Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mark Lane #3
35 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
May 16, 2012, 9:17:14 AM5/16/12
to
Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "please the court", and that
the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long after it had made plain
that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository Building alone and
implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsible speculators."
To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed out and cited for...
Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures therefore - more
significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the immediate
reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any official
version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits
on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-two said
they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
Devastating to the WCR's theory!
Any kooks care to refute this?
You can't keep claiming that Mark Lane lies, yet allow all of these quotes to be
shown correct by your inability to refute them...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long after it had made plain
that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository Building alone and
implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsible speculators."
To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed out and cited for...
Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures therefore - more
significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the immediate
reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any official
version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits
on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-two said
they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
Devastating to the WCR's theory!
Any kooks care to refute this?
You can't keep claiming that Mark Lane lies, yet allow all of these quotes to be
shown correct by your inability to refute them...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
timstter
May 16, 2012, 9:39:43 AM5/16/12
to
Supply some SPECIFICS.
Lane invariably hides behind some blanket statement that almost NEVER
holds up to scrutiny, from my observation.
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
aeffects
May 16, 2012, 5:03:43 PM5/16/12
to
willyou deal with the 45 questions? Make a damn fool of yourself, A-G-
A-I-N? Spare us troll.
Bud
May 16, 2012, 5:58:55 PM5/16/12
to
assertions are meant to sound like the mean something but on
examination they really don`t mean anything. Who cares what witnesses
"believed", offering a belief is not supplying a fact. There were
people who actually knew where the shots came from, they were working
from knowledge, not impressions.
Ben Holmes
May 16, 2012, 9:41:04 PM5/16/12
to
In article <3cced41b-6111-427a...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On May 16, 6:39=A0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 16, 11:17=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "please the court",=
> and that
>> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long after it had m=
>ade plain
>> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository Building a=
>lone and
>> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsible speculat=
>ors."
>>
>> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed out and cited=
> for...
>>
>> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures therefo=
>re - more
>> > significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the im=
>mediate
>> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any of=
>ficial
>> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or af=
>fidavits
>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-tw=
the refuting.
You see, that's the way it works.
If you don't have your own copy of "Rush To Judgment" - I'm sure someone can
loan you a dollar to buy your own copy at the nearest used bookstore.
>> Supply some SPECIFICS.
Sadly, even when we take the time to do so, you lie about it *anyway*. Such as
Bugliosi's lie about how Carrico described the original throat wound.
If you want to 'defend' the WCR from these 'dastardly lies', you'll have to
actually read from my sources, and follow the citations, and ask intelligent
questions.
If you don't know how, just Google the 45 Questions to see the format.
By the way, some other kook said that you'd refuted one of the Mark Lane posts
I've posted... is *this* all you did???
>> Lane invariably hides behind some blanket statement that almost NEVER
>> holds up to scrutiny, from my observation.
If this were actually true, you'd be a hero to the kooks over on the censored
forum by simply providing the "scrutiny" here, for all to see.
But the truth is, you're simply lying.
>you're actually weepy, can't get it together, eh troll....how the hell
>willyou deal with the 45 questions? Make a damn fool of yourself, A-G-
>A-I-N? Spare us troll.
Why aren't the kooks slapping me down with facts? If Mark Lane is the liar that
they claim, surely none of these quotes from him can be true, right???
And if they aren't true, WHY ARE THE KOOKS NOT PROVIDING ANY REFUTATIONS???
>> Informative Regards,
>>
>> Tim Brennan
>> Sydney, Australia
>> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
aeffects says...
>
>On May 16, 6:39=A0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 16, 11:17=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "please the court",=
> and that
>> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long after it had m=
>ade plain
>> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository Building a=
>lone and
>> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsible speculat=
>ors."
>>
>> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed out and cited=
> for...
>>
>> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures therefo=
>re - more
>> > significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the im=
>mediate
>> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any of=
>ficial
>> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or af=
>fidavits
>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-tw=
>o said
>> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>> > You can't keep claiming that Mark Lane lies, yet allow all of these quo=
>> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>tes to be
>> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>>
>> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>>
>> Well who are the twenty five witnesses, Holmes?
Sorry stupid... *YOU* are the one trying to save the WCR... you'll have to do
the refuting.
You see, that's the way it works.
If you don't have your own copy of "Rush To Judgment" - I'm sure someone can
loan you a dollar to buy your own copy at the nearest used bookstore.
>> Supply some SPECIFICS.
Sadly, even when we take the time to do so, you lie about it *anyway*. Such as
Bugliosi's lie about how Carrico described the original throat wound.
If you want to 'defend' the WCR from these 'dastardly lies', you'll have to
actually read from my sources, and follow the citations, and ask intelligent
questions.
If you don't know how, just Google the 45 Questions to see the format.
By the way, some other kook said that you'd refuted one of the Mark Lane posts
I've posted... is *this* all you did???
>> Lane invariably hides behind some blanket statement that almost NEVER
>> holds up to scrutiny, from my observation.
forum by simply providing the "scrutiny" here, for all to see.
But the truth is, you're simply lying.
>you're actually weepy, can't get it together, eh troll....how the hell
>willyou deal with the 45 questions? Make a damn fool of yourself, A-G-
>A-I-N? Spare us troll.
they claim, surely none of these quotes from him can be true, right???
And if they aren't true, WHY ARE THE KOOKS NOT PROVIDING ANY REFUTATIONS???
>> Informative Regards,
>>
>> Tim Brennan
>> Sydney, Australia
>> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
aeffects
May 17, 2012, 3:38:10 AM5/17/12
to
doesn't even know what Mark Lane does for a living.... some authority
you lone nut trolls have....
Ben Holmes
May 17, 2012, 9:30:40 AM5/17/12
to
In article <cec86717-b626-41a2...@nw7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On May 16, 2:58=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 16, 9:39=A0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 16, 11:17=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "please the court=
>", and that
>> > > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long after it had=
> made plain
>> > > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository Building=
> alone and
>> > > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsible specul=
>ators."
>>
>> > > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed out and cit=
>ed for...
>>
>> > > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures there=
>fore - more
>> > > significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the =
>immediate
>> > > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any =
>official
>> > > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or =
>affidavits
>> > > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-=
supply specifics, he'll change the topic. He will *NEVER* admit that he's wrong.
He's also busy denying that what witnesses stated mean anything...
An excellent example of Bud's denials, Bugliosi's lie about the description of
the original bullet wound in JFK's throat. Bud simply will not admit that
Bugliosi lied. Yet the facts are clear beyond *ANY* reasonable doubt.
aeffects says...
>
>On May 16, 2:58=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 16, 9:39=A0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 16, 11:17=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "please the court=
>", and that
>> > > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long after it had=
> made plain
>> > > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository Building=
> alone and
>> > > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsible specul=
>ators."
>>
>> > > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed out and cit=
>ed for...
>>
>> > > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures there=
>fore - more
>> > > significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the =
>immediate
>> > > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any =
>official
>> > > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or =
>affidavits
>> > > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-=
>two said
>> > > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> > > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> > > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>> > > You can't keep claiming that Mark Lane lies, yet allow all of these q=
>> > > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> > > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> > > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>uotes to be
>> > > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>>
>>
>> > > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>>
>>
>> > Well who are the twenty five witnesses, Holmes?
>>
>> > Supply some SPECIFICS.
>>
>> > Lane invariably hides behind some blanket statement that almost NEVER
>> > holds up to scrutiny, from my observation.
>>
>> Thats who Ben learned to do it from. These carefully crafted
>> assertions are meant to sound like the mean something but on
>> examination they really don`t mean anything. Who cares what witnesses
>> "believed", offering a belief is not supplying a fact. There were
>> people who actually knew where the shots came from, they were working
>> from knowledge, not impressions.
>
>focus son, it's Mark Lane..... don't let Fats distract you, the idiot
>doesn't even know what Mark Lane does for a living.... some authority
>you lone nut trolls have....
Bud is doing what he always does... deny deny deny ... if you take the time to
>>
>> > Supply some SPECIFICS.
>>
>> > Lane invariably hides behind some blanket statement that almost NEVER
>> > holds up to scrutiny, from my observation.
>>
>> Thats who Ben learned to do it from. These carefully crafted
>> assertions are meant to sound like the mean something but on
>> examination they really don`t mean anything. Who cares what witnesses
>> "believed", offering a belief is not supplying a fact. There were
>> people who actually knew where the shots came from, they were working
>> from knowledge, not impressions.
>
>focus son, it's Mark Lane..... don't let Fats distract you, the idiot
>doesn't even know what Mark Lane does for a living.... some authority
>you lone nut trolls have....
supply specifics, he'll change the topic. He will *NEVER* admit that he's wrong.
He's also busy denying that what witnesses stated mean anything...
An excellent example of Bud's denials, Bugliosi's lie about the description of
the original bullet wound in JFK's throat. Bud simply will not admit that
Bugliosi lied. Yet the facts are clear beyond *ANY* reasonable doubt.
timstter
May 17, 2012, 3:44:15 PM5/17/12
to
claiming, eh Dave?
That's hardly surprising.
I say Lane HAS to hide behind generalities because the minute he goes
into specifics he knows he'll be debunked.
That's because he lied in the first place.
Bill Clarke
May 17, 2012, 4:29:49 PM5/17/12
to
In article <0891a5e5-0833-4eda...@w13g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
Bud says...
>
>On May 16, 9:39=A0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 16, 11:17=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "please the court",=
> and that
>> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long after it had m=
>ade plain
>> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository Building a=
>lone and
>> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsible speculat=
>ors."
>>
>> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed out and cited=
> for...
>>
>> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures therefo=
>re - more
>> > significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the im=
>mediate
>> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any of=
>ficial
>> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or af=
>fidavits
>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-tw=
doesn’t mean anything to the grand scheme of things. It could be, Bud, the
straw that pushes him over the edge completely. Good for you.
Bill Clarke
Bud says...
>
>On May 16, 9:39=A0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 16, 11:17=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "please the court",=
> and that
>> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long after it had m=
>ade plain
>> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository Building a=
>lone and
>> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsible speculat=
>ors."
>>
>> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed out and cited=
> for...
>>
>> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures therefo=
>re - more
>> > significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the im=
>mediate
>> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any of=
>ficial
>> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or af=
>fidavits
>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-tw=
>o said
>> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>> > You can't keep claiming that Mark Lane lies, yet allow all of these quo=
>> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>tes to be
>> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>>
>> > --
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
>> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>>
>> > --
>-
>> > Ben Holmes
>> > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>>
>> Well who are the twenty five witnesses, Holmes?
>>
>> Supply some SPECIFICS.
>>
>> Lane invariably hides behind some blanket statement that almost NEVER
>> holds up to scrutiny, from my observation.
>
> Thats who Ben learned to do it from. These carefully crafted
>assertions are meant to sound like the mean something but on
>examination they really don`t mean anything.
I was hoping Benny wouldn’t learn that all this minutia he comes out with
>> > Ben Holmes
>> > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>>
>> Well who are the twenty five witnesses, Holmes?
>>
>> Supply some SPECIFICS.
>>
>> Lane invariably hides behind some blanket statement that almost NEVER
>> holds up to scrutiny, from my observation.
>
> Thats who Ben learned to do it from. These carefully crafted
>assertions are meant to sound like the mean something but on
>examination they really don`t mean anything.
doesn’t mean anything to the grand scheme of things. It could be, Bud, the
straw that pushes him over the edge completely. Good for you.
Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
May 17, 2012, 4:37:55 PM5/17/12
to
In article <jp3n3...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
Lane wrote.
Rather embarrassing, isn't it Billy?
> Who cares what witnesses
>>"believed", offering a belief is not supplying a fact. There were
>>people who actually knew where the shots came from, they were working
>>from knowledge, not impressions.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Well who are the twenty five witnesses, Holmes?
>>>
>>> Supply some SPECIFICS.
>>>
>>> Lane invariably hides behind some blanket statement that almost NEVER
>>> holds up to scrutiny, from my observation.
>>
>> Thats who Ben learned to do it from. These carefully crafted
>>assertions are meant to sound like the mean something but on
>>examination they really don`t mean anything.
>
>I was hoping Benny wouldn’t learn that all this minutia he comes out with
>doesn’t mean anything to the grand scheme of things. It could be, Bud, the
>straw that pushes him over the edge completely. Good for you.
>Bill Clarke
Billy "The Coward" Clarke demonstrates yet again that he can't refute what Mark
>>>
>>> Supply some SPECIFICS.
>>>
>>> Lane invariably hides behind some blanket statement that almost NEVER
>>> holds up to scrutiny, from my observation.
>>
>> Thats who Ben learned to do it from. These carefully crafted
>>assertions are meant to sound like the mean something but on
>>examination they really don`t mean anything.
>
>I was hoping Benny wouldn’t learn that all this minutia he comes out with
>doesn’t mean anything to the grand scheme of things. It could be, Bud, the
>straw that pushes him over the edge completely. Good for you.
>Bill Clarke
Lane wrote.
Rather embarrassing, isn't it Billy?
> Who cares what witnesses
>>"believed", offering a belief is not supplying a fact. There were
>>people who actually knew where the shots came from, they were working
>>from knowledge, not impressions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aeffects
May 17, 2012, 5:36:11 PM5/17/12
to
On May 17, 1:29 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <0891a5e5-0833-4eda-b433-e82f7c892...@w13g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
what ever are you babbling about, hon? you're sounding like a 20 year,
lone nut, aaj, troll veteran... and shit man, you can't even spell
Warren Commission Report yet... and no, perhaps you're not ready for
running the Ben Holmes lone nutless fan club? Methinks you need a bit
more seasoning. carry on!
> In article <0891a5e5-0833-4eda-b433-e82f7c892...@w13g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
lone nut, aaj, troll veteran... and shit man, you can't even spell
Warren Commission Report yet... and no, perhaps you're not ready for
running the Ben Holmes lone nutless fan club? Methinks you need a bit
more seasoning. carry on!
Ben Holmes
May 17, 2012, 5:51:30 PM5/17/12
to
In article <c3867752-4011-4a03...@ns1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On May 17, 1:29=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <0891a5e5-0833-4eda-b433-e82f7c892...@w13g2000vbc.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Bud says...
>>
>> >On May 16, 9:39=3DA0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On May 16, 11:17=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "please the cour=
>t",=3D
>> > and that
>> >> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long after it ha=
>d m=3D
>> >ade plain
>> >> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository Buildin=
>g a=3D
>> >lone and
>> >> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsible specu=
>lat=3D
>> >ors."
>>
>> >> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed out and ci=
>ted=3D
>> > for...
>>
>> >> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures ther=
>efo=3D
>> >re - more
>> >> > significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the=
> im=3D
>> >mediate
>> >> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any=
> of=3D
>> >ficial
>> >> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or=
> af=3D
>> >fidavits
>> >> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty=
>-tw=3D
>quo=3D
>th
>> doesn=92t mean anything to the grand scheme of things. =A0It could be, Bu=
>d, the
>> straw that pushes him over the edge completely. =A0Good for you.
What's amusing is that Billy "The Coward" Clarke *still* hasn't offered even a
single refutation to the quotes of Mark Lane I've provided.
Since he believes Mark Lane to be a liar, he's going to need to step up to the
plate someday, and support his claims. Til then, I'll just continue to point out
Billy's cowardice.
>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> =A0Who cares what witnesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aeffects says...
>
>On May 17, 1:29=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <0891a5e5-0833-4eda-b433-e82f7c892...@w13g2000vbc.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Bud says...
>>
>> >On May 16, 9:39=3DA0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On May 16, 11:17=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "please the cour=
>t",=3D
>> > and that
>> >> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long after it ha=
>d m=3D
>> >ade plain
>> >> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository Buildin=
>g a=3D
>> >lone and
>> >> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsible specu=
>lat=3D
>> >ors."
>>
>> >> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed out and ci=
>ted=3D
>> > for...
>>
>> >> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures ther=
>efo=3D
>> >re - more
>> >> > significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the=
> im=3D
>> >mediate
>> >> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any=
> of=3D
>> >ficial
>> >> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or=
> af=3D
>> >fidavits
>> >> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty=
>-tw=3D
>> >o said
>> >> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> >> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> >> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>> >> > You can't keep claiming that Mark Lane lies, yet allow all of these =
>> >> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> >> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> >> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>quo=3D
>> >tes to be
>> >> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>>
>> >> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>>
>> >> Well who are the twenty five witnesses, Holmes?
>>
>> >> Supply some SPECIFICS.
>>
>> >> Lane invariably hides behind some blanket statement that almost NEVER
>> >> holds up to scrutiny, from my observation.
>>
>> > =A0Thats who Ben learned to do it from. These carefully crafted
>>
>> >> Supply some SPECIFICS.
>>
>> >> Lane invariably hides behind some blanket statement that almost NEVER
>> >> holds up to scrutiny, from my observation.
>>
>> >assertions are meant to sound like the mean something but on
>> >examination they really don`t mean anything.
>>
>> I was hoping Benny wouldn=92t learn that all this minutia he comes out wi=
>> >examination they really don`t mean anything.
>>
>th
>> doesn=92t mean anything to the grand scheme of things. =A0It could be, Bu=
>d, the
>> straw that pushes him over the edge completely. =A0Good for you.
>
>what ever are you babbling about, hon? you're sounding like a 20 year,
>lone nut, aaj, troll veteran... and shit man, you can't even spell
>Warren Commission Report yet... and no, perhaps you're not ready for
>running the Ben Holmes lone nutless fan club? Methinks you need a bit
>more seasoning. carry on!
I thought Ken McDonald was in the running for that honor. Has he disappeared?
>what ever are you babbling about, hon? you're sounding like a 20 year,
>lone nut, aaj, troll veteran... and shit man, you can't even spell
>Warren Commission Report yet... and no, perhaps you're not ready for
>running the Ben Holmes lone nutless fan club? Methinks you need a bit
>more seasoning. carry on!
What's amusing is that Billy "The Coward" Clarke *still* hasn't offered even a
single refutation to the quotes of Mark Lane I've provided.
Since he believes Mark Lane to be a liar, he's going to need to step up to the
plate someday, and support his claims. Til then, I'll just continue to point out
Billy's cowardice.
>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> =A0Who cares what witnesses
>> >"believed", offering a belief is not supplying a fact. There were
>> >people who actually knew where the shots came from, they were working
>> >from knowledge, not impressions.
--
>> >people who actually knew where the shots came from, they were working
>> >from knowledge, not impressions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
mucher1
May 17, 2012, 6:05:09 PM5/17/12
to
On 16 Maj, 15:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "please the court", and that
> the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long after it had made plain
> that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository Building alone and
> implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsible speculators."
>
> To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed out and cited for...
>
> Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures therefore - more
> significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the immediate
> reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any official
> version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits
> on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-two said
> they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>
> Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>
> Any kooks care to refute this?
>
> You can't keep claiming that Mark Lane lies, yet allow all of these quotes to be
> shown correct by your inability to refute them...
It seems a couple of AP staff writers refuted Lane's claim some 45
> Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "please the court", and that
> the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long after it had made plain
> that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository Building alone and
> implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsible speculators."
