Mark Lane - (#88)

[Ben Holmes]

In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren
Commission's theories simply didn't match up with the medical,
ballistic, or eyewitness testimony concerning where it was found.

"Why Was Oswald Wanted?

A description of the suspect in the assassination, matching Lee Harvey
Oswald's description, was broadcast by the Dallas police just before
12:45 p.m. on November 22, 15 minutes after the shots were fired at
President Kennedy. But when Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theatre
at approximately 1:50 p.m. that day, the Dallas authorities announced
that the 24-year-old suspect had been wanted in connection with the
murder of a police officer, J.D. Tippit. Oswald was questioned for
about five hours and was then arraigned for the Tippit murder. It was
not until 1:30 a.m. the following day that he was charged with
assassinating the President. At a 20-minute press conference held at
midnight on the 22nd, Oswald was asked if he had killed the President.
'No. I have not been charged with that,' he replied. 'In fact nobody
has said that to me yet. The first thing I heard about it was when the
newspaper reporters in the hall asked me that question'. Dallas
District Attorney Henry M. Wade, who presided over the conference,
confirmed that Oswald 'had not been advised of charges in connection
with the President's slaying. But he had been told of his charges in
the death of the patrolman'. The Dallas authorities and their prisoner
therefore agreed that Oswald had been arrested for and questioned
about the murder of Officer Tippit and that this was the only charge
against him on November 22."

Mark Lane is showing the history of Oswald's arrest and charges.

Interestingly, believers oft assert that the case against Oswald was
virtually complete in that first 24 hours, but here we see that the
case is so "solid" that even Oswald is unaware of it.

As were the police, who didn't charge him with that crime on Friday.

Huckster will run again - as he's been doing quite frequently...

[John Corbett]

Oswald was charged with JFK's murder 13 hours after he shot him. The case was solid in the first 24 hours. It was solid in the first 13 hours. Yes, technically it was the next day that Oswald was charged with JFK's murder but it wasn't as if they didn't have the goods on him that night which passed into the next morning before Oswald was formally charged. The DPD knew they had their man when they made the charge. The subsequent WC investigation corroborated that conclusion.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 10:18:07 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren
> Commission's theories simply didn't match up with the medical,
> ballistic, or eyewitness testimony concerning where it was found.

He attempted to show that by cherry-picking the evidence and employing logical fallacies, but knowledgeable people who are familiar with the evidence can understand exactly what he was doing and why he falls short. He ignored and failed to explain any contrary evidence, much like you do. He ignored entirely the testimony of Jane Wester, for one example. He is guilty of both ignoring evidence, taking evidence out of context and utilizing logical fallacies to make his case. We’ll see more of the same below.


>
> "Why Was Oswald Wanted?

Oswald wasn’t wanted for either the assassination of President Kennedy or the murder of Patrolman Tippit at any time prior to his arrest.

Lane is starting this chapter with a straw man argument and a begged question. Oswald was not wanted. No APB went out for him, no policeman went to his rooming house before his arrest, no one was searching for him before his arrest. Oswald’s name was never mentioned in connection with either the assassination of JFK or the murder of Tippit prior to his arrest. Lane is introducing a falsehood in the form of a begged question and setting up a straw man to attack at the very start of this chapter. Indeed, it’s his chapter *TITLE*. That’s how brazen a liar he is.

>
> A description of the suspect in the assassination, matching Lee Harvey
> Oswald's description, was broadcast by the Dallas police just before
> 12:45 p.m. on November 22, 15 minutes after the shots were fired at
> President Kennedy.

That description would also match many other men in Dallas. None of them were wanted at 12:45, just like Oswald wasn’t wanted because the description matched Oswald.

> But when Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theatre
> at approximately 1:50 p.m. that day, the Dallas authorities announced
> that the 24-year-old suspect had been wanted in connection with the
> murder of a police officer, J.D. Tippit.

