info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mark Lane - (#251) - Spanks The WC Again...
83 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
May 19, 2022, 9:47:23 AM5/19/22
to
In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed how the Warren Commission
avoided any investigation into Police conduct surrounding Ruby's
murder of Oswald... now we'll see how they evaded clear eyewitness
statements in order to do so:
"The facts do indicate that Ruby entered the basement by the Main
Street ramp, but before we can agree with the Commission that Ruby
entered unaided, we must ignore or else misrepresent the testimony of
a former Dallas policeman, Napoleon J. Daniels. The Commission did the
latter, disposing of Daniels in one paragraph of the Report.
'One other witness has testified regarding the purported movements of
a man on the Main Street ramp, but his testimony merits little
credence. A former police officer, N. J. Daniels, who was standing at
the top of the ramp with the single patrolman guarding this entrance,
R. E. Vaughn, testified that '3 or 4 minutes, I guess' before the
shooting, a man walked down the Main Street ramp in full view of
Vaughn but was not stopped or questioned by the officer. Daniels did
not identify the man as Ruby. Moreover, he gave a description which
differed in important respects from Ruby's appearance on November 24,
and he has testified that he doesn't think the man was Ruby. On
November 24, Vaughn telephoned Daniels to ask him if he had seen
anybody walk past him on the morning of the 24th and was told that he
had not; it was not until November 29 that Daniels came forward with
the statement that he had seen a man enter.'
A reading of the testimony and statements upon which this judgment was
based compels the conclusion that Daniels, not the Commission,
deserves to be believed. Although a contrary impression is given by
the paragraph quoted above, Daniels made three formal statements prior
to his appearance before the Commission. On November 29, 1963, he
signed an affidavit for the Dallas police; on December 4, 1963, he
made a statement to agents of the FBI; and on December 18,1963, he
made a second statement to the FBI. While the Commission was correct
in stating that Daniels 'did not identify the man as Ruby', the whole
truth is that he stopped just short of making so positive an
identification. In his affidavit, signed five days after Ruby killed
Oswald, Daniels deposed as follows:
'Several minutes later I stepped out towards the street so that I
could have a better view down the ramp. As I did so I noticed a white
male, approximately 50 years of age, 5' 10", weighing about 155-160,
wearing a dark (blue or brown) single breasted suit, white shirt, and
dark colored tie, this man was not wearing a hat, he had light colored
hair thinning on top, round face, kind of small head, fair complexion,
he was not wearing an overcoat nor was he carrying one but he did have
his right hand inside of his right suit coat pocket, approaching the
ramp from the direction of the Western Union. This person walked in
the ramp and into the basement going between Officer Vaughn and the
east side of the building. Officer Vaughn at this time was standing at
the top of the ramp in the middle of it facing towards Main. I did not
see Officer Vaughn challenge this person nor did he show any signs of
recognizing him, nor even being aware that he was passing, but I know
that he saw him. It struck me odd at the time that Officer Vaughn did
not say something to this man.'"
Mark Lane is showing the how the Warren Commission misrepresented
eyewitness testimony that was contrary to their faith...
And Huckster can only run.
Chickenshit can only run.
Chrissy already ran.
Davey Von Peiny already ran.
Steven refuses to debate.
And trolls are just trolls...
No-one can step up to the plate and refute Mark Lane.
avoided any investigation into Police conduct surrounding Ruby's
murder of Oswald... now we'll see how they evaded clear eyewitness
statements in order to do so:
"The facts do indicate that Ruby entered the basement by the Main
Street ramp, but before we can agree with the Commission that Ruby
entered unaided, we must ignore or else misrepresent the testimony of
a former Dallas policeman, Napoleon J. Daniels. The Commission did the
latter, disposing of Daniels in one paragraph of the Report.
'One other witness has testified regarding the purported movements of
a man on the Main Street ramp, but his testimony merits little
credence. A former police officer, N. J. Daniels, who was standing at
the top of the ramp with the single patrolman guarding this entrance,
R. E. Vaughn, testified that '3 or 4 minutes, I guess' before the
shooting, a man walked down the Main Street ramp in full view of
Vaughn but was not stopped or questioned by the officer. Daniels did
not identify the man as Ruby. Moreover, he gave a description which
differed in important respects from Ruby's appearance on November 24,
and he has testified that he doesn't think the man was Ruby. On
November 24, Vaughn telephoned Daniels to ask him if he had seen
anybody walk past him on the morning of the 24th and was told that he
had not; it was not until November 29 that Daniels came forward with
the statement that he had seen a man enter.'