>
> To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed out and cited for...
>
> Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures therefore - more
> significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the immediate
> reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any official
> version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits
> on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-two said
> they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>
> Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>
> Any kooks care to refute this?
>
> You can't keep claiming that Mark Lane lies, yet allow all of these quotes to be
> shown correct by your inability to refute them...
years ago:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%20Disk/Associated%20Press/Times-Picayune/Item%2004.pdf
Volumes Don't Support Lane
In the second chapter of his book, Lane writes: "Twenty-five
witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits on Nov. 22
or Nov. 23--the day of and the day after the assassination--about the
origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came
from the knoll."
Should one check the commission's volumes, he would find that, yes,
from the knoll."
23 people did give statements to law officials on those two days. Nine
cited the knoll. Twelve cited the depository. Two indicated it could
have been either.
There is a witness mentioned in another context by Lane whose
testimony has some relevance as to the conflicting opinions of where
the shots came from. He is Lee E. Bowers. He was working in a signal
tower in the railroad area behind the knoll. His testimony is in
Volume VI.
Bowers: "The sounds came from either from up against the school
book depository building or near the mouth of the triple overpass."
Q: "You were not able to tell which?"
Bowers: "No, I could not."
Q: "Well, now, had you had any experience before being in the tower
as to sounds coming from these various places?"
Bowers: "Yes, I had worked this same tower for some 10 or 12 years,
and was there during the time they were renovating the school
depository building, and had noticed at that time the similarity of
sounds occuring in either of these two locations."
Bower's testimony doesn't rule out the knoll. It doesn't rule out
the depository. It does help those investigators trying to explain why
witnesses to the assassination gave conflicting opinions as to the
sound of the shots. If Bowers was helpful in this regard to Lane or
Epstein, they didn't mention it.
(Bernard Gavzer & Sid Moody, AP, 1967)
Can you refute this, Ben?
Bud
May 17, 2012, 7:22:04 PM5/17/12
to
On May 17, 6:05 pm, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 Maj, 15:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "please the court", and that
> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long after it had made plain
> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository Building alone and
> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsible speculators."
>
> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed out and cited for...
>
> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures therefore - more
> > significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the immediate
> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any official
> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits
> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-two said
> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>
> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>
> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>
> > You can't keep claiming that Mark Lane lies, yet allow all of these quotes to be
> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>
> It seems a couple of AP staff writers refuted Lane's claim some 45
> years ago:
>
> http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%2...
> On 16 Maj, 15:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "please the court", and that
> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long after it had made plain
> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository Building alone and
> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsible speculators."
>
> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed out and cited for...
>
> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures therefore - more
> > significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the immediate
> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any official
> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits
> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-two said
> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>
> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>
> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>
> > You can't keep claiming that Mark Lane lies, yet allow all of these quotes to be
> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>
> It seems a couple of AP staff writers refuted Lane's claim some 45
> years ago:
>
>
> Volumes Don't Support Lane
>
> In the second chapter of his book, Lane writes: "Twenty-five
> witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits on Nov. 22
> or Nov. 23--the day of and the day after the assassination--about the
> origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came
> from the knoll."
> Should one check the commission's volumes, he would find that, yes,
> 23 people did give statements to law officials on those two days. Nine
> cited the knoll. Twelve cited the depository. Two indicated it could
> have been either.
Wow, no wonder Ben didn`t want to name them, I might look them up
> Volumes Don't Support Lane
>
> In the second chapter of his book, Lane writes: "Twenty-five
> witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits on Nov. 22
> or Nov. 23--the day of and the day after the assassination--about the
> origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came
> from the knoll."
> Should one check the commission's volumes, he would find that, yes,
> 23 people did give statements to law officials on those two days. Nine
> cited the knoll. Twelve cited the depository. Two indicated it could
> have been either.
and see that Lane was lying.
Bill Clarke
May 18, 2012, 12:41:00 AM5/18/12
to
In article <jp3nj...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
Not really Benny. I can refute a bunch of horse shit Mark Lane wrote in his
Conversations With Americans".
What has become embarrassing, Benny, is watching you go bananas over minutia.
You take yourself much too serious.
Bill Clarke
Conversations With Americans".
What has become embarrassing, Benny, is watching you go bananas over minutia.
You take yourself much too serious.
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
May 18, 2012, 12:43:29 AM5/18/12
to
>On May 17, 1:29=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <0891a5e5-0833-4eda-b433-e82f7c892...@w13g2000vbc.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Bud says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 16, 9:39=3DA0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On May 16, 11:17=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "please the cour=
>t",=3D
>> > and that
>> >> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long after it ha=
>d m=3D
>> >ade plain
>> >> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository Buildin=
>g a=3D
>> >lone and
>> >> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsible specu=
>lat=3D
>> >ors."
>>
>> >> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed out and ci=
>ted=3D
>> > for...
>>
>> >> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures ther=
>efo=3D
>> >re - more
>> >> > significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the=
> im=3D
>> >mediate
>> >> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any=
> of=3D
>> >ficial
>> >> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or=
> af=3D
>> >fidavits
>> >> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty=
>-tw=3D
>quo=3D
>---=3D
>> straw that pushes him over the edge completely. =A0Good for you.
up his ass. No doubt both of you will enjoy the experience.
Bill Clarke
>> In article <0891a5e5-0833-4eda-b433-e82f7c892...@w13g2000vbc.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Bud says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 16, 9:39=3DA0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On May 16, 11:17=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "please the cour=
>t",=3D
>> > and that
>> >> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long after it ha=
>d m=3D
>> >ade plain
>> >> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository Buildin=
>g a=3D
>> >lone and
>> >> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsible specu=
>lat=3D
>> >ors."
>>
>> >> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed out and ci=
>ted=3D
>> > for...
>>
>> >> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures ther=
>efo=3D
>> >re - more
>> >> > significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the=
> im=3D
>> >mediate
>> >> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any=
> of=3D
>> >ficial
>> >> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or=
> af=3D
>> >fidavits
>> >> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty=
>-tw=3D
>> >o said
>> >> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> >> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> >> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>> >> > You can't keep claiming that Mark Lane lies, yet allow all of these =
>> >> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> >> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> >> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>quo=3D
>> >tes to be
>> >> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>>
>> >> > --
>> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------=
>> >> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>>
>> >> > --
>---=3D
>> >-
>> >> > Ben Holmes
>> >> > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>>
>> >> Well who are the twenty five witnesses, Holmes?
>>
>> >> Supply some SPECIFICS.
>>
>> >> Lane invariably hides behind some blanket statement that almost NEVER
>> >> holds up to scrutiny, from my observation.
>>
>> > =A0Thats who Ben learned to do it from. These carefully crafted
>> >> > Ben Holmes
>> >> > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>>
>> >> Well who are the twenty five witnesses, Holmes?
>>
>> >> Supply some SPECIFICS.
>>
>> >> Lane invariably hides behind some blanket statement that almost NEVER
>> >> holds up to scrutiny, from my observation.
>>
>> >assertions are meant to sound like the mean something but on
>> >examination they really don`t mean anything.
>>
>> >examination they really don`t mean anything.
>>
>> I was hoping Benny wouldn=92t learn that all this minutia he comes out wi=
>th
>> doesn=92t mean anything to the grand scheme of things. =A0It could be, Bu=
>d, the
>th
>> doesn=92t mean anything to the grand scheme of things. =A0It could be, Bu=
>> straw that pushes him over the edge completely. =A0Good for you.
>
>what ever are you babbling about, hon? you're sounding like a 20 year,
>lone nut, aaj, troll veteran... and shit man, you can't even spell
>Warren Commission Report yet... and no, perhaps you're not ready for
>running the Ben Holmes lone nutless fan club? Methinks you need a bit
>more seasoning. carry on!
Benny is going to make a sudden stop one day and your nose is going to be 2 feet
>what ever are you babbling about, hon? you're sounding like a 20 year,
>lone nut, aaj, troll veteran... and shit man, you can't even spell
>Warren Commission Report yet... and no, perhaps you're not ready for
>running the Ben Holmes lone nutless fan club? Methinks you need a bit
>more seasoning. carry on!
up his ass. No doubt both of you will enjoy the experience.
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
May 18, 2012, 12:46:46 AM5/18/12
to
In article <42614c48-7eb0-46dc...@t23g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Bud says...
> and that
>> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long after it had m=
>ade plain
>> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository Building a=
>lone and
>> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsible speculat=
>ors."
>>
>> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed out and cited=
> for...
>>
>> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures therefo=
>re - more
>> > significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the im=
>mediate
>> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any of=
>ficial
>> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or af=
>fidavits
>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-tw=
Bill Clarke
>> =A0 =A0There is a witness mentioned in another context by Lane whose
>> =A0 =A0Bowers: "No, I could not."
>> =A0 =A0Q: "Well, now, had you had any experience before being in the towe=
Bud says...
>
>On May 17, 6:05=A0pm, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 16 Maj, 15:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "please the court",=
>On May 17, 6:05=A0pm, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 16 Maj, 15:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> and that
>> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long after it had m=
>ade plain
>> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository Building a=
>lone and
>> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsible speculat=
>ors."
>>
>> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed out and cited=
> for...
>>
>> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures therefo=
>re - more
>> > significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the im=
>mediate
>> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any of=
>ficial
>> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or af=
>fidavits
>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-tw=
>o said
>> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>> > You can't keep claiming that Mark Lane lies, yet allow all of these quo=
>> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>tes to be
>> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>>
>> It seems a couple of AP staff writers refuted Lane's claim some 45
>> years ago:
>>
>> http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%2...
>>
>> Volumes Don't Support Lane
>>
>> =A0 =A0In the second chapter of his book, Lane writes: "Twenty-five
>> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>>
>> It seems a couple of AP staff writers refuted Lane's claim some 45
>> years ago:
>>
>> http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%2...
>>
>> Volumes Don't Support Lane
>>
>> witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits on Nov. 22
>> or Nov. 23--the day of and the day after the assassination--about the
>> origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came
>> from the knoll."
>> =A0 =A0Should one check the commission's volumes, he would find that, yes=
>> or Nov. 23--the day of and the day after the assassination--about the
>> origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came
>> from the knoll."
>,
>> 23 people did give statements to law officials on those two days. Nine
>> cited the knoll. Twelve cited the depository. Two indicated it could
>> have been either.
>
> Wow, no wonder Ben didn`t want to name them, I might look them up
>and see that Lane was lying.
Yeah, a nice piece of work.
>> 23 people did give statements to law officials on those two days. Nine
>> cited the knoll. Twelve cited the depository. Two indicated it could
>> have been either.
>
> Wow, no wonder Ben didn`t want to name them, I might look them up
>and see that Lane was lying.
Bill Clarke
>> =A0 =A0There is a witness mentioned in another context by Lane whose
>> testimony has some relevance as to the conflicting opinions of where
>> the shots came from. He is Lee E. Bowers. He was working in a signal
>> tower in the railroad area behind the knoll. His testimony is in
>> Volume VI.
>> =A0 =A0Bowers: "The sounds came from either from up against the school
>> the shots came from. He is Lee E. Bowers. He was working in a signal
>> tower in the railroad area behind the knoll. His testimony is in
>> Volume VI.
>> book depository building or near the mouth of the triple overpass."
>> =A0 =A0Q: "You were not able to tell which?"
>> =A0 =A0Bowers: "No, I could not."
>> =A0 =A0Q: "Well, now, had you had any experience before being in the towe=
>r
>> as to sounds coming from these various places?"
>> =A0 =A0Bowers: "Yes, I had worked this same tower for some 10 or 12 years=
>> as to sounds coming from these various places?"
>,
>> and was there during the time they were renovating the school
>> depository building, and had noticed at that time the similarity of
>> sounds occuring in either of these two locations."
>> =A0 =A0Bower's testimony doesn't rule out the knoll. It doesn't rule out
>> and was there during the time they were renovating the school
>> depository building, and had noticed at that time the similarity of
>> sounds occuring in either of these two locations."
Ben Holmes
May 18, 2012, 9:57:02 AM5/18/12
to
In article <jp4js...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
Then by all means, run over to your nearest Vietnam forum and do so.
But by your gutlessly cowardly refusal to deal with "Rush to Judgment", you
embarrass yourself.
>What has become embarrassing, Benny, is watching you go bananas over minutia.
>You take yourself much too serious.
Changing the word "evidence" to "minutia" won't change the facts, Billy.
And one fact that is becoming blazingly clear is your yellow cowardice in
refusing to address any of the points that I'm quoting Mark Lane on.
>Bill Clarke
>
>
>>> Who cares what witnesses
>>>>"believed", offering a belief is not supplying a fact. There were
>>>>people who actually knew where the shots came from, they were working
>>>>from knowledge, not impressions.
>>
>>
>
But by your gutlessly cowardly refusal to deal with "Rush to Judgment", you
embarrass yourself.
>What has become embarrassing, Benny, is watching you go bananas over minutia.
>You take yourself much too serious.
And one fact that is becoming blazingly clear is your yellow cowardice in
refusing to address any of the points that I'm quoting Mark Lane on.
>Bill Clarke
>
>
>>> Who cares what witnesses
>>>>"believed", offering a belief is not supplying a fact. There were
>>>>people who actually knew where the shots came from, they were working
>>>>from knowledge, not impressions.
>>
>>
>
Ben Holmes
May 18, 2012, 10:04:11 AM5/18/12
to
In article <jp4k7...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
If this happened, then all you have to do is provide the citations that refute
the Mark Lane quotes I keep raising.
>>> http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%2...
>>>
>>> Volumes Don't Support Lane
>>>
>>> =A0 =A0In the second chapter of his book, Lane writes: "Twenty-five
>>> witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits on Nov. 22
>>> or Nov. 23--the day of and the day after the assassination--about the
>>> origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came
>>> from the knoll."
>>> =A0 =A0Should one check the commission's volumes, he would find that, yes=
>>,
>>> 23 people did give statements to law officials on those two days. Nine
>>> cited the knoll. Twelve cited the depository. Two indicated it could
>>> have been either.
>>
>> Wow, no wonder Ben didn`t want to name them, I might look them up
>>and see that Lane was lying.
Since its the *KOOKS* such as yourself and Billy that argue that Mark Lane lied,
it's incumbent on *YOU* to provide this evidence.
I'm merely proving, by your inability to do so, that you can't.
>Yeah, a nice piece of work.
Ah Billy! Coward to the very end, aren't you?
Refute what, moron? You've not provided any citations that refute what Mark Lane
stated.
the Mark Lane quotes I keep raising.
>>> http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%2...
>>>
>>> Volumes Don't Support Lane
>>>
>>> =A0 =A0In the second chapter of his book, Lane writes: "Twenty-five
>>> witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits on Nov. 22
>>> or Nov. 23--the day of and the day after the assassination--about the
>>> origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came
>>> from the knoll."
>>> =A0 =A0Should one check the commission's volumes, he would find that, yes=
>>,
>>> 23 people did give statements to law officials on those two days. Nine
>>> cited the knoll. Twelve cited the depository. Two indicated it could
>>> have been either.
>>
>> Wow, no wonder Ben didn`t want to name them, I might look them up
>>and see that Lane was lying.
it's incumbent on *YOU* to provide this evidence.
I'm merely proving, by your inability to do so, that you can't.
>Yeah, a nice piece of work.
stated.
timstter
May 18, 2012, 4:21:37 PM5/18/12
to
On May 18, 8:05 am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 Maj, 15:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "please the court", and that
> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long after it had made plain
> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository Building alone and
> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsible speculators."
>
> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed out and cited for...
>
> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures therefore - more
> > significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the immediate
> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any official
> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits
> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-two said
> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>
> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>
> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>
> > You can't keep claiming that Mark Lane lies, yet allow all of these quotes to be
> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>
> It seems a couple of AP staff writers refuted Lane's claim some 45
> years ago:
>
> http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%2...
> On 16 Maj, 15:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "please the court", and that
> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long after it had made plain
> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository Building alone and
> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsible speculators."
>
> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed out and cited for...
>
> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures therefore - more
> > significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the immediate
> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any official
> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits
> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-two said
> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>
> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>
> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>
> > You can't keep claiming that Mark Lane lies, yet allow all of these quotes to be
> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>
> It seems a couple of AP staff writers refuted Lane's claim some 45
> years ago:
>
Even more lies by Lane are now on display!
Looks like Holmes's precious six or so knoll witnesses (he is too
inept to even provide a page cite for his Lane nonsense) are going up
in smoke, as it were.
The bloke who saw smoke near the knoll but who concluded it was from a
police motorcycle is a CLASSIC example of Lane's wilful mishandling
the evidence.
Bill Clarke
May 18, 2012, 4:49:25 PM5/18/12
to
In article <jp3rt...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and guess that even you are smart
enough not to post a Lane lie and then challenge some one to prove the lie. As
I've said before, you pick and choose your Lane quotes very selectively. Why
not, coward, open up the field and ask anyone to prove any lie Lane has told?
Tim did a good job, page # and all, of this the last time you blew Lane smoke.
Sorry you missed it.
>Since he believes Mark Lane to be a liar, he's going to need to step up to the
>plate someday, and support his claims. Til then, I'll just continue to point
>out Billy's cowardice.
Point this Benny. I don't believe Lane is a liar, I know he is a liar. I see
no need to defend anything to the likes of you.
Bill Clarke
enough not to post a Lane lie and then challenge some one to prove the lie. As
I've said before, you pick and choose your Lane quotes very selectively. Why
not, coward, open up the field and ask anyone to prove any lie Lane has told?
Tim did a good job, page # and all, of this the last time you blew Lane smoke.
Sorry you missed it.
>Since he believes Mark Lane to be a liar, he's going to need to step up to the
>plate someday, and support his claims. Til then, I'll just continue to point
>out Billy's cowardice.
no need to defend anything to the likes of you.
Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
May 18, 2012, 10:06:10 PM5/18/12
to
In article <jp6ck...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
Then simply quote it, coward.
But you can't... you'd be slaughtered when I refuted your silly quotes...
>>Since he believes Mark Lane to be a liar, he's going to need to step up to the
>>plate someday, and support his claims. Til then, I'll just continue to point
>>out Billy's cowardice.
>
>Point this Benny. I don't believe Lane is a liar, I know he is a liar.
I don't believe Billy Clarke is a liar, I *KNOW* he's a liar.
>I see no need to defend anything to the likes of you.
>
>Bill Clarke
A man who refuses to support his own words isn't much of a man.
But you can't... you'd be slaughtered when I refuted your silly quotes...
>>Since he believes Mark Lane to be a liar, he's going to need to step up to the
>>plate someday, and support his claims. Til then, I'll just continue to point
>>out Billy's cowardice.
>
>Point this Benny. I don't believe Lane is a liar, I know he is a liar.
>I see no need to defend anything to the likes of you.
>
>Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
May 19, 2012, 12:03:45 AM5/19/12
to
In article <jp6v6...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
If you hadn't been a coward hunkered down behind your kill file you would have
seen them yourself.
the one that doesn't know what Tim shoved up your ass. You are. You look it up
dipshit.