Not by name. They were looking for the person who killed Tippit. That person was certainly wanted. How Oswald came to be arrested is well known. Numerous police cars responded to the area where Tippit was killed, and they were looking for the shooter.

A shoe store assistant manager, Johnny Brewer, had been listening to radio and heard that a policeman had been shot nearby. Shortly thereafter, Brewer noticed a fellow duck into the alcove of his store as a police car went by. The person looked nervous, and appeared to vibe acting suspiciously to Brewer. This man walked down the block, with Brewer following behind. He then apparently ducked into the movie theatre without paying. Brewer confirmed with the ticket seller (Julia Postal) in the outdoor booth that she hadn’t sold this man a ticket, and asked her to call the police. Brewer then went inside to keep an eye on this guy.

When the police arrived, it was Brewer who pointed out the suspicious man to police. When officer MacDonald approached this fellow, the guy punched MacDonald and drew a revolver apparently from his belt. The guy was eventually subdued and taken into custody. But at no time before, during, and even shortly after his arrest did the police know the name of the person they were seeking. They only arrested the person who assaulted a police officer, and that person who pulled a gun on that officer. It turned out that person was Oswald. But they weren’t seeking Oswald. They were seeking the murderer of Officer Tippit. Not Oswald by name.

> Oswald was questioned for
> about five hours and was then arraigned for the Tippit murder. It was
> not until 1:30 a.m. the following day that he was charged with
> assassinating the President. At a 20-minute press conference held at
> midnight on the 22nd, Oswald was asked if he had killed the President.
> 'No. I have not been charged with that,' he replied. 'In fact nobody
> has said that to me yet. The first thing I heard about it was when the
> newspaper reporters in the hall asked me that question'.

During those first five hours, Oswald was being interviewed with his consent. He never asked for a lawyer. He answered their questions willingly. The police asked him numerous questions about his whereabouts at the time of the President’s assassination. They asked him if he owned a rifle and why he left the building shortly after the assassination. He had even been asked in the hallway by a reporter if he shot the President and where he was at the time of the assassination. He admitted he was in the building at that time. That he was a suspect in the assassination could not have come as a surprise to Oswald by that midnight press conference.

> Dallas
> District Attorney Henry M. Wade, who presided over the conference,
> confirmed that Oswald 'had not been advised of charges in connection
> with the President's slaying. But he had been told of his charges in
> the death of the patrolman'. The Dallas authorities and their prisoner
> therefore agreed that Oswald had been arrested for and questioned
> about the murder of Officer Tippit and that this was the only charge
> against him on November 22."

That’s true, but you and Lane apparently know nothing of police work. The police may have a suspect, but not enough evidence to charge him. So the investigation is two pronged: interview the suspect to lock him down on his story, while continuing the investigation into the crime and locking down as much of the evidence as possible. Oswald wasn’t lawyering up (he was offered the services of the ACLU, but declined their offer), and was more than willing to talk, so the police kept him talking.

>
> Mark Lane is showing the history of Oswald's arrest and charges.
>
> Interestingly, believers oft assert that the case against Oswald was
> virtually complete in that first 24 hours, but here we see that the
> case is so "solid" that even Oswald is unaware of it.

Oswald wasn’t unaware of it. He even admitted (as you quoted Lane quoting Oswald above) that he heard about in from reporters earlier in the evening. And as noted, many of the questions in his interrogation sessions were geared toward the President’s assassination.

And you’re comparing apples to oranges in any case, and are apparently hoping we don’t notice. The first 24 hours ended at 12:30 pm on Saturday afternoon. But you’re talking about Oswald’s feigned ignorance of the police suspicions against him by midnight on Friday night (& Saturday morning), only 11 and 1/2 hours after the crime.

Were you hoping we wouldn’t notice your argument is at odds with the claim you’re supposedly attacking?

>
> As were the police, who didn't charge him with that crime on Friday.

