Provable Lies Of The Warren Commission #13.

[Ben Holmes]

"No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)

Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply lying. As Mark Lane puts it: "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the railroad yardman that spoke with him. ... Of the 90 persons who were asked this important question (where they thought the shots had come from) and who were able to give an answer, 58 said the shots came from the direction of the grassy knoll and not from the Book Depository Building, while 32 disagreed. Thus, almost two-thirds of those who expressed an opinion supported the evidence given by Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, and Weitzman." (Rush to Judgement, pg 27-28)

And while arguments can be made endlessly about who supported what location, TSBD or Grassy Knoll - it's simply a fact that there was a tremendous number of eyewitnesses that *did* place the origin of shots *other* than the TSBD.

Credible eyewitnesses.

Once again, the WC had the evidence, but simply lied about it.

Now, lurkers - pay attention... the believers who respond to this will use one of these arguments:

1. That Mark Lane is a liar. (ignoring the fact that the statements made are absolutely true)

2. That the numbers of earwitnesses is wrong. (ignoring the fact that the precise number means nothing, the fact that there were OVERWHELMING numbers of people who did give credible evidence - showing that the Warren Commission flatly lied)

3. Eyewitnesses aren't credible. (American prisons are filled with those convicted *ONLY* on eyewitness testimony)

4. Logical Error (Henry Sienzant is famous for 'finding' one...)

But the truth is, believers can't explain this blatant lie by the Warren Commission... and their refusal to respond will be interpreted as their acceptance of the fact that once again, I've posted a provable lie on the part of the Warren Commission.

[Bud]

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 11:11:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)
>
> Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make a statement such as this.

What did these eyewitnesses *see* that made them conclude where the shots came from?

Some said they saw smoke, but it isn`t very credible that they would have seen a cloud of gunsmoke.

> And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply lying. As Mark Lane puts it: "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the railroad yardman that spoke with him. ... Of the 90 persons who were asked this important question (where they thought the shots had come from) and who were able to give an answer, 58 said the shots came from the direction of the grassy knoll and not from the Book Depository Building, while 32 disagreed. Thus, almost two-thirds of those who expressed an opinion supported the evidence given by Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, and Weitzman." (Rush to Judgement, pg 27-28)

The question is how much weight to give to where people *thought* the shots came from.

> And while arguments can be made endlessly about who supported what location, TSBD or Grassy Knoll - it's simply a fact that there was a tremendous number of eyewitnesses that *did* place the origin of shots *other* than the TSBD.
>
> Credible eyewitnesses.

You don`t see sound.

> Once again, the WC had the evidence, but simply lied about it.
>
> Now, lurkers - pay attention... the believers who respond to this will use one of these arguments:
>
> 1. That Mark Lane is a liar. (ignoring the fact that the statements made are absolutely true)

Mark Lane is a liar and the statements he made are not absolutely true. For instance, when Bowers was asked where the shots came from, he said "The sounds came either from up against The School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass".

He also tells this lie... "58 said the shots came from the direction of the grassy knoll". He treats the information given by the witnesses as an assertion of fact, when it is not. Price said where he "thought" the shots came from. Holland said where he "thought" the shots came from. Weitzman said where he "thought" the shots came from. He misrepresents the witnesses by saying they took the *position* that the shots came from the knoll, when they merely offered where they "thought" the shots came from.

> 2. That the numbers of earwitnesses is wrong. (ignoring the fact that the precise number means nothing, the fact that there were OVERWHELMING numbers of people who did give credible evidence - showing that the Warren Commission flatly lied)
>
> 3. Eyewitnesses aren't credible. (American prisons are filled with those convicted *ONLY* on eyewitness testimony)

You don`t see sound. Sound bounces off objects.

> 4. Logical Error (Henry Sienzant is famous for 'finding' one...)
>
> But the truth is, believers can't explain this blatant lie by the Warren Commission... and their refusal to respond will be interpreted as their acceptance of the fact that once again, I've posted a provable lie on the part of the Warren Commission.

No lie. Where people "thought" the sound they heard originated isn`t credible information, in this case it is only information that could be right or could be wrong.

[Ben Holmes]

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 5:37:04 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 11:11:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)
> >
> > Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make a statement such as this.
>
> What did these eyewitnesses *see* that made them conclude where the shots came from?

What did the eyewitnesses *see* that made them conclude that the shots came from the TSBD?

> Some said they saw smoke, but it isn`t very credible that they would have seen a cloud of gunsmoke.

Au contraire, it's EXTREMELY credible. You cannot cite anything that would support your opinion.

