Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mark Lane #4
24 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
May 17, 2012, 9:34:27 AM5/17/12
to
"Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower behind the wooden
fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in area were those
standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the motorcade approached,
13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen were on the railroad bridge; the
knoll was just to their left. Not one of the railroad men was called before the
Warren Commission. However, four were questioned by counsel for the Commission
and nine by agents of the FBI. Five of them said that shots came from the knoll
and six others said that when the shots were fired their attention was
immediately attracted to the knoll. It is worth noting that not one of the 13
men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll, said that he
thought that the shots came from the Book Depository, while 11 of them indicated
either explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above the knoll was
where they thought the sniper was."
The kooks will again refuse to refute these facts brought up by Mark Lane. They
keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any evidence.
This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the kooks can't refute
it.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in area were those
standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the motorcade approached,
13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen were on the railroad bridge; the
knoll was just to their left. Not one of the railroad men was called before the
Warren Commission. However, four were questioned by counsel for the Commission
and nine by agents of the FBI. Five of them said that shots came from the knoll
and six others said that when the shots were fired their attention was
immediately attracted to the knoll. It is worth noting that not one of the 13
men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll, said that he
thought that the shots came from the Book Depository, while 11 of them indicated
either explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above the knoll was
where they thought the sniper was."
The kooks will again refuse to refute these facts brought up by Mark Lane. They
keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any evidence.
This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the kooks can't refute
it.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
timstter
May 17, 2012, 3:38:49 PM5/17/12
to
Kennedy and Connally were in different limos and that Connally's limo
drove under the underpass about five minutes after Kennedy's limo had?
I mean, I wonder why a <snicker> *important* witness like THAT wasn't
called!
His testimony would be *devestating* to the WCR conclusions, LOL!
Get a grip, Benny. It's called case evidence.
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Bud
May 17, 2012, 5:13:00 PM5/17/12
to
On May 17, 9:34 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> "Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower behind the wooden
> fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in area were those
> standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the motorcade approached,
> 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen were on the railroad bridge; the
> knoll was just to their left. Not one of the railroad men was called before the
> Warren Commission. However, four were questioned by counsel for the Commission
> and nine by agents of the FBI. Five of them said that shots came from the knoll
> and six others said that when the shots were fired their attention was
> immediately attracted to the knoll. It is worth noting that not one of the 13
> men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll, said that he
> thought that the shots came from the Book Depository, while 11 of them indicated
> either explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above the knoll was
> where they thought the sniper was."
>
> The kooks will again refuse to refute these facts brought up by Mark Lane. They
> keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any evidence.
>
> This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the kooks can't refute
> it.
Actually it the facts of the case that is devastating to the
> "Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower behind the wooden
> fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in area were those
> standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the motorcade approached,
> 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen were on the railroad bridge; the
> knoll was just to their left. Not one of the railroad men was called before the
> Warren Commission. However, four were questioned by counsel for the Commission
> and nine by agents of the FBI. Five of them said that shots came from the knoll
> and six others said that when the shots were fired their attention was
> immediately attracted to the knoll. It is worth noting that not one of the 13
> men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll, said that he
> thought that the shots came from the Book Depository, while 11 of them indicated
> either explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above the knoll was
> where they thought the sniper was."
>
> The kooks will again refuse to refute these facts brought up by Mark Lane. They
> keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any evidence.
>
> This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the kooks can't refute
> it.
information they supplied.
You idiots will never figure this simple crime out as long as you
insist on focusing on the wrong information. And neither Ben or Lane
can offer a compelling theory for what happened using these witnesses.
They don`t even try.
aeffects
May 17, 2012, 5:40:41 PM5/17/12
to
for the WCR here (on ACJ), nutless....
suck-it-up hon... Mark Lane still has you lone nut, nutless turds
running in circles.... ROTFLMFAO! ! ! !
Ben Holmes
May 17, 2012, 9:28:18 PM5/17/12
to
In article <fa68d45f-938b-45a1...@pr3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On May 17, 2:13=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 17, 9:34=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower behind the =
>wooden
>> > fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in area were thos=
>e
>> > standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the motorcade ap=
>proached,
>> > 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen were on the railroad bri=
>dge; the
>> > knoll was just to their left. Not one of the railroad men was called be=
>fore the
>> > Warren Commission. However, four were questioned by counsel for the Com=
>mission
>> > and nine by agents of the FBI. Five of them said that shots came from t=
>the 13
>> > men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll, said tha=
>t he
>> > thought that the shots came from the Book Depository, while 11 of them =
>indicated
>> > either explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above the knoll=
from Mark Lane is just another way to demonstrate cowardice. As everyone can
see, you were too yellow to list any. No doubt, you understand quite well how
easily most of it can be refuted.
Rather dishonest of you, too...
>> You idiots will never figure this simple crime out as long as you
>> insist on focusing on the wrong information.
Your criteria for what is "good information" is anything that supports the
theory put forth by the WCR.
Rather poor logic...
Fortunately, our justice system doesn't work that way.
Rather *good* information, for example, is the description of the original
bullet wound in JFK's throat... corroborated by everyone who saw it. Medical
doctors who are experienced in wound description.
Bugliosi, and all the kooks, are forced to lie about it.
>> And neither Ben or Lane
>> can offer a compelling theory for what happened using these witnesses.
Of course we do... there was a conspiracy involving a shooter from the TSBD and
the Grassy Knoll. Possibly others, but the evidence is strongest for these two
locations.
What is so difficult about that?
Of course, everyone knows you're simply lying to try to make a point... but when
you lie to make a point, the only point you've made is that you're willing to
lie.
>> They don`t even try.
A rather *stupid* lie. Can't you do any better than this?
>reality is tough on you shitheads isn't it.... no one is rolling over
>for the WCR here (on ACJ), nutless....
>suck-it-up hon... Mark Lane still has you lone nut, nutless turds
>running in circles.... ROTFLMFAO! ! ! !
The only examples they could come up with for proving their case that Mark Lane
lied were so weak that I easily refuted them.
Now the shoe is on the proper foot, and they are going to illustrate, by their
complete inability to do anything other than 'deny deny deny'... that Mark Lane
was simply correct in his analysis of the WCR's evidence.
aeffects says...
>
>On May 17, 2:13=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 17, 9:34=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower behind the =
>wooden
>> > fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in area were thos=
>e
>> > standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the motorcade ap=
>proached,
>> > 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen were on the railroad bri=
>dge; the
>> > knoll was just to their left. Not one of the railroad men was called be=
>fore the
>> > Warren Commission. However, four were questioned by counsel for the Com=
>mission
>> > and nine by agents of the FBI. Five of them said that shots came from t=
>he knoll
>> > and six others said that when the shots were fired their attention was
>> > immediately attracted to the knoll. It is worth noting that not one of =
>> > and six others said that when the shots were fired their attention was
>the 13
>> > men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll, said tha=
>t he
>> > thought that the shots came from the Book Depository, while 11 of them =
>indicated
>> > either explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above the knoll=
> was
>> > where they thought the sniper was."
>>
>> > The kooks will again refuse to refute these facts brought up by Mark La=
>> > where they thought the sniper was."
>>
>ne. They
>> > keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any evidence.
>>
>> > This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the kooks can't=
>> > keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any evidence.
>>
> refute
>> > it.
>>
>> Actually it the facts of the case that is devastating to the
>> information they supplied.
Pretending that there is some mysterious "facts" that will refute these quotes
>> > it.
>>
>> Actually it the facts of the case that is devastating to the
>> information they supplied.
from Mark Lane is just another way to demonstrate cowardice. As everyone can
see, you were too yellow to list any. No doubt, you understand quite well how
easily most of it can be refuted.
Rather dishonest of you, too...
>> You idiots will never figure this simple crime out as long as you
>> insist on focusing on the wrong information.
theory put forth by the WCR.
Rather poor logic...
Fortunately, our justice system doesn't work that way.
Rather *good* information, for example, is the description of the original
bullet wound in JFK's throat... corroborated by everyone who saw it. Medical
doctors who are experienced in wound description.
Bugliosi, and all the kooks, are forced to lie about it.
>> And neither Ben or Lane
>> can offer a compelling theory for what happened using these witnesses.
the Grassy Knoll. Possibly others, but the evidence is strongest for these two
locations.
What is so difficult about that?
Of course, everyone knows you're simply lying to try to make a point... but when
you lie to make a point, the only point you've made is that you're willing to
lie.
>> They don`t even try.
>reality is tough on you shitheads isn't it.... no one is rolling over
>for the WCR here (on ACJ), nutless....
>suck-it-up hon... Mark Lane still has you lone nut, nutless turds
>running in circles.... ROTFLMFAO! ! ! !
lied were so weak that I easily refuted them.
Now the shoe is on the proper foot, and they are going to illustrate, by their
complete inability to do anything other than 'deny deny deny'... that Mark Lane
was simply correct in his analysis of the WCR's evidence.
Bud
May 18, 2012, 6:51:11 AM5/18/12
to
On May 17, 9:28 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <fa68d45f-938b-45a1-bb9b-07b8a04f6...@pr3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
There is nothing "mysterious" about the facts of this case, even
retards like you know them. You just don`t know how to apply or weigh
them.
> As everyone can
> see, you were too yellow to list any.
Why should I supply anything, you (or Lane) didn`t. Who are "five"
and "six" and "eleven". What did these groups actually say that
support your premise? Because chances are it is just your (or Lanes)
retarded and dishonest interpretation of the information they supplied
that is the problem.
> No doubt, you understand quite well how
> easily most of it can be refuted.
Retards have dreamed up all manner of excuses to disregard the
evidence in this case, what could matter less?
> Rather dishonest of you, too...
>
> >> You idiots will never figure this simple crime out as long as you
> >> insist on focusing on the wrong information.
>
> Your criteria for what is "good information" is anything that supports the
> theory put forth by the WCR.
Yah, the evidence does support the WCR, that how real explanations
work. And that is how real investigations operate. Not the way you and
the other retard hobbyists operate, chasing echoes from the knoll and
never putting any explanations on the table in nearly 5 decades.
> Rather poor logic...
>
> Fortunately, our justice system doesn't work that way.
It certainly doesn`t work your way. If it did nobody would be in
jail.
> Rather *good* information, for example, is the description of the original
> bullet wound in JFK's throat...
See, this is a good example of the poor information you idiots cling
to. Nobody did a scientific examination of that wound to determine the
facts about it. It`s not doctors do, especially in that situation.
>corroborated by everyone who saw it. Medical
> doctors who are experienced in wound description.
You are an idiot if you think they were trying to determine the
facts about that wound as they were working to save Kennedy`s life.
You an even bigger idiot if you think they had the proper training to
determine such things. Even an expert in the correct field would never
walk into a situation where he just cavalierly assigned "ins and outs"
without a detailed examination of each wound, but you think it can be
done by casual observations from people who aren`t even trained in
forensics.
> Bugliosi, and all the kooks, are forced to lie about it.
>
> >> And neither Ben or Lane
> >> can offer a compelling theory for what happened using these witnesses.
>
> Of course we do... there was a conspiracy involving a shooter from the TSBD and
> the Grassy Knoll. Possibly others, but the evidence is strongest for these two
> locations.
Coward. Why don`t you take the information these witnesses supplied
and show how they help explain what actually happened? Reference each
shot they describe to each wound on the victims. Show your supporting
trajectory analysis. Don`t hide behind the word "conspiracy", show
that these witnesses were correct, and how what they said supports
*your* version of what happened. But you don`t have a version, do you?
You have nothing to put on the table. You try to hide this fact by
criticizing what others have done. What have you idiots produced?
And you have also called the bulk of the witnesses who indicated a
single location for all the shots they heard liars.
> What is so difficult about that?
It`s impossible to reconcile these witnesses into an explanation of
what occurred. You know this, which is why you don`t even try.
> Of course, everyone knows you're simply lying to try to make a point... but when
> you lie to make a point, the only point you've made is that you're willing to
> lie.
Heres what I wrote...
"And neither Ben or Lane can offer a compelling theory for what
happened using these witnesses."
You didn`t even try, did you pussy? All you did was prove what I
said to be correct. This one is going on the moderated group this
weekend, I`m going to shove your inability to offer a shooting
scenario using these witnesses up your ass.
> >> They don`t even try.
>
> A rather *stupid* lie. Can't you do any better than this?
You didn`t even try, did you? I`ve never seen a CTer try to use
thiese witnesses to present a viable shooting scenario (and the only
CTer I`ve ever seen try to use *any* witnesses to suggest a shooting
scenario is Harris). If what they related was true and correct you
should be able to do this.
> >reality is tough on you shitheads isn't it.... no one is rolling over
> >for the WCR here (on ACJ), nutless....
> >suck-it-up hon... Mark Lane still has you lone nut, nutless turds
> >running in circles.... ROTFLMFAO! ! ! !
>
> The only examples they could come up with for proving their case that Mark Lane
> lied were so weak that I easily refuted them.
I`ll have to take what Mark just presented yesterday to the
moderated group for you to see it. He flat out lied about what the
witnesses said.
> Now the shoe is on the proper foot, and they are going to illustrate, by their
> complete inability to do anything other than 'deny deny deny'... that Mark Lane
> was simply correct in his analysis of the WCR's evidence.
Lane usually carefully constructs his sentences so that they really
don`t say anything, but sound like they do. Like you do.
> In article <fa68d45f-938b-45a1-bb9b-07b8a04f6...@pr3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
retards like you know them. You just don`t know how to apply or weigh
them.
> As everyone can
> see, you were too yellow to list any.
and "six" and "eleven". What did these groups actually say that
support your premise? Because chances are it is just your (or Lanes)
retarded and dishonest interpretation of the information they supplied
that is the problem.
> No doubt, you understand quite well how
> easily most of it can be refuted.
evidence in this case, what could matter less?
> Rather dishonest of you, too...
>
> >> You idiots will never figure this simple crime out as long as you
> >> insist on focusing on the wrong information.
>
> Your criteria for what is "good information" is anything that supports the
> theory put forth by the WCR.
work. And that is how real investigations operate. Not the way you and
the other retard hobbyists operate, chasing echoes from the knoll and
never putting any explanations on the table in nearly 5 decades.
> Rather poor logic...
>
> Fortunately, our justice system doesn't work that way.
jail.
> Rather *good* information, for example, is the description of the original
> bullet wound in JFK's throat...
to. Nobody did a scientific examination of that wound to determine the
facts about it. It`s not doctors do, especially in that situation.
>corroborated by everyone who saw it. Medical
> doctors who are experienced in wound description.
facts about that wound as they were working to save Kennedy`s life.
You an even bigger idiot if you think they had the proper training to
determine such things. Even an expert in the correct field would never
walk into a situation where he just cavalierly assigned "ins and outs"
without a detailed examination of each wound, but you think it can be
done by casual observations from people who aren`t even trained in
forensics.
> Bugliosi, and all the kooks, are forced to lie about it.
>
> >> And neither Ben or Lane
> >> can offer a compelling theory for what happened using these witnesses.
>
> Of course we do... there was a conspiracy involving a shooter from the TSBD and
> the Grassy Knoll. Possibly others, but the evidence is strongest for these two
> locations.
and show how they help explain what actually happened? Reference each
shot they describe to each wound on the victims. Show your supporting
trajectory analysis. Don`t hide behind the word "conspiracy", show
that these witnesses were correct, and how what they said supports
*your* version of what happened. But you don`t have a version, do you?
You have nothing to put on the table. You try to hide this fact by
criticizing what others have done. What have you idiots produced?
And you have also called the bulk of the witnesses who indicated a
single location for all the shots they heard liars.
> What is so difficult about that?
what occurred. You know this, which is why you don`t even try.
> Of course, everyone knows you're simply lying to try to make a point... but when
> you lie to make a point, the only point you've made is that you're willing to
> lie.
"And neither Ben or Lane can offer a compelling theory for what
happened using these witnesses."
said to be correct. This one is going on the moderated group this
weekend, I`m going to shove your inability to offer a shooting
scenario using these witnesses up your ass.
> >> They don`t even try.
>
> A rather *stupid* lie. Can't you do any better than this?
thiese witnesses to present a viable shooting scenario (and the only
CTer I`ve ever seen try to use *any* witnesses to suggest a shooting
scenario is Harris). If what they related was true and correct you
should be able to do this.
> >reality is tough on you shitheads isn't it.... no one is rolling over
> >for the WCR here (on ACJ), nutless....
> >suck-it-up hon... Mark Lane still has you lone nut, nutless turds
> >running in circles.... ROTFLMFAO! ! ! !
>
> The only examples they could come up with for proving their case that Mark Lane
> lied were so weak that I easily refuted them.
moderated group for you to see it. He flat out lied about what the
witnesses said.
> Now the shoe is on the proper foot, and they are going to illustrate, by their
> complete inability to do anything other than 'deny deny deny'... that Mark Lane
> was simply correct in his analysis of the WCR's evidence.
don`t say anything, but sound like they do. Like you do.
aeffects
May 18, 2012, 1:53:55 PM5/18/12
to
name doesn't help a pro-con WCR position one iota, the fact is: "the
WCR is what it is, a deeply flawed, 'convenient' scenario."
Bud
May 18, 2012, 7:59:08 PM5/18/12
to
put a scenario on the table. You`ve failed in every conceivable way
you could fail, and you even fail to realize it.
> Dragging in posters by
> name doesn't help
he is so inept and out of his water I`d feel sorry for him if he
wasn`t such an asshole.
> a pro-con WCR position one iota,
any forthcoming. You idiots have gone nowhere because there never was
anywhere to go.
> the fact is: "the
> WCR is what it is, a deeply flawed, 'convenient' scenario."
"patsy" fantasies.
Ben Holmes
May 18, 2012, 10:02:44 PM5/18/12
to
In article <104b8981-966e-42fd...@ns1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On May 18, 3:51=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 17, 9:28=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <fa68d45f-938b-45a1-bb9b-07b8a04f6...@pr3g2000pbb.googlegrou=
>ps.com>,
>> > aeffects says...
>>
>> > >On May 17, 2:13=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > >> On May 17, 9:34=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > "Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower behind=
> the =3D
>> > >wooden
>> > >> > fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in area were=
> thos=3D
>> > >e
>> > >> > standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the motorca=
>de ap=3D
>> > >proached,
>> > >> > 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen were on the railroa=
>d bri=3D
>> > >dge; the
>> > >> > knoll was just to their left. Not one of the railroad men was call=
>ed be=3D
>> > >fore the
>> > >> > Warren Commission. However, four were questioned by counsel for th=
>e Com=3D
>> > >mission
>> > >> > and nine by agents of the FBI. Five of them said that shots came f=
>rom t=3D
>> > >he knoll
>> > >> > and six others said that when the shots were fired their attention=
> was
>> > >> > immediately attracted to the knoll. It is worth noting that not on=
>e of =3D
>> > >the 13
>> > >> > men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll, sai=
>d tha=3D
>> > >t he
>> > >> > thought that the shots came from the Book Depository, while 11 of =
>them =3D
>> > >indicated
>> > >> > either explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above the =
>knoll=3D
>rk La=3D
>> > >ne. They
>> > >> > keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any evidenc=
>e.
>>
>> > >> > This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the kooks =
>can't=3D
around...
>> > As everyone can
>> > see, you were too yellow to list any.
>>
>> Why should I supply anything, you (or Lane) didn`t. Who are "five"
>> and "six" and "eleven". What did these groups actually say that
>> support your premise? Because chances are it is just your (or Lanes)
>> retarded and dishonest interpretation of the information they supplied
>> that is the problem.
You can look up the cited references just as easily as anyone else.
You seem to be begging us to help you prove your case.
Doesn't work that way.
>> > No doubt, you understand quite well how
>> > easily most of it can be refuted.
>>
>> Retards have dreamed up all manner of excuses to disregard the
>> evidence in this case, what could matter less?
The fact that you refused to provide any of these mysterious "facts" illustrated
what I stated.
>> > Rather dishonest of you, too...
>>
>> > >> You idiots will never figure this simple crime out as long as you
>> > >> insist on focusing on the wrong information.
>>
>> > Your criteria for what is "good information" is anything that supports =
>> the evidence does support the WCR,
You're lying.
Indeed, the 45 Questions reflect this quite well, that the evidence DOES NOT
support the WCR's theory.
Bugliosi, as merely one example, was forced to lie about the evidence to try to
make his case.
And *YOU* endorse such lies...
>> that how real explanations
>> work. And that is how real investigations operate.
Nope... not at all.
"Real investigations" don't *start* with the outline of what they intend to
prove, then "prove" it.
Real investigations collect the *EVIDENCE*, then try to piece together what
happened based on that evidence.
>> Not the way you and
>> the other retard hobbyists operate, chasing echoes from the knoll and
>> never putting any explanations on the table in nearly 5 decades.
Multiple shooters too difficult for you to understand, stupid?
>> > Rather poor logic...
>>
>> > Fortunately, our justice system doesn't work that way.
>>
>> It certainly doesn`t work your way. If it did nobody would be in
>> jail.
Of *COURSE* it works the way it does... as I've pointed out many times before.
And *DOESN'T* work the way you claim.
Testimony, for example, is considered evidence in our justice system.
You deny that fact.
>> > Rather *good* information, for example, is the description of the origi=
Deny deny deny... that's all you have, moron.
>> >corroborated by everyone who saw it. Medical
>> > doctors who are experienced in wound description.
>>
>> You are an idiot if you think they were trying to determine the
>> facts about that wound as they were working to save Kennedy`s life.
You are an idiot if you think their eyes and minds stopped working while they
were trying to save Kennedy's life.
>> You an even bigger idiot if you think they had the proper training to
>> determine such things.
Rather stupid thing for you to claim. Care to run that statement by any doctors,
and get their agreement with such a silly claim?
>> Even an expert in the correct field would never
>> walk into a situation where he just cavalierly assigned "ins and outs"
Who said anything about "ins and outs" stupid?
There's a difference between a sharply defined small round wound, and a "ragged"
one.
And only a moron like yourself believes that doctors can't tell the difference.
>> without a detailed examination of each wound, but you think it can be
>> done by casual observations from people who aren`t even trained in
>> forensics.
I daresay that even an ordinary person, with little or no education *at all*,
can tell the difference between a small sharply defined round hole and a
"ragged" wound.
>> > Bugliosi, and all the kooks, are forced to lie about it.
>>
>> > >> And neither Ben or Lane
>> > >> can offer a compelling theory for what happened using these witnesse=
>s.
>>
>> > Of course we do... there was a conspiracy involving a shooter from the =
>TSBD and
>> > the Grassy Knoll. Possibly others, but the evidence is strongest for th=
>ese two
>> > locations.
>>
>> Coward.
For stating what you keep claiming we never say?
How moronic of you!
>> Why don`t you take the information these witnesses supplied
>> and show how they help explain what actually happened? Reference each
>> shot they describe to each wound on the victims. Show your supporting
>> trajectory analysis. Don`t hide behind the word "conspiracy", show
>> that these witnesses were correct, and how what they said supports
>> *your* version of what happened. But you don`t have a version, do you?
>> You have nothing to put on the table. You try to hide this fact by
>> criticizing what others have done. What have you idiots produced?
You just *hate* the fact that my theory is so simple... multiple assassins.
Well supported by the evidence, too.
>> And you have also called the bulk of the witnesses who indicated a
>> single location for all the shots they heard liars.
No such statement was ever made. Nor can you quote any such statement. Nor is it
even logical.
You're simply lying again, moron.
>> > What is so difficult about that?
>>
>> It`s impossible to reconcile these witnesses into an explanation of
>> what occurred. You know this, which is why you don`t even try.
What's so difficult?
Multiple shooters... shooting from two locations. How difficult was that?
>> > Of course, everyone knows you're simply lying to try to make a point...=
> but when
>> > you lie to make a point, the only point you've made is that you're will=
>> You didn`t even try, did you pussy? All you did was prove what I
>> said to be correct. This one is going on the moderated group this
>> weekend, I`m going to shove your inability to offer a shooting
>> scenario using these witnesses up your ass.
Then you'll simply be lying again... as you're already doing.
>> > >> They don`t even try.
>>
>> > A rather *stupid* lie. Can't you do any better than this?
>>
>> You didn`t even try, did you? I`ve never seen a CTer try to use
>> thiese witnesses to present a viable shooting scenario (and the only
>> CTer I`ve ever seen try to use *any* witnesses to suggest a shooting
>> scenario is Harris). If what they related was true and correct you
>> should be able to do this.
Repeatedly stated... you run from the statements.
Interestingly, although this thread is getting long - YOU HAVEN'T OFFERED EVEN A
SINGLE REFUTATION TO WHAT I QUOTED MARK LANE AS STATING.
Not one.
>son, the WCR is what it is, a failed scenario. Dragging in posters by
>name doesn't help a pro-con WCR position one iota, the fact is: "the
>WCR is what it is, a deeply flawed, 'convenient' scenario."
Yep... that's certainly true.
>> > >reality is tough on you shitheads isn't it.... no one is rolling over
>> > >for the WCR here (on ACJ), nutless....
>> > >suck-it-up hon... Mark Lane still has you lone nut, nutless turds
>> > >running in circles.... ROTFLMFAO! ! ! !
>>
>> > The only examples they could come up with for proving their case that M=
you think you can convince thinking adults?
>> > Now the shoe is on the proper foot, and they are going to illustrate, b=
>y their
>> > complete inability to do anything other than 'deny deny deny'... that M=
Don't worry... I have plenty more Mark Lane quotes...
aeffects says...
>
>On May 18, 3:51=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 17, 9:28=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <fa68d45f-938b-45a1-bb9b-07b8a04f6...@pr3g2000pbb.googlegrou=
>ps.com>,
>> > aeffects says...
