Tim Brennan, liar extrodinaire

[Gil Jesus]

Brennan posted in a.a.j.:

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

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

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

https://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/kga7ed2g/gil-jesus-tells-it-like-it-was

No. Timmy, X marks the spots where rifleman Miller was able to hit the head using the IRON SIGHTS of the rifle. It says so right on the exhibits you cited. O=scope, X= iron sights.
Mark Lane didn't lie. NOT ONE of the experts hit the head area USING THE SCOPE.
The only liar here is you, as usual.

[Ben Holmes]

It doesn't matter how many times you point out the lies, they just
keep telling 'em.

[Bud]

What is the full quote, did Lane specify the scope?

And what exactly is the significance of not hitting the neck/head?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 7 Oct 2022 18:07:14 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

You are defending the lie, and asking *us* to help you.

Sorry, doesn't work that way.

[Bud]

Unless you can produce where Mark Lane specified the scope only you have shown it to be a lie.

> Sorry, doesn't work that way.

It seems to be Gil`s idea that not hitting the neck/head is significant. I was merely asking him what that significance was.

I know you guys struggle with ideas.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, October 10, 2022 at 2:47:14 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, October 10, 2022 at 10:52:24 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Oct 2022 18:07:14 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > wrote:
> > >On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 12:22:13 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> Brennan posted in a.a.j.:
> > >>
> > >> *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
> > >> neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
> > >> Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
> > >>
> > >> And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
> > >> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
> > >>
> > >> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
> > >>
> > >> https://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/kga7ed2g/gil-jesus-tells-it-like-it-was
> > >>
> > >> No. Timmy, X marks the spots where rifleman Miller was able to hit the head using the IRON SIGHTS of the rifle. It says so right on the exhibits you cited. O=scope, X= iron sights.
> > >> Mark Lane didn't lie. NOT ONE of the experts hit the head area USING THE SCOPE.
> > >> The only liar here is you, as usual.
> > >
> > > What is the full quote, did Lane specify the scope?
> > >
> > > And what exactly is the significance of not hitting the neck/head?
> > You are defending the lie, and asking *us* to help you.
> Unless you can produce where Mark Lane specified the scope only you have shown it to be a lie.

Hey Bud,
I think you left out the “NOT” in the above, and it should read:
“Unless you can produce where Mark Lane specified the scope only, you have NOT shown it to be a lie.”

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 12:22:13 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:

> Brennan posted in a.a.j.:
>
> *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
> neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
> Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
>
> And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
>
> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
>
> https://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/kga7ed2g/gil-jesus-tells-it-like-it-was
>
> No. Timmy, X marks the spots where rifleman Miller was able to hit the head using the IRON SIGHTS of the rifle.

So Mark Lane lied. You just admitted it. Thanks!

Moreover, as Bud asked, what’s the significance of not hitting the head or neck?

You haven’t shown they were instructed to aim for that head or neck portion of the body, and therefore missed, instead of aiming for the larger area, the trunk of the body, and therefore struck the body where they aimed. Aren’t snipers in your world trained to aim for the center of mass, which would mean the trunk, and NOT the head or neck?

> It says so right on the exhibits you cited. O=scope, X= iron sights.
> Mark Lane didn't lie. NOT ONE of the experts hit the head area USING THE SCOPE.

You added that qualifier. Mark Lane didn’t. You might as well add “WHILE RUNNING IN PLACE” or “STANDING ON HIS HEAD”. Mark Lane didn’t add those qualifiers either.

What Lane said:
“No one who has read this far will be surprised to hear that the Commission concluded that ‘the probability of hitting the targets’ was ‘very high’. This probability remained ‘very high’ in spite of the fact that NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).

You admitted above the x denotes where Specialist Miller hit the head: “X marks the spots where rifleman Miller was able to hit the head using the IRON SIGHTS of the rifle.”

> The only liar here is you, as usual.

No, you’re adding a qualifier (using the scope) Lane did not.

You admitted this: “X marks the spots where rifleman Miller was able to hit the head using the IRON SIGHTS of the rifle.”

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 12:22:13 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:

You can read the whole book here for free:
https://www.scribd.com/document/186052735/Rush-to-Judgment

Scroll to page 129 and point out where Mark Lane specified the scope exclusively.

He didn’t.

[Bud]

On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 10:18:45 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Monday, October 10, 2022 at 2:47:14 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Monday, October 10, 2022 at 10:52:24 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Fri, 7 Oct 2022 18:07:14 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > >On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 12:22:13 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> Brennan posted in a.a.j.:
> > > >>
> > > >> *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
> > > >> neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
> > > >> Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
> > > >>
> > > >> And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
> > > >> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
> > > >>
> > > >> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
> > > >>
> > > >> https://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/kga7ed2g/gil-jesus-tells-it-like-it-was
> > > >>
> > > >> No. Timmy, X marks the spots where rifleman Miller was able to hit the head using the IRON SIGHTS of the rifle. It says so right on the exhibits you cited. O=scope, X= iron sights.
> > > >> Mark Lane didn't lie. NOT ONE of the experts hit the head area USING THE SCOPE.
> > > >> The only liar here is you, as usual.
> > > >
> > > > What is the full quote, did Lane specify the scope?
> > > >
> > > > And what exactly is the significance of not hitting the neck/head?
> > > You are defending the lie, and asking *us* to help you.
> > Unless you can produce where Mark Lane specified the scope only you have shown it to be a lie.
> Hey Bud,
> I think you left out the “NOT” in the above, and it should read:
> “Unless you can produce where Mark Lane specified the scope only, you have NOT shown it to be a lie.”

You are correct, my bad.

[Bud]

On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 10:50:00 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 12:22:13 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Brennan posted in a.a.j.:
> >
> > *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
> > neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
> > Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
> >
> > And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
> > http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
> >
> > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
> >
> > https://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/kga7ed2g/gil-jesus-tells-it-like-it-was
> >
> > No. Timmy, X marks the spots where rifleman Miller was able to hit the head using the IRON SIGHTS of the rifle.
> So Mark Lane lied. You just admitted it. Thanks!
>
> Moreover, as Bud asked, what’s the significance of not hitting the head or neck?
>
> You haven’t shown they were instructed to aim for that head or neck portion of the body, and therefore missed, instead of aiming for the larger area, the trunk of the body, and therefore struck the body where they aimed. Aren’t snipers in your world trained to aim for the center of mass, which would mean the trunk, and NOT the head or neck?

