Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mark Lane #41
9 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Jul 9, 2012, 9:20:07 AM7/9/12
to
In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Commission ignored physical
evidence for the originating direction of the head shot...
"Immediately after the bullet struck the President's head, Mrs. Kennedy, who was
riding at her husband's left in the rear seat of the open limousine, jumped up
onto the trunk and began to move toward the rear of the car. An examination of a
motion picture film taken by Orville O. Nix, a spectator in Dealey Plaza,
provides graphic evidence that she apparently was reaching for a portion of the
President's skull that seemed to be driven over the back of the automobile. This
possibility is supported by the testimony of Clinton J. Hill, a Secret Service
agent, who ran from the left running board of the 'followup' car and pushed Mrs.
Kennedy back into the limousine. He told the Commission that it appeared to him
that Mrs. Kennedy was 'reaching for something' flying over the rear of the car."
Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored even the closest
eyewitnesses who could testify to the physical direction of the President's
brain, blood, and bone after the head shot.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
evidence for the originating direction of the head shot...
"Immediately after the bullet struck the President's head, Mrs. Kennedy, who was
riding at her husband's left in the rear seat of the open limousine, jumped up
onto the trunk and began to move toward the rear of the car. An examination of a
motion picture film taken by Orville O. Nix, a spectator in Dealey Plaza,
provides graphic evidence that she apparently was reaching for a portion of the
President's skull that seemed to be driven over the back of the automobile. This
possibility is supported by the testimony of Clinton J. Hill, a Secret Service
agent, who ran from the left running board of the 'followup' car and pushed Mrs.
Kennedy back into the limousine. He told the Commission that it appeared to him
that Mrs. Kennedy was 'reaching for something' flying over the rear of the car."
Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored even the closest
eyewitnesses who could testify to the physical direction of the President's
brain, blood, and bone after the head shot.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Ben Holmes
Jul 9, 2012, 11:52:40 PM7/9/12
to
Found in the censored (alt.assassination.jfk) forum:
>RE: BRAIN TISSUE ON THE TRUNK.....
>
>Any brain matter that might have been thrown onto the limo's trunk could
>easily have gotten there as a result of Oswald's shot from the rear.
>
>Since we all know that JFK's head was, indeed, thrown violently to the
>rear after Oswald's shot hit the President's head (and the medical
>evidence indicates, beyond all doubt, that only shots from the REAR struck
>JFK's body), then why would anyone think it was impossible for a piece of
>loose skull or brain tissue to have been tossed in the direction of the
>trunk?
>
>So, conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when they continue
>to argue that ONLY a shot from the front could have resulted in brain
>tissue ending up on the trunk of the car.
Although it was labeled "Mark Lane #41" - the kook was too cowardly to actually
present what that post was...
Here it is again:
***************************************************
In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Commission ignored physical
evidence for the originating direction of the head shot...
"Immediately after the bullet struck the President's head, Mrs. Kennedy, who was
riding at her husband's left in the rear seat of the open limousine, jumped up
onto the trunk and began to move toward the rear of the car. An examination of a
motion picture film taken by Orville O. Nix, a spectator in Dealey Plaza,
provides graphic evidence that she apparently was reaching for a portion of the
President's skull that seemed to be driven over the back of the automobile. This
possibility is supported by the testimony of Clinton J. Hill, a Secret Service
agent, who ran from the left running board of the 'followup' car and pushed Mrs.
Kennedy back into the limousine. He told the Commission that it appeared to him
that Mrs. Kennedy was 'reaching for something' flying over the rear of the car."
Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored even the closes
evidence for the originating direction of the head shot...
"Immediately after the bullet struck the President's head, Mrs. Kennedy, who was
riding at her husband's left in the rear seat of the open limousine, jumped up
onto the trunk and began to move toward the rear of the car. An examination of a
motion picture film taken by Orville O. Nix, a spectator in Dealey Plaza,
provides graphic evidence that she apparently was reaching for a portion of the
President's skull that seemed to be driven over the back of the automobile. This
possibility is supported by the testimony of Clinton J. Hill, a Secret Service
agent, who ran from the left running board of the 'followup' car and pushed Mrs.
Kennedy back into the limousine. He told the Commission that it appeared to him
that Mrs. Kennedy was 'reaching for something' flying over the rear of the car."
Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored even the closes
eyewitnesses who could testify to the physical direction of the President's
brain, blood, and bone after the head shot.
**************************************************
brain, blood, and bone after the head shot.
Now clearly the kook missed the fact that this was a SERIES of eyewitnesses, all
pointing to the same thing - that the majority of brain, blood, and bone went to
the left rear of JFK.
Mark Lane quoted Altgens, Brehm, Weitzman, Martin, Hargis, and *last* but not
least, Hill. But the kook only responded to Hill, and failed to respond to the
entire point that Mark Lane was making.
And by refusing to post the actual post... to follow the train of logic that
Mark Lane is employing, the kook *almost* sounds reasonable.
But then you note the lies in his post... his assertion that "the medical
evidence indicates, beyond all doubt, that only shots from the REAR struck JFK's
body" is simply a blatant lie... as the medical evidence that a shot from the
FRONT has already been presented...
There is *NO* medical evidence that the throat wound was anything other than
what it appeared... an entry wound. Only speculation *after* the autopsy was
concluded, and Oswald murdered.
But perhaps his response to that evidence was merely too mundane to gather any
response that would have seen it past my killfilter, and I simply never saw it,
but somehow I doubt it.
The kook is just a dishonest liar, and too cowardly to actually *RESPOND* to my
post without *SNIPPING THE ENTIRE POST*!
But what can you expect from the censored forum other than lies?
David Von Pein
Jul 10, 2012, 2:23:33 AM7/10/12
to
Just stating a simple truth, Ben:
If there was any blood/brain/tissue thrown to the rear of the limo, it
was positively caused by Oswald's bullet from the rear. Period.
How can we know this simple fact?
Answer:
Because no bullets hit JFK from the front -- which is an irrevocable
fact confirmed in numerous ways, including the autopsy report, the
autopsy photos and X-rays, and the testimony of all 3 autopsy
surgeons.
Ben Holmes, of course, being a conspiracy clown of the first order,
chooses to ignore these simple facts. Instead, he dives headlong into
the conspiracy pool and, like all other conspiracy clowns, pretends
that shots struck President Kennedy from the front -- even though he
knows full well there isn't a stitch of physical evidence to support
the notion of JFK being hit by frontal gunshots.
And around the mulberry bush we go--again.
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/07/dvp-interview-about-television-and-jfk.html
Mark Ulrik
Jul 10, 2012, 3:26:57 AM7/10/12
to
ejecta was thrown in his direction, but he was standing to the left
front (not rear) of JFK.
timstter
Jul 10, 2012, 4:47:17 PM7/10/12
to
You're simply making things up, like your hero Mark Lane does.
Corrective 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
aeffects
Jul 10, 2012, 5:13:47 PM7/10/12
to
you..... do YOU expect anyone around here to believe anything from
that limp-wrist moron David Von Pein, I mean the fucking idiot still
believes Bugliosi, and we ALL know daBug can't even sell a damn book
concerning this assassination.... get real moron!
Jason Burke
Jul 10, 2012, 5:43:15 PM7/10/12
to
aeffects
Jul 10, 2012, 5:47:33 PM7/10/12
to
in the face of truth. Where did .john find your sorry ass anyway?
> Corrective 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.
>
Ben Holmes
Jul 10, 2012, 8:59:38 PM7/10/12
to
In article <142a94df-c9eb-4d2f...@s6g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>ruck
>> > >JFK's body), then why would anyone think it was impossible for a piece=
> of
>> > >loose skull or brain tissue to have been tossed in the direction of th=
>e
>> > >trunk?
>>
>> > >So, conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when they contin=
>, who was
>> > riding at her husband's left in the rear seat of the open limousine, ju=
>mped up
>> > onto the trunk and began to move toward the rear of the car. An examina=
>tion of a
>> > motion picture film taken by Orville O. Nix, a spectator in Dealey Plaz=
>a,
>> > provides graphic evidence that she apparently was reaching for a portio=
>n of the
>> > President's skull that seemed to be driven over the back of the automob=
>ile. This
>> > possibility is supported by the testimony of Clinton J. Hill, a Secret =
>Service
>> > agent, who ran from the left running board of the 'followup' car and pu=
>shed Mrs.
>> > Kennedy back into the limousine. He told the Commission that it appeare=
>d to him
>> > that Mrs. Kennedy was 'reaching for something' flying over the rear of =
>sses, all
>> > pointing to the same thing - that the majority of brain, blood, and bon=
>ut not
>> > least, Hill. But the kook only responded to Hill, and failed to respond=
I *DIRECTLY* quoted Mark Lane... here it is again:
"The statements of eyewitnesses close to the president tended to confirm the
likelihood that the shots came from the right and not from the rear. Standing to
the left of the President, on the south side of Elm Street, was James W.
Altgens, the Associated Press photographer who snapped the famous still picture
of President Kennedy as he was shot. Altgens told the Commission counsel:
'There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction
from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came
out of the left side of his head."
