Mark Lane - (#145) - Believers Are Running!

[Ben Holmes]

In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that Hoover was wrong in
his assertion that "the expertness of the shooter ... can [not] be
determined for the time of the assassination".

"Could an inferior rifleman, with that weapon and ammunition, fire at
least three times from a point 60 feet above the ground and strike the
President at least twice, in the neck and head, as the Presidential
limousine moved west on Elm Street?

Hoover was undoubtedly right when he said that no test today can
exactly reproduce the conditions in Dealey Plaza on November 22 as
depicted by the Commission. For one thing, the alleged assassin is
dead, and a valid test must embrace not only the weapon's intrinsic
capability but also its potential in its user's hands.

However, it is possible to construct a test to prove whether the rifle
in expert hands is capable of firing at least three shots at a moving
target, hitting the target at least twice, in the period of time fixed
by the Commission as between 4-8 and 5-6 seconds. If that can be done,
then the Commission's case may still be argued. If it cannot be done,
then the case against Oswald must collapse. Mark Twain wrote, 'Who so,
clinging to a rope, severeth it above his hands, must fall; it being
no defense that the rest of the rope is sound.'"

Mark Lane is about to describe the firing tests conducted by the
Warren Commission... are there any Warren Commission defenders willing
to state right now that they were not honestly conducted? Mark Lane is
about to show exactly that...

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 10:54:56 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that Hoover was wrong in
> his assertion that "the expertness of the shooter ... can [not] be
> determined for the time of the assassination".
>
> "Could an inferior rifleman, with that weapon and ammunition, fire at
> least three times from a point 60 feet above the ground and strike the
> President at least twice, in the neck and head, as the Presidential
> limousine moved west on Elm Street?
>
> Hoover was undoubtedly right when he said that no test today can
> exactly reproduce the conditions in Dealey Plaza on November 22 as
> depicted by the Commission. For one thing, the alleged assassin is
> dead, and a valid test must embrace not only the weapon's intrinsic
> capability but also its potential in its user's hands.

Lane is saying the only valid test should include the accused assassin.

What a bizarre argument. Does Lane expect Oswald, if he was alive and protesting his innocence, to attempt to the best of his ability to shoot successfully at any targets and prove he had the capability to kill the President?

Oswald would deliberately miss in such a test. Any test using the accused to reproduce any result in any crime is bound to fail, if the accused has an IQ above the freezing point of water (32dF).

>
> However, it is possible to construct a test to prove whether the rifle
> in expert hands is capable of firing at least three shots at a moving
> target, hitting the target at least twice, in the period of time fixed
> by the Commission as between 4-8 and 5-6 seconds.

That WASN’T the time fixed by the Commission. The Commission concluded three shots were fired, and one missed hitting anyone in the car, but because the films of the assassination were all silent, and the witnesses varied, the Commission could not determine which shot missed They stated three different possible firing scenarios:

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#missed

They discussed the pros and cons for a first shot miss, a middle shot miss, or a last shot miss. Because the middle shot miss allows the least amount of time for three shots, Lane pretended the other two possibilities didn’t even exist.

But they do.

The Commission summarized their findings in these sentences: “If either the first or third shots missed, then a minimum of 2.3 seconds (necessary to operate the rifle) must be added to the time span of the shots which hit, giving a minimum time of 7.1 to 7.9 seconds for the three shots. If more than 2.3 seconds elapsed between a shot that missed and one that hit, then the time span would be correspondingly increased.”

That means a shooting of over eight seconds is allowed by the Commission, but by ignoring all but the middle shot miss, Lane compresses the time down to a max of only 5.6 seconds, which is dishonest. He will then compare the test times to this time, and falsely eliminate any test times above 5.6 seconds.

> If that can be done,
> then the Commission's case may still be argued. If it cannot be done,
> then the case against Oswald must collapse. Mark Twain wrote, 'Who so,
> clinging to a rope, severeth it above his hands, must fall; it being
> no defense that the rest of the rope is sound.'"
>
> Mark Lane is about to describe the firing tests conducted by the
> Warren Commission... are there any Warren Commission defenders willing
> to state right now that they were not honestly conducted? Mark Lane is
> about to show exactly that...

No, he’s still exposing his own dishonesty, Ben, whether you want to admit that or not.

