Mark Lane #164

[Ben Holmes]

In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed the discrepancy between what Postal
Inspector Holmes testified to, and the actual evidence. Kooks ran, as they
usually
do...

"The Curtain Rod Story; or The Long and Bulky Package

THE above were among the more imaginative section headings employed by the
Commission. They dealt with the manner in which Oswald allegedly carried the
murder weapon into the Book Depository Building on the morning of November 22.

Late in the afternoon of November 21, Oswald was driven from Dallas to Irving,
Texas � where Marina Oswald and their two daughters lived � by Buell Wesley
Frazier, a fellow worker at the Book Depository. The Commission wrote:

During the morning of November 21, Oswald asked Frazier whether he could ride
home
with him that afternoon. Frazier, surprised, asked him why he was going to
Irving
on Thursday night rather than Friday. Oswald replied, 'I'm going home to get
some
curtain rods ... [to] put in an apartment.'

Frazier and his sister, Mrs Linnie Mae Randle, who resided together in Irving,
Texas, were the only two witnesses to testify that they saw Oswald with a
package
in his hand on November 22. According to the Commission:

Mrs Randle stated that on the morning of November 22, while her brother was
eating
breakfast, she looked out the breakfast-room window and saw Oswald cross the
street and walk toward the driveway where her brother parked his car near the
carport. He carried a 'heavy brown bag'.

Since a description of the package as to size and weight was the germane issue
of
this section of the Report, the use of the phrase 'heavy brown bag" was, I
think,
misleading. In her testimony Mrs Randle appeared to be describing not the
package
but the paper as being heavy. She said, 'He was carrying a package in a sort of
a
heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag; it looked to me.' Later in her
testimony, Mrs Randle added, 'Yes; it is a heavy type of wrapping paper.'"

Mark Lane is now pointing out the misrepresentations of the Warren Commission
when
it came to the 'Curtain Rod' story.


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

[timstter]

Benny is now pointing out his complete inability to cut and paste,
LOL!

LMFAO Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[doc]

That was in response to the *color* of the bag:

Mr. Ball.
Now, first of all with color, you told them the bag was not the color?
Mrs. Randle.
Yes.
Mr. Ball.
But they showed you a part of the bag that had not been discolored, didn't
they? Mrs. Randle.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Looking at this part of the bag which has not been discolored does that
appear similar to the color of the bag you saw Lee carrying that morning?
Mrs. Randle. Yes; it is a heavy type of wrapping paper.

Lane, of course, doesn't mention this. Why not? Because it doesn't suit his
purpose to be straightforward and allow his audience to draw their own
conclusions. This is very similar to his testimony about Helen Markham's
description of Tippit's killer being "short, a little on the heavy side,
and his hair was somewhat bushy." Lane had a tape of that conversation
which he did not want to give to the Commission because he claimed
lawyer-client privilege (his client, BTW, was Marguerite Oswald, not Helen
Markham!) but finally did:

Mr. Lane. But, well, just, could you just give me one moment and
tell me. I read that you told some of the reporters that he was
short, stocky, and had bushy hair.

Mrs. Markham. No, no. I did not say this.

Mr. Lane. You did not say that?

Mrs. Markham. No, sir.

Mr. Lane. Well, would you say that he was stocky?

Mrs. Markham. Uh, he was short.

Mr. Lane. He was short.

Mrs. Markham. Yes.

Mr. Lane. And was he a little bit on the heavy side?

Mrs. Markham. Uh, not too heavy.

Mr. Lane. Not too heavy, but slightly heavy?

Mrs. Markham. Oh, well, he was, no he wasn't, didn't look too
heavy, uh-uh.

Mr. Lane. He wasn't too heavy, and would you say that he had rather
bushy hair, kind of hair?

Mrs. Markham. Yeh, just a little bit bushy, uh huh.

Mr. Lane. It was a little bit bushy.

Mrs. Markham. Yes.

[Then Lane questioned her about the police lineup. Mrs. Markham
stated that she identified Oswald in the police lineup. Lane asked
whether the police had told her who it might be. Mrs. Markham
replied, "They didn't tell me one thing." Lane then returned to
the events of the Tippit shooting and once again went back to Mrs.
Markham's description of the gunman]

Mr. Lane. Did you say that he was short and a little bit on the
heavy side and had slightly bushy hair?

Mrs. Markham. Uh, no, I did not. They didn't ask me that.

[Then Lane asked her again about how she had described Oswald when
she made the affidavit.]

Mr. Lane. And when you were there, did they ever ask you anything
else about Oswald? About whether he was tall or short?

Mrs. Markham. Uh, yes, sir. They asked me that.

Mr. Lane. And you said he was short, eh?

Mrs. Markham. Yes, sir, he is short. He was short.

Mr. Lane. He was short. And they asked if he was thin or heavy, and
you said he was a little on the heavy side?

Mrs. Markham. And he was, uh, uh, well not too heavy. Uh, say
around 160, maybe 150.

Mr. Lane. Well, did you say he wasn't too heavy, but he was a
little heavy?

Mrs. Markham. Uh-huh.

Mr. Lane. You did say that?

Mrs. Markham. I did identify him in the lineup.

Mr. Lane. Yes, and did you say that the man who shot, did you tell
the officers that the man who shot Tippit had bushy hair?

Mrs. Markham. Uh, no, I did not.

Mr. Lane. But, but he did have bushy hair you said, just a little
bushy?

Mrs. Markham. Well, you wouldn't say it hadn't been combed you know
or anything.

Mr. Lane. Yes.

Mrs. Markham. Of course, he probably had been through a lot, and
was kind of tore up a little . . .

[Lane returned to the shooting of Officer Tippit and what Mrs.
Markham saw and then he asked her about her identification of the
gunman in the police station. She said that she wanted to be sure,
so she had had the police turn the man in the lineup "and they
turned him, and it was him." For a third time Lane tried to have
Mrs. Markham state that the person that shot Tippit was short,
stocky and had bushy hair.]

Mr. Lane. Have you told any reporters about anything?

Mrs. Markham. Well, one. They worried me to death.

Mr. Lane. I'm sure they are after you because you're a very
important witness.

Mrs. Markham. Uh-huh.

Mr. Lane. Did any of the reporters, did you tell any reporter that
the person that shot Oswald, shot Tippit was short, stocky, and had
bushy hair?

Mrs. Markham I did not.

Mr. Lane. You don't remember telling it because one of the
reporters reported that in the newspaper.

Mrs. Markham. Yes, I read that.

Mr. Lane. You read that. What paper was that, do you recall?

Mrs. Markham. Uh, I believe it was in the Herald.

Mr. Lane. The Herald?

Mrs. Markham. I believe, it might have been the News.

Mr. Lane. It was one of the Dallas papers, uh?

Mrs. Markham. Yes, sir.

Mr. Lane. And, do you know what day that was?

Mrs. Markham. No, sir.

Mr. Lane. That was shortly after, though, wasn't it?

Mrs. Markham. Yes, sir. They gave my address, name and everything.

Mr. Lane. Yes, and they had you quoted as saying that he was short,
stocky, and had bushy hair.

Mrs. Markham. Well, they are just not right.

Mr. Lane. But that's what they said, though.

Mrs. Markham. I know it. They can put anything in papers.


Lane likes to lead everyone in the direction he wants them to go, and Ben
Holmes dutifully follows. Over the cliff, lemming!

[Sam McClung]

how about this?


Mr. Ball.
Now Mrs. Randle, do you mind if after hours some of the staff alter your
testimony in typewritten form to fit in with the framing of Lee Harvey
Oswald?

Mrs. Randle
I absolutely do not agree with them doing that, which is not only illegal,
but morally wrong, so yes I mind. Do not do it.

Mr. Ball
Thank you for approving the alterations the staff may make. We suggest you
neither read not sign the typewritten version of your testimony which the
staff makes creates.

[timstter]

How about you ALSO think that Elvis is still alive?

Is this the BEST support Benny can muster?!!

Concerned Regards,

[aeffects]

On Dec 31 2012, 4:11 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 11:01 am, "Sam McClung" <mccl...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > how about this?
>
> > Mr. Ball.
> > Now Mrs. Randle, do you mind if after hours some of the staff alter your
> > testimony in typewritten form to fit in with the framing of Lee Harvey
> > Oswald?
>
> > Mrs. Randle
> > I absolutely do not agree with them doing that, which is not only illegal,
> > but morally wrong, so yes I mind. Do not do it.
>
> > Mr. Ball
> > Thank you for approving the alterations the staff may make. We suggest you
> > neither read not sign the typewritten version of your testimony which the
> > staff makes creates.
>
> How about you ALSO think that Elvis is still alive?
>
> Is this the BEST support Benny can muster?!!

sheeeeet if you're the best the .john lone nut trolls can muster, you
best get that .john chiro-proctor back here, give you something to
shot for...

psssst, Ben Holmes needs no help young feller, he's cleaned your sorry
ass clock and Wild Billo's (Clarke) for months now. All Ben Holmes
needs to do is review Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement (right here in
broad daylight, and stuff it down your collective throat). Just as
good reading today (quotes with added commentary) as in 1967. Thanks
for making a fools out of yourselves.