A reading of the testimony and statements upon which this judgment was
based compels the conclusion that Daniels, not the Commission,
deserves to be believed. Although a contrary impression is given by
the paragraph quoted above, Daniels made three formal statements prior
to his appearance before the Commission. On November 29, 1963, he
signed an affidavit for the Dallas police; on December 4, 1963, he
made a statement to agents of the FBI; and on December 18,1963, he
made a second statement to the FBI. While the Commission was correct
in stating that Daniels 'did not identify the man as Ruby', the whole
truth is that he stopped just short of making so positive an
identification. In his affidavit, signed five days after Ruby killed
Oswald, Daniels deposed as follows:
'Several minutes later I stepped out towards the street so that I
could have a better view down the ramp. As I did so I noticed a white
male, approximately 50 years of age, 5' 10", weighing about 155-160,
wearing a dark (blue or brown) single breasted suit, white shirt, and
dark colored tie, this man was not wearing a hat, he had light colored
hair thinning on top, round face, kind of small head, fair complexion,
he was not wearing an overcoat nor was he carrying one but he did have
his right hand inside of his right suit coat pocket, approaching the
ramp from the direction of the Western Union. This person walked in
the ramp and into the basement going between Officer Vaughn and the
east side of the building. Officer Vaughn at this time was standing at
the top of the ramp in the middle of it facing towards Main. I did not
see Officer Vaughn challenge this person nor did he show any signs of
recognizing him, nor even being aware that he was passing, but I know
that he saw him. It struck me odd at the time that Officer Vaughn did
not say something to this man.'"
Mark Lane is showing the how the Warren Commission misrepresented
eyewitness testimony that was contrary to their faith...
And Huckster can only run.
Chickenshit can only run.
Chrissy already ran.
Davey Von Peiny already ran.
Steven refuses to debate.
And trolls are just trolls...
No-one can step up to the plate and refute Mark Lane.
Bud
May 19, 2022, 11:55:59 AM5/19/22
to
Ben Holmes
May 19, 2022, 12:00:48 PM5/19/22
to
On Thu, 19 May 2022 08:55:58 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
Notice folks, that's PRECISELY what Chickenshit just did.
> Why would you post criticisms of the WC when you find it
> irrelevant? Seems contradictory and hypocritical.
Does it surprise anyone when I'm not bound to the lies told by
Chickenshit?
Notice also, that Chickenshit refused to address the issue, choosing
instead to address a fake issue he created.
wrote:
> Why would you post criticisms of the WC when you find it
> irrelevant? Seems contradictory and hypocritical.
Chickenshit?
Notice also, that Chickenshit refused to address the issue, choosing
instead to address a fake issue he created.
Sky Throne 19efppp
May 19, 2022, 12:20:39 PM5/19/22
to
Bud
May 19, 2022, 1:08:21 PM5/19/22
to
> Notice also, that Chickenshit refused to address the issue, choosing
> instead to address a fake issue he created.
Ben Holmes
May 19, 2022, 1:57:54 PM5/19/22
to
On Thu, 19 May 2022 10:08:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
And did a second time.
>>> Why would you post criticisms of the WC when you find it
>>> irrelevant? Seems contradictory and hypocritical.
>>
>> Does it surprise anyone when I'm not bound to the lies told by
>> Chickenshit?
>
> You`ve taken the position that the WC is irrelevant.
Irrelevant to the truth. I stated this the first time, I've stated
this EVERY time.
You're simply a molester of little boys who cannot tell the truth.
>> Notice also, that Chickenshit refused to address the issue, choosing
>> instead to address a fake issue he created.
>
> You created it by taking the position that WC is irrelevant.
I've corrected you every single time you've lied about this.
So from now on, I'm just going to point out that you cannot quote me
saying this, and that you're a molester of little boys.
>>> Why would you post criticisms of the WC when you find it
>>> irrelevant? Seems contradictory and hypocritical.
>>
>> Does it surprise anyone when I'm not bound to the lies told by
>> Chickenshit?
