Lying By Omission The Mark Lane Way # 7 (Quite OPENLY Lying!)

[timstter]

Hi All,

On page 127 of his book, Rush To Judgment, Mark Lane makes the following
statement about 1964 tests that the Warren Commission undertook with three
expert riflemen in attempting to duplicate the mechanics of Oswald's
shooting in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963:

QUOTE ON:

Although the conditions of the test tended to diminish the difficulties,
two out of the the three expert riflemen were unable to shoot as fast at
stationary targets as the so-called assassin had shot at a moving one.
(90) Not one of them struck the enlarged head or neck on the target even
once, (91) while Oswald is supposed to have done it twice. (92)

QUOTE OFF

When we examine the footnote attached to Lane's claim that NOT ONE OF THEM
STRUCK THE ENLARGED HEAD OR NECK ON THE TARGET EVEN ONCE, footnote # (91),
we find the following Warren Commission citation given by Lane:

XVII , 261-262

And what does XVII, 261-262 show? Let's see:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

QUITE CLEARLY two of the test shots struck in the head area.

Lane's whole handling of this matter is a DISGRACE to honest JFK research.
Not only has he lied by omission on this matter, he has BLATANTLY lied
when he thought he could get away with it.

The fellow is simply a PROVEN liar in the matter of the JFK assassination.

Regards,

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

[Sandy McCroskey]

Yeah, this is one of my favorites.
I will just note that no CT has responded to this.
The only possible defense I can imagine is that Lane made an honest mistake.
But if you believe that, there's a bridge in my neighborhood going for a
good price...

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Oct 24, 8:11 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> On page 127 of his book, Rush To Judgment, Mark Lane makes the following
> statement about 1964 tests that the Warren Commission undertook with three
> expert riflemen in attempting to duplicate the mechanics of Oswald's
> shooting in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963:
>
> QUOTE ON:
>
> Although the conditions of the test tended to diminish the difficulties,
> two out of the the three expert riflemen were unable to shoot as fast at
> stationary targets as the so-called assassin had shot at a moving one.
> (90) Not one of them struck the enlarged head or neck on the target even
> once, (91) while Oswald is supposed to have done it twice. (92)
>
> QUOTE OFF
>
> When we examine the footnote attached to Lane's claim that NOT ONE OF THEM
> STRUCK THE ENLARGED HEAD OR NECK ON THE TARGET EVEN ONCE, footnote # (91),
> we find the following Warren Commission citation given by Lane:
>
> XVII , 261-262
>
> And what does XVII, 261-262 show? Let's see:
>

> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

>
> QUITE CLEARLY two of the test shots struck in the head area.
>
> Lane's whole handling of this matter is a DISGRACE to honest JFK research.
> Not only has he lied by omission on this matter, he has BLATANTLY lied
> when he thought he could get away with it.
>
> The fellow is simply a PROVEN liar in the matter of the JFK assassination.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

Talk about your displaced anger. The top test shooters for the Army could
only hit the head or neck TWICE in 7 runs of three shots each, while
firing at stationary targets (in effect hitting 2 of 21, as opposed to
Oswald's purported 2 of 3 while firing at a moving target) and you're mad
not that the WC deliberately pretended the shots were easy but that Lane
said they didn't hit any at all. Well, I agree that Lane's book is a
defense brief and that he twists evidence to support the innocence of his
"client." But he wasn't a man of supposed impeccable character for whom
truth was his only client. Those were the guys making out that the shots
were easy and well within Oswald's presumed abilities, while the tests
performed by the FBI and Army proved otherwise.

There's also this to consider. Most LNs believe the first shot missed,
which means that Oswald hit 2 of 2 while rapid-firing. The Army's shooters
hit 1 of 14. As the lone hit among these 14 on the head and neck is hard
to make out at the top of the exhibit, moreover, it's possible Lane simply
didn't see it.

[davidemerling]

On Oct 24, 10:11 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The fellow is simply a PROVEN liar in the matter of the JFK assassination.

Mark Lane had copies of the 26 volumes which were a very rare and
expensive commodity in those days. There was no anticipation that the
average American would ever have an opportunity or the wherewithal to
cross reference any of Lane's claims.

Today, with the advent of the internet, access to the 26 volumes is
readily available for FREE. Now we can clearly see how deceptive Lane was
being. He was the master of the "half quote" and "omission". He
cherry-picked his way through the volumes and weaved an improbable,
although, on the surface, a compelling tale.

"Rush to Judgment" may have been a best-seller in its day, but, today it
is dismissed by anybody who has ever done any serious research as a
cautionary tale. It's in the same category as David Lifton's "Best
Evidence". Interesting ... yet, just a load of crap in the final analysis.

Books like these only resonate with those who are predisposed to believe
such bunk -or- those who have a natural affinity to believe outrageous
explanations for events that actually have quite simple & mundane
explanations.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Pamela Brown]

On Oct 25, 7:01 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Yeah, this is one of my favorites.
> I will just note that no CT has responded to this.
> The only possible defense I can imagine is that Lane made an honest mistake.
> But if you believe that, there's a bridge in my neighborhood going for a
> good price...

That is a diagram, not a statement. What if he thought the Xs were where
the sight was, not where the shots were?

Besides, these are stationary targets. Not even the same thing as the
assassination.

ITTC tried to duplicate the fatal headshot and failed miserably. The
bullet did not fragment, the angle was not correct, and the only test that
came close was one that they scrubbed.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> timstter wrote:
> > Hi All,
>
> > On page 127 of his book, Rush To Judgment, Mark Lane makes the following
> > statement about 1964 tests that the Warren Commission undertook with three
> > expert riflemen in attempting to duplicate the mechanics of Oswald's
> > shooting in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963:
>
> > QUOTE ON:
>
> > Although the conditions of the test tended to diminish the difficulties,
> > two out of the the three expert riflemen were unable to shoot as fast at
> > stationary targets as the so-called assassin had shot at a moving one.
> > (90) Not one of them struck the enlarged head or neck on the target even
> > once, (91) while Oswald is supposed to have done it twice. (92)
>
> > QUOTE OFF
>
> > When we examine the footnote attached to Lane's claim that NOT ONE OF THEM
> > STRUCK THE ENLARGED HEAD OR NECK ON THE TARGET EVEN ONCE, footnote # (91),
> > we find the following Warren Commission citation given by Lane:
>
> > XVII , 261-262
>
> > And what does XVII, 261-262 show? Let's see:
>

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

[Anthony Marsh]

And Mark Lane was one of the first to point out how the government was
lying about the evidence.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/25/2011 8:01 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> Yeah, this is one of my favorites.
> I will just note that no CT has responded to this.
> The only possible defense I can imagine is that Lane made an honest
> mistake.
> But if you believe that, there's a bridge in my neighborhood going for a
> good price...
>

We have written about it several times. WC defenders simply lie about what
Mark Lane wrote and what the WC evidence said.