Now, Mark Lane *DIRECTLY* quoted Altgens - this bit of testimony can be found
here:
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you have any idea where the sound came from when you were
standing there at No. 3 on Commission Exhibit No. 354?
Mr. ALTGENS - Well, it sounded like it was coming up from behind the car from my
position--I mean the first shot, and being fireworks--who counts fireworks
explosions? I wasn't keeping track of the number of pops that took place, but I
could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot, but I cannot tell you
how many shots were in between. There was not another shot fired after the
President was struck in the head. That was the last shot--that much I will say
with a great degree of certainty.
Mr. LIEBELER - What makes you so certain of that, Mr. Altgens?
Mr. ALTGENS - Because, having heard these shots and then having seen the damage
that was done on this shot to the President's head, I was aware at that time
that shooting was taking place and there was not a shot--I looked--I looked
because I knew the shot had to come from either over here, if it were close
range, or had to come from a high-powered rifle.
Mr. LIEBELER - When you say "over here," you indicate what?
Mr. ALTGENS - The left side of the car.
Mr. LIEBELER - That would be approximately the intersection of Elm Street and
the little street that runs down in front of the Texas School Book Depository
Building; isn't that right?
Mr. ALTGENS - Somewhere in that direction, yes, sir. But if it were a pistol it
would have to be fired at close range for any degree of accuracy and there was
no one in that area that I could see with any firearms, so I looked back up in
this area.
Mr. LIEBELER - Indicating the buildings surrounding the intersection of Houston
Street and Elm Street; is that correct?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind
was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck,
it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time----well, he was
in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't upright. He was at an angle but when
it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a
seat button or something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he
came right on down. *** There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of
his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated
to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. *** Also, the fact
that his head was covered with blood, the hairline included, on the left side
all the way down, with no blood on his forehead or face--- suggested to me, too,
that the shot came from the opposite side, meaning in the direction of this
Depository Building, but at no time did I know for certain where the shot came
from.
Mr. LIEBELER - Because you didn't see who fired it?
I've put a few asterisks in there to help you find what you clearly have never
read before...
Obviously, Mark Lane didn't lie at all, HE ACCURATELY QUOTED ALTGENS. So that
makes *YOU* the liar, doesn't it?
Algens presumably knows the difference between the 'front' of someone's head,
and the "left side" of the head.
I merely accept that he knew what he saw, and described it accurately. Kooks
like this one lie about it.
>> > And by refusing to post the actual post... to follow the train of logic=
>al
>> > evidence indicates, beyond all doubt, that only shots from the REAR str=
>uck JFK's
>> > body" is simply a blatant lie... as the medical evidence that a shot fr=
> than
>> > what it appeared... an entry wound. Only speculation *after* the autops=
>her any
>> > response that would have seen it past my killfilter, and I simply never=
Lane was absolutely accurate in quoting Altgens, and the kooks don't know where
to go... Mark Lane is devastating their faith.
I suspect most of them have never bothered to read 'Rush to Judgment'.
aeffects says...
>
>On Jul 10, 12:26=A0am, Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk> wrote:
>> On 10 Jul., 05:52, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Found in the censored (alt.assassination.jfk) forum:
>>
>> > >RE: BRAIN TISSUE ON THE TRUNK.....
>>
>> > >Any brain matter that might have been thrown onto the limo's trunk cou=
>On Jul 10, 12:26=A0am, Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk> wrote:
>> On 10 Jul., 05:52, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Found in the censored (alt.assassination.jfk) forum:
>>
>> > >RE: BRAIN TISSUE ON THE TRUNK.....
>>
>ld
>> > >easily have gotten there as a result of Oswald's shot from the rear.
>>
>> > >Since we all know that JFK's head was, indeed, thrown violently to the
>> > >rear after Oswald's shot hit the President's head (and the medical
>> > >evidence indicates, beyond all doubt, that only shots from the REAR st=
>> > >easily have gotten there as a result of Oswald's shot from the rear.
>>
>> > >Since we all know that JFK's head was, indeed, thrown violently to the
>> > >rear after Oswald's shot hit the President's head (and the medical
>ruck
>> > >JFK's body), then why would anyone think it was impossible for a piece=
> of
>> > >loose skull or brain tissue to have been tossed in the direction of th=
>e
>> > >trunk?
>>
>> > >So, conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when they contin=
>ue
>> > >to argue that ONLY a shot from the front could have resulted in brain
>> > >tissue ending up on the trunk of the car.
>>
>> > Although it was labeled "Mark Lane #41" - the kook was too cowardly to =
>> > >to argue that ONLY a shot from the front could have resulted in brain
>> > >tissue ending up on the trunk of the car.
>>
>actually
>> > present what that post was...
>>
>> > Here it is again:
>>
>> > ***************************************************
>> > In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Commission ignored phys=
>> > present what that post was...
>>
>> > Here it is again:
>>
>> > ***************************************************
>ical
>> > evidence for the originating direction of the head shot...
>>
>> > "Immediately after the bullet struck the President's head, Mrs. Kennedy=
>> > evidence for the originating direction of the head shot...
>>
>, who was
>> > riding at her husband's left in the rear seat of the open limousine, ju=
>mped up
>> > onto the trunk and began to move toward the rear of the car. An examina=
>tion of a
>> > motion picture film taken by Orville O. Nix, a spectator in Dealey Plaz=
>a,
>> > provides graphic evidence that she apparently was reaching for a portio=
>n of the
>> > President's skull that seemed to be driven over the back of the automob=
>ile. This
>> > possibility is supported by the testimony of Clinton J. Hill, a Secret =
>Service
>> > agent, who ran from the left running board of the 'followup' car and pu=
>shed Mrs.
>> > Kennedy back into the limousine. He told the Commission that it appeare=
>d to him
>> > that Mrs. Kennedy was 'reaching for something' flying over the rear of =
>the car."
>>
>> > Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored even the closes
>> > eyewitnesses who could testify to the physical direction of the Preside=
>>
>> > Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored even the closes
>nt's
>> > brain, blood, and bone after the head shot.
>> > **************************************************
>>
>> > Now clearly the kook missed the fact that this was a SERIES of eyewitne=
>> > brain, blood, and bone after the head shot.
>> > **************************************************
>>
>sses, all
>> > pointing to the same thing - that the majority of brain, blood, and bon=
>e went to
>> > the left rear of JFK.
>>
>> > Mark Lane quoted Altgens, Brehm, Weitzman, Martin, Hargis, and *last* b=
>> > the left rear of JFK.
>>
>ut not
>> > least, Hill. But the kook only responded to Hill, and failed to respond=
> to the
>> > entire point that Mark Lane was making.
>>
>> You (and Lane) just can't stop lying about Altgens, can you? He said
>> ejecta was thrown in his direction, but he was standing to the left
>> front (not rear) of JFK.
You're lying again.
>> > entire point that Mark Lane was making.
>>
>> You (and Lane) just can't stop lying about Altgens, can you? He said
>> ejecta was thrown in his direction, but he was standing to the left
>> front (not rear) of JFK.
I *DIRECTLY* quoted Mark Lane... here it is again:
"The statements of eyewitnesses close to the president tended to confirm the
likelihood that the shots came from the right and not from the rear. Standing to
the left of the President, on the south side of Elm Street, was James W.
Altgens, the Associated Press photographer who snapped the famous still picture
of President Kennedy as he was shot. Altgens told the Commission counsel:
'There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction
from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came
out of the left side of his head."
Now, Mark Lane *DIRECTLY* quoted Altgens - this bit of testimony can be found
here:
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you have any idea where the sound came from when you were
standing there at No. 3 on Commission Exhibit No. 354?
Mr. ALTGENS - Well, it sounded like it was coming up from behind the car from my
position--I mean the first shot, and being fireworks--who counts fireworks
explosions? I wasn't keeping track of the number of pops that took place, but I
could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot, but I cannot tell you
how many shots were in between. There was not another shot fired after the
President was struck in the head. That was the last shot--that much I will say
with a great degree of certainty.
Mr. LIEBELER - What makes you so certain of that, Mr. Altgens?
Mr. ALTGENS - Because, having heard these shots and then having seen the damage
that was done on this shot to the President's head, I was aware at that time
that shooting was taking place and there was not a shot--I looked--I looked
because I knew the shot had to come from either over here, if it were close
range, or had to come from a high-powered rifle.
Mr. LIEBELER - When you say "over here," you indicate what?
Mr. ALTGENS - The left side of the car.
Mr. LIEBELER - That would be approximately the intersection of Elm Street and
the little street that runs down in front of the Texas School Book Depository
Building; isn't that right?
Mr. ALTGENS - Somewhere in that direction, yes, sir. But if it were a pistol it
would have to be fired at close range for any degree of accuracy and there was
no one in that area that I could see with any firearms, so I looked back up in
this area.