>>
>> > >On May 17, 2:13=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > >> On May 17, 9:34=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > "Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower behind=
> the =3D
>> > >wooden
>> > >> > fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in area were=
> thos=3D
>> > >e
>> > >> > standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the motorca=
>de ap=3D
>> > >proached,
>> > >> > 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen were on the railroa=
>d bri=3D
>> > >dge; the
>> > >> > knoll was just to their left. Not one of the railroad men was call=
>ed be=3D
>> > >fore the
>> > >> > Warren Commission. However, four were questioned by counsel for th=
>e Com=3D
>> > >mission
>> > >> > and nine by agents of the FBI. Five of them said that shots came f=
>rom t=3D
>> > >he knoll
>> > >> > and six others said that when the shots were fired their attention=
> was
>> > >> > immediately attracted to the knoll. It is worth noting that not on=
>e of =3D
>> > >the 13
>> > >> > men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll, sai=
>d tha=3D
>> > >t he
>> > >> > thought that the shots came from the Book Depository, while 11 of =
>them =3D
>> > >indicated
>> > >> > either explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above the =
>knoll=3D
>> > > was
>> > >> > where they thought the sniper was."
>>
>> > >> > The kooks will again refuse to refute these facts brought up by Ma=
>> > >> > where they thought the sniper was."
>>
>rk La=3D
>> > >ne. They
>> > >> > keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any evidenc=
>e.
>>
>> > >> > This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the kooks =
>can't=3D
>> > > refute
>> > >> > it.
>>
>> > >> Actually it the facts of the case that is devastating to the
>> > >> information they supplied.
>>
>> > Pretending that there is some mysterious "facts" that will refute these=
>> > >> > it.
>>
>> > >> Actually it the facts of the case that is devastating to the
>> > >> information they supplied.
>>
> quotes
>> > from Mark Lane is just another way to demonstrate cowardice.
>>
>> There is nothing "mysterious" about the facts of this case, even
>> retards like you know them. You just don`t know how to apply or weigh
>> them.
Pretending that there is some mysterious "facts" that will refute these quotes
from Mark Lane is just another way to demonstrate cowardice.
I note that your answer didn't include any of these mysterious "facts" you toss
>> > from Mark Lane is just another way to demonstrate cowardice.
>>
>> There is nothing "mysterious" about the facts of this case, even
>> retards like you know them. You just don`t know how to apply or weigh
>> them.
Pretending that there is some mysterious "facts" that will refute these quotes
from Mark Lane is just another way to demonstrate cowardice.
around...
>> > As everyone can
>> > see, you were too yellow to list any.
>>
>> Why should I supply anything, you (or Lane) didn`t. Who are "five"
>> and "six" and "eleven". What did these groups actually say that
>> support your premise? Because chances are it is just your (or Lanes)
>> retarded and dishonest interpretation of the information they supplied
>> that is the problem.
You seem to be begging us to help you prove your case.
Doesn't work that way.
>> > No doubt, you understand quite well how
>> > easily most of it can be refuted.
>>
>> Retards have dreamed up all manner of excuses to disregard the
>> evidence in this case, what could matter less?
what I stated.
>> > Rather dishonest of you, too...
>>
>> > >> You idiots will never figure this simple crime out as long as you
>> > >> insist on focusing on the wrong information.
>>
>the
>> > theory put forth by the WCR.
>>
>> Yah,
Of course. You have no other criteria.
>> > theory put forth by the WCR.
>>
>> Yah,
>> the evidence does support the WCR,
Indeed, the 45 Questions reflect this quite well, that the evidence DOES NOT
support the WCR's theory.
Bugliosi, as merely one example, was forced to lie about the evidence to try to
make his case.
And *YOU* endorse such lies...
>> that how real explanations
>> work. And that is how real investigations operate.
"Real investigations" don't *start* with the outline of what they intend to
prove, then "prove" it.
Real investigations collect the *EVIDENCE*, then try to piece together what
happened based on that evidence.
>> Not the way you and
>> the other retard hobbyists operate, chasing echoes from the knoll and
>> never putting any explanations on the table in nearly 5 decades.
>> > Rather poor logic...
>>
>> > Fortunately, our justice system doesn't work that way.
>>
>> It certainly doesn`t work your way. If it did nobody would be in
>> jail.
And *DOESN'T* work the way you claim.
Testimony, for example, is considered evidence in our justice system.
You deny that fact.
>> > Rather *good* information, for example, is the description of the origi=
>nal
>> > bullet wound in JFK's throat...
>>
>> See, this is a good example of the poor information you idiots cling
>> to. Nobody did a scientific examination of that wound to determine the
>> facts about it. It`s not doctors do, especially in that situation.
LOL!!!
>> > bullet wound in JFK's throat...
>>
>> See, this is a good example of the poor information you idiots cling
>> to. Nobody did a scientific examination of that wound to determine the
>> facts about it. It`s not doctors do, especially in that situation.
Deny deny deny... that's all you have, moron.
>> >corroborated by everyone who saw it. Medical
>> > doctors who are experienced in wound description.
>>
>> You are an idiot if you think they were trying to determine the
>> facts about that wound as they were working to save Kennedy`s life.
were trying to save Kennedy's life.
>> You an even bigger idiot if you think they had the proper training to
>> determine such things.
and get their agreement with such a silly claim?
>> Even an expert in the correct field would never
>> walk into a situation where he just cavalierly assigned "ins and outs"
There's a difference between a sharply defined small round wound, and a "ragged"
one.
And only a moron like yourself believes that doctors can't tell the difference.
>> without a detailed examination of each wound, but you think it can be
>> done by casual observations from people who aren`t even trained in
>> forensics.
can tell the difference between a small sharply defined round hole and a
"ragged" wound.
>> > Bugliosi, and all the kooks, are forced to lie about it.
>>
>> > >> And neither Ben or Lane
>s.
>>
>> > Of course we do... there was a conspiracy involving a shooter from the =
>TSBD and
>> > the Grassy Knoll. Possibly others, but the evidence is strongest for th=
>ese two
>> > locations.
>>
>> Coward.
For stating what you keep claiming we never say?
How moronic of you!
>> Why don`t you take the information these witnesses supplied
>> and show how they help explain what actually happened? Reference each
>> shot they describe to each wound on the victims. Show your supporting
>> trajectory analysis. Don`t hide behind the word "conspiracy", show
>> that these witnesses were correct, and how what they said supports
>> *your* version of what happened. But you don`t have a version, do you?
>> You have nothing to put on the table. You try to hide this fact by
>> criticizing what others have done. What have you idiots produced?
Well supported by the evidence, too.
>> And you have also called the bulk of the witnesses who indicated a
>> single location for all the shots they heard liars.
even logical.
You're simply lying again, moron.
>> > What is so difficult about that?
>>
>> It`s impossible to reconcile these witnesses into an explanation of
>> what occurred. You know this, which is why you don`t even try.
Multiple shooters... shooting from two locations. How difficult was that?
>> > Of course, everyone knows you're simply lying to try to make a point...=
> but when
>> > you lie to make a point, the only point you've made is that you're will=
>ing to
>> > lie.
>>
>> Heres what I wrote...
>>
>> "And neither Ben or Lane can offer a compelling theory for what
>> happened using these witnesses."
Indeed, it's so "compelling" that most Americans believe it.
>> > lie.
>>
>> Heres what I wrote...
>>
>> "And neither Ben or Lane can offer a compelling theory for what
>> happened using these witnesses."
>> You didn`t even try, did you pussy? All you did was prove what I
>> said to be correct. This one is going on the moderated group this
>> weekend, I`m going to shove your inability to offer a shooting
>> scenario using these witnesses up your ass.
>> > >> They don`t even try.
>>
>> > A rather *stupid* lie. Can't you do any better than this?
>>
>> You didn`t even try, did you? I`ve never seen a CTer try to use
>> thiese witnesses to present a viable shooting scenario (and the only
>> CTer I`ve ever seen try to use *any* witnesses to suggest a shooting
>> scenario is Harris). If what they related was true and correct you
>> should be able to do this.
Interestingly, although this thread is getting long - YOU HAVEN'T OFFERED EVEN A
SINGLE REFUTATION TO WHAT I QUOTED MARK LANE AS STATING.
Not one.
>son, the WCR is what it is, a failed scenario. Dragging in posters by
>name doesn't help a pro-con WCR position one iota, the fact is: "the
>WCR is what it is, a deeply flawed, 'convenient' scenario."
>> > >reality is tough on you shitheads isn't it.... no one is rolling over
>> > >for the WCR here (on ACJ), nutless....
>> > >suck-it-up hon... Mark Lane still has you lone nut, nutless turds
>> > >running in circles.... ROTFLMFAO! ! ! !
>>
>ark Lane
>> > lied were so weak that I easily refuted them.
>>
>> I`ll have to take what Mark just presented yesterday to the
>> moderated group for you to see it. He flat out lied about what the
>> witnesses said.
More assertions without support. If this is all you can do moron, then why do
>> > lied were so weak that I easily refuted them.
>>
>> I`ll have to take what Mark just presented yesterday to the
>> moderated group for you to see it. He flat out lied about what the
>> witnesses said.
you think you can convince thinking adults?
>> > Now the shoe is on the proper foot, and they are going to illustrate, b=
>y their
>> > complete inability to do anything other than 'deny deny deny'... that M=
>ark Lane
>> > was simply correct in his analysis of the WCR's evidence.
>>
>> Lane usually carefully constructs his sentences so that they really
>> don`t say anything, but sound like they do. Like you do.
More hogwash... no examples, no citations, no support. Nothing.
>> > was simply correct in his analysis of the WCR's evidence.
>>
>> Lane usually carefully constructs his sentences so that they really
>> don`t say anything, but sound like they do. Like you do.
Don't worry... I have plenty more Mark Lane quotes...
Bud
May 19, 2012, 7:29:33 AM5/19/12
to
On May 18, 10:02 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <104b8981-966e-42fd-8ad0-26b30fdc8...@ns1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
There is nothing mysterious about the facts of the case, retard. You
know that there was a gunman seen shooting, and where he was seen
shooting from. You know a rifle was found in the area he was seen
shooting, that fragments matching that rifle were found in the limo,
that three shells were found, matching the number of shots most people
heard. That the owner of the rifle was seen shooting by a witness, and
was seen shooting a cop by witnesses less than a hour afterward. You
know how unlikely it is that Oswald would have been working with a
shooter on the knoll, or anyone else for that matter. Theres more, but
thats the gist, the facts of the case are devastating to what these
witnesses related. And what modern rifle leaves a billowing cloud of
smoke that can be seen at a distance? Did they use a flintlock?
> >> > As everyone can
> >> > see, you were too yellow to list any.
>
> >> Why should I supply anything, you (or Lane) didn`t. Who are "five"
> >> and "six" and "eleven". What did these groups actually say that
> >> support your premise? Because chances are it is just your (or Lanes)
> >> retarded and dishonest interpretation of the information they supplied
> >> that is the problem.
>
> You can look up the cited references just as easily as anyone else.
Do you think I will interpret the witness statement the same way as
Lane would? If not then I wouldn`t find what he is referencing.
In any case, it`s up to Lane to support his ideas. To do that he
has to name the people and show how those people support his claims.
Not just spout numbers that only those with no critical thinking
skills would accept.
> You seem to be begging us to help you prove your case.
I`m asking you to support your (or Lane`s) claims. You haven`t yet.
Is this what you have to supplant the WCR with? Hot air?
> Doesn't work that way.
Yah, it does retard, thats exactly how it`s supposed to work. The
person making the claim has to support it.
> >> > No doubt, you understand quite well how
> >> > easily most of it can be refuted.
>
> >> Retards have dreamed up all manner of excuses to disregard the
> >> evidence in this case, what could matter less?
>
> The fact that you refused to provide any of these mysterious "facts" illustrated
> what I stated.
The real facts of the case are a mystery to you, you send no time at
all on the real important facts of the case to focus on irrelevancies.
This is why you idiots will never be able to figure out this very
simple crime.
> >> > Rather dishonest of you, too...
>
> >> > >> You idiots will never figure this simple crime out as long as you
> >> > >> insist on focusing on the wrong information.
>
> >> > Your criteria for what is "good information" is anything that supports =
> >the
> >> > theory put forth by the WCR.
>
> >> Yah,
>
> Of course. You have no other criteria.
The good information does support the WCR because they knew what
what good information was and used that to draw conclusions.
> >> the evidence does support the WCR,
>
> You're lying.
>
> Indeed, the 45 Questions reflect this quite well, that the evidence DOES NOT
> support the WCR's theory.
They do nothing but illustrate what a weak position you have. Even
carefully selecting talking points you do poorly and utterly fail to
show conspiracy.
> Bugliosi, as merely one example, was forced to lie about the evidence to try to
> make his case.
>
> And *YOU* endorse such lies...
Words have meaning and you`ve shown you don`t even understand the
meaning of many simple ones, including "lie".
> >> that how real explanations
> >> work. And that is how real investigations operate.
>
> Nope... not at all.
>
> "Real investigations" don't *start* with the outline of what they intend to
> prove, then "prove" it.
Which is why you retards are not true investigators. This
investigation went to the only place any true investigation could go.
You reatrds go anywhere but where the evidence leads. If the evidence
starts to force you where you don`t want to go you just make up some
silly reason to nullify it in your minds.
> Real investigations collect the *EVIDENCE*, then try to piece together what
> happened based on that evidence.
ANYONE in law enforcement would know within a couple hours of
Oswald`s arrest that he was the guilty party, for a dozen reasons. You
idiots can`t figure it out after nearly 50 years.
> >> Not the way you and
> >> the other retard hobbyists operate, chasing echoes from the knoll and
> >> never putting any explanations on the table in nearly 5 decades.
>
> Multiple shooters too difficult for you to understand, stupid?
You tout the witnesses, use them to construct a viable shooting
scenario. You can`t do it, you won`t even try will you coward?
> >> > Rather poor logic...
>
> >> > Fortunately, our justice system doesn't work that way.
>
> >> It certainly doesn`t work your way. If it did nobody would be in
> >> jail.
>
> Of *COURSE* it works the way it does... as I've pointed out many times before.
It`s just another idea you can`t support. If things worked your way
the jails would be empty. Since the jails aren`t empty things must not
work your way.
> And *DOESN'T* work the way you claim.
>
> Testimony, for example, is considered evidence in our justice system.
Would you say that there is evidence that there was a dog in the
limo?
> You deny that fact.
By producing a definition that says that very thing, liar?
> >> > Rather *good* information, for example, is the description of the origi=
> >nal
> >> > bullet wound in JFK's throat...
>
> >> See, this is a good example of the poor information you idiots cling
> >> to. Nobody did a scientific examination of that wound to determine the
> >> facts about it. It`s not doctors do, especially in that situation.
>
> LOL!!!
>
> Deny deny deny... that's all you have, moron.
I don`t deny that doctors saw the wound. I`m just viewing their
observations in the correct context, something you refuse to do
because it is harmful to your silly hobby to do that.
And an "LOL" is the only rebuttal you can manage for the facts as I
have stated them.
> >> >corroborated by everyone who saw it. Medical
> >> > doctors who are experienced in wound description.
>
> >> You are an idiot if you think they were trying to determine the
> >> facts about that wound as they were working to save Kennedy`s life.
>
> You are an idiot if you think their eyes and minds stopped working while they
> were trying to save Kennedy's life.
You keep dodging the point that they were the wrong people doing the
wrong job for what you are trying to use them for.
In their experience it would be uncommon for them to see nice round
exits because of they types of ammunition used in most of the
shootings they would see. So it is not unusual that they would
associate nice round holes with an entrance, it would be the most
common occurrence. But what happens when something unusual occurs, and
military ammunition designed not to distort or disintegrate is used?
Then they are fooled, because it is something rare to their
experience. But this is an idea, and everyone knows you can`t argue
ideas.
> >> You an even bigger idiot if you think they had the proper training to
> >> determine such things.
>
> Rather stupid thing for you to claim. Care to run that statement by any doctors,
> and get their agreement with such a silly claim?
I think doctors know that they aren`t wound ballistic experts, even
if you don`t.
Heres what the two Parkland doctors you produced before speaking on
the subject. First Gregory..
Senator COOPER - I would just ask this question. In your long
experience of treating wounds, you said some 500 wounds caused by
bullets, have you acquired, through that. knowledge of ballistics and
characteristics of bullets?
Dr. GREGORY - Within a very limited sphere.
And then Shaw..
Dr. SHAW - No; Senator. I believe that my information about
ballistics is just that of an average layman, no more.
They understand they aren`t experts in the relevant science, even if
you don`t.
> >> Even an expert in the correct field would never
> >> walk into a situation where he just cavalierly assigned "ins and outs"
>
> Who said anything about "ins and outs" stupid?
You don`t know what this argument is about?
> There's a difference between a sharply defined small round wound, and a "ragged"
> one.
>
> And only a moron like yourself believes that doctors can't tell the difference.
Only an idiot thinks any examination to determine these things was
done.
> >> without a detailed examination of each wound, but you think it can be
> >> done by casual observations from people who aren`t even trained in
> >> forensics.
>
> I daresay that even an ordinary person, with little or no education *at all*,
> can tell the difference between a small sharply defined round hole and a
> "ragged" wound.
I know you want to pretend that people have great ability to
determine things precisely with cursory inspections. Your silly ideas
rest on such assertions, but you can`t show that they translate into
the real world and that laymen with casual observations can do the
jobs of experts with training.
> >> > Bugliosi, and all the kooks, are forced to lie about it.
>
> >> > >> And neither Ben or Lane
> >> > >> can offer a compelling theory for what happened using these witnesse=
> >s.
>
> >> > Of course we do... there was a conspiracy involving a shooter from the =
> >TSBD and
> >> > the Grassy Knoll. Possibly others, but the evidence is strongest for th=
> >ese two
> >> > locations.
>
> >> Coward.
>
> For stating what you keep claiming we never say?
You produced no shooting scenario using these witnesses. You said
the word "conspiracy" is all.
> How moronic of you!
>
> >> Why don`t you take the information these witnesses supplied
> >> and show how they help explain what actually happened? Reference each
> >> shot they describe to each wound on the victims. Show your supporting
> >> trajectory analysis. Don`t hide behind the word "conspiracy", show
> >> that these witnesses were correct, and how what they said supports
> >> *your* version of what happened. But you don`t have a version, do you?
> >> You have nothing to put on the table. You try to hide this fact by
> >> criticizing what others have done. What have you idiots produced?
>
> You just *hate* the fact that my theory is so simple... multiple assassins.
You are running, coward.
> Well supported by the evidence, too.
<snicker> I just called on you to support your theory using what
these witnesses supplied and you ran away!
If the witnesses are so great and reliable it should be a simple
thing to reconstruct what actually happened using the information they
supplied. But you can`t, can you? You are afraid to even try.
> >> And you have also called the bulk of the witnesses who indicated a
> >> single location for all the shots they heard liars.
>
> No such statement was ever made. Nor can you quote any such statement. Nor is it
> even logical.
Yes, you did make the argument, even if you didn`t realize it. Here
is what you said...
"Of course we do... there was a conspiracy involving a shooter from
the TSBD and the Grassy Knoll. Possibly others, but the evidence is
strongest for these two locations."
You are saying that the evidence is strongest for shots from two
locations. But the vast majority of witnesses only gave single
locations for the shots, not two. So you are saying and what the
witnesses indicated are at odds.
> You're simply lying again, moron.
>
> >> > What is so difficult about that?
>
> >> It`s impossible to reconcile these witnesses into an explanation of
> >> what occurred. You know this, which is why you don`t even try.
>
> What's so difficult?
Stop running and do it.
> Multiple shooters... shooting from two locations. How difficult was that?
Thats not what you are being challenged to produce. Use what the
witnesses supplied to reconstruct the event. You claim the witnesses
are reliable but you can`t do it. You are afraid to even try.
> >> > Of course, everyone knows you're simply lying to try to make a point...=
> > but when
> >> > you lie to make a point, the only point you've made is that you're will=
> >ing to
> >> > lie.
>
> >> Heres what I wrote...
>
> >> "And neither Ben or Lane can offer a compelling theory for what
> >> happened using these witnesses."
>
> Indeed, it's so "compelling" that most Americans believe it.
How could something that doesn`t exist be compelling? The public has
not seen you or Lane reconstruct this event, explaining what occurred
using the witnesses. Are you going to keep pretending you don`t
understand the concept?
> >> You didn`t even try, did you pussy? All you did was prove what I
> >> said to be correct. This one is going on the moderated group this
> >> weekend, I`m going to shove your inability to offer a shooting
> >> scenario using these witnesses up your ass.
>
> Then you'll simply be lying again... as you're already doing.
Where is your shooting scenario using the witnesses, retard? Dog ate
it?
> >> > >> They don`t even try.
>
> >> > A rather *stupid* lie. Can't you do any better than this?
>
> >> You didn`t even try, did you? I`ve never seen a CTer try to use
> >> thiese witnesses to present a viable shooting scenario (and the only
> >> CTer I`ve ever seen try to use *any* witnesses to suggest a shooting
> >> scenario is Harris). If what they related was true and correct you
> >> should be able to do this.
>
> Repeatedly stated... you run from the statements.
You`re lying, of course. You have never produced a reconstruction or
shooting scenario that explained what happened using the witnesses. If
you had you could just cut and paste it or link to it. If the
witnesses are reliable, and they say this event unfold why can`t you
use the information they supplied to reconstruct the event?
> Interestingly, although this thread is getting long - YOU HAVEN'T OFFERED EVEN A
> SINGLE REFUTATION TO WHAT I QUOTED MARK LANE AS STATING.
>
> Not one.
There was nothing to refute, you refused to name the people he was
referencing.
> >son, the WCR is what it is, a failed scenario. Dragging in posters by
> >name doesn't help a pro-con WCR position one iota, the fact is: "the
> >WCR is what it is, a deeply flawed, 'convenient' scenario."
>
> Yep... that's certainly true.
>
> >> > >reality is tough on you shitheads isn't it.... no one is rolling over
> >> > >for the WCR here (on ACJ), nutless....
> >> > >suck-it-up hon... Mark Lane still has you lone nut, nutless turds
> >> > >running in circles.... ROTFLMFAO! ! ! !
>
> >> > The only examples they could come up with for proving their case that M=
> >ark Lane
> >> > lied were so weak that I easily refuted them.
>
> >> I`ll have to take what Mark just presented yesterday to the
> >> moderated group for you to see it. He flat out lied about what the
> >> witnesses said.
>
> More assertions without support.
<snicker> The support for it exists on this very board. That you are
a pussy who hides is your problem.
>If this is all you can do moron, then why do
> you think you can convince thinking adults?
I`m sure all the people who follow these discussions on this board
have seen the refutation of Lane produced by Mark. The only reason you
haven`t is because you are not a thinking adult.
> >> > Now the shoe is on the proper foot, and they are going to illustrate, b=
> >y their
> >> > complete inability to do anything other than 'deny deny deny'... that M=
> >ark Lane
> >> > was simply correct in his analysis of the WCR's evidence.
>
> >> Lane usually carefully constructs his sentences so that they really
> >> don`t say anything, but sound like they do. Like you do.
>
> More hogwash... no examples,
You have been providing the examples.
>no citations, no support. Nothing.
>
> Don't worry... I have plenty more Mark Lane quotes...
More unsupported "say-nothing" assertions, no doubt.
> In article <104b8981-966e-42fd-8ad0-26b30fdc8...@ns1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
know that there was a gunman seen shooting, and where he was seen
shooting from. You know a rifle was found in the area he was seen
shooting, that fragments matching that rifle were found in the limo,
that three shells were found, matching the number of shots most people
heard. That the owner of the rifle was seen shooting by a witness, and
was seen shooting a cop by witnesses less than a hour afterward. You
know how unlikely it is that Oswald would have been working with a
shooter on the knoll, or anyone else for that matter. Theres more, but
thats the gist, the facts of the case are devastating to what these
witnesses related. And what modern rifle leaves a billowing cloud of
smoke that can be seen at a distance? Did they use a flintlock?
> >> > As everyone can
> >> > see, you were too yellow to list any.
>
> >> Why should I supply anything, you (or Lane) didn`t. Who are "five"
> >> and "six" and "eleven". What did these groups actually say that
> >> support your premise? Because chances are it is just your (or Lanes)
> >> retarded and dishonest interpretation of the information they supplied
> >> that is the problem.
>
> You can look up the cited references just as easily as anyone else.
Lane would? If not then I wouldn`t find what he is referencing.
In any case, it`s up to Lane to support his ideas. To do that he
has to name the people and show how those people support his claims.
Not just spout numbers that only those with no critical thinking
skills would accept.
> You seem to be begging us to help you prove your case.
Is this what you have to supplant the WCR with? Hot air?
> Doesn't work that way.
person making the claim has to support it.
> >> > No doubt, you understand quite well how
> >> > easily most of it can be refuted.
>
> >> Retards have dreamed up all manner of excuses to disregard the
> >> evidence in this case, what could matter less?
>
> The fact that you refused to provide any of these mysterious "facts" illustrated
> what I stated.
all on the real important facts of the case to focus on irrelevancies.
This is why you idiots will never be able to figure out this very
simple crime.
> >> > Rather dishonest of you, too...
>
> >> > >> You idiots will never figure this simple crime out as long as you
> >> > >> insist on focusing on the wrong information.
>
> >> > Your criteria for what is "good information" is anything that supports =
> >the
> >> > theory put forth by the WCR.
>
> >> Yah,
>
> Of course. You have no other criteria.
what good information was and used that to draw conclusions.
> >> the evidence does support the WCR,
>
> You're lying.