Bill Clarke
seen them yourself.
>
>But you can't... you'd be slaughtered when I refuted your silly quotes...
I could do a search and find them I guess. But so can your sorry ass. I'm not
>But you can't... you'd be slaughtered when I refuted your silly quotes...
the one that doesn't know what Tim shoved up your ass. You are. You look it up
dipshit.
Bill Clarke
aeffects
May 19, 2012, 3:39:08 AM5/19/12
to
On May 18, 9:03 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <jp6v6i02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <jp6ckl01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>In article <jp3rt20...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>In article <c3867752-4011-4a03-bfba-f1267f24a...@ns1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
I guess this is the time when you run for cover at .john's, telling
all who will listen you showed those CT's are thing or two. Right?
Chewed off a bit more than you can handle, eh, Bill'o? Nothing to
squirm about, I remember old 5 Bronze Star Dolan (all in one tour,
too. None for valor.) He too got uppity when confronted by case
evidence...
Carry on, troop!
> In article <jp6v6i02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <jp6ckl01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>In article <jp3rt20...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>In article <c3867752-4011-4a03-bfba-f1267f24a...@ns1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
all who will listen you showed those CT's are thing or two. Right?
Chewed off a bit more than you can handle, eh, Bill'o? Nothing to
squirm about, I remember old 5 Bronze Star Dolan (all in one tour,
too. None for valor.) He too got uppity when confronted by case
evidence...
Carry on, troop!
Sam McClung
May 19, 2012, 9:28:36 AM5/19/12
to
I wish I had two of his bronze stars...
Ben Holmes
May 19, 2012, 9:37:24 AM5/19/12
to
In article <jp763...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
Asking *me* to support *YOUR* assertions? How silly!
Cowardly REMF... aren't you?
>Bill Clarke
>
>
>>>>Since he believes Mark Lane to be a liar, he's going to need to step up to the
>>>>plate someday, and support his claims. Til then, I'll just continue to point
>>>>out Billy's cowardice.
>>>
>>>Point this Benny. I don't believe Lane is a liar, I know he is a liar.
>>
>>
>>I don't believe Billy Clarke is a liar, I *KNOW* he's a liar.
>>
>>
>>>I see no need to defend anything to the likes of you.
>>>
>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>>A man who refuses to support his own words isn't much of a man.
Cowardly REMF... aren't you?
>Bill Clarke
>
>
>>>>Since he believes Mark Lane to be a liar, he's going to need to step up to the
>>>>plate someday, and support his claims. Til then, I'll just continue to point
>>>>out Billy's cowardice.
>>>
>>>Point this Benny. I don't believe Lane is a liar, I know he is a liar.
>>
>>
>>I don't believe Billy Clarke is a liar, I *KNOW* he's a liar.
>>
>>
>>>I see no need to defend anything to the likes of you.
>>>
>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>>A man who refuses to support his own words isn't much of a man.
aeffects
May 19, 2012, 12:41:26 PM5/19/12
to
On May 19, 6:28 am, "Sam McClung" <mccl...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> I wish I had two of his bronze stars...
regarding lone nutters evidence-debate skills, a couple of mushy nads
> I wish I had two of his bronze stars...
would do them well....
timstter
May 20, 2012, 5:03:42 AM5/20/12
to
He was verifiably a respected former member of the USMC, welcome at
their functions, and attained a quite high rank.
I found absolutely NOTHING similar online for your 100% REMF mate, Ben
Holmes.
timstter
May 20, 2012, 5:20:52 AM5/20/12
to
TOP POST
Did you even read the clipping that Ulrik supplied, you pathetic KOOK?
Yet MORE evidence of Lane lying.
These guys (Sid & Co) were onto Lane and his antics YEARS ago!
Expect to hear more in the coming weeks, Holmes, as the theme of
Lane's undoubted research DECEIT is expanded upon.
Too bad you'll be too busy skulking behind your pansy killfilter to
read it, but it'll be supplied anyway.
Maybe The Parrot will sling you a secondhand morsel, Yellow Pants,
LOL!
And if he doesn't, no one gives a toss.
The stuff will be posted anyway, showing what a liar Lane is. And
you...
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On May 19, 12:04 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <jp4k7m01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <42614c48-7eb0-46dc-83da-03fcaa325...@t23g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Did you even read the clipping that Ulrik supplied, you pathetic KOOK?
Yet MORE evidence of Lane lying.
These guys (Sid & Co) were onto Lane and his antics YEARS ago!
Expect to hear more in the coming weeks, Holmes, as the theme of
Lane's undoubted research DECEIT is expanded upon.
Too bad you'll be too busy skulking behind your pansy killfilter to
read it, but it'll be supplied anyway.
Maybe The Parrot will sling you a secondhand morsel, Yellow Pants,
LOL!
And if he doesn't, no one gives a toss.
The stuff will be posted anyway, showing what a liar Lane is. And
you...
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> In article <jp4k7m01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <42614c48-7eb0-46dc-83da-03fcaa325...@t23g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
mucher1
May 21, 2012, 5:18:02 AM5/21/12
to
On 18 Maj, 16:04, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <jp4k7m01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >In article <42614c48-7eb0-46dc-83da-03fcaa325...@t23g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Mark Lane: "Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements
or affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the
this?"
It's not particularly difficult to find four (25 minus 22 plus 1) of
these witnesses that didn't say they believed the shots came from the
knoll. The following four clearly believed the shots came from the
TSBD. Others couldn't tell where the shots came from, or their
statements can be interpreted either way. Several reported seeing
people rush to the knoll after the shots, but didn't offer an
independent opinion. Even CT darling Jean Hill ("I looked across the
street and up the hill and saw a man running toward the monument and I
started running over there") didn't really say where the shots seemed
to come from.
Howard Leslie Brennan (11/22/63): "It run in my mind that it might be
someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick building
and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have described
in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered
rifle." (19H470)
Amos Lee Euins (11/22/63): "I started looking around and then I looked
up in the red brick building. I saw a man in a window with a gun and I
saw him shoot twice." (19H474)
Charles Hester (11/22/63): "[The shots] sounded like they came from
immediately behind us and over our heads. We did see the shooting. I
immediately turned and looked at the Texas Book Depository building
and did not see anyone. The shots sounded like they definitely came
from in or around the building." (19H478)
Eddie Piper (11/23/63): "The shots seemed to me like they came from up
inside the building." (19H499)
> In article <jp4k7m01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >In article <42614c48-7eb0-46dc-83da-03fcaa325...@t23g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
or affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the
shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came from the
knoll."
Ben Holmes: "Devastating to the WCR's theory! Any kooks care to refute
knoll."
this?"
It's not particularly difficult to find four (25 minus 22 plus 1) of
these witnesses that didn't say they believed the shots came from the
knoll. The following four clearly believed the shots came from the
TSBD. Others couldn't tell where the shots came from, or their
statements can be interpreted either way. Several reported seeing
people rush to the knoll after the shots, but didn't offer an
independent opinion. Even CT darling Jean Hill ("I looked across the
street and up the hill and saw a man running toward the monument and I
started running over there") didn't really say where the shots seemed
to come from.
Howard Leslie Brennan (11/22/63): "It run in my mind that it might be
someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick building
and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have described
in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered
rifle." (19H470)
Amos Lee Euins (11/22/63): "I started looking around and then I looked
up in the red brick building. I saw a man in a window with a gun and I
saw him shoot twice." (19H474)
Charles Hester (11/22/63): "[The shots] sounded like they came from
immediately behind us and over our heads. We did see the shooting. I
immediately turned and looked at the Texas Book Depository building
and did not see anyone. The shots sounded like they definitely came
from in or around the building." (19H478)
Eddie Piper (11/23/63): "The shots seemed to me like they came from up
inside the building." (19H499)
aeffects
May 21, 2012, 8:28:36 PM5/21/12
to
Ben Holmes
May 21, 2012, 8:56:41 PM5/21/12
to
In article <6a53000b-dde6-4702...@pr7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>ups.com>,
>> > >Bud says...
>ourt",=3D
>> > >> and that
>> > >>> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long after it=
> had m=3D
>> > >>ade plain
>> > >>> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository Buil=
>ding a=3D
>> > >>lone and
>> > >>> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsible sp=
>eculat=3D
>> > >>ors."
>>
>> > >>> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed out and=
> cited=3D
>> > >> for...
>>
>> > >>> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures t=
>herefo=3D
>> > >>re - more
>> > >>> > significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting =
>the im=3D
>> > >>mediate
>> > >>> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was =
>any of=3D
>> > >>ficial
>> > >>> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements=
> or af=3D
>> > >>fidavits
>> > >>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twe=
>nty-tw=3D
>se quo=3D
>five
>> > >>> witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits on Nov. =
>22
>> > >>> or Nov. 23--the day of and the day after the assassination--about t=
>he
>> > >>> origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots c=
>ame
>> > >>> from the knoll."
>> > >>> =3DA0 =3DA0Should one check the commission's volumes, he would find=
> that, yes=3D
>> > >>,
>> > >>> 23 people did give statements to law officials on those two days. N=
>ine
>> > >>> cited the knoll. Twelve cited the depository. Two indicated it coul=
>d
>> > >>> have been either.
>>
>> > >> =A0Wow, no wonder Ben didn`t want to name them, I might look them up
>whose
>> > >>> testimony has some relevance as to the conflicting opinions of wher=
>e
>> > >>> the shots came from. He is Lee E. Bowers. He was working in a signa=
>> > >>> =3DA0 =3DA0Bowers: "No, I could not."
>> > >>> =3DA0 =3DA0Q: "Well, now, had you had any experience before being i=
>n the towe=3D
>r 12 years=3D
> rule out
>> > >>> the depository. It does help those investigators trying to explain =
The sheer *STUPIDITY* of these kooks is amazing!
They pretend that because some eyewitnesses pointed at the TSBD, that this
somehow refutes the fact that Mark Lane pointed out that others pointed to the
Grassy Knoll.
Amazing!!!
aeffects says...
>
>On May 21, 2:18=A0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 18 Maj, 16:04, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <jp4k7m01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> > >In article <42614c48-7eb0-46dc-83da-03fcaa325...@t23g2000yqj.googlegro=
>On May 21, 2:18=A0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 18 Maj, 16:04, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <jp4k7m01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>ups.com>,
>> > >Bud says...
>>
>> > >>On May 17, 6:05=3DA0pm, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>> On 16 Maj, 15:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >>> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "please the c=
>> > >>On May 17, 6:05=3DA0pm, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>> On 16 Maj, 15:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>ourt",=3D
>> > >> and that
>> > >>> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long after it=
> had m=3D
>> > >>ade plain
>> > >>> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository Buil=
>ding a=3D
>> > >>lone and
>> > >>> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsible sp=
>eculat=3D
>> > >>ors."
>>
>> > >>> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed out and=
> cited=3D
>> > >> for...
>>
>> > >>> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures t=
>herefo=3D
>> > >>re - more
>> > >>> > significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting =
>the im=3D
>> > >>mediate
>> > >>> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was =
>any of=3D
>> > >>ficial
>> > >>> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements=
> or af=3D
>> > >>fidavits
>> > >>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twe=
>nty-tw=3D
>> > >>o said
>> > >>> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> > >>> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> > >>> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>> > >>> > You can't keep claiming that Mark Lane lies, yet allow all of the=
>> > >>> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> > >>> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> > >>> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>se quo=3D
>> > >>tes to be
>> > >>> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>>
>> > >>> It seems a couple of AP staff writers refuted Lane's claim some 45
>> > >>> years ago:
>>
>> > If this happened, then all you have to do is provide the citations that=
>> > >>> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>>
>> > >>> It seems a couple of AP staff writers refuted Lane's claim some 45
>> > >>> years ago:
>>
> refute
>> > the Mark Lane quotes I keep raising.
>>
>> > >>>http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%=
>> > the Mark Lane quotes I keep raising.
>>
>2...
>>
>> > >>> Volumes Don't Support Lane
>>
>> > >>> =3DA0 =3DA0In the second chapter of his book, Lane writes: "Twenty-=
>>
>> > >>> Volumes Don't Support Lane
>>
>five
>> > >>> witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits on Nov. =
>22
>> > >>> or Nov. 23--the day of and the day after the assassination--about t=
>he
>> > >>> origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots c=
>ame
>> > >>> from the knoll."
>> > >>> =3DA0 =3DA0Should one check the commission's volumes, he would find=
> that, yes=3D
>> > >>,
>> > >>> 23 people did give statements to law officials on those two days. N=
>ine
>> > >>> cited the knoll. Twelve cited the depository. Two indicated it coul=
>d
>> > >>> have been either.
>>
>> > >> =A0Wow, no wonder Ben didn`t want to name them, I might look them up
>> > >>and see that Lane was lying.
>>
>> > Since its the *KOOKS* such as yourself and Billy that argue that Mark L=
>>
>ane lied,
>> > it's incumbent on *YOU* to provide this evidence.
>>
>> > I'm merely proving, by your inability to do so, that you can't.
>>
>> > >Yeah, a nice piece of work.
>>
>> > Ah Billy! Coward to the very end, aren't you?
>>
>> > >Bill Clarke
>>
>> > >>> =3DA0 =3DA0There is a witness mentioned in another context by Lane =
>> > it's incumbent on *YOU* to provide this evidence.
>>
>> > I'm merely proving, by your inability to do so, that you can't.
>>
>> > >Yeah, a nice piece of work.
>>
>> > Ah Billy! Coward to the very end, aren't you?
>>
>> > >Bill Clarke
>>
>whose
>> > >>> testimony has some relevance as to the conflicting opinions of wher=
>e
>> > >>> the shots came from. He is Lee E. Bowers. He was working in a signa=
>l
>> > >>> tower in the railroad area behind the knoll. His testimony is in
>> > >>> Volume VI.
>> > >>> =3DA0 =3DA0Bowers: "The sounds came from either from up against the=
>> > >>> tower in the railroad area behind the knoll. His testimony is in
>> > >>> Volume VI.
> school
>> > >>> book depository building or near the mouth of the triple overpass."
>> > >>> =3DA0 =3DA0Q: "You were not able to tell which?"
>> > >>> book depository building or near the mouth of the triple overpass."
>> > >>> =3DA0 =3DA0Bowers: "No, I could not."
>> > >>> =3DA0 =3DA0Q: "Well, now, had you had any experience before being i=
>n the towe=3D
>> > >>r
>> > >>> as to sounds coming from these various places?"
>> > >>> =3DA0 =3DA0Bowers: "Yes, I had worked this same tower for some 10 o=
>> > >>> as to sounds coming from these various places?"
>r 12 years=3D
>> > >>,
>> > >>> and was there during the time they were renovating the school
>> > >>> depository building, and had noticed at that time the similarity of
>> > >>> sounds occuring in either of these two locations."
>> > >>> =3DA0 =3DA0Bower's testimony doesn't rule out the knoll. It doesn't=
>> > >>> and was there during the time they were renovating the school
>> > >>> depository building, and had noticed at that time the similarity of
>> > >>> sounds occuring in either of these two locations."
> rule out
>> > >>> the depository. It does help those investigators trying to explain =
>why
>> > >>> witnesses to the assassination gave conflicting opinions as to the
>> > >>> sound of the shots. If Bowers was helpful in this regard to Lane or
>> > >>> Epstein, they didn't mention it.
>>
>> > >>> (Bernard Gavzer & Sid Moody, AP, 1967)
>>
>> > >>> Can you refute this, Ben?
>>
>> > Refute what, moron? You've not provided any citations that refute what =
>> > >>> witnesses to the assassination gave conflicting opinions as to the
>> > >>> sound of the shots. If Bowers was helpful in this regard to Lane or
>> > >>> Epstein, they didn't mention it.
>>
>> > >>> (Bernard Gavzer & Sid Moody, AP, 1967)
>>
>> > >>> Can you refute this, Ben?
>>
They pretend that because some eyewitnesses pointed at the TSBD, that this
somehow refutes the fact that Mark Lane pointed out that others pointed to the
Grassy Knoll.
Amazing!!!
Bud
May 21, 2012, 9:09:20 PM5/21/12
to
On May 21, 8:56 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <6a53000b-dde6-4702-8581-50f1453be...@pr7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
It is amazing, are you really this stupid? This is what you produced
from Lane...
Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures
therefore - more
significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the
immediate
reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any
official
version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
Where are they represented in Lane`s figures?
> In article <6a53000b-dde6-4702-8581-50f1453be...@pr7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
from Lane...
Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures
significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the
immediate
reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any
official
version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
affidavits
on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-
two said
on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-
they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
Mark produced four witnesses who said that shots came from the TSBD.
Where are they represented in Lane`s figures?
Jean
May 21, 2012, 11:16:08 PM5/21/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
Piper. Here are three more:
Bonnie Ray Williams (11/23) "right over his head"
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=335
Bob Jackson (11/23)
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=18
James Worrell (11/23)
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=22
Jackson and Worrell reported seeing a rifle in the TSBD.
Twenty-five minus twenty-two equals seven?
Jean
Jean
May 22, 2012, 12:09:28 AM5/22/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
>
> Bob Jackson (11/23) http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=104...
>
> James Worrell (11/23) http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=104...
>
> Jackson and Worrell reported seeing a rifle in the TSBD.
>
> Twenty-five minus twenty-two equals seven?
Oops, make that nine.
> Jackson and Worrell reported seeing a rifle in the TSBD.
>
> Twenty-five minus twenty-two equals seven?
Mrs. Reid, who was standing in front of the TSBD,
(11/23): "I remarked to Mr. [Ochus] Campbell, who was standing near
by, that I thought the shots had come from our building."
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0121a.htm
And of course Marrion Baker (11/22):
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
Lane's statement -- "Twenty-five witnesses are known
to have given statements or
affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the
shots. Twenty-two said
they believed that the shots came from the knoll" -- doesn't add up.
affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the
shots. Twenty-two said
Jean
Bill Clarke
May 22, 2012, 12:22:21 AM5/22/12
to
In article <53add88a-b284-4ce5...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
Jean says...
>
>On May 21, 10:16=A0pm, Jean <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 21, 8:09=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 21, 8:56=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > In article <6a53000b-dde6-4702-8581-50f1453be...@pr7g2000pbb.googlegr=
>oups.com>,
>> > > aeffects says...
>oglegro=3D
>> > > >ups.com>,
>> > > >> > >Bud says...
>e the c=3D
>> > > >ourt",=3D3D
>> > > >> > >> and that
>> > > >> > >>> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long a=
>fter it=3D
>> > > > had m=3D3D
>> > > >> > >>ade plain
>> > > >> > >>> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Deposito=
>ry Buil=3D
>> > > >ding a=3D3D
>> > > >> > >>lone and
>> > > >> > >>> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irrespons=
>ible sp=3D
>> > > >eculat=3D3D
>> > > >> > >>ors."
>>
>> > > >> > >>> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed =
>out and=3D
>> > > > cited=3D3D
>> > > >> > >> for...