Mr. LIEBELER - Indicating the buildings surrounding the intersection of Houston
Street and Elm Street; is that correct?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind
was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck,
it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time----well, he was
in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't upright. He was at an angle but when
it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a
seat button or something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he
came right on down. *** There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of
his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated
to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. *** Also, the fact
that his head was covered with blood, the hairline included, on the left side
all the way down, with no blood on his forehead or face--- suggested to me, too,
that the shot came from the opposite side, meaning in the direction of this
Depository Building, but at no time did I know for certain where the shot came
from.
Mr. LIEBELER - Because you didn't see who fired it?
I've put a few asterisks in there to help you find what you clearly have never
read before...
Obviously, Mark Lane didn't lie at all, HE ACCURATELY QUOTED ALTGENS. So that
makes *YOU* the liar, doesn't it?
Algens presumably knows the difference between the 'front' of someone's head,
and the "left side" of the head.
I merely accept that he knew what he saw, and described it accurately. Kooks
like this one lie about it.
>> > And by refusing to post the actual post... to follow the train of logic=
> that
>> > Mark Lane is employing, the kook *almost* sounds reasonable.
>>
>> > But then you note the lies in his post... his assertion that "the medic=
>> > Mark Lane is employing, the kook *almost* sounds reasonable.
>>
>al
>> > evidence indicates, beyond all doubt, that only shots from the REAR str=
>uck JFK's
>> > body" is simply a blatant lie... as the medical evidence that a shot fr=
>om the
>> > FRONT has already been presented...
>>
>> > There is *NO* medical evidence that the throat wound was anything other=
>> > FRONT has already been presented...
>>
> than
>> > what it appeared... an entry wound. Only speculation *after* the autops=
>y was
>> > concluded, and Oswald murdered.
>>
>> > But perhaps his response to that evidence was merely too mundane to gat=
>> > concluded, and Oswald murdered.
>>
>her any
>> > response that would have seen it past my killfilter, and I simply never=
> saw it,
>> > but somehow I doubt it.
>>
>> > The kook is just a dishonest liar, and too cowardly to actually *RESPON=
>> > but somehow I doubt it.
>>
>D* to my
>> > post without *SNIPPING THE ENTIRE POST*!
>>
>> > But what can you expect from the censored forum other than lies?
>
>girl up Paul May (aka Jason Burke, Mark Ulrik).... you two-bit fraud
>you..... do YOU expect anyone around here to believe anything from
>that limp-wrist moron David Von Pein, I mean the fucking idiot still
>believes Bugliosi, and we ALL know daBug can't even sell a damn book
>concerning this assassination.... get real moron!
It's amusing how these kooks can't tell the truth to save their life... Mark
>> > post without *SNIPPING THE ENTIRE POST*!
>>
>> > But what can you expect from the censored forum other than lies?
>
>girl up Paul May (aka Jason Burke, Mark Ulrik).... you two-bit fraud
>you..... do YOU expect anyone around here to believe anything from
>that limp-wrist moron David Von Pein, I mean the fucking idiot still
>believes Bugliosi, and we ALL know daBug can't even sell a damn book
>concerning this assassination.... get real moron!
Lane was absolutely accurate in quoting Altgens, and the kooks don't know where
to go... Mark Lane is devastating their faith.
I suspect most of them have never bothered to read 'Rush to Judgment'.
Ben Holmes
Jul 10, 2012, 9:02:28 PM7/10/12
to
In article <29ed34e4-f5ab-43ad...@f8g2000pbf.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On Jul 10, 1:47=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>ruck
>> > >JFK's body), then why would anyone think it was impossible for a piece=
> of
>> > >loose skull or brain tissue to have been tossed in the direction of th=
>e
>> > >trunk?
>>
>> > >So, conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when they contin=
>, who was
>> > riding at her husband's left in the rear seat of the open limousine, ju=
>mped up
>> > onto the trunk and began to move toward the rear of the car. An examina=
>tion of a
>> > motion picture film taken by Orville O. Nix, a spectator in Dealey Plaz=
>a,
>> > provides graphic evidence that she apparently was reaching for a portio=
>n of the
>> > President's skull that seemed to be driven over the back of the automob=
>ile. This
>> > possibility is supported by the testimony of Clinton J. Hill, a Secret =
>Service
>> > agent, who ran from the left running board of the 'followup' car and pu=
>shed Mrs.
>> > Kennedy back into the limousine. He told the Commission that it appeare=
>d to him
>> > that Mrs. Kennedy was 'reaching for something' flying over the rear of =
>sses, all
>> > pointing to the same thing - that the majority of brain, blood, and bon=
>ut not
>> > least, Hill. But the kook only responded to Hill, and failed to respond=
>al
>> > evidence indicates, beyond all doubt, that only shots from the REAR str=
>uck JFK's
>> > body" is simply a blatant lie... as the medical evidence that a shot fr=
> than
>> > what it appeared... an entry wound. Only speculation *after* the autops=
>her any
>> > response that would have seen it past my killfilter, and I simply never=
Of course, you can't... you're lying again.
>> You're simply making things up, like your hero Mark Lane does.
>
>easy Fatboy, we KNOW Mark Lane rankles the shit out of you. YOU wilt
>in the face of truth. Where did .john find your sorry ass anyway?
The blatant and near constant dishonesty that these kooks engage in would shock
a devil...
aeffects says...
>
>On Jul 10, 1:47=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 10, 1:52=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Found in the censored (alt.assassination.jfk) forum:
>>
>> > >RE: BRAIN TISSUE ON THE TRUNK.....
>>
>> > >Any brain matter that might have been thrown onto the limo's trunk cou=
>>
>> > Found in the censored (alt.assassination.jfk) forum:
>>
>> > >RE: BRAIN TISSUE ON THE TRUNK.....
>>
>ld
>> > >easily have gotten there as a result of Oswald's shot from the rear.
>>
>> > >Since we all know that JFK's head was, indeed, thrown violently to the
>> > >rear after Oswald's shot hit the President's head (and the medical
>> > >evidence indicates, beyond all doubt, that only shots from the REAR st=
>> > >easily have gotten there as a result of Oswald's shot from the rear.
>>
>> > >Since we all know that JFK's head was, indeed, thrown violently to the
>> > >rear after Oswald's shot hit the President's head (and the medical
>ruck
>> > >JFK's body), then why would anyone think it was impossible for a piece=
> of
>> > >loose skull or brain tissue to have been tossed in the direction of th=
>e
>> > >trunk?
>>
>> > >So, conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when they contin=
>ue
>> > >to argue that ONLY a shot from the front could have resulted in brain
>> > >tissue ending up on the trunk of the car.
>>
>> > Although it was labeled "Mark Lane #41" - the kook was too cowardly to =
>> > >to argue that ONLY a shot from the front could have resulted in brain
>> > >tissue ending up on the trunk of the car.
>>
>actually
>> > present what that post was...
>>
>> > Here it is again:
>>
>> > ***************************************************
>> > In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Commission ignored phys=
>> > present what that post was...
>>
>> > Here it is again:
>>
>> > ***************************************************
>ical
>> > evidence for the originating direction of the head shot...
>>
>> > "Immediately after the bullet struck the President's head, Mrs. Kennedy=
>> > evidence for the originating direction of the head shot...
>>
>, who was
>> > riding at her husband's left in the rear seat of the open limousine, ju=
>mped up
>> > onto the trunk and began to move toward the rear of the car. An examina=
>tion of a
>> > motion picture film taken by Orville O. Nix, a spectator in Dealey Plaz=
>a,
>> > provides graphic evidence that she apparently was reaching for a portio=
>n of the
>> > President's skull that seemed to be driven over the back of the automob=
>ile. This
>> > possibility is supported by the testimony of Clinton J. Hill, a Secret =
>Service
>> > agent, who ran from the left running board of the 'followup' car and pu=
>shed Mrs.
>> > Kennedy back into the limousine. He told the Commission that it appeare=
>d to him
>> > that Mrs. Kennedy was 'reaching for something' flying over the rear of =
>the car."
>>
>> > Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored even the closes
>> > eyewitnesses who could testify to the physical direction of the Preside=
>>
>> > Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored even the closes
>nt's
>> > brain, blood, and bone after the head shot.
>> > **************************************************
>>
>> > Now clearly the kook missed the fact that this was a SERIES of eyewitne=
>> > brain, blood, and bone after the head shot.
>> > **************************************************
>>
>sses, all
>> > pointing to the same thing - that the majority of brain, blood, and bon=
>e went to
>> > the left rear of JFK.
>>
>> > Mark Lane quoted Altgens, Brehm, Weitzman, Martin, Hargis, and *last* b=
>> > the left rear of JFK.
>>
>ut not
>> > least, Hill. But the kook only responded to Hill, and failed to respond=
> to the
>> > entire point that Mark Lane was making.
>>
>> > And by refusing to post the actual post... to follow the train of logic=
>> > entire point that Mark Lane was making.
>>
> that
>> > Mark Lane is employing, the kook *almost* sounds reasonable.
>>
>> > But then you note the lies in his post... his assertion that "the medic=
>> > Mark Lane is employing, the kook *almost* sounds reasonable.