Ben to delete my points and call me names.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 10:36:27 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 10:54:56 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that Hoover was wrong in
>> his assertion that "the expertness of the shooter ... can [not] be
>> determined for the time of the assassination".
>>
>> "Could an inferior rifleman, with that weapon and ammunition, fire at
>> least three times from a point 60 feet above the ground and strike the
>> President at least twice, in the neck and head, as the Presidential
>> limousine moved west on Elm Street?
>>
>> Hoover was undoubtedly right when he said that no test today can
>> exactly reproduce the conditions in Dealey Plaza on November 22 as
>> depicted by the Commission. For one thing, the alleged assassin is
>> dead, and a valid test must embrace not only the weapon's intrinsic
>> capability but also its potential in its user's hands.
>
>Lane is saying the only valid test should include the accused assassin.

Of course.

>What a bizarre argument.

No, an honest one. Is it possible for someone to do a back handspring
into a back summersault?

Absolutely.

Is is possible for *YOU* to do so.

No.

Yet you'd call this a "bizarre" argument. IT'S FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL
TO THE ONE YOU JUST CALLED 'BIZARRE'

All you've done is show what a dishonest moron you are.

But it's good to see you finally responding again, after skipping so
many Mark Lane posts that you have no answer for... Do you plan to go
back and answer them?


LFD.

>> However, it is possible to construct a test to prove whether the rifle
>> in expert hands is capable of firing at least three shots at a moving
>> target, hitting the target at least twice, in the period of time fixed
>> by the Commission as between 4-8 and 5-6 seconds.
>>

>> If that can be done,
>> then the Commission's case may still be argued. If it cannot be done,
>> then the case against Oswald must collapse. Mark Twain wrote, 'Who so,
>> clinging to a rope, severeth it above his hands, must fall; it being
>> no defense that the rest of the rope is sound.'"
>>
>> Mark Lane is about to describe the firing tests conducted by the
>> Warren Commission... are there any Warren Commission defenders willing
>> to state right now that they were not honestly conducted? Mark Lane is
>> about to show exactly that...
>

>Ben to delete my points and call me names.

Certainly. If you say so.

[Hank Sienzant]

Maybe a larger font and boldface would help. Uppercase doesn’t make your argument any stronger.

I guess if there’s a murder that for some reason requires the assailant to do a back handspring
Into a back summersault, I’m off the hook for that crime and I can call you as a witness to that effect

But the point remains that the test would be invalid because no accused person has the least inclination to do well in a test that if they do poorly, they get eliminated as a suspect. Innocent or guilty, relying on such a test to establish anything after the fact is beyond bizarre.

>
> All you've done is show what a dishonest moron you are.

All you’ve shown is the ability to sling ad hominem like dishonest and moron around with abandon.
Try to make a reasoned argument.

>
> But it's good to see you finally responding again, after skipping so
> many Mark Lane posts that you have no answer for... Do you plan to go
> back and answer them?
>

Why, did you miss me?

>
> LFD.
> >> However, it is possible to construct a test to prove whether the rifle
> >> in expert hands is capable of firing at least three shots at a moving
> >> target, hitting the target at least twice, in the period of time fixed
> >> by the Commission as between 4-8 and 5-6 seconds.

Speaking of dishonest, is it fair to say we won’t debate, when I posted corrections to Mark Lane’s claims, and you simply deleted them, pretending they never existed?

Putting them back:

That WASN’T the time fixed by the Commission. The Commission concluded three shots were fired, and one missed hitting anyone in the car, but because the films of the assassination were all silent, and the witnesses varied, the Commission could not determine which shot missed They stated three different possible firing scenarios:

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#missed

They discussed the pros and cons for a first shot miss, a middle shot miss, or a last shot miss. Because the middle shot miss allows the least amount of time for three shots, Lane pretended the other two possibilities didn’t even exist.

But they do.

The Commission summarized their findings in these sentences: “If either the first or third shots missed, then a minimum of 2.3 seconds (necessary to operate the rifle) must be added to the time span of the shots which hit, giving a minimum time of 7.1 to 7.9 seconds for the three shots. If more than 2.3 seconds elapsed between a shot that missed and one that hit, then the time span would be correspondingly increased.”

That means a shooting of over eight seconds is allowed by the Commission, but by ignoring all but the middle shot miss, Lane compresses the time down to a max of only 5.6 seconds, which is dishonest. He will then compare the test times to this time, and falsely eliminate any test times above 5.6 seconds.

