Mark Lane - (#87)

[Ben Holmes]

In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed that what Tomlinson
testified to about the finding of C.E. 399 conflicted with the Warren
Commission's theory.

"The Commission cannot know whence the bullet materialized or if it
had fallen off the Governor's stretcher, for Tomlinson, the only
source of the Commission's information, himself possessed no such
certain knowledge. Moreover, both stretchers were unguarded for a
considerable period of time just before the bullet was discovered, and
there were many unauthorized persons at the hospital on November 22.
Even if the bullet had somehow shaken free from Governor Connally, it
is difficult to imagine how it lodged under the mat unless it was
placed there.

The Commission proved itself capable of surmounting the difficulty
imposed by a lack of evidence. It simply offered a conclusion based on
no evidence at all - and which contradicted the 'best recollection' of
the only known witness to the incident.

'Although Tomlinson was not certain whether the bullet came from the
Connally stretcher of the adjacent one, the Commission has concluded
that the bullet came from the Governor's stretcher.'"

Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission never let the evidence
get in the way of their theory.

Neither will Huckster.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 10:20:38 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed that what Tomlinson
> testified to about the finding of C.E. 399 conflicted with the Warren
> Commission's theory.

Lane failed to mention that Tomlinson testified he wasn't certain which stretcher the found bullet came from.

Lane also failed to mention anything at all about Jane Wester's testimony about what happened to Connally's stretcher after he was removed from it or what was on it. And failed to discuss how her testimony of what was on the stretcher matched with Tomlinson's to a great degree.

>
> "The Commission cannot know whence the bullet materialized

Materialized? Have you seen things just "materialize" anywhere? I never have.

> or if it
> had fallen off the Governor's stretcher,

This is where other evidence is important to reaching a correct conclusion. The commission heard testimony that the bullet in evidence - CE399 - had been fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. That narrows down considerably whose stretcher the bullet could have come from.

They also had testimony that could eliminate the President's stretcher as the source (which Mark Lane likewise fails to tell his readers) and they had testimony from Jane Wester that Connally's stretcher was near the elevator from which Tomlinson removed one of the two stretchers in question (Lane failed to mention that too). Same elevator, different floors. They had testimony that explained how Connally's stretcher would wind up on a different floor as well.

> for Tomlinson, the only
> source of the Commission's information, himself possessed no such
> certain knowledge.

He wasn't the only source. Lane is again withholding evidence from his readers.

> Moreover, both stretchers were unguarded for a
> considerable period of time just before the bullet was discovered, and
> there were many unauthorized persons at the hospital on November 22.

It's a hospital! Until COVID, you didn't need authorization to enter a hospital.
Does Mark Lane cite a source for his above claim that "there were many unauthorized persons at the hospital on November 22" or is this just another unproven assertion by him? Does Lane name these many unauthorized persons?

> Even if the bullet had somehow shaken free from Governor Connally, it
> is difficult to imagine how it lodged under the mat unless it was
> placed there.

We are limited to the scope of Mark Lane's imagination here?

This is the logical fallacy of an argument from incredulity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

>
> The Commission proved itself capable of surmounting the difficulty
> imposed by a lack of evidence.

No, the Commission followed the evidence, including that of Jane Wester.
Mark Lane proved himself capable of surmounting the difficulty imposed by that evidence by simply ignoring it.

> It simply offered a conclusion based on
> no evidence at all -

At that's a falsehood by Lane. The testimony of Jane Wester indicated the Connally stretcher was pushed to the same elevator and bore many of the same items Tomlinson saw on the stretcher he took off the elevator.

> and which contradicted the 'best recollection' of
> the only known witness to the incident.

The recollection was uncertain, as the witness himself noted, and Lane failed to mention to his readers.

>
> 'Although Tomlinson was not certain whether the bullet came from the
> Connally stretcher of the adjacent one, the Commission has concluded
> that the bullet came from the Governor's stretcher.'"
>
> Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission never let the evidence
> get in the way of their theory.

The evidence shows the Commission reached the appropriate conclusion.

That same evidence reveals Mark Lane never let the evidence get in the way of his arguments.


>
> Neither will Huckster.

You mean "Neither will Ben. Nor Mark Lane".