>
> Indeed, the 45 Questions reflect this quite well, that the evidence DOES NOT
> support the WCR's theory.
carefully selecting talking points you do poorly and utterly fail to
show conspiracy.
> Bugliosi, as merely one example, was forced to lie about the evidence to try to
> make his case.
>
> And *YOU* endorse such lies...
meaning of many simple ones, including "lie".
> >> that how real explanations
> >> work. And that is how real investigations operate.
>
> Nope... not at all.
>
> "Real investigations" don't *start* with the outline of what they intend to
> prove, then "prove" it.
investigation went to the only place any true investigation could go.
You reatrds go anywhere but where the evidence leads. If the evidence
starts to force you where you don`t want to go you just make up some
silly reason to nullify it in your minds.
> Real investigations collect the *EVIDENCE*, then try to piece together what
> happened based on that evidence.
Oswald`s arrest that he was the guilty party, for a dozen reasons. You
idiots can`t figure it out after nearly 50 years.
> >> Not the way you and
> >> the other retard hobbyists operate, chasing echoes from the knoll and
> >> never putting any explanations on the table in nearly 5 decades.
>
> Multiple shooters too difficult for you to understand, stupid?
scenario. You can`t do it, you won`t even try will you coward?
> >> > Rather poor logic...
>
> >> > Fortunately, our justice system doesn't work that way.
>
> >> It certainly doesn`t work your way. If it did nobody would be in
> >> jail.
>
> Of *COURSE* it works the way it does... as I've pointed out many times before.
the jails would be empty. Since the jails aren`t empty things must not
work your way.
> And *DOESN'T* work the way you claim.
>
> Testimony, for example, is considered evidence in our justice system.
limo?
> You deny that fact.
By producing a definition that says that very thing, liar?
> >> > Rather *good* information, for example, is the description of the origi=
> >nal
> >> > bullet wound in JFK's throat...
>
> >> See, this is a good example of the poor information you idiots cling
> >> to. Nobody did a scientific examination of that wound to determine the
> >> facts about it. It`s not doctors do, especially in that situation.
>
> LOL!!!
>
> Deny deny deny... that's all you have, moron.
observations in the correct context, something you refuse to do
because it is harmful to your silly hobby to do that.
And an "LOL" is the only rebuttal you can manage for the facts as I
have stated them.
> >> >corroborated by everyone who saw it. Medical
> >> > doctors who are experienced in wound description.
>
> >> You are an idiot if you think they were trying to determine the
> >> facts about that wound as they were working to save Kennedy`s life.
>
> You are an idiot if you think their eyes and minds stopped working while they
> were trying to save Kennedy's life.
wrong job for what you are trying to use them for.
In their experience it would be uncommon for them to see nice round
exits because of they types of ammunition used in most of the
shootings they would see. So it is not unusual that they would
associate nice round holes with an entrance, it would be the most
common occurrence. But what happens when something unusual occurs, and
military ammunition designed not to distort or disintegrate is used?
Then they are fooled, because it is something rare to their
experience. But this is an idea, and everyone knows you can`t argue
ideas.
> >> You an even bigger idiot if you think they had the proper training to
> >> determine such things.
>
> Rather stupid thing for you to claim. Care to run that statement by any doctors,
> and get their agreement with such a silly claim?
if you don`t.
Heres what the two Parkland doctors you produced before speaking on
the subject. First Gregory..
Senator COOPER - I would just ask this question. In your long
experience of treating wounds, you said some 500 wounds caused by
bullets, have you acquired, through that. knowledge of ballistics and
characteristics of bullets?
Dr. GREGORY - Within a very limited sphere.
And then Shaw..
Dr. SHAW - No; Senator. I believe that my information about
ballistics is just that of an average layman, no more.
They understand they aren`t experts in the relevant science, even if
you don`t.
> >> Even an expert in the correct field would never
> >> walk into a situation where he just cavalierly assigned "ins and outs"
>
> Who said anything about "ins and outs" stupid?
> There's a difference between a sharply defined small round wound, and a "ragged"
> one.
>
> And only a moron like yourself believes that doctors can't tell the difference.
done.
> >> without a detailed examination of each wound, but you think it can be
> >> done by casual observations from people who aren`t even trained in
> >> forensics.
>
> I daresay that even an ordinary person, with little or no education *at all*,
> can tell the difference between a small sharply defined round hole and a
> "ragged" wound.
determine things precisely with cursory inspections. Your silly ideas
rest on such assertions, but you can`t show that they translate into
the real world and that laymen with casual observations can do the
jobs of experts with training.
> >> > Bugliosi, and all the kooks, are forced to lie about it.
>
> >> > >> And neither Ben or Lane
> >> > >> can offer a compelling theory for what happened using these witnesse=
> >s.
>
> >> > Of course we do... there was a conspiracy involving a shooter from the =
> >TSBD and
> >> > the Grassy Knoll. Possibly others, but the evidence is strongest for th=
> >ese two
> >> > locations.
>
> >> Coward.
>
> For stating what you keep claiming we never say?
the word "conspiracy" is all.
> How moronic of you!
>
> >> Why don`t you take the information these witnesses supplied
> >> and show how they help explain what actually happened? Reference each
> >> shot they describe to each wound on the victims. Show your supporting
> >> trajectory analysis. Don`t hide behind the word "conspiracy", show
> >> that these witnesses were correct, and how what they said supports
> >> *your* version of what happened. But you don`t have a version, do you?
> >> You have nothing to put on the table. You try to hide this fact by
> >> criticizing what others have done. What have you idiots produced?
>
> You just *hate* the fact that my theory is so simple... multiple assassins.
> Well supported by the evidence, too.
these witnesses supplied and you ran away!
If the witnesses are so great and reliable it should be a simple
thing to reconstruct what actually happened using the information they
supplied. But you can`t, can you? You are afraid to even try.
> >> And you have also called the bulk of the witnesses who indicated a
> >> single location for all the shots they heard liars.
>
> No such statement was ever made. Nor can you quote any such statement. Nor is it
> even logical.
is what you said...
"Of course we do... there was a conspiracy involving a shooter from
strongest for these two locations."
You are saying that the evidence is strongest for shots from two
locations. But the vast majority of witnesses only gave single
locations for the shots, not two. So you are saying and what the
witnesses indicated are at odds.
> You're simply lying again, moron.
>
> >> > What is so difficult about that?
>
> >> It`s impossible to reconcile these witnesses into an explanation of
> >> what occurred. You know this, which is why you don`t even try.
>
> What's so difficult?
> Multiple shooters... shooting from two locations. How difficult was that?
witnesses supplied to reconstruct the event. You claim the witnesses
are reliable but you can`t do it. You are afraid to even try.
> >> > Of course, everyone knows you're simply lying to try to make a point...=
> > but when
> >> > you lie to make a point, the only point you've made is that you're will=
> >ing to
> >> > lie.
>
> >> Heres what I wrote...
>
> >> "And neither Ben or Lane can offer a compelling theory for what
> >> happened using these witnesses."
>
> Indeed, it's so "compelling" that most Americans believe it.
not seen you or Lane reconstruct this event, explaining what occurred
using the witnesses. Are you going to keep pretending you don`t
understand the concept?
> >> You didn`t even try, did you pussy? All you did was prove what I
> >> said to be correct. This one is going on the moderated group this
> >> weekend, I`m going to shove your inability to offer a shooting
> >> scenario using these witnesses up your ass.
>
> Then you'll simply be lying again... as you're already doing.
it?
> >> > >> They don`t even try.
>
> >> > A rather *stupid* lie. Can't you do any better than this?
>
> >> You didn`t even try, did you? I`ve never seen a CTer try to use
> >> thiese witnesses to present a viable shooting scenario (and the only
> >> CTer I`ve ever seen try to use *any* witnesses to suggest a shooting
> >> scenario is Harris). If what they related was true and correct you
> >> should be able to do this.
>
> Repeatedly stated... you run from the statements.
shooting scenario that explained what happened using the witnesses. If
you had you could just cut and paste it or link to it. If the
witnesses are reliable, and they say this event unfold why can`t you
use the information they supplied to reconstruct the event?
> Interestingly, although this thread is getting long - YOU HAVEN'T OFFERED EVEN A
> SINGLE REFUTATION TO WHAT I QUOTED MARK LANE AS STATING.
>
> Not one.
referencing.
> >son, the WCR is what it is, a failed scenario. Dragging in posters by
> >name doesn't help a pro-con WCR position one iota, the fact is: "the
> >WCR is what it is, a deeply flawed, 'convenient' scenario."
>
> Yep... that's certainly true.
>
> >> > >reality is tough on you shitheads isn't it.... no one is rolling over
> >> > >for the WCR here (on ACJ), nutless....
> >> > >suck-it-up hon... Mark Lane still has you lone nut, nutless turds
> >> > >running in circles.... ROTFLMFAO! ! ! !
>
> >> > The only examples they could come up with for proving their case that M=
> >ark Lane
> >> > lied were so weak that I easily refuted them.
>
> >> I`ll have to take what Mark just presented yesterday to the
> >> moderated group for you to see it. He flat out lied about what the
> >> witnesses said.
>
> More assertions without support.
a pussy who hides is your problem.
>If this is all you can do moron, then why do
> you think you can convince thinking adults?
have seen the refutation of Lane produced by Mark. The only reason you
haven`t is because you are not a thinking adult.
> >> > Now the shoe is on the proper foot, and they are going to illustrate, b=
> >y their
> >> > complete inability to do anything other than 'deny deny deny'... that M=
> >ark Lane
> >> > was simply correct in his analysis of the WCR's evidence.
>
> >> Lane usually carefully constructs his sentences so that they really
> >> don`t say anything, but sound like they do. Like you do.
>
> More hogwash... no examples,
>no citations, no support. Nothing.
>
> Don't worry... I have plenty more Mark Lane quotes...
aeffects
May 19, 2012, 12:58:59 PM5/19/12
to
of the gate). Lone Nut sophomoric name calling has become a lone nut
norm (as well as one of top 10 disinfo plays.... so, grow up). If,
what you see here on acj pisses you off, ie., renders you nutless,
wait till the 45 questions appear.... Speaking of which, what's your
plan with the 45 questions? Do YOU want to take them to .john's and
render them useless? Is that the rumor? Maybe have those pesky 45
questions become part of .john's Marquette Univ. summer session
perhaps? Here's a better idea, how about Fall 2012 semester.... now
THAT would be worthy... Btw, do they have a Law School at Marquette
University?
Ben Holmes
May 19, 2012, 7:24:11 PM5/19/12
to
In article <f414600a-0773-48e2...@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On May 18, 4:59=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 18, 1:53=A0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 18, 3:51=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 17, 9:28=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > In article <fa68d45f-938b-45a1-bb9b-07b8a04f6...@pr3g2000pbb.google=
>groups.com>,
>> > > > aeffects says...
>>
>> > > > >On May 17, 2:13=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > >> On May 17, 9:34=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrot=
>e:
>>
>> > > > >> > "Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower be=
>hind the =3D
>> > > > >wooden
>> > > > >> > fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in area =
>were thos=3D
>> > > > >e
>> > > > >> > standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the mot=
>orcade ap=3D
>> > > > >proached,
>> > > > >> > 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen were on the rai=
>lroad bri=3D
>> > > > >dge; the
>> > > > >> > knoll was just to their left. Not one of the railroad men was =
>called be=3D
>> > > > >fore the
>> > > > >> > Warren Commission. However, four were questioned by counsel fo=
>r the Com=3D
>> > > > >mission
>> > > > >> > and nine by agents of the FBI. Five of them said that shots ca=
>me from t=3D
>> > > > >he knoll
>> > > > >> > and six others said that when the shots were fired their atten=
>tion was
>> > > > >> > immediately attracted to the knoll. It is worth noting that no=
>t one of =3D
>> > > > >the 13
>> > > > >> > men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll,=
> said tha=3D
>> > > > >t he
>> > > > >> > thought that the shots came from the Book Depository, while 11=
> of them =3D
>> > > > >indicated
>> > > > >> > either explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above =
>the knoll=3D
>y Mark La=3D
>> > > > >ne. They
>> > > > >> > keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any evi=
>dence.
>>
>> > > > >> > This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the ko=
>oks can't=3D
>s
>> > > work. And that is how real investigations operate. Not the way you an=
>> > > jail.
>>
>> > > > Rather *good* information, for example, is the description of the o=
>ing
>> > > to. Nobody did a scientific examination of that wound to determine th=
>r
>> > > walk into a situation where he just cavalierly assigned "ins and outs=
>esses.
>>
>> > > > Of course we do... there was a conspiracy involving a shooter from =
>the TSBD and
>> > > > the Grassy Knoll. Possibly others, but the evidence is strongest fo=
>r these two
>> > > > locations.
>>
>> > > =A0 Coward. Why don`t you take the information these witnesses suppli=
>t... but when
>> > > > you lie to make a point, the only point you've made is that you're =
>willing to
>> > > > lie.
>>
>> > > =A0 Heres what I wrote...
>>
>> > > =A0 "And neither Ben or Lane can offer a compelling theory for what
>> > > happened using these witnesses."
>>
>> > > =A0 You didn`t even try, did you pussy? All you did was prove what I
And you can't be held to account for defending such lies???
>> and you even fail to realize it.
>
>son, you, as the 1964 WCR have failed (the WCR failed 1964-right out
>of the gate). Lone Nut sophomoric name calling has become a lone nut
>norm (as well as one of top 10 disinfo plays.... so, grow up). If,
>what you see here on acj pisses you off, ie., renders you nutless,
>wait till the 45 questions appear.... Speaking of which, what's your
>plan with the 45 questions? Do YOU want to take them to .john's and
>render them useless? Is that the rumor? Maybe have those pesky 45
>questions become part of .john's Marquette Univ. summer session
>perhaps? Here's a better idea, how about Fall 2012 semester.... now
>THAT would be worthy... Btw, do they have a Law School at Marquette
>University?
He can take 'em there any time he wants...
People will understand that they aren't going to get the truth unless it's in an
open forum.
I've demonstrated that McAdams will censor for far more reasons that his
"charter" allows for... basically, anything that embarrasses him will be
censored.
If "Bud", or any other kook, can't answer the 45 Questions in an open forum,
then they simply can't do it. Pretending to do so in a censored forum is only
pretense.
>> > Dragging in posters by
>> > name doesn't help
>>
>> It`s fun to punish Ben with his silly ideas. When it comes to ideas
>> he is so inept and out of his water I`d feel sorry for him if he
>> wasn`t such an asshole.
Where's the "silly idea"?
Where's the punishment?
>> > a pro-con WCR position one iota,
>>
>> My position doesn`t need help, yours does.
Then why can't you explain why Bugliosi lied about the wound description?
It was *CLEARLY* done to increase support for the WCR's theory. Yet you claim
your position doesn't need help.
You're lying.
>> And there will never be
>> any forthcoming. You idiots have gone nowhere because there never was
>> anywhere to go.
>>
>> > the fact is: =A0"the
throat?
>> > > > >reality is tough on you shitheads isn't it.... no one is rolling o=
>e, by their
>> > > > complete inability to do anything other than 'deny deny deny'... th=
aeffects says...
>
>On May 18, 4:59=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 18, 1:53=A0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 18, 3:51=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 17, 9:28=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > In article <fa68d45f-938b-45a1-bb9b-07b8a04f6...@pr3g2000pbb.google=
>groups.com>,
>> > > > aeffects says...
>>
>> > > > >On May 17, 2:13=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > >> On May 17, 9:34=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrot=
>e:
>>
>> > > > >> > "Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower be=
>hind the =3D
>> > > > >wooden
>> > > > >> > fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in area =
>were thos=3D
>> > > > >e
>> > > > >> > standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the mot=
>orcade ap=3D
>> > > > >proached,
>> > > > >> > 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen were on the rai=
>lroad bri=3D
>> > > > >dge; the
>> > > > >> > knoll was just to their left. Not one of the railroad men was =
>called be=3D
>> > > > >fore the
>> > > > >> > Warren Commission. However, four were questioned by counsel fo=
>r the Com=3D
>> > > > >mission
>> > > > >> > and nine by agents of the FBI. Five of them said that shots ca=
>me from t=3D
>> > > > >he knoll
>> > > > >> > and six others said that when the shots were fired their atten=
>tion was
>> > > > >> > immediately attracted to the knoll. It is worth noting that no=
>t one of =3D
>> > > > >the 13
>> > > > >> > men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll,=
> said tha=3D
>> > > > >t he
>> > > > >> > thought that the shots came from the Book Depository, while 11=
> of them =3D
>> > > > >indicated
>> > > > >> > either explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above =
>the knoll=3D
>> > > > > was
>> > > > >> > where they thought the sniper was."
>>
>> > > > >> > The kooks will again refuse to refute these facts brought up b=
>> > > > >> > where they thought the sniper was."
>>
>y Mark La=3D
>> > > > >ne. They
>> > > > >> > keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any evi=
>dence.
>>
>> > > > >> > This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the ko=
>oks can't=3D
>> > > > > refute
>> > > > >> > it.
>>
>> > > > >> Actually it the facts of the case that is devastating to the
>> > > > >> information they supplied.
>>
>> > > > Pretending that there is some mysterious "facts" that will refute t=
>> > > > >> > it.
>>
>> > > > >> Actually it the facts of the case that is devastating to the
>> > > > >> information they supplied.
>>
>hese quotes
>> > > > from Mark Lane is just another way to demonstrate cowardice.
>>
>> > > =A0 There is nothing "mysterious" about the facts of this case, even
>> > > > from Mark Lane is just another way to demonstrate cowardice.
>>
>> > > retards like you know them. You just don`t know how to apply or weigh
>> > > them.
>>
>> > > > As everyone can
>> > > > see, you were too yellow to list any.
>>
>> > > =A0 Why should I supply anything, you (or Lane) didn`t. Who are "five=
>> > > them.
>>
>> > > > As everyone can
>> > > > see, you were too yellow to list any.
>>
>"
>> > > and "six" and "eleven". What did these groups actually say that
>> > > support your premise? Because chances are it is just your (or Lanes)
>> > > retarded and dishonest interpretation of the information they supplie=
>> > > and "six" and "eleven". What did these groups actually say that
>> > > support your premise? Because chances are it is just your (or Lanes)
>d
>> > > that is the problem.
>>
>> > > > No doubt, you understand quite well how
>> > > > easily most of it can be refuted.
>>
>> > > =A0 Retards have dreamed up all manner of excuses to disregard the
>> > > that is the problem.
>>
>> > > > No doubt, you understand quite well how
>> > > > easily most of it can be refuted.
>>
>> > > evidence in this case, what could matter less?
>>
>> > > > Rather dishonest of you, too...
>>
>> > > > >> You idiots will never figure this simple crime out as long as yo=
>>
>> > > > Rather dishonest of you, too...
>>
>u
>> > > > >> insist on focusing on the wrong information.
>>
>> > > > Your criteria for what is "good information" is anything that suppo=
>> > > > >> insist on focusing on the wrong information.
>>
>rts the
>> > > > theory put forth by the WCR.
>>
>> > > =A0 Yah, the evidence does support the WCR, that how real explanation=
>> > > > theory put forth by the WCR.
>>
>s
>> > > work. And that is how real investigations operate. Not the way you an=
>d
>> > > the other retard hobbyists operate, chasing echoes from the knoll and
>> > > never putting any explanations on the table in nearly 5 decades.
>>
>> > > > Rather poor logic...
>>
>> > > > Fortunately, our justice system doesn't work that way.
>>
>> > > =A0 It certainly doesn`t work your way. If it did nobody would be in
>> > > the other retard hobbyists operate, chasing echoes from the knoll and
>> > > never putting any explanations on the table in nearly 5 decades.
>>
>> > > > Rather poor logic...
>>
>> > > > Fortunately, our justice system doesn't work that way.
>>
>> > > jail.
>>
>> > > > Rather *good* information, for example, is the description of the o=
>riginal
>> > > > bullet wound in JFK's throat...
>>
>> > > =A0 See, this is a good example of the poor information you idiots cl=
>> > > > bullet wound in JFK's throat...
>>
>ing
>> > > to. Nobody did a scientific examination of that wound to determine th=
>e
>> > > facts about it. It`s not doctors do, especially in that situation.
>>
>> > > >corroborated by everyone who saw it. Medical
>> > > > doctors who are experienced in wound description.
>>
>> > > =A0 You are an idiot if you think they were trying to determine the
>> > > facts about it. It`s not doctors do, especially in that situation.
>>
>> > > >corroborated by everyone who saw it. Medical
>> > > > doctors who are experienced in wound description.
>>
>> > > facts about that wound as they were working to save Kennedy`s life.
>> > > You an even bigger idiot if you think they had the proper training to
>> > > determine such things. Even an expert in the correct field would neve=
>> > > You an even bigger idiot if you think they had the proper training to
>r
>> > > walk into a situation where he just cavalierly assigned "ins and outs=
>"
>> > > without a detailed examination of each wound, but you think it can be
>> > > done by casual observations from people who aren`t even trained in
>> > > forensics.
>>
>> > > > Bugliosi, and all the kooks, are forced to lie about it.
>>
>> > > > >> And neither Ben or Lane
>> > > > >> can offer a compelling theory for what happened using these witn=
>> > > without a detailed examination of each wound, but you think it can be
>> > > done by casual observations from people who aren`t even trained in
>> > > forensics.
>>
>> > > > Bugliosi, and all the kooks, are forced to lie about it.
>>
>> > > > >> And neither Ben or Lane
>esses.
>>
>> > > > Of course we do... there was a conspiracy involving a shooter from =
>the TSBD and
>> > > > the Grassy Knoll. Possibly others, but the evidence is strongest fo=
>r these two
>> > > > locations.
>>
>> > > =A0 Coward. Why don`t you take the information these witnesses suppli=
>ed
>> > > and show how they help explain what actually happened? Reference each
>> > > shot they describe to each wound on the victims. Show your supporting
>> > > trajectory analysis. Don`t hide behind the word "conspiracy", show
>> > > that these witnesses were correct, and how what they said supports
>> > > *your* version of what happened. But you don`t have a version, do you=
>> > > and show how they help explain what actually happened? Reference each
>> > > shot they describe to each wound on the victims. Show your supporting
>> > > trajectory analysis. Don`t hide behind the word "conspiracy", show
>> > > that these witnesses were correct, and how what they said supports
>?
>> > > You have nothing to put on the table. You try to hide this fact by
>> > > criticizing what others have done. What have you idiots produced?
>>
>> > > =A0 And you have also called the bulk of the witnesses who indicated =
>> > > You have nothing to put on the table. You try to hide this fact by
>> > > criticizing what others have done. What have you idiots produced?
>>
>a
>> > > single location for all the shots they heard liars.
>>
>> > > > What is so difficult about that?
>>
>> > > =A0 It`s impossible to reconcile these witnesses into an explanation =
>> > > single location for all the shots they heard liars.
>>
>> > > > What is so difficult about that?
>>
>of
>> > > what occurred. You know this, which is why you don`t even try.
>>
>> > > > Of course, everyone knows you're simply lying to try to make a poin=
>> > > what occurred. You know this, which is why you don`t even try.
>>
>t... but when
>> > > > you lie to make a point, the only point you've made is that you're =
>willing to
>> > > > lie.
>>
>> > > =A0 Heres what I wrote...
>>
>> > > =A0 "And neither Ben or Lane can offer a compelling theory for what
>> > > happened using these witnesses."
>>
>> > > =A0 You didn`t even try, did you pussy? All you did was prove what I
>> > > said to be correct. This one is going on the moderated group this
>> > > weekend, I`m going to shove your inability to offer a shooting
>> > > scenario using these witnesses up your ass.
>>
>> > > > >> They don`t even try.
>>
>> > > > A rather *stupid* lie. Can't you do any better than this?
>>
>> > > =A0 You didn`t even try, did you? I`ve never seen a CTer try to use
>> > > weekend, I`m going to shove your inability to offer a shooting
>> > > scenario using these witnesses up your ass.
>>
>> > > > >> They don`t even try.
>>
>> > > > A rather *stupid* lie. Can't you do any better than this?
>>
>> > > thiese witnesses to present a viable shooting scenario (and the only
>> > > CTer I`ve ever seen try to use *any* witnesses to suggest a shooting
>> > > scenario is Harris). If what they related was true and correct you
>> > > should be able to do this.
>>
>> > son, the WCR is what it is, a failed scenario.
>>
>> =A0 And you are what you are, a junkie retard. And you idiots can`t even
>> > > CTer I`ve ever seen try to use *any* witnesses to suggest a shooting
>> > > scenario is Harris). If what they related was true and correct you
>> > > should be able to do this.
>>
>> > son, the WCR is what it is, a failed scenario.
>>
>> put a scenario on the table. You`ve failed in every conceivable way
>> you could fail,
You mean, Bugliosi is *allowed* to simply lie about the wound descriptions?
>> you could fail,
And you can't be held to account for defending such lies???
>> and you even fail to realize it.
>
>son, you, as the 1964 WCR have failed (the WCR failed 1964-right out
>of the gate). Lone Nut sophomoric name calling has become a lone nut
>norm (as well as one of top 10 disinfo plays.... so, grow up). If,
>what you see here on acj pisses you off, ie., renders you nutless,
>wait till the 45 questions appear.... Speaking of which, what's your
>plan with the 45 questions? Do YOU want to take them to .john's and
>render them useless? Is that the rumor? Maybe have those pesky 45
>questions become part of .john's Marquette Univ. summer session
>perhaps? Here's a better idea, how about Fall 2012 semester.... now
>THAT would be worthy... Btw, do they have a Law School at Marquette
>University?
People will understand that they aren't going to get the truth unless it's in an
open forum.