Gil has this stupid idea that anyone taking the shots have to hit where Oswald hit. Presumably this means that if Oswald hit Kennedy once in the heart that any recreation must have the shooter also hit that location or not be valid.

[Ben Holmes]

He didn't need to. Do you know what the Warren Commission Report is?

Why are you trying to call them liars, without explicitly doing so?

Why are you calling Mark Lane a liar for accepting what the WCR said?

[Ben Holmes]

Here we see the cowardice of Huckster Sienzant... absolutely REFUSING
to address the issue... yet again.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 10:08:50 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 10:50:00 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 12:22:13 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Brennan posted in a.a.j.:
>>>
>>> *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
>>> neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
>>> Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
>>>
>>> And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
>>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
>>>
>>> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
>>>
>>> https://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/kga7ed2g/gil-jesus-tells-it-like-it-was
>>>
>>> No. Timmy, X marks the spots where rifleman Miller was able to hit the head using the IRON SIGHTS of the rifle.
>> So Mark Lane lied. You just admitted it. Thanks!
>>
>> Moreover, as Bud asked, what’s the significance of not hitting the head or neck?
>>
>> You haven’t shown they were instructed to aim for that head or neck portion of the body, and therefore missed, instead of aiming for the larger area, the trunk of the body, and therefore struck the body where they aimed. Aren’t snipers in your world trained to aim for the center of mass, which would mean the trunk, and NOT the head or neck?
>
> Gil has this stupid idea that anyone taking the shots have to hit where Oswald hit.

Chickenshit, never having fired a rifle, has the silly idea that
marksmanship consists of hitting the broadside of a barn.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 07:49:58 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 12:22:13 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Brennan posted in a.a.j.:
>>
>> *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
>> neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
>> Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
>>
>> And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
>>
>> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
>>
>> https://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/kga7ed2g/gil-jesus-tells-it-like-it-was
>>
>> No. Timmy, X marks the spots where rifleman Miller was able to hit the head using the IRON SIGHTS of the rifle.
>
>So Mark Lane lied. You just admitted it. Thanks!

There you go, molesting your own mother again.

But let me make this easy for you.

Was John C. Walter killed by an assassin from the 6th floor of the
TSBD in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63?

You would *INSTANTLY* call Mark Lane, or anyone else (other than, of
course, a fellow believer) a liar if they so asserted.

The Warren Commission established as historical fact, that Oswald used
the scope, and USED THIS "FACT" TO BUTTRESS THEIR THEORY.

Unless you have the courage to publicly call out the WC for that,
*YOU* are bound by that fact.

Mark Lane worked within the stated historical facts.

You still refuse to acknowledge that fact.

>Moreover, as Bud asked, what’s the significance of not hitting the head or neck?

Far more qualified markmen, shooting at a larger target, at half the
hieght, coudn't duplicate what Oswald is alleged to have done.

If you can't understand that simple fact, it's not a problem for us.

> You haven’t shown they were instructed to aim for that head or neck

> portion of the body.

Don't need to... you aren't a shooter, so you have nothing to say
here.

I *do* have the expertise with these sorts of targets, and with
shooting.

You lose.

>> It says so right on the exhibits you cited. O=scope, X= iron sights.
>> Mark Lane didn't lie. NOT ONE of the experts hit the head area USING THE SCOPE.
>
>You added that qualifier. Mark Lane didn’t.

The "qualifier" was given by the Warren Commission.

Or do you really believer that John C. Walter was killed that day???

>What Lane said:
> “No one who has read this far will be surprised to hear that the
> Commission concluded that ‘the probability of hitting the targets’ was
> ‘very high’. This probability remained ‘very high’ in spite of the
> fact that NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or
> the neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).

Yep... that's true. And this, despite the fact that all three were
FAR more expert at shooting than Oswald... fired at an oversized
target, and fired from HALF the height.

But you're too dishonest and cowardly to publicly admit the truth of
these facts.

> You admitted above the x denotes where Specialist Miller hit the
> head: “X marks the spots where rifleman Miller was able to hit the
> head using the IRON SIGHTS of the rifle.”

You don't need to "admit" facts... you simply state them.

Something *YOU* provably cannot do.

>> The only liar here is you, as usual.
>
>No, you’re adding a qualifier (using the scope) Lane did not.

You really do believe that John C. Walter was killed in Dealey Plaza
on 11/22/63 !!! Amazing!!!

>You admitted this...

You don't "admit" truthful statements... you merely state them.

Can you publicly state *any* of the truthful statements I've posted
here?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 11:47:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, October 10, 2022 at 10:52:24 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Oct 2022 18:07:14 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 12:22:13 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Brennan posted in a.a.j.:
>>>>
>>>> *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
>>>> neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
>>>> Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
>>>>
>>>> And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
>>>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
>>>>
>>>> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
>>>>
>>>> https://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/kga7ed2g/gil-jesus-tells-it-like-it-was
>>>>
>>>> No. Timmy, X marks the spots where rifleman Miller was able to hit the head using the IRON SIGHTS of the rifle. It says so right on the exhibits you cited. O=scope, X= iron sights.
>>>> Mark Lane didn't lie. NOT ONE of the experts hit the head area USING THE SCOPE.
>>>> The only liar here is you, as usual.
>>>
>>> What is the full quote, did Lane specify the scope?
>>>
>>> And what exactly is the significance of not hitting the neck/head?
>>
>> You are defending the lie, and asking *us* to help you.
>

> Unless you...

Nope. You are defending the lie, and asking "us* to help you.

I need prove *nothing* to you.

>> Sorry, doesn't work that way.
>

> It seems to be...

To a moron, no doubt...

> I know you guys struggle with ideas.

You've PROVEN that you struggle with the facts we present. What you
"know" is irrelevant... what you prove is here for the world to see.

[Hank Sienzant]

Yes.

>
> Why are you trying to call them liars, without explicitly doing so?

Why are you trying to call me a liar, without explicitly doing so?

If you have a point to make, make it. Marshall your evidence, cite your evidence, and advance your argument, then reach a reasonable conclusion. Don’t hide behind nebulous claims suggesting the Commission said something or other.