I especially like his trick here where he changes the wording from Mark
Lane's "enlarged head or neck on the target" to his "head area." And you
let him get away with tricks like this because you are a fellow WC
defender. But when you look back at the actual shooting tests you see what
the WC defenders have lied about and covered up for so many years. That in
some tests the experts were not even able to hit the board for the head
shot distance, the bullet sailing OVER THE TOP of the board, or in the CBS
tests that their rifle jammed about one-third of the time.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/24/2011 11:11 PM, timstter wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> On page 127 of his book, Rush To Judgment, Mark Lane makes the following
> statement about 1964 tests that the Warren Commission undertook with three
> expert riflemen in attempting to duplicate the mechanics of Oswald's
> shooting in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963:
>
> QUOTE ON:
>
> Although the conditions of the test tended to diminish the difficulties,
> two out of the the three expert riflemen were unable to shoot as fast at
> stationary targets as the so-called assassin had shot at a moving one.
> (90) Not one of them struck the enlarged head or neck on the target even
> once, (91) while Oswald is supposed to have done it twice. (92)
>
> QUOTE OFF
>
> When we examine the footnote attached to Lane's claim that NOT ONE OF THEM
> STRUCK THE ENLARGED HEAD OR NECK ON THE TARGET EVEN ONCE, footnote # (91),
> we find the following Warren Commission citation given by Lane:
>
> XVII , 261-262
>
> And what does XVII, 261-262 show? Let's see:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
>
> QUITE CLEARLY two of the test shots struck in the head area.
>

No, lamo, the head "area" is not the same thing as the head or neck.
Just hitting the board outside the target profiles does not count.

> Lane's whole handling of this matter is a DISGRACE to honest JFK research.
> Not only has he lied by omission on this matter, he has BLATANTLY lied
> when he thought he could get away with it.
>
> The fellow is simply a PROVEN liar in the matter of the JFK assassination.
>

Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On Oct 26, 12:10 am, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 25, 7:01 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, this is one of my favorites.
> > I will just note that no CT has responded to this.
> > The only possible defense I can imagine is that Lane made an honest mistake.
> > But if you believe that, there's a bridge in my neighborhood going for a
> > good price...
>
> That is a diagram, not a statement.  What if he thought the Xs were where
> the sight was, not where the shots were?
>

Why in the world would he think that?
Was he insane?

> Besides, these are stationary targets.  Not even the same thing as the
> assassination.
>

How does that pertain to Mark Lane's misrepresention—oh, to hell with
the euphemism, his LIE about what the picture shows, plain as day? (It
doesn't.)

/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

On Oct 26, 12:15 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/25/2011 8:01 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>
> > Yeah, this is one of my favorites.
> > I will just note that no CT has responded to this.
> > The only possible defense I can imagine is that Lane made an honest
> > mistake.
> > But if you believe that, there's a bridge in my neighborhood going for a
> > good price...
>
> We have written about it several times. WC defenders simply lie about what
> Mark Lane wrote and what the WC evidence said.
>
> I especially like his trick here where he changes the wording from Mark
> Lane's "enlarged head or neck on the target" to his "head area."

Oh, please. It seems you're trying to give some careless reader the
impression that what Lane wrote has been somehow misrepresented.
Tim quoted Lane's exact words and his "head area" is not an inaccurate
paraphrase.
The shots clearly hit where Mark Lane says they didn't.
End of story.
/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

More WC propaganda.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On Oct 26, 12:57 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/24/2011 11:11 PM, timstter wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi All,
>
> > On page 127 of his book, Rush To Judgment, Mark Lane makes the following
> > statement about 1964 tests that the Warren Commission undertook with three
> > expert riflemen in attempting to duplicate the mechanics of Oswald's
> > shooting in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963:
>
> > QUOTE ON:
>
> > Although the conditions of the test tended to diminish the difficulties,
> > two out of the the three expert riflemen were unable to shoot as fast at
> > stationary targets as the so-called assassin had shot at a moving one.
> > (90) Not one of them struck the enlarged head or neck on the target even
> > once, (91) while Oswald is supposed to have done it twice. (92)
>
> > QUOTE OFF
>
> > When we examine the footnote attached to Lane's claim that NOT ONE OF THEM
> > STRUCK THE ENLARGED HEAD OR NECK ON THE TARGET EVEN ONCE, footnote # (91),
> > we find the following Warren Commission citation given by Lane:
>
> > XVII , 261-262
>
> > And what does XVII, 261-262 show? Let's see:
>

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

>
> > QUITE CLEARLY two of the test shots struck in the head area.
>
> No, lamo, the head "area" is not the same thing as the head or neck.
> Just hitting the board outside the target profiles does not count.
>
> > Lane's whole handling of this matter is a DISGRACE to honest JFK research.
> > Not only has he lied by omission on this matter, he has BLATANTLY lied
> > when he thought he could get away with it.
>
> > The fellow is simply a PROVEN liar in the matter of the JFK assassination.
>
> Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor.
>

Somebody should tell Mark Lane that.
/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

More Marshian pettifoggery.
All anyone has to do to see that Lane lied is look at the photo.
The particular phrase Tim used to describe it is a non-issue.
Others describe it, and they're all pointing to the same inescapable
fact.
Anyone can take a look for themselves.

/sm

[timstter]

> >>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

>
> >> QUITE CLEARLY two of the test shots struck in the head area.
>
> >> Lane's whole handling of this matter is a DISGRACE to honest JFK
> >> research. Not only has he lied by omission on this matter, he has
> >> BLATANTLY lied when he thought he could get away with it.
>
> >> The fellow is simply a PROVEN liar in the matter of the JFK
> >> assassination.
>
> >> Regards,
>
> >> Tim Brennan
> >> Sydney, Australia
> >> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
>

Well Lane is quite clearly saying NONE of the shooters managed to hit
the target in the head, Marsh.

In fact, he says this THREE times in the space of a few pages.

His own citation proves that he is lying:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

I don't understand the obscure point you were labouring to make.

[timstter]

Hmmm, no, I think you've misunderstood, Pat.

What Lane does is to DELIBERATELY exclude the shots that were fired
using the iron sights, WITHOUT EVER INFORMING THE READER!

Lane discusses 18 shots in his book when there were, as you note, 21.
He had to get rid of the iron sight shots because 2 out of 3 struck in
the head area!

It's only when you follow the citations given in his book back to the
WC volumes that you realise what he has done. He doesn't bother
letting on himself.

In versions of the book which AREN'T footnoted, like the Penguin one,
there is NO WAY of discovering this. You are simply left with Lane's
bald assertion, repeated three times, that:

QUOTE ON:

...not one of the three experts was able to strike the neck or head of
the target even once.

QUOTE OFF

That is from page 112 of the Penguin paperback version.

This is a blatant historical HOAX perpetrated by Lane here, one of the
WORST examples in the JFK literature. He is, quite simply, lying.

[timstter]

Right on, Sandy!

I have NO IDEA what obscure point Marsh is labouring to make. There
are, however, no excuses he can make for the blatant mishandling of
the evidence by Lane and the flat out lies Lane tells as a result of
that.

[Hank Sienzant]

Marsh is laboring to make any point he can, because the images clearly
show the X's denoting a shot with the iron sights hit the head area
once in each image.
So he alternately calls it "More WC propaganda" (apparently forgetting
that anyone who clicks on the image can see the X's for themselves)
and "WC defenders simply lie about what Mark Lane wrote and what the
WC evidence said" (even though Mark Lane's own words were quoted
precisely).

Mark Lane wrote "Not one of them struck the enlarged head or neck on
the target even once"
The WC page LANE HIMSELF cited for this shows otherwise:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
Marsh has no defense for Lane's baldfaced lie, so he must retreat into
making undefensible assertions that we are somehow misquoting Lane.

