Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Mark Lane #93
40 views
Skip to first unread message
John McAdams
Sep 20, 2012, 7:29:02 PM9/20/12
to
On 20 Sep 2012 07:11:08 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
wrote:
>In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission guessed
>that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting Oswald.
>
>"Brennan said that from between 12:22 and 12:24, when he reached his position,
>to the moment when the motorcade arrived, he saw a man leave and return to the
>window 'a couple of times'. The Commission reported that 'Brennan saw the man
>fire the last shot and disappear from the window' and that 'within minutes of
>the assassination, Brennan described the man to the police. This description
>most probably led to the radio alert sent to police cars at approximately 12:45
>p.m., which described the suspect as white, slender, weighing about 165 pounds,
>about 5'10" tall, and in his early thirties."
>
>Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission's guess as to why the DPD wanted
>Oswald.
But at 12:45 the DPD did not want any "Oswald."
Lane is lying again.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/capture30.ram
The WC version is the best historical guess about what happened, but
it really doesn't matter.
*Somebody* (probably Brennan) who had seen the shooter gave a
description to Inspt. Sawyer, which he radioed to the dispatcher, and
which was then broadcast.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission guessed
>that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting Oswald.
>
>"Brennan said that from between 12:22 and 12:24, when he reached his position,
>to the moment when the motorcade arrived, he saw a man leave and return to the
>window 'a couple of times'. The Commission reported that 'Brennan saw the man
>fire the last shot and disappear from the window' and that 'within minutes of
>the assassination, Brennan described the man to the police. This description
>most probably led to the radio alert sent to police cars at approximately 12:45
>p.m., which described the suspect as white, slender, weighing about 165 pounds,
>about 5'10" tall, and in his early thirties."
>
>Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission's guess as to why the DPD wanted
>Oswald.
But at 12:45 the DPD did not want any "Oswald."
Lane is lying again.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/capture30.ram
The WC version is the best historical guess about what happened, but
it really doesn't matter.
*Somebody* (probably Brennan) who had seen the shooter gave a
description to Inspt. Sawyer, which he radioed to the dispatcher, and
which was then broadcast.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bud
Sep 20, 2012, 8:48:20 PM9/20/12
to
On Sep 20, 10:11 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission guessed
> that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting Oswald.
"surmised" would be a better word than "guessed".
> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission guessed
> that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting Oswald.
Brennan saw the shooter and went to police shortly after the shooting
with information about the shooter. It doesn`t seem likely that the police
would not try to use this information to locate and identify the shooter.
> "Brennan said that from between 12:22 and 12:24, when he reached his position,
> to the moment when the motorcade arrived, he saw a man leave and return to the
> window 'a couple of times'. The Commission reported that 'Brennan saw the man
> fire the last shot and disappear from the window' and that 'within minutes of
> the assassination, Brennan described the man to the police. This description
> most probably led to the radio alert sent to police cars at approximately 12:45
> p.m., which described the suspect as white, slender, weighing about 165 pounds,
> about 5'10" tall, and in his early thirties."
>
> Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission's guess as to why the DPD wanted
> Oswald.
shooter. Brennan described that shooter to police. That shooter turned out
to be Oswald, but Brennan never supplied that name to police.
> (Brennan) Johnny McAdams should pay special attention to this, as he
> lied and said that Mark Lane was dishonest on this point.
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
Anthony Marsh
Sep 20, 2012, 8:58:57 PM9/20/12
to
On 9/20/2012 7:29 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 20 Sep 2012 07:11:08 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission guessed
>> that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting Oswald.
>>
>> "Brennan said that from between 12:22 and 12:24, when he reached his position,
>> to the moment when the motorcade arrived, he saw a man leave and return to the
>> window 'a couple of times'. The Commission reported that 'Brennan saw the man
>> fire the last shot and disappear from the window' and that 'within minutes of
>> the assassination, Brennan described the man to the police. This description
>> most probably led to the radio alert sent to police cars at approximately 12:45
>> p.m., which described the suspect as white, slender, weighing about 165 pounds,
>> about 5'10" tall, and in his early thirties."
>>
>> Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission's guess as to why the DPD wanted
>> Oswald.
>
> But at 12:45 the DPD did not want any "Oswald."
>
Exactly when did Truly tell the DPD that Oswald was missing?
> On 20 Sep 2012 07:11:08 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission guessed
>> that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting Oswald.