>>
>al
>> > evidence indicates, beyond all doubt, that only shots from the REAR str=
>uck JFK's
>> > body" is simply a blatant lie... as the medical evidence that a shot fr=
>om the
>> > FRONT has already been presented...
>>
>> > There is *NO* medical evidence that the throat wound was anything other=
>> > FRONT has already been presented...
>>
> than
>> > what it appeared... an entry wound. Only speculation *after* the autops=
>y was
>> > concluded, and Oswald murdered.
>>
>> > But perhaps his response to that evidence was merely too mundane to gat=
>> > concluded, and Oswald murdered.
>>
>her any
>> > response that would have seen it past my killfilter, and I simply never=
> saw it,
>> > but somehow I doubt it.
>>
>> > The kook is just a dishonest liar, and too cowardly to actually *RESPON=
>> > but somehow I doubt it.
>>
>D* to my
>> > post without *SNIPPING THE ENTIRE POST*!
>>
>> > But what can you expect from the censored forum other than lies?
>>
>>
>> > post without *SNIPPING THE ENTIRE POST*!
>>
>> > But what can you expect from the censored forum other than lies?
>>
>>
>> Altgens and Brehm are not supporters of a knoll shooter, Holmes.
Quote me saying that.
Of course, you can't... you're lying again.
>> You're simply making things up, like your hero Mark Lane does.
>
>easy Fatboy, we KNOW Mark Lane rankles the shit out of you. YOU wilt
>in the face of truth. Where did .john find your sorry ass anyway?
a devil...
Sam McClung
Jul 10, 2012, 9:52:40 PM7/10/12
to
ruth von paine?
tom...@cox.net
Jul 11, 2012, 1:37:26 AM7/11/12
to
SEE > >
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/secret_service_drinking.htm
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
Ben Holmes
Jul 11, 2012, 9:29:58 AM7/11/12
to
Found in the censored (alt.assassination.jfk) forum:
>DVP SAID:
>
>>>> "So, conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when they
>continue to argue that ONLY a shot from the front could have resulted in
>brain tissue ending up on the trunk of the car." <<<
>
>TONY MARSH SAID:
>
>>>> "So, conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when they
>continue to argue that ONLY a shot from the front could have resulted in
>brain tissue ending up on the trunk of the car." <<<
>
>
>>>> "Name and quote the conspiracy theorists who say that." <<<
>
>
>DVP SAYS:
>
>Who are you kidding, Anthony?
>
>Almost all CTers say that. You know that, Tony. That's one of their big
>items of "conspiracy" -- i.e., Jackie went to retrieve a skull fragment on
>the trunk...ergo...the head shot had to have come from the front.
To point out a *fact* - that Jackie was not trying to "escape" the limo, and did
indeed go to retrieve a part of JFK - is changed by you to create a statement to
argue against.
You can't quote anyone saying what you claim. You're a liar.
>All the while, those same conspiracy theorists, as always, totally ignore
>the autopsy report and the statements of the autopsy physicians.
The person who's ignoring it is you.
You can't *believe* the autopsy report, and you *KNOW* it.
Mark Ulrik
Jul 11, 2012, 9:38:10 AM7/11/12
to
On 11 Jul., 02:59, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <142a94df-c9eb-4d2f-b85a-0816dc9f0...@s6g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
Mark Lane: "The statements of eyewitnesses close to the president
[including Altgens] tended to confirm the likelihood that the shots
Altgens: "There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his
to the left FRONT. You said the left REAR. You were openly lying.
Lying scum like you and Lane love the "left" bit when you want to
argue a shot from the opposite side, and you really, really hate the
"front" bit. The knoll and the TSDB were both to the right, of course,
but only the TSDB (with Oswald perched in the 6th floor window) was
also to the rear.
See above.
> I suspect most of them have never bothered to read 'Rush to Judgment'.
I'm afraid there is not enough puke in the world to convey my feelings
towards Lane.
> In article <142a94df-c9eb-4d2f-b85a-0816dc9f0...@s6g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
[including Altgens] tended to confirm the likelihood that the shots
came from the right and not from the rear."
Ben Holmes: "[There] was a SERIES of eyewitnesses [including Altgens]
pointing to the same thing - that the majority of brain, blood, and
bone went to the left rear of JFK."
Altgens: "There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his
head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it
indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head."
Altgens was forward of JFK when he saw ejecta coming in his direction:
indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head."
to the left FRONT. You said the left REAR. You were openly lying.
Lying scum like you and Lane love the "left" bit when you want to
argue a shot from the opposite side, and you really, really hate the
"front" bit. The knoll and the TSDB were both to the right, of course,
but only the TSDB (with Oswald perched in the 6th floor window) was
also to the rear.
> I suspect most of them have never bothered to read 'Rush to Judgment'.
towards Lane.
timstter
Jul 11, 2012, 4:53:06 PM7/11/12
to
On Jul 11, 11:02 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <29ed34e4-f5ab-43ad-a8d2-f498ff74b...@f8g2000pbf.googlegroups.com>,
You don't know what you wrote in # 37 in this series?
> Of course, you can't... you're lying again.
>
You CLEARLY use the testimony of Altgens to support the idea of shot
from the right, ie The Grassy Knoll:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f273b6d918c013df
The one who is *lying again* is you, Holmes.
> >> You're simply making things up, like your hero Mark Lane does.
>
> >easy Fatboy, we KNOW Mark Lane rankles the shit out of you. YOU wilt
> >in the face of truth. Where did .john find your sorry ass anyway?
>
> The blatant and near constant dishonesty that these kooks engage in would shock
> a devil...
>
You lie, as demonstrated above, and so does your hero, Lane. It's
amusing watching you trying to turn things around to get you both off
the hook.
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
> In article <29ed34e4-f5ab-43ad-a8d2-f498ff74b...@f8g2000pbf.googlegroups.com>,
> Of course, you can't... you're lying again.
>
from the right, ie The Grassy Knoll:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f273b6d918c013df
The one who is *lying again* is you, Holmes.
> >> You're simply making things up, like your hero Mark Lane does.
>
> >easy Fatboy, we KNOW Mark Lane rankles the shit out of you. YOU wilt
> >in the face of truth. Where did .john find your sorry ass anyway?
>
> The blatant and near constant dishonesty that these kooks engage in would shock
> a devil...
>
amusing watching you trying to turn things around to get you both off
the hook.
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
Corrective 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
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...
aeffects
Jul 11, 2012, 5:24:36 PM7/11/12
to
Lane, its finally getting you down... running around with your head
cut off... 5 years around here and you STILL sound like a rank
amateur... and to think it all started with those pesky 45 questions--
youcouldn't answer those, nor Gil Jesus's, nor mine now your beat
amongst the head and shoulders with Mark Lane and case evidence... you
look the idiot man!
> > --
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Ben Holmes
> > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>
> Corrective 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.
>
timstter
Jul 11, 2012, 4:40:26 PM7/11/12
to
On Jul 11, 3:37 pm, tom...@cox.net wrote:
Que?
Alarmed 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
Alarmed 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...
aeffects
Jul 11, 2012, 5:42:19 PM7/11/12
to
Brown) is in the house.... time to show off.... ROTFLMFAO! ! ! !
> Alarmed 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.
>
Ben Holmes
Jul 11, 2012, 8:28:49 PM7/11/12
to
In article <9bd38f01-a9f0-4270...@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On Jul 11, 1:53=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 11, 11:02=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <29ed34e4-f5ab-43ad-a8d2-f498ff74b...@f8g2000pbf.googlegroup=
>s.com>,
>> > aeffects says...
>>
>> > >On Jul 10, 1:47=3DA0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>k cou=3D
>> > >ld
>> > >> > >easily have gotten there as a result of Oswald's shot from the re=
>ar.
>>
>> > >> > >Since we all know that JFK's head was, indeed, thrown violently t=
>o the
>> > >> > >rear after Oswald's shot hit the President's head (and the medica=
>l
>> > >> > >evidence indicates, beyond all doubt, that only shots from the RE=
>AR st=3D
>> > >ruck
>> > >> > >JFK's body), then why would anyone think it was impossible for a =
>piece=3D
>> > > of
>> > >> > >loose skull or brain tissue to have been tossed in the direction =
>of th=3D
>> > >e
>> > >> > >trunk?
>>
>> > >> > >So, conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when they c=
>ontin=3D
>> > >ue
>> > >> > >to argue that ONLY a shot from the front could have resulted in b=
>y to =3D
> phys=3D
>nnedy=3D
>> > >, who was
>> > >> > riding at her husband's left in the rear seat of the open limousin=
>e, ju=3D
>> > >mped up
>> > >> > onto the trunk and began to move toward the rear of the car. An ex=
>amina=3D
>> > >tion of a
>> > >> > motion picture film taken by Orville O. Nix, a spectator in Dealey=
> Plaz=3D
>> > >a,
>> > >> > provides graphic evidence that she apparently was reaching for a p=
>ortio=3D
>> > >n of the
>> > >> > President's skull that seemed to be driven over the back of the au=
>tomob=3D
>> > >ile. This
>> > >> > possibility is supported by the testimony of Clinton J. Hill, a Se=
>cret =3D
>> > >Service
>> > >> > agent, who ran from the left running board of the 'followup' car a=
>nd pu=3D
>> > >shed Mrs.