Nor did the Warren Commission.

> > And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply lying. As Mark Lane puts it: "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the railroad yardman that spoke with him. ... Of the 90 persons who were asked this important question (where they thought the shots had come from) and who were able to give an answer, 58 said the shots came from the direction of the grassy knoll and not from the Book Depository Building, while 32 disagreed. Thus, almost two-thirds of those who expressed an opinion supported the evidence given by Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, and Weitzman." (Rush to Judgement, pg 27-28)
>
> The question is how much weight to give to where people *thought* the shots came from.

No, it's *NOT* a question of "how much weight"... the Warren Commission stated that SUCH EVIDENCE DIDN'T EXIST.

You can't judge the "weight" of something that the Warren Commission said didn't exist.

Of course, you'll run from this - thus proving that you *KNOW* you just lost again.

> > And while arguments can be made endlessly about who supported what location, TSBD or Grassy Knoll - it's simply a fact that there was a tremendous number of eyewitnesses that *did* place the origin of shots *other* than the TSBD.
> >
> > Credible eyewitnesses.
>
> You don`t see sound.


And while arguments can be made endlessly about who supported what location, TSBD or Grassy Knoll - it's simply a fact that there was a tremendous number of eyewitnesses that *did* place the origin of shots *other* than the TSBD.


> > Once again, the WC had the evidence, but simply lied about it.
> >
> > Now, lurkers - pay attention... the believers who respond to this will use one of these arguments:
> >
> > 1. That Mark Lane is a liar. (ignoring the fact that the statements made are absolutely true)
>
> Mark Lane is a liar

And yet, you refuse to quote anything from "Rush to Judgment" - then cite the evidence that he contradicted.

That makes *YOU* the liar, "Bud."

> and the statements he made are not absolutely true. For instance, when Bowers was asked where the shots came from, he said "The sounds came either from up against The School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass".
>
> He also tells this lie... "58 said the shots came from the direction of the grassy knoll".

Then all you have to do is cite otherwise...

> He treats the information given by the witnesses as an assertion of fact, when it is not.

How silly of you!

Mark Lane isn't bound by your opinion.

> Price said where he "thought" the shots came from. Holland said where he "thought" the shots came from. Weitzman said where he "thought" the shots came from. He misrepresents the witnesses by saying they took the *position* that the shots came from the knoll, when they merely offered where they "thought" the shots came from.

ROTFLMAO!!!

According to the Warren Commission, these eyewitnesses didn't "thought" at all.

You lose!

> > 2. That the numbers of earwitnesses is wrong. (ignoring the fact that the precise number means nothing, the fact that there were OVERWHELMING numbers of people who did give credible evidence - showing that the Warren Commission flatly lied)
> >
> > 3. Eyewitnesses aren't credible. (American prisons are filled with those convicted *ONLY* on eyewitness testimony)
>
> You don`t see sound. Sound bounces off objects.

You don't debate strawmen - that's merely an admission on your part that you lost.

> > 4. Logical Error (Henry Sienzant is famous for 'finding' one...)
> >
> > But the truth is, believers can't explain this blatant lie by the Warren Commission... and their refusal to respond will be interpreted as their acceptance of the fact that once again, I've posted a provable lie on the part of the Warren Commission.
>
> No lie. Where people "thought" the sound they heard originated isn`t credible information, in this case it is only information that could be right or could be wrong.

Then you've lost completely.

You cannot make your case based on what people thought.

YOU CAN'T GIVE ANY EVIDENCE *AT ALL* THAT PASSES YOUR "TEST."

And I predict that you won't even try.

You lost!

[Bud]

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 9:08:25 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 5:37:04 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 11:11:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)
> > >
> > > Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make a statement such as this.
> >
> > What did these eyewitnesses *see* that made them conclude where the shots came from?
>
>
> What did the eyewitnesses *see* that made them conclude that the shots came from the TSBD?

I don`t use the witnesses who indicated the TSBD from where they thought the sound of the shots came from to determine the TSBD was the source of the shots. They ones who were able to determine that the shots came from the TSBD from the sound only were just correct, is all. The people who indicated other locations by the sound alone were incorrect.

> > Some said they saw smoke, but it isn`t very credible that they would have seen a cloud of gunsmoke.
>
>
> Au contraire, it's EXTREMELY credible. You cannot cite anything that would support your opinion.

You can`t cite for your claim that it is EXTREMELY credible.