>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia

> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[pjsp...@aol.com]

Ahhh. I see what you mean. And you're probably right. Since the commission
decided Oswald had used the scope, Lane felt it was okay for him to count
only the shots fired by those using the scope. Not unreasonable. But he
should have told his readers what he was doing.

But my initial point stands. This is SMALL POTATOES compared to some of
the lies in the Oswald did-it literature. I was so incensed by Bugliosi's
lies regarding the shooting sequence I wrote a chapter on it, chapter 9b
at patspeer.com. Here are a few examples of what I found:

1. As support that the first shot was fired as early as frame 160 of the
Zapruder film, when the presidential limousine has just completed its turn
onto Elm Street, Bugliosi quotes Lady Bird Johnson, who was riding in the
motorcade two cars behind Kennedy, as follows: "We were rounding a
curve...and suddenly there was a shot." This is, I believe, a deliberate
distortion of the evidence. The full sentence which he cannibalizes is
actually "Then almost at the edge of town, on our way to the Trade Mart
where we were going to have the luncheon, we were rounding a curve, going
down a hill, and suddenly there was a sharp loud report--a shot." She then
continued: "It seemed to me to come from the right, above my shoulder,
from a building. Then a moment and then two more shots in rapid
succession." (5H564-567) The words he replaced with his "..." were "going
down a hill." "Going down a hill," not surprisingly, implies the car had
completed its turn, and was significantly past its location at frame 160
of the Zapruder film. It is generally accepted that when someone omits (or
adds) a word or words to a quote that changes its meaning, they can be
accused of willful deception. Bugliosi himself has argued as much. I
believe this is such an example.

Also telling is that Mrs. Johnson said the shot came from the right, above
her shoulder. If the shot rang out at frame 160, when the Vice-
Presidential car was just turning onto Elm, as Bugliosi asserts, this
would suggest the shot came from one of the buildings on the east side of
Houston, the County Records Building or the Dal-Tex Building. (The
limousine's location at frame 160 can be viewed in Appendix Three of this
essay). Since Bugliosi assumes this shot came from the sniper's nest in
the school book depository, directly in front of the car as it made its
turn, it follows then that this shot must have been fired sometime after
frame 160. Mrs. Johnson's recollection that the last two shots came in
"rapid succession" is also telling. As discussed earlier, and as
demonstrated in Appendix One, any indication that the last two shots were
closer together than the first two is an indication that the first shot
did not miss. Bugliosi's sculpting of Mrs. Johnson's words is undoubtedly
SUSPICIOUS.

2. Bugliosi's first witness for the impact of the second shot is Charles
Brehm. He writes "the car is very close to Charles Brehm and his son,
maybe 20 feet away, so they can see the president's face very well when
the shot rings out. The president stiffens perceptibly and his hands swoop
toward his throat." Bugliosi cites as his source for this passage an FBI
report on Brehm a few days after the shooting. In this report, Brehm's
recollections are described as follows: "When the President’s automobile
was very close to him and he could see the President’s face very well,
the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened
perceptibly, at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded.
According to Brehm, the President seemed to stiffen and come to a
pause..." (22H837-838) Bugliosi hides from his readers that this was
Brehm's description of the first of three shots, not the second, and that
Brehm had been interviewed a number of times on on the day of the
shooting, and had consistently reported that Kennedy was hit by the first
shot. SUSPICIOUS.

3. Bugliosi's desperation to hide that many witnesses felt there was a
shot just after the head shot becomes almost embarrassingly obvious with
the presentation of his next witness for the crowd's reaction to the third
shot. Bugliosi reports that "Charles Brehm instinctively throws himself on
his young son, covering him with his body. Brehm a former army staff
sergeant, knows about gunfire. Nineteen years before, at Brest in
Normandy, not long after D-Day, a German bullet went through his chest and
blew his elbow joint apart. Now, despite his desperate hopes, he is
positive the President was also hit." Bugliosi cites both a 1963 FBI
report on Brehm and Brehm's 1986 testimony in a mock trial for this
dramatic passage. By simply reporting that Brehm threw himself onto his
son, and not specifying that Brehm responded to the third shot head shot
by covering his son, Bugliosi avoids admitting to his readers that Brehm
was consistent in his statements from day one, and that Brehm stated
unequivocally that Kennedy was struck in the head by the second shot, and
not the third. In the 1986 mock trial, Brehm testified: "when the third
shot--which seemed to me to be a wasted shot--went off, which frightened
me more than any of the others because then I thought it was somebody
shooting up the place. I then fell on my son." Bugliosi knows this not
only because he cites Brehm's testimony in his book, but because he was
the prosecuting attorney taking Brehm's testimony. Even worse, Brehm was
his witness. Bugliosi's twisting of Brehm's words to support his claim as
fact that the first shot missed (when Brehm testified it did not), the
second shot hit both Kennedy and Connally (when Brehm said it hit Kennedy
in the head), and the third shot hit Kennedy in the head (when Brehm said
it seemed to have missed) is simply outrageous. SUSPICIOUS.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Oct 25, 8:05 pm, davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 10:11 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The fellow is simply a PROVEN liar in the matter of the JFK assassination.
>
> Mark Lane had copies of the 26 volumes which were a very rare and
> expensive commodity in those days. There was no anticipation that the
> average American would ever have an opportunity or the wherewithal to
> cross reference any of Lane's claims.

Not that rare and not that expensive. The complete set could be
purchased in 1964 from the GPO for a total of $69, as I recall.
That is the 2011 equivalent of $511.61. Not cheap, but not that
expensive for 26 volumes. Works out to less than $20 a hardcover
volume.
About what you pay for any hardcover book nowadays.
However, most Americans bought only the Final Report and didn't write
to the GPO for the 26 volumes, but many major public libraries and
universities obtained a set.
Anyone interested in checking out Lane's citations could have done so
had they chosen to do so - but not many were.
I only did it after getting back into the assassination literature in
the late 1970's - early 1980's.
I read all the the early critics books and of course the Warren
Report, and it was only when I decided to check out the documentation
for myself did I find out what a canard the conspiracy literature
was.

>
> Today, with the advent of the internet, access to the 26 volumes is
> readily available for FREE. Now we can clearly see how deceptive Lane was
> being. He was the master of the "half quote" and "omission". He
> cherry-picked his way through the volumes and weaved an improbable,
> although, on the surface, a compelling tale.

Calling it a improbable but compelling tale isn't doing it justice.
It's a disjointed collection of every minor discrepancy Lane could
find, with no attempt to weave it into a coherent alternate hypothesis
of the assassination.
So there's no tale there.

One early critic of Lane's said most good lawyers go right for the
jugular.
Lane in Rush to Judgment went straight for the capillaries.

>
> "Rush to Judgment" may have been a best-seller in its day, but, today it
> is dismissed by anybody who has ever done any serious research as a
> cautionary tale. It's in the same category as David Lifton's "Best
> Evidence". Interesting ... yet, just a load of crap in the final analysis.
>
> Books like these only resonate with those who are predisposed to believe
> such bunk -or- those who have a natural affinity to believe outrageous
> explanations for events that actually have quite simple & mundane
> explanations.

Or for those coming upon it without much background into the assassination
and believing Lane's goal was to tell the American people the truth.