>>
>> "Brennan said that from between 12:22 and 12:24, when he reached his position,
>> to the moment when the motorcade arrived, he saw a man leave and return to the
>> window 'a couple of times'. The Commission reported that 'Brennan saw the man
>> fire the last shot and disappear from the window' and that 'within minutes of
>> the assassination, Brennan described the man to the police. This description
>> most probably led to the radio alert sent to police cars at approximately 12:45
>> p.m., which described the suspect as white, slender, weighing about 165 pounds,
>> about 5'10" tall, and in his early thirties."
>>
>> Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission's guess as to why the DPD wanted
>> Oswald.
>
> But at 12:45 the DPD did not want any "Oswald."
>
Please list the exact minute and cite your source.
> Lane is lying again.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/capture30.ram
>
> The WC version is the best historical guess about what happened, but
> it really doesn't matter.
>
Guess that puts you in good company.
> *Somebody* (probably Brennan) who had seen the shooter gave a
> description to Inspt. Sawyer, which he radioed to the dispatcher, and
> which was then broadcast.
>
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
Ben Holmes
Sep 21, 2012, 6:18:23 PM9/21/12
to
In article <505baa37$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
Kleagle, a reporter, who was standing nearby. I've already cited for this
many times. I can't be blamed if Tony never took the time to read the
citation.
Tony somehow believes that these sort of questions 'prove' something, but
I can answer 'em all day long.
Mark Lane quoted D.A. Wade asserting that the DPD *DID* want Oswald. Mark
Lane would *indeed* be a liar had he refused to address it. Ditto with
Capt. Gannaway. Ditto with Police Chief Jesse Curry.
John labels Mark Lane a liar for quoting and detailing these witnesses.
It's evidently okay to quote witnesses as long as you *ONLY* quote
sections that seem to support the WCR's theory.
>> Lane is lying again.
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/capture30.ram
>>
>> The WC version is the best historical guess about what happened, but
>> it really doesn't matter.
>>
>
>Well, finally after 28 years you admit that the WC was just guessing.
>Guess that puts you in good company.
>
>> *Somebody* (probably Brennan) who had seen the shooter gave a
>> description to Inspt. Sawyer, which he radioed to the dispatcher, and
>> which was then broadcast.
>>
>
>Slightly better. How about *somebody* (maybe the CIA)?
>
>> .John
>> --------------
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>
>
>
>On 9/20/2012 7:29 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 20 Sep 2012 07:11:08 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission guessed
>>> that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting Oswald.
>>>
>>>"Brennan said that from between 12:22 and 12:24, when he reached his position,
>>>to the moment when the motorcade arrived, he saw a man leave and return to the
>>>window 'a couple of times'. The Commission reported that 'Brennan saw the man
>>>fire the last shot and disappear from the window' and that 'within minutes of
>>> the assassination, Brennan described the man to the police. This description
>>>most probably led to the radio alert sent to police cars at approximately 12:45
>>>p.m., which described the suspect as white, slender, weighing about 165 pounds,
>>> about 5'10" tall, and in his early thirties."
>>>
>>> Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission's guess as to why the DPD wanted
>>> Oswald.
>>
>> But at 12:45 the DPD did not want any "Oswald."
>>
>
>Exactly when did Truly tell the DPD that Oswald was missing?
>Please list the exact minute and cite your source.
At 12:43... actually about 32 seconds after 12:43. My source is John
>On 9/20/2012 7:29 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 20 Sep 2012 07:11:08 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission guessed
>>> that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting Oswald.
>>>
>>>"Brennan said that from between 12:22 and 12:24, when he reached his position,
>>>to the moment when the motorcade arrived, he saw a man leave and return to the
>>>window 'a couple of times'. The Commission reported that 'Brennan saw the man
>>>fire the last shot and disappear from the window' and that 'within minutes of
>>> the assassination, Brennan described the man to the police. This description
>>>most probably led to the radio alert sent to police cars at approximately 12:45
>>>p.m., which described the suspect as white, slender, weighing about 165 pounds,
>>> about 5'10" tall, and in his early thirties."
>>>
>>> Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission's guess as to why the DPD wanted
>>> Oswald.
>>
>> But at 12:45 the DPD did not want any "Oswald."
>>
>
>Exactly when did Truly tell the DPD that Oswald was missing?
>Please list the exact minute and cite your source.
Kleagle, a reporter, who was standing nearby. I've already cited for this
many times. I can't be blamed if Tony never took the time to read the
citation.
Tony somehow believes that these sort of questions 'prove' something, but
I can answer 'em all day long.
Mark Lane quoted D.A. Wade asserting that the DPD *DID* want Oswald. Mark
Lane would *indeed* be a liar had he refused to address it. Ditto with
Capt. Gannaway. Ditto with Police Chief Jesse Curry.
John labels Mark Lane a liar for quoting and detailing these witnesses.