They didn’t charge him on Saturday, or Sunday, either.
The police never charge anyone with a crime, that’s the district attorney’s job.
.
Oswald was charged with the President’s assassination on Saturday morning, at 1:26 pm, less than 12 hours after his arrest. Many suspects aren’t charged for months after they become suspects. Scott Peterson and Casey Anthony, to name just two high profile cases in the past decade. How quickly did you want Oswald to be charged?

>
> Huckster will run again - as he's been doing quite frequently...

I’m right here. You’re employing the logical fallacy of ad hominem.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 19:32:21 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 10:18:07 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren
>> Commission's theories simply didn't match up with the medical,
>> ballistic, or eyewitness testimony concerning where it was found.
>

> He attempted to show that by ...


Tut tut tut... you're arguing with a summary of his previous post, and
didn't bother to actually ADDRESS that post.


>> "Why Was Oswald Wanted?


Logical fallacies deleted.

You're going to have to do better than this, Huckster.

>> A description of the suspect in the assassination, matching Lee Harvey
>> Oswald's description, was broadcast by the Dallas police just before
>> 12:45 p.m. on November 22, 15 minutes after the shots were fired at
>> President Kennedy.
>>

>> But when Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theatre
>> at approximately 1:50 p.m. that day, the Dallas authorities announced
>> that the 24-year-old suspect had been wanted in connection with the
>> murder of a police officer, J.D. Tippit.

Logical fallacies deleted.

>> Oswald was questioned for
>> about five hours and was then arraigned for the Tippit murder. It was
>> not until 1:30 a.m. the following day that he was charged with
>> assassinating the President. At a 20-minute press conference held at
>> midnight on the 22nd, Oswald was asked if he had killed the President.
>> 'No. I have not been charged with that,' he replied. 'In fact nobody
>> has said that to me yet. The first thing I heard about it was when the
>> newspaper reporters in the hall asked me that question'.
>
> During those first five hours, Oswald was being interviewed with
> his consent. He never asked for a lawyer. He answered their questions
> willingly. The police asked him numerous questions about his
> whereabouts at the time of the President’s assassination. They asked
> him if he owned a rifle and why he left the building shortly after the
> assassination. He had even been asked in the hallway by a reporter if
> he shot the President and where he was at the time of the
> assassination. He admitted he was in the building at that time. That
> he was a suspect in the assassination could not have come as a
> surprise to Oswald by that midnight press conference.

Not a refutation.

>> Dallas
>> District Attorney Henry M. Wade, who presided over the conference,
>> confirmed that Oswald 'had not been advised of charges in connection
>> with the President's slaying. But he had been told of his charges in
>> the death of the patrolman'. The Dallas authorities and their prisoner
>> therefore agreed that Oswald had been arrested for and questioned
>> about the murder of Officer Tippit and that this was the only charge
>> against him on November 22."
>

>That’s true...


The rest of your logical fallacy deleted.

>> Mark Lane is showing the history of Oswald's arrest and charges.
>>
>> Interestingly, believers oft assert that the case against Oswald was
>> virtually complete in that first 24 hours, but here we see that the
>> case is so "solid" that even Oswald is unaware of it.

Logical fallacy deleted.

If you aren't going to address what Mark Lane stated, it needs no
response from me.

>> As were the police, who didn't charge him with that crime on Friday.
>
>They didn’t charge him on Saturday, or Sunday, either.

And yet, you allow other believers to assert publicly that the case
against Oswald was fairly complete in that first day...

>> Huckster will run again - as he's been doing quite frequently...
>
>I’m right here. You’re employing the logical fallacy of ad hominem.

And I will *CONTINUE* pointing out the only credible word that
describes your actions... cowardice.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:48:18 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 19:32:21 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 10:18:07 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren
> >> Commission's theories simply didn't match up with the medical,
> >> ballistic, or eyewitness testimony concerning where it was found.
> >

> > He attempted to show that by cherry-picking the evidence and employing logical fallacies, but knowledgeable people who are familiar with the evidence can understand exactly what he was doing and why he falls short. He ignored and failed to explain any contrary evidence, much like you do. He ignored entirely the testimony of Jane Wester, for one example. He is guilty of both ignoring evidence, taking evidence out of context and utilizing logical fallacies to make his case. We’ll see more of the same below.


