Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mark Lane #258
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
May 13, 2013, 9:09:41 AM5/13/13
to
In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed quite conclusively how the Warren
Commission ignored the most credible evidence simply because it wasn't what they
wanted to see...
"WHEN Ruby silenced Oswald he not only murdered a defenseless man; he also
denied
us, once and for all, whatever evidence Oswald had to offer as to his innocence
or
guilt. Yet when the Commission denied us equally relevant information there was
almost no protest.
On December 18,1964, the New York Herald Tribune reported:
Evidence and investigating reports used by the Warren Commission have been
stored
in a special vault in the National Archives Building and will remain
inaccessible
to the public for 75 years. As a result, much of what was said off the record by
some of the 552 witnesses during the investigation of President Kennedy's
assassination 'may not be known in our lifetime'.
Nearly a year before, Chief Justice Warren had told reporters that some of the
testimony 'may not be released in your lifetime', adding, 'and I say that
seriously'. The next day the Chief Justice had claimed that his comment was 'a
little facetious'. Almost a year after he had made it, however, Dr Robert
Bahmer,
deputy archivist at the National Archives, disclosed that '75 years was chosen
as
the declassification figure because it is considered to be the life span of an
individual'. The words of the Chief Justice may have been facetious, but their
translation into fact was earnest.
The suppression of a vast amount of material of paramount importance � including
the statements of witnesses 'allowed to talk off the record' � is both a
hindrance
and an affront to the serious student. However, it is possible to discover
enough
in the volumes of testimony and evidence to question, if not overthrow, the
Commission's conclusions. The Report was published in one volume while the
evidence fills 26. The Commission had to be selective, of course. But its
selection was invidious and partial."
Mark Lane is now pointing out that there really wasn't any reason that so much
material needed to be classified. With the sole exception of some material from
Mexico City that would have revealed CIA methods - the only *possible* reason to
classify so much was to avoid the fact that it failed to support their theory.
This explains why cowards like Billy Clarke constantly run from this evidence.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Commission ignored the most credible evidence simply because it wasn't what they
wanted to see...
"WHEN Ruby silenced Oswald he not only murdered a defenseless man; he also
denied
us, once and for all, whatever evidence Oswald had to offer as to his innocence
or
guilt. Yet when the Commission denied us equally relevant information there was
almost no protest.
On December 18,1964, the New York Herald Tribune reported:
Evidence and investigating reports used by the Warren Commission have been
stored
in a special vault in the National Archives Building and will remain
inaccessible
to the public for 75 years. As a result, much of what was said off the record by
some of the 552 witnesses during the investigation of President Kennedy's
assassination 'may not be known in our lifetime'.
Nearly a year before, Chief Justice Warren had told reporters that some of the
testimony 'may not be released in your lifetime', adding, 'and I say that
seriously'. The next day the Chief Justice had claimed that his comment was 'a
little facetious'. Almost a year after he had made it, however, Dr Robert
Bahmer,
deputy archivist at the National Archives, disclosed that '75 years was chosen
as
the declassification figure because it is considered to be the life span of an
individual'. The words of the Chief Justice may have been facetious, but their
translation into fact was earnest.
The suppression of a vast amount of material of paramount importance � including
the statements of witnesses 'allowed to talk off the record' � is both a
hindrance
and an affront to the serious student. However, it is possible to discover
enough
in the volumes of testimony and evidence to question, if not overthrow, the
Commission's conclusions. The Report was published in one volume while the
evidence fills 26. The Commission had to be selective, of course. But its
selection was invidious and partial."
Mark Lane is now pointing out that there really wasn't any reason that so much
material needed to be classified. With the sole exception of some material from
Mexico City that would have revealed CIA methods - the only *possible* reason to
classify so much was to avoid the fact that it failed to support their theory.
This explains why cowards like Billy Clarke constantly run from this evidence.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
timstter
May 13, 2013, 3:56:42 PM5/13/13
to
discussion of your failed Lady In Yellow Pants theory, Benny.