>> > >> > Kennedy back into the limousine. He told the Commission that it ap=
>peare=3D
>> > >d to him
>> > >> > that Mrs. Kennedy was 'reaching for something' flying over the rea=
>r of =3D
>> > >the car."
>>
>> > >> > Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored even the c=
>loses
>> > >> > eyewitnesses who could testify to the physical direction of the Pr=
>eside=3D
>witne=3D
>> > >sses, all
>> > >> > pointing to the same thing - that the majority of brain, blood, an=
>d bon=3D
>st* b=3D
>> > >ut not
>> > >> > least, Hill. But the kook only responded to Hill, and failed to re=
>spond=3D
>logic=3D
>medic=3D
>> > >al
>> > >> > evidence indicates, beyond all doubt, that only shots from the REA=
>R str=3D
>> > >uck JFK's
>> > >> > body" is simply a blatant lie... as the medical evidence that a sh=
>ot fr=3D
>other=3D
>> > > than
>> > >> > what it appeared... an entry wound. Only speculation *after* the a=
>utops=3D
>o gat=3D
>> > >her any
>> > >> > response that would have seen it past my killfilter, and I simply =
>never=3D
>ESPON=3D
There *IS* a *TREMENDOUS* difference between merely stating that what they saw
and heard is evidence for conspiracy, and stating that *THEY* are "supporters"
of a knoll shooter.
You tried to imply that I'd said something (or that Mark Lane stated something)
that simply isn't true.
You can't quote any such assertion.
But what can you expect from a liar...
>> > Of course, you can't... you're lying again.
>>
>> You CLEARLY use the testimony of Altgens to support the idea of shot
>> from the right, ie The Grassy Knoll:
Of course.
But that is *VASTLY* different than your claim that something 'dishonest' was in
play here.
Neither Mark Lane nor myself stated that Altgens or Brehms believed the shots
came from the knoll. You're just a scumbag liar trying to trick people.
Do you think you'll convince anyone with these dishonest tactics?
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f273b6d918c013df
"The statements of eyewitnesses close to the president tended to confirm the
likelihood that the shots came from the right and not from the rear. Standing to
the left of the President, on the south side of Elm Street, was James W.
Altgens, the Associated Press photographer who snapped the famous still picture
of President Kennedy as he was shot. Altgens told the Commission counsel:
'There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction
from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came
out of the left side of his head."
Yep... absolutely true... not a single "lie" in there at all. For if there was,
you kooks would be quick to point it out *honestly*.
>> The one who is *lying again* is you, Holmes.
Since you couldn't quote me saying what you claimed, methinks the burden of
proof is *STILL* on you.
You're lying.
>> > >> You're simply making things up, like your hero Mark Lane does.
>>
>> > >easy Fatboy, we KNOW Mark Lane rankles the shit out of you. YOU wilt
>> > >in the face of truth. Where did .john find your sorry ass anyway?
>>
>> > The blatant and near constant dishonesty that these kooks engage in
>> > would shock a devil...
>>
>> You lie, as demonstrated above,
You see? As stated above... "blatant and near constant dishonesty..." - you've
been unable to QUOTE me saying what you claim is dishonest, yet you pretend that
you've proven your point, and try to move on.
Where did Mark Lane *OR* myself quote the eyewitnesses as stating *ANYTHING*
other than what they actually said?
You can't do it.
You're lying.
>> and so does your hero, Lane.
Ironically, although I give daily quotes, you *STILL* can't demonstrate any
"dishonesty" on his part.
>> It's
>> amusing watching you trying to turn things around to get you both off
>> the hook.
>
>really screwed up aren't ya troll.... gotta be regular doses of Mark
>Lane, its finally getting you down... running around with your head
>cut off... 5 years around here and you STILL sound like a rank
>amateur... and to think it all started with those pesky 45 questions--
>you couldn't answer those, nor Gil Jesus's, nor mine now your beat
although they'll probably be '50' Questions by then.
Even with these paragraph sized tidbits, the kooks *STILL* can't refute Mark
Lane.
aeffects says...
>
>On Jul 11, 1:53=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 11, 11:02=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <29ed34e4-f5ab-43ad-a8d2-f498ff74b...@f8g2000pbf.googlegroup=
>s.com>,
>> > aeffects says...
>>
>> > >On Jul 10, 1:47=3DA0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> On Jul 10, 1:52=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > Found in the censored (alt.assassination.jfk) forum:
>>
>> > >> > >RE: BRAIN TISSUE ON THE TRUNK.....
>>
>> > >> > >Any brain matter that might have been thrown onto the limo's trun=
>>
>> > >> > Found in the censored (alt.assassination.jfk) forum:
>>
>> > >> > >RE: BRAIN TISSUE ON THE TRUNK.....
>>
>k cou=3D
>> > >ld
>> > >> > >easily have gotten there as a result of Oswald's shot from the re=
>ar.
>>
>> > >> > >Since we all know that JFK's head was, indeed, thrown violently t=
>o the
>> > >> > >rear after Oswald's shot hit the President's head (and the medica=
>l
>> > >> > >evidence indicates, beyond all doubt, that only shots from the RE=
>AR st=3D
>> > >ruck
>> > >> > >JFK's body), then why would anyone think it was impossible for a =
>piece=3D
>> > > of
>> > >> > >loose skull or brain tissue to have been tossed in the direction =
>of th=3D
>> > >e
>> > >> > >trunk?
>>
>> > >> > >So, conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when they c=
>ontin=3D
>> > >ue
>> > >> > >to argue that ONLY a shot from the front could have resulted in b=
>rain
>> > >> > >tissue ending up on the trunk of the car.
>>
>> > >> > Although it was labeled "Mark Lane #41" - the kook was too cowardl=
>> > >> > >tissue ending up on the trunk of the car.
>>
>y to =3D
>> > >actually
>> > >> > present what that post was...
>>
>> > >> > Here it is again:
>>
>> > >> > ***************************************************
>> > >> > In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Commission ignored=
>> > >> > present what that post was...
>>
>> > >> > Here it is again:
>>
>> > >> > ***************************************************
> phys=3D
>> > >ical
>> > >> > evidence for the originating direction of the head shot...
>>
>> > >> > "Immediately after the bullet struck the President's head, Mrs. Ke=
>> > >> > evidence for the originating direction of the head shot...
>>
>nnedy=3D
>> > >, who was
>> > >> > riding at her husband's left in the rear seat of the open limousin=
>e, ju=3D
>> > >mped up
>> > >> > onto the trunk and began to move toward the rear of the car. An ex=
>amina=3D
>> > >tion of a
>> > >> > motion picture film taken by Orville O. Nix, a spectator in Dealey=
> Plaz=3D
>> > >a,
>> > >> > provides graphic evidence that she apparently was reaching for a p=
>ortio=3D
>> > >n of the
>> > >> > President's skull that seemed to be driven over the back of the au=
>tomob=3D
>> > >ile. This
>> > >> > possibility is supported by the testimony of Clinton J. Hill, a Se=
>cret =3D
>> > >Service
>> > >> > agent, who ran from the left running board of the 'followup' car a=
>nd pu=3D
>> > >shed Mrs.
>> > >> > Kennedy back into the limousine. He told the Commission that it ap=
>peare=3D
>> > >d to him
>> > >> > that Mrs. Kennedy was 'reaching for something' flying over the rea=
>r of =3D
>> > >the car."
>>
>> > >> > Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored even the c=
>loses
>> > >> > eyewitnesses who could testify to the physical direction of the Pr=
>eside=3D
>> > >nt's
>> > >> > brain, blood, and bone after the head shot.
>> > >> > **************************************************
>>
>> > >> > Now clearly the kook missed the fact that this was a SERIES of eye=
>> > >> > brain, blood, and bone after the head shot.
>> > >> > **************************************************
>>
>witne=3D
>> > >sses, all
>> > >> > pointing to the same thing - that the majority of brain, blood, an=
>d bon=3D
>> > >e went to
>> > >> > the left rear of JFK.
>>
>> > >> > Mark Lane quoted Altgens, Brehm, Weitzman, Martin, Hargis, and *la=
>> > >> > the left rear of JFK.
>>
>st* b=3D
>> > >ut not
>> > >> > least, Hill. But the kook only responded to Hill, and failed to re=
>spond=3D
>> > > to the
>> > >> > entire point that Mark Lane was making.
>>
>> > >> > And by refusing to post the actual post... to follow the train of =
>> > >> > entire point that Mark Lane was making.
>>
>logic=3D
>> > > that
>> > >> > Mark Lane is employing, the kook *almost* sounds reasonable.
>>
>> > >> > But then you note the lies in his post... his assertion that "the =
>> > >> > Mark Lane is employing, the kook *almost* sounds reasonable.