See ya in a few weeks, worthless!

> Concerned Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Fresno, Botswana
> *Newsgroup(s) Primo Suck-ass*
>
...

[Sam McClung]

"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> quoted dim:

> On Dec 31 2012, 4:11 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> ...Elvis is still alive...


yeah he is

deal with it

[Bud]

On Dec 31 2012, 10:20 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed the discrepancy between what Postal
> Inspector Holmes testified to, and the actual evidence. Kooks ran, as they
> usually
> do...
>
> "The Curtain Rod Story; or The Long and Bulky Package
>
> THE above were among the more imaginative section headings employed by the
> Commission. They dealt with the manner in which Oswald allegedly carried the
> murder weapon into the Book Depository Building on the morning of November 22.
>
> Late in the afternoon of November 21, Oswald was driven from Dallas to Irving,
> Texas where Marina Oswald and their two daughters lived by Buell Wesley
> Frazier, a fellow worker at the Book Depository. The Commission wrote:
>
> During the morning of November 21, Oswald asked Frazier whether he could ride
> home
> with him that afternoon. Frazier, surprised, asked him why he was going to
> Irving
> on Thursday night rather than Friday. Oswald replied, 'I'm going home to get
> some
> curtain rods ... [to] put in an apartment.'

Laying the groundwork for his cover story.

Notice that Oswald never gets the help you might expect from Marina
or Mrs Paine if this story were true.

> Frazier and his sister, Mrs Linnie Mae Randle, who resided together in Irving,
> Texas, were the only two witnesses to testify that they saw Oswald with a
> package
> in his hand on November 22. According to the Commission:
>
> Mrs Randle stated that on the morning of November 22, while her brother was
> eating
> breakfast, she looked out the breakfast-room window and saw Oswald cross the
> street and walk toward the driveway where her brother parked his car near the
> carport. He carried a 'heavy brown bag'.
>
> Since a description of the package as to size and weight was the germane issue
> of
> this section of the Report, the use of the phrase 'heavy brown bag" was, I
> think,
> misleading. In her testimony Mrs Randle appeared to be describing not the
> package
> but the paper as being heavy. She said, 'He was carrying a package in a sort of
> a
> heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag; it looked to me.' Later in her
> testimony, Mrs Randle added, 'Yes; it is a heavy type of wrapping paper.'"
>
> Mark Lane is now pointing out the misrepresentations of the Warren Commission
> when
> it came to the 'Curtain Rod' story.

Actually it is Lane who is doing the misrepresenting. When the FBI
questioned Randle she stated the bag "...appeared to contain something
heavy."

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10408&relPageId=305

[Ben Holmes]

In article <afe595ad-ec4a-4da4...@h2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Bud says...

>
>On Dec 31 2012, 10:20=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed the discrepancy between what Postal
>> Inspector Holmes testified to, and the actual evidence. Kooks ran, as they
>> usually do...
>>
>> "The Curtain Rod Story; or The Long and Bulky Package
>>
>> THE above were among the more imaginative section headings employed by the
>> Commission. They dealt with the manner in which Oswald allegedly carried the
>>murder weapon into the Book Depository Building on the morning of November 22.
>>
>>Late in the afternoon of November 21, Oswald was driven from Dallas to Irving,
>> Texas where Marina Oswald and their two daughters lived by Buell Wesley
>> Frazier, a fellow worker at the Book Depository. The Commission wrote:
>>
>> During the morning of November 21, Oswald asked Frazier whether he could ride
>>home with him that afternoon. Frazier, surprised, asked him why he was going to
>>Irving on Thursday night rather than Friday. Oswald replied, 'I'm going home to
>>get
>> some curtain rods ... [to] put in an apartment.'
>

> Laying the groundwork for his cover story.
>
> Notice that Oswald never gets the help you might expect from Marina
>or Mrs Paine if this story were true.

How silly! Why would the Warren Commission contradict their own story?

If there had been proper cross examination, I'm quite sure that this would have
been cleared up.

>>Frazier and his sister, Mrs Linnie Mae Randle, who resided together in Irving,
>> Texas, were the only two witnesses to testify that they saw Oswald with a
>> package in his hand on November 22. According to the Commission:
>>
>> Mrs Randle stated that on the morning of November 22, while her brother was
>>eating breakfast, she looked out the breakfast-room window and saw Oswald cross
>>the
>> street and walk toward the driveway where her brother parked his car near the
>> carport. He carried a 'heavy brown bag'.
>>
>>Since a description of the package as to size and weight was the germane issue
>> of this section of the Report, the use of the phrase 'heavy brown bag" was, I
>>think, misleading. In her testimony Mrs Randle appeared to be describing not the
>>package but the paper as being heavy. She said, 'He was carrying a package in a
>>sort of
>> a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag; it looked to me.' Later in her
>> testimony, Mrs Randle added, 'Yes; it is a heavy type of wrapping paper.'"
>>
>> Mark Lane is now pointing out the misrepresentations of the Warren Commission
>> when it came to the 'Curtain Rod' story.
>

> Actually it is Lane who is doing the misrepresenting.

You're lying again.

Anyone can read Mrs. Randle's testimony, and see the same thing that Mark Lane
points out.

>When the FBI
>questioned Randle she stated the bag "...appeared to contain something
>heavy."

So you're using second-hand hearsay to contradict what Mrs. Randle TESTIFIED to.
Rather
dishonest and cowardly of you, isn't it?



> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D1040=
>8&relPageId=3D305

[Bud]

On Jan 4, 10:14 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <afe595ad-ec4a-4da4-a51c-2a394bafb...@h2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

> Bud says...

> >On Dec 31 2012, 10:20=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >>In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed the discrepancy between what Postal
> >> Inspector Holmes testified to, and the actual evidence. Kooks ran, as they
> >> usually do...
>
> >> "The Curtain Rod Story; or The Long and Bulky Package
>
> >> THE above were among the more imaginative section headings employed by the
> >> Commission. They dealt with the manner in which Oswald allegedly carried the
> >>murder weapon into the Book Depository Building on the morning of November 22.
>
> >>Late in the afternoon of November 21, Oswald was driven from Dallas to Irving,
> >> Texas where Marina Oswald and their two daughters lived by Buell Wesley
> >> Frazier, a fellow worker at the Book Depository. The Commission wrote:
>
> >> During the morning of November 21, Oswald asked Frazier whether he could ride
> >>home with him that afternoon. Frazier, surprised, asked him why he was going to
> >>Irving on Thursday night rather than Friday. Oswald replied, 'I'm going home to
> >>get
> >> some curtain rods ... [to] put in an apartment.'
>
> >  Laying the groundwork for his cover story.
>
> >  Notice that Oswald never gets the help you might expect from Marina
> >or Mrs Paine if this story were true.
>
> How silly! Why would the Warren Commission contradict their own story?

How silly! I was talking about the information two witnesses
supplied and you propped up a strawman about the Warren Commission.

> If there had been proper cross examination,

Is it "proper" for investigations to employ cross examination?

> I'm quite sure that this would have
> been cleared up.

I`m quite sure that had Oswald said anything about curtain rods to
either of these women it would have surfaced somewhere in the testimony of
one or both of these witnesses. As is often the case Oswald just doesn`t
get the support you might expect him to get if the things he said were
true. As always the CTers blame the WC for this. And after many interviews
by the authors of these myriad conspiracy books there is still no support
in sight.

> >>Frazier and his sister, Mrs Linnie Mae Randle, who resided together in Irving,
> >> Texas, were the only two witnesses to testify that they saw Oswald with a
> >> package in his hand on November 22. According to the Commission:
>
> >> Mrs Randle stated that on the morning of November 22, while her brother was
> >>eating breakfast, she looked out the breakfast-room window and saw Oswald cross
> >>the
> >> street and walk toward the driveway where her brother parked his car near the
> >> carport. He carried a 'heavy brown bag'.
>
> >>Since a description of the package as to size and weight was the germane issue
> >> of this section of the Report, the use of the phrase 'heavy brown bag" was, I
> >>think, misleading. In her testimony Mrs Randle appeared to be describing not the
> >>package but the paper as being heavy. She said, 'He was carrying a package in a
> >>sort of
> >> a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag; it looked to me.' Later in her
> >> testimony, Mrs Randle added, 'Yes; it is a heavy type of wrapping paper.'"
>
> >> Mark Lane is now pointing out the misrepresentations of the Warren Commission
> >> when it came to the 'Curtain Rod' story.
>
> >  Actually it is Lane who is doing the misrepresenting.
>

> You're [ad hominem removed] again.