>
> Why are you calling Mark Lane a liar for accepting what the WCR said?

Lane’s book is titled “RUSH TO JUDGMENT” and subtitled “A Critique of the Warren Commission's Inquiry into the Murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J.D.Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald”.

A critique. You try to defend Lane by suggesting the Commission said something that obviates his untruth, but you neither cite for it nor paraphrase it.

Why do you reject what the Commission said except when it suits your purposes?

Lane said “NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the neck of the target EVEN ONCE.”

That’s untrue. Tim Brennan has pointed that out, and pointed out the evidence that proves his point. You’ve not yet tried to defend Lane.

[donald willis]

On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 7:50:00 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 12:22:13 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Brennan posted in a.a.j.:
> >
> > *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
> > neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
> > Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
> >
> > And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
> > http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
> >
> > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
> >
> > https://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/kga7ed2g/gil-jesus-tells-it-like-it-was
> >
> > No. Timmy, X marks the spots where rifleman Miller was able to hit the head using the IRON SIGHTS of the rifle.
> So Mark Lane lied. You just admitted it. Thanks!
>
> Moreover, as Bud asked, what’s the significance of not hitting the head or neck?
>
> You haven’t shown they were instructed to aim for that head or neck portion of the body, and therefore missed, instead of aiming for the larger area, the trunk of the body, and therefore struck the body where they aimed. Aren’t snipers in your world trained to aim for the center of mass, which would mean the trunk, and NOT the head or neck?

Not sure what your point is here. That Oswald was an untrained sniper? If so, then I guess Miller too was untrained. And what's the point of hitting the trunk or a leg or an arm? That's not what happened.

dcw

[Bud]

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 12:45:41 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 7:50:00 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 12:22:13 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Brennan posted in a.a.j.:
> > >
> > > *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
> > > neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
> > > Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
> > >
> > > And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
> > > http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
> > >
> > > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
> > >
> > > https://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/kga7ed2g/gil-jesus-tells-it-like-it-was
> > >
> > > No. Timmy, X marks the spots where rifleman Miller was able to hit the head using the IRON SIGHTS of the rifle.
> > So Mark Lane lied. You just admitted it. Thanks!
> >
> > Moreover, as Bud asked, what’s the significance of not hitting the head or neck?
> >
> > You haven’t shown they were instructed to aim for that head or neck portion of the body, and therefore missed, instead of aiming for the larger area, the trunk of the body, and therefore struck the body where they aimed. Aren’t snipers in your world trained to aim for the center of mass, which would mean the trunk, and NOT the head or neck?
> Not sure what your point is here. That Oswald was an untrained sniper? If so, then I guess Miller too was untrained. And what's the point of hitting the trunk or a leg or an arm? That's not what happened.
>
> dcw

Pretty simple Don. It isn`t significant that they aren`t hitting the same places Oswald hit if they weren`t trying to hit those places. And you can`t show that Oswald was trying to hit the specific places he did.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 12:45:41 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:

> On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 7:50:00 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> >
> > Moreover, as Bud asked, what’s the significance of not hitting the head or neck?
> >
> > You haven’t shown they were instructed to aim for that head or neck portion of the body, and therefore missed, instead of aiming for the larger area, the trunk of the body, and therefore struck the body where they aimed. Aren’t snipers in your world trained to aim for the center of mass, which would mean the trunk, and NOT the head or neck?
> Not sure what your point is here. That Oswald was an untrained sniper? If so, then I guess Miller too was untrained. And what's the point of hitting the trunk or a leg or an arm? That's not what happened.

Chickenshit doesn't get that the signifcance of hitting the head or neck is that that's what Oswald was accused of.
They couldn't duplicate it.

Shooting at a full silhouette target, you aim for center mass.
These were head & shoulders targets. Center mass is off the target.
The kill zone is the head.

And the proof that they were aiming at the head is that Miller aimed at ( and hit ) the head when he shot with the iron sights.
Why would he aim at the head with the iron sights and not with the scope ?
He wouldn't. They were aiming for the head.

Hanky Panky calls Mark Lane a liar because he didn't SPECIFY the shots were made WITH the scope.
Did he have to ?
The crime was allegedly committed WITH the scope. Tests were done WITH the scope.
So how is he a liar by making a statement that just involved the test results WITH the scope ?
Why would he even mention the results with the IRON sights when their use was not relevant to the commission of the crime ?
What are the results of the shots with the iron sights proof of ?
Nothing. They're irrelevant.

45 rounds were fired from the CE 139 rifle by the FBI and the Army's MASTER riflemen using the scope and not one hit the head area.
But Oswald did it on his THIRD shot ?
That's bullshit.

Nevermind that they didn't hit the head area, not one of those 45 rounds hit what they aimed at.
Look at the FBI test targets.
At 15 YARDS, THEY COULDN'T HIT WHERE THEY AIMED AT.
At 25 yards or more, the inaccuracy of the rifle and scope was different from shot-to-shot, making it impossible to adjust one's aim.

This rifle was not accurate enough to do what they said it did and the Commission's "experts" lied when they said it was.
They never test fired the rifle, they never were on a shooting range with Oswald and they never examined the test results or targets.

https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 6:47:47 AM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 12:45:41 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 7:50:00 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > >
> > > Moreover, as Bud asked, what’s the significance of not hitting the head or neck?
> > >
> > > You haven’t shown they were instructed to aim for that head or neck portion of the body, and therefore missed, instead of aiming for the larger area, the trunk of the body, and therefore struck the body where they aimed. Aren’t snipers in your world trained to aim for the center of mass, which would mean the trunk, and NOT the head or neck?
> > Not sure what your point is here. That Oswald was an untrained sniper? If so, then I guess Miller too was untrained. And what's the point of hitting the trunk or a leg or an arm? That's not what happened.
> Chickenshit doesn't get that the signifcance of hitting the head or neck is that that's what Oswald was accused of.
> They couldn't duplicate it.

They didn’t need to. Oswald was trying to kill the President. If he accomplished that with his first shot, he wouldn’t have fired the other two.

>
> Shooting at a full silhouette target, you aim for center mass.
> These were head & shoulders targets. Center mass is off the target.
> The kill zone is the head.

Is that what Oswald was aiming at? How do you know?