> >>
> >> If that can be done,
> >> then the Commission's case may still be argued. If it cannot be done,
> >> then the case against Oswald must collapse. Mark Twain wrote, 'Who so,
> >> clinging to a rope, severeth it above his hands, must fall; it being
> >> no defense that the rest of the rope is sound.'"
> >>
> >> Mark Lane is about to describe the firing tests conducted by the
> >> Warren Commission... are there any Warren Commission defenders willing
> >> to state right now that they were not honestly conducted? Mark Lane is
> >> about to show exactly that...
> >
> >Ben to delete my points and call me names.
> Certainly. If you say so.

It was a prediction, not a request. A very accurate prediction.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 14:40:47 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

My "argument" is so indisputable, that you were unable to dispute it.

LFD.

You cannot dispute the truth with logical fallacies.

You lose!

>> All you've done is show what a dishonest moron you are.
>

>Try to make a reasoned argument.

Just did.

You're too dishonest to acknowledge it.

>> But it's good to see you finally responding again, after skipping so
>> many Mark Lane posts that you have no answer for... Do you plan to go
>> back and answer them?

>> LFD.
>>>> However, it is possible to construct a test to prove whether the rifle
>>>> in expert hands is capable of firing at least three shots at a moving
>>>> target, hitting the target at least twice, in the period of time fixed
>>>> by the Commission as between 4-8 and 5-6 seconds.

>>>> If that can be done,
>>>> then the Commission's case may still be argued. If it cannot be done,
>>>> then the case against Oswald must collapse. Mark Twain wrote, 'Who so,
>>>> clinging to a rope, severeth it above his hands, must fall; it being
>>>> no defense that the rest of the rope is sound.'"
>>>>
>>>> Mark Lane is about to describe the firing tests conducted by the
>>>> Warren Commission... are there any Warren Commission defenders willing
>>>> to state right now that they were not honestly conducted? Mark Lane is
>>>> about to show exactly that...
>>>
>>>Ben to delete my points and call me names.
>> Certainly. If you say so.
>
>It was a prediction, not a request. A very accurate prediction.

And a fulfilled request.

[Bruce]

>> But the point remains that the test would be invalid because no accused person has the least inclination to do well in a test that if they do poorly, they get eliminated as a suspect. Innocent or guilty, relying on such a test to establish anything after the fact is beyond bizarre.

I would add that compelling an accused person to participate in a test like this is likely a Fifth Amendment violation. But hey, why do details matter?

[Ben Holmes]

What you CANNOT explain is the expertise of shooters called in to try
to duplcate the shooting scenario.

They weren't in the same league as Oswald - they were FAR FAR FAR
advanced in shooting skill over Oswald.

This tells the tale to an honest man.

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben failed to rebut this.

> >
> > All you've done is show what a dishonest moron you are.
> All you’ve shown is the ability to sling ad hominem like dishonest and moron around with abandon.
> Try to make a reasoned argument.

Ben failed here too.

> >
> > But it's good to see you finally responding again, after skipping so
> > many Mark Lane posts that you have no answer for... Do you plan to go
> > back and answer them?
> >
> Why, did you miss me?
> >
> > LFD.

Ben failed here too.

> > >> However, it is possible to construct a test to prove whether the rifle
> > >> in expert hands is capable of firing at least three shots at a moving
> > >> target, hitting the target at least twice, in the period of time fixed
> > >> by the Commission as between 4-8 and 5-6 seconds.
> Speaking of dishonest, is it fair to say we won’t debate, when I posted corrections to Mark Lane’s claims, and you simply deleted them, pretending they never existed?

Ben failed here too.

>
> Putting them back:
> That WASN’T the time fixed by the Commission. The Commission concluded three shots were fired, and one missed hitting anyone in the car, but because the films of the assassination were all silent, and the witnesses varied, the Commission could not determine which shot missed They stated three different possible firing scenarios:
>
> https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#missed
>
> They discussed the pros and cons for a first shot miss, a middle shot miss, or a last shot miss. Because the middle shot miss allows the least amount of time for three shots, Lane pretended the other two possibilities didn’t even exist.
>
> But they do.
>
> The Commission summarized their findings in these sentences: “If either the first or third shots missed, then a minimum of 2.3 seconds (necessary to operate the rifle) must be added to the time span of the shots which hit, giving a minimum time of 7.1 to 7.9 seconds for the three shots. If more than 2.3 seconds elapsed between a shot that missed and one that hit, then the time span would be correspondingly increased.”
> That means a shooting of over eight seconds is allowed by the Commission, but by ignoring all but the middle shot miss, Lane compresses the time down to a max of only 5.6 seconds, which is dishonest. He will then compare the test times to this time, and falsely eliminate any test times above 5.6 seconds.