Only one of us, like Lane, is ignoring the testimony of Jane Wester completely. Only one of us is trying to defend Mark Lane's deceitful practice of leaving out pertinent information to attempt to paint a dishonest picture of the evidence, and what it indicates.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 08:52:04 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 10:20:38 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed that what Tomlinson
>> testified to about the finding of C.E. 399 conflicted with the Warren
>> Commission's theory.
>

>Lane failed ...


Nothing Mark Lane "failed" to mention is an issue.

The issue is that you refuse to deal with what Mark Lane *DID* say,
and not what he didn't say.

>> "The Commission cannot know whence the bullet materialized
>
>Materialized? Have you seen things just "materialize" anywhere? I never have.

If you can't read English, you should blame your education, and not
Mark Lane.

>> or if it
>> had fallen off the Governor's stretcher,
>

>This is where other evidence is important ...


There you go again... trying to deal with what Mark Lane never stated.

>> for Tomlinson, the only
>> source of the Commission's information, himself possessed no such
>> certain knowledge.
>

>He wasn't the only source...


Then cite.

But you can't.

>> Moreover, both stretchers were unguarded for a
>> considerable period of time just before the bullet was discovered, and
>> there were many unauthorized persons at the hospital on November 22.
>
>It's a hospital!

Not a refutation.

>> Even if the bullet had somehow shaken free from Governor Connally, it
>> is difficult to imagine how it lodged under the mat unless it was
>> placed there.
>
>We are limited to the scope of Mark Lane's imagination here?

Yep. You've been unable to refute it.

>> The Commission proved itself capable of surmounting the difficulty
>> imposed by a lack of evidence.
>

>No, the Commission followed the evidence...


No they didn't.

And you can't defend that lie.

>> It simply offered a conclusion based on
>> no evidence at all -
>
>At that's a falsehood by Lane.

There you go again...

>> and which contradicted the 'best recollection' of
>> the only known witness to the incident.
>
>The recollection was uncertain, as the witness himself noted, and Lane failed to mention to his readers.

And you're a proven liar: 'Although Tomlinson was not certain whether

the bullet came from the Connally stretcher of the adjacent one, the
Commission has concluded that the bullet came from the Governor's
stretcher.'"


>> 'Although Tomlinson was not certain whether the bullet came from the
>> Connally stretcher of the adjacent one, the Commission has concluded
>> that the bullet came from the Governor's stretcher.'"
>>
>> Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission never let the evidence
>> get in the way of their theory.
>
>The evidence shows the Commission reached the appropriate conclusion.

This is the logical fallacy of begging the question.

I deleted the rest of your logical fallacies...


>> Neither will Huckster.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 12:03:09 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 08:52:04 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 10:20:38 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed that what Tomlinson
> >> testified to about the finding of C.E. 399 conflicted with the Warren
> >> Commission's theory.
> >

> > Lane failed to mention that Tomlinson testified he wasn't certain which stretcher the found bullet came from.
> >
> > Lane also failed to mention anything at all about Jane Wester's testimony about what happened to Connally's
> > stretcher after he was removed from it or what was on it. And failed to discuss how her testimony of what was on
> > the stretcher matched with Tomlinson's to a great degree.
>
>

> Nothing Mark Lane "failed" to mention is an issue.

Sure it is. It's called cherry-picking and it's a logical fallacy.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Cherry-Picking

We're not just pointing out your logical fallacies, we're addressing the logical fallacies of Mark Lane.
You invited this examination.

>
> The issue is that you refuse to deal with what Mark Lane *DID* say,
> and not what he didn't say.

Cherry-picking's Description: "When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument."

And Lane leaving out Wester's testimony and its import qualifies.

> >> "The Commission cannot know whence the bullet materialized
> >
> >Materialized? Have you seen things just "materialize" anywhere? I never have.
> If you can't read English, you should blame your education, and not
> Mark Lane.

I read it just fine. Things just don't materialize in this world, otherwise I wouldn't need Uber Eats.

> >> or if it
> >> had fallen off the Governor's stretcher,
> >

> > This is where other evidence is important to reaching a correct conclusion.
> > The commission heard testimony that the bullet in evidence - CE399 - had
> > been fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the
> > world. That narrows down considerably whose stretcher the bullet could have
> > come from.

