person with the gun
window-where he was looking out."
There were NOT a number of people who saw a man with a gun on the sixth
floor.....There were TWO people who saw a man with a HIGH POWERED
rifle.....They were ....` Howard Brennan and Arnold Rowland....
Howard Brennan gave a description of the man and that description DID NOT
fit Lee Oswald. Arnold Rowland gave a different description ( which also
didn't fit Lee Oswald) for the man than Brennan gave, so there obviously
wasn't agreement that they saw THE SAME PERSON, as Wade implied. And
Rowland told the investigators that the man was behind a window at the
WEST end of the sixth floor, while Brennan mere DESCRIBED that WEST end
window in his affidavit.
You need to go back and learn the FACTS, Hank........
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Mar 18, 2013, 3:14:25 PM3/18/13
to
rebut Henry Wade's first point.
Henry Wade's first point mentions neither Oswald nor a Mannlicher Carcano.
You pretend it is about both. Mark Lane pretended it is about Oswald. Both
are straw arguments.
Rebut Wade's point. Here it is again:
Henry Wade stated, in his press conference (and as quoted by Lane): "Wade
the person with the gun on the sixth floor of the bookstore building, in
the window-detailing the window-where he was looking out.' "
From what I know, the facts are with Wade -- there were a number of
witnesses who saw a person with a gun on the sixth floor of the bookstore
building. What did Wade get wrong in the above? Nothing.
If you can only build straw arguments to rebut this, you aren't rebutting
it.
Mark Lane never did.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Mar 18, 2013, 3:14:59 PM3/18/13
to
floor.
Amos Euins
Carolyn Walther
Howard Brennan
Arnold Rowland
I may be missing a couple.
Hank
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Mar 18, 2013, 3:17:19 PM3/18/13
to
These people saw a person with a gun on the sixth floor:
Howard Brennan
Arnold Rowland
Ruby Henderson
Carolyn Walther
Amos Euins
This people saw a portion of the gun being drawn back into the window:
Bob Jackson (http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/
showDoc.do?docId=38&relPageId=167)
These people saw a man on the sixth floor but no gun:
Ronald Fischer
Robert Edwards
Richard Carr
This man saw movement in the sixth floor window but only caught a
glimpse:
James Crawford (http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/
showDoc.do?docId=35&relPageId=183)
That's quite a few more than two. I count five at a minimum, and ten
if we count everyone who saw a rifle, a person or motion in the
window.
I find that Henry Wade's statement has plenty of support. I find that
Mark Lane's straw argument rebuttal is without substance.
Henry Wade stated, in his press conference (and as quoted by Lane):
witnesses that saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor of the
bookstore building, in the window-detailing the window-where he was
looking out.' "
bookstore building, in the window-detailing the window-where he was
looking out.' "
Lane did not attack this position, as it is correct and truthful.
Instead, Lane rebuilt the statement into something else, creating a
straw argument, and attacked that. Lane claimed that Wade actually
said: "A number of witnesses saw Oswald at the window of the sixth
Instead, Lane rebuilt the statement into something else, creating a
straw argument, and attacked that. Lane claimed that Wade actually
floor of the Texas School Book Depository."
Hank
David Von Pein
Mar 18, 2013, 8:54:14 PM3/18/13
to
Hank,
You forgot about Mal Couch:
http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/05/mal-couch.html
And there's also James Worrell, who saw a gun sticking out of an upper-
story window ("either in the fifth or the sixth floor").
David Von Pein
Mar 19, 2013, 3:08:43 PM3/19/13
to
And there's also Mrs. Earle Cabell, who saw a "projection" in a window
near the top of the TSBD.
Many people consider Mrs. Cabell, therefore, to be a "I SAW THE RIFLE"
witness. But, I guess that's a little debatable.
0 new messages