>>
>> > > >> > >>> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant fi=
>gures t=3D
>> > > >herefo=3D3D
>> > > >> > >>re - more
>> > > >> > >>> > significant even than the ones given above - are those att=
>esting =3D
>> > > >the im=3D3D
>> > > >> > >>mediate
>> > > >> > >>> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before the=
>re was =3D
>> > > >any of=3D3D
>> > > >> > >>ficial
>> > > >> > >>> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given sta=
>tements=3D
>> > > > or af=3D3D
>> > > >> > >>fidavits
>> > > >> > >>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the sho=
>ts. Twe=3D
>> > > >nty-tw=3D3D
> of the=3D
>> > > >se quo=3D3D
>ome 45
>> > > >> > >>> years ago:
>>
>> > > >> > If this happened, then all you have to do is provide the citatio=
>ns that=3D
>iles/A%=3D
>s: "Twenty-=3D
>> > > >five
>> > > >> > >>> witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits o=
>n Nov. =3D
>> > > >22
>> > > >> > >>> or Nov. 23--the day of and the day after the assassination--=
>about t=3D
>> > > >he
>> > > >> > >>> origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the =
>shots c=3D
>> > > >ame
>> > > >> > >>> from the knoll."
>> > > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Should one check the commission's volumes, he=
> would find=3D
>> > > > that, yes=3D3D
>> > > >> > >>,
>> > > >> > >>> 23 people did give statements to law officials on those two =
>days. N=3D
>> > > >ine
>> > > >> > >>> cited the knoll. Twelve cited the depository. Two indicated =
>it coul=3D
>> > > >d
>> > > >> > >>> have been either.
>>
>> > > >> > >> =3DA0Wow, no wonder Ben didn`t want to name them, I might loo=
> Mark L=3D
>xt by Lane =3D
>> > > >whose
>> > > >> > >>> testimony has some relevance as to the conflicting opinions =
>of wher=3D
>> > > >e
>> > > >> > >>> the shots came from. He is Lee E. Bowers. He was working in =
>a signa=3D
>> > > >l
>> > > >> > >>> tower in the railroad area behind the knoll. His testimony i=
>s in
>> > > >> > >>> Volume VI.
>> > > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Bowers: "The sounds came from either from up =
>against the=3D
>> > > > school
>> > > >> > >>> book depository building or near the mouth of the triple ove=
>rpass."
>> > > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Q: "You were not able to tell which?"
>> > > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Bowers: "No, I could not."
>> > > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Q: "Well, now, had you had any experience bef=
>ore being i=3D
>> > > >n the towe=3D3D
>r some 10 o=3D
>> > > >r 12 years=3D3D
>> > > >> > >>,
>> > > >> > >>> and was there during the time they were renovating the schoo=
>l
>> > > >> > >>> depository building, and had noticed at that time the simila=
> It doesn't=3D
>> > > > rule out
>> > > >> > >>> the depository. It does help those investigators trying to e=
>xplain =3D
>> > > >why
>> > > >> > >>> witnesses to the assassination gave conflicting opinions as =
>to the
>> > > >> > >>> sound of the shots. If Bowers was helpful in this regard to =
>e what =3D
>> > > >Mark Lane
>> > > >> > stated.
>>
>> > > >> Mark Lane: "Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statemen=
>ts
>> > > >> or affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of t=
>fute
>> > > >> this?"
>>
>> > > >> It's not particularly difficult to find four (25 minus 22 plus 1) =
>of
>> > > >> these witnesses that didn't say they believed the shots came from =
>he
>> > > >> street and up the hill and saw a man running toward the monument a=
>nd I
>> > > >> started running over there") didn't really say where the shots see=
>med
>> > > >> to come from.
>>
>> > > >> Howard Leslie Brennan (11/22/63): "It run in my mind that it might=
> be
>> > > >> someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick buil=
>ding
>> > > >> and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have descri=
>oked
>> > > >> up in the red brick building. I saw a man in a window with a gun a=
>m
>> > > >> immediately behind us and over our heads. We did see the shooting.=
> I
>> > > >> immediately turned and looked at the Texas Book Depository buildin=
>g
>> > > >> and did not see anyone. The shots sounded like they definitely cam=
> this
>> > > somehow refutes the fact that Mark Lane pointed out that others point=
>d
>> > from Lane...
>>
>> > =A0 =A0Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures
>ddie
>> Piper. =A0Here are three more:
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Bonnie Ray Williams (11/23) =A0"right over his he=
>ad"
>>
>> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D104..=
>.
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Bob Jackson (11/23) http://www.maryferrell.org/mf=
>fweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D104...
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 James Worrell (11/23) http://www.maryferrell.org/=
>mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D104...
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Jackson and Worrell reported seeing a rifle in=
> the TSBD.
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Twenty-five minus twenty-two equals seven?
>Jean
Watch Benny run from this one.
Bill Clarke
Jean says...
>
>On May 21, 10:16=A0pm, Jean <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 21, 8:09=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 21, 8:56=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > In article <6a53000b-dde6-4702-8581-50f1453be...@pr7g2000pbb.googlegr=
>oups.com>,
>> > > aeffects says...
>>
>> > > >On May 21, 2:18=3DA0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> On 18 Maj, 16:04, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >> > In article <jp4k7m01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> > > >> > >In article <42614c48-7eb0-46dc-83da-03fcaa325...@t23g2000yqj.go=
>> > > >On May 21, 2:18=3DA0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> On 18 Maj, 16:04, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >> > In article <jp4k7m01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>oglegro=3D
>> > > >ups.com>,
>> > > >> > >Bud says...
>>
>> > > >> > >>On May 17, 6:05=3D3DA0pm, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> > >>> On 16 Maj, 15:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >> > >>> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "pleas=
>> > > >> > >>On May 17, 6:05=3D3DA0pm, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> > >>> On 16 Maj, 15:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>e the c=3D
>> > > >ourt",=3D3D
>> > > >> > >> and that
>> > > >> > >>> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long a=
>fter it=3D
>> > > > had m=3D3D
>> > > >> > >>ade plain
>> > > >> > >>> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Deposito=
>ry Buil=3D
>> > > >ding a=3D3D
>> > > >> > >>lone and
>> > > >> > >>> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irrespons=
>ible sp=3D
>> > > >eculat=3D3D
>> > > >> > >>ors."
>>
>> > > >> > >>> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed =
>out and=3D
>> > > > cited=3D3D
>> > > >> > >> for...
>>
>> > > >> > >>> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant fi=
>gures t=3D
>> > > >herefo=3D3D
>> > > >> > >>re - more
>> > > >> > >>> > significant even than the ones given above - are those att=
>esting =3D
>> > > >the im=3D3D
>> > > >> > >>mediate
>> > > >> > >>> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before the=
>re was =3D
>> > > >any of=3D3D
>> > > >> > >>ficial
>> > > >> > >>> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given sta=
>tements=3D
>> > > > or af=3D3D
>> > > >> > >>fidavits
>> > > >> > >>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the sho=
>ts. Twe=3D
>> > > >nty-tw=3D3D
>> > > >> > >>o said
>> > > >> > >>> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> > > >> > >>> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> > > >> > >>> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>> > > >> > >>> > You can't keep claiming that Mark Lane lies, yet allow all=
>> > > >> > >>> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> > > >> > >>> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> > > >> > >>> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
> of the=3D
>> > > >se quo=3D3D
>> > > >> > >>tes to be
>> > > >> > >>> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>>
>> > > >> > >>> It seems a couple of AP staff writers refuted Lane's claim s=
>> > > >> > >>> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>>
>ome 45
>> > > >> > >>> years ago:
>>
>> > > >> > If this happened, then all you have to do is provide the citatio=
>ns that=3D
>> > > > refute
>> > > >> > the Mark Lane quotes I keep raising.
>>
>> > > >> > >>>http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20F=
>> > > >> > the Mark Lane quotes I keep raising.
>>
>iles/A%=3D
>> > > >2...
>>
>> > > >> > >>> Volumes Don't Support Lane
>>
>> > > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0In the second chapter of his book, Lane write=
>>
>> > > >> > >>> Volumes Don't Support Lane
>>
>s: "Twenty-=3D
>> > > >five
>> > > >> > >>> witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits o=
>n Nov. =3D
>> > > >22
>> > > >> > >>> or Nov. 23--the day of and the day after the assassination--=
>about t=3D
>> > > >he
>> > > >> > >>> origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the =
>shots c=3D
>> > > >ame
>> > > >> > >>> from the knoll."
>> > > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Should one check the commission's volumes, he=
> would find=3D
>> > > > that, yes=3D3D
>> > > >> > >>,
>> > > >> > >>> 23 people did give statements to law officials on those two =
>days. N=3D
>> > > >ine
>> > > >> > >>> cited the knoll. Twelve cited the depository. Two indicated =
>it coul=3D
>> > > >d
>> > > >> > >>> have been either.
>>
>> > > >> > >> =3DA0Wow, no wonder Ben didn`t want to name them, I might loo=
>k them up
>> > > >> > >>and see that Lane was lying.
>>
>> > > >> > Since its the *KOOKS* such as yourself and Billy that argue that=
>> > > >> > >>and see that Lane was lying.
>>
> Mark L=3D
>> > > >ane lied,
>> > > >> > it's incumbent on *YOU* to provide this evidence.
>>
>> > > >> > I'm merely proving, by your inability to do so, that you can't.
>>
>> > > >> > >Yeah, a nice piece of work.
>>
>> > > >> > Ah Billy! Coward to the very end, aren't you?
>>
>> > > >> > >Bill Clarke
>>
>> > > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0There is a witness mentioned in another conte=
>> > > >> > it's incumbent on *YOU* to provide this evidence.
>>
>> > > >> > I'm merely proving, by your inability to do so, that you can't.
>>
>> > > >> > >Yeah, a nice piece of work.
>>
>> > > >> > Ah Billy! Coward to the very end, aren't you?
>>
>> > > >> > >Bill Clarke
>>
>xt by Lane =3D
>> > > >whose
>> > > >> > >>> testimony has some relevance as to the conflicting opinions =
>of wher=3D
>> > > >e
>> > > >> > >>> the shots came from. He is Lee E. Bowers. He was working in =
>a signa=3D
>> > > >l
>> > > >> > >>> tower in the railroad area behind the knoll. His testimony i=
>s in
>> > > >> > >>> Volume VI.
>> > > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Bowers: "The sounds came from either from up =
>against the=3D
>> > > > school
>> > > >> > >>> book depository building or near the mouth of the triple ove=
>rpass."
>> > > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Q: "You were not able to tell which?"
>> > > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Bowers: "No, I could not."
>> > > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Q: "Well, now, had you had any experience bef=
>ore being i=3D
>> > > >n the towe=3D3D
>> > > >> > >>r
>> > > >> > >>> as to sounds coming from these various places?"
>> > > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Bowers: "Yes, I had worked this same tower fo=
>> > > >> > >>> as to sounds coming from these various places?"
>r some 10 o=3D
>> > > >r 12 years=3D3D
>> > > >> > >>,
>> > > >> > >>> and was there during the time they were renovating the schoo=
>l
>> > > >> > >>> depository building, and had noticed at that time the simila=
>rity of
>> > > >> > >>> sounds occuring in either of these two locations."
>> > > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Bower's testimony doesn't rule out the knoll.=
>> > > >> > >>> sounds occuring in either of these two locations."
> It doesn't=3D
>> > > > rule out
>> > > >> > >>> the depository. It does help those investigators trying to e=
>xplain =3D
>> > > >why
>> > > >> > >>> witnesses to the assassination gave conflicting opinions as =
>to the
>> > > >> > >>> sound of the shots. If Bowers was helpful in this regard to =
>Lane or
>> > > >> > >>> Epstein, they didn't mention it.
>>
>> > > >> > >>> (Bernard Gavzer & Sid Moody, AP, 1967)
>>
>> > > >> > >>> Can you refute this, Ben?
>>
>> > > >> > Refute what, moron? You've not provided any citations that refut=
>> > > >> > >>> Epstein, they didn't mention it.
>>
>> > > >> > >>> (Bernard Gavzer & Sid Moody, AP, 1967)
>>
>> > > >> > >>> Can you refute this, Ben?
>>
>e what =3D
>> > > >Mark Lane
>> > > >> > stated.
>>
>> > > >> Mark Lane: "Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statemen=
>ts
>> > > >> or affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of t=
>he
>> > > >> shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came from the
>> > > >> knoll."
>>
>> > > >> Ben Holmes: "Devastating to the WCR's theory! Any kooks care to re=
>> > > >> shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came from the
>> > > >> knoll."
>>
>fute
>> > > >> this?"
>>
>> > > >> It's not particularly difficult to find four (25 minus 22 plus 1) =
>of
>> > > >> these witnesses that didn't say they believed the shots came from =
>the
>> > > >> knoll. The following four clearly believed the shots came from the
>> > > >> TSBD. Others couldn't tell where the shots came from, or their
>> > > >> statements can be interpreted either way. Several reported seeing
>> > > >> people rush to the knoll after the shots, but didn't offer an
>> > > >> independent opinion. Even CT darling Jean Hill ("I looked across t=
>> > > >> knoll. The following four clearly believed the shots came from the
>> > > >> TSBD. Others couldn't tell where the shots came from, or their
>> > > >> statements can be interpreted either way. Several reported seeing
>> > > >> people rush to the knoll after the shots, but didn't offer an
>he
>> > > >> street and up the hill and saw a man running toward the monument a=
>nd I
>> > > >> started running over there") didn't really say where the shots see=
>med
>> > > >> to come from.
>>
>> > > >> Howard Leslie Brennan (11/22/63): "It run in my mind that it might=
> be
>> > > >> someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick buil=
>ding
>> > > >> and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have descri=
>bed
>> > > >> in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered
>> > > >> rifle." (19H470)
>>
>> > > >> Amos Lee Euins (11/22/63): "I started looking around and then I lo=
>> > > >> in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered
>> > > >> rifle." (19H470)
>>
>oked
>> > > >> up in the red brick building. I saw a man in a window with a gun a=
>nd I
>> > > >> saw him shoot twice." (19H474)
>>
>> > > >> Charles Hester (11/22/63): "[The shots] sounded like they came fro=
>> > > >> saw him shoot twice." (19H474)
>>
>m
>> > > >> immediately behind us and over our heads. We did see the shooting.=
> I
>> > > >> immediately turned and looked at the Texas Book Depository buildin=
>g
>> > > >> and did not see anyone. The shots sounded like they definitely cam=
>e
>> > > >> from in or around the building." (19H478)
>>
>> > > >> Eddie Piper (11/23/63): "The shots seemed to me like they came fro=
>> > > >> from in or around the building." (19H478)
>>
>m up
>> > > >> inside the building." (19H499)
>>
>> > > >focus Studley..... FOCUS!
>>
>> > > The sheer *STUPIDITY* of these kooks is amazing!
>>
>> > > They pretend that because some eyewitnesses pointed at the TSBD, that=
>> > > >> inside the building." (19H499)
>>
>> > > >focus Studley..... FOCUS!
>>
>> > > The sheer *STUPIDITY* of these kooks is amazing!
>>
> this
>> > > somehow refutes the fact that Mark Lane pointed out that others point=
>ed to the
>> > > Grassy Knoll.
>>
>> > > Amazing!!!
>>
>> > =A0 It is amazing, are you really this stupid? This is what you produce=
>> > > Grassy Knoll.
>>
>> > > Amazing!!!
>>
>d
>> > from Lane...
>>
>> > =A0 =A0Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures
>> > therefore - more
>> > significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the
>> > immediate
>> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any
>> > official
>> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
>> > affidavits
>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-
>> > two said
>> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> > =A0 Mark produced four witnesses who said that shots came from the TSBD=
>> > significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the
>> > immediate
>> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any
>> > official
>> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
>> > affidavits
>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-
>> > two said
>> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>.
>> > Where are they represented in Lane`s figures?
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Mark listed Brennan, Euins, Charles Hester, and E=
>> > Where are they represented in Lane`s figures?
>>
>ddie
>> Piper. =A0Here are three more:
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Bonnie Ray Williams (11/23) =A0"right over his he=
>ad"
>>
>> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D104..=
>.
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Bob Jackson (11/23) http://www.maryferrell.org/mf=
>fweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D104...
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 James Worrell (11/23) http://www.maryferrell.org/=
>mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D104...
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Jackson and Worrell reported seeing a rifle in=
> the TSBD.
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Twenty-five minus twenty-two equals seven?
>
>
> Oops, make that nine.
>
> Mrs. Reid, who was standing in front of the TSBD,
>(11/23): "I remarked to Mr. [Ochus] Campbell, who was standing near
>by, that I thought the shots had come from our building."
>
>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_012=
>
> Oops, make that nine.
>
> Mrs. Reid, who was standing in front of the TSBD,
>(11/23): "I remarked to Mr. [Ochus] Campbell, who was standing near
>by, that I thought the shots had come from our building."
>
>1a.htm
>
> And of course Marrion Baker (11/22):
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
>
> Lane's statement -- "Twenty-five witnesses are known
>to have given statements or
>affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the
>shots. Twenty-two said
>they believed that the shots came from the knoll" -- doesn't add up.
>
>=20
>
> And of course Marrion Baker (11/22):
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
>
> Lane's statement -- "Twenty-five witnesses are known
>to have given statements or
>affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the
>shots. Twenty-two said
>they believed that the shots came from the knoll" -- doesn't add up.
>
>Jean
Watch Benny run from this one.
Bill Clarke
aeffects
May 22, 2012, 1:17:43 AM5/22/12
to
>
> Bob Jackson (11/23)http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=104...
>
> James Worrell (11/23)http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=104...
>
> Jackson and Worrell reported seeing a rifle in the TSBD.
So did Roy Truly, hon.... he saw more than one, in fact....
> Jackson and Worrell reported seeing a rifle in the TSBD.
> Twenty-five minus twenty-two equals seven?
Mark Ulrik
May 22, 2012, 3:34:30 AM5/22/12
to
On 22 Maj, 02:56, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <6a53000b-dde6-4702-8581-50f1453be...@pr7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Lane was a bit more specific than that, wasn't he? He claimed that 22
of 25 pointed to the GN, leaving room for only three (25 minus 22) to
be either undecided or in disagreement. The problem for Lane (and his
disciples) is that there are clearly more than three that pointed to
the TSBD (which isn't located on the GN). It would therefore seem that
your hero was either mistaken or lying. Can you admit that, or will
you keep evading the issue? (I think we all know the answer to that...)
> In article <6a53000b-dde6-4702-8581-50f1453be...@pr7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
of 25 pointed to the GN, leaving room for only three (25 minus 22) to
be either undecided or in disagreement. The problem for Lane (and his
disciples) is that there are clearly more than three that pointed to
the TSBD (which isn't located on the GN). It would therefore seem that
your hero was either mistaken or lying. Can you admit that, or will
you keep evading the issue? (I think we all know the answer to that...)
Bud
May 22, 2012, 6:55:43 AM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 12:22 am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <53add88a-b284-4ce5-a550-5cdfcc5d9...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> >>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D1...
> >.
>
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Bob Jackson (11/23)http://www.maryferrell.org/mf=
> >fweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D104...