>
>

> Tut tut tut... you're arguing with a summary of his previous post, and
> didn't bother to actually ADDRESS that post.

I pointed out issues with Lane #87. You ignored them. Now you pretend I didn't post in that prior thread.

>
>
> >> "Why Was Oswald Wanted?
>
>
> Logical fallacies deleted.

Here's what you deleted, assert are logical fallacies but do nothing to establish:

Oswald wasn’t wanted for either the assassination of President Kennedy or the murder of Patrolman Tippit at any time prior to his arrest.

Lane is starting this chapter with a straw man argument and a begged question. Oswald was not wanted. No APB went out for him, no policeman went to his rooming house before his arrest, no one was searching for him before his arrest. Oswald’s name was never mentioned in connection with either the assassination of JFK or the murder of Tippit prior to his arrest. Lane is introducing a falsehood in the form of a begged question and setting up a straw man to attack at the very start of this chapter. Indeed, it’s his chapter *TITLE*. That’s how brazen a liar he is.


>

> You're going to have to do better than this, Huckster.

Better than the truth? No, I don't.

> >> A description of the suspect in the assassination, matching Lee Harvey
> >> Oswald's description, was broadcast by the Dallas police just before
> >> 12:45 p.m. on November 22, 15 minutes after the shots were fired at
> >> President Kennedy.

What you deleted:

That description would also match many other men in Dallas. None of them were wanted at 12:45, just like Oswald wasn’t wanted because the description matched Oswald.


> >>

> >> But when Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theatre
> >> at approximately 1:50 p.m. that day, the Dallas authorities announced
> >> that the 24-year-old suspect had been wanted in connection with the
> >> murder of a police officer, J.D. Tippit.
> Logical fallacies deleted.

Here's what you deleted, assert are logical fallacies, but do nothing to establish:

Not by name. They were looking for the person who killed Tippit. That person was certainly wanted. How Oswald came to be arrested is well known. Numerous police cars responded to the area where Tippit was killed, and they were looking for the shooter.

A shoe store assistant manager, Johnny Brewer, had been listening to radio and heard that a policeman had been shot nearby. Shortly thereafter, Brewer noticed a fellow duck into the alcove of his store as a police car went by. The person looked nervous, and appeared to vibe acting suspiciously to Brewer. This man walked down the block, with Brewer following behind. He then apparently ducked into the movie theatre without paying. Brewer confirmed with the ticket seller (Julia Postal) in the outdoor booth that she hadn’t sold this man a ticket, and asked her to call the police. Brewer then went inside to keep an eye on this guy.

When the police arrived, it was Brewer who pointed out the suspicious man to police. When officer MacDonald approached this fellow, the guy punched MacDonald and drew a revolver apparently from his belt. The guy was eventually subdued and taken into custody. But at no time before, during, and even shortly after his arrest did the police know the name of the person they were seeking. They only arrested the person who assaulted a police officer, and that person who pulled a gun on that officer. It turned out that person was Oswald. But they weren’t seeking Oswald. They were seeking the murderer of Officer Tippit. Not Oswald by name.

> >> Oswald was questioned for
> >> about five hours and was then arraigned for the Tippit murder. It was
> >> not until 1:30 a.m. the following day that he was charged with
> >> assassinating the President. At a 20-minute press conference held at
> >> midnight on the 22nd, Oswald was asked if he had killed the President.
> >> 'No. I have not been charged with that,' he replied. 'In fact nobody
> >> has said that to me yet. The first thing I heard about it was when the
> >> newspaper reporters in the hall asked me that question'.
> >
> > During those first five hours, Oswald was being interviewed with
> > his consent. He never asked for a lawyer. He answered their questions
> > willingly. The police asked him numerous questions about his
> > whereabouts at the time of the President’s assassination. They asked
> > him if he owned a rifle and why he left the building shortly after the
> > assassination. He had even been asked in the hallway by a reporter if
> > he shot the President and where he was at the time of the
> > assassination. He admitted he was in the building at that time. That
> > he was a suspect in the assassination could not have come as a
> > surprise to Oswald by that midnight press conference.
> Not a refutation.