> > They also had testimony that could eliminate the President's stretcher as the
> > source (which Mark Lane likewise fails to tell his readers) and they had
> > testimony from Jane Wester that Connally's stretcher was near the elevator
> > from which Tomlinson removed one of the two stretchers in question (Lane
> > failed to mention that too). Same elevator, different floors. They had testimony
> > that explained how Connally's stretcher would wind up on a different floor as
> > well.
>
>

> There you go again... trying to deal with what Mark Lane never stated.

Yep, because as noted, Lane leaves out pertinent information. We're assessing whether Rush to Judgment deals with the evidence fairly, and everywhere we look, we find it does not.

Deal with Wester's testimony. Explain what it means. Explain why Mark Lane did not mention it.
Explain why you keep deleting any reference to it.

> >> for Tomlinson, the only
> >> source of the Commission's information, himself possessed no such
> >> certain knowledge.
> >

> > He wasn't the only source. Lane is again withholding evidence from his readers.
>
>

> Then cite.
>
> But you can't.

Already did. You snipped it in its entirety.

Jane Wester's testimony (previously cited and quoted and ignored by you) establishes how Connally's stretcher got to the area of the elevator. Her description of what was on Connally's stretcher matches closely to Tomlinson's. That establishes it was Connally's stretcher that was in that area, not some random stretcher.

(And as an aside, why would a conspirator plant a bullet on a stretcher (as seen in the movie "JFK") on a different floor from where Connally was? Since many conspiracy theorists argue for that, it's incumbent on them to explain how their theory makes any sense).

Tomlinson admitted he was unsure which stretcher the bullet came from, of the two in the vicinity, one of which was Connally's.

And the bullet in evidence came from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in existence. That narrows down the shooting victims to a possible two: JFK and Connally. Since JFK's stretcher was eliminated as the source of the bullet, that leaves only Connally's stretcher as the source.

> >> Moreover, both stretchers were unguarded for a
> >> considerable period of time just before the bullet was discovered, and
> >> there were many unauthorized persons at the hospital on November 22.
> >
> >It's a hospital!
> Not a refutation.

That's another logical fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrelevant_conclusion

You're failing to address the issue I raised.

I'm asking if Mark Lane could cite for his claim. You deleted my point (I put it back below) so you can delete it again.

It's a hospital! Until COVID, you didn't need authorization to enter a hospital.
Does Mark Lane cite a source for his above claim that "there were many unauthorized persons at the hospital on November 22" or is this just another unproven assertion by him? Does Lane name these many unauthorized persons?

We're still waiting for you to address my point instead of deleting it.

> >> Even if the bullet had somehow shaken free from Governor Connally, it
> >> is difficult to imagine how it lodged under the mat unless it was
> >> placed there.
> >
> >We are limited to the scope of Mark Lane's imagination here?

> >This is the logical fallacy of an argument from incredulity.
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

> Yep. You've been unable to refute it.

Hilarious. It is still a logical fallacy by Lane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

And now you are evoking the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.
I don't have to refute anything Lane says. Lane (or you, since you're citing Lane)
need to establish the truth of what Lane says. Go ahead, we'll wait.

> >> The Commission proved itself capable of surmounting the difficulty
> >> imposed by a lack of evidence.
> >

> >No, the Commission followed the evidence, including that of Jane Wester.
Mark Lane proved himself capable of surmounting the difficulty imposed by that evidence by simply ignoring it.


>
>

> No they didn't.

And that's the logical fallacy of ipse dixit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit

Ipse dixit (bare assertion fallacy) – a claim that is presented as true without support, as self-evidently true, or as dogmatically true. This fallacy relies on the implied expertise of the speaker or on an unstated truism.

>
> And you can't defend that lie.

Begged question of a lie.

> >> It simply offered a conclusion based on
> >> no evidence at all -
> >
> >At that's a falsehood by Lane.
> There you go again...

Lane said the Commission offered a conclusion based on no evidence. I (and others) cited the testimony of Jane Wester as some of the evidence that Lane didn't address that led the Commission to the conclusion they reached. Lane's ignoring the evidence (and you following in lockstep) doesn't negate that evidence.

> >> and which contradicted the 'best recollection' of
> >> the only known witness to the incident.
> >
> >The recollection was uncertain, as the witness himself noted, and Lane failed to mention to his readers.
> And you're a proven liar: 'Although Tomlinson was not certain whether
> the bullet came from the Connally stretcher of the adjacent one, the
> Commission has concluded that the bullet came from the Governor's
> stretcher.'"