>
> Anyone can read Mrs. Randle's testimony, and see the same thing that Mark Lane
> points out.

Anyone can read the FBI report and see that Lane is caught being
deceitful once more.

The fact is that FBI agents were sent out to gather information. The
WC can use that information in it`s report, even if Mark Lane finds it
"misleading" (which is ironic enough).

> >When the FBI
> >questioned Randle she stated the bag "...appeared to contain something
> >heavy."
>
> So you're using second-hand hearsay to contradict what Mrs. Randle TESTIFIED to.

What is the contradiction? Can you show where in her testimony she
indicated the package she saw was light? Are you confused by the
different uses of the adjective "heavy"?

> Rather
> [ad hominem removed] and [ad hominem removed] of you, isn't it?

Heres the idea again, see if you can speak to it...

A married man goes to visit his estranged wife for the expressed purpose
of retrieving curtain rods. Despite intense scrutiny of his stay no one
can show that this man ever mentions curtain rods to his wife. I sure this
is the common and expected course of events, on the planet Bilzblam. On
Earth, not so much.

> >  http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D1...

[Ben Holmes]

In article <3e2acd83-651a-4dd3...@v7g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
Bud says...
>
>On Jan 4, 10:14=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <afe595ad-ec4a-4da4-a51c-2a394bafb...@h2g2000yqa.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Bud says...
>
>> >On Dec 31 2012, 10:20=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >>In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed the discrepancy between wh=
>at Postal
>> >> Inspector Holmes testified to, and the actual evidence. Kooks ran, as =

>they
>> >> usually do...
>>
>> >> "The Curtain Rod Story; or The Long and Bulky Package
>>

>> >> THE above were among the more imaginative section headings employed by=
> the
>> >> Commission. They dealt with the manner in which Oswald allegedly carri=
>ed the
>> >>murder weapon into the Book Depository Building on the morning of Novem=
>ber 22.
>>
>> >>Late in the afternoon of November 21, Oswald was driven from Dallas to =
>Irving,
>> >> Texas where Marina Oswald and their two daughters lived by Buell Wesle=

>y
>> >> Frazier, a fellow worker at the Book Depository. The Commission wrote:
>>

>> >> During the morning of November 21, Oswald asked Frazier whether he cou=
>ld ride
>> >>home with him that afternoon. Frazier, surprised, asked him why he was =
>going to
>> >>Irving on Thursday night rather than Friday. Oswald replied, 'I'm going=

> home to
>> >>get
>> >> some curtain rods ... [to] put in an apartment.'
>>

>> > Laying the groundwork for his cover story.
>>
>> > Notice that Oswald never gets the help you might expect from Marina
>> >or Mrs Paine if this story were true.
>>
>> How silly! Why would the Warren Commission contradict their own story?
>
> How silly! I was talking about the information two witnesses
>supplied and you propped up a strawman about the Warren Commission.

Couldn't give an explanation.

Why would the Warren Commission contradict their own story? You have no
answer... you *KNOW* it's a prosecution effort on their part, and not any real
investigation into the truth.

So you can't answer.

>> If there had been proper cross examination,
>
> Is it "proper" for investigations to employ cross examination?

If they want the truth, absolutely.

The American justice system has long understood that the best way to arrive at
the truth is to have cross-examination.

You're merely a dishonest coward for your refusal to admit this.

>> I'm quite sure that this would have
>> been cleared up.
>
> I`m quite sure that had Oswald said anything about curtain rods to
>either of these women it would have surfaced somewhere in the testimony of
>one or both of these witnesses.

You're lying again...


Indeed, we *KNOW* that there were curtain rods involved, the Dallas PD has
published the fingerprinting of curtain rods...

A fact you can't explain...

>As is often the case Oswald just doesn`t
>get the support you might expect him to get if the things he said were
>true. As always the CTers blame the WC for this. And after many interviews
>by the authors of these myriad conspiracy books there is still no support
>in sight.

The support, moron, is what is needed for the fairy tale put forth by the Warren
Commission.

You can't give credible and non-conspiratorial explanations for the evidence,
and you *KNOW* you can't.

The curtain rod fingerprinting, for example.



>> >>Frazier and his sister, Mrs Linnie Mae Randle, who resided together in =
>Irving,
>> >> Texas, were the only two witnesses to testify that they saw Oswald wit=

>h a
>> >> package in his hand on November 22. According to the Commission:
>>

>> >> Mrs Randle stated that on the morning of November 22, while her brothe=
>r was
>> >>eating breakfast, she looked out the breakfast-room window and saw Oswa=
>ld cross
>> >>the
>> >> street and walk toward the driveway where her brother parked his car n=

>ear the
>> >> carport. He carried a 'heavy brown bag'.
>>

>> >>Since a description of the package as to size and weight was the german=
>e issue
>> >> of this section of the Report, the use of the phrase 'heavy brown bag"=
> was, I
>> >>think, misleading. In her testimony Mrs Randle appeared to be describin=
>g not the
>> >>package but the paper as being heavy. She said, 'He was carrying a pack=

>age in a
>> >>sort of

>> >> a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag; it looked to me.' Later=
> in her
>> >> testimony, Mrs Randle added, 'Yes; it is a heavy type of wrapping pape=
>r.'"
>>
>> >> Mark Lane is now pointing out the misrepresentations of the Warren Com=

>mission
>> >> when it came to the 'Curtain Rod' story.
>>

>> > Actually it is Lane who is doing the misrepresenting.
>>
>> You're [ad hominem removed] again.

The word was "Lying"... as in, you're lying again.

>> Anyone can read Mrs. Randle's testimony, and see the same thing that Mark
>> Lane points out.
>
> Anyone can read the FBI report and see that Lane is caught being
>deceitful once more.

You're lying again...

> The fact is that FBI agents were sent out to gather information. The
>WC can use that information in it`s report, even if Mark Lane finds it
>"misleading" (which is ironic enough).
>
>> >When the FBI
>> >questioned Randle she stated the bag "...appeared to contain something
>> >heavy."
>>
>> So you're using second-hand hearsay to contradict what Mrs. Randle TESTIFIED
to.
>
> What is the contradiction? Can you show where in her testimony she
>indicated the package she saw was light? Are you confused by the
>different uses of the adjective "heavy"?

You're lying again.


Indeed, you're now evading the plain and simple point... that you tried to use
second-hand hearsay to contradict what an eyewitness TESTIFIED to.

Rather stupid of you, isn't it?

>> Rather
>> [ad hominem removed] and [ad hominem removed] of you, isn't it?

Coward, aren't you?

> Heres the idea again, see if you can speak to it...
>
> A married man goes to visit his estranged wife for the expressed purpose
>of retrieving curtain rods. Despite intense scrutiny of his stay no one
>can show that this man ever mentions curtain rods to his wife.

You're lying again...

>I sure this
>is the common and expected course of events, on the planet Bilzblam. On
>Earth, not so much.

It is indeed a common experience to see you lying so frequently.



>> > =A0http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D=
>3D1...
>> >8&relPageId=3D3D305

[Bud]

On Jan 5, 12:34 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <3e2acd83-651a-4dd3-9b73-147b8153e...@v7g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,

I don`t have to respond to every strawman you prop up. If you don`t
want to discuss the ideas I put forth don`t respond to my posts.

> Why would the Warren Commission contradict their own story?

Again, I was talking about the witnesses.

> You have no
> answer... you *KNOW* it's a prosecution effort on their part, and not any real
> investigation into the truth.

Thats your story. What I know is that when you question people you
never know what they are going to answer. What I know is that had
Oswald went to the Paine`s to retrieve curtain rods it would likely
appear in the testimony of one or both of these witnesses. You can`t
speak to this idea so you run from it, and try to misdirect towards
the WC.

> So you can't answer.

Answer? You assume you are right about the the WC`s motivations and
you claim your assumption proves your assumption correct.

> >> If there had been proper cross examination,
>
> >  Is it "proper" for investigations to employ cross examination?
>
> If they want the truth, absolutely.

What investigation into a crime has ever used cross examination?

> The American justice system has long understood that the best way to arrive at
> the truth is to have cross-examination.