Not a refutation of what? Oswald's claim the first he heard about him being a suspect in the President's assassination was when he was asked by a reporter?

> >> Dallas
> >> District Attorney Henry M. Wade, who presided over the conference,
> >> confirmed that Oswald 'had not been advised of charges in connection
> >> with the President's slaying. But he had been told of his charges in
> >> the death of the patrolman'. The Dallas authorities and their prisoner
> >> therefore agreed that Oswald had been arrested for and questioned
> >> about the murder of Officer Tippit and that this was the only charge
> >> against him on November 22."
> >
> >That’s true...
>
>
> The rest of your logical fallacy deleted.

Here's what you deleted, assert is a logical fallacy, but do nothing to establish:

That’s true, but you and Lane apparently know nothing of police work. The police may have a suspect, but not enough evidence to charge him. So the investigation is two pronged: interview the suspect to lock him down on his story, while continuing the investigation into the crime and locking down as much of the evidence as possible. Oswald wasn’t lawyering up (he was offered the services of the ACLU, but declined their offer), and was more than willing to talk, so the police kept him talking.

> >> Mark Lane is showing the history of Oswald's arrest and charges.
> >>
> >> Interestingly, believers oft assert that the case against Oswald was
> >> virtually complete in that first 24 hours, but here we see that the
> >> case is so "solid" that even Oswald is unaware of it.
> Logical fallacy deleted.

Here's what you deleted, assert is a logical fallacy, but do nothing to establish:
Oswald wasn’t unaware of it. He even admitted (as you quoted Lane quoting Oswald above) that he heard about it from reporters earlier in the evening. And as noted, many of the questions in his interrogation sessions were geared toward the President’s assassination.

And you’re comparing apples to oranges in any case, and are apparently hoping we don’t notice. The first 24 hours ended at 12:30 pm on Saturday afternoon. But you’re talking about Oswald’s feigned ignorance of the police suspicions against him by midnight on Friday night (& Saturday morning), only 11 and 1/2 hours after the crime.

Were you hoping we wouldn’t notice your argument is at odds with the claim you’re supposedly attacking?



>

> If you aren't going to address what Mark Lane stated, it needs no
> response from me.

Pointing out the evidence Lane ignored is a direct rebuttal to Lane's arguments, whether you want to admit it or not.

> >> As were the police, who didn't charge him with that crime on Friday.
> >
> >They didn’t charge him on Saturday, or Sunday, either.
> And yet, you allow other believers to assert publicly that the case
> against Oswald was fairly complete in that first day...

Here's what you deleted, and pretend somehow rebuts what others have claimed about the case against Oswald:

The police never charge anyone with a crime, that’s the district attorney’s job.

Oswald was charged with the President’s assassination on Saturday morning, at 1:26 pm, less than 12 hours after his arrest. Many suspects aren’t charged for months after they become suspects. Scott Peterson and Casey Anthony, to name just two high-profile cases in the past decade. How quickly did you want Oswald to be charged?

> >> Huckster will run again - as he's been doing quite frequently...
> >
> >I’m right here. You’re employing the logical fallacy of ad hominem.
> And I will *CONTINUE* pointing out the only credible word that
> describes your actions... cowardice.

Is it cowardice or bravery to delete someone's points, never respond to them, and then pretend they weren't made?