>>
>medic=3D
>> > >al
>> > >> > evidence indicates, beyond all doubt, that only shots from the REA=
>R str=3D
>> > >uck JFK's
>> > >> > body" is simply a blatant lie... as the medical evidence that a sh=
>ot fr=3D
>> > >om the
>> > >> > FRONT has already been presented...
>>
>> > >> > There is *NO* medical evidence that the throat wound was anything =
>> > >> > FRONT has already been presented...
>>
>other=3D
>> > > than
>> > >> > what it appeared... an entry wound. Only speculation *after* the a=
>utops=3D
>> > >y was
>> > >> > concluded, and Oswald murdered.
>>
>> > >> > But perhaps his response to that evidence was merely too mundane t=
>> > >> > concluded, and Oswald murdered.
>>
>o gat=3D
>> > >her any
>> > >> > response that would have seen it past my killfilter, and I simply =
>never=3D
>> > > saw it,
>> > >> > but somehow I doubt it.
>>
>> > >> > The kook is just a dishonest liar, and too cowardly to actually *R=
>> > >> > but somehow I doubt it.
>>
>ESPON=3D
>> > >D* to my
>> > >> > post without *SNIPPING THE ENTIRE POST*!
>>
>> > >> > But what can you expect from the censored forum other than lies?
>>
>> > >> Altgens and Brehm are not supporters of a knoll shooter, Holmes.
>>
>> > Quote me saying that.
>>
>> You don't know what you wrote in # 37 in this series?
I notice that you *couldn't* quote me saying that.
>> > >> > post without *SNIPPING THE ENTIRE POST*!
>>
>> > >> > But what can you expect from the censored forum other than lies?
>>
>> > >> Altgens and Brehm are not supporters of a knoll shooter, Holmes.
>>
>> > Quote me saying that.
>>
>> You don't know what you wrote in # 37 in this series?
There *IS* a *TREMENDOUS* difference between merely stating that what they saw
and heard is evidence for conspiracy, and stating that *THEY* are "supporters"
of a knoll shooter.
You tried to imply that I'd said something (or that Mark Lane stated something)
that simply isn't true.
You can't quote any such assertion.
But what can you expect from a liar...
>> > Of course, you can't... you're lying again.
>>
>> You CLEARLY use the testimony of Altgens to support the idea of shot
>> from the right, ie The Grassy Knoll:
But that is *VASTLY* different than your claim that something 'dishonest' was in
play here.
Neither Mark Lane nor myself stated that Altgens or Brehms believed the shots
came from the knoll. You're just a scumbag liar trying to trick people.
Do you think you'll convince anyone with these dishonest tactics?
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f273b6d918c013df
"The statements of eyewitnesses close to the president tended to confirm the
likelihood that the shots came from the right and not from the rear. Standing to
the left of the President, on the south side of Elm Street, was James W.
Altgens, the Associated Press photographer who snapped the famous still picture
of President Kennedy as he was shot. Altgens told the Commission counsel:
'There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction
from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came
out of the left side of his head."
you kooks would be quick to point it out *honestly*.
>> The one who is *lying again* is you, Holmes.
proof is *STILL* on you.
You're lying.
>> > >> You're simply making things up, like your hero Mark Lane does.
>>
>> > >easy Fatboy, we KNOW Mark Lane rankles the shit out of you. YOU wilt
>> > >in the face of truth. Where did .john find your sorry ass anyway?
>>
>> > The blatant and near constant dishonesty that these kooks engage in
>> > would shock a devil...
>>
>> You lie, as demonstrated above,
been unable to QUOTE me saying what you claim is dishonest, yet you pretend that
you've proven your point, and try to move on.
Where did Mark Lane *OR* myself quote the eyewitnesses as stating *ANYTHING*
other than what they actually said?
You can't do it.
You're lying.
>> and so does your hero, Lane.
"dishonesty" on his part.
>> It's
>> amusing watching you trying to turn things around to get you both off
>> the hook.
>
>really screwed up aren't ya troll.... gotta be regular doses of Mark
>Lane, its finally getting you down... running around with your head
>cut off... 5 years around here and you STILL sound like a rank
>amateur... and to think it all started with those pesky 45 questions--
>amongst the head and shoulders with Mark Lane and case evidence... you
>look the idiot man!
The Mark Lane series is a warmup for another replay of the 45 Questions...
>look the idiot man!
although they'll probably be '50' Questions by then.
Even with these paragraph sized tidbits, the kooks *STILL* can't refute Mark
Lane.
timstter
Jul 12, 2012, 4:23:02 PM7/12/12
to
Beatles wig?
It's a pity that Dave Ferrie is no longer with us as perhaps you could
have rung him for advice when you got back from Duluth.
Helpful 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...
aeffects
Jul 13, 2012, 4:07:46 PM7/13/12
to
On Jul 11, 5:28 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <9bd38f01-a9f0-4270-b306-1155f7632...@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
the best .john's lone nut trolls can do, is LIE!
> Even with these paragraph sized tidbits, the kooks *STILL* can't refute Mark
> Lane.
lie and lie and LIE!
> In article <9bd38f01-a9f0-4270-b306-1155f7632...@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> Even with these paragraph sized tidbits, the kooks *STILL* can't refute Mark
> Lane.
timstter
Jul 13, 2012, 4:29:40 PM7/13/12
to
TOP POST
Stop swamp posting, Holmes, and admit that you and Mark Lane are a
pair of liars.
You should be proud, sharing a trait with your hero!
BTW, couldn't help but notice the ad hom creeping in there, Holmes.
It's a sure sign you've lost the argument, to quote you.
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
On Jul 12, 10:28 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <9bd38f01-a9f0-4270-b306-1155f7632...@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Stop swamp posting, Holmes, and admit that you and Mark Lane are a
pair of liars.
You should be proud, sharing a trait with your hero!
BTW, couldn't help but notice the ad hom creeping in there, Holmes.
It's a sure sign you've lost the argument, to quote you.
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...
On Jul 12, 10:28 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <9bd38f01-a9f0-4270-b306-1155f7632...@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
timstter
Jul 13, 2012, 4:31:43 PM7/13/12
to
It'll all be OK in the morning.
Concerned 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...
timstter
Jul 13, 2012, 4:38:36 PM7/13/12
to
Just sychophancy towards Holmes, filth and general inebriated idiocy.
As for Gil *Bald Goose* Jesus, he scarpered long ago. Didn't you
notice? Hic!
And Holmes is left to try and swamp post his dishonest way out of the
latest lie he and Mark Lane have been caught in.
Not very successfully.
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...
Ben Holmes
Jul 13, 2012, 5:41:16 PM7/13/12
to
In article <e1b7bf4f-9c18-4866...@f8g2000pbf.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On Jul 11, 5:28=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <9bd38f01-a9f0-4270-b306-1155f7632...@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroup=
>s.com>,
>> aeffects says...
>>
>> >On Jul 11, 1:53=3DA0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jul 11, 11:02=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > In article <29ed34e4-f5ab-43ad-a8d2-f498ff74b...@f8g2000pbf.googlegr=
>oup=3D
>> >s.com>,
>> >> > aeffects says...
>>
>> >> > >On Jul 10, 1:47=3D3DA0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > >> On Jul 10, 1:52=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wro=
>run=3D
>> >k cou=3D3D
>> >> > >ld
>> >> > >> > >easily have gotten there as a result of Oswald's shot from the=
> re=3D
>> >ar.
>>
>> >> > >> > >Since we all know that JFK's head was, indeed, thrown violentl=
>y t=3D
>> >o the
>> >> > >> > >rear after Oswald's shot hit the President's head (and the med=
>ica=3D
>> >l
>> >> > >> > >evidence indicates, beyond all doubt, that only shots from the=
> RE=3D
>> >AR st=3D3D
>> >> > >ruck
>> >> > >> > >JFK's body), then why would anyone think it was impossible for=
> a =3D
>> >piece=3D3D
>> >> > > of
>> >> > >> > >loose skull or brain tissue to have been tossed in the directi=
>on =3D
>> >of th=3D3D
>> >> > >e
>> >> > >> > >trunk?
>>
>> >> > >> > >So, conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when the=
>y c=3D
>> >ontin=3D3D
>> >> > >ue
>> >> > >> > >to argue that ONLY a shot from the front could have resulted i=
>n b=3D
>rdl=3D
>> >y to =3D3D
>red=3D
>> > phys=3D3D
> Ke=3D
>> >nnedy=3D3D
>> >> > >, who was
>> >> > >> > riding at her husband's left in the rear seat of the open limou=
>sin=3D
>> >e, ju=3D3D
>> >> > >mped up
>> >> > >> > onto the trunk and began to move toward the rear of the car. An=
> ex=3D
>> >amina=3D3D
>> >> > >tion of a
>> >> > >> > motion picture film taken by Orville O. Nix, a spectator in Dea=
>ley=3D
>> > Plaz=3D3D
>> >> > >a,
>> >> > >> > provides graphic evidence that she apparently was reaching for =
>a p=3D
>> >ortio=3D3D
>> >> > >n of the
>> >> > >> > President's skull that seemed to be driven over the back of the=
> au=3D
>> >tomob=3D3D
>> >> > >ile. This
>> >> > >> > possibility is supported by the testimony of Clinton J. Hill, a=
> Se=3D
>> >cret =3D3D
>> >> > >Service
>> >> > >> > agent, who ran from the left running board of the 'followup' ca=
>r a=3D
>> >nd pu=3D3D
>> >> > >shed Mrs.