It has also long understood that you can`t hold a trial with a dead
defendant.

> You're merely a [ad hominem removed] for your refusal to admit this.

I understand that an apple is not an orange. An investigation and a
trial are different things.

> >> I'm quite sure that this would have
> >> been cleared up.
>
> >  I`m quite sure that had Oswald said anything about curtain rods to
> >either of these women it would have surfaced somewhere in the testimony of
> >one or both of these witnesses.
>

> You're [ad hominem removed] again...

No, I am pretty sure it would have. It`s hard to imagine it not
being notbeing introduced had Oswald actually mentioned it to either
of these witnesses, and it`s hard to imagine him not mentioning it had
that been the real purpose of his visit like he told Frazier.

> Indeed, we *KNOW* that there were curtain rods involved, the Dallas PD has
> published the fingerprinting of curtain rods...

This, of course, has nothing to do with what I said. Do I need to
repeat it. Did you even read what I wrote?

> A fact you can't explain...

Can you explain why the Dallas police department published this?

> >As is often the case Oswald just doesn`t
> >get the support you might expect him to get if the things he said were
> >true. As always the CTers blame the WC for this. And after many interviews
> >by the authors of these myriad conspiracy books there is still no support
> >in sight.
>

> The support, [ad hominem removed], is what is needed for the fairy tale put forth by the Warren
> Commission.

And we have to ignore the lack of support for Oswald`s curtain rod
story developed by the countless self appointed defense attorneys
working on Oswald behalf? Why do I have to ignore this, because you
say so?

> You can't give credible and non-conspiratorial explanations for the evidence,
> and you *KNOW* you can't.
>
> The curtain rod fingerprinting, for example.

You are lost in a discussion, aren`t you? I make the point "A", and
you say "No, no, no, you must address "B"!" Why don`t you ever have to
address my "A", why must I always address your strawmen?

> The word was [ad hominem removed]... as in, you're [ad hominem removed] again.

Why are you hiding behind ad hominem? Lan claimed the WC was
misleading by saying the LMR said the bag was heavy. It does appear in
evidence that she said this. Was Lane ignorant of the FBI report this
information appears in. Unlikely, he just ignored it because it
interfered with his deception of the reader.

> >> Anyone can read Mrs. Randle's testimony, and see the same thing that Mark
> >> Lane points out.
>
> >  Anyone can read the FBI report and see that Lane is caught being
> >deceitful once more.
>

> You're [ad hominem] again...

Well, you can`t, none of Lane`s lies show on your radar.

> >  The fact is that FBI agents were sent out to gather information. The
> >WC can use that information in it`s report, even if Mark Lane finds it
> >"misleading" (which is ironic enough).
>
> >> >When the FBI
> >> >questioned Randle she stated the bag "...appeared to contain something
> >> >heavy."
>
> >> So you're using second-hand hearsay to contradict what Mrs. Randle TESTIFIED
> to.
>
> >  What is the contradiction? Can you show where in her testimony she
> >indicated the package she saw was light? Are you confused by the
> >different uses of the adjective "heavy"?
>

> You're [ad hominem removed] again.

> Indeed, you're now evading the plain and simple point... that you tried to use
> second-hand hearsay to contradict what an eyewitness TESTIFIED to.

Where is the contradiction? Are you saying that Randle couldn`t
express both the idea that the package contained something heavy to
the FBI agents who interviewed her and the idea that the bag see saw
was made of heavy paper in her testimony?

If she said the bag she saw was appeared light in her testimony,
that would be a contradiction to the FBI report. You seem to be
struggling with this simple point.

> Rather [ad hominem removed] of you, isn't it?

Lets see you quote the testimony where Randle contradicts the
information from the FBI report where she indicated the bag contained
something heavy.

My crystal ball tells me you will run from this.

> >> Rather
> >> [ad hominem removed] and [ad hominem removed] of you, isn't it?
>

> [ad hominem removed], aren't you?

Says the person who hides from me from behind his filter.

> >  Heres the idea again, see if you can speak to it...
>
> >  A married man goes to visit his estranged wife for the expressed purpose
> >of retrieving curtain rods. Despite intense scrutiny of his stay no one
> >can show that this man ever mentions curtain rods to his wife.
>

> You're [ad hominem removed] again...

In what way is what I wrote untrue?

> >I sure this
> >is the common and expected course of events, on the planet Bilzblam. On
> >Earth, not so much.
>

> It is indeed a common experience to see you [ad hominem removed] so frequently.

You can`t show that anything I wrote is untrue. I have shown that
what Lane wrote is untrue, and that bugs you.

Despite your efforts to turn the focus on to the WC this is about
what Lane said. He said the WC was misleading by saying that LMR
indicated the bag she saw was heavy. But the investigation turned up
this very information. Lane knew about this information, but neglected
to inform his readers about it, opting to focus on evidence where the
subject of weight was never discussed. He is a dishonest, lying
scoundrel.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <58401866-7ed4-49da...@j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Bud says...
>
>On Jan 5, 12:34=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <3e2acd83-651a-4dd3-9b73-147b8153e...@v7g2000yqv.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Bud says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jan 4, 10:14=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <afe595ad-ec4a-4da4-a51c-2a394bafb...@h2g2000yqa.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> Bud says...
>>
>> >> >On Dec 31 2012, 10:20=3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> w=
>rote:
>> >> >>In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed the discrepancy between=
> wh=3D
>> >at Postal
>> >> >> Inspector Holmes testified to, and the actual evidence. Kooks ran, =
>as =3D

>> >they
>> >> >> usually do...
>>
>> >> >> "The Curtain Rod Story; or The Long and Bulky Package
>>

>> >> >> THE above were among the more imaginative section headings employed=
> by=3D
>> > the
>> >> >> Commission. They dealt with the manner in which Oswald allegedly ca=
>rri=3D
>> >ed the
>> >> >>murder weapon into the Book Depository Building on the morning of No=
>vem=3D
>> >ber 22.
>>
>> >> >>Late in the afternoon of November 21, Oswald was driven from Dallas =
>to =3D
>> >Irving,
>> >> >> Texas where Marina Oswald and their two daughters lived by Buell We=
>sle=3D
>> >y
>> >> >> Frazier, a fellow worker at the Book Depository. The Commission wro=
>te:
>>
>> >> >> During the morning of November 21, Oswald asked Frazier whether he =
>cou=3D
>> >ld ride
>> >> >>home with him that afternoon. Frazier, surprised, asked him why he w=
>as =3D
>> >going to
>> >> >>Irving on Thursday night rather than Friday. Oswald replied, 'I'm go=
>ing=3D

>> > home to
>> >> >>get
>> >> >> some curtain rods ... [to] put in an apartment.'
>>

>> >> > Laying the groundwork for his cover story.
>>
>> >> > Notice that Oswald never gets the help you might expect from Marina
>> >> >or Mrs Paine if this story were true.
>>
>> >> How silly! Why would the Warren Commission contradict their own story?
>>
>> >How silly! I was talking about the information two witnesses
>> >supplied and you propped up a strawman about the Warren Commission.
>>
>> Couldn't give an explanation.
>
> I don`t have to respond to every strawman you prop up. If you don`t
>want to discuss the ideas I put forth don`t respond to my posts.

The "strawman" was yours... as I so eloquently pointed out - and you couldn't
refute.


Now, you somehow believe that the Warren Commission would willingly allow
information that demolishes their theory of the case... I dispute that.

You can't answer...

>> Why would the Warren Commission contradict their own story?
>
> Again, I was talking about the witnesses.

Still can't answer, eh coward?

>> You have no
>> answer... you *KNOW* it's a prosecution effort on their part, and not any
>> real investigation into the truth.
>
> Thats your story. What I know is that when you question people you
>never know what they are going to answer.

You're a gutless liar, "Bud".

It's a FACT that the Warren Commission rather carefully elicited exactly the
testimony that they wanted, and frequently went "off the record" to make sure
that they were only covering what they wanted to have.

There are numerous examples where eyewitnesses began to mention things that the
staff didn't want in the record, and the topic was IMMEDIATELY changed to avoid
further discussion...


You're just a gutless yellow liar, because you *KNOW* these facts.

>What I know is that had
>Oswald went to the Paine`s to retrieve curtain rods it would likely
>appear in the testimony of one or both of these witnesses. You can`t
>speak to this idea so you run from it, and try to misdirect towards
>the WC.

It's quite likely that they *could* have spoken on the topic. You confuse
speculation with evidence.

Nor is there any "misdirection" - it's simply the refutation that you can't
answer.

>> So you can't answer.
>
> Answer? You assume you are right about the the WC`s motivations and
>you claim your assumption proves your assumption correct.