Multiple examples of you doing that are above.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 14:00:41 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:48:18 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 19:32:21 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 10:18:07 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren
>>>> Commission's theories simply didn't match up with the medical,
>>>> ballistic, or eyewitness testimony concerning where it was found.
>>>
>>> He attempted to show that by cherry-picking the evidence and employing logical fallacies, but knowledgeable people who are familiar with the evidence can understand exactly what he was doing and why he falls short. He ignored and failed to explain any contrary evidence, much like you do. He ignored entirely the testimony of Jane Wester, for one example. He is guilty of both ignoring evidence, taking evidence out of context and utilizing logical fallacies to make his case. We’ll see more of the same below.
>>
>> Tut tut tut... you're arguing with a summary of his previous post, and
>> didn't bother to actually ADDRESS that post.
>>

>>>> "Why Was Oswald Wanted?
>>
>>
>> Logical fallacies deleted.
>>

>> You're going to have to do better than this, Huckster.
>>

>>>> A description of the suspect in the assassination, matching Lee Harvey
>>>> Oswald's description, was broadcast by the Dallas police just before
>>>> 12:45 p.m. on November 22, 15 minutes after the shots were fired at

>>>> President Kennedy. But when Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theatre

>>>> at approximately 1:50 p.m. that day, the Dallas authorities announced
>>>> that the 24-year-old suspect had been wanted in connection with the
>>>> murder of a police officer, J.D. Tippit.
>> Logical fallacies deleted.
>>

>>>> Oswald was questioned for
>>>> about five hours and was then arraigned for the Tippit murder. It was
>>>> not until 1:30 a.m. the following day that he was charged with
>>>> assassinating the President. At a 20-minute press conference held at
>>>> midnight on the 22nd, Oswald was asked if he had killed the President.
>>>> 'No. I have not been charged with that,' he replied. 'In fact nobody
>>>> has said that to me yet. The first thing I heard about it was when the
>>>> newspaper reporters in the hall asked me that question'.
>>>
>>> During those first five hours, Oswald was being interviewed with
>>> his consent. He never asked for a lawyer. He answered their questions
>>> willingly. The police asked him numerous questions about his
>>> whereabouts at the time of the President’s assassination. They asked
>>> him if he owned a rifle and why he left the building shortly after the
>>> assassination. He had even been asked in the hallway by a reporter if
>>> he shot the President and where he was at the time of the
>>> assassination. He admitted he was in the building at that time. That
>>> he was a suspect in the assassination could not have come as a
>>> surprise to Oswald by that midnight press conference.
>> Not a refutation.
>>

>>>> Dallas
>>>> District Attorney Henry M. Wade, who presided over the conference,
>>>> confirmed that Oswald 'had not been advised of charges in connection
>>>> with the President's slaying. But he had been told of his charges in
>>>> the death of the patrolman'. The Dallas authorities and their prisoner
>>>> therefore agreed that Oswald had been arrested for and questioned
>>>> about the murder of Officer Tippit and that this was the only charge
>>>> against him on November 22."
>>>
>>>That’s true...
>>
>>
>> The rest of your logical fallacy deleted.
>>

>>>> Mark Lane is showing the history of Oswald's arrest and charges.
>>>>
>>>> Interestingly, believers oft assert that the case against Oswald was
>>>> virtually complete in that first 24 hours, but here we see that the
>>>> case is so "solid" that even Oswald is unaware of it.
>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>

>> If you aren't going to address what Mark Lane stated, it needs no
>> response from me.
>>

>>>> As were the police, who didn't charge him with that crime on Friday.
>>>
>>>They didn’t charge him on Saturday, or Sunday, either.
>> And yet, you allow other believers to assert publicly that the case
>> against Oswald was fairly complete in that first day...
>>

>>>> Huckster will run again - as he's been doing quite frequently...
>>>
>>>I’m right here. You’re employing the logical fallacy of ad hominem.
>> And I will *CONTINUE* pointing out the only credible word that
>> describes your actions... cowardice.
>
>Is it cowardice or bravery to delete someone's points, never respond to them, and then pretend they weren't made?

Is it cowardice or bravery to utilize logical fallacies in your
attempts to refute the evidence Mark Lane shows?

>Multiple examples of you doing that are above.

Multiple examples of you doing that have been deleted.