>
> And the proof that they were aiming at the head is that Miller aimed at ( and hit ) the head when he shot with the iron sights.

So why couldn’t Oswald hit the head using the iron sights?

> Why would he aim at the head with the iron sights and not with the scope ?
> He wouldn't. They were aiming for the head.

And he hit it. So did Oswald.

>
> Hanky Panky calls Mark Lane a liar because he didn't SPECIFY the shots were made WITH the scope.

No, Lane denied any shots hit the head:
— quote —

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).

— unquote —

You admit Miller did.

> Did he have to ?

He can lie and laugh all the way to the bank. He got a NY TIMES best seller out of it.

> The crime was allegedly committed WITH the scope.

The scope is on the rifle at the time of the assassination, yes. There’s no evidence Indicating Oswald used the scope as opposed to the iron sights.

Tests were done WITH the scope.

The scope was on the rifle at the time of the tests, yes.

> So how is he a liar by making a statement that just involved the test results WITH the scope ?

Because Miller hit the head, and Lane claimed otherwise:
— quote —

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).

— unquote —

> Why would he even mention the results with the IRON sights when their use was not relevant to the commission of the crime ?

Were you in the sniper’s nest during the assassination? How do you eliminate Oswald using the iron sights?

> What are the results of the shots with the iron sights proof of ?
> Nothing. They're irrelevant.

Hilarious. The weapon, as made, was perfectly capable of hitting the head. That’s an established fact. You want to pretend Oswald used the scope, although you offer no evidence he did.

>
> 45 rounds were fired from the CE 139 rifle by the FBI and the Army's MASTER riflemen using the scope and not one hit the head area.

Wait, why are you limiting it to the scope? Is the weapon capable of being aimed, fired, and hitting the head using the iron sights?

> But Oswald did it on his THIRD shot ?
> That's bullshit.

He took three because the first two didn’t kill JFK.

>
> Nevermind that they didn't hit the head area, not one of those 45 rounds hit what they aimed at.
> Look at the FBI test targets.
> At 15 YARDS, THEY COULDN'T HIT WHERE THEY AIMED AT.

Your claim, your burden of proof. Cite for your claim.

> At 25 yards or more, the inaccuracy of the rifle and scope was different from shot-to-shot, making it impossible to adjust one's aim.

Your claim, your burden of proof. Cite for your claim.

>
> This rifle was not accurate enough to do what they said it did and the Commission's "experts" lied when they said it was.

So you, a conspiracy theorist, disagree with the experts and have a different opinion. So what?
How many court cases have you testified in as an expert? What is your background in weapons testing? You have no standing, your opinion is meaningless. The Commission experts were qualified to reach the conclusions they reached. You are simply disregarding the expert conclusions and results and substituting your own non-expert opinion.

> They never test fired the rifle,

Did you? Yet you want to discard their expert conclusions and substitute your own inexpert opinion.

> they never were on a shooting range with Oswald

Hilarious. Were you? Oswald’s rest results were available, and his results establish he was capable of making the shots.

>and they never examined the test results or targets.

You know that how?


>
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 03:47:45 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 12:45:41 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 7:50:00 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>>
>>> Moreover, as Bud asked, what’s the significance of not hitting the head or neck?
>>>
>>> You haven’t shown they were instructed to aim for that head or neck portion of the body, and therefore missed, instead of aiming for the larger area, the trunk of the body, and therefore struck the body where they aimed. Aren’t snipers in your world trained to aim for the center of mass, which would mean the trunk, and NOT the head or neck?
>> Not sure what your point is here. That Oswald was an untrained sniper? If so, then I guess Miller too was untrained. And what's the point of hitting the trunk or a leg or an arm? That's not what happened.
>
>Chickenshit doesn't get that the signifcance of hitting the head or neck is that that's what Oswald was accused of.
>They couldn't duplicate it.
>
>Shooting at a full silhouette target, you aim for center mass.
>These were head & shoulders targets. Center mass is off the target.
>The kill zone is the head.
>
>And the proof that they were aiming at the head is that Miller aimed at ( and hit ) the head when he shot with the iron sights.

This is so completely relevant that I predict all believers will
refuse to publicly acknowledge it.

>Why would he aim at the head with the iron sights and not with the scope ?
>He wouldn't. They were aiming for the head.
>
>Hanky Panky calls Mark Lane a liar because he didn't SPECIFY the shots were made WITH the scope.
>Did he have to ?

Notice that Huckster accepts that Mark Lane was referring to a rifle,
and not to a grenade launcher. That tells the tale...

He's willing to accept the obvious when it cannot be used against
critics, but when it comes to what the WCR concluded, it's irrelevant
to Huckster.

He's simply a liar.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 07:18:13 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 6:47:47 AM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 12:45:41 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
>>> On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 7:50:00 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Moreover, as Bud asked, what’s the significance of not hitting the head or neck?
>>>>
>>>> You haven’t shown they were instructed to aim for that head or neck portion of the body, and therefore missed, instead of aiming for the larger area, the trunk of the body, and therefore struck the body where they aimed. Aren’t snipers in your world trained to aim for the center of mass, which would mean the trunk, and NOT the head or neck?
>>> Not sure what your point is here. That Oswald was an untrained sniper? If so, then I guess Miller too was untrained. And what's the point of hitting the trunk or a leg or an arm? That's not what happened.
>> Chickenshit doesn't get that the signifcance of hitting the head or neck is that that's what Oswald was accused of.
>> They couldn't duplicate it.
>
>They didn’t need to.

Then there was no purpose WHATSOEVER in test firing the rifle.

Watch folks, as Huckster CANNOT TELL US what the purpose was, if not
to demonstrate that the rifle could do what they claimed for it.

>> Shooting at a full silhouette target, you aim for center mass.
>> These were head & shoulders targets. Center mass is off the target.
>> The kill zone is the head.
>
>Is that what Oswald was aiming at? How do you know?

The moron here thinks that Oswald was aiming at JFK's right arm...

WHAT A MORON!!!

>> And the proof that they were aiming at the head is that Miller aimed at ( and hit ) the head when he shot with the iron sights.
>
>So why couldn’t Oswald hit the head using the iron sights?

Explain it to the Warren Commission, moron!