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100smoke.html

> Nor did the Warren Commission.
>
>
> > > And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply lying. As Mark Lane puts it: "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the railroad yardman that spoke with him. ... Of the 90 persons who were asked this important question (where they thought the shots had come from) and who were able to give an answer, 58 said the shots came from the direction of the grassy knoll and not from the Book Depository Building, while 32 disagreed. Thus, almost two-thirds of those who expressed an opinion supported the evidence given by Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, and Weitzman." (Rush to Judgement, pg 27-28)
> >
> > The question is how much weight to give to where people *thought* the shots came from.
>
>
> No, it's *NOT* a question of "how much weight"... the Warren Commission stated that SUCH EVIDENCE DIDN'T EXIST.

Wrong. "credible evidence".

> You can't judge the "weight" of something that the Warren Commission said didn't exist.
>
> Of course, you'll run from this - thus proving that you *KNOW* you just lost again.
>
>
> > > And while arguments can be made endlessly about who supported what location, TSBD or Grassy Knoll - it's simply a fact that there was a tremendous number of eyewitnesses that *did* place the origin of shots *other* than the TSBD.
> > >
> > > Credible eyewitnesses.
> >
> > You don`t see sound.
>
>
> And while arguments can be made endlessly about who supported what location, TSBD or Grassy Knoll - it's simply a fact that there was a tremendous number of eyewitnesses that *did* place the origin of shots *other* than the TSBD.

The lack of a consensus shows why the evidence isn`t credible on it`s own. If no other evidence was found this information could never be used to pinpoint where the shots originated from. This is what happens when you have people with no aptitude for investigation second guessing those that can.

> > > Once again, the WC had the evidence, but simply lied about it.
> > >
> > > Now, lurkers - pay attention... the believers who respond to this will use one of these arguments:
> > >
> > > 1. That Mark Lane is a liar. (ignoring the fact that the statements made are absolutely true)
> >
> > Mark Lane is a liar
>
>
> And yet, you refuse to quote anything from "Rush to Judgment" - then cite the evidence that he contradicted.

Been there, did that. "undeformed", remember?

> That makes *YOU* the liar, "Bud."
>
>
>
> > and the statements he made are not absolutely true. For instance, when Bowers was asked where the shots came from, he said "The sounds came either from up against The School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass".

Nothing here, Ben? Lane represents Bowers as a knoll witness, is he really?

> >
> > He also tells this lie... "58 said the shots came from the direction of the grassy knoll".
>
>
> Then all you have to do is cite otherwise...

The statement is a clear misrepresentation of the information witnesses supplied. A witness saying they "thought" the shots came from a location is not a witness taking the position that the shots came from that location.

> > He treats the information given by the witnesses as an assertion of fact, when it is not.
>
>
> How silly of you!
>
> Mark Lane isn't bound by your opinion.

He is bound by what the witnesses actually said. He is representing that the witnesses provided assertions of fact. A witness saying the "thought" a shot came from somewhere is not an assertion of fact.

Apparently the witnesses understand a basic truth that conspiracy retards can`t wrap their tiny minds around, that sound is invisible and it reflects off of surfaces, leaving the hearer only the option of a best guess.

> > Price said where he "thought" the shots came from. Holland said where he "thought" the shots came from. Weitzman said where he "thought" the shots came from. He misrepresents the witnesses by saying they took the *position* that the shots came from the knoll, when they merely offered where they "thought" the shots came from.
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> According to the Warren Commission, these eyewitnesses didn't "thought" at all.

The WC understood that under the circumstances the witnesses were supplying impressions and guesses.

> You lose!
>
>
> > > 2. That the numbers of earwitnesses is wrong. (ignoring the fact that the precise number means nothing, the fact that there were OVERWHELMING numbers of people who did give credible evidence - showing that the Warren Commission flatly lied)
> > >
> > > 3. Eyewitnesses aren't credible. (American prisons are filled with those convicted *ONLY* on eyewitness testimony)
> >
> > You don`t see sound. Sound bounces off objects.
>
>
> You don't debate strawmen - that's merely an admission on your part that you lost.

You are a conspiracy retard, and conspiracy retards hate to look at information in the correct context. It interferes with their silly games.

> > > 4. Logical Error (Henry Sienzant is famous for 'finding' one...)
> > >
> > > But the truth is, believers can't explain this blatant lie by the Warren Commission... and their refusal to respond will be interpreted as their acceptance of the fact that once again, I've posted a provable lie on the part of the Warren Commission.
> >
> > No lie. Where people "thought" the sound they heard originated isn`t credible information, in this case it is only information that could be right or could be wrong.
>
> Then you've lost completely.