You presume, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, that the Warren
Commission was after the truth.

You *KNOW* that this is untrue.

>> >> If there had been proper cross examination,
>>
>> > Is it "proper" for investigations to employ cross examination?
>>
>> If they want the truth, absolutely.
>
> What investigation into a crime has ever used cross examination?

What investigation used sworn testimony?



>> The American justice system has long understood that the best way to arri=

>ve at
>> the truth is to have cross-examination.
>
> It has also long understood that you can`t hold a trial with a dead
>defendant.

Meaningless.

You're again a liar... you're trying to imply that cross-examination is only
valid in a trial with a live defendant.

You're lying...

>> You're merely a [ad hominem removed] for your refusal to admit this.
>
> I understand that an apple is not an orange. An investigation and a
>trial are different things.

Gutless liar, aren't you?

>> >> I'm quite sure that this would have
>> >> been cleared up.
>>
>> >I`m quite sure that had Oswald said anything about curtain rods to
>> >either of these women it would have surfaced somewhere in the testimony of
>> >one or both of these witnesses.
>>
>> You're [ad hominem removed] again...
>
> No, I am pretty sure it would have. It`s hard to imagine it not
>being notbeing introduced had Oswald actually mentioned it to either
>of these witnesses, and it`s hard to imagine him not mentioning it had
>that been the real purpose of his visit like he told Frazier.

You're lying again...

Tell us about the curtain rods that *ARE* in the case... you know, the ones that
were fingerprinted...


But you won't. If anything, you'll merely lie about them...

>> Indeed, we *KNOW* that there were curtain rods involved, the Dallas PD has
>> published the fingerprinting of curtain rods...
>
> This, of course, has nothing to do with what I said. Do I need to
>repeat it. Did you even read what I wrote?

Hmmm... gutless dishonest yellow coward... aren't you?

>> A fact you can't explain...
>
> Can you explain why the Dallas police department published this?

Why would I care?

The important thing is that this evidence shows what a liar you are, and what
liars the Warren Commission were.

You know it, I know it, and any intelligent reader conversant with the basic
facts of this case know it.

>> >As is often the case Oswald just doesn`t
>> >get the support you might expect him to get if the things he said were
>> >true. As always the CTers blame the WC for this. And after many interviews
>> >by the authors of these myriad conspiracy books there is still no support
>> >in sight.
>>
>> The support, [ad hominem removed], is what is needed for the fairy tale
>> put forth by the Warren Commission.
>
> And we have to ignore

When you can't even show the case made by the Warren Commission - why are you
worried at all about alternative explanations that *ARE* credible, and that *DO*
fit the evidence?

>the lack of support for Oswald`s curtain rod story

You're lying again. Indeed, I just mentioned the support above, as well as a
CREDIBLE reason for the lack of testimony on the issue, and you ran.

>developed by the countless self appointed defense attorneys
>working on Oswald behalf? Why do I have to ignore this, because you
>say so?

You're not ignoring the evidence because I'm 'demanding' that you do - you're
ignoring the evidence because it doesn't fit your faith.

You, and your gutlessly yellow friends in the censored forum will *NEVER* offer
a credible and non-conspiratorial explanation for the curtain rods fingerprinted
by the DPD, nor the inconvenient fact that curtain rods were put up in Oswald's
room on Saturday.

Nor will you give a credible reason for why the Warren Commission hid these
facts.


>> You can't give credible and non-conspiratorial explanations for the evide=

>nce,
>> and you *KNOW* you can't.
>>
>> The curtain rod fingerprinting, for example.
>
> You are lost in a discussion, aren`t you? I make the point "A", and
>you say "No, no, no, you must address "B"!" Why don`t you ever have to
>address my "A", why must I always address your strawmen?

You ask me to address speculation, I point out that you MUST address the
evidence.

Embarrassing for you kooks, isn't it?


>> >> >>Frazier and his sister, Mrs Linnie Mae Randle, who resided together =
>in =3D
>> >Irving,
>> >> >> Texas, were the only two witnesses to testify that they saw Oswald =
>wit=3D

>> >h a
>> >> >> package in his hand on November 22. According to the Commission:
>>

>> >> >> Mrs Randle stated that on the morning of November 22, while her bro=
>the=3D
>> >r was
>> >> >>eating breakfast, she looked out the breakfast-room window and saw O=
>swa=3D
>> >ld cross
>> >> >>the
>> >> >> street and walk toward the driveway where her brother parked his ca=
>r n=3D

>> >ear the
>> >> >> carport. He carried a 'heavy brown bag'.
>>

>> >> >>Since a description of the package as to size and weight was the ger=
>man=3D
>> >e issue
>> >> >> of this section of the Report, the use of the phrase 'heavy brown b=
>ag"=3D
>> > was, I
>> >> >>think, misleading. In her testimony Mrs Randle appeared to be descri=
>bin=3D
>> >g not the
>> >> >>package but the paper as being heavy. She said, 'He was carrying a p=
>ack=3D

>> >age in a
>> >> >>sort of

>> >> >> a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag; it looked to me.' La=
>ter=3D
>> > in her
>> >> >> testimony, Mrs Randle added, 'Yes; it is a heavy type of wrapping p=
>ape=3D
>> >r.'"
>>
>> >> >> Mark Lane is now pointing out the misrepresentations of the Warren =
>Com=3D

>> >mission
>> >> >> when it came to the 'Curtain Rod' story.
>>

>> >> > Actually it is Lane who is doing the misrepresenting.
>>
>> >> You're [ad hominem removed] again.
>>

>> The word was [ad hominem removed]... as in, you're [ad hominem removed] a=

>gain.
>
> Why are you hiding behind ad hominem?

Why are you lying?


>Lane claimed the WC was

>misleading by saying the LMR said the bag was heavy. It does appear in
>evidence that she said this.

No liar, it appears in hearsay ... stick to the testimony and make your point.

>Was Lane ignorant of the FBI report this
>information appears in. Unlikely, he just ignored it because it
>interfered with his deception of the reader.

Au contraire, it's *YOU* that's desperate to find a lie on Mark Lane's part, and
cannot admit that Mark Lane is demolishing your faith.



>> >> Anyone can read Mrs. Randle's testimony, and see the same thing that M=
>ark
>> >> Lane points out.
>>
>> > =A0Anyone can read the FBI report and see that Lane is caught being

>> >deceitful once more.
>>
>> You're [ad hominem] again...
>
> Well, you can`t, none of Lane`s lies show on your radar.

Sorry stupid... you need to QUOTE a "lie" on Mark Lane's part, then cite the
evidence that he contradicts.

The Warren Commission lied repeatedly about the evidence, and you can't accept
that simple truth... why?


>> > =A0The fact is that FBI agents were sent out to gather information. The

>> >WC can use that information in it`s report, even if Mark Lane finds it
>> >"misleading" (which is ironic enough).
>>
>> >> >When the FBI

>> >> >questioned Randle she stated the bag "...appeared to contain somethin=
>g
>> >> >heavy."
>>
>> >> So you're using second-hand hearsay to contradict what Mrs. Randle TES=
>TIFIED
>> to.
>>
>> > =A0What is the contradiction? Can you show where in her testimony she

>> >indicated the package she saw was light? Are you confused by the
>> >different uses of the adjective "heavy"?
>>
>> You're [ad hominem removed] again.
>
>> Indeed, you're now evading the plain and simple point... that you tried
>> to use second-hand hearsay to contradict what an eyewitness TESTIFIED to.
>
> Where is the contradiction? Are you saying that Randle couldn`t
>express both the idea that the package contained something heavy to
>the FBI agents who interviewed her and the idea that the bag see saw
>was made of heavy paper in her testimony?
>
> If she said the bag she saw was appeared light in her testimony,
>that would be a contradiction to the FBI report. You seem to be
>struggling with this simple point.


Indeed, you're now evading the plain and simple point... that you tried to use
second-hand hearsay to contradict what an eyewitness TESTIFIED to.



>> Rather [ad hominem removed] of you, isn't it?
>
> Lets see you quote the testimony where Randle contradicts the
>information from the FBI report where she indicated the bag contained
>something heavy.

You are, of course, asserting that this is EXACTLY the case...

> My crystal ball tells me you will run from this.

My crystal ball tells me that you'll snip the fact that you're a liar... and
can't admit that you are desperate to use hearsay to rebut eyewitness testimony.

>> >> Rather
>> >> [ad hominem removed] and [ad hominem removed] of you, isn't it?
>>
>> [ad hominem removed], aren't you?
>
> Says the person who hides from me from behind his filter.