You whine when we disbelieve the Warren Commission, THEN YOU WHINE
WHEN WE ACCEPT WHAT THEY SAID.

>> Why would he aim at the head with the iron sights and not with the scope ?
>> He wouldn't. They were aiming for the head.
>
>And he hit it. So did Oswald.

So you acknowlege that Gil is correct, that the aiming point was the
head. Seems that you've been lying about this, doesn't it?

>> Hanky Panky calls Mark Lane a liar because he didn't SPECIFY the shots were made WITH the scope.
>
>No, Lane denied any shots hit the head:
>— quote —
>*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
>neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
>— unquote —

Still a perfectly accurate statement, and based on the conclusions of
the WCR.


>You admit Miller did.


No, he didn't. HE NEVER HIT THE HEAD OR NECK WHEN USING THE SCOPE.

>> Did he have to ?
>
>He can lie and laugh all the way to the bank. He got a NY TIMES best seller out of it.

There you go again...

Why can't you point out any lies when Mark Lane is posted in this
forum???

Why do you run away from 90% of what he stated?

>> The crime was allegedly committed WITH the scope.
>
> The scope is on the rifle at the time of the assassination, yes.
> There’s no evidence Indicating Oswald used the scope as opposed to the
> iron sights.

The WC labels you a liar. They provided evidence that you deny
exists.

>Tests were done WITH the scope.
>
>The scope was on the rifle at the time of the tests, yes.

The scope was on the rifle at the time of the assassination, yes.

>> So how is he a liar by making a statement that just involved the test results WITH the scope ?
>
>Because Miller hit the head, and Lane claimed otherwise:
>— quote —
>*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
>neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
>— unquote —

You merely requote a perfectly accurate statement.

>> Why would he even mention the results with the IRON sights when their use was not relevant to the commission of the crime ?
>
>Were you in the sniper’s nest during the assassination? How do you eliminate Oswald using the iron sights?

The WC did that.


And amusingly, you're too much a coward to publicly acknowledge this
fact.

>> What are the results of the shots with the iron sights proof of ?
>> Nothing. They're irrelevant.
>
> Hilarious. The weapon, as made, was perfectly capable of hitting the
> head.

Not according to the conclusions of the WCR and the test firings...

> That’s an established fact.

And *that* is an established lie.

> You want to pretend Oswald used the scope, although you offer no
> evidence he did.

Calling the WCR a liar again?

>> 45 rounds were fired from the CE 139 rifle by the FBI and the Army's MASTER riflemen using the scope and not one hit the head area.
>
>Wait, why are you limiting it to the scope?

Because the WCR did so.

> Is the weapon capable of being aimed, fired, and hitting the head using the iron sights?

Certainly. Tell us why the WCR decided otherwise.

>> But Oswald did it on his THIRD shot ?
>> That's bullshit.
>
>He took three because the first two didn’t kill JFK.

"I see you offering your opinion, and nothing else. I also see you
making an attempt to shift the burden of proof. Where’s your
evidence? Your argument, your burden." - Huckster Sienzant.

>> Nevermind that they didn't hit the head area, not one of those 45 rounds hit what they aimed at.
>> Look at the FBI test targets.
>> At 15 YARDS, THEY COULDN'T HIT WHERE THEY AIMED AT.
>
>Your claim, your burden of proof. Cite for your claim.

He already did. Are you too stupid to click the link?

Lurkers can see the links below... still in this thread.

>> At 25 yards or more, the inaccuracy of the rifle and scope was different from shot-to-shot, making it impossible to adjust one's aim.
>
>Your claim, your burden of proof. Cite for your claim.

As Gil already did, and you're too much a coward to admit it, what
more is there to say?

>> This rifle was not accurate enough to do what they said it did and the Commission's "experts" lied when they said it was.
>
>So you, a conspiracy theorist, disagree with the experts and have a different opinion. So what?

No stupid, Gil is AGREEING with what the experts showed... the WCR is
not an "expert."

> How many court cases have you testified in as an expert?

Logical fallacy.

>> They never test fired the rifle,
>
>Did you? Yet you want to discard their expert conclusions and substitute your own inexpert opinion.

Another logical fallacy.

>> they never were on a shooting range with Oswald
>
>Hilarious. Were you? Oswald’s rest results were available, and his results establish he was capable of making the shots.

Another logical fallacy.

>>and they never examined the test results or targets.
>
>You know that how?

Feel free to click the below link ... or run like the coward you are
once again, Huckster...


>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/
>
>https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report

[donald willis]

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 3:08:54 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 12:45:41 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 7:50:00 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 12:22:13 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Brennan posted in a.a.j.:
> > > >
> > > > *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
> > > > neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
> > > > Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
> > > >
> > > > And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
> > > > http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
> > > >
> > > > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
> > > >
> > > > https://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/kga7ed2g/gil-jesus-tells-it-like-it-was
> > > >
> > > > No. Timmy, X marks the spots where rifleman Miller was able to hit the head using the IRON SIGHTS of the rifle.
> > > So Mark Lane lied. You just admitted it. Thanks!
> > >
> > > Moreover, as Bud asked, what’s the significance of not hitting the head or neck?
> > >
> > > You haven’t shown they were instructed to aim for that head or neck portion of the body, and therefore missed, instead of aiming for the larger area, the trunk of the body, and therefore struck the body where they aimed. Aren’t snipers in your world trained to aim for the center of mass, which would mean the trunk, and NOT the head or neck?
> > Not sure what your point is here. That Oswald was an untrained sniper? If so, then I guess Miller too was untrained. And what's the point of hitting the trunk or a leg or an arm? That's not what happened.
> >
> > dcw
> Pretty simple Don. It isn`t significant that they aren`t hitting the same places Oswald hit if they weren`t trying to hit those places.

Why wouldn't they be trying? What were they trying to prove?

>And you can`t show that Oswald was trying to hit the specific places he did.

So he might have been trying to hit Jacqueline? Or LBJ?

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 10:18:15 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

> > At 15 YARDS, THEY COULDN'T HIT WHERE THEY AIMED AT.
> Your claim, your burden of proof. Cite for your claim.
> > At 25 yards or more, the inaccuracy of the rifle and scope was different from shot-to-shot, making it impossible to adjust one's aim.
> Your claim, your burden of proof. Cite for your claim.