>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN

[Hank Sienzant]

On Oct 26, 12:14 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

By lying about the evidence?
Sorry, I think not.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Oct 26, 12:10 am, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 25, 7:01 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, this is one of my favorites.
> > I will just note that no CT has responded to this.
> > The only possible defense I can imagine is that Lane made an honest mistake.
> > But if you believe that, there's a bridge in my neighborhood going for a
> > good price...
>
> That is a diagram, not a statement.  What if he thought the Xs were where
> the sight was, not where the shots were?

Hi Pamela,

Did you even click on the link before you ventured a guess?

The diagram is clear enough and not that easy to misunderstand.
It shows in the right hand what the x and o means.
o = with the scope.
x = with the iron sights

Here's the link again:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

I seen an X in the area of the head in the top most image on the page
cited.
Do you see that X?

>
> Besides, these are stationary targets.  Not even the same thing as the
> assassination.
>

Yes, Lane made that point too.

He wrote, as quoted above, "Although the conditions of the test tended to

diminish the difficulties, two out of the the three expert riflemen were
unable to shoot as fast at stationary targets as the so-called assassin
had shot at a moving one."

But that isn't the point here.

The point is whether Lane's version of the events is accurate and the
whole truth.
I say it is not.
Since you are making excuses for Lane above, I would venture to guess
you believe it is not either.

Here's Lane's statement from the book again:

Although the conditions of the test tended to diminish the difficulties,
two out of the the three expert riflemen were unable to shoot as fast at
stationary targets as the so-called assassin had shot at a moving one.
(90) Not one of them struck the enlarged head or neck on the target even
once, (91) while Oswald is supposed to have done it twice. (92)

The target was hit in the head.
Lane said it was not - "Not one of them struck the enlarged head or

neck on the target even once"

Is that statement accurate?

> ITTC tried to duplicate the fatal headshot and failed miserably.  The
> bullet did not fragment, the angle was not correct, and the only test that
> came close was one that they scrubbed.

Ah, changing the subject when you cannot defend Lane's words.
Have you been tutored by Tony Marsh?

Was Lane accurate when he wrote "Not one of them struck the enlarged

[Hank Sienzant]

On Oct 26, 12:15 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/25/2011 8:01 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>
> > Yeah, this is one of my favorites.
> > I will just note that no CT has responded to this.
> > The only possible defense I can imagine is that Lane made an honest
> > mistake.
> > But if you believe that, there's a bridge in my neighborhood going for a
> > good price...
>
> We have written about it several times. WC defenders simply lie about what
> Mark Lane wrote and what the WC evidence said.

Lane said none of the shots hit the neck or head on the target.
I see an X on the head in the top image on this page. I see an X on
the head in the bottom image on this page:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
What do you see?
Do you see those X's?
Was Mark Lane right in saying "Not one of them struck the enlarged
head or neck on the target even once".

> >>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

>
> >> QUITE CLEARLY two of the test shots struck in the head area.
>
> >> Lane's whole handling of this matter is a DISGRACE to honest JFK
> >> research. Not only has he lied by omission on this matter, he has
> >> BLATANTLY lied when he thought he could get away with it.
>
> >> The fellow is simply a PROVEN liar in the matter of the JFK
> >> assassination.
>
> >> Regards,
>
> >> Tim Brennan
> >> Sydney, Australia

> >> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
>

[Hank Sienzant]

On Oct 26, 12:57 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/24/2011 11:11 PM, timstter wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi All,
>
> > On page 127 of his book, Rush To Judgment, Mark Lane makes the following
> > statement about 1964 tests that the Warren Commission undertook with three
> > expert riflemen in attempting to duplicate the mechanics of Oswald's
> > shooting in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963:
>
> > QUOTE ON:
>
> > Although the conditions of the test tended to diminish the difficulties,
> > two out of the the three expert riflemen were unable to shoot as fast at
> > stationary targets as the so-called assassin had shot at a moving one.
> > (90) Not one of them struck the enlarged head or neck on the target even
> > once, (91) while Oswald is supposed to have done it twice. (92)
>
> > QUOTE OFF
>
> > When we examine the footnote attached to Lane's claim that NOT ONE OF THEM
> > STRUCK THE ENLARGED HEAD OR NECK ON THE TARGET EVEN ONCE, footnote # (91),
> > we find the following Warren Commission citation given by Lane:
>
> > XVII , 261-262
>
> > And what does XVII, 261-262 show? Let's see:
>

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

>
> > QUITE CLEARLY two of the test shots struck in the head area.
>
> No, lamo, the head "area" is not the same thing as the head or neck.
> Just hitting the board outside the target profiles does not count.

There is one X on each target in the head area on this page cited.

>
> > Lane's whole handling of this matter is a DISGRACE to honest JFK research.
> > Not only has he lied by omission on this matter, he has BLATANTLY lied
> > when he thought he could get away with it.
>
> > The fellow is simply a PROVEN liar in the matter of the JFK assassination.
>
> Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor.

Yes, absolutely. When do you intend to start abiding by it?
You don't see the X's in the image?

[timstter]

On Oct 26, 3:14 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

Mark Lane is quite blatantly lying here. He omits the three shots that
were fired using just the iron sights and NEVER INFORMS THE READER!

As two of these three shots hit the target in the head area, Lane is then
able to go around making his outrageous claims THREE times in the space of
a few pages.

If you have a version of Rush To Judgment without footnotes it would be
almost impossible to discover his duplicity.

Preparing a defense brief is one thing. Blatantly lying in this manner is
quite another.

[Anthony Marsh]

You are not doing a very good job of defending the WC. Then you make the
blunder of actually showing everyone the target they were shooting at.
Unfortunately we are able to read the hand written legend on each board.
O means scope. X means iron sights.
Now look at the body silhouettes on CE582 and CE583.
No circles on the head or neck area. Using the telescope the top experts
were not able to hit the neck or head with the scope. Point proven.
But again Mark Lane was using the WC lies against themselves. He ran
with their LIE that one bullet hit JFK in the NECK. The target does not
show any circles in the neck area. What it does show is circles on the
BACK. But that would not match the WC's LIES.

Now here's a side question for you to ponder. Why were the expert
marksmen able to hit the head using the iron sights, but not able to hit
the head using the scope?
Why is there a marked difference in the grouping from the target at 175
feet and then at 240 feet? BTW, where did they come up with those
distances to test?

Mark Lane did not lie. He used some clever rhetoric to ridicule the WC
conclusions based on their faulty assumptions.
He never said they were not even able to hit the targets.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/27/2011 6:03 PM, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Oct 26, 12:15 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/25/2011 8:01 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, this is one of my favorites.
>>> I will just note that no CT has responded to this.
>>> The only possible defense I can imagine is that Lane made an honest
>>> mistake.
>>> But if you believe that, there's a bridge in my neighborhood going for a
>>> good price...
>>
>> We have written about it several times. WC defenders simply lie about what
>> Mark Lane wrote and what the WC evidence said.
>
> Lane said none of the shots hit the neck or head on the target.
> I see an X on the head in the top image on this page. I see an X on
> the head in the bottom image on this page:
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
> What do you see?
> Do you see those X's?
> Was Mark Lane right in saying "Not one of them struck the enlarged
> head or neck on the target even once".
>

X means sighting with the iron sights, not the scope.