You know, I think I might stop visiting the censored forum too.

I'm wasting my time responding to lies.


>> > =A0Heres the idea again, see if you can speak to it...
>>
>> > =A0A married man goes to visit his estranged wife for the expressed pur=

>pose
>> >of retrieving curtain rods. Despite intense scrutiny of his stay no one
>> >can show that this man ever mentions curtain rods to his wife.
>>
>> You're [ad hominem removed] again...
>
> In what way is what I wrote untrue?

In what way is what *I* just stated untrue?

>> >I sure this
>> >is the common and expected course of events, on the planet Bilzblam. On
>> >Earth, not so much.
>>

>> It is indeed a common experience to see you [ad hominem removed] so frequ=

>ently.
>
> You can`t show that anything I wrote is untrue.

You're lying again...

>I have shown that
>what Lane wrote is untrue, and that bugs you.

Well, you can dream, I suppose...

> Despite your efforts to turn the focus on to the WC this is about
>what Lane said. He said the WC was misleading by saying that LMR
>indicated the bag she saw was heavy.

Yep... they did. They had her right there in front of them, and REFUSED to
elicit the very statement that they later claimed she'd said.

>But the investigation turned up
>this very information.

The investigation also turned up James Chaney's assertion that separate bullets
struck JFK and Connally.

I defy you to produce the Warren Commission's statements to this effect.

>Lane knew about this information, but neglected
>to inform his readers about it,

The Warren Commission knew about this information, but neglected to inform their
readers about it.

>opting to focus on evidence where the
>subject of weight was never discussed.

Yep... unlike the Warren Commission - he stuck to the eyewitness' actual
STATEMENTS under oath.



>I am dishonest, lying scoundrel.


Yep. I agree.



>> >> > =3DA0http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?doc=
>Id=3D3D=3D
>> >3D1...
>> >> >8&relPageId=3D3D3D305

[Bud]

On Jan 5, 11:55 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <58401866-7ed4-49da-a4bd-4b2c554d9...@j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

No, it was yours. I expressed an idea and you tried to divert
attention away from that idea with a strawman.

>as I so eloquently pointed out - and you couldn't
> refute.
>
> Now, you somehow believe that the Warren Commission would willingly allow
> information that demolishes their theory of the case... I dispute that.

You said that, but isn`t worth anything.

> You can't answer...
>
> >> Why would the Warren Commission contradict their own story?
>
> >  Again, I was talking about the witnesses.
>

> Still can't answer, eh [ad hominem removed]?

Why are you running from the idea I expressed? Why did you even
bother to respond if you weren`t going to address anything I said?

> >> You have no
> >> answer... you *KNOW* it's a prosecution effort on their part, and not any
> >> real investigation into the truth.
>
> >  Thats your story. What I know is that when you question people you
> >never know what they are going to answer.
>

> You're a [ad hominem removed], "Bud".

You can`t seem to really contest the things I say. All you can do is
hurl insults.

> It's a FACT that the Warren Commission rather carefully elicited exactly the
> testimony that they wanted, and frequently went "off the record" to make sure
> that they were only covering what they wanted to have.

It`s a fact that this is nonsense, and you never know what a witness is
going to say. If Oswald mentioned to either of these witnesses that he
came for curtain rods, what magical powers did the WC possess that would
prevent them from mentioning this?

> There are numerous examples where eyewitnesses began to mention things that the
> staff didn't want in the record, and the topic was IMMEDIATELY changed to avoid
> further discussion...

Thats your reading of it. The fact is you can`t prevent these
witnesses from inserting anything they want to into the record, if
they blurt it it will appear.

> You're just a [ad hominem removed], because you *KNOW* these facts.

Don`t tell me what I know, what I know is that you can`t tell you
fantasies from facts.

> >What I know is that had
> >Oswald went to the Paine`s to retrieve curtain rods it would likely
> >appear in the testimony of one or both of these witnesses. You can`t
> >speak to this idea so you run from it, and try to misdirect towards
> >the WC.
>
> It's quite likely that they *could* have spoken on the topic. You confuse
> speculation with evidence.

You speculate that the WC would have prevented such talk.

> Nor is there any "misdirection" - it's simply the refutation that you can't
> answer.

It`s a strawman that leads in a direction that is pointless to pursue.
You want to misdirect away from the points I make with strawmen, so you
can bog the discussion down with things that are irrelevant to anything
I`ve said.

> >> So you can't answer.
>
> >  Answer? You assume you are right about the the WC`s motivations and
> >you claim your assumption proves your assumption correct.
>
> You presume, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, that the Warren
> Commission was after the truth.

After it and got it. This is shown in many ways, including the fact
that Oswald could muster no support from anyone for his curtain rod
story.

> You *KNOW* that this is untrue.

Save you empty, meaningless claims for those impressed by them.

> >> >> If there had been proper cross examination,
>
> >> > Is it "proper" for investigations to employ cross examination?
>
> >> If they want the truth, absolutely.
>
> >  What investigation into a crime has ever used cross examination?
>
> What investigation used sworn testimony?

Sworn depositions are common. What does this have to do with cross
examination?

> >> The American justice system has long understood that the best way to arri=
> >ve at
> >> the truth is to have cross-examination.
>
> >  It has also long understood that you can`t hold a trial with a dead
> >defendant.
>
> Meaningless.

The American justice system feels otherwise.

> You're again a [ad hominem removed]... you're trying to imply that cross-examination is only

> valid in a trial with a live defendant.

The only thing I am implying is that you were wrong when you claimed
that cross examination would have been "proper" in this investigation.
For one thing, how do you know who you would select would be
acceptable to Oswald?

> You're [ad hominem removed]...

It only looks that way to you because my ideas are better than
yours.

> >> You're merely a [ad hominem removed] for your refusal to admit this.
>
> >  I understand that an apple is not an orange. An investigation and a
> >trial are different things.
>

> [ad hominem removed], aren't you?

No, it`s true, ask anyone.

> >> >> I'm quite sure that this would have
> >> >> been cleared up.
>
> >> >I`m quite sure that had Oswald said anything about curtain rods to
> >> >either of these women it would have surfaced somewhere in the testimony of
> >> >one or both of these witnesses.
>
> >> You're [ad hominem removed] again...
>
> >  No, I am pretty sure it would have. It`s hard to imagine it not
> >being notbeing introduced had Oswald actually mentioned it to either
> >of these witnesses, and it`s hard to imagine him not mentioning it had
> >that been the real purpose of his visit like he told Frazier.
>

> You're [ad homimen] again...

>
> Tell us about the curtain rods that *ARE* in the case... you know, the ones that
> were fingerprinted...

If you have a point to make with these items, go right ahead.

> But you won't. If anything, you'll merely [ad hominem removed] about them...

You keep alluding to them, but you can`t seem to make a point using
them. Is it because you can`t take a supportable position using them?

> >> Indeed, we *KNOW* that there were curtain rods involved, the Dallas PD has
> >> published the fingerprinting of curtain rods...
>
> >  This, of course, has nothing to do with what I said. Do I need to
> >repeat it. Did you even read what I wrote?
>

> Hmmm... [ad hominem removed]... aren't you?

Try addressing what I actually say, just to see what it`s like.

> >> A fact you can't explain...
>
> >  Can you explain why the Dallas police department published this?
>
> Why would I care?

<snicker> YOU keep bringing it up!

Against my better judgment I will speculate an answer to your question.
I suppose it is likely that the items were fingerprinted in order to
prevent any defense attorney that Oswald might retain from making hay over
the fact that they didn`t fingerprint these items. If the DPD checks it
and Oswald`s prints are not found, then the defense can`t imply that if
they *had* been checked, Oswald`s prints might have been found. It`s
avoids the charge that the DPD was negligent in checking for evidence that
might help Oswald.

> The important thing is that this evidence shows what a [ad hominem removed] you are, and what

> liars the Warren Commission were.

In no way you can show, apparently.

> You know it, I know it, and any intelligent reader conversant with the basic
> facts of this case know it.

You aren`t going to stop until you employ every fallacy, are you?

> >> >As is often the case Oswald just doesn`t
> >> >get the support you might expect him to get if the things he said were
> >> >true. As always the CTers blame the WC for this. And after many interviews
> >> >by the authors of these myriad conspiracy books there is still no support
> >> >in sight.
>
> >> The support, [ad hominem removed], is what is needed for the fairy tale
> >> put forth by the Warren Commission.
>
> >  And we have to ignore
>
> When you can't even show the case made by the Warren Commission - why are you
> worried at all about alternative explanations that *ARE* credible, and that *DO*
> fit the evidence?