It's all here, Hanky Panky.
Complete with the testimony, citations and the targets to boot.
Unless you're too afraid to read it.

https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 12:01:27 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:

> Why wouldn't they be trying? What were they trying to prove?

> So he might have been trying to hit Jacqueline? Or LBJ?

You can't argue with these people because their ignorance knows no bounds.
You can show them the evidence and they just deny it.
This is what happens when people are brainwashed into believing something that isn't true.
These are the same type of people who marvel at the "King's New Clothes" while the King walks bare-assed down the street.
They dont believe what they see, they don't believe what they hear, they only believe what they're told.

They live in a world where the cops are honest.
The FBI doesn't lie.
And the government is the most virtuous of all.
They're the parents who yell out, "NOT my kid" when their child is arrested.
They're the ones who turn a blaind eye when a crime is committed in their presence.

They live in a constant state of denial.
They have little knowledge of the subject matter, they post little evidence to support their case.
They have plenty of comments, speculations, opinions and insults.
In other words, they have nothing.

10 reasons why people believe lies like the Warren Report:

First, pain. The truth is too painful to face head-on, so we refuse to acknowledge that what we’ve chosen to accept as truth is, in reality, a lie.

Second, loss. To face the truth robs one of something held dear – often power or control. Rather than find our place in a new context, we grasp for anything, and anyone, who will affirm, and help us retain, our current status.

Third, ignorance. Though less common, some people truly don’t recognize a lie when it is presented. Lack of knowledge, feigned or actual, provides them a state of bliss.

Fourth, cultural assimilation. A desire to fit in with one’s group, tribe, family or social structure causes you to believe what they’re saying even when you know better.

Fifth, moral weakness. This is perhaps the most common reason. When someone doesn’t have the fortitude to do their own research they “leave the details to others,” or they know the truth but are unwilling to speak out.

Sixth, secondary gain. Believing and propagating the lie brings a personal benefit, so we trade integrity for short-term benefits.

Seventh, fear. Acquiring better information would require that we take personal responsibility for the lies we’ve believed and told and that we change our way of thinking and acting.

Eighth, protection. We seek to safeguard the fragile, though false, narrative upon which one’s life is built.

Ninth, societal politeness. It’s easier to go along to get along, so we choose not to upset the proverbial apple cart.

Tenth, cultural indoctrination. We develop blinders and become unable to grasp that what may be seen as truth for one segment of society is not for others.

[Bud]

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 12:01:27 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 3:08:54 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 12:45:41 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 7:50:00 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 12:22:13 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Brennan posted in a.a.j.:
> > > > >
> > > > > *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
> > > > > neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
> > > > > Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
> > > > >
> > > > > And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
> > > > > http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
> > > > >
> > > > > https://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/kga7ed2g/gil-jesus-tells-it-like-it-was
> > > > >
> > > > > No. Timmy, X marks the spots where rifleman Miller was able to hit the head using the IRON SIGHTS of the rifle.
> > > > So Mark Lane lied. You just admitted it. Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Moreover, as Bud asked, what’s the significance of not hitting the head or neck?
> > > >
> > > > You haven’t shown they were instructed to aim for that head or neck portion of the body, and therefore missed, instead of aiming for the larger area, the trunk of the body, and therefore struck the body where they aimed. Aren’t snipers in your world trained to aim for the center of mass, which would mean the trunk, and NOT the head or neck?
> > > Not sure what your point is here. That Oswald was an untrained sniper? If so, then I guess Miller too was untrained. And what's the point of hitting the trunk or a leg or an arm? That's not what happened.
> > >
> > > dcw
> > Pretty simple Don. It isn`t significant that they aren`t hitting the same places Oswald hit if they weren`t trying to hit those places.
> Why wouldn't they be trying? What were they trying to prove?

No idea.

> >And you can`t show that Oswald was trying to hit the specific places he did.
> So he might have been trying to hit Jacqueline? Or LBJ?

He didn`t say.

But those are people, not places.

[Mark Ulrik]

torsdag den 1. december 2022 kl. 18.32.20 UTC+1 skrev gjjma...@gmail.com:
> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 12:01:27 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
>
> > Why wouldn't they be trying? What were they trying to prove?
> > So he might have been trying to hit Jacqueline? Or LBJ?
> You can't argue with these people because their ignorance knows no bounds.
> You can show them the evidence and they just deny it.
> This is what happens when people are brainwashed into believing something that isn't true.
> These are the same type of people who marvel at the "King's New Clothes" while the King walks bare-assed down the street.
> They dont believe what they see, they don't believe what they hear, they only believe what they're told.
>
> They live in a world where the cops are honest.
> The FBI doesn't lie.
> And the government is the most virtuous of all.
> They're the parents who yell out, "NOT my kid" when their child is arrested.
> They're the ones who turn a blaind eye when a crime is committed in their presence.
>
> They live in a constant state of denial.
> They have little knowledge of the subject matter, they post little evidence to support their case.
> They have plenty of comments, speculations, opinions and insults.
> In other words, they have nothing.
>

> 10 reasons why people believe lies like the ones told by Mark Lane:

I corrected your mistake above.

To lurkers: Gil cribbed his "10 reasons" from this online article: https://goodfaithmedia.org/why-do-good-people-believe-lies

Don't be like Gil, kids. Don't plagiarize other people's work.

[Charles Schuyler]

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 8:04:43 PM UTC-6, m...@xml.dk wrote:
> torsdag den 1. december 2022 kl. 18.32.20 UTC+1 skrev gjjma...@gmail.com:
> > On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 12:01:27 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> >
> > > Why wouldn't they be trying? What were they trying to prove?
> > > So he might have been trying to hit Jacqueline? Or LBJ?
> > You can't argue with these people because their ignorance knows no bounds.
> > You can show them the evidence and they just deny it.
> > This is what happens when people are brainwashed into believing something that isn't true.
> > These are the same type of people who marvel at the "King's New Clothes" while the King walks bare-assed down the street.
> > They dont believe what they see, they don't believe what they hear, they only believe what they're told.
> >
> > They live in a world where the cops are honest.
> > The FBI doesn't lie.
> > And the government is the most virtuous of all.
> > They're the parents who yell out, "NOT my kid" when their child is arrested.
> > They're the ones who turn a blaind eye when a crime is committed in their presence.
> >
> > They live in a constant state of denial.
> > They have little knowledge of the subject matter, they post little evidence to support their case.
> > They have plenty of comments, speculations, opinions and insults.
> > In other words, they have nothing.
> >
> > 10 reasons why people believe lies like the ones told by Mark Lane:
>
> I corrected your mistake above.
>
> To lurkers: Gil cribbed his "10 reasons" from this online article: https://goodfaithmedia.org/why-do-good-people-believe-lies
>
> Don't be like Gil, kids. Don't plagiarize other people's work.