I stand corrected on that issue. My apologies.
But that should be at the beginning of this issue, not at the very end.
Because as Lane noted, Tomlinson is the only witness to the discovery of the bullet.

And that witness was uncertain, so why is Lane stressing his uncertain recollection?

And where does Lane address the import of Wester's testimony?

>
>
> >> 'Although Tomlinson was not certain whether the bullet came from the
> >> Connally stretcher of the adjacent one, the Commission has concluded
> >> that the bullet came from the Governor's stretcher.'"
> >>
> >> Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission never let the evidence
> >> get in the way of their theory.
> >
> >The evidence shows the Commission reached the appropriate conclusion.

That same evidence reveals Mark Lane never let the evidence get in the way of his arguments.

> This is the logical fallacy of begging the question.

Establish that. I already cited the evidence of Jane Wester, which Mark Lane and you ignored. The commission didn't ignore it, fortunately for the truth.

>
> I deleted the rest of your logical fallacies...

There was only one more response, and it's not a logical fallacy. I put it back again below.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

Top Post Only
when you get backed into a corner the only defense you seem to have is, "throw 1500 words at it," hopefully no one will notice the lying... Pitiful...

[Bud]

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 6:31:31 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> Top Post Only
> when you get backed into a corner the only defense you seem to have is, "throw 1500 words at it," hopefully no one will notice the lying... Pitiful...

Just more for Ben to remove.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 12:59:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 12:03:09 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 08:52:04 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 10:20:38 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed that what Tomlinson
>>>> testified to about the finding of C.E. 399 conflicted with the Warren
>>>> Commission's theory.
>>>
>>> Lane failed to mention that Tomlinson testified he wasn't certain which stretcher the found bullet came from.
>>>
>>> Lane also failed to mention anything at all about Jane Wester's testimony about what happened to Connally's
>>> stretcher after he was removed from it or what was on it. And failed to discuss how her testimony of what was on
>>> the stretcher matched with Tomlinson's to a great degree.
>>
>>
>> Nothing Mark Lane "failed" to mention is an issue.
>

>Sure it is. It's called cherry-picking ...


Then you're a coward.

You *KNOW FOR A FACT* that what you accuse Mark Lane of - the WC did
repeatedly.

On many issues.

Yet you're too much a coward to puiblicly acknowledge this fact.

[Bud]

You think they should do what you guys do, look at all the wrong things, and look at them incorrectly. Had they done that they would be where you folks are, nowhere.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 15:53:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 6:46:36 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 12:59:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 12:03:09 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 08:52:04 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 10:20:38 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed that what Tomlinson
>>>>>> testified to about the finding of C.E. 399 conflicted with the Warren
>>>>>> Commission's theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lane failed to mention that Tomlinson testified he wasn't certain which stretcher the found bullet came from.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lane also failed to mention anything at all about Jane Wester's testimony about what happened to Connally's
>>>>> stretcher after he was removed from it or what was on it. And failed to discuss how her testimony of what was on
>>>>> the stretcher matched with Tomlinson's to a great degree.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nothing Mark Lane "failed" to mention is an issue.
>>>
>>>Sure it is. It's called cherry-picking ...
>>
>>
>> Then you're a coward.
>>
>> You *KNOW FOR A FACT* that what you accuse Mark Lane of - the WC did
>> repeatedly.
>

> You think ...


Indeed I do. You should try it sometime. It will be a novel
experience for you.


(Note for Huckster - Yes... this is ad hominem.)

[Bud]

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 7:11:38 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 15:53:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 6:46:36 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 12:59:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 12:03:09 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 08:52:04 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 10:20:38 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>>>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed that what Tomlinson
> >>>>>> testified to about the finding of C.E. 399 conflicted with the Warren
> >>>>>> Commission's theory.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Lane failed to mention that Tomlinson testified he wasn't certain which stretcher the found bullet came from.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Lane also failed to mention anything at all about Jane Wester's testimony about what happened to Connally's
> >>>>> stretcher after he was removed from it or what was on it. And failed to discuss how her testimony of what was on
> >>>>> the stretcher matched with Tomlinson's to a great degree.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Nothing Mark Lane "failed" to mention is an issue.
> >>>
> >>>Sure it is. It's called cherry-picking ...
> >>
> >>
> >> Then you're a coward.
> >>
> >> You *KNOW FOR A FACT* that what you accuse Mark Lane of - the WC did
> >> repeatedly.
> >
> > You think ...
>
>
> Indeed I do.