I've demonstrated that McAdams will censor for far more reasons that his
"charter" allows for... basically, anything that embarrasses him will be
censored.
If "Bud", or any other kook, can't answer the 45 Questions in an open forum,
then they simply can't do it. Pretending to do so in a censored forum is only
pretense.
>> > Dragging in posters by
>> > name doesn't help
>>
>> It`s fun to punish Ben with his silly ideas. When it comes to ideas
>> he is so inept and out of his water I`d feel sorry for him if he
>> wasn`t such an asshole.
Where's the punishment?
>> > a pro-con WCR position one iota,
>>
>> My position doesn`t need help, yours does.
It was *CLEARLY* done to increase support for the WCR's theory. Yet you claim
your position doesn't need help.
You're lying.
>> And there will never be
>> any forthcoming. You idiots have gone nowhere because there never was
>> anywhere to go.
>>
>> > WCR is what it is, a deeply flawed, 'convenient' scenario."
>>
>> Only you idiots find the truth inconvenient. It interferes with your
>> "patsy" fantasies.
What's the "truth" about the description of the original bullet wound in JFK's
>>
>> Only you idiots find the truth inconvenient. It interferes with your
>> "patsy" fantasies.
throat?
>> > > > >reality is tough on you shitheads isn't it.... no one is rolling o=
>ver
>> > > > >for the WCR here (on ACJ), nutless....
>> > > > >suck-it-up hon... Mark Lane still has you lone nut, nutless turds
>> > > > >running in circles.... ROTFLMFAO! ! ! !
>>
>> > > > The only examples they could come up with for proving their case th=
>> > > > >for the WCR here (on ACJ), nutless....
>> > > > >suck-it-up hon... Mark Lane still has you lone nut, nutless turds
>> > > > >running in circles.... ROTFLMFAO! ! ! !
>>
>at Mark Lane
>> > > > lied were so weak that I easily refuted them.
>>
>> > > =A0 I`ll have to take what Mark just presented yesterday to the
>> > > > lied were so weak that I easily refuted them.
>>
>> > > moderated group for you to see it. He flat out lied about what the
>> > > witnesses said.
>>
>> > > > Now the shoe is on the proper foot, and they are going to illustrat=
>> > > witnesses said.
>>
>e, by their
>> > > > complete inability to do anything other than 'deny deny deny'... th=
>at Mark Lane
>> > > > was simply correct in his analysis of the WCR's evidence.
>>
>> > > =A0 Lane usually carefully constructs his sentences so that they real=
>> > > > was simply correct in his analysis of the WCR's evidence.
>>
Bud
May 19, 2012, 8:13:31 PM5/19/12
to
On May 19, 7:24 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <f414600a-0773-48e2-a83d-a006ba85b...@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
No, I mean you`ve failed in every conceivable way.
> And you can't be held to account for defending such lies???
It`s not a lie that you`ve failed in every conceivable way.
> >> and you even fail to realize it.
>
> >son, you, as the 1964 WCR have failed (the WCR failed 1964-right out
> >of the gate). Lone Nut sophomoric name calling has become a lone nut
> >norm (as well as one of top 10 disinfo plays.... so, grow up). If,
> >what you see here on acj pisses you off, ie., renders you nutless,
> >wait till the 45 questions appear.... Speaking of which, what's your
> >plan with the 45 questions? Do YOU want to take them to .john's and
> >render them useless? Is that the rumor? Maybe have those pesky 45
> >questions become part of .john's Marquette Univ. summer session
> >perhaps? Here's a better idea, how about Fall 2012 semester.... now
> >THAT would be worthy... Btw, do they have a Law School at Marquette
> >University?
>
> He can take 'em there any time he wants...
I know that, retard.
> People will understand that they aren't going to get the truth unless it's in an
> open forum.
Where you hide like a pussy. You couldn`t defend your ideas in a
truly open forum against opposing viewpoints if your life depended on
it.
> I've demonstrated that McAdams will censor for far more reasons that his
> "charter" allows for... basically, anything that embarrasses him will be
> censored.
>
> If "Bud", or any other kook, can't answer the 45 Questions in an open forum,
> then they simply can't do it. Pretending to do so in a censored forum is only
> pretense.
I smell fear. I thought you were threatening to restart the series,
cat got your tongue?
> >> > Dragging in posters by
> >> > name doesn't help
>
> >> It`s fun to punish Ben with his silly ideas. When it comes to ideas
> >> he is so inept and out of his water I`d feel sorry for him if he
> >> wasn`t such an asshole.
>
> Where's the "silly idea"?
You keep a constant supply coming, it`s only my innate laziness that
prevents me from exploiting your weaknesses even more.
> Where's the punishment?
I embarrass the hell out of you by publishing your silly ideas in
the moderated group for all to see.
> >> > a pro-con WCR position one iota,
>
> >> My position doesn`t need help, yours does.
>
> Then why can't you explain why Bugliosi lied about the wound description?
Obviously he didn`t need to since he had Carrico on record saying
the wound could have been an exit or entrance.
> It was *CLEARLY* done to increase support for the WCR's theory. Yet you claim
> your position doesn't need help.
My position didn`t need Bugliosi`s book at all.
> You're lying.
You`re retarded.
> >> And there will never be
> >> any forthcoming. You idiots have gone nowhere because there never was
> >> anywhere to go.
>
> >> > the fact is: =A0"the
> >> > WCR is what it is, a deeply flawed, 'convenient' scenario."
>
> >> Only you idiots find the truth inconvenient. It interferes with your
> >> "patsy" fantasies.
>
> What's the "truth" about the description of the original bullet wound in JFK's
> throat?
That no forensic examination was done.
> In article <f414600a-0773-48e2-a83d-a006ba85b...@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
> And you can't be held to account for defending such lies???
> >> and you even fail to realize it.
>
> >son, you, as the 1964 WCR have failed (the WCR failed 1964-right out
> >of the gate). Lone Nut sophomoric name calling has become a lone nut
> >norm (as well as one of top 10 disinfo plays.... so, grow up). If,
> >what you see here on acj pisses you off, ie., renders you nutless,
> >wait till the 45 questions appear.... Speaking of which, what's your
> >plan with the 45 questions? Do YOU want to take them to .john's and
> >render them useless? Is that the rumor? Maybe have those pesky 45
> >questions become part of .john's Marquette Univ. summer session
> >perhaps? Here's a better idea, how about Fall 2012 semester.... now
> >THAT would be worthy... Btw, do they have a Law School at Marquette
> >University?
>
> He can take 'em there any time he wants...
> People will understand that they aren't going to get the truth unless it's in an
> open forum.
truly open forum against opposing viewpoints if your life depended on
it.
> I've demonstrated that McAdams will censor for far more reasons that his
> "charter" allows for... basically, anything that embarrasses him will be
> censored.
>
> If "Bud", or any other kook, can't answer the 45 Questions in an open forum,
> then they simply can't do it. Pretending to do so in a censored forum is only
> pretense.
cat got your tongue?
> >> > Dragging in posters by
> >> > name doesn't help
>
> >> It`s fun to punish Ben with his silly ideas. When it comes to ideas
> >> he is so inept and out of his water I`d feel sorry for him if he
> >> wasn`t such an asshole.
>
> Where's the "silly idea"?
prevents me from exploiting your weaknesses even more.
> Where's the punishment?
I embarrass the hell out of you by publishing your silly ideas in
the moderated group for all to see.
> >> > a pro-con WCR position one iota,
>
> >> My position doesn`t need help, yours does.
>
> Then why can't you explain why Bugliosi lied about the wound description?
the wound could have been an exit or entrance.
> It was *CLEARLY* done to increase support for the WCR's theory. Yet you claim
> your position doesn't need help.
> You're lying.
You`re retarded.
> >> And there will never be
> >> any forthcoming. You idiots have gone nowhere because there never was
> >> anywhere to go.
>
> >> > the fact is: =A0"the
> >> > WCR is what it is, a deeply flawed, 'convenient' scenario."
>
> >> Only you idiots find the truth inconvenient. It interferes with your
> >> "patsy" fantasies.
>
> What's the "truth" about the description of the original bullet wound in JFK's
> throat?
aeffects
May 19, 2012, 11:06:46 PM5/19/12
to
to your addictions these days? Perhaps that's why your so damn testy,
anxious knowing the 45 questions are coming, again soon, perhaps
later..... yes?
> > Dragging in posters by
> > name doesn't help
>
> It`s fun to punish Ben with his silly ideas. When it comes to ideas
> he is so inept and out of his water I`d feel sorry for him if he
> wasn`t such an asshole.
punish? frankly Dudster, he's making you look the damn fool. We've
> > name doesn't help
>
> It`s fun to punish Ben with his silly ideas. When it comes to ideas
> he is so inept and out of his water I`d feel sorry for him if he
> wasn`t such an asshole.
been through this before. You've been outted as a troll, a word-
merchant troll with a serious self-image problem. Worse yet, a troll
with no PR sense. Like dipso DVP.
Geez, hope you don't act that way in the real world, punish clients
then expect them to pay? OUCH!
> > a pro-con WCR position one iota,
>
> My position doesn`t need help, yours does. And there will never be
> any forthcoming. You idiots have gone nowhere because there never was
> anywhere to go.
stuck with. You've pounded your head against a wall on acj for at
least 10 years. Do you know how many books have been published on the
CT side of the equation since then? How about 100+. Nutter
publications, 4? You've gained nothing but frustration son...
> > the fact is: "the
> > WCR is what it is, a deeply flawed, 'convenient' scenario."
>
> Only you idiots find the truth inconvenient. It interferes with your
> "patsy" fantasies.
questions, if and WHEN.... LMFAO. carry on counselor.
Ben Holmes
May 20, 2012, 12:08:29 AM5/20/12
to
In article <13dcb97e-3d11-4608...@vy9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On May 18, 4:59=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 18, 1:53=A0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 18, 3:51=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 17, 9:28=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > In article <fa68d45f-938b-45a1-bb9b-07b8a04f6...@pr3g2000pbb.google=
>groups.com>,
>> > > > aeffects says...
>>
>hind the =3D
>> > > > >wooden
>> > > > >> > fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in area =
>were thos=3D
>> > > > >e
>> > > > >> > standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the mot=
>orcade ap=3D
>> > > > >proached,
>> > > > >> > 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen were on the rai=
>lroad bri=3D
>> > > > >dge; the
>> > > > >> > knoll was just to their left. Not one of the railroad men was =
>called be=3D
>> > > > >fore the
>> > > > >> > Warren Commission. However, four were questioned by counsel fo=
>r the Com=3D
>> > > > >mission
>> > > > >> > and nine by agents of the FBI. Five of them said that shots ca=
>me from t=3D
>> > > > >he knoll
>> > > > >> > and six others said that when the shots were fired their atten=
>tion was
>> > > > >> > men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll,=
> said tha=3D
>> > > > >t he
>> > > > >> > thought that the shots came from the Book Depository, while 11=
> of them =3D
>> > > > >indicated
>> > > > >> > either explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above =
>the knoll=3D
>y Mark La=3D
>> > > > >ne. They
>> > > > >> > keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any evi=
>dence.
>>
>> > > > >> > This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the ko=
>oks can't=3D
>s
>> > > work. And that is how real investigations operate. Not the way you an=
>> > > jail.
>>
>> > > > Rather *good* information, for example, is the description of the o=
>ing
>> > > to. Nobody did a scientific examination of that wound to determine th=
>r
>> > > walk into a situation where he just cavalierly assigned "ins and outs=
>esses.
>>
>> > > > Of course we do... there was a conspiracy involving a shooter from =
>the TSBD and
>t... but when
>> > > happened using these witnesses."
>>
>> > > =A0 You didn`t even try, did you pussy? All you did was prove what I
You can't support the WCR without either ignoring evidence, or lying about it.
Embarrassing, isn't it?
>> > the fact is: =A0"the
stating?
>> > > > >reality is tough on you shitheads isn't it.... no one is rolling o=
>e, by their
>> > > > complete inability to do anything other than 'deny deny deny'... th=
aeffects says...
>
>On May 18, 4:59=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 18, 1:53=A0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 18, 3:51=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 17, 9:28=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > In article <fa68d45f-938b-45a1-bb9b-07b8a04f6...@pr3g2000pbb.google=
>groups.com>,
>> > > > aeffects says...
>>
>> > > > >On May 17, 2:13=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > >> On May 17, 9:34=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrot=
>e:
>>
>> > > > >> > "Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower be=
>> > > > >> On May 17, 9:34=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrot=
>e:
>>
>hind the =3D
>> > > > >wooden
>> > > > >> > fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in area =
>were thos=3D
>> > > > >e
>> > > > >> > standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the mot=
>orcade ap=3D
>> > > > >proached,
>> > > > >> > 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen were on the rai=
>lroad bri=3D
>> > > > >dge; the
>> > > > >> > knoll was just to their left. Not one of the railroad men was =
>called be=3D
>> > > > >fore the
>> > > > >> > Warren Commission. However, four were questioned by counsel fo=
>r the Com=3D
>> > > > >mission
>> > > > >> > and nine by agents of the FBI. Five of them said that shots ca=
>me from t=3D
>> > > > >he knoll
>> > > > >> > and six others said that when the shots were fired their atten=
>tion was
>> > > > >> > immediately attracted to the knoll. It is worth noting that no=
>t one of =3D
>> > > > >the 13
>t one of =3D
>> > > > >> > men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll,=
> said tha=3D
>> > > > >t he
>> > > > >> > thought that the shots came from the Book Depository, while 11=
> of them =3D
>> > > > >indicated
>> > > > >> > either explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above =
>the knoll=3D
>> > > > > was
>> > > > >> > where they thought the sniper was."
>>
>> > > > >> > The kooks will again refuse to refute these facts brought up b=
>> > > > >> > where they thought the sniper was."
>>
>y Mark La=3D
>> > > > >ne. They
>> > > > >> > keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any evi=
>dence.
>>
>> > > > >> > This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the ko=
>oks can't=3D
>> > > > > refute
>> > > > >> > it.
>>
>> > > > >> Actually it the facts of the case that is devastating to the
>> > > > >> information they supplied.
>>
>> > > > Pretending that there is some mysterious "facts" that will refute t=
>> > > > >> > it.
>>
>> > > > >> Actually it the facts of the case that is devastating to the
>> > > > >> information they supplied.
>>
>hese quotes
>> > > > from Mark Lane is just another way to demonstrate cowardice.
>>
>> > > =A0 There is nothing "mysterious" about the facts of this case, even
>> > > > from Mark Lane is just another way to demonstrate cowardice.
>>
>> > > retards like you know them. You just don`t know how to apply or weigh
>> > > them.
>>
>> > > > As everyone can
>> > > > see, you were too yellow to list any.
>>
>> > > =A0 Why should I supply anything, you (or Lane) didn`t. Who are "five=
>> > > them.
>>
>> > > > As everyone can
>> > > > see, you were too yellow to list any.
>>
>"
>> > > and "six" and "eleven". What did these groups actually say that
>> > > support your premise? Because chances are it is just your (or Lanes)
>> > > retarded and dishonest interpretation of the information they supplie=
>> > > and "six" and "eleven". What did these groups actually say that
>> > > support your premise? Because chances are it is just your (or Lanes)
>d
>> > > that is the problem.
>>
>> > > > No doubt, you understand quite well how
>> > > > easily most of it can be refuted.
>>
>> > > =A0 Retards have dreamed up all manner of excuses to disregard the
>> > > that is the problem.
>>
>> > > > No doubt, you understand quite well how
>> > > > easily most of it can be refuted.
>>
>> > > evidence in this case, what could matter less?
>>
>> > > > Rather dishonest of you, too...
>>
>> > > > >> You idiots will never figure this simple crime out as long as yo=
>>
>> > > > Rather dishonest of you, too...
>>
>u
>> > > > >> insist on focusing on the wrong information.
>>
>> > > > Your criteria for what is "good information" is anything that suppo=
>> > > > >> insist on focusing on the wrong information.
>>
>rts the
>> > > > theory put forth by the WCR.
>>
>> > > =A0 Yah, the evidence does support the WCR, that how real explanation=
>> > > > theory put forth by the WCR.
>>
>s
>> > > work. And that is how real investigations operate. Not the way you an=
>d
>> > > the other retard hobbyists operate, chasing echoes from the knoll and
>> > > never putting any explanations on the table in nearly 5 decades.
>>
>> > > > Rather poor logic...
>>
>> > > > Fortunately, our justice system doesn't work that way.
>>
>> > > =A0 It certainly doesn`t work your way. If it did nobody would be in
>> > > the other retard hobbyists operate, chasing echoes from the knoll and
>> > > never putting any explanations on the table in nearly 5 decades.
>>
>> > > > Rather poor logic...
>>
>> > > > Fortunately, our justice system doesn't work that way.
>>
>> > > jail.
>>
>> > > > Rather *good* information, for example, is the description of the o=
>riginal
>> > > > bullet wound in JFK's throat...
>>
>> > > =A0 See, this is a good example of the poor information you idiots cl=
>> > > > bullet wound in JFK's throat...
>>
>ing
>> > > to. Nobody did a scientific examination of that wound to determine th=
>e
>> > > facts about it. It`s not doctors do, especially in that situation.
>>
>> > > >corroborated by everyone who saw it. Medical
>> > > > doctors who are experienced in wound description.
>>
>> > > =A0 You are an idiot if you think they were trying to determine the
>> > > facts about it. It`s not doctors do, especially in that situation.
>>
>> > > >corroborated by everyone who saw it. Medical
>> > > > doctors who are experienced in wound description.
>>
>> > > facts about that wound as they were working to save Kennedy`s life.
>> > > You an even bigger idiot if you think they had the proper training to
>> > > determine such things. Even an expert in the correct field would neve=
>> > > You an even bigger idiot if you think they had the proper training to
>r
>> > > walk into a situation where he just cavalierly assigned "ins and outs=
>"
>> > > without a detailed examination of each wound, but you think it can be
>> > > done by casual observations from people who aren`t even trained in
>> > > forensics.
>>
>> > > > Bugliosi, and all the kooks, are forced to lie about it.
>>
>> > > > >> And neither Ben or Lane
>> > > > >> can offer a compelling theory for what happened using these witn=
>> > > without a detailed examination of each wound, but you think it can be
>> > > done by casual observations from people who aren`t even trained in
>> > > forensics.
>>
>> > > > Bugliosi, and all the kooks, are forced to lie about it.
>>
>> > > > >> And neither Ben or Lane
>esses.
>>
>> > > > Of course we do... there was a conspiracy involving a shooter from =
>the TSBD and
>> > > > the Grassy Knoll. Possibly others, but the evidence is strongest fo=
>r these two
>> > > > locations.
>>
>> > > =A0 Coward. Why don`t you take the information these witnesses suppli=
>r these two
>> > > > locations.
>>
>ed
>> > > and show how they help explain what actually happened? Reference each
>> > > shot they describe to each wound on the victims. Show your supporting
>> > > trajectory analysis. Don`t hide behind the word "conspiracy", show
>> > > that these witnesses were correct, and how what they said supports
>> > > *your* version of what happened. But you don`t have a version, do you=
>> > > and show how they help explain what actually happened? Reference each
>> > > shot they describe to each wound on the victims. Show your supporting
>> > > trajectory analysis. Don`t hide behind the word "conspiracy", show
>> > > that these witnesses were correct, and how what they said supports
>?
>> > > You have nothing to put on the table. You try to hide this fact by
>> > > criticizing what others have done. What have you idiots produced?
>>
>> > > =A0 And you have also called the bulk of the witnesses who indicated =
>> > > You have nothing to put on the table. You try to hide this fact by
>> > > criticizing what others have done. What have you idiots produced?
>>
>a
>> > > single location for all the shots they heard liars.
>>
>> > > > What is so difficult about that?
>>
>> > > =A0 It`s impossible to reconcile these witnesses into an explanation =
>> > > single location for all the shots they heard liars.
>>
>> > > > What is so difficult about that?
>>
>of
>> > > what occurred. You know this, which is why you don`t even try.
>>
>> > > > Of course, everyone knows you're simply lying to try to make a poin=
>> > > what occurred. You know this, which is why you don`t even try.
>>
>t... but when
>> > > > you lie to make a point, the only point you've made is that you're =
>willing to
>> > > > lie.
>>
>> > > =A0 Heres what I wrote...
>>
>> > > =A0 "And neither Ben or Lane can offer a compelling theory for what
>willing to
>> > > > lie.
>>
>> > > =A0 Heres what I wrote...
>>
>> > > happened using these witnesses."
>>
>> > > =A0 You didn`t even try, did you pussy? All you did was prove what I
>> > > said to be correct. This one is going on the moderated group this
>> > > weekend, I`m going to shove your inability to offer a shooting
>> > > scenario using these witnesses up your ass.
>>
>> > > > >> They don`t even try.
>>
>> > > > A rather *stupid* lie. Can't you do any better than this?
>>
>> > > =A0 You didn`t even try, did you? I`ve never seen a CTer try to use
>> > > weekend, I`m going to shove your inability to offer a shooting
>> > > scenario using these witnesses up your ass.
>>
>> > > > >> They don`t even try.
>>
>> > > > A rather *stupid* lie. Can't you do any better than this?
>>
>> > > thiese witnesses to present a viable shooting scenario (and the only
>> > > CTer I`ve ever seen try to use *any* witnesses to suggest a shooting
>> > > scenario is Harris). If what they related was true and correct you
>> > > should be able to do this.
>>
>> > son, the WCR is what it is, a failed scenario.
>>
>> =A0 And you are what you are, a junkie retard. And you idiots can`t even
>> > > CTer I`ve ever seen try to use *any* witnesses to suggest a shooting
>> > > scenario is Harris). If what they related was true and correct you
>> > > should be able to do this.
>>
>> > son, the WCR is what it is, a failed scenario.
>>
>> put a scenario on the table. You`ve failed in every conceivable way
>> you could fail, and you even fail to realize it.
>
>now why would you say that, troll? Are we keeping too busy, can't get
>to your addictions these days? Perhaps that's why your so damn testy,
>anxious knowing the 45 questions are coming, again soon, perhaps
>later..... yes?
>> > Dragging in posters by
>> > name doesn't help
>>
>> =A0 It`s fun to punish Ben with his silly ideas. When it comes to ideas
>> you could fail, and you even fail to realize it.
>
>now why would you say that, troll? Are we keeping too busy, can't get
>to your addictions these days? Perhaps that's why your so damn testy,
>anxious knowing the 45 questions are coming, again soon, perhaps
>later..... yes?
>> > Dragging in posters by
>> > name doesn't help
>>
>> he is so inept and out of his water I`d feel sorry for him if he
>> wasn`t such an asshole.
>
>punish? frankly Dudster, he's making you look the damn fool. We've
>been through this before. You've been outted as a troll, a word-
>merchant troll with a serious self-image problem. Worse yet, a troll
>with no PR sense. Like dipso DVP.
>
>Geez, hope you don't act that way in the real world, punish clients
>then expect them to pay? OUCH!
>
>> > a pro-con WCR position one iota,
>>
>> =A0 My position doesn`t need help, yours does. And there will never be
>> wasn`t such an asshole.
>
>punish? frankly Dudster, he's making you look the damn fool. We've
>been through this before. You've been outted as a troll, a word-
>merchant troll with a serious self-image problem. Worse yet, a troll
>with no PR sense. Like dipso DVP.
>
>Geez, hope you don't act that way in the real world, punish clients
>then expect them to pay? OUCH!
>
>> > a pro-con WCR position one iota,
>>
>> any forthcoming. You idiots have gone nowhere because there never was
>> anywhere to go.
>
>your position is not really yours hon, its the WCR conclusion you're
>stuck with. You've pounded your head against a wall on acj for at
>least 10 years. Do you know how many books have been published on the
>CT side of the equation since then? How about 100+. Nutter
>publications, 4? You've gained nothing but frustration son...
And *truthful* LNT'er books? Zero.
>> anywhere to go.
>
>your position is not really yours hon, its the WCR conclusion you're
>stuck with. You've pounded your head against a wall on acj for at
>least 10 years. Do you know how many books have been published on the
>CT side of the equation since then? How about 100+. Nutter
>publications, 4? You've gained nothing but frustration son...
You can't support the WCR without either ignoring evidence, or lying about it.
Embarrassing, isn't it?
>> > the fact is: =A0"the
>> > WCR is what it is, a deeply flawed, 'convenient' scenario."
>>
>> =A0 Only you idiots find the truth inconvenient. It interferes with your
>>
>> "patsy" fantasies.
>
>idiot enough to keep you pulling your limp lone nut pud.... the 45
>questions, if and WHEN.... LMFAO. carry on counselor.
Anyone notice that the kook *STILL* hasn't refuted what I quoted Mark Lane
>
>idiot enough to keep you pulling your limp lone nut pud.... the 45
>questions, if and WHEN.... LMFAO. carry on counselor.
stating?
>> > > > >reality is tough on you shitheads isn't it.... no one is rolling o=
>ver
>> > > > >for the WCR here (on ACJ), nutless....
>> > > > >suck-it-up hon... Mark Lane still has you lone nut, nutless turds
>> > > > >running in circles.... ROTFLMFAO! ! ! !
>>
>> > > > The only examples they could come up with for proving their case th=
>> > > > >for the WCR here (on ACJ), nutless....
>> > > > >suck-it-up hon... Mark Lane still has you lone nut, nutless turds
>> > > > >running in circles.... ROTFLMFAO! ! ! !
>>
>at Mark Lane
>> > > > lied were so weak that I easily refuted them.
>>
>> > > =A0 I`ll have to take what Mark just presented yesterday to the
>> > > > lied were so weak that I easily refuted them.