Good work, Mark.

And Ben Holmes has been essentially plagiarizing R2J piecemeal for 20 years.

Frauds.

[Ben Holmes]

Nah... he read it. He's simply willing to lie about it, presuming
that lurkers won't take the time.

He does the same thing with Mark Lane...

[Charles Schuyler]

Mark Lane doesn't think LBJ was involved in JFK's assassination.

You think LBJ was in the middle of it, and that LBJ was behind a "plot" to kill RFK to keep RFK from the presidency, where--per you--LBJ would be "exposed" as the mastermind behind the JFK hit.

Why are you and Lane so far apart? You pretend to be copacetic with your boy Lane, but the two of you believe entirely different narratives.

Different captains on different ships carrying different cargo in different directions on different oceans to different ports, yet you all pretend to be part of the same convoy.

[donald willis]

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 11:39:59 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 12:01:27 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 3:08:54 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 12:45:41 AM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 7:50:00 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 12:22:13 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > Brennan posted in a.a.j.:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
> > > > > > neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
> > > > > > Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
> > > > > > http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/kga7ed2g/gil-jesus-tells-it-like-it-was
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No. Timmy, X marks the spots where rifleman Miller was able to hit the head using the IRON SIGHTS of the rifle.
> > > > > So Mark Lane lied. You just admitted it. Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > Moreover, as Bud asked, what’s the significance of not hitting the head or neck?
> > > > >
> > > > > You haven’t shown they were instructed to aim for that head or neck portion of the body, and therefore missed, instead of aiming for the larger area, the trunk of the body, and therefore struck the body where they aimed. Aren’t snipers in your world trained to aim for the center of mass, which would mean the trunk, and NOT the head or neck?
> > > > Not sure what your point is here. That Oswald was an untrained sniper? If so, then I guess Miller too was untrained. And what's the point of hitting the trunk or a leg or an arm? That's not what happened.
> > > >
> > > > dcw
> > > Pretty simple Don. It isn`t significant that they aren`t hitting the same places Oswald hit if they weren`t trying to hit those places.
> > Why wouldn't they be trying? What were they trying to prove?
> No idea.

So you cite the results, but don't explain what the test was about. Lovely.

dcw

[Bud]

I was examining Gil`s idea, not the test results.

He thinks (and apparently so do you) that they were, or should have been, trying to hit the locations Oswald hit.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 2 Dec 2022 06:52:15 -0800 (PST), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:

>And Ben Holmes has been essentially plagiarizing R2J piecemeal for 20 years.

Quoting someone to prove you a liar isn't "plagiarizing." Perhaps you
should open your dictionary and learn what the word actually means...

But you won't... so I will:

From Meriam Webster
***********************************************************
plagiarized; plagiarizing
transitive verb

: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
: use (another's production) without crediting the source
***********************************************************

Watch folks, as this liar is incapable of showing where I *EVER*
plagiarized Mark Lane.

Or offer an apology for his lie...

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 2 Dec 2022 07:19:36 -0800 (PST), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:

>On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 8:52:38 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 09:15:41 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
>> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 10:18:15 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>>
>>>>> At 15 YARDS, THEY COULDN'T HIT WHERE THEY AIMED AT.
>>>> Your claim, your burden of proof. Cite for your claim.
>>>>> At 25 yards or more, the inaccuracy of the rifle and scope was different from shot-to-shot, making it impossible to adjust one's aim.
>>>> Your claim, your burden of proof. Cite for your claim.
>>>
>>>It's all here, Hanky Panky.
>>>Complete with the testimony, citations and the targets to boot.
>>>Unless you're too afraid to read it.
>>>
>>>https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/
>>
>> Nah... he read it. He's simply willing to lie about it, presuming
>> that lurkers won't take the time.
>>
>> He does the same thing with Mark Lane...
>

>Mark Lane doesn't think...

I've deleted the rest of the logical fallacy. Nothing to respond to.

[Hank Sienzant]

While you concede "The tests were conducted for speed and accuracy. ( 3 H 402 )", you fail to qualify it as Frazier did: That speed was the primary concern in his tests, with accuracy in second place.

You can see that on (3 H 404):
Here: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0206b.htm
== quote ==
Mr. FRAZIER - The second test which was performed was two series of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired both of these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an effort to determine how fast the weapon could be fired primarily, with secondary purpose accuracy.
== unquote ==

Yet you talk about the test results as if the resultant accuracy is the best this weapon could do, when that's clearly not the case. These tests were for speed first, with accuracy a secondary issue.

So why do you start with tests for speed (with accuracy a secondary consideration) and pretend they establish the accuracy of the weapon?

Isn't a better test test of the accuracy of the weapon the one performed by the Army, where they determined the accuracy down to the a tiny fraction of a degree in dispersion?

For example, Ronald Simmons tested the weapon (as he tested others) from a machine rest to determine the dispersion of the bullets, and determined the Carcano with the serial number C2766 was as accurate as then modern (1964) military weapons.