It's evidently okay to quote witnesses as long as you *ONLY* quote
sections that seem to support the WCR's theory.
>> Lane is lying again.
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/capture30.ram
>>
>> The WC version is the best historical guess about what happened, but
>> it really doesn't matter.
>>
>
>Well, finally after 28 years you admit that the WC was just guessing.
>Guess that puts you in good company.
>
>> *Somebody* (probably Brennan) who had seen the shooter gave a
>> description to Inspt. Sawyer, which he radioed to the dispatcher, and
>> which was then broadcast.
>>
>
>Slightly better. How about *somebody* (maybe the CIA)?
>
>> .John
>> --------------
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>
>
John McAdams
Sep 22, 2012, 7:58:54 PM9/22/12
to
On 20 Sep 2012 20:58:57 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Read the WCR, Tony.
They go through the reasons for thinking Brennan supplied the ID,
including the fact that his known descriptions closely fit what was
broadcast.
That's what good history is. They don't claim certainty, because it's
not certain, but it's very likely.
>> *Somebody* (probably Brennan) who had seen the shooter gave a
>> description to Inspt. Sawyer, which he radioed to the dispatcher, and
>> which was then broadcast.
>>
>
>Slightly better. How about *somebody* (maybe the CIA)?
>
Poor Tony. Sees spooks everywhere.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
They go through the reasons for thinking Brennan supplied the ID,
including the fact that his known descriptions closely fit what was
broadcast.
That's what good history is. They don't claim certainty, because it's
not certain, but it's very likely.
>> *Somebody* (probably Brennan) who had seen the shooter gave a
>> description to Inspt. Sawyer, which he radioed to the dispatcher, and
>> which was then broadcast.
>>
>
>Slightly better. How about *somebody* (maybe the CIA)?
>
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
Sep 22, 2012, 8:01:09 PM9/22/12
to
On 21 Sep 2012 18:18:23 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
That's the best source. Lane lied when he implied otherwise.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>In article <505baa37$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>>On 9/20/2012 7:29 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 20 Sep 2012 07:11:08 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission guessed
>>>> that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting Oswald.
>>>>
>>>>"Brennan said that from between 12:22 and 12:24, when he reached his position,
>>>>to the moment when the motorcade arrived, he saw a man leave and return to the
>>>>window 'a couple of times'. The Commission reported that 'Brennan saw the man
>>>>fire the last shot and disappear from the window' and that 'within minutes of
>>>> the assassination, Brennan described the man to the police. This description
>>>>most probably led to the radio alert sent to police cars at approximately 12:45
>>>>p.m., which described the suspect as white, slender, weighing about 165 pounds,
>>>> about 5'10" tall, and in his early thirties."
>>>>
>>>> Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission's guess as to why the DPD wanted
>>>> Oswald.
>>>
>>> But at 12:45 the DPD did not want any "Oswald."
>>>
>>
>>Exactly when did Truly tell the DPD that Oswald was missing?
>>Please list the exact minute and cite your source.
>
>
>
>At 12:43... actually about 32 seconds after 12:43. My source is John
>Kleagle, a reporter, who was standing nearby. I've already cited for this
>many times. I can't be blamed if Tony never took the time to read the
>citation.
>
But the broadcast at 12:45 says an *unknown* white man.
>In article <505baa37$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>>On 9/20/2012 7:29 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 20 Sep 2012 07:11:08 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission guessed
>>>> that Brennan might have provided the reason for the DPD wanting Oswald.
>>>>
>>>>"Brennan said that from between 12:22 and 12:24, when he reached his position,
>>>>to the moment when the motorcade arrived, he saw a man leave and return to the
>>>>window 'a couple of times'. The Commission reported that 'Brennan saw the man
>>>>fire the last shot and disappear from the window' and that 'within minutes of
>>>> the assassination, Brennan described the man to the police. This description
>>>>most probably led to the radio alert sent to police cars at approximately 12:45
>>>>p.m., which described the suspect as white, slender, weighing about 165 pounds,
>>>> about 5'10" tall, and in his early thirties."
>>>>
>>>> Mark Lane is showing the Warren Commission's guess as to why the DPD wanted
>>>> Oswald.
>>>
>>> But at 12:45 the DPD did not want any "Oswald."
>>>
>>
>>Exactly when did Truly tell the DPD that Oswald was missing?
>>Please list the exact minute and cite your source.
>
>
>
>At 12:43... actually about 32 seconds after 12:43. My source is John
>Kleagle, a reporter, who was standing nearby. I've already cited for this
>many times. I can't be blamed if Tony never took the time to read the
>citation.