>>
>> > > moderated group for you to see it. He flat out lied about what the
>> > > witnesses said.
>>
>> > > > Now the shoe is on the proper foot, and they are going to illustrat=
>> > > witnesses said.
>>
>e, by their
>> > > > complete inability to do anything other than 'deny deny deny'... th=
>at Mark Lane
>> > > > was simply correct in his analysis of the WCR's evidence.
>>
>> > > =A0 Lane usually carefully constructs his sentences so that they real=
>> > > > was simply correct in his analysis of the WCR's evidence.
>>
Bud
May 20, 2012, 6:55:21 PM5/20/12
to
actually defend the ideas expressed in those questions, do you?
The midget surrendered when he killfiled the bulk of the people
holding opposing viewpoints, losers never get to dictate terms.
> > > Dragging in posters by
> > > name doesn't help
>
> > It`s fun to punish Ben with his silly ideas. When it comes to ideas
> > he is so inept and out of his water I`d feel sorry for him if he
> > wasn`t such an asshole.
>
> punish? frankly Dudster, he's making you look the damn fool.
look foolish.
> We've
> been through this before. You've been outted as a troll, a word-
> merchant troll with a serious self-image problem. Worse yet, a troll
> with no PR sense. Like dipso DVP.
>
> Geez, hope you don't act that way in the real world, punish clients
> then expect them to pay? OUCH!
right he wouldn`t be calling me in.
> > > a pro-con WCR position one iota,
>
> > My position doesn`t need help, yours does. And there will never be
> > any forthcoming. You idiots have gone nowhere because there never was
> > anywhere to go.
>
> your position is not really yours hon, its the WCR conclusion you're
> stuck with.
the Warren Commission was ever dreamed of. Nothing else was every
needed to figure this crime out but the facts the DPD gathered the
first couple of days.
>You've pounded your head against a wall on acj for at
> least 10 years. Do you know how many books have been published on the
> CT side of the equation since then? How about 100+. Nutter
> publications, 4? You've gained nothing but frustration son...
doesn`t count for much when you are relating history.
> > > the fact is: "the
> > > WCR is what it is, a deeply flawed, 'convenient' scenario."
>
> > Only you idiots find the truth inconvenient. It interferes with your
> > "patsy" fantasies.
>
> idiot enough to keep you pulling your limp lone nut pud.... the 45
> questions, if and WHEN.... LMFAO. carry on counselor.
board maybe he will be worth someones time. He is quickly becoming
like Sam McClung, ignored and irrelevant.
Bud
May 20, 2012, 6:41:52 PM5/20/12
to
On May 20, 12:08 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <13dcb97e-3d11-4608-baae-f2e972ba0...@vy9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Hurry! Run from the points I made back behind the safety of your
killfilter!
> In article <13dcb97e-3d11-4608-baae-f2e972ba0...@vy9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
killfilter!
aeffects
May 20, 2012, 9:27:59 PM5/20/12
to
put out asshole, declare victory... then take swings at Ben Holmes and
any other CT here to coverup your ineptitude.... Man, where you doing
PR for the military during the Vietnam War? ROTFLMFAO! You're old
story Dudster, an old WORN out story. son.... please, get your act
together, perhaps then you'll earn the right for a response... thinlk
about it Bud, you'll get out of that oldtime, USENET *retard pit*...
amazing.... then again, this isn't a LHO didn't do it board... how do
you spell C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y, Dud?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >You've pounded your head against a wall on acj for at
> > least 10 years. Do you know how many books have been published on the
> > CT side of the equation since then? How
>
>
> read more »
Bud
May 20, 2012, 9:46:37 PM5/20/12
to
with you that means you win.
> then take swings at Ben Holmes and
> any other CT here to coverup your ineptitude....
>Man, where you doing
> PR for the military during the Vietnam War? ROTFLMFAO! You're old
> story Dudster, an old WORN out story. son.... please, get your act
> together, perhaps then you'll earn the right for a response... thinlk
> about it Bud, you'll get out of that oldtime, USENET *retard pit*...
nothing to offer in a battle of ideas and he knows it.
own this board now, we`ve slapped the tards around so much they`ve
went off crying for momma. "WAHHH, they won`t let us pretend Oswald
was a patsy" they cried as they ran.
Ben Holmes
May 20, 2012, 11:04:06 PM5/20/12
to
In article <e45d4922-d225-4a3c...@ki5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On May 20, 3:55=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 19, 11:06=A0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 18, 4:59=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 18, 1:53=A0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On May 18, 3:51=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On May 17, 9:28=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > In article <fa68d45f-938b-45a1-bb9b-07b8a04f6...@pr3g2000pbb.go=
>oglegroups.com>,
>> > > > > > aeffects says...
>>
>> > > > > > >On May 17, 2:13=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> On May 17, 9:34=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> =
>wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > >> > "Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a towe=
>r behind the =3D
>> > > > > > >wooden
>> > > > > > >> > fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in a=
>rea were thos=3D
>> > > > > > >e
>> > > > > > >> > standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the=
> motorcade ap=3D
>> > > > > > >proached,
>> > > > > > >> > 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen were on the=
> railroad bri=3D
>> > > > > > >dge; the
>> > > > > > >> > knoll was just to their left. Not one of the railroad men =
>was called be=3D
>> > > > > > >fore the
>> > > > > > >> > Warren Commission. However, four were questioned by counse=
>l for the Com=3D
>> > > > > > >mission
>> > > > > > >> > and nine by agents of the FBI. Five of them said that shot=
>s came from t=3D
>> > > > > > >he knoll
>> > > > > > >> > and six others said that when the shots were fired their a=
>ttention was
>> > > > > > >> > immediately attracted to the knoll. It is worth noting tha=
>t not one of =3D
>> > > > > > >the 13
>> > > > > > >> > men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy kn=
>oll, said tha=3D
>> > > > > > >t he
>> > > > > > >> > thought that the shots came from the Book Depository, whil=
>e 11 of them =3D
>> > > > > > >indicated
>> > > > > > >> > either explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area ab=
>ove the knoll=3D
>up by Mark La=3D
>> > > > > > >ne. They
>> > > > > > >> > keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any=
> evidence.
>>
>> > > > > > >> > This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet th=
>e kooks can't=3D
>tions
>> > > > > work. And that is how real investigations operate. Not the way yo=
>u and
>> > > > > the other retard hobbyists operate, chasing echoes from the knoll=
> in
>> > > > > jail.
>>
>> > > > > > Rather *good* information, for example, is the description of t=
>witnesses.
>>
>> > > > > > Of course we do... there was a conspiracy involving a shooter f=
>rom the TSBD and
>> > > > > > the Grassy Knoll. Possibly others, but the evidence is stronges=
>t for these two
>> > > > > > locations.
>>
>> > > > > =A0 Coward. Why don`t you take the information these witnesses su=
>pplied
>> > > > > and show how they help explain what actually happened? Reference =
>each
>> > > > > shot they describe to each wound on the victims. Show your suppor=
>ting
>> > > > > trajectory analysis. Don`t hide behind the word "conspiracy", sho=
>w
>> > > > > that these witnesses were correct, and how what they said support=
>s
>> > > > > *your* version of what happened. But you don`t have a version, do=
> you?
>> > > > > You have nothing to put on the table. You try to hide this fact b=
>point... but when
>> > > > > > you lie to make a point, the only point you've made is that you=
>'re willing to
>nly
>> > > > > CTer I`ve ever seen try to use *any* witnesses to suggest a shoot=
>ing
>> > > > > scenario is Harris). If what they related was true and correct yo=
responses he gave to the 45 Questions. He's just desperate for my attention.
>> The midget surrendered when he killfiled the bulk of the people
>> holding opposing viewpoints, losers never get to dictate terms.
Rather desperate to have my attention, aren't you?
The best way to get it is to post relevant posts that others find worthwhile.
>> > > > Dragging in posters by
>> > > > name doesn't help
>>
>> > > It`s fun to punish Ben with his silly ideas. When it comes to ideas
>> > > he is so inept and out of his water I`d feel sorry for him if he
>> > > wasn`t such an asshole.
>>
>> > punish? frankly Dudster, he's making you look the damn fool.
>>
>> That must be why he hides from me, because he doesn`t want to see me
>> look foolish.
Nah... I could care less about you, kook. You're irrelevant.
>> > We've
>> > been through this before. You've been outted as a troll, a word-
>> > merchant troll with a serious self-image problem. Worse yet, a troll
>> > with no PR sense. Like dipso DVP.
>>
>> > Geez, hope you don't act that way in the real world, punish clients
>> > then expect them to pay? OUCH!
>>
>> Thats exactly how I treat my clients. If the customers was always
>> right he wouldn`t be calling me in.
>>
>> > > > a pro-con WCR position one iota,
>>
>> > > =A0 My position doesn`t need help, yours does. And there will never b=
He'd have to *first* learn honesty.
Bugliosi has been doing stellar duty pointing out the kooks who are dishonest.
>> >You've pounded your head against a wall on acj for at
>> > least 10 years. Do you know how many books have been published on the
>> > CT side of the equation since then? How
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more =BB
Anyone notice that no refutation of what I quoted Mark Lane asserting has
appeared in this thread yet?
aeffects says...
>
>On May 20, 3:55=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 19, 11:06=A0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 18, 4:59=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 18, 1:53=A0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On May 18, 3:51=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On May 17, 9:28=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > In article <fa68d45f-938b-45a1-bb9b-07b8a04f6...@pr3g2000pbb.go=
>oglegroups.com>,
>> > > > > > aeffects says...
>>
>> > > > > > >On May 17, 2:13=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> On May 17, 9:34=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> =
>wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > >> > "Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a towe=
>r behind the =3D
>> > > > > > >wooden
>> > > > > > >> > fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in a=
>rea were thos=3D
>> > > > > > >e
>> > > > > > >> > standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the=
> motorcade ap=3D
>> > > > > > >proached,
>> > > > > > >> > 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen were on the=
> railroad bri=3D
>> > > > > > >dge; the
>> > > > > > >> > knoll was just to their left. Not one of the railroad men =
>was called be=3D
>> > > > > > >fore the
>> > > > > > >> > Warren Commission. However, four were questioned by counse=
>l for the Com=3D
>> > > > > > >mission
>> > > > > > >> > and nine by agents of the FBI. Five of them said that shot=
>s came from t=3D
>> > > > > > >he knoll
>> > > > > > >> > and six others said that when the shots were fired their a=
>ttention was
>> > > > > > >> > immediately attracted to the knoll. It is worth noting tha=
>t not one of =3D
>> > > > > > >the 13
>> > > > > > >> > men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy kn=
>oll, said tha=3D
>> > > > > > >t he
>> > > > > > >> > thought that the shots came from the Book Depository, whil=
>e 11 of them =3D
>> > > > > > >indicated
>> > > > > > >> > either explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area ab=
>ove the knoll=3D
>> > > > > > > was
>> > > > > > >> > where they thought the sniper was."
>>
>> > > > > > >> > The kooks will again refuse to refute these facts brought =
>> > > > > > >> > where they thought the sniper was."
>>
>up by Mark La=3D
>> > > > > > >ne. They
>> > > > > > >> > keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any=
> evidence.
>>
>> > > > > > >> > This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet th=
>e kooks can't=3D
>> > > > > > > refute
>> > > > > > >> > it.
>>
>> > > > > > >> Actually it the facts of the case that is devastating to the
>> > > > > > >> information they supplied.
>>
>> > > > > > Pretending that there is some mysterious "facts" that will refu=
>> > > > > > >> > it.
>>
>> > > > > > >> Actually it the facts of the case that is devastating to the
>> > > > > > >> information they supplied.
>>
>te these quotes
>> > > > > > from Mark Lane is just another way to demonstrate cowardice.
>>
>> > > > > There is nothing "mysterious" about the facts of this case, even
>> > > > > retards like you know them. You just don`t know how to apply or weigh
>> > > > > them.
>>
>> > > > > > As everyone can
>> > > > > > see, you were too yellow to list any.
>>
>> > > > > Why should I supply anything, you (or Lane) didn`t. Who are "five"
>> > > > > and "six" and "eleven". What did these groups actually say that
>> > > > > support your premise? Because chances are it is just your (or Lanes)
>>> > > > retarded and dishonest interpretation of the information they supplied
>> > > > > that is the problem.
>>
>> > > > > > No doubt, you understand quite well how
>> > > > > > easily most of it can be refuted.
>>
>> > > > > =A0 Retards have dreamed up all manner of excuses to disregard th=
>> > > > > > from Mark Lane is just another way to demonstrate cowardice.
>>
>> > > > > There is nothing "mysterious" about the facts of this case, even
>> > > > > retards like you know them. You just don`t know how to apply or weigh
>> > > > > them.
>>
>> > > > > > As everyone can
>> > > > > > see, you were too yellow to list any.
>>
>> > > > > Why should I supply anything, you (or Lane) didn`t. Who are "five"
>> > > > > and "six" and "eleven". What did these groups actually say that
>> > > > > support your premise? Because chances are it is just your (or Lanes)
>>> > > > retarded and dishonest interpretation of the information they supplied
>> > > > > that is the problem.
>>
>> > > > > > No doubt, you understand quite well how
>> > > > > > easily most of it can be refuted.
>>
>e
>> > > > > evidence in this case, what could matter less?
>>
>> > > > > > Rather dishonest of you, too...
>>
>>> > > > > >> You idiots will never figure this simple crime out as long as you
>> > > > > > >> insist on focusing on the wrong information.
>>
>> > > > > > Your criteria for what is "good information" is anything that s=
>> > > > > evidence in this case, what could matter less?
>>
>> > > > > > Rather dishonest of you, too...
>>
>>> > > > > >> You idiots will never figure this simple crime out as long as you
>> > > > > > >> insist on focusing on the wrong information.
>>
>upports the
>> > > > > > theory put forth by the WCR.
>>
>> > > > > =A0 Yah, the evidence does support the WCR, that how real explana=
>> > > > > > theory put forth by the WCR.
>>
>tions
>> > > > > work. And that is how real investigations operate. Not the way yo=
>u and
>> > > > > the other retard hobbyists operate, chasing echoes from the knoll=
> and
>> > > > > never putting any explanations on the table in nearly 5 decades.
>>
>> > > > > > Rather poor logic...
>>
>> > > > > > Fortunately, our justice system doesn't work that way.
>>
>> > > > > =A0 It certainly doesn`t work your way. If it did nobody would be=
>> > > > > never putting any explanations on the table in nearly 5 decades.
>>
>> > > > > > Rather poor logic...
>>
>> > > > > > Fortunately, our justice system doesn't work that way.
>>
> in
>> > > > > jail.
>>
>> > > > > > Rather *good* information, for example, is the description of t=
>he original
>> > > > > > bullet wound in JFK's throat...
>>
>> > > > > See, this is a good example of the poor information you idiots cling
>>> > > > to. Nobody did a scientific examination of that wound to determine the
>> > > > > facts about it. It`s not doctors do, especially in that situation.
>>
>> > > > > >corroborated by everyone who saw it. Medical
>> > > > > > doctors who are experienced in wound description.
>>
>> > > > > You are an idiot if you think they were trying to determine the
>> > > > > facts about that wound as they were working to save Kennedy`s life.
>> > > > > You an even bigger idiot if you think they had the proper training to
>>> > > > determine such things. Even an expert in the correct field would never
>>> > > > walk into a situation where he just cavalierly assigned "ins and outs"
>> > > > > without a detailed examination of each wound, but you think it can be
>> > > > > done by casual observations from people who aren`t even trained in
>> > > > > forensics.
>>
>> > > > > > Bugliosi, and all the kooks, are forced to lie about it.
>>
>> > > > > > >> And neither Ben or Lane
>> > > > > > >> can offer a compelling theory for what happened using these =
>> > > > > > bullet wound in JFK's throat...
>>
>> > > > > See, this is a good example of the poor information you idiots cling
>>> > > > to. Nobody did a scientific examination of that wound to determine the
>> > > > > facts about it. It`s not doctors do, especially in that situation.
>>
>> > > > > >corroborated by everyone who saw it. Medical
>> > > > > > doctors who are experienced in wound description.
>>
>> > > > > You are an idiot if you think they were trying to determine the
>> > > > > facts about that wound as they were working to save Kennedy`s life.
>> > > > > You an even bigger idiot if you think they had the proper training to
>>> > > > determine such things. Even an expert in the correct field would never
>>> > > > walk into a situation where he just cavalierly assigned "ins and outs"
>> > > > > without a detailed examination of each wound, but you think it can be
>> > > > > done by casual observations from people who aren`t even trained in
>> > > > > forensics.
>>
>> > > > > > Bugliosi, and all the kooks, are forced to lie about it.
>>
>> > > > > > >> And neither Ben or Lane
>witnesses.
>>
>> > > > > > Of course we do... there was a conspiracy involving a shooter f=
>rom the TSBD and
>> > > > > > the Grassy Knoll. Possibly others, but the evidence is stronges=
>t for these two
>> > > > > > locations.
>>
>> > > > > =A0 Coward. Why don`t you take the information these witnesses su=
>pplied
>> > > > > and show how they help explain what actually happened? Reference =
>each
>> > > > > shot they describe to each wound on the victims. Show your suppor=
>ting
>> > > > > trajectory analysis. Don`t hide behind the word "conspiracy", sho=
>w
>> > > > > that these witnesses were correct, and how what they said support=
>s
>> > > > > *your* version of what happened. But you don`t have a version, do=
> you?
>> > > > > You have nothing to put on the table. You try to hide this fact b=
>y
>> > > > > criticizing what others have done. What have you idiots produced?
>>
>> > > > > =A0 And you have also called the bulk of the witnesses who indica=
>> > > > > criticizing what others have done. What have you idiots produced?
>>
>ted a
>> > > > > single location for all the shots they heard liars.
>>
>> > > > > > What is so difficult about that?
>>
>> > > > > =A0 It`s impossible to reconcile these witnesses into an explanat=
>> > > > > single location for all the shots they heard liars.
>>
>> > > > > > What is so difficult about that?
>>
>ion of
>> > > > > what occurred. You know this, which is why you don`t even try.
>>
>> > > > > > Of course, everyone knows you're simply lying to try to make a =
>> > > > > what occurred. You know this, which is why you don`t even try.
>>
>point... but when
>> > > > > > you lie to make a point, the only point you've made is that you=
>'re willing to
>> > > > > > lie.
>>
>> > > > > =A0 Heres what I wrote...
>>
>> > > > > =A0 "And neither Ben or Lane can offer a compelling theory for wh=
>>
>> > > > > =A0 Heres what I wrote...
>>
>at
>> > > > > happened using these witnesses."
>>
>> > > > > =A0 You didn`t even try, did you pussy? All you did was prove wha=
>> > > > > happened using these witnesses."
>>
>t I
>> > > > > said to be correct. This one is going on the moderated group this
>> > > > > weekend, I`m going to shove your inability to offer a shooting
>> > > > > scenario using these witnesses up your ass.
>>
>> > > > > > >> They don`t even try.
>>
>> > > > > > A rather *stupid* lie. Can't you do any better than this?
>>
>> > > > > You didn`t even try, did you? I`ve never seen a CTer try to use
>> > > > > thiese witnesses to present a viable shooting scenario (and the o=
>> > > > > said to be correct. This one is going on the moderated group this
>> > > > > weekend, I`m going to shove your inability to offer a shooting
>> > > > > scenario using these witnesses up your ass.
>>
>> > > > > > >> They don`t even try.
>>
>> > > > > > A rather *stupid* lie. Can't you do any better than this?
>>
>> > > > > You didn`t even try, did you? I`ve never seen a CTer try to use
>nly
>> > > > > CTer I`ve ever seen try to use *any* witnesses to suggest a shoot=
>ing
>> > > > > scenario is Harris). If what they related was true and correct yo=
>u
>> > > > > should be able to do this.
>>
>> > > > son, the WCR is what it is, a failed scenario.
>>
>> > > And you are what you are, a junkie retard. And you idiots can`t even
>> > > put a scenario on the table. You`ve failed in every conceivable way
>> > > you could fail, and you even fail to realize it.
>>
>> > now why would you say that, troll? Are we keeping too busy, can't get
>> > to your addictions these days? Perhaps that's why your so damn testy,
>> > anxious knowing the 45 questions are coming, again soon, perhaps
>> > later..... yes?
>>
>> You don`t suppose Ben will somehow grow a pair this time and
>> actually defend the ideas expressed in those questions, do you?
>
>let's see, you run from the 45 questions, act the proverbial lone nut,
>put out asshole, declare victory... then take swings at Ben Holmes and
>any other CT here to coverup your ineptitude.... Man, where you doing
>PR for the military during the Vietnam War? ROTFLMFAO! You're old
>story Dudster, an old WORN out story. son.... please, get your act
>together, perhaps then you'll earn the right for a response... thinlk
>about it Bud, you'll get out of that oldtime, USENET *retard pit*...
Actually, the kook is lying again... I've refuted *ALL* of the original
>> > > > > should be able to do this.
>>
>> > > > son, the WCR is what it is, a failed scenario.
>>
>> > > And you are what you are, a junkie retard. And you idiots can`t even
>> > > put a scenario on the table. You`ve failed in every conceivable way
>> > > you could fail, and you even fail to realize it.
>>
>> > now why would you say that, troll? Are we keeping too busy, can't get
>> > to your addictions these days? Perhaps that's why your so damn testy,
>> > anxious knowing the 45 questions are coming, again soon, perhaps
>> > later..... yes?
>>
>> You don`t suppose Ben will somehow grow a pair this time and
>> actually defend the ideas expressed in those questions, do you?
>
>let's see, you run from the 45 questions, act the proverbial lone nut,
>put out asshole, declare victory... then take swings at Ben Holmes and
>any other CT here to coverup your ineptitude.... Man, where you doing
>PR for the military during the Vietnam War? ROTFLMFAO! You're old
>story Dudster, an old WORN out story. son.... please, get your act
>together, perhaps then you'll earn the right for a response... thinlk
>about it Bud, you'll get out of that oldtime, USENET *retard pit*...
responses he gave to the 45 Questions. He's just desperate for my attention.
>> The midget surrendered when he killfiled the bulk of the people
>> holding opposing viewpoints, losers never get to dictate terms.
The best way to get it is to post relevant posts that others find worthwhile.
>> > > > Dragging in posters by
>> > > > name doesn't help
>>
>> > > It`s fun to punish Ben with his silly ideas. When it comes to ideas
>> > > he is so inept and out of his water I`d feel sorry for him if he
>> > > wasn`t such an asshole.
>>
>> > punish? frankly Dudster, he's making you look the damn fool.
>>
>> That must be why he hides from me, because he doesn`t want to see me
>> look foolish.
>> > We've
>> > been through this before. You've been outted as a troll, a word-
>> > merchant troll with a serious self-image problem. Worse yet, a troll
>> > with no PR sense. Like dipso DVP.
>>
>> > Geez, hope you don't act that way in the real world, punish clients
>> > then expect them to pay? OUCH!
>>
>> Thats exactly how I treat my clients. If the customers was always
>> right he wouldn`t be calling me in.
>>
>> > > > a pro-con WCR position one iota,
>>
>e
>> > > any forthcoming. You idiots have gone nowhere because there never was
>> > > anywhere to go.
>>
>> > your position is not really yours hon, its the WCR conclusion you're
>> > stuck with.
>>
>> Wrong. The Dallas Police Department knew they had their man before
>> the Warren Commission was ever dreamed of. Nothing else was every
>> needed to figure this crime out but the facts the DPD gathered the
>> first couple of days.
>
>within 30 minutes.... amazing, those inept DPD denziens, simply
>amazing.... then again, this isn't a LHO didn't do it board... how do
>you spell C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y, Dud?
I don't think the kook knows how to spell conspiracy...
>> > > any forthcoming. You idiots have gone nowhere because there never was
>> > > anywhere to go.
>>
>> > your position is not really yours hon, its the WCR conclusion you're
>> > stuck with.
>>
>> Wrong. The Dallas Police Department knew they had their man before
>> the Warren Commission was ever dreamed of. Nothing else was every
>> needed to figure this crime out but the facts the DPD gathered the
>> first couple of days.
>
>within 30 minutes.... amazing, those inept DPD denziens, simply
>amazing.... then again, this isn't a LHO didn't do it board... how do
>you spell C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y, Dud?
He'd have to *first* learn honesty.
Bugliosi has been doing stellar duty pointing out the kooks who are dishonest.
>> >You've pounded your head against a wall on acj for at
>> > least 10 years. Do you know how many books have been published on the
>> > CT side of the equation since then? How
>>
>> ...
>>
Anyone notice that no refutation of what I quoted Mark Lane asserting has
appeared in this thread yet?
Bud
May 21, 2012, 3:55:11 AM5/21/12
to
On May 20, 11:04 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <e45d4922-d225-4a3c-b132-f05216c1f...@ki5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
According to you.
> He's just desperate for my attention.
It`s easier to show your ideas have no merit that way.
> >> The midget surrendered when he killfiled the bulk of the people
> >> holding opposing viewpoints, losers never get to dictate terms.
>
> Rather desperate to have my attention, aren't you?
Just pointing out the facts.
> The best way to get it is to post relevant posts that others find worthwhile.
No, that isn`t the best way. Thats a retarded way.
> >> > > > Dragging in posters by
> >> > > > name doesn't help
>
> >> > > It`s fun to punish Ben with his silly ideas. When it comes to ideas
> >> > > he is so inept and out of his water I`d feel sorry for him if he
> >> > > wasn`t such an asshole.
>
> >> > punish? frankly Dudster, he's making you look the damn fool.
>
> >> That must be why he hides from me, because he doesn`t want to see me
> >> look foolish.