Testing from a machine rest tests the rifle's accuracy only, and removes the human element of the skill of the shooter,

== quote ==
Mr. EISENBERG. I should ask first if you are familiar with this weapon.
I have handed the witness Commission Exhibit 139.
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. We fired this weapon from a machine rest for round-to-round dispersion. We fired exactly 20 rounds in this test, and the dispersion which we measured is of conventional magnitude, about the same that we get with our present military rifles, and the standard deviation of dispersion is .29 mil.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is a fraction of a degree?
Mr. SIMMONS. A mil is an angular measurement. There are 17.7 mils to a degree.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate. For most small arms, we discover that the round- to-round dispersion is of the order of three-tenths of a mil. We have run into some unusual ones, however, which give us higher values, but very few which give us smaller values, except in selected lots of ammunition.
Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you designate it?
Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14.
Mr. McCLOY. Is it as accurate as the Springfield 1906 ammunition?
Mr. SIMMONS. I am not familiar with the difference between the M-14 in its accuracy and the 1906 Springfield. These are very similar in their dispersion.
Mr. McCLOY. At a hundred yards, what does that amount to? What is the dispersion?
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, at a hundred yards, one mil is 3.6 inches, and 0.3 of that is a little more than an inch.
Mr. EISENBERG. You tested this with what type of ammunition, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. The ammunition was labeled Type Ball, and it was made by the Western Cartridge Co., Division of Olin Industries.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was that a 6.5 mm.?
Mr. SIMMONS. 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano.
== unquote ==

You pretend the machine rest test is something exotic, not part of the standard testing, and denigrate it thusly: "t was under these conditions, firing the rifle in a machine rest, that Simmons called the CE 139 rifle, “quite accurate” ( ibid. ), something the Commission quoted in its Report ( pg. 194 ), but failed to reveal under what circumstances the comment was made. It’s hard to image any rifle not being accurate when set up in a rig like that."

The test conducted is to remove the human element and determine whether the rifle itself is accurate. It was so determined:
== quote ==
Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.
== unquote ==

Was Simmons lying when he described the bench-rest tests? Was he lying when he said the weapon was as accurate as then modern weapons?

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben won't discuss the issues with me, he'd rather resort to ad hominem, attacking me instead of the message.

>
> He does the same thing with Mark Lane...

I point out the problems with Lane's misuse of the evidence, yes. You don't engage on the substance, you resort to deleting my points and name-calling there too.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 16:55:51 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 12:15:42 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 10:18:15 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>
>>>> At 15 YARDS, THEY COULDN'T HIT WHERE THEY AIMED AT.
>>> Your claim, your burden of proof. Cite for your claim.
>>>> At 25 yards or more, the inaccuracy of the rifle and scope was different from shot-to-shot, making it impossible to adjust one's aim.
>>> Your claim, your burden of proof. Cite for your claim.
>> It's all here, Hanky Panky.
>> Complete with the testimony, citations and the targets to boot.
>> Unless you're too afraid to read it.
>>
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/
>

>While you concede...

Notice folks, what **HUCKSTER** refuses to concede... that he simply
lied when he claimed no citations...

When proven wrong or liars, they simply move the goalposts again...

Such cowards!

[Bud]

Ben still running from everything Hank writes. Some things never change.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 16:06:52 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 10:05:34 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 07:53:41 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 12:22:13 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Brennan posted in a.a.j.:
>>>>
>>>> *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
>>>> neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
>>>> Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
>>>>
>>>> And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
>>>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
>>>>
>>>> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
>>>>
>>>> https://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/kga7ed2g/gil-jesus-tells-it-like-it-was
>>>>
>>>> No. Timmy, X marks the spots where rifleman Miller was able to hit the head using the IRON SIGHTS of the rifle. It says so right on the exhibits you cited. O=scope, X= iron sights.
>>>> Mark Lane didn't lie. NOT ONE of the experts hit the head area USING THE SCOPE.
>>>> The only liar here is you, as usual.
>>>
>>>You can read the whole book here for free:
>>>https://www.scribd.com/document/186052735/Rush-to-Judgment
>>>
>>>Scroll to page 129 and point out where Mark Lane specified the scope exclusively.
>>>
>>>He didn’t.
>> He didn't need to. Do you know what the Warren Commission Report is?
>
>Yes.

Coward that you are, you refuse to acknowledge that the WC concluded
that Oswald had used the scope.

>> Why are you trying to call them liars, without explicitly doing so?
>
>Why are you trying to call me a liar, without explicitly doing so?

You **ARE** a liar. That was simple, wasn't it?

> If you have a point to make, make it. Marshall your evidence, cite
> your evidence, and advance your argument, then reach a reasonable
> conclusion. Don’t hide behind nebulous claims suggesting the
> Commission said something or other.

Lie again, Huckster, and try to claim that Mark Lane wasn't following
the WCR's lead here.

>> Why are you calling Mark Lane a liar for accepting what the WCR said?

Notice folks, that Huckster evades the question in his "answer" below:

> Lane’s book is titled “RUSH TO JUDGMENT” and subtitled “A Critique
> of the Warren Commission's Inquiry into the Murders of President John
> F. Kennedy, Officer J.D.Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald”.

You've proven you can read... now prove you understand.

> A critique. You try to defend Lane by suggesting the Commission said
> something that obviates his untruth, but you neither cite for it nor
> paraphrase it.

There you go lying again - making the claim that the WCR didn't
conclude that Oswald used the scope...

>Why do you reject what the Commission said except when it suits your purposes?

I reject EVERYTHING they said. I base my thoughts on the evidence.
Not what some liars *said* about the evidence.

>Lane said “NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the neck of the target EVEN ONCE.”

Yep... tis true.


>That’s untrue.


Once again, you're a liar. You're willing to accept that Mark Lane
was referring to a *RIFLE* - rather than a grenade launcher, but
pretend complete ignorance of the fact that the experts were unable to
strike the head or neck of the target UNDER THE CONDITIONS SET BY THE
WARREN COMMISSION.

You can't even acknowledge this.

You're simply a gutless coward.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 16:58:40 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 9:52:38 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 09:15:41 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
>> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 10:18:15 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>>
>>>>> At 15 YARDS, THEY COULDN'T HIT WHERE THEY AIMED AT.
>>>> Your claim, your burden of proof. Cite for your claim.
>>>>> At 25 yards or more, the inaccuracy of the rifle and scope was different from shot-to-shot, making it impossible to adjust one's aim.
>>>> Your claim, your burden of proof. Cite for your claim.
>>>
>>>It's all here, Hanky Panky.
>>>Complete with the testimony, citations and the targets to boot.
>>>Unless you're too afraid to read it.
>>>
>>>https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/
>> Nah... he read it. He's simply willing to lie about it, presuming
>> that lurkers won't take the time.
>

>Ben won't discuss the issues with me...

Coward, aren't you?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2022 13:19:18 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

The proof that *I'm* correct is in the post above. The uncited claim
that Chickenshit posted is ... as usual... a fabrication with no
evidence.