>> >> > >> > Kennedy back into the limousine. He told the Commission that it=
> ap=3D
>> >peare=3D3D
>> >> > >d to him
>> >> > >> > that Mrs. Kennedy was 'reaching for something' flying over the =
>rea=3D
>> >r of =3D3D
>> >> > >the car."
>>
>> >> > >> > Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored even th=
>e c=3D
>> >loses
>> >> > >> > eyewitnesses who could testify to the physical direction of the=
> Pr=3D
>> >eside=3D3D
>eye=3D
>> >witne=3D3D
>> >> > >sses, all
>> >> > >> > pointing to the same thing - that the majority of brain, blood,=
> an=3D
>> >d bon=3D3D
>*la=3D
>> >st* b=3D3D
>> >> > >ut not
>> >> > >> > least, Hill. But the kook only responded to Hill, and failed to=
> re=3D
>> >spond=3D3D
>of =3D
>> >logic=3D3D
>he =3D
>> >medic=3D3D
>> >> > >al
>> >> > >> > evidence indicates, beyond all doubt, that only shots from the =
>REA=3D
>> >R str=3D3D
>> >> > >uck JFK's
>> >> > >> > body" is simply a blatant lie... as the medical evidence that a=
> sh=3D
>> >ot fr=3D3D
>ng =3D
>> >other=3D3D
>> >> > > than
>> >> > >> > what it appeared... an entry wound. Only speculation *after* th=
>e a=3D
>> >utops=3D3D
>e t=3D
>> >o gat=3D3D
>> >> > >her any
>> >> > >> > response that would have seen it past my killfilter, and I simp=
>ly =3D
>> >never=3D3D
> *R=3D
>> >ESPON=3D3D
>y saw
>> and heard is evidence for conspiracy, and stating that *THEY* are "suppor=
> was in
>> play here.
>>
>> Neither Mark Lane nor myself stated that Altgens or Brehms believed the s=
>the
>> likelihood that the shots came from the right and not from the rear. Stan=
>rection
>> from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the sh=
>ou've
>> been unable to QUOTE me saying what you claim is dishonest, yet you prete=
anyone had was the WCR, it was easy to argue the kook's theory. But now that
*anyone* can read or see the evidence for themselves, the lies become obvious.
>> Even with these paragraph sized tidbits, the kooks *STILL* can't refute
>> Mark Lane.
>
>lie and lie and LIE!
Yep... The facts that Mark Lane is pointing out is contrary to the mythology
that the WCR left us with.
Ironically, the last government investigation labeled it a probable conspiracy,
yet the kooks haven't caught on yet.
aeffects says...
>
>On Jul 11, 5:28=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <9bd38f01-a9f0-4270-b306-1155f7632...@vs10g2000pbc.googlegroup=
>s.com>,
>> aeffects says...
>>
>> >On Jul 11, 1:53=3DA0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jul 11, 11:02=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > In article <29ed34e4-f5ab-43ad-a8d2-f498ff74b...@f8g2000pbf.googlegr=
>oup=3D
>> >s.com>,
>> >> > aeffects says...
>>
>> >> > >On Jul 10, 1:47=3D3DA0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > >> On Jul 10, 1:52=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wro=
>te:
>>
>> >> > >> > Found in the censored (alt.assassination.jfk) forum:
>>
>> >> > >> > >RE: BRAIN TISSUE ON THE TRUNK.....
>>
>> >> > >> > >Any brain matter that might have been thrown onto the limo's t=
>>
>> >> > >> > Found in the censored (alt.assassination.jfk) forum:
>>
>> >> > >> > >RE: BRAIN TISSUE ON THE TRUNK.....
>>
>run=3D
>> >k cou=3D3D
>> >> > >ld
>> >> > >> > >easily have gotten there as a result of Oswald's shot from the=
> re=3D
>> >ar.
>>
>> >> > >> > >Since we all know that JFK's head was, indeed, thrown violentl=
>y t=3D
>> >o the
>> >> > >> > >rear after Oswald's shot hit the President's head (and the med=
>ica=3D
>> >l
>> >> > >> > >evidence indicates, beyond all doubt, that only shots from the=
> RE=3D
>> >AR st=3D3D
>> >> > >ruck
>> >> > >> > >JFK's body), then why would anyone think it was impossible for=
> a =3D
>> >piece=3D3D
>> >> > > of
>> >> > >> > >loose skull or brain tissue to have been tossed in the directi=
>on =3D
>> >of th=3D3D
>> >> > >e
>> >> > >> > >trunk?
>>
>> >> > >> > >So, conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when the=
>y c=3D
>> >ontin=3D3D
>> >> > >ue
>> >> > >> > >to argue that ONLY a shot from the front could have resulted i=
>n b=3D
>> >rain
>> >> > >> > >tissue ending up on the trunk of the car.
>>
>> >> > >> > Although it was labeled "Mark Lane #41" - the kook was too cowa=
>> >> > >> > >tissue ending up on the trunk of the car.
>>
>rdl=3D
>> >y to =3D3D
>> >> > >actually
>> >> > >> > present what that post was...
>>
>> >> > >> > Here it is again:
>>
>> >> > >> > ***************************************************
>> >> > >> > In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Commission igno=
>> >> > >> > present what that post was...
>>
>> >> > >> > Here it is again:
>>
>> >> > >> > ***************************************************
>red=3D
>> > phys=3D3D
>> >> > >ical
>> >> > >> > evidence for the originating direction of the head shot...
>>
>> >> > >> > "Immediately after the bullet struck the President's head, Mrs.=
>> >> > >> > evidence for the originating direction of the head shot...
>>
> Ke=3D
>> >nnedy=3D3D
>> >> > >, who was
>> >> > >> > riding at her husband's left in the rear seat of the open limou=
>sin=3D
>> >e, ju=3D3D
>> >> > >mped up
>> >> > >> > onto the trunk and began to move toward the rear of the car. An=
> ex=3D
>> >amina=3D3D
>> >> > >tion of a
>> >> > >> > motion picture film taken by Orville O. Nix, a spectator in Dea=
>ley=3D
>> > Plaz=3D3D
>> >> > >a,
>> >> > >> > provides graphic evidence that she apparently was reaching for =
>a p=3D
>> >ortio=3D3D
>> >> > >n of the
>> >> > >> > President's skull that seemed to be driven over the back of the=
> au=3D
>> >tomob=3D3D
>> >> > >ile. This
>> >> > >> > possibility is supported by the testimony of Clinton J. Hill, a=
> Se=3D
>> >cret =3D3D
>> >> > >Service
>> >> > >> > agent, who ran from the left running board of the 'followup' ca=
>r a=3D
>> >nd pu=3D3D
>> >> > >shed Mrs.
>> >> > >> > Kennedy back into the limousine. He told the Commission that it=
> ap=3D
>> >peare=3D3D
>> >> > >d to him
>> >> > >> > that Mrs. Kennedy was 'reaching for something' flying over the =
>rea=3D
>> >r of =3D3D
>> >> > >the car."
>>
>> >> > >> > Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored even th=
>e c=3D
>> >loses
>> >> > >> > eyewitnesses who could testify to the physical direction of the=
> Pr=3D
>> >eside=3D3D
>> >> > >nt's
>> >> > >> > brain, blood, and bone after the head shot.
>> >> > >> > **************************************************
>>
>> >> > >> > Now clearly the kook missed the fact that this was a SERIES of =
>> >> > >> > brain, blood, and bone after the head shot.
>> >> > >> > **************************************************
>>
>eye=3D
>> >witne=3D3D
>> >> > >sses, all
>> >> > >> > pointing to the same thing - that the majority of brain, blood,=
> an=3D
>> >d bon=3D3D
>> >> > >e went to
>> >> > >> > the left rear of JFK.
>>
>> >> > >> > Mark Lane quoted Altgens, Brehm, Weitzman, Martin, Hargis, and =
>> >> > >> > the left rear of JFK.
>>
>*la=3D
>> >st* b=3D3D
>> >> > >ut not
>> >> > >> > least, Hill. But the kook only responded to Hill, and failed to=
> re=3D
>> >spond=3D3D
>> >> > > to the
>> >> > >> > entire point that Mark Lane was making.
>>
>> >> > >> > And by refusing to post the actual post... to follow the train =
>> >> > >> > entire point that Mark Lane was making.
>>
>of =3D
>> >logic=3D3D
>> >> > > that
>> >> > >> > Mark Lane is employing, the kook *almost* sounds reasonable.
>>
>> >> > >> > But then you note the lies in his post... his assertion that "t=
>> >> > >> > Mark Lane is employing, the kook *almost* sounds reasonable.