You are NOT the person who should be accusing others of cowardice, Mr
Runner.
Talk about a gutless coward!
Informative 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!
aeffects
May 15, 2013, 11:18:35 AM5/15/13
to
as well as deaf, dumb and ignorant? Do you always waddle away from
subject matter at hand?
Funny, all you lone nut trolls are not only runners, but disinfo
wannabes too. You simply can't help changing the thread subject. Why?
Because you are speechless and of course unfamiliar with case
evidence, that's why. Your disinfo handler should be fired!
Pure yeller-belly, lone nut cowardice on display, on a daily basis
yet. And so close to the 50th anniversary too... don't they teach in
english way out thar in Fresno, Botswana you old, chubette, illegal
alien you! Is that gonna be your new excuse Chubbs? No comprende,
whiteman????
...
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
timstter
May 15, 2013, 3:48:35 PM5/15/13
to
you shuffled off to Duluth, just prior to your truly SHAMBOLIC
appearance there before Fetzer and the rest of the gang?
Curious Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Ben Holmes
May 16, 2013, 9:24:58 AM5/16/13
to
In article <937337cd-771f-45b7...@tz3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On May 13, 12:56=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 13, 11:09=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed quite conclusively how the=
> Warren
>> > Commission ignored the most credible evidence simply because it wasn't =
>lso
>> > denied
>> > us, once and for all, whatever evidence Oswald had to offer as to his i=
>nnocence
>> > or
>> > guilt. Yet when the Commission denied us equally relevant information t=
>record by
>> > some of the 552 witnesses during the investigation of President Kennedy=
> of the
>> > testimony 'may not be released in your lifetime', adding, 'and I say th=
>at
>> > seriously'. The next day the Chief Justice had claimed that his comment=
> was 'a
>> > little facetious'. Almost a year after he had made it, however, Dr Robe=
>rt
>> > Bahmer,
>> > deputy archivist at the National Archives, disclosed that '75 years was=
> chosen
>> > as
>> > the declassification figure because it is considered to be the life spa=
>n of an
>> > individual'. The words of the Chief Justice may have been facetious, bu=
>ver
>> > enough
>> > in the volumes of testimony and evidence to question, if not overthrow,=
> the
>> > Commission's conclusions. The Report was published in one volume while =
>the
>> > evidence fills 26. The Commission had to be selective, of course. But i=
>so much
>> > material needed to be classified. With the sole exception of some mater=
>ial from
>> > Mexico City that would have revealed CIA methods - the only *possible* =
>reason to
>> > classify so much was to avoid the fact that it failed to support their =
>theory.
>> > This explains why cowards like Billy Clarke constantly run from this ev=
>idence.
thread.
Come back with the answer, coward, and perhaps you'd be able to re-open that
thread...
But you won't.
>ahh, shithead, the thread title says Mark Lane #258... are you blind
>as well as deaf, dumb and ignorant? Do you always waddle away from
>subject matter at hand?
>
>Funny, all you lone nut trolls are not only runners, but disinfo
>wannabes too. You simply can't help changing the thread subject. Why?
>Because you are speechless and of course unfamiliar with case
>evidence, that's why. Your disinfo handler should be fired!
>
>Pure yeller-belly, lone nut cowardice on display, on a daily basis
>yet. And so close to the 50th anniversary too... don't they teach in
>english way out thar in Fresno, Botswana you old, chubette, illegal
>alien you! Is that gonna be your new excuse Chubbs? No comprende,
>whiteman????
>
>...
>
>> Tim Brennan
>> Sydney, Australia
>> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
>...
aeffects says...
>
>On May 13, 12:56=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 13, 11:09=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed quite conclusively how the=
> Warren
>> > Commission ignored the most credible evidence simply because it wasn't =
>what they
>> > wanted to see...
>>
>> > "WHEN Ruby silenced Oswald he not only murdered a defenseless man; he a=
>> > wanted to see...