>
That's the best source. Lane lied when he implied otherwise.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ben Holmes
Sep 22, 2012, 10:21:44 PM9/22/12
to
In article <d7ks58pkltabjtnmm...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
The real question here is why you refuse to state that Wade, Gannaway, and Curry
lied.
When Mark Lane says what they said, you label *HIM* a liar, despite the fact
that he showed how they couldn't be correct.
You see, you *agree* with Mark Lane... that these three people did *NOT*
accurately depict what happened.
And I know that you can read well enough to understand that I've said this
several times now.
Along with "Bud", it looks like *you* don't know what the topic was either. If
you did, you wouldn't be trying to *change* it.
The topic was *NOT* "what did the 12:45 radio broadcast say". If that were the
question, the broadcast itself would *indeed* be the best source.
lied.
When Mark Lane says what they said, you label *HIM* a liar, despite the fact
that he showed how they couldn't be correct.
You see, you *agree* with Mark Lane... that these three people did *NOT*
accurately depict what happened.
And I know that you can read well enough to understand that I've said this
several times now.
Along with "Bud", it looks like *you* don't know what the topic was either. If
you did, you wouldn't be trying to *change* it.
The topic was *NOT* "what did the 12:45 radio broadcast say". If that were the
question, the broadcast itself would *indeed* be the best source.
Bud
Sep 23, 2012, 2:57:45 PM9/23/12
to
On Sep 22, 10:21 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <d7ks58pkltabjtnmm130ch9mitqvg1o...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
No, that isn`t the "real question", that is just what you are trying
to make it.
In an honest inquiry about how something occurred what is the point of
bringing up erroneous information? On the issue of the "roll call", if
someone where interested in the truth would they focus on the obviously
erroneous accounts of the "roll call" or use the accounts of the people
who were there? This is just one of many ways to illustrate that Lane
wasn`t the least bit interested in an honest inquiry.
> When Mark Lane says what they said, you label *HIM* a liar, despite the fact
> that he showed how they couldn't be correct.
What idea was he supporting when he introduced these witnesses?
Wasn`t he representing them as being the representatives of the
official version?
> You see, you *agree* with Mark Lane... that these three people did *NOT*
> accurately depict what happened.
How did including what they said advance the idea of what occurred?
> And I know that you can read well enough to understand that I've said this
> several times now.
>
> Along with "Bud", it looks like *you* don't know what the topic was either. If
> you did, you wouldn't be trying to *change* it.
You still can`t figure out that it is possible to challenge *any* of
the ideas Lane expresses, can you?
> The topic was *NOT* "what did the 12:45 radio broadcast say". If that were the
> question, the broadcast itself would *indeed* be the best source.
How much did Lane write in that chapter that was off-topic?
> In article <d7ks58pkltabjtnmm130ch9mitqvg1o...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 21 Sep 2012 18:18:23 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>In article <505baa3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 21 Sep 2012 18:18:23 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
> >wrote:
>
to make it.
In an honest inquiry about how something occurred what is the point of
bringing up erroneous information? On the issue of the "roll call", if
someone where interested in the truth would they focus on the obviously
erroneous accounts of the "roll call" or use the accounts of the people
who were there? This is just one of many ways to illustrate that Lane
wasn`t the least bit interested in an honest inquiry.
> When Mark Lane says what they said, you label *HIM* a liar, despite the fact
> that he showed how they couldn't be correct.
Wasn`t he representing them as being the representatives of the
official version?
> You see, you *agree* with Mark Lane... that these three people did *NOT*
> accurately depict what happened.
> And I know that you can read well enough to understand that I've said this
> several times now.
>
> Along with "Bud", it looks like *you* don't know what the topic was either. If
> you did, you wouldn't be trying to *change* it.
the ideas Lane expresses, can you?
> The topic was *NOT* "what did the 12:45 radio broadcast say". If that were the
> question, the broadcast itself would *indeed* be the best source.
Anthony Marsh
Sep 23, 2012, 6:25:35 PM9/23/12
to
what someone else thinks that it means that person doing the summarizing
actually believes exactly the same thing himself.
Anthony Marsh
Sep 23, 2012, 6:26:13 PM9/23/12
to
> That's what good history is. They don't claim certainty, because it's
> not certain, but it's very likely.
>
>
>>> *Somebody* (probably Brennan) who had seen the shooter gave a
>>> description to Inspt. Sawyer, which he radioed to the dispatcher, and
>>> which was then broadcast.
>>>
>>
>> Slightly better. How about *somebody* (maybe the CIA)?
>>
>
> Poor Tony. Sees spooks everywhere.
>
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
0 new messages