I was only making the point that despite great effort the conspiracy
movement hasn`t found support from Marina and Mrs Paine that he went
there for curtain rods.

> >the lack of support for Oswald`s curtain rod story
>

> You're [ad hominem] again. Indeed, I just mentioned the support above, as well as a

> CREDIBLE reason for the lack of testimony on the issue, and you ran.

I don`t find the idea that these witnesses were aware that Oswald
came for curtain rods and never breathed a word of this to anyone is
credible. I don`t find the idea that Oswald could be going there for
curtain rods and neither woman be aware of it is credible, either. By
far the most credible reason that they didn`t mention anything about
curtains rods to anyone is that Oswald lied about going to the Mrs
Paine`s house to retrieve curtain rods.

> >developed by the countless self appointed defense attorneys
> >working on Oswald behalf? Why do I have to ignore this, because you
> >say so?
>
> You're not ignoring the evidence because I'm 'demanding' that you do - you're
> ignoring the evidence because it doesn't fit your faith.
>
> You, and your gutlessly yellow friends in the censored forum

I wasn`t aware I had any friends in the censored forum. They never
lend me money or help me move. Anyway, if I had such friends they
would be stalwart and brave, not retarded like your buddies over at
the nuthouse.

>will *NEVER* offer
> a credible and non-conspiratorial explanation for the curtain rods fingerprinted
> by the DPD, nor the inconvenient fact that curtain rods were put up in Oswald's
> room on Saturday.

Aren`t there pictures of them being put up?

But by all means, I love a good conspiracy yarn, lets hear your
conspiratorial explanation.

> Nor will you give a credible reason for why the Warren Commission hid these
> facts.

The WC wasn`t even formed by Saturday.

> >> You can't give credible and non-conspiratorial explanations for the evide=
> >nce,
> >> and you *KNOW* you can't.
>
> >> The curtain rod fingerprinting, for example.
>
> >  You are lost in a discussion, aren`t you? I make the point "A", and
> >you say "No, no, no, you must address "B"!" Why don`t you ever have to
> >address my "A", why must I always address your strawmen?
>
> You ask me to address speculation, I point out that you MUST address the
> evidence.

Can you produce something from the DPD stating why they
fingerprinted these curtain rods?

> Embarrassing for you [ad hominem], isn't it?

Where would you guys be without speculation?

And isn`t it true that you can`t come out and state a position on
many of these issues because you really can`t support a position?

> Why are you [ad hominem]?

I didn`t ask for another example, I asked why you were hiding behind
it.

> >Lane claimed the WC was
> >misleading by saying the LMR said the bag was heavy. It does appear in
> >evidence that she said this.
>

> No [ad hominem], it appears in hearsay ...

No silly, it appears in evidence. The FBI report is in evidence, and
Lane was aware of it.

>stick to the testimony and make your point.

No, you are mistaken again, I can stick to any evidence I like.

CTers use this report all the time in support of ideas of theirs.

> >Was Lane ignorant of the FBI report this
> >information appears in. Unlikely, he just ignored it because it
> >interfered with his deception of the reader.
>
> Au contraire, it's *YOU* that's desperate to find a lie on Mark Lane's part, and
> cannot admit that Mark Lane is demolishing your faith.

I wouldn`t call this example a lie, just him being deceitful to the
reader. It made it seem that the WC was mistaken and misleading when it
said the bag contained something heavy when it was just information
supplied to the FBI from the witness herself.

> >> >> Anyone can read Mrs. Randle's testimony, and see the same thing that M=
> >ark
> >> >> Lane points out.
>
> >> > =A0Anyone can read the FBI report and see that Lane is caught being
> >> >deceitful once more.
>
> >> You're [ad hominem] again...
>
> >  Well, you can`t, none of Lane`s lies show on your radar.
>
> Sorry stupid... you need to QUOTE a "lie" on Mark Lane's part, then cite the
> evidence that he contradicts.

I just did. The FBI report.

> The Warren Commission lied repeatedly about the evidence, and you can't accept
> that simple truth... why?

You are lost without your security blanket of blaming the WC, aren`t
you? Why did you even start this series if you had no attention to
anyone who scrutinizes what Lane wrote?

You are running. Where is the contradiction?

> >> Rather [ad hominem removed] of you, isn't it?
>
> >  Lets see you quote the testimony where Randle contradicts the
> >information from the FBI report where she indicated the bag contained
> >something heavy.
>
> You are, of course, asserting that this is EXACTLY the case...

You aren`t producing any testimony from Randle that contradicts the
FBI report, why is that?

> >  My crystal ball tells me you will run from this.
>

> My crystal ball tells me that you'll snip the fact that you're a [ad hominem]... and

> can't admit that you are desperate to use hearsay to rebut eyewitness testimony.

What testimony? Quote Randle saying something in her testimony that
contradicts what appears in the FBI report about the bag appearing to
contain something heavy.

My crystal ball was dead on, you`ve put on your running shoes. This
often happens when you are challenged to put up.

> >> >> Rather
> >> >> [ad hominem removed] and [ad hominem removed] of you, isn't it?
>
> >> [ad hominem removed], aren't you?
>
> >  Says the person who hides from me from behind his filter.
>
> You know, I think I might stop visiting the censored forum too.

Make it official, it allows me to insult you there.

> I'm wasting my time responding to [ad hominem].

It`s tough be called upon to support your own words, isn`t it? You
claimed there was a contradiction, I asked to show it, you got
nothing.

> >> > =A0Heres the idea again, see if you can speak to it...
>
> >> > =A0A married man goes to visit his estranged wife for the expressed pur=
> >pose
> >> >of retrieving curtain rods. Despite intense scrutiny of his stay no one
> >> >can show that this man ever mentions curtain rods to his wife.
>
> >> You're [ad hominem removed] again...
>
> > In what way is what I wrote untrue?
>
> In what way is what *I* just stated untrue?

I didn`t call you a liar. You said I was one right under what I
wrote, but when I ask you to point to the lie you got nothing again.

> >> >I sure this
> >> >is the common and expected course of events, on the planet Bilzblam. On
> >> >Earth, not so much.
>
> >> It is indeed a common experience to see you [ad hominem removed] so frequ=
> >ently.
>
> >  You can`t show that anything I wrote is untrue.
>

> You're [ad hominem] again...

Ok, you just haven`t. I guess maybe you can, but we`ll never know,
all you have is ad hominem to offer.

> >I have shown that
> >what Lane wrote is untrue, and that bugs you.
>
> Well, you can dream, I suppose...
>
> >  Despite your efforts to turn the focus on to the WC this is about
> >what Lane said. He said the WC was misleading by saying that LMR
> >indicated the bag she saw was heavy.
>
> Yep... they did. They had her right there in front of them, and REFUSED to
> elicit the very statement that they later claimed she'd said.

Thats merely a criticism. No matter what they asked her someone could
say they should have asked her this or that. But what you claimed was a
contradiction between what her testimony was about whether the bag
contained something heavy and what appeared in the FBI report.

> >But the investigation turned up
> >this very information.
>
> The investigation also turned up James Chaney's assertion that separate bullets
> struck JFK and Connally.
>
> I defy you to produce the Warren Commission's statements to this effect.

He said Kennedy was struck in the face, and he wasn`t. I think he
said that Connally was struck after Kennedy was hit in the head. You
can`t expect the witnesses to get things perfect under these
circumstances.

> >Lane knew about this information, but neglected
> >to inform his readers about it,
>
> The Warren Commission knew about this information, but neglected to inform their
> readers about it.

Why are you producing excerpts from Lanes book? You don`t seem to
have any interest in scrutinizing anything the man wrote.

> >opting to focus on evidence where the
> >subject of weight was never discussed.
>
> Yep... unlike the Warren Commission - he stuck to the eyewitness' actual
> STATEMENTS under oath.

What did she say under oath about the bag appearing heavy?

> >I am dishonest, lying scoundrel.
>
> Yep. I agree.

You changed what I wrote. Pretty low, even for you.

[Sam McClung]

>> On Dec 31 2012, 4:11 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ...Elvis is still alive...

ain't it just too cool?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFtAOltn7iw


http://www.elvis.com.au/

[Bud]

On Jan 5, 4:27 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 11:55 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:

TOP POST-

Ben Holmes has declared he is no longer going to respond to any of
the challenges I make to his posts that I post here in the moderated
board. Anyone who has been following the exchanges between him and I
can surely understand why. He posts excerpts from Lane`s books, but he
won`t respond to any scrutiny applied to what Lane wrote. One wonders
why he posts these excerpts at all, as soon as someone questions
anything Lane wrote he just props up strawmen that don`t address the
issues raised. In these recent exchanges Ben said there was "conflict"
between Randle`s testimony and the FBI report pertaining to her
perceived weight of the bag she saw Oswald carrying, but he ran away
when I asked him to show this "conflict". He also acted in a truly low
and desperate manner by changing words I said to make it appear as if
I said things I never had. All and all a sweet victory for me, besting
this [ad hominem removed] and sending him packing.