>
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 James Worrell (11/23)http://www.maryferrell.org/=
> In article <53add88a-b284-4ce5-a550-5cdfcc5d9...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> >.
>
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Bob Jackson (11/23)http://www.maryferrell.org/mf=
> >fweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D104...
>
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 James Worrell (11/23)http://www.maryferrell.org/=
> >mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D104...
>
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Jackson and Worrell reported seeing a rifle in=
> > the TSBD.
>
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Twenty-five minus twenty-two equals seven?
>
> > Oops, make that nine.
>
> > Mrs. Reid, who was standing in front of the TSBD,
> >(11/23): "I remarked to Mr. [Ochus] Campbell, who was standing near
> >by, that I thought the shots had come from our building."
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...
>
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Jackson and Worrell reported seeing a rifle in=
> > the TSBD.
>
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Twenty-five minus twenty-two equals seven?
>
> > Oops, make that nine.
>
> > Mrs. Reid, who was standing in front of the TSBD,
> >(11/23): "I remarked to Mr. [Ochus] Campbell, who was standing near
> >by, that I thought the shots had come from our building."
>
> >1a.htm
>
> > And of course Marrion Baker (11/22):
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
>
> > Lane's statement -- "Twenty-five witnesses are known
> >to have given statements or
> >affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the
> >shots. Twenty-two said
> >they believed that the shots came from the knoll" -- doesn't add up.
>
> >=20
> >Jean
>
> Watch Benny run from this one.
>
> Bill Clarke
Why should this one be any different than all the others?
>
> > And of course Marrion Baker (11/22):
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
>
> > Lane's statement -- "Twenty-five witnesses are known
> >to have given statements or
> >affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the
> >shots. Twenty-two said
> >they believed that the shots came from the knoll" -- doesn't add up.
>
> >=20
> >Jean
>
> Watch Benny run from this one.
>
> Bill Clarke
Bud
May 22, 2012, 6:57:02 AM5/22/12
to
round and round. They are dogs chasing their tails.
timstter
May 22, 2012, 4:39:43 AM5/22/12
to
On May 17, 11:41 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <3cced41b-6111-427a-8c56-d556a1ceb...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 16, 6:39=A0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 16, 11:17=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "please the court",=
> > and that
> >> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long after it had m=
> >ade plain
> >> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository Building a=
> >lone and
> >> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsible speculat=
> >ors."
>
> >> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed out and cited=
> > for...
>
> >> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures therefo=
> >re - more
> >> > significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the im=
> >mediate
> >> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any of=
> >ficial
> >> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or af=
> >fidavits
> >> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-tw=
> the refuting.
>
> You see, that's the way it works.
>
> If you don't have your own copy of "Rush To Judgment" - I'm sure someone can
> loan you a dollar to buy your own copy at the nearest used bookstore.
>
> >> Supply some SPECIFICS.
>
> Sadly, even when we take the time to do so, you lie about it *anyway*. Such as
> Bugliosi's lie about how Carrico described the original throat wound.
>
> If you want to 'defend' the WCR from these 'dastardly lies', you'll have to
> actually read from my sources, and follow the citations, and ask intelligent
> questions.
>
> If you don't know how, just Google the 45 Questions to see the format.
>
> By the way, some other kook said that you'd refuted one of the Mark Lane posts
> I've posted... is *this* all you did???
> forum by simply providing the "scrutiny" here, for all to see.
>
> But the truth is, you're simply lying.
>
> >you're actually weepy, can't get it together, eh troll....how the hell
> >willyou deal with the 45 questions? Make a damn fool of yourself, A-G-
> >A-I-N? Spare us troll.
>
> Why aren't the kooks slapping me down with facts? If Mark Lane is the liar that
> they claim, surely none of these quotes from him can be true, right???
>
> And if they aren't true, WHY ARE THE KOOKS NOT PROVIDING ANY REFUTATIONS???
Mark, Jean, Bud and Bill are now ALL slapping you down with some
facts, Holmes.
Looks like more will be coming your way too, Holmes.
> In article <3cced41b-6111-427a-8c56-d556a1ceb...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 16, 6:39=A0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 16, 11:17=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "please the court",=
> > and that
> >> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long after it had m=
> >ade plain
> >> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository Building a=
> >lone and
> >> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsible speculat=
> >ors."
>
> >> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed out and cited=
> > for...
>
> >> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures therefo=
> >re - more
> >> > significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the im=
> >mediate
> >> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any of=
> >ficial
> >> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or af=
> >fidavits
> >> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-tw=
> >o said
> >> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>
> >> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>
> >> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>
> >> > You can't keep claiming that Mark Lane lies, yet allow all of these quo=
> >> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>
> >> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>
> >> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>
> >tes to be
> >> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>
> >> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>
> >> Well who are the twenty five witnesses, Holmes?
>
> Sorry stupid... *YOU* are the one trying to save the WCR... you'll have to do
>
> the refuting.
>
> You see, that's the way it works.
>
> If you don't have your own copy of "Rush To Judgment" - I'm sure someone can
> loan you a dollar to buy your own copy at the nearest used bookstore.
>
> >> Supply some SPECIFICS.
>
> Sadly, even when we take the time to do so, you lie about it *anyway*. Such as
> Bugliosi's lie about how Carrico described the original throat wound.
>
> If you want to 'defend' the WCR from these 'dastardly lies', you'll have to
> actually read from my sources, and follow the citations, and ask intelligent
> questions.
>
> If you don't know how, just Google the 45 Questions to see the format.
>
> By the way, some other kook said that you'd refuted one of the Mark Lane posts
> I've posted... is *this* all you did???
>
> >> Lane invariably hides behind some blanket statement that almost NEVER
> >> holds up to scrutiny, from my observation.
>
> If this were actually true, you'd be a hero to the kooks over on the censored
> >> Lane invariably hides behind some blanket statement that almost NEVER
> >> holds up to scrutiny, from my observation.
>
> forum by simply providing the "scrutiny" here, for all to see.
>
> But the truth is, you're simply lying.
>
> >you're actually weepy, can't get it together, eh troll....how the hell
> >willyou deal with the 45 questions? Make a damn fool of yourself, A-G-
> >A-I-N? Spare us troll.
>
> Why aren't the kooks slapping me down with facts? If Mark Lane is the liar that
> they claim, surely none of these quotes from him can be true, right???
>
> And if they aren't true, WHY ARE THE KOOKS NOT PROVIDING ANY REFUTATIONS???
>
> >> Informative Regards,
>
> >> Tim Brennan
> >> Sydney, Australia
> >> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> >> Informative Regards,
>
> >> Tim Brennan
> >> Sydney, Australia
> >> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
Looks like you spoke too soon, Holmes.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
Mark, Jean, Bud and Bill are now ALL slapping you down with some
facts, Holmes.
Looks like more will be coming your way too, Holmes.
Ben Holmes
May 22, 2012, 9:14:11 AM5/22/12
to
In article <jpf49...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
Hey Billy... you've been running for years...
How does it feel to be a coward?
How does it feel to be a coward?
Ben Holmes
May 22, 2012, 9:50:59 AM5/22/12
to
In article <937b6430-8d3d-4bed...@p27g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Jean says...
>
>On May 21, 8:09=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 21, 8:56=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article <6a53000b-dde6-4702-8581-50f1453be...@pr7g2000pbb.googlegrou=
>ps.com>,
>> > aeffects says...
>legro=3D
>> > >ups.com>,
>> > >> > >Bud says...
>the c=3D
>> > >ourt",=3D3D
>> > >> > >> and that
>> > >> > >>> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long aft=
>er it=3D
>> > > had m=3D3D
>> > >> > >>ade plain
>> > >> > >>> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository=
> Buil=3D
>> > >ding a=3D3D
>> > >> > >>lone and
>> > >> > >>> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsib=
>le sp=3D
>> > >eculat=3D3D
>> > >> > >>ors."
>>
>> > >> > >>> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed ou=
>t and=3D
>> > > cited=3D3D
>> > >> > >> for...
>>
>> > >> > >>> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figu=
>res t=3D
>> > >herefo=3D3D
>> > >> > >>re - more
>> > >> > >>> > significant even than the ones given above - are those attes=
>ting =3D
>> > >the im=3D3D
>> > >> > >>mediate
>> > >> > >>> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there=
> was =3D
>> > >any of=3D3D
>> > >> > >>ficial
>> > >> > >>> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given state=
>ments=3D
>> > > or af=3D3D
>> > >> > >>fidavits
>> > >> > >>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots=
>. Twe=3D
>> > >nty-tw=3D3D
>f the=3D
>> > >se quo=3D3D
>e 45
>> > >> > >>> years ago:
>>
>> > >> > If this happened, then all you have to do is provide the citations=
> that=3D
>es/A%=3D
> "Twenty-=3D
>> > >five
>> > >> > >>> witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits on =
>Nov. =3D
>> > >22
>> > >> > >>> or Nov. 23--the day of and the day after the assassination--ab=
>out t=3D
>> > >he
>> > >> > >>> origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the sh=
>ould find=3D
>> > > that, yes=3D3D
>> > >> > >>,
>> > >> > >>> 23 people did give statements to law officials on those two da=
>ys. N=3D
>> > >ine
>> > >> > >>> cited the knoll. Twelve cited the depository. Two indicated it=
>ark L=3D
> by Lane =3D
>> > >whose
>> > >> > >>> testimony has some relevance as to the conflicting opinions of=
> wher=3D
>> > >e
>> > >> > >>> the shots came from. He is Lee E. Bowers. He was working in a =
>signa=3D
>> > >l
>> > >> > >>> tower in the railroad area behind the knoll. His testimony is =
>in
>> > >> > >>> Volume VI.
>> > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Bowers: "The sounds came from either from up ag=
>ainst the=3D
>> > > school
>> > >> > >>> book depository building or near the mouth of the triple overp=
>t doesn't=3D
>> > > rule out
>> > >> > >>> the depository. It does help those investigators trying to exp=
>lain =3D
>> > >why
>> > >> > >>> witnesses to the assassination gave conflicting opinions as to=
> the
>> > >> > >>> sound of the shots. If Bowers was helpful in this regard to La=
>what =3D
> I
>> > >> started running over there") didn't really say where the shots seeme=
>d
>> > >> to come from.
>>
>> > >> Howard Leslie Brennan (11/22/63): "It run in my mind that it might b=
>e
>> > >> someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick buildi=
>ng
>> > >> and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have describe=
>ed
>> > >> up in the red brick building. I saw a man in a window with a gun and=
>his
>> > somehow refutes the fact that Mark Lane pointed out that others pointed=
>> from Lane...
>>
>> =A0 =A0Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures
>elPageId=3D335
>
> Bob Jackson (11/23)
>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D10406&r=
>elPageId=3D18
>
> James Worrell (11/23)
>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D10406&r=
>elPageId=3D22
>Jean
Good of you to join us Jean ... but are you planning to stick around and defend
this, or are you just doing a 'hit and run'?
You can *start* by actually reading Mark Lane's book, locate what I'm quoting,
then READ THE CITATIONS.
Trying to use oranges to fight apples won't work in a forum where people can
point out lies and half-truths.
Jean says...
>
>On May 21, 8:09=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 21, 8:56=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article <6a53000b-dde6-4702-8581-50f1453be...@pr7g2000pbb.googlegrou=
>ps.com>,
>> > aeffects says...
>>
>> > >On May 21, 2:18=3DA0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> On 18 Maj, 16:04, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > In article <jp4k7m01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> > >> > >In article <42614c48-7eb0-46dc-83da-03fcaa325...@t23g2000yqj.goog=
>> > >On May 21, 2:18=3DA0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> On 18 Maj, 16:04, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > In article <jp4k7m01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>legro=3D
>> > >ups.com>,
>> > >> > >Bud says...
>>
>> > >> > >>On May 17, 6:05=3D3DA0pm, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > >>> On 16 Maj, 15:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > >>> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "please =
>> > >> > >>On May 17, 6:05=3D3DA0pm, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > >>> On 16 Maj, 15:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>the c=3D
>> > >ourt",=3D3D
>> > >> > >> and that
>> > >> > >>> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long aft=
>er it=3D
>> > > had m=3D3D
>> > >> > >>ade plain
>> > >> > >>> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository=
> Buil=3D
>> > >ding a=3D3D
>> > >> > >>lone and
>> > >> > >>> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsib=
>le sp=3D
>> > >eculat=3D3D
>> > >> > >>ors."
>>
>> > >> > >>> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed ou=
>t and=3D
>> > > cited=3D3D
>> > >> > >> for...
>>
>> > >> > >>> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figu=
>res t=3D
>> > >herefo=3D3D
>> > >> > >>re - more
>> > >> > >>> > significant even than the ones given above - are those attes=
>ting =3D
>> > >the im=3D3D
>> > >> > >>mediate
>> > >> > >>> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there=
> was =3D
>> > >any of=3D3D
>> > >> > >>ficial
>> > >> > >>> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given state=
>ments=3D
>> > > or af=3D3D
>> > >> > >>fidavits
>> > >> > >>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots=
>. Twe=3D
>> > >nty-tw=3D3D
>> > >> > >>o said
>> > >> > >>> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> > >> > >>> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> > >> > >>> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>> > >> > >>> > You can't keep claiming that Mark Lane lies, yet allow all o=
>> > >> > >>> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> > >> > >>> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> > >> > >>> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>f the=3D
>> > >se quo=3D3D
>> > >> > >>tes to be
>> > >> > >>> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>>
>> > >> > >>> It seems a couple of AP staff writers refuted Lane's claim som=
>> > >> > >>> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>>
>e 45
>> > >> > >>> years ago:
>>
>> > >> > If this happened, then all you have to do is provide the citations=
> that=3D
>> > > refute
>> > >> > the Mark Lane quotes I keep raising.
>>
>> > >> > >>>http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Fil=
>> > >> > the Mark Lane quotes I keep raising.
>>
>es/A%=3D
>> > >2...
>>
>> > >> > >>> Volumes Don't Support Lane
>>
>> > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0In the second chapter of his book, Lane writes:=
>>
>> > >> > >>> Volumes Don't Support Lane
>>
> "Twenty-=3D
>> > >five
>> > >> > >>> witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits on =
>Nov. =3D
>> > >22
>> > >> > >>> or Nov. 23--the day of and the day after the assassination--ab=
>out t=3D
>> > >he
>> > >> > >>> origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the sh=
>ots c=3D
>> > >ame
>> > >> > >>> from the knoll."
>> > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Should one check the commission's volumes, he w=
>> > >ame
>> > >> > >>> from the knoll."
>ould find=3D
>> > > that, yes=3D3D
>> > >> > >>,
>> > >> > >>> 23 people did give statements to law officials on those two da=
>ys. N=3D
>> > >ine
>> > >> > >>> cited the knoll. Twelve cited the depository. Two indicated it=
> coul=3D
>> > >d
>> > >> > >>> have been either.
>>
>> > >> > >> =3DA0Wow, no wonder Ben didn`t want to name them, I might look =
>> > >d
>> > >> > >>> have been either.
>>
>them up
>> > >> > >>and see that Lane was lying.
>>
>> > >> > Since its the *KOOKS* such as yourself and Billy that argue that M=
>> > >> > >>and see that Lane was lying.
>>
>ark L=3D
>> > >ane lied,
>> > >> > it's incumbent on *YOU* to provide this evidence.
>>
>> > >> > I'm merely proving, by your inability to do so, that you can't.
>>
>> > >> > >Yeah, a nice piece of work.
>>
>> > >> > Ah Billy! Coward to the very end, aren't you?
>>
>> > >> > >Bill Clarke
>>
>> > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0There is a witness mentioned in another context=
>> > >> > it's incumbent on *YOU* to provide this evidence.
>>
>> > >> > I'm merely proving, by your inability to do so, that you can't.
>>
>> > >> > >Yeah, a nice piece of work.
>>
>> > >> > Ah Billy! Coward to the very end, aren't you?
>>
>> > >> > >Bill Clarke
>>
> by Lane =3D
>> > >whose
>> > >> > >>> testimony has some relevance as to the conflicting opinions of=
> wher=3D
>> > >e
>> > >> > >>> the shots came from. He is Lee E. Bowers. He was working in a =
>signa=3D
>> > >l
>> > >> > >>> tower in the railroad area behind the knoll. His testimony is =
>in
>> > >> > >>> Volume VI.
>> > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Bowers: "The sounds came from either from up ag=
>ainst the=3D
>> > > school
>> > >> > >>> book depository building or near the mouth of the triple overp=
>ass."
>> > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Q: "You were not able to tell which?"
>> > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Bowers: "No, I could not."
>> > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Q: "Well, now, had you had any experience befor=
>> > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Q: "You were not able to tell which?"
>> > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Bowers: "No, I could not."
>e being i=3D
>> > >n the towe=3D3D
>> > >n the towe=3D3D
>> > >> > >>r
>> > >> > >>> as to sounds coming from these various places?"
>> > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Bowers: "Yes, I had worked this same tower for =
>> > >> > >>> as to sounds coming from these various places?"
>some 10 o=3D
>> > >r 12 years=3D3D
>> > >r 12 years=3D3D
>> > >> > >>,
>> > >> > >>> and was there during the time they were renovating the school
>> > >> > >>> depository building, and had noticed at that time the similari=
>> > >> > >>> and was there during the time they were renovating the school
>ty of
>> > >> > >>> sounds occuring in either of these two locations."
>> > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Bower's testimony doesn't rule out the knoll. I=
>> > >> > >>> sounds occuring in either of these two locations."
>t doesn't=3D
>> > > rule out
>> > >> > >>> the depository. It does help those investigators trying to exp=
>lain =3D
>> > >why
>> > >> > >>> witnesses to the assassination gave conflicting opinions as to=
> the
>> > >> > >>> sound of the shots. If Bowers was helpful in this regard to La=
>ne or
>> > >> > >>> Epstein, they didn't mention it.
>>
>> > >> > >>> (Bernard Gavzer & Sid Moody, AP, 1967)
>>
>> > >> > >>> Can you refute this, Ben?
>>
>> > >> > Refute what, moron? You've not provided any citations that refute =
>> > >> > >>> Epstein, they didn't mention it.
>>
>> > >> > >>> (Bernard Gavzer & Sid Moody, AP, 1967)
>>
>> > >> > >>> Can you refute this, Ben?
>>
>what =3D
>> > >Mark Lane
>> > >> > stated.
>>
>> > >> Mark Lane: "Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements
>> > >> or affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the
>> > >> shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came from the
>> > >> knoll."
>>
>> > >> Ben Holmes: "Devastating to the WCR's theory! Any kooks care to refu=
>> > >> > stated.
>>
>> > >> Mark Lane: "Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements
>> > >> or affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the
>> > >> shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came from the
>> > >> knoll."
>>
>te
>> > >> this?"
>>
>> > >> It's not particularly difficult to find four (25 minus 22 plus 1) of
>> > >> these witnesses that didn't say they believed the shots came from th=
>> > >> this?"