[Anthony Marsh]

X means they used the iron sights, not the scope.

[Hank Sienzant]

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

> > Marsh has no defense for Lane's baldfaced lie, so he must retreat into
> > making undefensible assertions that we are somehow misquoting Lane.
>
> You are not doing a very good job of defending the WC. Then you make the
> blunder of actually showing everyone the target they were shooting at.
> Unfortunately we are able to read the hand written legend on each board.
> O means scope. X means iron sights.

Yes, I said that in one of my posts in this thread.
Thanks for repeating it.
Pamela may understand it yet.

> Now look at the body silhouettes on CE582 and CE583.
> No circles on the head or neck area.

Agreed.But two X's on the head, and Lane said there were none there.
Here's the quote again. What Lane did say was "Not one of them struck the
enlarged head or neck on the target even once" Is that statement correct
when you look at these targets:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

I see X's on both in the head area.

> Using the telescope the top experts
> were not able to hit the neck or head with the scope. Point proven.
> But again Mark Lane was using the WC lies against themselves. He ran
> with their LIE that one bullet hit JFK in the NECK.

You do understand that the target we are talking about is not JFK, but
the silohouettes pictured here, right?

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

Or maybe you don't.
You are arguing about where JFK's wound was, when the issue is what
was struck by the shooters shooting at the silohouettes, and what did
Mark Lane say about those targets.

> The target does not
> show any circles in the neck area. What it does show is circles on the
> BACK. But that would not match the WC's LIES.
>

You are confusing two separate issues.
1.Where was the wound in JFK, and what did the WC say about it?
2. where did the shots hit on the test targets, and what did Mark Lane
say about them?

This discussion is about point 2.
Why you are introducing an totally different issue here is beyond me,
unless you *really feel a need to change the subject* because you
cannot speak on the subject matter at hand.

> Now here's a side question for you to ponder. Why were the expert
> marksmen able to hit the head using the iron sights, but not able to hit
> the head using the scope?

Did it ever occur to you that nobody said to them to shoot at the
head?
Marksmen are trained to aim for the trunk, not the head, because the
trunk is a bigger target, isn't it?
What instructions were given to the shooters about where to aim?

> Why is there a marked difference in the grouping from the target at 175
> feet and then at 240 feet? BTW, where did they come up with those
> distances to test?

They initially thought two of the three shots struck at those
distances.
They had to move one offline of the other (a problem Oswald didn't
have) because aligning them correctly meant the earlier target
concealed part of the latter one.

>
> Mark Lane did not lie. He used some clever rhetoric to ridicule the WC
> conclusions based on their faulty assumptions.

No, he's talking about the target silohouettes, not where the WC
concluded JFK was struck. Lane wrote: "Not one of them struck the
enlarged head or neck *ON THE TARGET* even once" [emphasis added]

Unless you imagine the target was JFK, and JFK had an enlarged head
and neck, and these expert shooters shot at JFK's enlarged head or
neck during the assassination, the argument you are advancing at this
point is just absolute nonsense.

Lane was not ridiculing some WC conclusions. He was lying about what
the results of the test shooting at silohoette targets was.

> He never said they were not even able to hit the targets.

lol.

Speaking of reading comprehension, nobody said that. Until you did just
now. So what is this except yet another straw argument, of course!

What Lane did say was "Not one of them struck the enlarged head or neck on
the target even once" You do see the targets with the X's marked on the
head of the target? That means they were struck there, and that means Lane
lied when he wrote the above.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Mark Lane did not say X's. He was talking about hits using the scope as
the WC claimed.

> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
>
> I see X's on both in the head area.
>
>> Using the telescope the top experts
>> were not able to hit the neck or head with the scope. Point proven.
>> But again Mark Lane was using the WC lies against themselves. He ran
>> with their LIE that one bullet hit JFK in the NECK.
>
> You do understand that the target we are talking about is not JFK, but
> the silohouettes pictured here, right?
>

Mark Lane said targets didn't he? He didn't say JFK. Neither did I.

> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
>
> Or maybe you don't.
> You are arguing about where JFK's wound was, when the issue is what
> was struck by the shooters shooting at the silohouettes, and what did
> Mark Lane say about those targets.
>

Mark Lane was using their lie against them. It is a rhetorical trick.
Not a straw man argument. Like when someone uses the wrong word and you
pretend that they meant something other than what they intended.

>
>
>
>> The target does not
>> show any circles in the neck area. What it does show is circles on the
>> BACK. But that would not match the WC's LIES.
>>
>
> You are confusing two separate issues.
> 1.Where was the wound in JFK, and what did the WC say about it?
> 2. where did the shots hit on the test targets, and what did Mark Lane
> say about them?
>
> This discussion is about point 2.
> Why you are introducing an totally different issue here is beyond me,
> unless you *really feel a need to change the subject* because you
> cannot speak on the subject matter at hand.
>

Because I am pointing out the trick Mark Lane used. He did not lie. He
used the WC's lie to show why their statement was wrong.

>
>
>
>> Now here's a side question for you to ponder. Why were the expert
>> marksmen able to hit the head using the iron sights, but not able to hit
>> the head using the scope?
>
> Did it ever occur to you that nobody said to them to shoot at the
> head?
> Marksmen are trained to aim for the trunk, not the head, because the
> trunk is a bigger target, isn't it?
> What instructions were given to the shooters about where to aim?
>

Fine, but for THIS test where were the marksmen INSTRUCTED to aim for?
Where was JFK hit? In the HEAD. That was their bullseye.

>
>> Why is there a marked difference in the grouping from the target at 175
>> feet and then at 240 feet? BTW, where did they come up with those
>> distances to test?
>
> They initially thought two of the three shots struck at those
> distances.

Fine. Show me how they arrived at that conclusion? Were they drunk at
the time?

> They had to move one offline of the other (a problem Oswald didn't
> have) because aligning them correctly meant the earlier target
> concealed part of the latter one.
>

Sounds good, but show me in fact that it could obscure the more distant
target. Wasn't this at stationary targets supposedly representing the
position of the limo at certain Zapruder frames like Z-210 and Z-313?
Diagram the limo position at those frames and then draw a straight line
from the sniper's nest and see how widely the lines diverge from each
other for Z-210 and Z-313.

>>
>> Mark Lane did not lie. He used some clever rhetoric to ridicule the WC
>> conclusions based on their faulty assumptions.
>
> No, he's talking about the target silohouettes, not where the WC
> concluded JFK was struck. Lane wrote: "Not one of them struck the
> enlarged head or neck *ON THE TARGET* even once" [emphasis added]
>
> Unless you imagine the target was JFK, and JFK had an enlarged head
> and neck, and these expert shooters shot at JFK's enlarged head or
> neck during the assassination, the argument you are advancing at this
> point is just absolute nonsense.
>

Jeez, why not use an enlarged target much bigger than JFK's actual head?
That would make it even easier to hit at those distances!
Nothing like cheating, eh?

> Lane was not ridiculing some WC conclusions. He was lying about what
> the results of the test shooting at silohoette targets was.
>

No. He was making fun of the WC's test.

>
>
>> He never said they were not even able to hit the targets.
>
> lol.
>
> Speaking of reading comprehension, nobody said that. Until you did just
> now. So what is this except yet another straw argument, of course!
>

A straw man argument is when you claim that someone said something that
they didn't. I said he DIDN'T say it.