You don`t contest that you folks look at the wrong things, and look at them incorrectly. You`re learning.

>You should try it sometime. It will be a novel
> experience for you.

Ironic.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 16:52:09 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> You don`t...


I just told you I do.

>>You should try it sometime. It will be a novel
>> experience for you.
>
> Ironic.

Not a refutation.

[Bud]

Look at the wrong things, and look at them incorrectly.

> >>You should try it sometime. It will be a novel
> >> experience for you.
> >
> > Ironic.
> Not a refutation.

You didn`t refute that what you said was ironic.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 6:46:36 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 12:59:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 12:03:09 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 08:52:04 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 10:20:38 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed that what Tomlinson
> >>>> testified to about the finding of C.E. 399 conflicted with the Warren
> >>>> Commission's theory.
> >>>
> >>> Lane failed to mention that Tomlinson testified he wasn't certain which stretcher the found bullet came from.
> >>>
> >>> Lane also failed to mention anything at all about Jane Wester's testimony about what happened to Connally's
> >>> stretcher after he was removed from it or what was on it. And failed to discuss how her testimony of what was on
> >>> the stretcher matched with Tomlinson's to a great degree.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nothing Mark Lane "failed" to mention is an issue.
> >

> > Sure it is. It's called cherry-picking and it's a logical fallacy.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Cherry-Picking

We're not just pointing out your logical fallacies, we're addressing the logical fallacies of Mark Lane.
You invited this examination.


>
>

> Then you're a coward.

Ad hominem. Thanks

>
> You *KNOW FOR A FACT* that what you accuse Mark Lane of - the WC did
> repeatedly.

I don’t know that. Why don’t you make a case, instead of just an assertion?


>
> On many issues.

Nope. Make your case. If you dare.

>
> Yet you're too much a coward to puiblicly acknowledge this fact.

More ad hominem. Logical fallacies are a poor substitute for an argument supported by evidence.

You also seem to have ignored entirely all the points I made below.

[BT George]

Tomlinson nonsense and more were dealt with in this post to one of Bob's screeds on the subject of CE399:


https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/jxeT8nter4I/m/RllEZGM-vEEJ

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 19:50:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 6:46:36 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 12:59:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 12:03:09 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 08:52:04 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 10:20:38 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed that what Tomlinson
>>>>>> testified to about the finding of C.E. 399 conflicted with the Warren
>>>>>> Commission's theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lane failed to mention that Tomlinson testified he wasn't certain which stretcher the found bullet came from.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lane also failed to mention anything at all about Jane Wester's testimony about what happened to Connally's
>>>>> stretcher after he was removed from it or what was on it. And failed to discuss how her testimony of what was on
>>>>> the stretcher matched with Tomlinson's to a great degree.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nothing Mark Lane "failed" to mention is an issue.
>>>
>>> Sure it is. It's called cherry-picking and it's a logical fallacy.
>>

>> Then you're a coward.
>>

>> You *KNOW FOR A FACT* that what you accuse Mark Lane of - the WC did
>> repeatedly.
>
>I don’t know that.

You're blatantly lying, Huckster... indeed, you know it so well that
you RAN AWAY REPEATEDLY from the evidence showing this.

> Why don’t you make a case, instead of just an assertion?

I did. You ran. Lurkers can search for "Proof That Huckster's A
Cowardly Liar" for a number of examples.

>> On many issues.
>
>Nope. Make your case. If you dare.

Already did. You ran. REPEATEDLY!

>> Yet you're too much a coward to puiblicly acknowledge this fact.

Watch folks, as Huckster tries to deny that he ran from the series I
posted that was referenced above.

>> The issue is that you refuse to deal with what Mark Lane *DID* say,
>> and not what he didn't say.
>

>Cherry-picking's ...


Tut tut tut... the issue is not what Mark Lane didn't say, it's what
he *DID* say that you've got to address first.

>>>> "The Commission cannot know whence the bullet materialized
>>>
>>>Materialized? Have you seen things just "materialize" anywhere? I never have.
>>
>> If you can't read English, you should blame your education, and not
>> Mark Lane.
>
>I read it just fine.

Then why are you whining?