>>
>> > >> It's not particularly difficult to find four (25 minus 22 plus 1) of
>e
>> > >> knoll. The following four clearly believed the shots came from the
>> > >> TSBD. Others couldn't tell where the shots came from, or their
>> > >> statements can be interpreted either way. Several reported seeing
>> > >> people rush to the knoll after the shots, but didn't offer an
>> > >> independent opinion. Even CT darling Jean Hill ("I looked across the
>> > >> street and up the hill and saw a man running toward the monument and=
>> > >> knoll. The following four clearly believed the shots came from the
>> > >> TSBD. Others couldn't tell where the shots came from, or their
>> > >> statements can be interpreted either way. Several reported seeing
>> > >> people rush to the knoll after the shots, but didn't offer an
>> > >> independent opinion. Even CT darling Jean Hill ("I looked across the
> I
>> > >> started running over there") didn't really say where the shots seeme=
>d
>> > >> to come from.
>>
>> > >> Howard Leslie Brennan (11/22/63): "It run in my mind that it might b=
>e
>> > >> someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick buildi=
>ng
>> > >> and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have describe=
>d
>> > >> in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered
>> > >> rifle." (19H470)
>>
>> > >> Amos Lee Euins (11/22/63): "I started looking around and then I look=
>> > >> in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered
>> > >> rifle." (19H470)
>>
>ed
>> > >> up in the red brick building. I saw a man in a window with a gun and=
> I
>> > >> saw him shoot twice." (19H474)
>>
>> > >> Charles Hester (11/22/63): "[The shots] sounded like they came from
>> > >> immediately behind us and over our heads. We did see the shooting. I
>> > >> immediately turned and looked at the Texas Book Depository building
>> > >> and did not see anyone. The shots sounded like they definitely came
>> > >> from in or around the building." (19H478)
>>
>> > >> Eddie Piper (11/23/63): "The shots seemed to me like they came from =
>> > >> saw him shoot twice." (19H474)
>>
>> > >> Charles Hester (11/22/63): "[The shots] sounded like they came from
>> > >> immediately behind us and over our heads. We did see the shooting. I
>> > >> immediately turned and looked at the Texas Book Depository building
>> > >> and did not see anyone. The shots sounded like they definitely came
>> > >> from in or around the building." (19H478)
>>
>up
>> > >> inside the building." (19H499)
>>
>> > >focus Studley..... FOCUS!
>>
>> > The sheer *STUPIDITY* of these kooks is amazing!
>>
>> > They pretend that because some eyewitnesses pointed at the TSBD, that t=
>> > >> inside the building." (19H499)
>>
>> > >focus Studley..... FOCUS!
>>
>> > The sheer *STUPIDITY* of these kooks is amazing!
>>
>his
>> > somehow refutes the fact that Mark Lane pointed out that others pointed=
> to the
>> > Grassy Knoll.
>>
>> > Amazing!!!
>>
>> =A0 It is amazing, are you really this stupid? This is what you produced
>> > Grassy Knoll.
>>
>> > Amazing!!!
>>
>> from Lane...
>>
>> =A0 =A0Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures
>> therefore - more
>> significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the
>> immediate
>> reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any
>> official
>> version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
>> affidavits
>> on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-
>> two said
>> they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> Mark produced four witnesses who said that shots came from the TSBD.
>> Where are they represented in Lane`s figures?
>
> Mark listed Brennan, Euins, Charles Hester, and Eddie
>Piper. Here are three more:
>
> Bonnie Ray Williams (11/23) "right over his head"
>
>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D10406&r=
>> significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the
>> immediate
>> reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any
>> official
>> version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
>> affidavits
>> on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-
>> two said
>> they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> Mark produced four witnesses who said that shots came from the TSBD.
>> Where are they represented in Lane`s figures?
>
> Mark listed Brennan, Euins, Charles Hester, and Eddie
>Piper. Here are three more:
>
> Bonnie Ray Williams (11/23) "right over his head"
>
>elPageId=3D335
>
> Bob Jackson (11/23)
>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D10406&r=
>elPageId=3D18
>
> James Worrell (11/23)
>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D10406&r=
>elPageId=3D22
>
> Jackson and Worrell reported seeing a rifle in the TSBD.
>
> Twenty-five minus twenty-two equals seven?
>=20
> Jackson and Worrell reported seeing a rifle in the TSBD.
>
> Twenty-five minus twenty-two equals seven?
>Jean
Good of you to join us Jean ... but are you planning to stick around and defend
this, or are you just doing a 'hit and run'?
You can *start* by actually reading Mark Lane's book, locate what I'm quoting,
then READ THE CITATIONS.
Trying to use oranges to fight apples won't work in a forum where people can
point out lies and half-truths.
Jean
May 22, 2012, 10:22:00 AM5/22/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On May 22, 8:50 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <937b6430-8d3d-4bed-95e5-d76e73a8c...@p27g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D1...
> >elPageId=3D335
>
> > Bob Jackson (11/23)
> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D1...
> >elPageId=3D18
>
> > James Worrell (11/23)
> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D1...
>
> You can *start* by actually reading Mark Lane's book, locate what I'm quoting,
> then READ THE CITATIONS.
That's not how it works. You quoted Lane, it's up to YOU to
post his citations. I've already posted MINE, above.
>
> Trying to use oranges to fight apples won't work in a forum where people can
> point out lies and half-truths.
I've just pointed out Lane's lie or half-truth (or
error). He's wrong, based on simple arithmetic.
Jean
> In article <937b6430-8d3d-4bed-95e5-d76e73a8c...@p27g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> >elPageId=3D335
>
> > Bob Jackson (11/23)
> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D1...
> >elPageId=3D18
>
> > James Worrell (11/23)
> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D1...
> >elPageId=3D22
>
> > Jackson and Worrell reported seeing a rifle in the TSBD.
>
> > Twenty-five minus twenty-two equals seven?
> >=20
> >Jean
>
> Good of you to join us Jean ... but are you planning to stick around and defend
> this, or are you just doing a 'hit and run'?
I'll stick around as long as the conversation is civil.
>
> > Jackson and Worrell reported seeing a rifle in the TSBD.
>
> > Twenty-five minus twenty-two equals seven?
> >=20
> >Jean
>
> Good of you to join us Jean ... but are you planning to stick around and defend
> this, or are you just doing a 'hit and run'?
>
> You can *start* by actually reading Mark Lane's book, locate what I'm quoting,
> then READ THE CITATIONS.
post his citations. I've already posted MINE, above.
>
> Trying to use oranges to fight apples won't work in a forum where people can
> point out lies and half-truths.
error). He's wrong, based on simple arithmetic.
Jean
aeffects
May 22, 2012, 2:19:30 PM5/22/12
to
you've faced the enemy. Are all you lone nut draft-dodgers this
stupid?
aeffects
May 22, 2012, 2:26:06 PM5/22/12
to
school therse days... Mark Lane is running you guys ragged, you're a
sight to behold. It's no wonder you guys have to whine and shuck-n-
jive here on acj, this has to be embarrassing to .john and the other
nutter minions at aaj. His "A" team getting their collective ass
kicked by one guy and a book.... btw, you guys use English as a second
language or are we witnessing more lone nut-WCR disinfo (as in nutters
are to dumb to understand)? When does Reitzes show up? Soon I hope.
Ben Holmes
May 22, 2012, 3:07:41 PM5/22/12
to
In article <42935ce1-d8d9-4a9b...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
Jean says...
>
>On May 22, 8:50=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <937b6430-8d3d-4bed-95e5-d76e73a8c...@p27g2000vbl.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Jean says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 21, 8:09=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> >> On May 21, 8:56=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > In article <6a53000b-dde6-4702-8581-50f1453be...@pr7g2000pbb.googleg=
>rou=3D
>> >ps.com>,
>> >> > aeffects says...
>oog=3D
>> >legro=3D3D
>> >> > >ups.com>,
>> >> > >> > >Bud says...
>>
>> >> > >> > >>On May 17, 6:05=3D3D3DA0pm, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote=
>:
>> >> > >> > >>> On 16 Maj, 15:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote=
>:
>>
>> >> > >> > >>> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "plea=
>se =3D
>> >the c=3D3D
>> >> > >ourt",=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> > >> and that
>> >> > >> > >>> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long =
>aft=3D
>> >er it=3D3D
>> >> > > had m=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> > >>ade plain
>> >> > >> > >>> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Deposit=
>ory=3D
>> > Buil=3D3D
>> >> > >ding a=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> > >>lone and
>> >> > >> > >>> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irrespon=
>sib=3D
>> >le sp=3D3D
>> >> > >eculat=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> > >>ors."
>>
>> >> > >> > >>> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed=
> ou=3D
>> >t and=3D3D
>> >> > > cited=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> > >> for...
>>
>> >> > >> > >>> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant f=
>igu=3D
>> >res t=3D3D
>> >> > >herefo=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> > >>re - more
>> >> > >> > >>> > significant even than the ones given above - are those at=
>tes=3D
>> >ting =3D3D
>> >> > >the im=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> > >>mediate
>> >> > >> > >>> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before th=
>ere=3D
>> > was =3D3D
>> >> > >any of=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> > >>ficial
>> >> > >> > >>> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given st=
>ate=3D
>> >ments=3D3D
>> >> > > or af=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> > >>fidavits
>> >> > >> > >>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the sh=
>ots=3D
>> >. Twe=3D3D
>> >> > >nty-tw=3D3D3D
>l o=3D
>> >f the=3D3D
>> >> > >se quo=3D3D3D
>som=3D
>> >e 45
>> >> > >> > >>> years ago:
>>
>> >> > >> > If this happened, then all you have to do is provide the citati=
>ons=3D
>> > that=3D3D
>Fil=3D
>> >es/A%=3D3D
>writes:=3D
>> > "Twenty-=3D3D
>> >> > >five
>> >> > >> > >>> witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits =
>on =3D
>> >Nov. =3D3D
>> >> > >22
>> >> > >> > >>> or Nov. 23--the day of and the day after the assassination-=
>-ab=3D
>> >out t=3D3D
>> >> > >he
>> >> > >> > >>> origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the=
> sh=3D
>> >ots c=3D3D
>> >> > >ame
>> >> > >> > >>> from the knoll."
>> >> > >> > >>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Should one check the commission's volume=
>s, he w=3D
>> >ould find=3D3D
>> >> > > that, yes=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> > >>,
>> >> > >> > >>> 23 people did give statements to law officials on those two=
> da=3D
>> >ys. N=3D3D
>> >> > >ine
>> >> > >> > >>> cited the knoll. Twelve cited the depository. Two indicated=
> it=3D
>> > coul=3D3D
>> >> > >d
>> >> > >> > >>> have been either.
>>
>> >> > >> > >> =3D3DA0Wow, no wonder Ben didn`t want to name them, I might =
>look =3D
>t M=3D
>> >ark L=3D3D
>context=3D
>> > by Lane =3D3D
>> >> > >whose
>> >> > >> > >>> testimony has some relevance as to the conflicting opinions=
> of=3D
>> > wher=3D3D
>> >> > >e
>> >> > >> > >>> the shots came from. He is Lee E. Bowers. He was working in=
> a =3D
>> >signa=3D3D
>> >> > >l
>> >> > >> > >>> tower in the railroad area behind the knoll. His testimony =
>is =3D
>> >in
>> >> > >> > >>> Volume VI.
>> >> > >> > >>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Bowers: "The sounds came from either fro=
>m up ag=3D
>> >ainst the=3D3D
>> >> > > school
>> >> > >> > >>> book depository building or near the mouth of the triple ov=
>erp=3D
>> >ass."
>> >> > >> > >>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Q: "You were not able to tell which?"
>> >> > >> > >>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Bowers: "No, I could not."
>> >> > >> > >>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Q: "Well, now, had you had any experienc=
>e befor=3D
>> >e being i=3D3D
>> >> > >n the towe=3D3D3D
>er for =3D
>> >some 10 o=3D3D
>> >> > >r 12 years=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> > >>,
>> >> > >> > >>> and was there during the time they were renovating the scho=
>ol
>> >> > >> > >>> depository building, and had noticed at that time the simil=
>ari=3D
>noll. I=3D
>> >t doesn't=3D3D
>> >> > > rule out
>> >> > >> > >>> the depository. It does help those investigators trying to =
>exp=3D
>> >lain =3D3D
>> >> > >why
>> >> > >> > >>> witnesses to the assassination gave conflicting opinions as=
> to=3D
>> > the
>> >> > >> > >>> sound of the shots. If Bowers was helpful in this regard to=
> La=3D
>te =3D
>> >what =3D3D
>> >> > >Mark Lane
>> >> > >> > stated.
>>
>> >> > >> Mark Lane: "Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given stateme=
>nts
>> >> > >> or affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of =
>efu=3D
>> >te
>> >> > >> this?"
>>
>> >> > >> It's not particularly difficult to find four (25 minus 22 plus 1)=
> of
>> >> > >> these witnesses that didn't say they believed the shots came from=
> th=3D
>> >e
>> >> > >> knoll. The following four clearly believed the shots came from th=
>the
>> >> > >> street and up the hill and saw a man running toward the monument =
>and=3D
>> > I
>> >> > >> started running over there") didn't really say where the shots se=
>eme=3D
>> >d
>> >> > >> to come from.
>>
>> >> > >> Howard Leslie Brennan (11/22/63): "It run in my mind that it migh=
>t b=3D
>> >e
>> >> > >> someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick bui=
>ldi=3D
>> >ng
>> >> > >> and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have descr=
>ibe=3D
>ook=3D
>> >ed
>> >> > >> up in the red brick building. I saw a man in a window with a gun =
>and=3D
>om
>> >> > >> immediately behind us and over our heads. We did see the shooting=
>. I
>> >> > >> immediately turned and looked at the Texas Book Depository buildi=
>ng
>> >> > >> and did not see anyone. The shots sounded like they definitely ca=
>om =3D
>t t=3D
>> >his
>> >> > somehow refutes the fact that Mark Lane pointed out that others poin=
>ted=3D
>uced
>> >> from Lane...
>>
>> >> =3DA0 =3DA0Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant fig=
>Eddie
>ead"
>>
>> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3D1.=
>..
>> >elPageId=3D3D335
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Bob Jackson (11/23)
>> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3D1.=
>..
>> >elPageId=3D3D18
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0James Worrell (11/23)
>> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3D1.=
>..
>> >elPageId=3D3D22
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Jackson and Worrell reported seeing a rifle in =
>the TSBD.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Twenty-five minus twenty-two equals seven?
>> >=3D20
>> >Jean
>>
>> Good of you to join us Jean ... but are you planning to stick around and =
>> You can *start* by actually reading Mark Lane's book, locate what I'm
>> quoting, then READ THE CITATIONS.
>
> That's not how it works. You quoted Lane, it's up to YOU to
>post his citations. I've already posted MINE, above.
If you're going to contradict Mark Lane, you'll have to do so on the basis of
what *HE* said, not what you think or claim he said.
>> Trying to use oranges to fight apples won't work in a forum where people can
>> point out lies and half-truths.
>
> I've just pointed out Lane's lie or half-truth (or
>error). He's wrong, based on simple arithmetic.
>
>Jean
You expect to be civil, then you use apples to debate oranges, and expect people
not to point it out.
Jean says...
>
>On May 22, 8:50=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <937b6430-8d3d-4bed-95e5-d76e73a8c...@p27g2000vbl.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Jean says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 21, 8:09=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> >> On May 21, 8:56=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > In article <6a53000b-dde6-4702-8581-50f1453be...@pr7g2000pbb.googleg=
>rou=3D
>> >ps.com>,
>> >> > aeffects says...
>>
>> >> > >On May 21, 2:18=3D3DA0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > >> On 18 Maj, 16:04, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > >> > In article <jp4k7m01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >> > >> > >In article <42614c48-7eb0-46dc-83da-03fcaa325...@t23g2000yqj.g=
>> >> > >On May 21, 2:18=3D3DA0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > >> On 18 Maj, 16:04, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > >> > In article <jp4k7m01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>oog=3D
>> >legro=3D3D
>> >> > >ups.com>,
>> >> > >> > >Bud says...
>>
>> >> > >> > >>On May 17, 6:05=3D3D3DA0pm, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote=
>:
>> >> > >> > >>> On 16 Maj, 15:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote=
>:
>>
>> >> > >> > >>> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "plea=
>se =3D
>> >the c=3D3D
>> >> > >ourt",=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> > >> and that
>> >> > >> > >>> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long =
>aft=3D
>> >er it=3D3D
>> >> > > had m=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> > >>ade plain
>> >> > >> > >>> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Deposit=
>ory=3D
>> > Buil=3D3D
>> >> > >ding a=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> > >>lone and
>> >> > >> > >>> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irrespon=
>sib=3D
>> >le sp=3D3D
>> >> > >eculat=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> > >>ors."
>>
>> >> > >> > >>> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed=
> ou=3D
>> >t and=3D3D
>> >> > > cited=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> > >> for...
>>
>> >> > >> > >>> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant f=
>igu=3D
>> >res t=3D3D
>> >> > >herefo=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> > >>re - more
>> >> > >> > >>> > significant even than the ones given above - are those at=
>tes=3D
>> >ting =3D3D
>> >> > >the im=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> > >>mediate
>> >> > >> > >>> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before th=
>ere=3D
>> > was =3D3D
>> >> > >any of=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> > >>ficial
>> >> > >> > >>> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given st=
>ate=3D
>> >ments=3D3D
>> >> > > or af=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> > >>fidavits
>> >> > >> > >>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the sh=
>ots=3D
>> >. Twe=3D3D
>> >> > >nty-tw=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> > >>o said
>> >> > >> > >>> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> >> > >> > >>> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> >> > >> > >>> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>> >> > >> > >>> > You can't keep claiming that Mark Lane lies, yet allow al=
>> >> > >> > >>> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> >> > >> > >>> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> >> > >> > >>> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>l o=3D
>> >f the=3D3D
>> >> > >se quo=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> > >>tes to be
>> >> > >> > >>> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>>
>> >> > >> > >>> It seems a couple of AP staff writers refuted Lane's claim =
>> >> > >> > >>> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>>
>som=3D
>> >e 45
>> >> > >> > >>> years ago:
>>
>> >> > >> > If this happened, then all you have to do is provide the citati=
>ons=3D
>> > that=3D3D
>> >> > > refute
>> >> > >> > the Mark Lane quotes I keep raising.
>>
>> >> > >> > >>>http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20=
>> >> > >> > the Mark Lane quotes I keep raising.
>>
>Fil=3D
>> >es/A%=3D3D
>> >> > >2...
>>
>> >> > >> > >>> Volumes Don't Support Lane
>>
>> >> > >> > >>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0In the second chapter of his book, Lane =
>>
>> >> > >> > >>> Volumes Don't Support Lane
>>
>writes:=3D
>> > "Twenty-=3D3D
>> >> > >five
>> >> > >> > >>> witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits =
>on =3D
>> >Nov. =3D3D
>> >> > >22
>> >> > >> > >>> or Nov. 23--the day of and the day after the assassination-=
>-ab=3D
>> >out t=3D3D
>> >> > >he
>> >> > >> > >>> origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the=
> sh=3D
>> >ots c=3D3D
>> >> > >ame
>> >> > >> > >>> from the knoll."