Ben deleted all this and pretended it did not exist multiple times.

Another Ben failure.

> > >>
> > >> If that can be done,
> > >> then the Commission's case may still be argued. If it cannot be done,
> > >> then the case against Oswald must collapse. Mark Twain wrote, 'Who so,
> > >> clinging to a rope, severeth it above his hands, must fall; it being
> > >> no defense that the rest of the rope is sound.'"
> > >>
> > >> Mark Lane is about to describe the firing tests conducted by the
> > >> Warren Commission... are there any Warren Commission defenders willing
> > >> to state right now that they were not honestly conducted? Mark Lane is
> > >> about to show exactly that...
> > >
> > >Ben to delete my points and call me names.
> > Certainly. If you say so.
> It was a prediction, not a request. A very accurate prediction.

Ben did exactly as predicted. And continued to pretend it was a request, even after being informed it wasn’t.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 12:29:57 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

>Ben failed ...

Judging from the poll results, I'd say you're a liar...

[Bud]

Show they were better at firing bolt action Carcanos than Oswald. You won`t, you make noise but show nothing.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

hey big guy, look at the bright side, after another 300 or so of these Mark Lanes topics, you'll be able to type 5-6 words per minute, if your prostate holds out of course....

[Hank Sienzant]

And that prediction came true. Ben didn’t attempt to rebut any of my points above.

[Ben Holmes]

Notice folks, Huckster replies to himself, and makes an empty claim...

He's TERRIFIED of my words...

[Hank Sienzant]

You’ve been running since I posted the below. If the facts were on your side (and Lane’s) you would have no problem mounting a serious rebuttal argument and citing the facts I ignored, but the facts aren’t on your side, so you can’tdo any of that. All you can do is delete my points and call me names.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 08:09:29 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

LFD.

>On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 10:54:56 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that Hoover was wrong in
>> his assertion that "the expertness of the shooter ... can [not] be
>> determined for the time of the assassination".
>>
>> "Could an inferior rifleman, with that weapon and ammunition, fire at
>> least three times from a point 60 feet above the ground and strike the
>> President at least twice, in the neck and head, as the Presidential
>> limousine moved west on Elm Street?
>>
>> Hoover was undoubtedly right when he said that no test today can
>> exactly reproduce the conditions in Dealey Plaza on November 22 as
>> depicted by the Commission. For one thing, the alleged assassin is
>> dead, and a valid test must embrace not only the weapon's intrinsic
>> capability but also its potential in its user's hands.
>
>Lane is saying the only valid test should include the accused assassin.

Or a more honest reading would be to not cheat, as the WC did, and put
the rifle in the hands of EQUALLY SKILLED shooters.

You can't offer any reason why this was not done.


>What a bizarre argument.


Only in the land of kooks like you.

I deleted the rest of your nonsense... you do this frequently, you put
words in someone's mouth, then you swing your bat at your strawman.

>> However, it is possible to construct a test to prove whether the rifle
>> in expert hands is capable of firing at least three shots at a moving
>> target, hitting the target at least twice, in the period of time fixed
>> by the Commission as between 4-8 and 5-6 seconds.
>
>That WASN’T the time fixed by the Commission.

Cry coward... and move to your safe place.

>> If that can be done,
>> then the Commission's case may still be argued. If it cannot be done,
>> then the case against Oswald must collapse. Mark Twain wrote, 'Who so,
>> clinging to a rope, severeth it above his hands, must fall; it being
>> no defense that the rest of the rope is sound.'"
>>
>> Mark Lane is about to describe the firing tests conducted by the
>> Warren Commission... are there any Warren Commission defenders willing
>> to state right now that they were not honestly conducted? Mark Lane is
>> about to show exactly that...
>

>No...

It was stupid of me to ask for honesty from dishonest cowards...

[Hank Sienzant]

Not a rebuttal. Deleting my points and calling them a logical fallacy will never be a rebuttal.

> >On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 10:54:56 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that Hoover was wrong in
> >> his assertion that "the expertness of the shooter ... can [not] be
> >> determined for the time of the assassination".
> >>
> >> "Could an inferior rifleman, with that weapon and ammunition, fire at
> >> least three times from a point 60 feet above the ground and strike the
> >> President at least twice, in the neck and head, as the Presidential
> >> limousine moved west on Elm Street?
> >>
> >> Hoover was undoubtedly right when he said that no test today can
> >> exactly reproduce the conditions in Dealey Plaza on November 22 as
> >> depicted by the Commission. For one thing, the alleged assassin is
> >> dead, and a valid test must embrace not only the weapon's intrinsic
> >> capability but also its potential in its user's hands.
> >
> >Lane is saying the only valid test should include the accused assassin.