>
> You`ve taken the position that the WC is irrelevant.
this EVERY time.
You're simply a molester of little boys who cannot tell the truth.
>> Notice also, that Chickenshit refused to address the issue, choosing
>> instead to address a fake issue he created.
>
> You created it by taking the position that WC is irrelevant.
So from now on, I'm just going to point out that you cannot quote me
saying this, and that you're a molester of little boys.
Bud
May 19, 2022, 2:06:05 PM5/19/22
to
> You're simply a molester of little boys who cannot tell the truth.
> >> Notice also, that Chickenshit refused to address the issue, choosing
> >> instead to address a fake issue he created.
> >
> > You created it by taking the position that WC is irrelevant.
> I've corrected you every single time you've lied about this.
> So from now on, I'm just going to point out that you cannot quote me
> saying this, and that you're a molester of little boys.
Ben Holmes
May 19, 2022, 2:34:07 PM5/19/22
to
On Thu, 19 May 2022 11:06:04 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> Even with that cop-out...
Not a "cop-out" ... even **YOU** admit it's not a cop-out by refusing
to use the statement I actually made.
>> You're simply a molester of little boys who cannot tell the truth.
>>
>> So from now on, I'm just going to point out that you cannot quote me
>> saying this, and that you're a molester of little boys.
Notice folks, that Chickenshit AGAIN refuses to quote me saying what
he claims I said.
Not a "cop-out" ... even **YOU** admit it's not a cop-out by refusing
to use the statement I actually made.
>> You're simply a molester of little boys who cannot tell the truth.
>>
>>>> Notice also, that Chickenshit refused to address the issue, choosing
>>>> instead to address a fake issue he created.
>>>
>>> You created it by taking the position that WC is irrelevant.
>> I've corrected you every single time you've lied about this.
>
> Yet you repeat the position that the WC is irrelevant.
And Chickenshit just keeps on molesting that young boy.
>>>> instead to address a fake issue he created.
>>>
>>> You created it by taking the position that WC is irrelevant.
>> I've corrected you every single time you've lied about this.
>
> Yet you repeat the position that the WC is irrelevant.
>> So from now on, I'm just going to point out that you cannot quote me
>> saying this, and that you're a molester of little boys.
he claims I said.
Bud
May 19, 2022, 2:37:51 PM5/19/22
to
Ben Holmes
May 19, 2022, 2:54:24 PM5/19/22
to
On Thu, 19 May 2022 11:37:50 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Chickenshit snipped... I've added it back in:
>>Not a "cop-out" ... even **YOU** admit it's not a cop-out by refusing
>>to use the statement I actually made.
>>
>>>> You're simply a molester of little boys who cannot tell the truth.
>>>>
>>>>>> Notice also, that Chickenshit refused to address the issue, choosing
>>>>>> instead to address a fake issue he created.
>>>>>
>>>>> You created it by taking the position that WC is irrelevant.
>>>> I've corrected you every single time you've lied about this.
>>>
>>> Yet you repeat the position that the WC is irrelevant.
>>
>>And Chickenshit just keeps on molesting that young boy.
>>
>>>> So from now on, I'm just going to point out that you cannot quote me
>>>> saying this, and that you're a molester of little boys.
>>
>>Notice folks, that Chickenshit AGAIN refuses to quote me saying what
>>he claims I said.
>>
>>>>>>>> Chrissy already ran.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Davey Von Peiny already ran.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Steven refuses to debate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And trolls are just trolls...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No-one can step up to the plate and refute Mark Lane.
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/7Qgu316wVAk/m/v9IUvOsAAAAJ
Notice folks, that Chickenshit still refuses to cite anyplace where I
said what he claims I said.
He's clearly too busy molesting that little boy.
>>Not a "cop-out" ... even **YOU** admit it's not a cop-out by refusing
>>to use the statement I actually made.
>>
>>>> You're simply a molester of little boys who cannot tell the truth.
>>>>
>>>>>> Notice also, that Chickenshit refused to address the issue, choosing
>>>>>> instead to address a fake issue he created.
>>>>>
>>>>> You created it by taking the position that WC is irrelevant.
>>>> I've corrected you every single time you've lied about this.
>>>
>>> Yet you repeat the position that the WC is irrelevant.
>>
>>And Chickenshit just keeps on molesting that young boy.