You are too stupid to understand the simple point. People use "thought" to signify an idea that is a perception that may or may not be a verified fact. "I thought it was Tuesday". You are sleeping upstairs, but you think you hear someone downstairs so you go down to investigate. The sound alone does not carry enough weight to be the deciding factor, if you see someone or signs that someone was there you were right, if there is no one you thought wrong.

> You cannot make your case based on what people thought.

I can weigh any information in a reasonable manner. I can look at information in the proper context. You can`t.

> YOU CAN'T GIVE ANY EVIDENCE *AT ALL* THAT PASSES YOUR "TEST."

If people said they saw a shooter, that would be credible. Sight is more trustworthy. You`ve never heard a sound and turned the wrong way to locate the origin? If you heard a loud backfire, and looked immediately behind to your left and saw nothing but looked behind to your right and saw a motorcycle, what would you conclude?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 9:38:16 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 9:08:25 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 5:37:04 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 11:11:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)
> > > >
> > > > Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make a statement such as this.
> > >
> > > What did these eyewitnesses *see* that made them conclude where the shots came from?
> >
> >
> > What did the eyewitnesses *see* that made them conclude that the shots came from the TSBD?
>

> I don`t use the witnesses ...

And that, of course, is your problem.

You don't believe *ANY* witnesses.

They were ALL wrong... they were ALL mistaken... they were ALL liars... etc.

But it's a fact that eyewitnesses are CREDIBLE EVIDENCE - and have so been considered for all of American history in the justice system.

So the Warren Commission lied when they claimed that there was no "credible evidence" of shots from other than the TSBD.

IT'S A LIE... and you can't refute that fact.

[Bud]

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 12:52:26 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 9:38:16 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 9:08:25 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 5:37:04 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 11:11:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)
> > > > >
> > > > > Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make a statement such as this.
> > > >
> > > > What did these eyewitnesses *see* that made them conclude where the shots came from?
> > >
> > >
> > > What did the eyewitnesses *see* that made them conclude that the shots came from the TSBD?
> >
> > I don`t use the witnesses ...
>
> And that, of course, is your problem.
>
> You don't believe *ANY* witnesses.

<snicker> The retard is showing he can`t engage on ideas again.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 10:07:28 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 12:52:26 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 9:38:16 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 9:08:25 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 5:37:04 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 11:11:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make a statement such as this.
> > > > >
> > > > > What did these eyewitnesses *see* that made them conclude where the shots came from?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What did the eyewitnesses *see* that made them conclude that the shots came from the TSBD?
> > >
> > > I don`t use the witnesses ...
> >
> > And that, of course, is your problem.
> >
> > You don't believe *ANY* witnesses.
>
> <snicker> The retard is showing he can`t engage on ideas again.

When you have no evidence... and have no logical argument... you announce that fact with ad hominem.

You lose!

[Bud]

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 1:24:33 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 10:07:28 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 12:52:26 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 9:38:16 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 9:08:25 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 5:37:04 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 11:11:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make a statement such as this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What did these eyewitnesses *see* that made them conclude where the shots came from?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What did the eyewitnesses *see* that made them conclude that the shots came from the TSBD?
> > > >
> > > > I don`t use the witnesses ...
> > >
> > > And that, of course, is your problem.
> > >
> > > You don't believe *ANY* witnesses.
> >
> > <snicker> The retard is showing he can`t engage on ideas again.
>
>
> When you have no evidence... and have no logical argument... you announce that fact with ad hominem.
>
> You lose!

You cut and ran from my arguments, how can I lose?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 1:35:06 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 1:24:33 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 10:07:28 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 12:52:26 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 9:38:16 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 9:08:25 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 5:37:04 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 11:11:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make a statement such as this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What did these eyewitnesses *see* that made them conclude where the shots came from?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What did the eyewitnesses *see* that made them conclude that the shots came from the TSBD?
> > > > >
> > > > > I don`t use the witnesses ...
> > > >
> > > > And that, of course, is your problem.
> > > >
> > > > You don't believe *ANY* witnesses.
> > >
> > > <snicker> The retard is showing he can`t engage on ideas again.
> >
> >
> > When you have no evidence... and have no logical argument... you announce that fact with ad hominem.
> >
> > You lose!
>
> You cut and ran from my arguments, how can I lose?

I've already explained this to you...

When you start with a lie, if I have other things to do, I simply point out the lie and move on.

Don't you just *HATE* it that you wasted all that ad hominem & venom?

Tell us "Bud," can you point out the largest foreign ANYTHING in the AP X-ray?