>
> Nah... I could care less about you, kook. You're irrelevant.
If you have the truth on your side why are you running and hiding?
> >> > We've
> >> > been through this before. You've been outted as a troll, a word-
> >> > merchant troll with a serious self-image problem. Worse yet, a troll
> >> > with no PR sense. Like dipso DVP.
>
> >> > Geez, hope you don't act that way in the real world, punish clients
> >> > then expect them to pay? OUCH!
>
> >> Thats exactly how I treat my clients. If the customers was always
> >> right he wouldn`t be calling me in.
>
> >> > > > a pro-con WCR position one iota,
>
> >> > > =A0 My position doesn`t need help, yours does. And there will never b=
> >e
> >> > > any forthcoming. You idiots have gone nowhere because there never was
> >> > > anywhere to go.
>
> >> > your position is not really yours hon, its the WCR conclusion you're
> >> > stuck with.
>
> >> Wrong. The Dallas Police Department knew they had their man before
> >> the Warren Commission was ever dreamed of. Nothing else was every
> >> needed to figure this crime out but the facts the DPD gathered the
> >> first couple of days.
>
> >within 30 minutes.... amazing, those inept DPD denziens, simply
> >amazing.... then again, this isn't a LHO didn't do it board... how do
> >you spell C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y, Dud?
>
> I don't think the kook knows how to spell conspiracy...
I don`t think you can show one.
> He'd have to *first* learn honesty.
<snicker> From you?
> Bugliosi has been doing stellar duty pointing out the kooks who are dishonest.
Just something you cling to to avoid supporting your own ideas.
> >> >You've pounded your head against a wall on acj for at
> >> > least 10 years. Do you know how many books have been published on the
> >> > CT side of the equation since then? How
>
> >> ...
>
> >> read more =BB
>
> Anyone notice that no refutation of what I quoted Mark Lane asserting has
> appeared in this thread yet?
When I asked you to support what he said you ran away. You wouldn`t
name who he was referring to, or how what they said supported Lane`s
claims.
Lane (like Ben) says a lot of things like...
"... while 11 of them indicated either explicitly or implicitly that
the fenced-in area above the knoll was where they thought the sniper
was."
So the question is "What does Lane consider a witness implicitly
indicating the knoll?" It becomes so vague as to be meaningless.
How many of the eleven (whoever they are) outright said they thought
there was a shooter on the knoll?
> In article <e45d4922-d225-4a3c-b132-f05216c1f...@ki5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> He's just desperate for my attention.
> >> The midget surrendered when he killfiled the bulk of the people
> >> holding opposing viewpoints, losers never get to dictate terms.
>
> Rather desperate to have my attention, aren't you?
> The best way to get it is to post relevant posts that others find worthwhile.
> >> > > > Dragging in posters by
> >> > > > name doesn't help
>
> >> > > It`s fun to punish Ben with his silly ideas. When it comes to ideas
> >> > > he is so inept and out of his water I`d feel sorry for him if he
> >> > > wasn`t such an asshole.
>
> >> > punish? frankly Dudster, he's making you look the damn fool.
>
> >> That must be why he hides from me, because he doesn`t want to see me
> >> look foolish.
>
> Nah... I could care less about you, kook. You're irrelevant.
> >> > We've
> >> > been through this before. You've been outted as a troll, a word-
> >> > merchant troll with a serious self-image problem. Worse yet, a troll
> >> > with no PR sense. Like dipso DVP.
>
> >> > Geez, hope you don't act that way in the real world, punish clients
> >> > then expect them to pay? OUCH!
>
> >> Thats exactly how I treat my clients. If the customers was always
> >> right he wouldn`t be calling me in.
>
> >> > > > a pro-con WCR position one iota,
>
> >> > > =A0 My position doesn`t need help, yours does. And there will never b=
> >e
> >> > > any forthcoming. You idiots have gone nowhere because there never was
> >> > > anywhere to go.
>
> >> > your position is not really yours hon, its the WCR conclusion you're
> >> > stuck with.
>
> >> Wrong. The Dallas Police Department knew they had their man before
> >> the Warren Commission was ever dreamed of. Nothing else was every
> >> needed to figure this crime out but the facts the DPD gathered the
> >> first couple of days.
>
> >within 30 minutes.... amazing, those inept DPD denziens, simply
> >amazing.... then again, this isn't a LHO didn't do it board... how do
> >you spell C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y, Dud?
>
> I don't think the kook knows how to spell conspiracy...
> He'd have to *first* learn honesty.
> Bugliosi has been doing stellar duty pointing out the kooks who are dishonest.
> >> >You've pounded your head against a wall on acj for at
> >> > least 10 years. Do you know how many books have been published on the
> >> > CT side of the equation since then? How
>
> >> ...
>
> >> read more =BB
>
> Anyone notice that no refutation of what I quoted Mark Lane asserting has
> appeared in this thread yet?
name who he was referring to, or how what they said supported Lane`s
claims.
Lane (like Ben) says a lot of things like...
"... while 11 of them indicated either explicitly or implicitly that
the fenced-in area above the knoll was where they thought the sniper
was."
So the question is "What does Lane consider a witness implicitly
indicating the knoll?" It becomes so vague as to be meaningless.
How many of the eleven (whoever they are) outright said they thought
there was a shooter on the knoll?
Jean
May 26, 2012, 3:59:15 PM5/26/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On May 17, 8:34 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> "Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower behind the wooden
> fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in area were those
> standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the motorcade approached,
> 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen were on the railroad bridge; the
> knoll was just to their left.
The 13 railroad employees are Curtis BISHOP, Ewell
> "Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower behind the wooden
> fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in area were those
> standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the motorcade approached,
> 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen were on the railroad bridge; the
> knoll was just to their left.
COWSERT, George A. DAVIS, Richard DODD, S. M. HOLLAND, Clemon JOHNSON,
Austin MILLER, Thomas MURPHY, Nolan POTTER, Frank REILLY, James
SIMMONS, Royce SKELTON, and Walter WINBORN, according to "Six Seconds
in Dallas." Their statements are in vol. VI (testimony) and XXII (FBI
statements), as well as here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
Lane continued:
> Not one of the railroad men was called before the
> Warren Commission. However, four were questioned by counsel for the Commission
> and nine by agents of the FBI.
witnesses. Some were heard by the Commissioners, but many others gave
depositions before one or more WC staff lawyers:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0254a.htm
Holland, Miller, Reilly, and Skelton are listed there
as WC witnesses, and their testimony appears in volume VI alongside
the testimony of Parkland doctors and Tippit witnesses:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh6.htm
Lane says "not one of the railroad men was called
before the Warren Commission," but look at the first page of Holland's
testimony:
QUOTE:
Mr. STERN - Mr. Holland, you have received a letter from the
Commission asking you to come and testify today?
Mr. HOLLAND - Yes.
Mr. STERN - As you know, the Commission is inquiring into all of the
facts concerning the assassination of President Kennedy and we want
your evidence concerning what you saw at the time of the assassination
from the place you were standing. May we have, for the record, your
name and residence address?
UNQUOTE
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0125a.htm
Holland was without doubt a "knoll witness," as were several
others on the railroad overpass. I'm not disputing that. I'm
complaining about Lane's methods.
Lane continued:
>Five of them said that shots came from the knoll
> and six others said that when the shots were fired their attention was
> immediately attracted to the knoll. It is worth noting that not one of the 13
> men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll, said that he
> thought that the shots came from the Book Depository, while 11 of them indicated
> either explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above the knoll was
> where they thought the sniper was."
two, and there are *at least* three witnesses who did not indicate
either explicitly or implicitly that they thought there was a sniper
on the knoll:
"COWSERT said he has no idea where the shots came from"
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1423.htm
"Mr. DODD advised that his attention remained on President KENNEDY; he
did not look up and did not know where the shots came from."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1420.htm
"Mr. WINBORN stated he was not able to ascertain exactly where the
shots were fired from .."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1417.htm
These are the same documents that Lane was using, so how do
these figures add up?
> The kooks will again refuse to refute these facts brought up by Mark Lane. They
> keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any evidence.
>
> This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the kooks can't refute
> it.
explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above the knoll was
where they thought the sniper was," as Mark Lane claimed?
Jean
Ben Holmes
May 26, 2012, 5:25:00 PM5/26/12
to
In article <2c790b7e-15d0-4761...@n42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Jean says...
Did I miss something?
> Lane continued:
>
>> Not one of the railroad men was called before the
>> Warren Commission. However, four were questioned by counsel for the
>> Commission and nine by agents of the FBI.
>
> This is a typical Lane quibble.
Again, I fail to see that there's any untruth being told here.
Did Mark Lane tell a lie here?
>The Commission listed 552
>witnesses. Some were heard by the Commissioners, but many others gave
>depositions before one or more WC staff lawyers:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0254a.htm
I'm guessing that you don't see any difference between being called in front of
the commission, and having your statement taken by someone.
That's okay... you have a right to your opinion.
But your opinion can't over-ride the historical fact that Mark Lane has stated.
> Holland, Miller, Reilly, and Skelton are listed there
>as WC witnesses, and their testimony appears in volume VI alongside
>the testimony of Parkland doctors and Tippit witnesses:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh6.htm
>
> Lane says "not one of the railroad men was called
>before the Warren Commission," but look at the first page of Holland's
>testimony:
>
>QUOTE:
>
>Mr. STERN - Mr. Holland, you have received a letter from the
>Commission asking you to come and testify today?
>Mr. HOLLAND - Yes.
>Mr. STERN - As you know, the Commission is inquiring into all of the
>facts concerning the assassination of President Kennedy and we want
>your evidence concerning what you saw at the time of the assassination
>from the place you were standing. May we have, for the record, your
>name and residence address?
>
>UNQUOTE
>
>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0125a=
>.htm
You're kidding, right?
You think that "you have received a letter from the Commission asking you to
come and testify today?" is evidence that he actually testified before the
Commission?
I wonder what you'll assert that Marina did...
> Holland was without doubt a "knoll witness," as were several
>others on the railroad overpass. I'm not disputing that. I'm
>complaining about Lane's methods.
I'm still waiting for you to produce a lie on the part of Mark Lane.
Where is it?
Did I miss it?
> Lane continued:
>
>> Five of them said that shots came from the knoll
>> and six others said that when the shots were fired their attention was
>> immediately attracted to the knoll. It is worth noting that not one of the 13
>> men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll, said that he
>> thought that the shots came from the Book Depository, while 11 of them
>> indicated either explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above the
>> knoll was where they thought the sniper was."
>
> We're into "Mark Lane math" again, because 13 minus 11 is
>two, and there are *at least* three witnesses who did not indicate
>either explicitly or implicitly that they thought there was a sniper
>on the knoll:
>
>
>"COWSERT said he has no idea where the shots came from"
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1423.htm
>
>"Mr. DODD advised that his attention remained on President KENNEDY; he
>did not look up and did not know where the shots came from."
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1420.htm
Interestingly, even McAdams admits that "Later told Mark Lane she [sic] saw
smoke come from Knoll (RTJ)" http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm
You'll find it on page 40 of RTJ.
You can view his filmed interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YODZyI2qRMw
Strangely enough, when you watch the filmed interview, it's quite clear where
Dodd places a shooter. Here's the question: "And did you see anything that might
indicate to you where the shots came from?"
What was Dodd's answer, Jean?
Now Jean, a simple question, "yes" or "no" will suffice... Do your figures add
up?
Or will you deny what you can hear Dodd saying for yourself?
>"Mr. WINBORN stated he was not able to ascertain exactly where the
>shots were fired from .."
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1417.htm
The part you leave out is what *action* took place. He moved where he could view
the Grassy Knoll. While I agree that he's really neither a Knoll or TSBD
witness, he *supports* the Grassy Knoll. (as, in a somewhat lesser way, he'd
support shots from the TSBD)
But this isn't really relevant... once you've heard Dodd stating himself where
he places a shooter, your math is wrong, and once again, Mark Lane is shown to
be correct.
> These are the same documents that Lane was using, so how do
>these figures add up?
That *is* the question that will be embarrassing for you to answer.
You see, I don't have any problems condemning authors if they aren't in accord
with the facts.
Wrone, for example, is a fellow "CT'er", whom I've blasted in the past for his
lies.
I'm sure you're aware of the disdain I have for another CT'er, "Tony Marsh", for
his many lies about the evidence.
But LNT'ers don't criticize other LNT'ers... although to be fair to Bugliosi, he
actually has. It's rare, however.
>> The kooks will again refuse to refute these facts brought up by Mark Lane.
>> They keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any evidence.
>>
>> This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the kooks can't
>> refute it.
>
> So who were these 11 witnesses who "indicated either
>explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above the knoll was
>where they thought the sniper was," as Mark Lane claimed?
That's a question I'd be interested to see your answer to, Jean. Since I just
blew your Dodd reference out of the water...
>Jean
Sorry Jean... you're still not making your case.
As a simple example - go here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
Now, which pie chart is accurate?
*This* is the same thing you're doing with Mark Lane.
You'll have to do much better than this if you want to convince the American
public.
It's amusing that you refuse to admit that Bugliosi outright *LIED* about how
Carrico described the throat wound, yet you label your quibbles with Mark Lane's
way of characterizing historical fact as a lie.
Jean says...
>
>On May 17, 8:34=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> "Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower behind the
>> wooden fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in area were
>> those standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the motorcade
>> approached, 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen were on the
>> railroad bridge; the knoll was just to their left.
>
> The 13 railroad employees are Curtis BISHOP, Ewell
>COWSERT, George A. DAVIS, Richard DODD, S. M. HOLLAND, Clemon JOHNSON,
>Austin MILLER, Thomas MURPHY, Nolan POTTER, Frank REILLY, James
>SIMMONS, Royce SKELTON, and Walter WINBORN, according to "Six Seconds
>in Dallas." Their statements are in vol. VI (testimony) and XXII (FBI
>statements), as well as here:
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
Hmmm... I failed to see any refutation of what Mark Lane stated...
>On May 17, 8:34=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> "Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower behind the
>> wooden fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in area were
>> those standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the motorcade
>> approached, 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen were on the
>> railroad bridge; the knoll was just to their left.
>
> The 13 railroad employees are Curtis BISHOP, Ewell
>COWSERT, George A. DAVIS, Richard DODD, S. M. HOLLAND, Clemon JOHNSON,
>Austin MILLER, Thomas MURPHY, Nolan POTTER, Frank REILLY, James
>SIMMONS, Royce SKELTON, and Walter WINBORN, according to "Six Seconds
>in Dallas." Their statements are in vol. VI (testimony) and XXII (FBI
>statements), as well as here:
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
Did I miss something?
> Lane continued:
>
>> Not one of the railroad men was called before the
>> Warren Commission. However, four were questioned by counsel for the
>> Commission and nine by agents of the FBI.
>
> This is a typical Lane quibble.
Did Mark Lane tell a lie here?
>The Commission listed 552
>witnesses. Some were heard by the Commissioners, but many others gave
>depositions before one or more WC staff lawyers:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0254a.htm
the commission, and having your statement taken by someone.
That's okay... you have a right to your opinion.
But your opinion can't over-ride the historical fact that Mark Lane has stated.
> Holland, Miller, Reilly, and Skelton are listed there
>as WC witnesses, and their testimony appears in volume VI alongside
>the testimony of Parkland doctors and Tippit witnesses:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh6.htm
>
> Lane says "not one of the railroad men was called
>before the Warren Commission," but look at the first page of Holland's
>testimony:
>
>QUOTE:
>
>Mr. STERN - Mr. Holland, you have received a letter from the
>Commission asking you to come and testify today?
>Mr. HOLLAND - Yes.
>Mr. STERN - As you know, the Commission is inquiring into all of the
>facts concerning the assassination of President Kennedy and we want
>your evidence concerning what you saw at the time of the assassination
>from the place you were standing. May we have, for the record, your
>name and residence address?
>
>UNQUOTE
>
>.htm
You're kidding, right?
You think that "you have received a letter from the Commission asking you to
come and testify today?" is evidence that he actually testified before the
Commission?
I wonder what you'll assert that Marina did...
> Holland was without doubt a "knoll witness," as were several
>others on the railroad overpass. I'm not disputing that. I'm
>complaining about Lane's methods.
Where is it?
Did I miss it?
> Lane continued:
>
>> Five of them said that shots came from the knoll
>> and six others said that when the shots were fired their attention was
>> immediately attracted to the knoll. It is worth noting that not one of the 13
>> men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll, said that he
>> thought that the shots came from the Book Depository, while 11 of them
>> indicated either explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above the
>> knoll was where they thought the sniper was."
>
> We're into "Mark Lane math" again, because 13 minus 11 is
>two, and there are *at least* three witnesses who did not indicate
>either explicitly or implicitly that they thought there was a sniper
>on the knoll:
>
>
>"COWSERT said he has no idea where the shots came from"
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1423.htm
>
>"Mr. DODD advised that his attention remained on President KENNEDY; he
>did not look up and did not know where the shots came from."
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1420.htm
smoke come from Knoll (RTJ)" http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm
You'll find it on page 40 of RTJ.
You can view his filmed interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YODZyI2qRMw
Strangely enough, when you watch the filmed interview, it's quite clear where
Dodd places a shooter. Here's the question: "And did you see anything that might
indicate to you where the shots came from?"
What was Dodd's answer, Jean?
Now Jean, a simple question, "yes" or "no" will suffice... Do your figures add
up?
Or will you deny what you can hear Dodd saying for yourself?
>"Mr. WINBORN stated he was not able to ascertain exactly where the
>shots were fired from .."
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1417.htm
the Grassy Knoll. While I agree that he's really neither a Knoll or TSBD
witness, he *supports* the Grassy Knoll. (as, in a somewhat lesser way, he'd
support shots from the TSBD)
But this isn't really relevant... once you've heard Dodd stating himself where
he places a shooter, your math is wrong, and once again, Mark Lane is shown to
be correct.
> These are the same documents that Lane was using, so how do
>these figures add up?
You see, I don't have any problems condemning authors if they aren't in accord
with the facts.
Wrone, for example, is a fellow "CT'er", whom I've blasted in the past for his
lies.
I'm sure you're aware of the disdain I have for another CT'er, "Tony Marsh", for
his many lies about the evidence.
But LNT'ers don't criticize other LNT'ers... although to be fair to Bugliosi, he
actually has. It's rare, however.
>> The kooks will again refuse to refute these facts brought up by Mark Lane.
>> They keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any evidence.
>>
>> This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the kooks can't
>> refute it.
>
> So who were these 11 witnesses who "indicated either
>explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above the knoll was
>where they thought the sniper was," as Mark Lane claimed?
blew your Dodd reference out of the water...
>Jean
Sorry Jean... you're still not making your case.
As a simple example - go here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
Now, which pie chart is accurate?
*This* is the same thing you're doing with Mark Lane.
You'll have to do much better than this if you want to convince the American
public.
It's amusing that you refuse to admit that Bugliosi outright *LIED* about how
Carrico described the throat wound, yet you label your quibbles with Mark Lane's
way of characterizing historical fact as a lie.
aeffects
May 27, 2012, 6:38:41 PM5/27/12
to
Top Post
looking forward to Jean's response...
On May 26, 2:25 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <2c790b7e-15d0-4761-abe7-1a11cf329...@n42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Jean says..
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6...
looking forward to Jean's response...
On May 26, 2:25 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <2c790b7e-15d0-4761-abe7-1a11cf329...@n42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Jean says..
Bud
May 27, 2012, 7:19:39 PM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 6:38 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Top Post
>
> looking forward to Jean's response...
I wouldn`t hold my breath, but maybe you should.
> Top Post
>
> looking forward to Jean's response...
aeffects
May 27, 2012, 7:59:15 PM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 4:19 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On May 27, 6:38 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Top Post
>
> > looking forward to Jean's response...
>
> I wouldn`t hold my breath, but maybe you should.
of course you wouldn't, you're immaterial here and at .john's. Carry
> On May 27, 6:38 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Top Post
>
> > looking forward to Jean's response...
>
> I wouldn`t hold my breath, but maybe you should.
on troll!
Ben Holmes
May 27, 2012, 8:05:45 PM5/27/12
to
In article <a47b5673-8427-477e...@nw7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
be very enjoyable for her to reply to.
I suspect we'll see her response on Tuesday. And, like you, I'm certainly
looking forward to seeing what she says.
>On May 26, 2:25=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <2c790b7e-15d0-4761-abe7-1a11cf329...@n42g2000yqm.googlegroups=
>ere
>> >> those standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the motor=
>254a.htm
>>
>> I'm guessing that you don't see any difference between being called in fr=
>tated.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Holland, Miller, Reilly, and Skelton are li=
>htm
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Lane says "not one of the railroad men w=
> to
>> come and testify today?" is evidence that he actually testified before th=
>veral
>> >others on the railroad overpass. =A0I'm not disputing that. =A0I'm
> the 13
>> >> men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll, said th=
>htm
>>
>> Interestingly, even McAdams admits that "Later told Mark Lane she [sic] s=
>2qRMw
>>
>> Strangely enough, when you watch the filmed interview, it's quite clear w=
>here
>> Dodd places a shooter. Here's the question: "And did you see anything tha=
>htm
>>
>> The part you leave out is what *action* took place. He moved where he cou=
>where
>> he places a shooter, your math is wrong, and once again, Mark Lane is sho=
>wn to
>> be correct.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 These are the same documents that Lane was using, s=
>ccord
>> with the facts.
>>
>> Wrone, for example, is a fellow "CT'er", whom I've blasted in the past fo=
>r his
>> lies.
>>
>> I'm sure you're aware of the disdain I have for another CT'er, "Tony Mars=
>ane.
>> >> They keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any eviden=
>ce.
>>
>> >> This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the kooks can'=
>t
>> >> refute it.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0So who were these 11 witnesses who "indicate=
>can
>> public.
>>
>> It's amusing that you refuse to admit that Bugliosi outright *LIED* about=
> how
>> Carrico described the throat wound, yet you label your quibbles with Mark=
aeffects says...
>
>Top Post
>
>looking forward to Jean's response...
I suspect that she's trying to enjoy her Memorial Day weekend - this post won't
>Top Post
>
>looking forward to Jean's response...
be very enjoyable for her to reply to.
I suspect we'll see her response on Tuesday. And, like you, I'm certainly
looking forward to seeing what she says.
>On May 26, 2:25=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <2c790b7e-15d0-4761-abe7-1a11cf329...@n42g2000yqm.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Jean says..
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 17, 8:34=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> "Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower behind the
>> >> wooden fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in area w=
>> Jean says..
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 17, 8:34=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> "Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower behind the
>ere
>> >> those standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the motor=
>cade
>> >> approached, 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen were on the
>> >> railroad bridge; the knoll was just to their left.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The 13 railroad employees are Curtis BISHOP, Ewe=
>> >> approached, 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen were on the
>> >> railroad bridge; the knoll was just to their left.
>>
>ll
>> >COWSERT, George A. DAVIS, Richard DODD, S. M. HOLLAND, Clemon JOHNSON,
>> >Austin MILLER, Thomas MURPHY, Nolan POTTER, Frank REILLY, James
>> >SIMMONS, Royce SKELTON, and Walter WINBORN, according to "Six Seconds
>> >in Dallas." =A0Their statements are in vol. VI (testimony) and XXII (FBI
>> >COWSERT, George A. DAVIS, Richard DODD, S. M. HOLLAND, Clemon JOHNSON,
>> >Austin MILLER, Thomas MURPHY, Nolan POTTER, Frank REILLY, James
>> >SIMMONS, Royce SKELTON, and Walter WINBORN, according to "Six Seconds
>> >statements), as well as here:
>>
>> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
>>
>> Hmmm... I failed to see any refutation of what Mark Lane stated...
>>
>> Did I miss something?
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 Lane continued:
>>
>> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
>>
>> Hmmm... I failed to see any refutation of what Mark Lane stated...
>>
>> Did I miss something?
>>
>>
>> >> Not one of the railroad men was called before the
>> >> Warren Commission. However, four were questioned by counsel for the
>> >> Commission and nine by agents of the FBI.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0This is a typical Lane quibble.
>> >> Not one of the railroad men was called before the
>> >> Warren Commission. However, four were questioned by counsel for the
>> >> Commission and nine by agents of the FBI.
>>
>>
>> Again, I fail to see that there's any untruth being told here.
>>
>> Did Mark Lane tell a lie here?
>>
>> >The Commission listed 552
>> >witnesses. =A0Some were heard by the Commissioners, but many others gave
>> Again, I fail to see that there's any untruth being told here.
>>
>> Did Mark Lane tell a lie here?
>>
>> >The Commission listed 552
>> >depositions before one or more WC staff lawyers:
>>
>> > =A0 =A0http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0=
>>
>254a.htm
>>
>> I'm guessing that you don't see any difference between being called in fr=
>ont of
>> the commission, and having your statement taken by someone.
>>
>> That's okay... you have a right to your opinion.
>>
>> But your opinion can't over-ride the historical fact that Mark Lane has s=
>> the commission, and having your statement taken by someone.
>>
>> That's okay... you have a right to your opinion.
>>
>tated.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Holland, Miller, Reilly, and Skelton are li=
>sted there
>> >as WC witnesses, and their testimony appears in volume VI alongside
>> >the testimony of Parkland doctors and Tippit witnesses:
>>
>> > =A0 =A0http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh6.=
>> >as WC witnesses, and their testimony appears in volume VI alongside
>> >the testimony of Parkland doctors and Tippit witnesses:
>>
>htm
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Lane says "not one of the railroad men w=
>as called
>> >before the Warren Commission," but look at the first page of Holland's
>> >testimony:
>>
>> >QUOTE:
>>
>> >Mr. STERN - Mr. Holland, you have received a letter from the
>> >Commission asking you to come and testify today?
