Mark Lane's 1964 Debate Vs. Joseph Ball

[David Von Pein]

Excerpt from Mark Lane's 12/4/64 debate against Joseph Ball of the
Warren Commission:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phY63cL25KQ

Just take note of the despicable deception that Lane attempts to get
away with in the above program. Two prime examples:

1.) Lane doesn't consider William Scoggins to be an adequate
eyewitness to Tippit's murder at all. He doesn't even count Scoggins
as a "Tippit Murder Witness" because of the fact there was a bush
between Scoggins and Tippit's murderer (Oswald). Joe Ball nicely
corrects Lane's deception and tries to exhibit some common sense when
evaluating Scoggins' testimony.

2.) Re: Oswald's rifle purchase: Lane totally ignores Waldman Exhibit
No. 7, which verifies that Rifle C2766 was sent to Oswald's PO Box in
Dallas. Ball again sets Liar Lane straight.

Why is it that no CTer will exhibit the slightest bit of ordinary,
average common sense when evaluating this very simple murder case
(both the JFK killing and Tippit's too)?

As all CT kooks do, Mark Lane harps on the fact that the assassination
rifle (C2766) wasn't the exact model ordered by Oswald...which is,
indeed, a fact. But Lane then totally ignores (or discounts as "fake"
evidently) the crucial document unearthed by Klein's Sporting Goods
within just hours of the assassination--Waldman #7, which proves that
on Mar. 13, 1963, Klein's received and processed an order they
received from "A. Hidell" of Dallas, Texas; with Waldman 7 further
proving for all eternity that Klein's then shipped the eventual
assassination weapon (Carcano #C2766) to Hidell/Oswald on March 20th.

Waldman #7, in effect, renders Lane's argument about Klein's sending
the wrong model to Oswald totally meaningless and moot. For, why does
it matter what model Oswald actually ordered? The key is: What rifle
did Oswald/"Hidell" ultimately end up receiving from Klein's? And the
answer to that rests in Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which the "Anybody But
Oswald" nuts like Mark Lane have no choice but to pretend is a fake
and fraudulent document (sans a speck of evidence to prove such a
charge).

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/mark-lane.html

[John Reagor King]

In article
<a787c847-ac75-4e9d...@j10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
youtube...@aol.com wrote:

> Excerpt of Mark Lane's 12/4/64 debate against Joseph Ball of the

> Warren Commission:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phY63cL25KQ
>
> Just take note of the despicable deception that Lane attempts to get
> away with in the above program. Two prime examples:
>
> 1.) Lane doesn't consider William Scoggins to be an adequate
> eyewitness to Tippit's murder at all. He doesn't even count Scoggins
> as a "Tippit Murder Witness" because of the fact there was a bush
> between Scoggins and Tippit's murderer (Oswald). Joe Ball nicely
> corrects Lane's deception and tries to exhibit some common sense when
> evaluating Scoggins' testimony.

I haven't watched it yet, but I would have reminded Lane that Scroggins
was what is often called a "human," who was furthermore not paralyzed, and
thus he was capable of moving from side to side and looking around a mere
bush.

Just a thought. ;-)

> 2.) Re: Oswald's rifle purchase: Lane totally ignores Waldman Exhibit
> No. 7, which verifies that Rifle C2766 was sent to Oswald's PO Box in
> Dallas. Ball again sets Liar Lane straight.

Er, well, I have a few things to say about that. Mr. Waldman and Mr.
Belin fudged just a bit on the fact that no bank stamped the reverse side
of the money order sent in to pay for the rifle.

> Why is it that no CTer will exhibit the slightest bit of ordinary,
> average common sense when evaluating this very simple murder case
> (both the JFK killing and Tippit's too)?

I have asked that too. I have also very frequently asked why so few LNers
will exhibit the slightest bit of ordinary average common sense when
claiming that c.40 adults were "just wrong" when they said that there was
an obvious hole in the right rear of JFK's head, and then make it even
worse by absolutely refusing to admit that this very same hole was not,
ever, evidence of the exiting of a shot fired from the front.

> As all CT kooks do, Mark Lane harps on the fact that the assassination
> rifle (C2766) wasn't the exact model ordered by Oswald...which is,
> indeed, a fact. But Lane then totally ignores (or discounts as "fake"
> evidently) the crucial document unearthed by Klein's Sporting Goods
> within just hours of the assassination--Waldman #7, which proves that
> on Mar. 13, 1963, Klein's received and processed an order they
> received from "A. Hidell" of Dallas, Texas; with Waldman 7 further
> proving for all eternity that Klein's then shipped the eventual
> assassination weapon (Carcano #C2766) to Hidell/Oswald on March 20th.

Yes, like it's even slightly "unheard of" for many different mail order
companies to send a different item from the one the person ordered. That
very thing has happened to me. It wasn't a gun though, it was a cd from
Amazon. :P Nevertheless, I remember one CT claiming to me here years ago
that if Klein's had done that, they would have been forced out of
business. I replied that they would have been forced out of business only
if snafus in orders had happened more than one percent of the time.

If only 10 out of every 1000 people who ordered from Klein's got something
different from what they ordered, I very much doubt they would have been
forced out of business. 10 is indeed a mere, paltry, 1% of 1000.

[John Reagor King]

In article
<8ce72d81-f13b-46e1...@l14g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> With respect to the BANK STAMPS that conspiracy theorists insist
> should be on the back of Oswald's money order (CE788), I'll offer up
> the following thoughts and observations:
>
> This question suddenly popped into my head today:
>
> I wonder if my bank puts stamps or other markings on the back of
> every one of my checks that I have deposited into my personal bank
> account?
>
> This question became very easy to answer (at least as far as my last
> several deposits are concerned), since I can check my recent deposits
> online and I can even see (and enlarge) the front and back of every
> cancelled/processed check that has been a part of a recent deposit.
>
> I found that only SOME of my cancelled checks have ANY bank markings
> on them at all, while some others are COMPLETELY VOID of any and all
> bank stamps.
>
> This discovery suggests to me that it's quite possible that this same
> "hit and miss" type of activity regarding the stamping of cancelled
> checks (and money orders) could have been the reason we find no
> official bank markings on the back of CE788.

Ok, thanks for this, David.