>> >> > >> > >>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Should one check the commission's volume=
>s, he w=3D
>> >ould find=3D3D
>> >> > > that, yes=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> > >>,
>> >> > >> > >>> 23 people did give statements to law officials on those two=
> da=3D
>> >ys. N=3D3D
>> >> > >ine
>> >> > >> > >>> cited the knoll. Twelve cited the depository. Two indicated=
> it=3D
>> > coul=3D3D
>> >> > >d
>> >> > >> > >>> have been either.
>>
>> >> > >> > >> =3D3DA0Wow, no wonder Ben didn`t want to name them, I might =
>look =3D
>> >them up
>> >> > >> > >>and see that Lane was lying.
>>
>> >> > >> > Since its the *KOOKS* such as yourself and Billy that argue tha=
>> >> > >> > >>and see that Lane was lying.
>>
>t M=3D
>> >ark L=3D3D
>> >> > >ane lied,
>> >> > >> > it's incumbent on *YOU* to provide this evidence.
>>
>> >> > >> > I'm merely proving, by your inability to do so, that you can't.
>>
>> >> > >> > >Yeah, a nice piece of work.
>>
>> >> > >> > Ah Billy! Coward to the very end, aren't you?
>>
>> >> > >> > >Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> > >> > >>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0There is a witness mentioned in another =
>> >> > >> > it's incumbent on *YOU* to provide this evidence.
>>
>> >> > >> > I'm merely proving, by your inability to do so, that you can't.
>>
>> >> > >> > >Yeah, a nice piece of work.
>>
>> >> > >> > Ah Billy! Coward to the very end, aren't you?
>>
>> >> > >> > >Bill Clarke
>>
>context=3D
>> > by Lane =3D3D
>> >> > >whose
>> >> > >> > >>> testimony has some relevance as to the conflicting opinions=
> of=3D
>> > wher=3D3D
>> >> > >e
>> >> > >> > >>> the shots came from. He is Lee E. Bowers. He was working in=
> a =3D
>> >signa=3D3D
>> >> > >l
>> >> > >> > >>> tower in the railroad area behind the knoll. His testimony =
>is =3D
>> >in
>> >> > >> > >>> Volume VI.
>> >> > >> > >>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Bowers: "The sounds came from either fro=
>m up ag=3D
>> >ainst the=3D3D
>> >> > > school
>> >> > >> > >>> book depository building or near the mouth of the triple ov=
>erp=3D
>> >ass."
>> >> > >> > >>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Q: "You were not able to tell which?"
>> >> > >> > >>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Bowers: "No, I could not."
>> >> > >> > >>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Q: "Well, now, had you had any experienc=
>e befor=3D
>> >e being i=3D3D
>> >> > >n the towe=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> > >>r
>> >> > >> > >>> as to sounds coming from these various places?"
>> >> > >> > >>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Bowers: "Yes, I had worked this same tow=
>> >> > >> > >>> as to sounds coming from these various places?"
>er for =3D
>> >some 10 o=3D3D
>> >> > >r 12 years=3D3D3D
>> >> > >> > >>,
>> >> > >> > >>> and was there during the time they were renovating the scho=
>ol
>> >> > >> > >>> depository building, and had noticed at that time the simil=
>ari=3D
>> >ty of
>> >> > >> > >>> sounds occuring in either of these two locations."
>> >> > >> > >>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Bower's testimony doesn't rule out the k=
>> >> > >> > >>> sounds occuring in either of these two locations."
>noll. I=3D
>> >t doesn't=3D3D
>> >> > > rule out
>> >> > >> > >>> the depository. It does help those investigators trying to =
>exp=3D
>> >lain =3D3D
>> >> > >why
>> >> > >> > >>> witnesses to the assassination gave conflicting opinions as=
> to=3D
>> > the
>> >> > >> > >>> sound of the shots. If Bowers was helpful in this regard to=
> La=3D
>> >ne or
>> >> > >> > >>> Epstein, they didn't mention it.
>>
>> >> > >> > >>> (Bernard Gavzer & Sid Moody, AP, 1967)
>>
>> >> > >> > >>> Can you refute this, Ben?
>>
>> >> > >> > Refute what, moron? You've not provided any citations that refu=
>> >> > >> > >>> Epstein, they didn't mention it.
>>
>> >> > >> > >>> (Bernard Gavzer & Sid Moody, AP, 1967)
>>
>> >> > >> > >>> Can you refute this, Ben?
>>
>te =3D
>> >what =3D3D
>> >> > >Mark Lane
>> >> > >> > stated.
>>
>> >> > >> Mark Lane: "Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given stateme=
>nts
>> >> > >> or affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of =
>the
>> >> > >> shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came from the
>> >> > >> knoll."
>>
>> >> > >> Ben Holmes: "Devastating to the WCR's theory! Any kooks care to r=
>> >> > >> shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came from the
>> >> > >> knoll."
>>
>efu=3D
>> >te
>> >> > >> this?"
>>
>> >> > >> It's not particularly difficult to find four (25 minus 22 plus 1)=
> of
>> >> > >> these witnesses that didn't say they believed the shots came from=
> th=3D
>> >e
>> >> > >> knoll. The following four clearly believed the shots came from th=
>e
>> >> > >> TSBD. Others couldn't tell where the shots came from, or their
>> >> > >> statements can be interpreted either way. Several reported seeing
>> >> > >> people rush to the knoll after the shots, but didn't offer an
>> >> > >> independent opinion. Even CT darling Jean Hill ("I looked across =
>> >> > >> TSBD. Others couldn't tell where the shots came from, or their
>> >> > >> statements can be interpreted either way. Several reported seeing
>> >> > >> people rush to the knoll after the shots, but didn't offer an
>the
>> >> > >> street and up the hill and saw a man running toward the monument =
>and=3D
>> > I
>> >> > >> started running over there") didn't really say where the shots se=
>eme=3D
>> >d
>> >> > >> to come from.
>>
>> >> > >> Howard Leslie Brennan (11/22/63): "It run in my mind that it migh=
>t b=3D
>> >e
>> >> > >> someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick bui=
>ldi=3D
>> >ng
>> >> > >> and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have descr=
>ibe=3D
>> >d
>> >> > >> in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered
>> >> > >> rifle." (19H470)
>>
>> >> > >> Amos Lee Euins (11/22/63): "I started looking around and then I l=
>> >> > >> in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered
>> >> > >> rifle." (19H470)
>>
>ook=3D
>> >ed
>> >> > >> up in the red brick building. I saw a man in a window with a gun =
>and=3D
>> > I
>> >> > >> saw him shoot twice." (19H474)
>>
>> >> > >> Charles Hester (11/22/63): "[The shots] sounded like they came fr=
>> >> > >> saw him shoot twice." (19H474)
>>
>om
>> >> > >> immediately behind us and over our heads. We did see the shooting=
>. I
>> >> > >> immediately turned and looked at the Texas Book Depository buildi=
>ng
>> >> > >> and did not see anyone. The shots sounded like they definitely ca=
>me
>> >> > >> from in or around the building." (19H478)
>>
>> >> > >> Eddie Piper (11/23/63): "The shots seemed to me like they came fr=
>> >> > >> from in or around the building." (19H478)
>>
>om =3D
>> >up
>> >> > >> inside the building." (19H499)
>>
>> >> > >focus Studley..... FOCUS!
>>
>> >> > The sheer *STUPIDITY* of these kooks is amazing!
>>
>> >> > They pretend that because some eyewitnesses pointed at the TSBD, tha=
>> >> > >> inside the building." (19H499)
>>
>> >> > >focus Studley..... FOCUS!
>>
>> >> > The sheer *STUPIDITY* of these kooks is amazing!
>>
>t t=3D
>> >his
>> >> > somehow refutes the fact that Mark Lane pointed out that others poin=
>ted=3D
>> > to the
>> >> > Grassy Knoll.
>>
>> >> > Amazing!!!
>>
>> >> =3DA0 It is amazing, are you really this stupid? This is what you prod=
>> >> > Grassy Knoll.
>>
>> >> > Amazing!!!
>>
>uced
>> >> from Lane...
>>
>> >> =3DA0 =3DA0Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant fig=
>ures
>> >> therefore - more
>> >> significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the
>> >> immediate
>> >> reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any
>> >> official
>> >> version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
>> >> affidavits
>> >> on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-
>> >> two said
>> >> they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> >> Mark produced four witnesses who said that shots came from the TSBD.
>> >> Where are they represented in Lane`s figures?
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Mark listed Brennan, Euins, Charles Hester, and =
>> >> therefore - more
>> >> significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the
>> >> immediate
>> >> reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any
>> >> official
>> >> version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
>> >> affidavits
>> >> on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-
>> >> two said
>> >> they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> >> Mark produced four witnesses who said that shots came from the TSBD.
>> >> Where are they represented in Lane`s figures?
>>
>Eddie
>> >Piper. =A0Here are three more:
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Bonnie Ray Williams (11/23) =A0"right over his h=
>>
>ead"
>>
>> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3D1.=
>..
>> >elPageId=3D3D335
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Bob Jackson (11/23)
>> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3D1.=
>..
>> >elPageId=3D3D18
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0James Worrell (11/23)
>> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3D1.=
>..
>> >elPageId=3D3D22
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Jackson and Worrell reported seeing a rifle in =
>the TSBD.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Twenty-five minus twenty-two equals seven?
>> >=3D20
>> >Jean
>>
>> Good of you to join us Jean ... but are you planning to stick around and =
>defend
>> this, or are you just doing a 'hit and run'?
>
> I'll stick around as long as the conversation is civil.
IOW's, you'll be soon running away.
>> this, or are you just doing a 'hit and run'?
>
> I'll stick around as long as the conversation is civil.
>> You can *start* by actually reading Mark Lane's book, locate what I'm
>> quoting, then READ THE CITATIONS.
>
> That's not how it works. You quoted Lane, it's up to YOU to
>post his citations. I've already posted MINE, above.
what *HE* said, not what you think or claim he said.
>> Trying to use oranges to fight apples won't work in a forum where people can
>> point out lies and half-truths.
>
> I've just pointed out Lane's lie or half-truth (or
>error). He's wrong, based on simple arithmetic.
>
>Jean
not to point it out.
Ben Holmes
May 22, 2012, 3:11:12 PM5/22/12
to
In article <dd038a1e-a761-4242...@n5g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On May 22, 1:39=A0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 17, 11:41=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <3cced41b-6111-427a-8c56-d556a1ceb...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroup=
>s.com>,
>> > aeffects says...
>>
>> > >On May 16, 6:39=3DA0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> On May 16, 11:17=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "please the co=
>urt",=3D
>> > > and that
>> > >> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long after it =
>had m=3D
>> > >ade plain
>> > >> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository Build=
>ing a=3D
>> > >lone and
>> > >> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsible spe=
>culat=3D
>> > >ors."
>>
>> > >> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed out and =
>cited=3D
>> > > for...
>>
>> > >> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures th=
>erefo=3D
>> > >re - more
>> > >> > significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting t=
>he im=3D
>> > >mediate
>> > >> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was a=
>ny of=3D
>> > >ficial
>> > >> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements =
>or af=3D
>> > >fidavits
>> > >> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twen=
>ty-tw=3D
>e quo=3D
>e to
>> > actually read from my sources, and follow the citations, and ask intell=
>>
>> > Why aren't the kooks slapping me down with facts? If Mark Lane is the l=
Don't bother to try to complain that it's not relevant.
When you start using the actual citations that Mark Lane gave, then you'll be
showing some honesty.
>> Looks like more will be coming your way too, Holmes.
aeffects says...
>
>On May 22, 1:39=A0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 17, 11:41=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <3cced41b-6111-427a-8c56-d556a1ceb...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroup=
>s.com>,
>> > aeffects says...
>>
>> > >On May 16, 6:39=3DA0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> On May 16, 11:17=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "please the co=
>urt",=3D
>> > > and that
>> > >> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long after it =
>had m=3D
>> > >ade plain
>> > >> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository Build=
>ing a=3D
>> > >lone and
>> > >> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsible spe=
>culat=3D
>> > >ors."
>>
>> > >> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed out and =
>cited=3D
>> > > for...
>>
>> > >> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figures th=
>erefo=3D
>> > >re - more
>> > >> > significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting t=
>he im=3D
>> > >mediate
>> > >> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was a=
>ny of=3D
>> > >ficial
>> > >> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements =
>or af=3D
>> > >fidavits
>> > >> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twen=
>ty-tw=3D
>> > >o said
>> > >> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> > >> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> > >> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>> > >> > You can't keep claiming that Mark Lane lies, yet allow all of thes=
>> > >> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> > >> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> > >> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>e quo=3D
>> > >tes to be
>> > >> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>>
>> > >> Well who are the twenty five witnesses, Holmes?
>>
>> > Sorry stupid... *YOU* are the one trying to save the WCR... you'll have=
>> > >> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>>
>> > >> Well who are the twenty five witnesses, Holmes?
>>
> to do
>> > the refuting.
>>
>> > You see, that's the way it works.
>>
>> > If you don't have your own copy of "Rush To Judgment" - I'm sure someon=
>> > the refuting.
>>
>> > You see, that's the way it works.
>>
>e can
>> > loan you a dollar to buy your own copy at the nearest used bookstore.
>>
>> > >> Supply some SPECIFICS.
>>
>> > Sadly, even when we take the time to do so, you lie about it *anyway*. =
>> > loan you a dollar to buy your own copy at the nearest used bookstore.
>>
>> > >> Supply some SPECIFICS.
>>
>Such as
>> > Bugliosi's lie about how Carrico described the original throat wound.
>>
>> > If you want to 'defend' the WCR from these 'dastardly lies', you'll hav=
>> > Bugliosi's lie about how Carrico described the original throat wound.
>>
>e to
>> > actually read from my sources, and follow the citations, and ask intell=
>igent
>> > questions.
>>
>> > If you don't know how, just Google the 45 Questions to see the format.
>>
>> > By the way, some other kook said that you'd refuted one of the Mark Lan=
>> > questions.
>>
>> > If you don't know how, just Google the 45 Questions to see the format.
>>
>e posts
>> > I've posted... is *this* all you did???
>>
>> > >> Lane invariably hides behind some blanket statement that almost NEVE=
>> > I've posted... is *this* all you did???
>>
>R
>> > >> holds up to scrutiny, from my observation.
>>
>> > If this were actually true, you'd be a hero to the kooks over on the ce=
>> > >> holds up to scrutiny, from my observation.
>>
>nsored
>> > forum by simply providing the "scrutiny" here, for all to see.
>>
>> > But the truth is, you're simply lying.
>>
>> > >you're actually weepy, can't get it together, eh troll....how the hell
>> > >willyou deal with the 45 questions? Make a damn fool of yourself, A-G-
>> > >A-I-N? =A0Spare us troll.
>> > forum by simply providing the "scrutiny" here, for all to see.
>>
>> > But the truth is, you're simply lying.
>>
>> > >you're actually weepy, can't get it together, eh troll....how the hell
>> > >willyou deal with the 45 questions? Make a damn fool of yourself, A-G-
>>
>> > Why aren't the kooks slapping me down with facts? If Mark Lane is the l=
>iar that
>> > they claim, surely none of these quotes from him can be true, right???
>>
>> > And if they aren't true, WHY ARE THE KOOKS NOT PROVIDING ANY REFUTATIONS???
>>
>> > they claim, surely none of these quotes from him can be true, right???
>>
>> > And if they aren't true, WHY ARE THE KOOKS NOT PROVIDING ANY REFUTATIONS???
>>
>> Looks like you spoke too soon, Holmes.
>>
>> Mark, Jean, Bud and Bill are now ALL slapping you down with some
>> facts, Holmes.
>
>simpleton, sitdown and watch.... you can't declare victory until
>you've faced the enemy. Are all you lone nut draft-dodgers this
>stupid?
"Grass is green" - a fact that I've just used to "slap" the kooks.
>>
>> Mark, Jean, Bud and Bill are now ALL slapping you down with some
>> facts, Holmes.
>
>simpleton, sitdown and watch.... you can't declare victory until
>you've faced the enemy. Are all you lone nut draft-dodgers this
>stupid?
Don't bother to try to complain that it's not relevant.
When you start using the actual citations that Mark Lane gave, then you'll be
showing some honesty.
>> Looks like more will be coming your way too, Holmes.
Ben Holmes
May 22, 2012, 3:12:50 PM5/22/12
to
In article <5e578726-c4a2-4931...@l5g2000pbo.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>ps.com>,
>> > aeffects says...
>legro=3D
>> > >ups.com>,
>> > >> > >Bud says...
>> > >> > >>> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository=
> Buil=3D
>> > >ding a=3D3D
>> > >> > >>lone and
>> > >> > >>> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsib=
>le sp=3D
>> > >eculat=3D3D
>> > >> > >>ors."
>>
>> > >> > >>> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed ou=
>t and=3D
>> > > cited=3D3D
>> > >> > >> for...
>>
>> > >> > >>> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figu=
>res t=3D
>> > >herefo=3D3D
>> > >> > >>re - more
>> > >> > >>> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given state=
>ments=3D
>> > > or af=3D3D
>> > >> > >>fidavits
>> > >> > >>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots=
>. Twe=3D
>> > >nty-tw=3D3D
>e 45
>> > >> > >>> years ago:
>>
>> > >> > If this happened, then all you have to do is provide the citations=
> that=3D
>es/A%=3D
> "Twenty-=3D
>> > >five
>> > >> > >>> witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits on =
>Nov. =3D
>> > >22
>> > >> > >>> or Nov. 23--the day of and the day after the assassination--ab=
>out t=3D
>> > >he
>> > >> > >>> 23 people did give statements to law officials on those two da=
>ys. N=3D
>> > >ine
>ark L=3D
> by Lane =3D
>> > >whose
>> > >> > >>> testimony has some relevance as to the conflicting opinions of=
> wher=3D
>> > >e
>> > >> > >>> the shots came from. He is Lee E. Bowers. He was working in a =
>signa=3D
>> > >l
>ainst the=3D
>> > > school
>t doesn't=3D
>> > > rule out
>> > >> > >>> the depository. It does help those investigators trying to exp=
>lain =3D
>> > >why
>> > >> > >>> witnesses to the assassination gave conflicting opinions as to=
> the
>> > >> > >>> sound of the shots. If Bowers was helpful in this regard to La=
>what =3D
> I
>> > >> started running over there") didn't really say where the shots seeme=
>d
>> > >> to come from.
>>
>> > >> Howard Leslie Brennan (11/22/63): "It run in my mind that it might b=
>e
>> > >> someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick buildi=
>ng
>> > >> and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have describe=
>ed
>> > >> up in the red brick building. I saw a man in a window with a gun and=
>his
>> > somehow refutes the fact that Mark Lane pointed out that others pointed=
they're stupid.
Or far more likely, simply dishonest.
aeffects says...
>
>On May 22, 12:34=A0am, Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk> wrote:
>> On 22 Maj, 02:56, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <6a53000b-dde6-4702-8581-50f1453be...@pr7g2000pbb.googlegrou=
>On May 22, 12:34=A0am, Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk> wrote:
>> On 22 Maj, 02:56, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>ps.com>,
>> > aeffects says...