>>
>lso
>> > denied
>> > us, once and for all, whatever evidence Oswald had to offer as to his i=
>nnocence
>> > or
>> > guilt. Yet when the Commission denied us equally relevant information t=
>here was
>> > almost no protest.
>>
>> > On December 18,1964, the New York Herald Tribune reported:
>>
>> > Evidence and investigating reports used by the Warren Commission have b=
>> > almost no protest.
>>
>> > On December 18,1964, the New York Herald Tribune reported:
>>
>een
>> > stored
>> > in a special vault in the National Archives Building and will remain
>> > inaccessible
>> > to the public for 75 years. As a result, much of what was said off the =
>> > stored
>> > in a special vault in the National Archives Building and will remain
>> > inaccessible
>record by
>> > some of the 552 witnesses during the investigation of President Kennedy=
>'s
>> > assassination 'may not be known in our lifetime'.
>>
>> > Nearly a year before, Chief Justice Warren had told reporters that some=
>> > assassination 'may not be known in our lifetime'.
>>
> of the
>> > testimony 'may not be released in your lifetime', adding, 'and I say th=
>at
>> > seriously'. The next day the Chief Justice had claimed that his comment=
> was 'a
>> > little facetious'. Almost a year after he had made it, however, Dr Robe=
>rt
>> > Bahmer,
>> > deputy archivist at the National Archives, disclosed that '75 years was=
> chosen
>> > as
>> > the declassification figure because it is considered to be the life spa=
>n of an
>> > individual'. The words of the Chief Justice may have been facetious, bu=
>t their
>> > translation into fact was earnest.
>>
>> > The suppression of a vast amount of material of paramount importance in=
>> > translation into fact was earnest.
>>
>cluding
>> > the statements of witnesses 'allowed to talk off the record' is both a
>> > hindrance
>> > and an affront to the serious student. However, it is possible to disco=
>> > the statements of witnesses 'allowed to talk off the record' is both a
>> > hindrance
>ver
>> > enough
>> > in the volumes of testimony and evidence to question, if not overthrow,=
> the
>> > Commission's conclusions. The Report was published in one volume while =
>the
>> > evidence fills 26. The Commission had to be selective, of course. But i=
>ts
>> > selection was invidious and partial."
>>
>> > Mark Lane is now pointing out that there really wasn't any reason that =
>> > selection was invidious and partial."
>>
>so much
>> > material needed to be classified. With the sole exception of some mater=
>ial from
>> > Mexico City that would have revealed CIA methods - the only *possible* =
>reason to
>> > classify so much was to avoid the fact that it failed to support their =
>theory.
>> > This explains why cowards like Billy Clarke constantly run from this ev=
>idence.
>>
>>
>> It doesn't explain why cowards like YOU constantly run from further
>> discussion of your failed Lady In Yellow Pants theory, Benny.
The explanation is simple... you refuse to answer the question I asked in that
>>
>> It doesn't explain why cowards like YOU constantly run from further
>> discussion of your failed Lady In Yellow Pants theory, Benny.
thread.
Come back with the answer, coward, and perhaps you'd be able to re-open that
thread...
But you won't.
>ahh, shithead, the thread title says Mark Lane #258... are you blind
>as well as deaf, dumb and ignorant? Do you always waddle away from
>subject matter at hand?
>
>Funny, all you lone nut trolls are not only runners, but disinfo
>wannabes too. You simply can't help changing the thread subject. Why?
>Because you are speechless and of course unfamiliar with case
>evidence, that's why. Your disinfo handler should be fired!
>
>Pure yeller-belly, lone nut cowardice on display, on a daily basis
>yet. And so close to the 50th anniversary too... don't they teach in
>english way out thar in Fresno, Botswana you old, chubette, illegal
>alien you! Is that gonna be your new excuse Chubbs? No comprende,
>whiteman????
>
>...
>
>> Tim Brennan
>> Sydney, Australia
>> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
>...
0 new messages