>>
>>>> So from now on, I'm just going to point out that you cannot quote me
>>>> saying this, and that you're a molester of little boys.
>>
>>Notice folks, that Chickenshit AGAIN refuses to quote me saying what
>>he claims I said.
>>
>>>>>>>> Chrissy already ran.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Davey Von Peiny already ran.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Steven refuses to debate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And trolls are just trolls...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No-one can step up to the plate and refute Mark Lane.
Notice folks, that Chickenshit still refuses to cite anyplace where I
said what he claims I said.
He's clearly too busy molesting that little boy.
Bud
May 19, 2022, 3:20:42 PM5/19/22
to
"Why does every critic attack it so much if the Commission is so irrelevant? It sure sounds relevant to me, otherwise they wouldn't bother."
You couldn`t contest the truth he spoke so you moved the goalposts to a contrived version. Your strawmen, semantics arguments and non sequiturs don`t become the topic, the topic was the relevancy of the WC.
Ben Holmes
May 19, 2022, 4:03:26 PM5/19/22
to
On Thu, 19 May 2022 12:20:40 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> Hank said this...
There's nothing Huckster could say that affects the outright and
blatant lie *YOU* told about what I've stated.
If you cannot QUOTE me, then you should have the common decency to
retract your blatant lie.
There's nothing Huckster could say that affects the outright and
blatant lie *YOU* told about what I've stated.
If you cannot QUOTE me, then you should have the common decency to
retract your blatant lie.
Bud
May 19, 2022, 5:18:32 PM5/19/22
to
Ben Holmes
May 19, 2022, 5:40:17 PM5/19/22
to
Ben Holmes
May 19, 2022, 5:57:35 PM5/19/22
to
addressing what Mark Lane pointed out.
Clearly believers have no refutation to the fact that the WC
misrepresented eyewitness testimony...
And must therefore accept the truth... The Warren Commission flat
lied.
Bud
May 19, 2022, 6:34:30 PM5/19/22
to
Hank Sienzant
May 24, 2022, 10:50:56 AM5/24/22
to
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/iEYrGFubZ5A/m/b8yBD-_TAQAJ
“It is, of course, *IMPOSSIBLE* to go into any detail whatsoever about this case without referencing the WC.”
It was only when I pointed out he was agreeing with me (and disagreeing with Gil and Garrison) with his above assertion that Ben then moved the goalposts.
Regardless, neither Gil nor Garrison qualified the claim as Ben now does (“irrelevant to the truth”), so he’s still disagreeing with the initial post by Gil.
Bud
May 24, 2022, 2:25:03 PM5/24/22
to
" closely connected or appropriate to what is being done or considered."
> It was only when I pointed out he was agreeing with me (and disagreeing with Gil and Garrison) with his above assertion that Ben then moved the goalposts.
>
> Regardless, neither Gil nor Garrison qualified the claim as Ben now does (“irrelevant to the truth”), so he’s still disagreeing with the initial post by Gil.
Hank Sienzant
May 25, 2022, 8:29:10 AM5/25/22
to
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/iEYrGFubZ5A/m/3TeQ4J37AQAJ
Trying to claim he was talking about the Commission’s conclusions instead of the evidence.
Ben Holmes
Jun 3, 2022, 10:54:30 AM6/3/22
to
You're going to have to **QUOTE** me saying what Chickenshit claimed
I'd said. You cannot simply assume it, or pass by it.
Either I'm lying when I claim I never said it, or Chickenshit is lying
when he claimed I had.
You don't get to evade that fact.
Ben Holmes
Jun 3, 2022, 10:54:33 AM6/3/22
to
On Wed, 25 May 2022 05:29:08 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>Note further that Ben tried a cop-out to the cop-out.
Note further that Huckster has never been able to quote me saying what
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>Note further that Ben tried a cop-out to the cop-out.
Chickenshit claimed I said...
Hank Sienzant
Jun 4, 2022, 9:38:43 AM6/4/22
to
Here it is again:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/iEYrGFubZ5A/m/b8yBD-_TAQAJ
Ben claimed: “It is, of course, *IMPOSSIBLE* to go into any detail whatsoever about this case without referencing the WC.”
That admission makes it relevant.
I went on to point out:
“It was only when I pointed out he was agreeing with me (and disagreeing with Gil and Garrison) with his above assertion that Ben then moved the goalposts.