> What Lane did say was "Not one of them struck the enlarged head or neck on
> the target even once" You do see the targets with the X's marked on the
> head of the target? That means they were struck there, and that means Lane
> lied when he wrote the above.
>

The X's not the circles.

> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
>
>

[Sandy McCroskey]

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

>
> > I see X's on both in the head area.
>
> >> Using the telescope the top experts
> >> were not able to hit the neck or head with the scope. Point proven.
> >> But again Mark Lane was using the WC lies against themselves. He ran
> >> with their LIE that one bullet hit JFK in the NECK.
>
> > You do understand that the target we are talking about is not JFK, but
> > the silohouettes pictured here, right?
>
> Mark Lane said targets didn't he? He didn't say JFK. Neither did I.
>

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

>
> > Or maybe you don't.
> > You are arguing about where JFK's wound was, when the issue is what
> > was struck by the shooters shooting at the silohouettes, and what did
> > Mark Lane say about those targets.
>
> Mark Lane was using their lie against them. It is a rhetorical trick.
> Not a straw man argument. Like when someone uses the wrong word and you
> pretend that they meant something other than what they intended.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> The target does not
> >> show any circles in the neck area. What it does show is circles on the
> >> BACK. But that would not match the WC's LIES.
>
> > You are confusing two separate issues.
> > 1.Where was the wound in JFK, and what did the WC say about it?
> > 2. where did the shots hit on the test targets, and what did Mark Lane
> > say about them?
>
> > This discussion is about point 2.
> > Why you are introducing an totally different issue here is beyond me,
> > unless you *really feel a need to change the subject* because you
> > cannot speak on the subject matter at hand.
>
> Because I am pointing out the trick Mark Lane used. He did not lie. He
> used the WC's lie to show why their statement was wrong.
>

You're incredible. To you, an obvious, overt lie is just "clever
rhetoric."
At this point, I'm no longer surprised. But let's just stop and marvel
at this masterpiece of Marsh pettifoggery.

So the WC "lied" in postulating that Oswald used the scope... (when
what really happened was, Oswald hit JFK using the iron sights?)
But on the other hand, you say Mark Lane isn't lying when he states
unequivocally and without qualification that none of the marksmen ever
hit the target in the head area at all, period. No, that was just a
rhetorical ploy, to draw attention to the lie about Oswald"s having
used the scope.
Oh, I see.
Well, I don't see how anyone can know for certain whether Oswald used
the scope (or what condition the scope was in when/if he used it) or
if he used the iron sights, although these tests indicate that he
might have used the sights.
And if the WC thought it was entirely out of the question that Oswald
used the sights, the marksmen would not have been instructed to use
the sights.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

Once again you make up a phony version and claim I said it.
The WC lied about the location of the wound, moving it from the BACK up
to the neck. Mark Lane would be lying if he said that no expert had been
able to use the scope and hit the head or the back. But the WC claim was
NECK so that is what Mark Lane said and he was correct.

> what really happened was, Oswald hit JFK using the iron sights?)

Some of us think it more likely that the shooter used the iron sights in
Dealey Plaza. So did the experts at Failure Analysis Associates.

> But on the other hand, you say Mark Lane isn't lying when he states
> unequivocally and without qualification that none of the marksmen ever
> hit the target in the head area at all, period. No, that was just a

I didn't say period.
I said based on the WC assumptions.

> rhetorical ploy, to draw attention to the lie about Oswald"s having
> used the scope.
> Oh, I see.
> Well, I don't see how anyone can know for certain whether Oswald used
> the scope (or what condition the scope was in when/if he used it) or
> if he used the iron sights, although these tests indicate that he
> might have used the sights.
> And if the WC thought it was entirely out of the question that Oswald
> used the sights, the marksmen would not have been instructed to use
> the sights.
>

I think Oswald missed Walker because he was using the scope, but he
couldn't figure out why.
He had never used a scope before.

> /sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

I can go only by your own words, Marsh. Nowhere in this thread had you
yet said anything about the location of the wound.

> The WC lied about the location of the wound, moving it from the BACK up
> to the neck. Mark Lane would be lying if he said that no expert had been
> able to use the scope and hit the head or the back. But the WC claim was
> NECK so that is what Mark Lane said and he was correct.
>

Mark Lane did *not* say that no expert had been able to hit the head
or neck *using the scope*, he said no expert had been able to hit the
head or neck, *period.*

> > what really happened was, Oswald hit JFK using the iron sights?)
>
> Some of us think it more likely that the shooter used the iron sights in
> Dealey Plaza. So did the experts at Failure Analysis Associates.
>
> > But on the other hand, you say Mark Lane isn't lying when he states
> > unequivocally and without qualification that none of the marksmen ever
> > hit the target in the head area at all, period. No, that was just a
>
> I didn't say period.

No, but Mark Lane *did* and you're only trying to avoid that fact.

> I said based on the WC assumptions.
>

That's a nonsensical statement.
/sm

[timstter]

On Oct 28, 12:23 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/27/2011 6:03 PM, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 26, 12:15 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>  wrote:
> >> On 10/25/2011 8:01 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>
> >>> Yeah, this is one of my favorites.
> >>> I will just note that no CT has responded to this.
> >>> The only possible defense I can imagine is that Lane made an honest
> >>> mistake.
> >>> But if you believe that, there's a bridge in my neighborhood going for a
> >>> good price...
>
> >> We have written about it several times. WC defenders simply lie about what
> >> Mark Lane wrote and what the WC evidence said.
>
> > Lane said none of the shots hit the neck or head on the target.
> > I see an X on the head in the top image on this page. I see an X on
> > the head in the bottom image on this page:

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

So what? Where does Lane even ONCE inform the reader that he has
ARBITRARILY decided to deduct the three shots that were fired with the
iron sights, two of which struck in the head area of the target?

NOWHERE, that's where. It is a BLATANT lie of omission by Lane.

His OUTRIGHT lie, repeated THREE times in the space of a few pages, is
that NOT ONE of the experts struck the head of the target even ONCE but
the citation he gives proves him wrong:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

You should stop making excuses for his blatant lies, Marsh.

X marks the spot, Marsh. The spot that PROVES Mark Lane lied.

Informative Regards,

[Anthony Marsh]

I assumed that you had been here long enough to know that the WC lied
about the location of the back wound and called it a neck wound.

>
>
>> The WC lied about the location of the wound, moving it from the BACK up
>> to the neck. Mark Lane would be lying if he said that no expert had been
>> able to use the scope and hit the head or the back. But the WC claim was
>> NECK so that is what Mark Lane said and he was correct.
>>
>
> Mark Lane did *not* say that no expert had been able to hit the head
> or neck *using the scope*, he said no expert had been able to hit the
> head or neck, *period.*
>

He didn't say "period."

>>> what really happened was, Oswald hit JFK using the iron sights?)
>>
>> Some of us think it more likely that the shooter used the iron sights in
>> Dealey Plaza. So did the experts at Failure Analysis Associates.
>>
>>> But on the other hand, you say Mark Lane isn't lying when he states
>>> unequivocally and without qualification that none of the marksmen ever
>>> hit the target in the head area at all, period. No, that was just a
>>
>> I didn't say period.
>
> No, but Mark Lane *did* and you're only trying to avoid that fact.
>

No, Mark Lane did not say "period."