>> >Mr. HOLLAND - Yes.
>> >Mr. STERN - As you know, the Commission is inquiring into all of the
>> >facts concerning the assassination of President Kennedy and we want
>> >your evidence concerning what you saw at the time of the assassination
>> >from the place you were standing. May we have, for the record, your
>> >name and residence address?
>>
>> >UNQUOTE
>>
>> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6...
>> >.htm
>>
>> You're kidding, right?
>>
>> You think that "you have received a letter from the Commission asking you=
>> >before the Warren Commission," but look at the first page of Holland's
>> >testimony:
>>
>> >QUOTE:
>>
>> >Mr. STERN - Mr. Holland, you have received a letter from the
>> >Commission asking you to come and testify today?
>> >Mr. HOLLAND - Yes.
>> >Mr. STERN - As you know, the Commission is inquiring into all of the
>> >facts concerning the assassination of President Kennedy and we want
>> >your evidence concerning what you saw at the time of the assassination
>> >from the place you were standing. May we have, for the record, your
>> >name and residence address?
>>
>> >UNQUOTE
>>
>> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6...
>> >.htm
>>
>> You're kidding, right?
>>
> to
>> come and testify today?" is evidence that he actually testified before th=
>e
>> Commission?
>>
>> I wonder what you'll assert that Marina did...
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Holland was without doubt a "knoll witness," as were se=
>> Commission?
>>
>> I wonder what you'll assert that Marina did...
>>
>veral
>> >others on the railroad overpass. =A0I'm not disputing that. =A0I'm
>> >complaining about Lane's methods.
>>
>> I'm still waiting for you to produce a lie on the part of Mark Lane.
>>
>> Where is it?
>>
>> Did I miss it?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Lane continued:
>>
>> I'm still waiting for you to produce a lie on the part of Mark Lane.
>>
>> Where is it?
>>
>> Did I miss it?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Five of them said that shots came from the knoll
>> >> and six others said that when the shots were fired their attention was
>> >> immediately attracted to the knoll. It is worth noting that not one of=
>> >> Five of them said that shots came from the knoll
>> >> and six others said that when the shots were fired their attention was
> the 13
>> >> men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll, said th=
>at he
>> >> thought that the shots came from the Book Depository, while 11 of them
>> >> indicated either explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area abov=
>> >> thought that the shots came from the Book Depository, while 11 of them
>e the
>> >> knoll was where they thought the sniper was."
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 We're into "Mark Lane math" again, because 13 minus 11 =
>> >> knoll was where they thought the sniper was."
>>
>is
>> >two, and there are *at least* three witnesses who did not indicate
>> >either explicitly or implicitly that they thought there was a sniper
>> >on the knoll:
>>
>> >"COWSERT said he has no idea where the shots came from"
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1423.=
>> >two, and there are *at least* three witnesses who did not indicate
>> >either explicitly or implicitly that they thought there was a sniper
>> >on the knoll:
>>
>> >"COWSERT said he has no idea where the shots came from"
>htm
>>
>> >"Mr. DODD advised that his attention remained on President KENNEDY; he
>> >did not look up and did not know where the shots came from."
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1420.=
>>
>> >"Mr. DODD advised that his attention remained on President KENNEDY; he
>> >did not look up and did not know where the shots came from."
>htm
>>
>> Interestingly, even McAdams admits that "Later told Mark Lane she [sic] s=
>aw
>> smoke come from Knoll (RTJ)"http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm
>>
>> You'll find it on page 40 of RTJ.
>>
>> You can view his filmed interview:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DYODZyI=
>> smoke come from Knoll (RTJ)"http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm
>>
>> You'll find it on page 40 of RTJ.
>>
>2qRMw
>>
>> Strangely enough, when you watch the filmed interview, it's quite clear w=
>here
>> Dodd places a shooter. Here's the question: "And did you see anything tha=
>t might
>> indicate to you where the shots came from?"
>>
>> What was Dodd's answer, Jean?
>>
>> Now Jean, a simple question, "yes" or "no" will suffice... Do your figure=
>> indicate to you where the shots came from?"
>>
>> What was Dodd's answer, Jean?
>>
>s add
>> up?
>>
>> Or will you deny what you can hear Dodd saying for yourself?
>>
>> >"Mr. WINBORN stated he was not able to ascertain exactly where the
>> >shots were fired from .."
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1417.=
>> up?
>>
>> Or will you deny what you can hear Dodd saying for yourself?
>>
>> >"Mr. WINBORN stated he was not able to ascertain exactly where the
>> >shots were fired from .."
>htm
>>
>> The part you leave out is what *action* took place. He moved where he cou=
>ld view
>> the Grassy Knoll. While I agree that he's really neither a Knoll or TSBD
>> witness, he *supports* the Grassy Knoll. (as, in a somewhat lesser way, h=
>> the Grassy Knoll. While I agree that he's really neither a Knoll or TSBD
>e'd
>> support shots from the TSBD)
>>
>> But this isn't really relevant... once you've heard Dodd stating himself =
>> support shots from the TSBD)
>>
>where
>> he places a shooter, your math is wrong, and once again, Mark Lane is sho=
>wn to
>> be correct.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 These are the same documents that Lane was using, s=
>o how do
>> >these figures add up?
>>
>> That *is* the question that will be embarrassing for you to answer.
>>
>> You see, I don't have any problems condemning authors if they aren't in a=
>> >these figures add up?
>>
>> That *is* the question that will be embarrassing for you to answer.
>>
>ccord
>> with the facts.
>>
>> Wrone, for example, is a fellow "CT'er", whom I've blasted in the past fo=
>r his
>> lies.
>>
>> I'm sure you're aware of the disdain I have for another CT'er, "Tony Mars=
>h", for
>> his many lies about the evidence.
>>
>> But LNT'ers don't criticize other LNT'ers... although to be fair to Bugli=
>> his many lies about the evidence.
>>
>osi, he
>> actually has. It's rare, however.
>>
>> >> The kooks will again refuse to refute these facts brought up by Mark L=
>> actually has. It's rare, however.
>>
>ane.
>> >> They keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any eviden=
>ce.
>>
>> >> This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the kooks can'=
>t
>> >> refute it.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0So who were these 11 witnesses who "indicate=
>d either
>> >explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above the knoll was
>> >where they thought the sniper was," as Mark Lane claimed?
>>
>> That's a question I'd be interested to see your answer to, Jean. Since I =
>> >explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above the knoll was
>> >where they thought the sniper was," as Mark Lane claimed?
>>
>just
>> blew your Dodd reference out of the water...
>>
>> >Jean
>>
>> Sorry Jean... you're still not making your case.
>>
>> As a simple example - go here:http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
>>
>> Now, which pie chart is accurate?
>>
>> *This* is the same thing you're doing with Mark Lane.
>>
>> You'll have to do much better than this if you want to convince the Ameri=
>> blew your Dodd reference out of the water...
>>
>> >Jean
>>
>> Sorry Jean... you're still not making your case.
>>
>> As a simple example - go here:http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
>>
>> Now, which pie chart is accurate?
>>
>> *This* is the same thing you're doing with Mark Lane.
>>
>can
>> public.
>>
>> It's amusing that you refuse to admit that Bugliosi outright *LIED* about=
> how
>> Carrico described the throat wound, yet you label your quibbles with Mark=
Ben Holmes
May 27, 2012, 8:09:07 PM5/27/12
to
In article <7497e2e4-3b46-48e1...@to5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On May 27, 4:19=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
But, like all the rest of the kooks, he's laying in the background, sniping at a
nit here, a nit there... attacking and insulting other posters while desperately
hoping that no-one is noticing that he can't refute the evidence in this case,
or provide credible explanations for the evidence.
>> > On May 26, 2:25=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > In article <2c790b7e-15d0-4761-abe7-1a11cf329...@n42g2000yqm.googlegr=
>oups.com>,
>> > > Jean says..
>>
>> > > >On May 17, 8:34=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> > > >> "Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower behind=
> the
>> > > >> wooden fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in ar=
>ea were
>> > > >> those standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the m=
>otorcade
>> > > >> approached, 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen were on=
> Ewell
>> > > >COWSERT, George A. DAVIS, Richard DODD, S. M. HOLLAND, Clemon JOHNSO=
>s
>> > > >in Dallas." =A0Their statements are in vol. VI (testimony) and XXII =
>rt_0254a.htm
>>
>> > > I'm guessing that you don't see any difference between being called i=
>as stated.
>>
>> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Holland, Miller, Reilly, and Skelton ar=
> you to
>> > > come and testify today?" is evidence that he actually testified befor=
> was
>> > > >> immediately attracted to the knoll. It is worth noting that not on=
>e of the 13
>> > > >> men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll, sai=
>d that he
>> > > >> thought that the shots came from the Book Depository, while 11 of =
>them
>> > > >> indicated either explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area =
>423.htm
>>
>> > > >"Mr. DODD advised that his attention remained on President KENNEDY; =
>420.htm
>>
>> > > Interestingly, even McAdams admits that "Later told Mark Lane she [si=
>c] saw
>> > > smoke come from Knoll (RTJ)"http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.h=
>DZyI2qRMw
>>
>> > > Strangely enough, when you watch the filmed interview, it's quite cle=
>ar where
>> > > Dodd places a shooter. Here's the question: "And did you see anything=
>417.htm
>>
>> > > The part you leave out is what *action* took place. He moved where he=
> could view
>> > > the Grassy Knoll. While I agree that he's really neither a Knoll or T=
>SBD
>> > > witness, he *supports* the Grassy Knoll. (as, in a somewhat lesser wa=
>elf where
>> > > he places a shooter, your math is wrong, and once again, Mark Lane is=
> shown to
>> > > be correct.
>>
>> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 These are the same documents that Lane was usin=
>t for his
>> > > lies.
>>
>> > > I'm sure you're aware of the disdain I have for another CT'er, "Tony =
>rk Lane.
>> > > >> They keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any ev=
>idence.
>>
>> > > >> This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the kooks =
>can't
>> > > >> refute it.
>>
>> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0So who were these 11 witnesses who "indi=
>merican
>> > > public.
>>
>> > > It's amusing that you refuse to admit that Bugliosi outright *LIED* a=
>bout how
>> > > Carrico described the throat wound, yet you label your quibbles with =
aeffects says...
>
>On May 27, 4:19=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 27, 6:38=A0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Top Post
>>
>> > looking forward to Jean's response...
>>
>> I wouldn`t hold my breath, but maybe you should.
>
>of course you wouldn't, you're immaterial here and at .john's. Carry
>on troll!
If this kook had any guts, he'd try to help Jean out.
>>
>> > Top Post
>>
>> > looking forward to Jean's response...
>>
>> I wouldn`t hold my breath, but maybe you should.
>
>of course you wouldn't, you're immaterial here and at .john's. Carry
>on troll!
But, like all the rest of the kooks, he's laying in the background, sniping at a
nit here, a nit there... attacking and insulting other posters while desperately
hoping that no-one is noticing that he can't refute the evidence in this case,
or provide credible explanations for the evidence.
>> > On May 26, 2:25=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > In article <2c790b7e-15d0-4761-abe7-1a11cf329...@n42g2000yqm.googlegr=
>oups.com>,
>> > > Jean says..
>>
>> > > >On May 17, 8:34=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> > > >> "Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower behind=
> the
>> > > >> wooden fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-in ar=
>ea were
>> > > >> those standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As the m=
>otorcade
>> > > >> approached, 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen were on=
> the
>> > > >> railroad bridge; the knoll was just to their left.
>>
>> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The 13 railroad employees are Curtis BISHOP,=
>> > > >> railroad bridge; the knoll was just to their left.
>>
> Ewell
>> > > >COWSERT, George A. DAVIS, Richard DODD, S. M. HOLLAND, Clemon JOHNSO=
>N,
>> > > >Austin MILLER, Thomas MURPHY, Nolan POTTER, Frank REILLY, James
>> > > >SIMMONS, Royce SKELTON, and Walter WINBORN, according to "Six Second=
>> > > >Austin MILLER, Thomas MURPHY, Nolan POTTER, Frank REILLY, James
>s
>> > > >in Dallas." =A0Their statements are in vol. VI (testimony) and XXII =
>(FBI
>> > > >statements), as well as here:
>>
>> > > >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
>>
>> > > Hmmm... I failed to see any refutation of what Mark Lane stated...
>>
>> > > Did I miss something?
>>
>> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 Lane continued:
>> > > >statements), as well as here:
>>
>> > > >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
>>
>> > > Hmmm... I failed to see any refutation of what Mark Lane stated...
>>
>> > > Did I miss something?
>>
>>
>> > > >> Not one of the railroad men was called before the
>> > > >> Warren Commission. However, four were questioned by counsel for th=
>> > > >> Not one of the railroad men was called before the
>e
>> > > >> Commission and nine by agents of the FBI.
>>
>> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0This is a typical Lane quibble.
>> > > >> Commission and nine by agents of the FBI.
>>
>>
>> > > Again, I fail to see that there's any untruth being told here.
>>
>> > > Did Mark Lane tell a lie here?
>>
>> > > >The Commission listed 552
>> > > >witnesses. =A0Some were heard by the Commissioners, but many others =
>> > > Again, I fail to see that there's any untruth being told here.
>>
>> > > Did Mark Lane tell a lie here?
>>
>> > > >The Commission listed 552
>gave
>> > > >depositions before one or more WC staff lawyers:
>>
>> > > > =A0 =A0http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCRepo=
>> > > >depositions before one or more WC staff lawyers:
>>
>rt_0254a.htm
>>
>> > > I'm guessing that you don't see any difference between being called i=
>n front of
>> > > the commission, and having your statement taken by someone.
>>
>> > > That's okay... you have a right to your opinion.
>>
>> > > But your opinion can't over-ride the historical fact that Mark Lane h=
>> > > the commission, and having your statement taken by someone.
>>
>> > > That's okay... you have a right to your opinion.
>>
>as stated.
>>
>> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Holland, Miller, Reilly, and Skelton ar=
>e listed there
>> > > >as WC witnesses, and their testimony appears in volume VI alongside
>> > > >the testimony of Parkland doctors and Tippit witnesses:
>>
>> > > > =A0 =A0http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_=
>> > > >as WC witnesses, and their testimony appears in volume VI alongside
>> > > >the testimony of Parkland doctors and Tippit witnesses:
>>
>wh6.htm
>>
>> > > > Lane says "not one of the railroad men was called
>> > > >before the Warren Commission," but look at the first page of Holland=
>>
>> > > > Lane says "not one of the railroad men was called
>'s
>> > > >testimony:
>>
>> > > >QUOTE:
>>
>> > > >Mr. STERN - Mr. Holland, you have received a letter from the
>> > > >Commission asking you to come and testify today?
>> > > >Mr. HOLLAND - Yes.
>> > > >Mr. STERN - As you know, the Commission is inquiring into all of the
>> > > >facts concerning the assassination of President Kennedy and we want
>> > > >your evidence concerning what you saw at the time of the assassinati=
>> > > >testimony:
>>
>> > > >QUOTE:
>>
>> > > >Mr. STERN - Mr. Holland, you have received a letter from the
>> > > >Commission asking you to come and testify today?
>> > > >Mr. HOLLAND - Yes.
>> > > >Mr. STERN - As you know, the Commission is inquiring into all of the
>> > > >facts concerning the assassination of President Kennedy and we want
>on
>> > > >from the place you were standing. May we have, for the record, your
>> > > >name and residence address?
>>
>> > > >UNQUOTE
>>
>> > > >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol=
>> > > >from the place you were standing. May we have, for the record, your
>> > > >name and residence address?
>>
>> > > >UNQUOTE
>>
>6...
>> > > >.htm
>>
>> > > You're kidding, right?
>>
>> > > You think that "you have received a letter from the Commission asking=
>> > > >.htm
>>
>> > > You're kidding, right?
>>
> you to
>> > > come and testify today?" is evidence that he actually testified befor=
>e the
>> > > Commission?
>>
>> > > I wonder what you'll assert that Marina did...
>>
>> > > > Holland was without doubt a "knoll witness," as were several
>> > > >others on the railroad overpass. =A0I'm not disputing that. =A0I'm
>> > > Commission?
>>
>> > > I wonder what you'll assert that Marina did...
>>
>> > > > Holland was without doubt a "knoll witness," as were several
>> > > >complaining about Lane's methods.
>>
>> > > I'm still waiting for you to produce a lie on the part of Mark Lane.
>>
>> > > Where is it?
>>
>> > > Did I miss it?
>>
>> > > > Lane continued:
>>
>> > > >> Five of them said that shots came from the knoll
>> > > >> and six others said that when the shots were fired their attention=
>>
>> > > I'm still waiting for you to produce a lie on the part of Mark Lane.
>>
>> > > Where is it?
>>
>> > > Did I miss it?
>>
>> > > > Lane continued:
>>
>> > > >> Five of them said that shots came from the knoll
> was
>> > > >> immediately attracted to the knoll. It is worth noting that not on=
>e of the 13
>> > > >> men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll, sai=
>d that he
>> > > >> thought that the shots came from the Book Depository, while 11 of =
>them
>> > > >> indicated either explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area =
>above the
>> > > >> knoll was where they thought the sniper was."
>>
>> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 We're into "Mark Lane math" again, because 13 minus=
>> > > >> knoll was where they thought the sniper was."
>>
> 11 is
>> > > >two, and there are *at least* three witnesses who did not indicate
>> > > >either explicitly or implicitly that they thought there was a sniper
>> > > >on the knoll:
>>
>> > > >"COWSERT said he has no idea where the shots came from"
>> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1=
>> > > >two, and there are *at least* three witnesses who did not indicate
>> > > >either explicitly or implicitly that they thought there was a sniper
>> > > >on the knoll:
>>
>> > > >"COWSERT said he has no idea where the shots came from"
>423.htm
>>
>> > > >"Mr. DODD advised that his attention remained on President KENNEDY; =
>he
>> > > >did not look up and did not know where the shots came from."
>> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1=
>> > > >did not look up and did not know where the shots came from."
>420.htm
>>
>> > > Interestingly, even McAdams admits that "Later told Mark Lane she [si=
>c] saw
>> > > smoke come from Knoll (RTJ)"http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.h=
>tm
>>
>> > > You'll find it on page 40 of RTJ.
>>
>> > > You can view his filmed interview:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DYO=
>>
>> > > You'll find it on page 40 of RTJ.
>>
>DZyI2qRMw
>>
>> > > Strangely enough, when you watch the filmed interview, it's quite cle=
>ar where
>> > > Dodd places a shooter. Here's the question: "And did you see anything=
> that might
>> > > indicate to you where the shots came from?"
>>
>> > > What was Dodd's answer, Jean?
>>
>> > > Now Jean, a simple question, "yes" or "no" will suffice... Do your fi=
>> > > indicate to you where the shots came from?"
>>
>> > > What was Dodd's answer, Jean?
>>
>gures add
>> > > up?
>>
>> > > Or will you deny what you can hear Dodd saying for yourself?
>>
>> > > >"Mr. WINBORN stated he was not able to ascertain exactly where the
>> > > >shots were fired from .."
>> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1=
>> > > up?
>>
>> > > Or will you deny what you can hear Dodd saying for yourself?
>>
>> > > >"Mr. WINBORN stated he was not able to ascertain exactly where the
>> > > >shots were fired from .."
>417.htm
>>
>> > > The part you leave out is what *action* took place. He moved where he=
> could view
>> > > the Grassy Knoll. While I agree that he's really neither a Knoll or T=
>SBD
>> > > witness, he *supports* the Grassy Knoll. (as, in a somewhat lesser wa=
>y, he'd
>> > > support shots from the TSBD)
>>
>> > > But this isn't really relevant... once you've heard Dodd stating hims=
>> > > support shots from the TSBD)
>>
>elf where
>> > > he places a shooter, your math is wrong, and once again, Mark Lane is=
> shown to
>> > > be correct.
>>
>> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 These are the same documents that Lane was usin=
>g, so how do
>> > > >these figures add up?
>>
>> > > That *is* the question that will be embarrassing for you to answer.
>>
>> > > You see, I don't have any problems condemning authors if they aren't =
>> > > >these figures add up?
>>
>> > > That *is* the question that will be embarrassing for you to answer.
>>
>in accord
>> > > with the facts.
>>
>> > > Wrone, for example, is a fellow "CT'er", whom I've blasted in the pas=
>> > > with the facts.
>>
>t for his
>> > > lies.
>>
>> > > I'm sure you're aware of the disdain I have for another CT'er, "Tony =
>Marsh", for
>> > > his many lies about the evidence.
>>
>> > > But LNT'ers don't criticize other LNT'ers... although to be fair to B=
>> > > his many lies about the evidence.
>>
>ugliosi, he
>> > > actually has. It's rare, however.
>>
>> > > >> The kooks will again refuse to refute these facts brought up by Ma=
>> > > actually has. It's rare, however.
>>
>rk Lane.
>> > > >> They keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce any ev=
>idence.
>>
>> > > >> This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the kooks =
>can't
>> > > >> refute it.
>>
>> > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0So who were these 11 witnesses who "indi=
>cated either
>> > > >explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above the knoll was
>> > > >where they thought the sniper was," as Mark Lane claimed?
>>
>> > > That's a question I'd be interested to see your answer to, Jean. Sinc=
>> > > >explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above the knoll was
>> > > >where they thought the sniper was," as Mark Lane claimed?
>>
>e I just
>> > > blew your Dodd reference out of the water...
>>
>> > > >Jean
>>
>> > > Sorry Jean... you're still not making your case.
>>
>> > > As a simple example - go here:http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
>>
>> > > Now, which pie chart is accurate?
>>
>> > > *This* is the same thing you're doing with Mark Lane.
>>
>> > > You'll have to do much better than this if you want to convince the A=
>> > > blew your Dodd reference out of the water...
>>
>> > > >Jean
>>
>> > > Sorry Jean... you're still not making your case.
>>
>> > > As a simple example - go here:http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
>>
>> > > Now, which pie chart is accurate?
>>
>> > > *This* is the same thing you're doing with Mark Lane.
>>
>merican
>> > > public.
>>
>> > > It's amusing that you refuse to admit that Bugliosi outright *LIED* a=
>bout how
>> > > Carrico described the throat wound, yet you label your quibbles with =
Bud
May 28, 2012, 12:40:00 AM5/28/12
to
On May 27, 8:09 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <7497e2e4-3b46-48e1-8ee5-871bcd7cb...@to5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> But, like all the rest of the kooks, he's laying in the background, sniping at a
> nit here, a nit there...
Lane is constantly and consistently being dishonest with his
readers. They don`t mind because they are mostly they are like
yourself, conspiracy retards with no critical thinking skills.
>attacking and insulting other posters
It`s likely you`ve driven Jean off with your insults, dope.
>while desperately
> hoping that no-one is noticing that he can't refute the evidence in this case,
> or provide credible explanations for the evidence.
What is this whole exercise but a misdirection so nobody will notice
your complete failure to put something on the table that explains this
event? You claim Doug Horne has done this but that must be a lie,
because if he did you would be putting *that* up instead of nitpicking
this stuff.
> In article <7497e2e4-3b46-48e1-8ee5-871bcd7cb...@to5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
>
>
> >On May 27, 4:19=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> On May 27, 6:38=A0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Top Post
>
> >> > looking forward to Jean's response...
>
> >> I wouldn`t hold my breath, but maybe you should.
>
> >of course you wouldn't, you're immaterial here and at .john's. Carry
> >on troll!
>
> If this kook had any guts, he'd try to help Jean out.
Ah idiot, you have me killfiled.
>
>
>
> >On May 27, 4:19=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> On May 27, 6:38=A0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Top Post
>
> >> > looking forward to Jean's response...
>
> >> I wouldn`t hold my breath, but maybe you should.
>
> >of course you wouldn't, you're immaterial here and at .john's. Carry
> >on troll!
>
> If this kook had any guts, he'd try to help Jean out.
> But, like all the rest of the kooks, he's laying in the background, sniping at a
> nit here, a nit there...
readers. They don`t mind because they are mostly they are like
yourself, conspiracy retards with no critical thinking skills.
>attacking and insulting other posters
>while desperately
> hoping that no-one is noticing that he can't refute the evidence in this case,
> or provide credible explanations for the evidence.
your complete failure to put something on the table that explains this
event? You claim Doug Horne has done this but that must be a lie,
because if he did you would be putting *that* up instead of nitpicking
this stuff.
aeffects
May 28, 2012, 12:51:35 AM5/28/12
to
On May 27, 9:40 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On May 27, 8:09 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <7497e2e4-3b46-48e1-8ee5-871bcd7cb...@to5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > aeffects says...
>
> > >On May 27, 4:19=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > >> On May 27, 6:38=A0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > Top Post
>
> > >> > looking forward to Jean's response...
>
> > >> I wouldn`t hold my breath, but maybe you should.
>
> > >of course you wouldn't, you're immaterial here and at .john's. Carry
> > >on troll!
>
> > If this kook had any guts, he'd try to help Jean out.
>
> Ah idiot, you have me killfiled.
>
> > But, like all the rest of the kooks, he's laying in the background, sniping at a
> > nit here, a nit there...
>
> Lane is constantly and consistently being dishonest with his
> readers. They don`t mind because they are mostly they are like
> yourself, conspiracy retards with no critical thinking skills.
>
> >attacking and insulting other posters
>
> It`s likely you`ve driven Jean off with your insults, dope.
sitdown worthless.... I suspect Jean can speak for herself. In the
> On May 27, 8:09 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <7497e2e4-3b46-48e1-8ee5-871bcd7cb...@to5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > aeffects says...