>>
>he =3D
>> >medic=3D3D
>> >> > >al
>> >> > >> > evidence indicates, beyond all doubt, that only shots from the =
>REA=3D
>> >R str=3D3D
>> >> > >uck JFK's
>> >> > >> > body" is simply a blatant lie... as the medical evidence that a=
> sh=3D
>> >ot fr=3D3D
>> >> > >om the
>> >> > >> > FRONT has already been presented...
>>
>> >> > >> > There is *NO* medical evidence that the throat wound was anythi=
>> >> > >> > FRONT has already been presented...
>>
>ng =3D
>> >other=3D3D
>> >> > > than
>> >> > >> > what it appeared... an entry wound. Only speculation *after* th=
>e a=3D
>> >utops=3D3D
>> >> > >y was
>> >> > >> > concluded, and Oswald murdered.
>>
>> >> > >> > But perhaps his response to that evidence was merely too mundan=
>> >> > >> > concluded, and Oswald murdered.
>>
>e t=3D
>> >o gat=3D3D
>> >> > >her any
>> >> > >> > response that would have seen it past my killfilter, and I simp=
>ly =3D
>> >never=3D3D
>> >> > > saw it,
>> >> > >> > but somehow I doubt it.
>>
>> >> > >> > The kook is just a dishonest liar, and too cowardly to actually=
>> >> > >> > but somehow I doubt it.
>>
> *R=3D
>> >ESPON=3D3D
>> >> > >D* to my
>> >> > >> > post without *SNIPPING THE ENTIRE POST*!
>>
>> >> > >> > But what can you expect from the censored forum other than lies=
>> >> > >> > post without *SNIPPING THE ENTIRE POST*!
>>
>?
>>
>> >> > >> Altgens and Brehm are not supporters of a knoll shooter, Holmes.
>>
>> >> > Quote me saying that.
>>
>> >> You don't know what you wrote in # 37 in this series?
>>
>> I notice that you *couldn't* quote me saying that.
>>
>> There *IS* a *TREMENDOUS* difference between merely stating that what the=
>>
>> >> > >> Altgens and Brehm are not supporters of a knoll shooter, Holmes.
>>
>> >> > Quote me saying that.
>>
>> >> You don't know what you wrote in # 37 in this series?
>>
>> I notice that you *couldn't* quote me saying that.
>>
>y saw
>> and heard is evidence for conspiracy, and stating that *THEY* are "suppor=
>ters"
>> of a knoll shooter.
>>
>> You tried to imply that I'd said something (or that Mark Lane stated some=
>> of a knoll shooter.
>>
>thing)
>> that simply isn't true.
>>
>> You can't quote any such assertion.
>>
>> But what can you expect from a liar...
>>
>> >> > Of course, you can't... you're lying again.
>>
>> >> You CLEARLY use the testimony of Altgens to support the idea of shot
>> >> from the right, ie The Grassy Knoll:
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>> But that is *VASTLY* different than your claim that something 'dishonest'=
>> that simply isn't true.
>>
>> You can't quote any such assertion.
>>
>> But what can you expect from a liar...
>>
>> >> > Of course, you can't... you're lying again.
>>
>> >> You CLEARLY use the testimony of Altgens to support the idea of shot
>> >> from the right, ie The Grassy Knoll:
>>
>> Of course.
>>
> was in
>> play here.
>>
>> Neither Mark Lane nor myself stated that Altgens or Brehms believed the s=
>hots
>> came from the knoll. You're just a scumbag liar trying to trick people.
>>
>> Do you think you'll convince anyone with these dishonest tactics?
>>
>> >>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f273b6d918c013df
>>
>> "The statements of eyewitnesses close to the president tended to confirm =
>> came from the knoll. You're just a scumbag liar trying to trick people.
>>
>> Do you think you'll convince anyone with these dishonest tactics?
>>
>> >>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f273b6d918c013df
>>
>the
>> likelihood that the shots came from the right and not from the rear. Stan=
>ding to
>> the left of the President, on the south side of Elm Street, was James W.
>> Altgens, the Associated Press photographer who snapped the famous still p=
>> the left of the President, on the south side of Elm Street, was James W.
>icture
>> of President Kennedy as he was shot. Altgens told the Commission counsel:
>>
>> 'There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my di=
>> of President Kennedy as he was shot. Altgens told the Commission counsel:
>>
>rection
>> from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the sh=
>ot came
>> out of the left side of his head."
>>
>> Yep... absolutely true... not a single "lie" in there at all. For if ther=
>> out of the left side of his head."
>>
>e was,
>> you kooks would be quick to point it out *honestly*.
>>
>> >> The one who is *lying again* is you, Holmes.
>>
>> Since you couldn't quote me saying what you claimed, methinks the burden =
>> you kooks would be quick to point it out *honestly*.
>>
>> >> The one who is *lying again* is you, Holmes.
>>
>of
>> proof is *STILL* on you.
>>
>> You're lying.
>>
>> >> > >> You're simply making things up, like your hero Mark Lane does.
>>
>> >> > >easy Fatboy, we KNOW Mark Lane rankles the shit out of you. YOU wil=
>> proof is *STILL* on you.
>>
>> You're lying.
>>
>> >> > >> You're simply making things up, like your hero Mark Lane does.
>>
>t
>> >> > >in the face of truth. Where did .john find your sorry ass anyway?
>>
>> >> > The blatant and near constant dishonesty that these kooks engage in
>> >> > would shock a devil...
>>
>> >> You lie, as demonstrated above,
>>
>> You see? As stated above... "blatant and near constant dishonesty..." - y=
>> >> > >in the face of truth. Where did .john find your sorry ass anyway?
>>
>> >> > The blatant and near constant dishonesty that these kooks engage in
>> >> > would shock a devil...
>>
>> >> You lie, as demonstrated above,
>>
>ou've
>> been unable to QUOTE me saying what you claim is dishonest, yet you prete=
>nd that
>> you've proven your point, and try to move on.
>>
>> Where did Mark Lane *OR* myself quote the eyewitnesses as stating *ANYTHI=
>> you've proven your point, and try to move on.
>>
>NG*
>> other than what they actually said?
>>
>> You can't do it.
>>
>> You're lying.
>>
>> >> and so does your hero, Lane.
>>
>> Ironically, although I give daily quotes, you *STILL* can't demonstrate any
>> "dishonesty" on his part.
>>
>> >> It's
>> >> amusing watching you trying to turn things around to get you both off
>> >> the hook.
>>
>> >really screwed up aren't ya troll.... gotta be regular doses of Mark
>> >Lane, its finally getting you down... running around with your head
>> >cut off... 5 years around here and you STILL sound like a rank
>> >amateur... and to think it all started with those pesky 45 questions--
>> >you couldn't answer those, nor Gil Jesus's, nor mine now your beat
>> >amongst the head and shoulders with Mark Lane and case evidence... you
>> >look the idiot man!
>>
>> The Mark Lane series is a warmup for another replay of the 45 Questions...
>> although they'll probably be '50' Questions by then.
>
>the best .john's lone nut trolls can do, is LIE!
Yep... There's simply too much access to the evidence in this case. When all
>> other than what they actually said?
>>
>> You can't do it.
>>
>> You're lying.
>>
>> >> and so does your hero, Lane.
>>
>> Ironically, although I give daily quotes, you *STILL* can't demonstrate any
>> "dishonesty" on his part.
>>
>> >> It's
>> >> amusing watching you trying to turn things around to get you both off
>> >> the hook.
>>
>> >really screwed up aren't ya troll.... gotta be regular doses of Mark
>> >Lane, its finally getting you down... running around with your head
>> >cut off... 5 years around here and you STILL sound like a rank
>> >amateur... and to think it all started with those pesky 45 questions--
>> >you couldn't answer those, nor Gil Jesus's, nor mine now your beat
>> >amongst the head and shoulders with Mark Lane and case evidence... you
>> >look the idiot man!
>>
>> The Mark Lane series is a warmup for another replay of the 45 Questions...
>> although they'll probably be '50' Questions by then.
>
>the best .john's lone nut trolls can do, is LIE!
anyone had was the WCR, it was easy to argue the kook's theory. But now that
*anyone* can read or see the evidence for themselves, the lies become obvious.
>> Even with these paragraph sized tidbits, the kooks *STILL* can't refute
>> Mark Lane.
>
>lie and lie and LIE!
that the WCR left us with.
Ironically, the last government investigation labeled it a probable conspiracy,
yet the kooks haven't caught on yet.
aeffects
Jul 13, 2012, 6:14:14 PM7/13/12
to
Fat's, you simpleminded overweight failed standup comic you (ala Tim
Shell aka Tim Brennan) it's incumbent on you to show your mettle on
this board, not whining.... this isn't .john's you pussy-coward! Get
busy!
<snip>
timstter
Jul 13, 2012, 6:31:53 PM7/13/12
to
I don't recall a SINGLE substantive response by YOU to any point
raised re Lane's lying.
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...
0 new messages