>> I said based on the WC assumptions.
>>
>
> That's a nonsensical statement.
> /sm

If he is criticizing a WC point then he has to base it on the WC
assumptions.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Those are asterisks, Tony, not quotemarks.
There are no quotemarks at all in my paraphrase.
But my paraphrase is entirely accurate, whereas your gloss on Lane's
words is merely a wild fantasy, and that's assuming (which I doubt)
that you believe it yourself.

> >>> what really happened was, Oswald hit JFK using the iron sights?)
>
> >> Some of us think it more likely that the shooter used the iron sights in
> >> Dealey Plaza. So did the experts at Failure Analysis Associates.
>
> >>> But on the other hand, you say Mark Lane isn't lying when he states
> >>> unequivocally and without qualification that none of the marksmen ever
> >>> hit the target in the head area at all, period. No, that was just a
>
> >> I didn't say period.
>
> > No, but Mark Lane *did* and you're only trying to avoid that fact.
>
> No, Mark Lane did not say "period."

You see, Tony, I say "period" to point out that the statement I
paraphrased was not qualified by Lane in any way.
He simply repeats that all the marksmen were unable to hit that part
of the target.

>
> >> I said based on the WC assumptions.
>
> > That's a nonsensical statement.
> > /sm
>
> If he is criticizing a WC point then he has to base it on the WC
> assumptions.

The only WC point Lane was "contesting" here—actually, blatantly lying
about—is whether the WC marksmen hit the head/neck area of the target.
If he had any straightforward, non-duplicitous reason for not counting
the shots with the sights, he would have said so.
Not a word about that though. Not the faintest hint. He never mentions
the shots with the sights. He was just hoping people wouldn't notice.

This makes at least your second attempt at exonerating Lane on this
matter. I note that it is entirely distinct from the first.
Why don't you try to come up with yet another one?
Very entertaining.
/sm

[timstter]

This is one of the WEAKEST arguments you have ever mounted, Marsh.

Lane DID NOT inform the readers of Rush To Judgment that he had
decided to arbitrarily deduct the shots fired using the iron sights
from the test results.

He BLATANTLY lied, period.

Informative Regards,

[Anthony Marsh]

How would you even know when you refuse to read his book and can't quote
it accurately?

>>
>>>> I said based on the WC assumptions.
>>
>>> That's a nonsensical statement.
>>> /sm
>>
>> If he is criticizing a WC point then he has to base it on the WC
>> assumptions.
>

> The only WC point Lane was "contesting" here�actually, blatantly lying
> about�is whether the WC marksmen hit the head/neck area of the target.

[Sandy McCroskey]

It sure looks like you're the one who hasn't read it!

/sm

[Pamela Brown]

On Oct 25, 11:58 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 12:10 am, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > On Oct 25, 7:01 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > Yeah, this is one of my favorites.
> > > I will just note that no CT has responded to this.
> > > The only possible defense I can imagine is that Lane made an honest mistake.
> > > But if you believe that, there's a bridge in my neighborhood going for a
> > > good price...
>

> > That is a diagram, not a statement.  What if he thought the Xs were where
> > the sight was, not where the shots were?
>

> Why in the world would he think that?
> Was he insane?
>
> > Besides, these are stationary targets.  Not even the same thing as the
> > assassination.
>
> How does that pertain to Mark Lane's misrepresention—oh, to hell with
> the euphemism, his LIE about what the picture shows, plain as day? (It
> doesn't.)
>
> /sm

No they don't. Why not analyze the photo objectively? Is everyone who
doesn't see things precisely as you do 'lying'?

Gee, where on earth would that come from???

[Sandy McCroskey]

On Nov 1, 10:12 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 25, 11:58 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 26, 12:10 am, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 25, 7:01 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Yeah, this is one of my favorites.
> > > > I will just note that no CT has responded to this.
> > > > The only possible defense I can imagine is that Lane made an honest mistake.
> > > > But if you believe that, there's a bridge in my neighborhood going for a
> > > > good price...
>
> > > That is a diagram, not a statement.  What if he thought the Xs were where
> > > the sight was, not where the shots were?
>
> > Why in the world would he think that?
> > Was he insane?
>
> > > Besides, these are stationary targets.  Not even the same thing as the
> > > assassination.
>
> > How does that pertain to Mark Lane's misrepresention—oh, to hell with
> > the euphemism, his LIE about what the picture shows, plain as day? (It
> > doesn't.)
>
> > /sm
>
> No they don't.

I have no idea who "they" is here nor what they don't do.

>  Why not analyze the photo objectively?

Yes, why don't you?

>  Is everyone who
> doesn't see things precisely as you do 'lying'?
>

What the picture shows and its obvious contradiction of what Mark Lane
said it shows are both obvious. The picture could not be clearer and
Mark Lane could not have been more unequivocal.
If Mark Lane wasn't lying, then he was just incredibly stupid.
Take your pick!
/sandy

[Hank Sienzant]

Please quote to me the portion of the statement where Lane
specifically excludes shots with the iron sights, and says he is
talking about hits using the scope.
We both know you can't, because Lane doesn't qualify it anywhere in
his book.

>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

>
> > I see X's on both in the head area.
>
> >> Using the telescope the top experts
> >> were not able to hit the neck or head with the scope. Point proven.
> >> But again Mark Lane was using the WC lies against themselves. He ran
> >> with their LIE that one bullet hit JFK in the NECK.
>
> > You do understand that the target we are talking about is not JFK, but
> > the silohouettes pictured here, right?
>
> Mark Lane said targets didn't he? He didn't say JFK. Neither did I.

You just did above. Can't you read?
You just said Lane was talking about JFK, not the targets, when you
wrote this:

"But again Mark Lane was using the WC lies against themselves. He ran
with their LIE that one bullet hit JFK in the NECK."

You are talking about JFK, and not the targets, in the above.
In short, you are trying to change the subject.


>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

>
> > Or maybe you don't.
> > You are arguing about where JFK's wound was, when the issue is what
> > was struck by the shooters shooting at the silohouettes, and what did
> > Mark Lane say about those targets.
>
> Mark Lane was using their lie against them. It is a rhetorical trick.
> Not a straw man argument. Like when someone uses the wrong word and you
> pretend that they meant something other than what they intended.
>
>

Not sure what you mean, but I don't pretend to do that. Maybe you do.
The bottom line is you are claiming it was rhetorical trick, but you
always resort to that claim whenever you have no evidence to support
your argument. You've now done it numerous times to me, in almost
every thread we've discussed the evidence in the past month or two.

>
>
>
>
>
> >> The target does not
> >> show any circles in the neck area. What it does show is circles on the
> >> BACK. But that would not match the WC's LIES.
>
> > You are confusing two separate issues.
> > 1.Where was the wound in JFK, and what did the WC say about it?
> > 2. where did the shots hit on the test targets, and what did Mark Lane
> > say about them?
>
> > This discussion is about point 2.
> > Why you are introducing an totally different issue here is beyond me,
> > unless you *really feel a need to change the subject* because you
> > cannot speak on the subject matter at hand.
>
> Because I am pointing out the trick Mark Lane used. He did not lie. He
> used the WC's lie to show why their statement was wrong.