> Or a more honest reading would be to not cheat, as the WC did,

Begged. Not shown.

No, Lane didn’t suggest that and you had to delete Lane’s actual words and your original agreement with my assessment. You agreed originally Lane meant that Oswald should be tested:
== quote ==

> >> LANE SAID:
> >> For one thing, the alleged assassin is
> >> dead, and a valid test must embrace not only the weapon's intrinsic
> >> capability but also its potential in its user's hands.
> >
> >I SAID:
> >Lane is saying the only valid test should include the accused assassin.

> YOU SAID:
> Of course.
>
> >I SAID:
> >What a bizarre argument.
>
> YOU SAID:
> No, an honest one.
== unquote ==

Now you forget all that and take the precise opposite approach below.

> and put
> the rifle in the hands of EQUALLY SKILLED shooters.
>
> You can't offer any reason why this was not done.

Ok, define “Equally Skilled”. Oswald on his best day? His worst? His average day? His current skill level? How do we determine that? Are we back to arguing Oswald should be tested? You already realize what a losing argument that was, because you deleted that entirely.

Remember, Lane himself admitted “However, it is possible to construct a test to prove whether the rifle in expert hands…” Lane himself proposed one of two tests — with Oswald as the shooter, and with experts as the shooters. So by all means tell us what Lane got wrong here.

>
>
> >What a bizarre argument.
>
>
> Only in the land of kooks like you.

Must be my land and your land, too. Your original response was it was an honest argument by Lane:
“No, an honest one.”

You’ll apparently try any argument until you find something you think you can keep afloat.

>
> I deleted the rest of your nonsense...

Of course you did. You can’t refute any of it, so you delete, delete, delete. Good thing too, because I would just rebut it all again.

Tell us, Ben, would you call me a coward if I deleted everything you post that Lane wrote?

> you do this frequently, you put
> words in someone's mouth, then you swing your bat at your strawman.

You know the words, but not the music. You’re apparently just echoing stuff I’ve said to you, but it’s apparent I’m not putting words in Lane’s mouth or yours. I quote Lane, and you, and rebut Lane and you.

> >> However, it is possible to construct a test to prove whether the rifle
> >> in expert hands is capable of firing at least three shots at a moving
> >> target, hitting the target at least twice, in the period of time fixed
> >> by the Commission as between 4-8 and 5-6 seconds.
> >
> >That WASN’T the time fixed by the Commission.
> Cry coward... and move to your safe place.

Not a rebuttal. Nor a denial. Nor a defense of Lane’s straw man argument.
Just ad hominem. That’s so …. Ben.

> >> If that can be done,
> >> then the Commission's case may still be argued. If it cannot be done,
> >> then the case against Oswald must collapse. Mark Twain wrote, 'Who so,
> >> clinging to a rope, severeth it above his hands, must fall; it being
> >> no defense that the rest of the rope is sound.'"
> >>
> >> Mark Lane is about to describe the firing tests conducted by the
> >> Warren Commission... are there any Warren Commission defenders willing
> >> to state right now that they were not honestly conducted? Mark Lane is
> >> about to show exactly that...
> >
> >No...
>
> It was stupid of me to ask for honesty from dishonest cowards...

I rebut your arguments. You delete mine.
I have a consistent position. Your attempted defenses of Lane jumped from “Lane made a honest argument “ to “only kooks would claim that”.

If a neutral and reasonable person were assessing our arguments, which one would they say the evidence indicates is a “dishonest coward”?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 12:39:13 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

LFD.

You don't seem to realize how easy it is to see your Gish Gallops.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 12:53:24 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 13:22:45 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 9:29:11 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 17:48:33 -0800 (PST), Bruce
>> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> But the point remains that the test would be invalid because no accused person has the least inclination to do well in a test that if they do poorly, they get eliminated as a suspect. Innocent or guilty, relying on such a test to establish anything after the fact is beyond bizarre.
>>>
>>>I would add that compelling an accused person to participate in a test like this is likely a Fifth Amendment violation. But hey, why do details matter?
>>
>> What you CANNOT explain is the expertise of shooters called in to try
>> to duplcate the shooting scenario.
>>
>> They weren't in the same league as Oswald - they were FAR FAR FAR
>> advanced in shooting skill over Oswald.
>

> Show ...

No.