Regardless, neither Gil nor Garrison qualified the claim as Ben now does (“irrelevant to the truth”), so he’s still disagreeing with the initial post by Gil.”
You then qualified it and moved the goalposts, but your new claim is unproven.
>
> Either I'm lying when I claim I never said it, or Chickenshit is lying
> when he claimed I had.
>
> You don't get to evade that fact.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/iEYrGFubZ5A/m/b8yBD-_TAQAJ
Ben claimed: “It is, of course, *IMPOSSIBLE* to go into any detail whatsoever about this case without referencing the WC.”
Hank Sienzant
Jun 4, 2022, 9:43:49 AM6/4/22
to
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/iEYrGFubZ5A/m/b8yBD-_TAQAJ
Ben claimed: “It is, of course, *IMPOSSIBLE* to go into any detail whatsoever about this case without referencing the WC.”
Then you moved the goalposts, adding, it was irrelevant “to the truth”.
You then moved the goalposts again, claiming we weren’t talking about the evidence contained in the 26 volumes, but the Commission’s conclusions:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/iEYrGFubZ5A/m/3TeQ4J37AQAJ
“The eyeitness's testimony, is a COMPLETELY different topic than the silly and kooky "conclusions" arrived at by the WCR in contradiction to it's own collected testimony.”
Again, your begged question above is unproven, and it’s a further movement of the goalposts.
Hank Sienzant
Jun 4, 2022, 9:49:37 AM6/4/22
to
“Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.”
Gil was talking about the evidence being irrelevant. You’re now conceding it was relevant.
Tip: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
Ben Holmes
Jun 10, 2022, 10:49:33 AM6/10/22
to
On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 06:43:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
anything short of agreeing with me is simply a lie.
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:54:33 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 05:29:08 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Note further that Ben tried a cop-out to the cop-out.
>>
>> Note further that Huckster has never been able to quote me saying what
>> Chickenshit claimed I said...
>
>You first said:
Unless you can QUOTE me saying what Chickenshit claimed I'd said,
>On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:54:33 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 05:29:08 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Note further that Ben tried a cop-out to the cop-out.
>>
>> Note further that Huckster has never been able to quote me saying what
>> Chickenshit claimed I said...
>
>You first said:
anything short of agreeing with me is simply a lie.
Ben Holmes
Jun 10, 2022, 10:49:36 AM6/10/22
to
On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 06:49:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
saying what Chickenshit claimed I'd said is simply further lies.
Any claims you make based on a lie is simply more lying...
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 9:43:49 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:54:33 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 05:29:08 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Note further that Ben tried a cop-out to the cop-out.
>>> Note further that Huckster has never been able to quote me saying what
>>> Chickenshit claimed I said...
>> You first said:
Replying to yourself when you've still not been able to quote me
>On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 9:43:49 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:54:33 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 05:29:08 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Note further that Ben tried a cop-out to the cop-out.
>>> Note further that Huckster has never been able to quote me saying what
>>> Chickenshit claimed I said...
>> You first said:
saying what Chickenshit claimed I'd said is simply further lies.
Any claims you make based on a lie is simply more lying...
Ben Holmes
Jun 10, 2022, 10:49:41 AM6/10/22
to
On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 06:38:41 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>I quoted you...
There you go lying again.
You have **NEVER** quoted me making the statement that Chickenshit
claimed I'd made.
Nor can you.
There you go lying again.
You have **NEVER** quoted me making the statement that Chickenshit
claimed I'd made.
Nor can you.
Ben Holmes
Jun 10, 2022, 10:51:43 AM6/10/22
to
On Tue, 24 May 2022 11:25:02 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Not, however, relevant to the truth - as I stated.
You can't admit that you've been lying about what I stated, and you
can't quote me saying what you've been claiming I said.
You're simply a dishonest piece of slime.
You can't admit that you've been lying about what I stated, and you
can't quote me saying what you've been claiming I said.
You're simply a dishonest piece of slime.
Ben Holmes
Jun 10, 2022, 10:51:44 AM6/10/22
to
On Thu, 19 May 2022 15:34:29 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
Chickenshit proves yet again what I stated above.
wrote:
Ben Holmes
Jul 12, 2022, 10:42:20 AM7/12/22
to
0 new messages