>
> > >On May 27, 4:19=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > >> On May 27, 6:38=A0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > Top Post
>
> > >> > looking forward to Jean's response...
>
> > >> I wouldn`t hold my breath, but maybe you should.
>
> > >of course you wouldn't, you're immaterial here and at .john's. Carry
> > >on troll!
>
> > If this kook had any guts, he'd try to help Jean out.
>
> Ah idiot, you have me killfiled.
>
> > But, like all the rest of the kooks, he's laying in the background, sniping at a
> > nit here, a nit there...
>
> Lane is constantly and consistently being dishonest with his
> readers. They don`t mind because they are mostly they are like
> yourself, conspiracy retards with no critical thinking skills.
>
> >attacking and insulting other posters
>
> It`s likely you`ve driven Jean off with your insults, dope.
event she can't, you won't earn .john points for your misguided
assistance.
>
> read more »
Bud
May 28, 2012, 1:10:24 AM5/28/12
to
On May 28, 12:51 am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 9:40 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 27, 8:09 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article <7497e2e4-3b46-48e1-8ee5-871bcd7cb...@to5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > aeffects says...
>
> > > >On May 27, 4:19=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > >> On May 27, 6:38=A0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > Top Post
>
> > > >> > looking forward to Jean's response...
>
> > > >> I wouldn`t hold my breath, but maybe you should.
>
> > > >of course you wouldn't, you're immaterial here and at .john's. Carry
> > > >on troll!
>
> > > If this kook had any guts, he'd try to help Jean out.
>
> > Ah idiot, you have me killfiled.
>
> > > But, like all the rest of the kooks, he's laying in the background, sniping at a
> > > nit here, a nit there...
>
> > Lane is constantly and consistently being dishonest with his
> > readers. They don`t mind because they are mostly they are like
> > yourself, conspiracy retards with no critical thinking skills.
>
> > >attacking and insulting other posters
>
> > It`s likely you`ve driven Jean off with your insults, dope.
>
> sitdown worthless.... I suspect Jean can speak for herself.
I suspect Jean is done with Ben. She told him he had to keep it
> On May 27, 9:40 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 27, 8:09 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article <7497e2e4-3b46-48e1-8ee5-871bcd7cb...@to5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > aeffects says...
>
> > > >On May 27, 4:19=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > >> On May 27, 6:38=A0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > Top Post
>
> > > >> > looking forward to Jean's response...
>
> > > >> I wouldn`t hold my breath, but maybe you should.
>
> > > >of course you wouldn't, you're immaterial here and at .john's. Carry
> > > >on troll!
>
> > > If this kook had any guts, he'd try to help Jean out.
>
> > Ah idiot, you have me killfiled.
>
> > > But, like all the rest of the kooks, he's laying in the background, sniping at a
> > > nit here, a nit there...
>
> > Lane is constantly and consistently being dishonest with his
> > readers. They don`t mind because they are mostly they are like
> > yourself, conspiracy retards with no critical thinking skills.
>
> > >attacking and insulting other posters
>
> > It`s likely you`ve driven Jean off with your insults, dope.
>
> sitdown worthless.... I suspect Jean can speak for herself.
civil. He called her a liar. Naturally I need to spell this out to
you, since you and Ben are dopes awaiting Jean`s response.
>
> read more »
Ben Holmes
May 28, 2012, 10:59:37 AM5/28/12
to
In article <204fb463-d872-4fde...@re8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On May 27, 9:40=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 27, 8:09=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <7497e2e4-3b46-48e1-8ee5-871bcd7cb...@to5g2000pbc.googlegrou=
>ps.com>,
>> > aeffects says...
>>
>> > >On May 27, 4:19=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > But, like all the rest of the kooks, he's laying in the background, sni=
until Tuesday.
I note that "Bud" couldn't help Jean out with this post...
>> >while desperately
>> > hoping that no-one is noticing that he can't refute the evidence in thi=
>> > >> > On May 26, 2:25=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > > In article <2c790b7e-15d0-4761-abe7-1a11cf329...@n42g2000yqm.goo=
>glegr=3D
>> > >oups.com>,
>> > >> > > Jean says..
>>
>> > >> > > >On May 17, 8:34=3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> w=
>rote:
>> > >> > > >> "Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower b=
>ehind=3D
>> > > the
>> > >> > > >> wooden fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-=
>in ar=3D
>> > >ea were
>> > >> > > >> those standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As =
>the m=3D
>> > >otorcade
>> > >> > > >> approached, 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen we=
>re on=3D
>re Curtis BISHOP,=3D
>> > > Ewell
>> > >> > > >COWSERT, George A. DAVIS, Richard DODD, S. M. HOLLAND, Clemon J=
>OHNSO=3D
>econd=3D
>> > >s
>> > >> > > >in Dallas." =3DA0Their statements are in vol. VI (testimony) an=
>d XXII =3D
>..
>>
>> > >> > > Did I miss something?
>>
>> > >> > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Lane continued:
>or th=3D
>others =3D
>ml/WCRepo=3D
>> > >rt_0254a.htm
>>
>> > >> > > I'm guessing that you don't see any difference between being cal=
>led i=3D
>ane h=3D
>> > >as stated.
>>
>> > >> > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Holland, Miller, Rei=
>lly, and Skelton ar=3D
>> > >e listed there
>> > >> > > >as WC witnesses, and their testimony appears in volume VI along=
>contents_=3D
>lland=3D
>f the
>> > >> > > >facts concerning the assassination of President Kennedy and we =
>want
>> > >> > > >your evidence concerning what you saw at the time of the assass=
>inati=3D
>> > >on
>> > >> > > >from the place you were standing. May we have, for the record, =
>C_Vol=3D
>sking=3D
>> > > you to
>> > >> > > come and testify today?" is evidence that he actually testified =
>befor=3D
>=3DA0I'm
>ntion=3D
>> > > was
>> > >> > > >> immediately attracted to the knoll. It is worth noting that n=
>ot on=3D
>> > >e of the 13
>> > >> > > >> men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll=
>, sai=3D
>> > >d that he
>> > >> > > >> thought that the shots came from the Book Depository, while 1=
>1 of =3D
>> > >them
>> > >> > > >> indicated either explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in =
>area =3D
>ause 13 minus=3D
>> > > 11 is
>> > >> > > >two, and there are *at least* three witnesses who did not indic=
>ate
>> > >> > > >either explicitly or implicitly that they thought there was a s=
>russ/exhibits/ce1=3D
>> > >423.htm
>>
>> > >> > > >"Mr. DODD advised that his attention remained on President KENN=
>EDY; =3D
>russ/exhibits/ce1=3D
>> > >420.htm
>>
>> > >> > > Interestingly, even McAdams admits that "Later told Mark Lane sh=
>e [si=3D
>> > >c] saw
>> > >> > > smoke come from Knoll (RTJ)"http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnes=
>ses.h=3D
>> > >DZyI2qRMw
>>
>> > >> > > Strangely enough, when you watch the filmed interview, it's quit=
>e cle=3D
>> > >ar where
>> > >> > > Dodd places a shooter. Here's the question: "And did you see any=
>thing=3D
>ur fi=3D
>russ/exhibits/ce1=3D
>> > >417.htm
>>
>> > >> > > The part you leave out is what *action* took place. He moved whe=
>re he=3D
>> > > could view
>> > >> > > the Grassy Knoll. While I agree that he's really neither a Knoll=
> or T=3D
>> > >SBD
>> > >> > > witness, he *supports* the Grassy Knoll. (as, in a somewhat less=
>er wa=3D
> hims=3D
>> > >elf where
>> > >> > > he places a shooter, your math is wrong, and once again, Mark La=
>ne is=3D
>> > > shown to
>> > >> > > be correct.
>>
>> > >> > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 These are the same documents tha=
>t Lane was usin=3D
>er.
>>
>> > >> > > You see, I don't have any problems condemning authors if they ar=
>en't =3D
>e pas=3D
>> > >t for his
>> > >> > > lies.
>>
>> > >> > > I'm sure you're aware of the disdain I have for another CT'er, "=
>Tony =3D
> to B=3D
>by Ma=3D
>> > >rk Lane.
>> > >> > > >> They keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce a=
>ny ev=3D
>> > >idence.
>>
>> > >> > > >> This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the k=
>ooks =3D
>> > >can't
>> > >> > > >> refute it.
>>
>> > >> > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0So who were these 11 =
>witnesses who "indi=3D
>> > >cated either
>> > >> > > >explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above the knol=
aeffects says...
>
>On May 27, 9:40=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 27, 8:09=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <7497e2e4-3b46-48e1-8ee5-871bcd7cb...@to5g2000pbc.googlegrou=
>ps.com>,
>> > aeffects says...
>>
>> > >On May 27, 4:19=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > >> On May 27, 6:38=3DA0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > Top Post
>>
>> > >> > looking forward to Jean's response...
>>
>> > >> I wouldn`t hold my breath, but maybe you should.
>>
>> > >of course you wouldn't, you're immaterial here and at .john's. Carry
>> > >on troll!
>>
>> > If this kook had any guts, he'd try to help Jean out.
>>
>> =A0 Ah idiot, you have me killfiled.
>>
>> > >> > Top Post
>>
>> > >> > looking forward to Jean's response...
>>
>> > >> I wouldn`t hold my breath, but maybe you should.
>>
>> > >of course you wouldn't, you're immaterial here and at .john's. Carry
>> > >on troll!
>>
>> > If this kook had any guts, he'd try to help Jean out.
>>
>>
>> > But, like all the rest of the kooks, he's laying in the background, sni=
>ping at a
>> > nit here, a nit there...
>>
>> =A0 Lane is constantly and consistently being dishonest with his
>> > nit here, a nit there...
>>
>> readers. They don`t mind because they are mostly they are like
>> yourself, conspiracy retards with no critical thinking skills.
>>
>> >attacking and insulting other posters
>>
>> =A0 It`s likely you`ve driven Jean off with your insults, dope.
>> yourself, conspiracy retards with no critical thinking skills.
>>
>> >attacking and insulting other posters
>>
>
>sitdown worthless.... I suspect Jean can speak for herself. In the
>event she can't, you won't earn .john points for your misguided
>assistance.
If Jean ran away, it's because of *this* post. But I think it only fair to wait
>sitdown worthless.... I suspect Jean can speak for herself. In the
>event she can't, you won't earn .john points for your misguided
>assistance.
until Tuesday.
I note that "Bud" couldn't help Jean out with this post...
>> >while desperately
>> > hoping that no-one is noticing that he can't refute the evidence in thi=
>s case,
>> > or provide credible explanations for the evidence.
>>
>> =A0 What is this whole exercise but a misdirection so nobody will notice
>> > or provide credible explanations for the evidence.
>>
>> your complete failure to put something on the table that explains this
>> event? You claim Doug Horne has done this but that must be a lie,
>> because if he did you would be putting *that* up instead of nitpicking
>> this stuff.
What's 13 minus 11, kook?
>> event? You claim Doug Horne has done this but that must be a lie,
>> because if he did you would be putting *that* up instead of nitpicking
>> this stuff.
>> > >> > On May 26, 2:25=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > > In article <2c790b7e-15d0-4761-abe7-1a11cf329...@n42g2000yqm.goo=
>glegr=3D
>> > >oups.com>,
>> > >> > > Jean says..
>>
>> > >> > > >On May 17, 8:34=3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> w=
>rote:
>> > >> > > >> "Except for Lee Bowers, who surveyed the scene from a tower b=
>ehind=3D
>> > > the
>> > >> > > >> wooden fence, the witnesses with the best view of the fenced-=
>in ar=3D
>> > >ea were
>> > >> > > >> those standing above Elm Street on the railroad overpass. As =
>the m=3D
>> > >otorcade
>> > >> > > >> approached, 13 railroad employees and two Dallas policemen we=
>re on=3D
>> > > the
>> > >> > > >> railroad bridge; the knoll was just to their left.
>>
>> > >> > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0The 13 railroad employees a=
>> > >> > > >> railroad bridge; the knoll was just to their left.
>>
>re Curtis BISHOP,=3D
>> > > Ewell
>> > >> > > >COWSERT, George A. DAVIS, Richard DODD, S. M. HOLLAND, Clemon J=
>OHNSO=3D
>> > >N,
>> > >> > > >Austin MILLER, Thomas MURPHY, Nolan POTTER, Frank REILLY, James
>> > >> > > >SIMMONS, Royce SKELTON, and Walter WINBORN, according to "Six S=
>> > >> > > >Austin MILLER, Thomas MURPHY, Nolan POTTER, Frank REILLY, James
>econd=3D
>> > >s
>> > >> > > >in Dallas." =3DA0Their statements are in vol. VI (testimony) an=
>d XXII =3D
>> > >(FBI
>> > >> > > >statements), as well as here:
>>
>> > >> > > >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
>>
>> > >> > > Hmmm... I failed to see any refutation of what Mark Lane stated.=
>> > >> > > >statements), as well as here:
>>
>> > >> > > >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
>>
>..
>>
>> > >> > > Did I miss something?
>>
>> > >> > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Lane continued:
>>
>> > >> > > >> Not one of the railroad men was called before the
>> > >> > > >> Warren Commission. However, four were questioned by counsel f=
>> > >> > > >> Not one of the railroad men was called before the
>or th=3D
>> > >e
>> > >> > > >> Commission and nine by agents of the FBI.
>>
>> > >> > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0This is a typical Lane quib=
>> > >> > > >> Commission and nine by agents of the FBI.
>>
>ble.
>>
>> > >> > > Again, I fail to see that there's any untruth being told here.
>>
>> > >> > > Did Mark Lane tell a lie here?
>>
>> > >> > > >The Commission listed 552
>> > >> > > >witnesses. =3DA0Some were heard by the Commissioners, but many =
>>
>> > >> > > Again, I fail to see that there's any untruth being told here.
>>
>> > >> > > Did Mark Lane tell a lie here?
>>
>> > >> > > >The Commission listed 552
>others =3D
>> > >gave
>> > >> > > >depositions before one or more WC staff lawyers:
>>
>> > >> > > > =3DA0 =3DA0http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/ht=
>> > >> > > >depositions before one or more WC staff lawyers:
>>
>ml/WCRepo=3D
>> > >rt_0254a.htm
>>
>> > >> > > I'm guessing that you don't see any difference between being cal=
>led i=3D
>> > >n front of
>> > >> > > the commission, and having your statement taken by someone.
>>
>> > >> > > That's okay... you have a right to your opinion.
>>
>> > >> > > But your opinion can't over-ride the historical fact that Mark L=
>> > >> > > the commission, and having your statement taken by someone.
>>
>> > >> > > That's okay... you have a right to your opinion.
>>
>ane h=3D
>> > >as stated.
>>
>> > >> > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Holland, Miller, Rei=
>lly, and Skelton ar=3D
>> > >e listed there
>> > >> > > >as WC witnesses, and their testimony appears in volume VI along=
>side
>> > >> > > >the testimony of Parkland doctors and Tippit witnesses:
>>
>> > >> > > > =3DA0 =3DA0http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/=
>> > >> > > >the testimony of Parkland doctors and Tippit witnesses:
>>
>contents_=3D
>> > >wh6.htm
>>
>> > >> > > > Lane says "not one of the railroad men was called
>> > >> > > >before the Warren Commission," but look at the first page of Ho=
>>
>> > >> > > > Lane says "not one of the railroad men was called
>lland=3D
>> > >'s
>> > >> > > >testimony:
>>
>> > >> > > >QUOTE:
>>
>> > >> > > >Mr. STERN - Mr. Holland, you have received a letter from the
>> > >> > > >Commission asking you to come and testify today?
>> > >> > > >Mr. HOLLAND - Yes.
>> > >> > > >Mr. STERN - As you know, the Commission is inquiring into all o=
>> > >> > > >testimony:
>>
>> > >> > > >QUOTE:
>>
>> > >> > > >Mr. STERN - Mr. Holland, you have received a letter from the
>> > >> > > >Commission asking you to come and testify today?
>> > >> > > >Mr. HOLLAND - Yes.
>f the
>> > >> > > >facts concerning the assassination of President Kennedy and we =
>want
>> > >> > > >your evidence concerning what you saw at the time of the assass=
>inati=3D
>> > >on
>> > >> > > >from the place you were standing. May we have, for the record, =
>your
>> > >> > > >name and residence address?
>>
>> > >> > > >UNQUOTE
>>
>> > >> > > >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/W=
>> > >> > > >name and residence address?
>>
>> > >> > > >UNQUOTE
>>
>C_Vol=3D
>> > >6...
>> > >> > > >.htm
>>
>> > >> > > You're kidding, right?
>>
>> > >> > > You think that "you have received a letter from the Commission a=
>> > >> > > >.htm
>>
>> > >> > > You're kidding, right?
>>
>sking=3D
>> > > you to
>> > >> > > come and testify today?" is evidence that he actually testified =
>befor=3D
>> > >e the
>> > >> > > Commission?
>>
>> > >> > > I wonder what you'll assert that Marina did...
>>
>> > >> > > > Holland was without doubt a "knoll witness," as were several
>> > >> > > >others on the railroad overpass. =3DA0I'm not disputing that. =
>> > >> > > Commission?
>>
>> > >> > > I wonder what you'll assert that Marina did...
>>
>> > >> > > > Holland was without doubt a "knoll witness," as were several
>=3DA0I'm
>> > >> > > >complaining about Lane's methods.
>>
>> > >> > > I'm still waiting for you to produce a lie on the part of Mark L=
>>
>ane.
>>
>> > >> > > Where is it?
>>
>> > >> > > Did I miss it?
>>
>> > >> > > > Lane continued:
>>
>> > >> > > >> Five of them said that shots came from the knoll
>> > >> > > >> and six others said that when the shots were fired their atte=
>>
>> > >> > > Where is it?
>>
>> > >> > > Did I miss it?
>>
>> > >> > > > Lane continued:
>>
>> > >> > > >> Five of them said that shots came from the knoll
>ntion=3D
>> > > was
>> > >> > > >> immediately attracted to the knoll. It is worth noting that n=
>ot on=3D
>> > >e of the 13
>> > >> > > >> men, who were among the witnesses closest to the grassy knoll=
>, sai=3D
>> > >d that he
>> > >> > > >> thought that the shots came from the Book Depository, while 1=
>1 of =3D
>> > >them
>> > >> > > >> indicated either explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in =
>area =3D
>> > >above the
>> > >> > > >> knoll was where they thought the sniper was."
>>
>> > >> > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 We're into "Mark Lane math" again, bec=
>> > >> > > >> knoll was where they thought the sniper was."
>>
>ause 13 minus=3D
>> > > 11 is
>> > >> > > >two, and there are *at least* three witnesses who did not indic=
>ate
>> > >> > > >either explicitly or implicitly that they thought there was a s=
>niper
>> > >> > > >on the knoll:
>>
>> > >> > > >"COWSERT said he has no idea where the shots came from"
>> > >> > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/=
>> > >> > > >on the knoll:
>>
>> > >> > > >"COWSERT said he has no idea where the shots came from"
>russ/exhibits/ce1=3D
>> > >423.htm
>>
>> > >> > > >"Mr. DODD advised that his attention remained on President KENN=
>EDY; =3D
>> > >he
>> > >> > > >did not look up and did not know where the shots came from."
>> > >> > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/=
>> > >> > > >did not look up and did not know where the shots came from."
>russ/exhibits/ce1=3D
>> > >420.htm
>>
>> > >> > > Interestingly, even McAdams admits that "Later told Mark Lane sh=
>e [si=3D
>> > >c] saw
>> > >> > > smoke come from Knoll (RTJ)"http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnes=
>ses.h=3D
>> > >tm
>>
>> > >> > > You'll find it on page 40 of RTJ.
>>
>> > >> > > You can view his filmed interview:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
>=3D3DYO=3D
>>
>> > >> > > You'll find it on page 40 of RTJ.
>>
>> > >> > > You can view his filmed interview:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
>> > >DZyI2qRMw
>>
>> > >> > > Strangely enough, when you watch the filmed interview, it's quit=
>e cle=3D
>> > >ar where
>> > >> > > Dodd places a shooter. Here's the question: "And did you see any=
>thing=3D
>> > > that might
>> > >> > > indicate to you where the shots came from?"
>>
>> > >> > > What was Dodd's answer, Jean?
>>
>> > >> > > Now Jean, a simple question, "yes" or "no" will suffice... Do yo=
>> > >> > > indicate to you where the shots came from?"
>>
>> > >> > > What was Dodd's answer, Jean?
>>
>ur fi=3D
>> > >gures add
>> > >> > > up?
>>
>> > >> > > Or will you deny what you can hear Dodd saying for yourself?
>>
>> > >> > > >"Mr. WINBORN stated he was not able to ascertain exactly where =
>> > >> > > up?
>>
>> > >> > > Or will you deny what you can hear Dodd saying for yourself?
>>
>the
>> > >> > > >shots were fired from .."
>> > >> > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/=
>> > >> > > >shots were fired from .."
>russ/exhibits/ce1=3D
>> > >417.htm
>>
>> > >> > > The part you leave out is what *action* took place. He moved whe=
>re he=3D
>> > > could view
>> > >> > > the Grassy Knoll. While I agree that he's really neither a Knoll=
> or T=3D
>> > >SBD
>> > >> > > witness, he *supports* the Grassy Knoll. (as, in a somewhat less=
>er wa=3D
>> > >y, he'd
>> > >> > > support shots from the TSBD)
>>
>> > >> > > But this isn't really relevant... once you've heard Dodd stating=
>> > >> > > support shots from the TSBD)
>>
> hims=3D
>> > >elf where
>> > >> > > he places a shooter, your math is wrong, and once again, Mark La=
>ne is=3D
>> > > shown to
>> > >> > > be correct.
>>
>> > >> > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 These are the same documents tha=
>t Lane was usin=3D
>> > >g, so how do
>> > >> > > >these figures add up?
>>
>> > >> > > That *is* the question that will be embarrassing for you to answ=
>> > >> > > >these figures add up?
>>
>er.
>>
>> > >> > > You see, I don't have any problems condemning authors if they ar=
>en't =3D
>> > >in accord
>> > >> > > with the facts.
>>
>> > >> > > Wrone, for example, is a fellow "CT'er", whom I've blasted in th=
>> > >> > > with the facts.
>>
>e pas=3D
>> > >t for his
>> > >> > > lies.
>>
>> > >> > > I'm sure you're aware of the disdain I have for another CT'er, "=
>Tony =3D
>> > >Marsh", for
>> > >> > > his many lies about the evidence.
>>
>> > >> > > But LNT'ers don't criticize other LNT'ers... although to be fair=
>> > >> > > his many lies about the evidence.
>>
> to B=3D
>> > >ugliosi, he
>> > >> > > actually has. It's rare, however.
>>
>> > >> > > >> The kooks will again refuse to refute these facts brought up =
>> > >> > > actually has. It's rare, however.
>>
>by Ma=3D
>> > >rk Lane.
>> > >> > > >> They keep claiming that he's a liar, yet they can't produce a=
>ny ev=3D
>> > >idence.
>>
>> > >> > > >> This evidence is devastating for the WCR's theory - yet the k=
>ooks =3D
>> > >can't
>> > >> > > >> refute it.
>>
>> > >> > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0So who were these 11 =
>witnesses who "indi=3D
>> > >cated either
>> > >> > > >explicitly or implicitly that the fenced-in area above the knol=
>l was
>> > >> > > >where they thought the sniper was," as Mark Lane claimed?
>>
>> > >> > > That's a question I'd be interested to see your answer
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more =BB
>> > >> > > >where they thought the sniper was," as Mark Lane claimed?
>>
>> > >> > > That's a question I'd be interested to see your answer
>>
>> ...
>>
Bud
May 28, 2012, 1:03:35 PM5/28/12
to
On May 28, 10:59 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <204fb463-d872-4fde-bce4-96e033dc8...@re8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
If Jean decided not to continue having a dialog with you it was
because you insulted her. That was your intention when you called her
a liar, wasn`t it?
> But I think it only fair to wait
> until Tuesday.
I could be wrong. It`s happened once before.
> I note that "Bud" couldn't help Jean out with this post...
<snicker> That would be the day Jean needs my help with the likes of
you. The only real question is why would someone of Jean`s caliber and
character would waste her time trying to have a discussion with a
dishonest retard like yourself.
> >> >while desperately
> >> > hoping that no-one is noticing that he can't refute the evidence in thi=
> >s case,
> >> > or provide credible explanations for the evidence.
>
> >> =A0 What is this whole exercise but a misdirection so nobody will notice
> >> your complete failure to put something on the table that explains this
> >> event? You claim Doug Horne has done this but that must be a lie,
> >> because if he did you would be putting *that* up instead of nitpicking
> >> this stuff.
>
> What's 13 minus 11, kook?
Wheres Horne`s explanation, retard?
> In article <204fb463-d872-4fde-bce4-96e033dc8...@re8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
because you insulted her. That was your intention when you called her
a liar, wasn`t it?
> But I think it only fair to wait
> until Tuesday.
> I note that "Bud" couldn't help Jean out with this post...
you. The only real question is why would someone of Jean`s caliber and
character would waste her time trying to have a discussion with a
dishonest retard like yourself.
> >> >while desperately
> >> > hoping that no-one is noticing that he can't refute the evidence in thi=
> >s case,
> >> > or provide credible explanations for the evidence.
>
> >> =A0 What is this whole exercise but a misdirection so nobody will notice
> >> your complete failure to put something on the table that explains this
> >> event? You claim Doug Horne has done this but that must be a lie,
> >> because if he did you would be putting *that* up instead of nitpicking
> >> this stuff.
>
> What's 13 minus 11, kook?
0 new messages