[aeffects]

top post

you've lost it hon.... you aren't going to clean up the WCReport... Lane demolished it. Nutters (you) are stuck with its resulting lies of commisson AND lies of OMISSION...Carry on.

[aeffects]

ROTFLMFAO.... can't run hon... I suppose you need to save 'lone nut-WCReport suuport face somehow.... lmfao... Carry on, hon.

[Bud]

On Jan 7, 2:39 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ROTFLMFAO.... can't run hon... I suppose you need to save 'lone nut-WCReport suuport face somehow.... lmfao... Carry on, hon.

I can only assume Ben ordered you to respond here. In any case Ben
has shown that he can`t defend what Lane wrote. If Lane had the truth
on his side why does he feel the need to tell so many lies in support
of that truth?

> ...
>
> read more »

[Bud]

On Jan 7, 2:36 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> top post
>
> you've lost it hon.... you aren't going to clean up the WCReport... Lane demolished it. Nutters (you) are stuck with its resulting lies of commisson AND lies of OMISSION...Carry on.

Theres a good sidekick, do your masters bidding and make a response
like you were told. Ben has had his faith shaken so badly he has to go
to further lengths to avoid Lane`s lies being shoved up his ass.

> ...
>
> read more »

[aeffects]

On Monday, January 7, 2013 12:05:25 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2:39 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ROTFLMFAO.... can't run hon... I suppose you need to save 'lone nut-WCReport suuport face somehow.... lmfao... Carry on, hon.
>
>
>
> I can only assume Ben ordered you to respond here. In any case Ben
>
> has shown that he can`t defend what Lane wrote. If Lane had the truth
>
> on his side why does he feel the need to tell so many lies in support
>
> of that truth?

assumptions from lone nut morons such as yourself are just that, ASSUMPTIONS. Fact is, you and WCR supporters have continually got your collective ass kicked by Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement. You have no defense of the WCR (other than MORE lies), so please, carry on!

Perhaps you should ask yourself WHY the Warren Commission found it necessary to lie in the first place... if you can't handle that, then its no wonder Ben Holmes discussions of Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement makes you, in particular, look like an amateur!

[aeffects]

On Monday, January 7, 2013 12:08:19 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2:36 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > top post
>
> >
>
> > you've lost it hon.... you aren't going to clean up the WCReport... Lane demolished it. Nutters (you) are stuck with its resulting lies of commisson AND lies of OMISSION...Carry on.
>
>
>
> Theres a good sidekick, do your masters bidding and make a response
>
> like you were told. Ben has had his faith shaken so badly he has to go
>
> to further lengths to avoid Lane`s lies being shoved up his ass.

the perpetual lone nut whiner-loser mantle is fitting you quite nice these day's, Bud the Dudster. Strike out at any and all when your getting your ass kicked, eh troll? ROTFLMFAO...

[Bud]

On Jan 7, 3:32 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 7, 2013 12:05:25 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Jan 7, 2:39 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > ROTFLMFAO.... can't run hon... I suppose you need to save 'lone nut-WCReport suuport face somehow.... lmfao... Carry on, hon.
>
> >   I can only assume Ben ordered you to respond here. In any case Ben
>
> > has shown that he can`t defend what Lane wrote. If Lane had the truth
>
> > on his side why does he feel the need to tell so many lies in support
>
> > of that truth?
>
> assumptions from lone nut morons such as yourself are just that, ASSUMPTIONS. Fact is, you and WCR supporters have continually got your collective ass kicked by Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement. You have no defense of the WCR (other than MORE lies), so please, carry on!

You would have to be a retard with no ability to think to call your
own to be impressed with this book. Which is why you and Ben like it
so much.

> Perhaps you should ask yourself WHY the Warren Commission found it necessary to lie in the first place... if you can't handle that, then its no wonder Ben Holmes discussions of Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement makes you, in particular, look like an amateur!

If Ben can`t support what Lane wrote why is he posting this series
of excerpts from his book at all?

> ...
>
> read more »

[Bud]

On Jan 7, 3:35 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 7, 2013 12:08:19 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Jan 7, 2:36 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > top post
>
> > > you've lost it hon.... you aren't going to clean up the WCReport... Lane demolished it. Nutters (you) are stuck with its resulting lies of commisson AND lies of OMISSION...Carry on.
>
> >   Theres a good sidekick, do your masters bidding and make a response
>
> > like you were told. Ben has had his faith shaken so badly he has to go
>
> > to further lengths to avoid Lane`s lies being shoved up his ass.
>
> the perpetual lone nut whiner-loser mantle is fitting you quite nice these day's, Bud the Dudster. Strike out at any and all when your getting your ass kicked, eh troll? ROTFLMFAO...

I guess you think all that running and hiding Ben is doing is just a
ruse. He can`t defend what Lane wrote, he *HAS* to hide.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Ben Holmes]

In article <12ddf98e-b257-4d2f...@googlegroups.com>, aeffects
says...

>
>On Monday, January 7, 2013 12:05:25 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:

>> On Jan 7, 2:39=A0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > ROTFLMFAO.... can't run hon... I suppose you need to save 'lone nut-WCR

>> > report suuport face somehow.... lmfao... Carry on, hon.

>>
>> I can only assume Ben ordered you to respond here.

An illustration of your utter stupidity...

>> In any case Ben
>> has shown that he can`t defend what Lane wrote.

And yet, you still haven't been able to produce even a *SINGLE* quote of Mark
Lane's ... along with the citation that contradicts what he said.

>> If Lane had the truth
>> on his side why does he feel the need to tell so many lies in support
>> of that truth?

You're lying again...

>assumptions from lone nut morons such as yourself are just that, ASSUMPTIONS.
>Fact is, you and WCR supporters have continually got your collective ass
>kicked by Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement. You have no defense of the WCR
>(other than MORE lies), so please, carry on!

Indeed... the kooks *HAVE* to lie to defend the WCR, or lie to refute Mark Lane.

They simply cannot admit the simple facts in this case...

>Perhaps you should ask yourself WHY the Warren Commission found it necessary
>to lie in the first place... if you can't handle that, then its no wonder
>Ben Holmes discussions of Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement makes you, in
>particular, look like an amateur!

"Bud" is too dishonest to ever admit that the WCR lied... despite all the
evidence that shows that they did.



<snipped>

[Bud]

On Jan 7, 9:00 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <12ddf98e-b257-4d2f...@googlegroups.com>, aeffects
> says...
>
>
>
> >On Monday, January 7, 2013 12:05:25 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> >> On Jan 7, 2:39=A0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > ROTFLMFAO.... can't run hon... I suppose you need to save 'lone nut-WCR
> >> > report suuport face somehow.... lmfao... Carry on, hon.
>
> >> I can only assume Ben ordered you to respond here.
>
> An illustration of your utter stupidity...

Are you going to lie and say you haven`t done this is the past,
asked Healy to respond to a post so you can pretend to "see" a
kilfltered post you want to respond to?

> >> In any case Ben
> >> has shown that he can`t defend what Lane wrote.
>
> And yet, you still haven't been able to produce even a *SINGLE* quote of Mark
> Lane's ... along with the citation that contradicts what he said.

You`re lying.

> >> If Lane had the truth
> >> on his side why does he feel the need to tell so many lies in support
> >> of that truth?
>
> You're lying again...

No, the man lies constantly.

> >assumptions from lone nut morons such as yourself are just that, ASSUMPTIONS.
> >Fact is, you and WCR supporters have continually got your collective ass
> >kicked by Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement. You have no defense of the WCR
> >(other than MORE lies), so please, carry on!
>
> Indeed... the kooks *HAVE* to lie to defend the WCR, or lie to refute Mark Lane.

It`s easy to point out Lane`s frequent lies, all you need to do is
check what he says against the evidence. Is CE399 "undistorted" like
Lane claimed, Ben?

> They simply cannot admit the simple facts in this case...
>
> >Perhaps you should ask yourself WHY the Warren Commission found it necessary
> >to lie in the first place... if you can't handle that, then its no wonder
> >Ben Holmes discussions of Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement makes you, in
> >particular, look like an amateur!
>
> "Bud" is too dishonest to ever admit that the WCR lied... despite all the
> evidence that shows that they did.

You have to run and hide because you can`t support your ideas, it`s
as simple as that.