You are saying the issue is about something else than what Lane is
writing about. Bet you cannot quote anything from Lane that supports
your argument.

The Warren Commission didn't lie about where the shots that hit the
targets landed.
Mark Lane did.

>
>
>
> >> Now here's a side question for you to ponder. Why were the expert
> >> marksmen able to hit the head using the iron sights, but not able to hit
> >> the head using the scope?
>
> > Did it ever occur to you that nobody said to them to shoot at the
> > head?
> > Marksmen are trained to aim for the trunk, not the head, because the
> > trunk is a bigger target, isn't it?
> > What instructions were given to the shooters about where to aim?
>
> Fine, but for THIS test where were the marksmen INSTRUCTED to aim for?
> Where was JFK hit? In the HEAD. That was their bullseye.

Says who? You? Where do you see in this test they were instructed to
aim for the head?

>
>
>
> >> Why is there a marked difference in the grouping from the target at 175
> >> feet and then at 240 feet? BTW, where did they come up with those
> >> distances to test?
>
> > They initially thought two of the three shots struck at those
> > distances.
>
> Fine. Show me how they arrived at that conclusion? Were they drunk at
> the time?

Tony, you are getting off the point again.
The point is, did Lane lie when he wrote "Not one of them struck the

enlarged head or neck on the target even once"

I say that is untrue as two shots did hit the target in that area. You
admitted you saw the x's too above, so you know it is likewise untrue.

If you think Lane is talking about shots with the scope only, quote
where he says he is excluding the shots with the iron sights.

>
> > They had to move one offline of the other (a problem Oswald didn't
> > have) because aligning them correctly meant the earlier target
> > concealed part of the latter one.
>
> Sounds good, but show me in fact that it could obscure the more distant
> target. Wasn't this at stationary targets supposedly representing the
> position of the limo at certain Zapruder frames like Z-210 and Z-313?
> Diagram the limo position at those frames and then draw a straight line
> from the sniper's nest and see how widely the lines diverge from each
> other for Z-210 and Z-313.

Nope, side issue. You want to argue about other stuff, and I have to
keep dragging you back to the issue under discussion here.
Did Lane lie when he wrote: "Not one of them struck the enlarged head

or neck on the target even once"

You saw the X's. You admit two shots hit the area Lane said none of
the shots hit.

>
>
>
> >> Mark Lane did not lie. He used some clever rhetoric to ridicule the WC
> >> conclusions based on their faulty assumptions.
>
> > No, he's talking about the target silohouettes, not where the WC
> > concluded JFK was struck. Lane wrote:  "Not one of them struck the
> > enlarged head or neck *ON THE TARGET* even once" [emphasis added]
>
> > Unless you imagine the target was JFK, and JFK had an enlarged head
> > and neck, and these expert shooters shot at JFK's enlarged head or
> > neck during the assassination, the argument you are advancing at this
> > point is just absolute nonsense.
>
> Jeez, why not use an enlarged target much bigger than JFK's actual head?
> That would make it even easier to hit at those distances!
> Nothing like cheating, eh?

Again, the argument you are advancing is just nonsense.
Those were standard silhouettes used in shooting tests.
There was no cheating.
The only cheater was Lane, who lied about the results.

>
> > Lane was not ridiculing some WC conclusions. He was lying about what
> > the results of the test shooting at silohoette targets was.
>
> No. He was making fun of the WC's test.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but you quote nothing that supports that
conclusion.
If you had anything that supported it, you would have quoted it
already.

>
>
>
> >> He never said they were not even able to hit the targets.
>
> > lol.
>
> > Speaking of reading comprehension, nobody said that. Until you did just
> > now. So what is this except yet another straw argument, of course!
>
> A straw man argument is when you claim that someone said something that
> they didn't. I said he DIDN'T say it.

A straw argument is where you rebut a claim your opponent has not
advanced.
And when you wrote "He never said they were not even able to hit the
targets" that is properly defined as a straw argument, because nobody
has brought up that silly claim until you did, to rebut it.

The claim is that Lane lied when he said nobody hit the Head or Neck.
I am capitalizing them so you understand the claim a little better.
Here's his statement again. "Not one of them struck the enlarged head
or neck on the target even once". I (and others) have said that's a
lie.
But you are arguing against a claim I didn't make -- you argue "He

never said they were not even able to hit the targets."

And that is a straw argument.

Go ahead, claim it was just satire or a rhetoric devise or you were
being ironic.

>
> > What Lane did say was "Not one of them struck the enlarged head or neck on
> > the target even once" You do see the targets with the X's marked on the
> > head of the target? That means they were struck there, and that means Lane
> > lied when he wrote the above.
>
> The X's not the circles.

Yep. The X's you see, and Lane ignored when he wrote "Not one of them

struck the enlarged head or neck on the target even once"

The X's you admit you see prove Lane lied.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Oct 27, 8:23 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/27/2011 6:03 PM, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 26, 12:15 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>  wrote:
> >> On 10/25/2011 8:01 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>
> >>> Yeah, this is one of my favorites.
> >>> I will just note that no CT has responded to this.
> >>> The only possible defense I can imagine is that Lane made an honest
> >>> mistake.
> >>> But if you believe that, there's a bridge in my neighborhood going for a
> >>> good price...
>
> >> We have written about it several times. WC defenders simply lie about what
> >> Mark Lane wrote and what the WC evidence said.
>
> > Lane said none of the shots hit the neck or head on the target.
> > I see an X on the head in the top image on this page. I see an X on
> > the head in the bottom image on this page:

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

> > What do you see?
> > Do you see those X's?
> > Was Mark Lane right in saying "Not one of them struck the enlarged
> > head or neck on the target even once".
>
> X means sighting with the iron sights, not the scope.

Yep. So you do see those X's. Now, did Mark Lane mention them at all?
You saw them. I see them. We both know they exist.
But readers of Lane's book, relying on Lane for their knowledge of the
shootings, won't know they exist.
Now, did Lane lie by failing to mention those shots, and in writing
this:

"Although the conditions of the test tended to diminish the
difficulties, two out of the the three expert riflemen were unable to
shoot as fast at stationary targets as the so-called assassin had shot
at a moving one. (90) Not one of them struck the enlarged head or neck
on the target even once, (91) while Oswald is supposed to have done it
twice. (92)
>

"Not one of them [the expert shooters] struck the enlarged head or

neck on the target even once".

That's a lie, since you admitted you see the X's.
Lane didn't qualify his statement in any way.
You want to pretend he was talking about shots with the scope only,
but that is not what Lane says.

> >>>> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*- Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Anthony Marsh]

How would you known when you refuse to read his book?

[Anthony Marsh]

Of course they lied. About everything. They didn't tell you about the
bullets which missed the target entirely. How how many times the rifle
jammed. And you like that.

[timstter]

> ...
>
> read more »

Where is your answer as to where Lane informed his readers that he was
omitting the iron sight shots, Marsh?

That seems to be missing.

Now, why is that?

Curious Regards,

[timstter]

TOP POST

YOO HOO! MARSH! I'll repeat my question so you don't miss it.

Where is your answer as to where Lane informed his readers that he was
omitting the iron sight shots, Marsh?

That seems to be missing.

Now, why is that?

Curious Regards,

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

> ...
>
> read more »

[Anthony Marsh]

He never mentioned the iron sights because that was not the WC's theory.