>>>> or if it
>>>> had fallen off the Governor's stretcher,
>>>
>>> This is where other evidence is important to reaching a correct conclusion.
>>> The commission heard testimony that the bullet in evidence - CE399 - had
>>> been fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the
>>> world. That narrows down considerably whose stretcher the bullet could have
>>> come from.
>
>>> They also had testimony that could eliminate the President's stretcher as the
>>> source (which Mark Lane likewise fails to tell his readers) and they had
>>> testimony from Jane Wester that Connally's stretcher was near the elevator
>>> from which Tomlinson removed one of the two stretchers in question (Lane
>>> failed to mention that too). Same elevator, different floors. They had testimony
>>> that explained how Connally's stretcher would wind up on a different floor as
>>> well.
>>
>> There you go again... trying to deal with what Mark Lane never stated.
>
>Yep, because as noted, Lane leaves out pertinent information.

You've left out any pertinent refutation.

You can run, Huckster... but you can't hide!

>>>> for Tomlinson, the only
>>>> source of the Commission's information, himself possessed no such
>>>> certain knowledge.
>>>
>>> He wasn't the only source. Lane is again withholding evidence from his readers.
>>
>>
>> Then cite.
>>
>> But you can't.
>
>Already did.

Argumentum Ad Tony Marshium.

>>>> Moreover, both stretchers were unguarded for a
>>>> considerable period of time just before the bullet was discovered, and
>>>> there were many unauthorized persons at the hospital on November 22.
>>>
>>>It's a hospital!
>>
>> Not a refutation.
>
>That's another logical fallacy.

Still not refutation...

Your days of bowling over people with claims of logical fallacies has
ended.

*YOU* will need to make arguments *NOT* based on logical fallacies...

>>>> Even if the bullet had somehow shaken free from Governor Connally, it
>>>> is difficult to imagine how it lodged under the mat unless it was
>>>> placed there.
>>>
>>>We are limited to the scope of Mark Lane's imagination here?
>>>This is the logical fallacy of an argument from incredulity.
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
>>
>> Yep. You've been unable to refute it.
>
>Hilarious.

Laugh all you want, clown. You aren't convincing anyone.

>>>> The Commission proved itself capable of surmounting the difficulty
>>>> imposed by a lack of evidence.
>>>
>>>No, the Commission followed the evidence, including that of Jane Wester.
>>

>> No they didn't.
>>

>> And you can't defend that lie.

And didn't.

>>>> It simply offered a conclusion based on
>>>> no evidence at all -
>>>
>>>At that's a falsehood by Lane.
>>
>> There you go again...
>>

>>>> and which contradicted the 'best recollection' of
>>>> the only known witness to the incident.
>>>
>>>The recollection was uncertain, as the witness himself noted, and Lane failed to mention to his readers.
>>
>> And you're a proven liar: 'Although Tomlinson was not certain whether
>> the bullet came from the Connally stretcher of the adjacent one, the
>> Commission has concluded that the bullet came from the Governor's
>> stretcher.'"
>
>I stand corrected on that issue. My apologies.

The problem is that this is FREQUENT.

Indeed, you posted a long detailed post in another forum describing
Mark Lane's actions... AND GOT NEARLY EVERY SINGLE DETAIL WRONG.

You've still refused to respond to my response correcting you.

You are FREQUENTLY caught lying about Mark Lane, or the evidence in
this case.

One can only presume that not only are you a liar, but that *YOU* know
you are a liar...

>>>> 'Although Tomlinson was not certain whether the bullet came from the
>>>> Connally stretcher of the adjacent one, the Commission has concluded
>>>> that the bullet came from the Governor's stretcher.'"
>>>>
>>>> Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission never let the evidence
>>>> get in the way of their theory.
>>>
>>>The evidence shows the Commission reached the appropriate conclusion.
>>

>> This is the logical fallacy of begging the question.
>
>Establish that.

No.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

Georgie, you can't cut it, save the bandwidth, find a new forum -- maybe you and Scrum Drum can wed, make it official, create the new and improved AAJ.... there you go, puss....

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 17:10:45 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

"Thinking" was the topic. Do try to stay on topic.

>>>>You should try it sometime. It will be a novel
>>>> experience for you.
>>>
>>> Ironic.
>>
>> Not a refutation.
>

> You didn`t ...


No Chickenshit, we are examining YOUR failures...