>>
>> > >On May 21, 2:18=3DA0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> On 18 Maj, 16:04, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > In article <jp4k7m01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> > >> > >In article <42614c48-7eb0-46dc-83da-03fcaa325...@t23g2000yqj.goog=
>> > >On May 21, 2:18=3DA0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> On 18 Maj, 16:04, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > In article <jp4k7m01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>legro=3D
>> > >ups.com>,
>> > >> > >Bud says...
>>
>> > >> > >>On May 17, 6:05=3D3DA0pm, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > >>> On 16 Maj, 15:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > >>On May 17, 6:05=3D3DA0pm, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > >>> On 16 Maj, 15:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > >>> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "please =
>the c=3D
>> > >ourt",=3D3D
>> > >> > >> and that
>the c=3D
>> > >ourt",=3D3D
>> > >> > >>> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses long aft=
>er it=3D
>> > > had m=3D3D
>> > >> > >>ade plain
>er it=3D
>> > > had m=3D3D
>> > >> > >>> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depository=
> Buil=3D
>> > >ding a=3D3D
>> > >> > >>lone and
>> > >> > >>> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresponsib=
>le sp=3D
>> > >eculat=3D3D
>> > >> > >>ors."
>>
>> > >> > >>> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've pointed ou=
>t and=3D
>> > > cited=3D3D
>> > >> > >> for...
>>
>> > >> > >>> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant figu=
>res t=3D
>> > >herefo=3D3D
>> > >> > >>re - more
>> > >> > >>> > significant even than the ones given above - are those attes=
>ting =3D
>> > >the im=3D3D
>> > >> > >>mediate
>ting =3D
>> > >the im=3D3D
>> > >> > >>> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there=
> was =3D
>> > >any of=3D3D
>> > >> > >>ficial
> was =3D
>> > >any of=3D3D
>> > >> > >>> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given state=
>ments=3D
>> > > or af=3D3D
>> > >> > >>fidavits
>> > >> > >>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots=
>. Twe=3D
>> > >nty-tw=3D3D
>> > >> > >>o said
>> > >> > >>> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> > >> > >>> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> > >> > >>> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>> > >> > >>> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> > >> > >>> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> > >> > >>> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>> > >> > >>> > You can't keep claiming that Mark Lane lies, yet allow all o=
>f the=3D
>> > >se quo=3D3D
>f the=3D
>> > >se quo=3D3D
>> > >> > >>tes to be
>> > >> > >>> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>>
>> > >> > >>> It seems a couple of AP staff writers refuted Lane's claim som=
>> > >> > >>> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>>
>e 45
>> > >> > >>> years ago:
>>
>> > >> > If this happened, then all you have to do is provide the citations=
> that=3D
>> > > refute
>> > >> > the Mark Lane quotes I keep raising.
>>
>> > >> > >>>http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Fil=
>> > >> > the Mark Lane quotes I keep raising.
>>
>es/A%=3D
>> > >2...
>>
>> > >> > >>> Volumes Don't Support Lane
>>
>> > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0In the second chapter of his book, Lane writes:=
>>
>> > >> > >>> Volumes Don't Support Lane
>>
> "Twenty-=3D
>> > >five
>> > >> > >>> witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits on =
>Nov. =3D
>> > >22
>> > >> > >>> or Nov. 23--the day of and the day after the assassination--ab=
>out t=3D
>> > >he
>> > >> > >>> origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the sh=
>ots c=3D
>> > >ame
>> > >> > >>> from the knoll."
>> > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Should one check the commission's volumes, he w=
>ould find=3D
>> > > that, yes=3D3D
>> > >> > >>,
>ots c=3D
>> > >ame
>> > >> > >>> from the knoll."
>> > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Should one check the commission's volumes, he w=
>ould find=3D
>> > > that, yes=3D3D
>> > >> > >>> 23 people did give statements to law officials on those two da=
>ys. N=3D
>> > >ine
>> > >> > >>> cited the knoll. Twelve cited the depository. Two indicated it=
> coul=3D
>> > >d
>> > >> > >>> have been either.
>>
>> > >> > >> =3DA0Wow, no wonder Ben didn`t want to name them, I might look =
> coul=3D
>> > >d
>> > >> > >>> have been either.
>>
>them up
>> > >> > >>and see that Lane was lying.
>>
>> > >> > Since its the *KOOKS* such as yourself and Billy that argue that M=
>> > >> > >>and see that Lane was lying.
>>
>ark L=3D
>> > >ane lied,
>> > >> > it's incumbent on *YOU* to provide this evidence.
>>
>> > >> > I'm merely proving, by your inability to do so, that you can't.
>>
>> > >> > >Yeah, a nice piece of work.
>>
>> > >> > Ah Billy! Coward to the very end, aren't you?
>>
>> > >> > >Bill Clarke
>>
>> > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0There is a witness mentioned in another context=
>> > >> > it's incumbent on *YOU* to provide this evidence.
>>
>> > >> > I'm merely proving, by your inability to do so, that you can't.
>>
>> > >> > >Yeah, a nice piece of work.
>>
>> > >> > Ah Billy! Coward to the very end, aren't you?
>>
>> > >> > >Bill Clarke
>>
> by Lane =3D
>> > >whose
>> > >> > >>> testimony has some relevance as to the conflicting opinions of=
> wher=3D
>> > >e
>> > >> > >>> the shots came from. He is Lee E. Bowers. He was working in a =
>signa=3D
>> > >l
>> > >> > >>> tower in the railroad area behind the knoll. His testimony is =
>in
>> > >> > >>> Volume VI.
>> > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Bowers: "The sounds came from either from up ag=
>in
>> > >> > >>> Volume VI.
>ainst the=3D
>> > > school
>> > >> > >>> book depository building or near the mouth of the triple overp=
>ass."
>> > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Q: "You were not able to tell which?"
>> > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Bowers: "No, I could not."
>> > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Q: "Well, now, had you had any experience befor=
>e being i=3D
>> > >n the towe=3D3D
>ass."
>> > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Q: "You were not able to tell which?"
>> > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Bowers: "No, I could not."
>> > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Q: "Well, now, had you had any experience befor=
>e being i=3D
>> > >n the towe=3D3D
>> > >> > >>r
>> > >> > >>> as to sounds coming from these various places?"
>> > >> > >>> as to sounds coming from these various places?"
>> > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Bowers: "Yes, I had worked this same tower for =
>some 10 o=3D
>> > >r 12 years=3D3D
>some 10 o=3D
>> > >r 12 years=3D3D
>> > >> > >>,
>> > >> > >>> and was there during the time they were renovating the school
>> > >> > >>> depository building, and had noticed at that time the similari=
>> > >> > >>> and was there during the time they were renovating the school
>ty of
>> > >> > >>> sounds occuring in either of these two locations."
>> > >> > >>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Bower's testimony doesn't rule out the knoll. I=
>> > >> > >>> sounds occuring in either of these two locations."
>t doesn't=3D
>> > > rule out
>> > >> > >>> the depository. It does help those investigators trying to exp=
>lain =3D
>> > >why
>> > >> > >>> witnesses to the assassination gave conflicting opinions as to=
> the
>> > >> > >>> sound of the shots. If Bowers was helpful in this regard to La=
>ne or
>> > >> > >>> Epstein, they didn't mention it.
>>
>> > >> > >>> (Bernard Gavzer & Sid Moody, AP, 1967)
>>
>> > >> > >>> Can you refute this, Ben?
>>
>> > >> > Refute what, moron? You've not provided any citations that refute =
>> > >> > >>> Epstein, they didn't mention it.
>>
>> > >> > >>> (Bernard Gavzer & Sid Moody, AP, 1967)
>>
>> > >> > >>> Can you refute this, Ben?
>>
>what =3D
>> > >Mark Lane
>> > >> > stated.
>>
>> > >> Mark Lane: "Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements
>> > >> or affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the
>> > >> shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came from the
>> > >> knoll."
>>
>> > >> Ben Holmes: "Devastating to the WCR's theory! Any kooks care to refu=
>> > >> > stated.
>>
>> > >> Mark Lane: "Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements
>> > >> or affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the
>> > >> shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came from the
>> > >> knoll."
>>
>te
>> > >> this?"
>>
>> > >> It's not particularly difficult to find four (25 minus 22 plus 1) of
>> > >> these witnesses that didn't say they believed the shots came from th=
>> > >> this?"
>>
>> > >> It's not particularly difficult to find four (25 minus 22 plus 1) of
>e
>> > >> knoll. The following four clearly believed the shots came from the
>> > >> TSBD. Others couldn't tell where the shots came from, or their
>> > >> statements can be interpreted either way. Several reported seeing
>> > >> people rush to the knoll after the shots, but didn't offer an
>> > >> independent opinion. Even CT darling Jean Hill ("I looked across the
>> > >> street and up the hill and saw a man running toward the monument and=
>> > >> knoll. The following four clearly believed the shots came from the
>> > >> TSBD. Others couldn't tell where the shots came from, or their
>> > >> statements can be interpreted either way. Several reported seeing
>> > >> people rush to the knoll after the shots, but didn't offer an
>> > >> independent opinion. Even CT darling Jean Hill ("I looked across the
> I
>> > >> started running over there") didn't really say where the shots seeme=
>d
>> > >> to come from.
>>
>> > >> Howard Leslie Brennan (11/22/63): "It run in my mind that it might b=
>e
>> > >> someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick buildi=
>ng
>> > >> and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have describe=
>d
>> > >> in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered
>> > >> rifle." (19H470)
>>
>> > >> Amos Lee Euins (11/22/63): "I started looking around and then I look=
>> > >> in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered
>> > >> rifle." (19H470)
>>
>ed
>> > >> up in the red brick building. I saw a man in a window with a gun and=
> I
>> > >> saw him shoot twice." (19H474)
>>
>> > >> Charles Hester (11/22/63): "[The shots] sounded like they came from
>> > >> immediately behind us and over our heads. We did see the shooting. I
>> > >> immediately turned and looked at the Texas Book Depository building
>> > >> and did not see anyone. The shots sounded like they definitely came
>> > >> from in or around the building." (19H478)
>>
>> > >> Eddie Piper (11/23/63): "The shots seemed to me like they came from =
>> > >> saw him shoot twice." (19H474)
>>
>> > >> Charles Hester (11/22/63): "[The shots] sounded like they came from
>> > >> immediately behind us and over our heads. We did see the shooting. I
>> > >> immediately turned and looked at the Texas Book Depository building
>> > >> and did not see anyone. The shots sounded like they definitely came
>> > >> from in or around the building." (19H478)
>>
>up
>> > >> inside the building." (19H499)
>>
>> > >focus Studley..... FOCUS!
>>
>> > The sheer *STUPIDITY* of these kooks is amazing!
>>
>> > They pretend that because some eyewitnesses pointed at the TSBD, that t=
>> > >> inside the building." (19H499)
>>
>> > >focus Studley..... FOCUS!
>>
>> > The sheer *STUPIDITY* of these kooks is amazing!
>>
>his
>> > somehow refutes the fact that Mark Lane pointed out that others pointed=
> to the
>> > Grassy Knoll.
>>
>> > Amazing!!!
>>
>> Lane was a bit more specific than that, wasn't he? He claimed that 22
>> of 25 pointed to the GN, leaving room for only three (25 minus 22) to
>> be either undecided or in disagreement. The problem for Lane (and his
>> disciples) is that there are clearly more than three that pointed to
>> the TSBD (which isn't located on the GN). It would therefore seem that
>> your hero was either mistaken or lying. Can you admit that, or will
>> you keep evading the issue? (I think we all know the answer to that...)
>
>only takes one dipshit! what are they teaching you idiots in law
>school therse days... Mark Lane is running you guys ragged, you're a
>sight to behold. It's no wonder you guys have to whine and shuck-n-
>jive here on acj, this has to be embarrassing to .john and the other
>nutter minions at aaj. His "A" team getting their collective ass
>kicked by one guy and a book.... btw, you guys use English as a second
>language or are we witnessing more lone nut-WCR disinfo (as in nutters
>are to dumb to understand)? When does Reitzes show up? Soon I hope.
The fact that the kooks can't immediately see the flaw in their logic shows that
>> > Grassy Knoll.
>>
>> > Amazing!!!
>>
>> Lane was a bit more specific than that, wasn't he? He claimed that 22
>> of 25 pointed to the GN, leaving room for only three (25 minus 22) to
>> be either undecided or in disagreement. The problem for Lane (and his
>> disciples) is that there are clearly more than three that pointed to
>> the TSBD (which isn't located on the GN). It would therefore seem that
>> your hero was either mistaken or lying. Can you admit that, or will
>> you keep evading the issue? (I think we all know the answer to that...)
>
>only takes one dipshit! what are they teaching you idiots in law
>school therse days... Mark Lane is running you guys ragged, you're a
>sight to behold. It's no wonder you guys have to whine and shuck-n-
>jive here on acj, this has to be embarrassing to .john and the other
>nutter minions at aaj. His "A" team getting their collective ass
>kicked by one guy and a book.... btw, you guys use English as a second
>language or are we witnessing more lone nut-WCR disinfo (as in nutters
>are to dumb to understand)? When does Reitzes show up? Soon I hope.
they're stupid.
Or far more likely, simply dishonest.
mucher1
May 22, 2012, 4:30:40 PM5/22/12
to
On 22 Maj, 21:12, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <5e578726-c4a2-4931-8d39-9f834a019...@l5g2000pbo.googlegroups.com>,
Huh? I'd love to see you try to argue logically for 25 minus 22 not
equaling 3.
> Or far more likely, simply dishonest.
Your Lane quote. Not mine. Are you now trying to claim that the
following aren't Lane's words?
"Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the
shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came from the
knoll." (from pp. 38-9 of the Holt, Rinehart & Winston edition of Rush
to Judgment, 1966)
Lane was referencing:
(a) Decker Ex 5323 (Dallas County Sheriff's Office record of the
events surrounding the assassination)
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/deck5323.htm
(b) CE 2003 (DPD file on the investigation of the assassination of the
President)
I simply gave you four citations from Lane's own source - (a) above -
enough to prove him wrong. The local police was not alone in taking
statements from witnesses, however, and Jean provided further examples
from CD 5 (FBI Gemberling Report of 30 Nov 1963). Are you still
confused? Will you keep refusing to admit that your hero was wrong?
> In article <5e578726-c4a2-4931-8d39-9f834a019...@l5g2000pbo.googlegroups.com>,
equaling 3.
> Or far more likely, simply dishonest.
following aren't Lane's words?
"Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the
shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came from the
to Judgment, 1966)
Lane was referencing:
(a) Decker Ex 5323 (Dallas County Sheriff's Office record of the
events surrounding the assassination)
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/deck5323.htm
(b) CE 2003 (DPD file on the investigation of the assassination of the
President)
I simply gave you four citations from Lane's own source - (a) above -
enough to prove him wrong. The local police was not alone in taking
statements from witnesses, however, and Jean provided further examples
from CD 5 (FBI Gemberling Report of 30 Nov 1963). Are you still
confused? Will you keep refusing to admit that your hero was wrong?
Samantha Brown
May 22, 2012, 4:59:16 PM5/22/12
to
"timstter" <tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0d653a0e-64a7-42c4...@e9g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...
Bill Clarke
May 22, 2012, 6:47:39 PM5/22/12
to
In article <79460903-80c0-4bcb...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Bud says...
>
>On May 22, 12:22=A0am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <53add88a-b284-4ce5-a550-5cdfcc5d9...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Jean says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 21, 10:16=3DA0pm, Jean <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On May 21, 8:09=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On May 21, 8:56=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > In article <6a53000b-dde6-4702-8581-50f1453be...@pr7g2000pbb.googl=
>egr=3D
>> >oups.com>,
>> >> > > aeffects says...
>.go=3D
>> >oglegro=3D3D
>> >> > > >ups.com>,
>> >> > > >> > >Bud says...
>>
>> >> > > >> > >>On May 17, 6:05=3D3D3DA0pm, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wro=
>te:
>> >> > > >> > >>> On 16 Maj, 15:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wro=
>te:
>>
>> >> > > >> > >>> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "pl=
>eas=3D
>> >e the c=3D3D
>> >> > > >ourt",=3D3D3D
>> >> > > >> > >> and that
>> >> > > >> > >>> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses lon=
>g a=3D
>> >fter it=3D3D
>> >> > > > had m=3D3D3D
>> >> > > >> > >>ade plain
>> >> > > >> > >>> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depos=
>ito=3D
>> >ry Buil=3D3D
>> >> > > >ding a=3D3D3D
>> >> > > >> > >>lone and
>> >> > > >> > >>> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresp=
>ons=3D
>> >ible sp=3D3D
>> >> > > >eculat=3D3D3D
>> >> > > >> > >>ors."
>>
>> >> > > >> > >>> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've point=
>ed =3D
>> >out and=3D3D
>> >> > > > cited=3D3D3D
>> >> > > >> > >> for...
>>
>> >> > > >> > >>> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant=
> fi=3D
>> >gures t=3D3D
>> >> > > >herefo=3D3D3D
>> >> > > >> > >>re - more
>> >> > > >> > >>> > significant even than the ones given above - are those =
>att=3D
>> >esting =3D3D
>> >> > > >the im=3D3D3D
>> >> > > >> > >>mediate
>> >> > > >> > >>> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before =
>the=3D
>> >re was =3D3D
>> >> > > >any of=3D3D3D
>> >> > > >> > >>ficial
>> >> > > >> > >>> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given =
>sta=3D
>> >tements=3D3D
>> >> > > > or af=3D3D3D
>> >> > > >> > >>fidavits
>> >> > > >> > >>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the =
>sho=3D
>> >ts. Twe=3D3D
>> >> > > >nty-tw=3D3D3D
>all=3D
>> > of the=3D3D
>> >> > > >se quo=3D3D3D
>m s=3D
>> >ome 45
>> >> > > >> > >>> years ago:
>>
>> >> > > >> > If this happened, then all you have to do is provide the cita=
>tio=3D
>> >ns that=3D3D
>20F=3D
>> >iles/A%=3D3D
>e write=3D
>> >s: "Twenty-=3D3D
>> >> > > >five
>> >> > > >> > >>> witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavit=
>s o=3D
>> >n Nov. =3D3D
>> >> > > >22
>> >> > > >> > >>> or Nov. 23--the day of and the day after the assassinatio=
>n--=3D
>> >about t=3D3D
>> >> > > >he
>> >> > > >> > >>> origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they believed that t=
>he =3D
>> >shots c=3D3D
>> >> > > >ame
>> >> > > >> > >>> from the knoll."
>> >> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Should one check the commission's volu=
>mes, he=3D
>> > would find=3D3D
>> >> > > > that, yes=3D3D3D
>> >> > > >> > >>,
>> >> > > >> > >>> 23 people did give statements to law officials on those t=
>wo =3D
>> >days. N=3D3D
>> >> > > >ine
>> >> > > >> > >>> cited the knoll. Twelve cited the depository. Two indicat=
>ed =3D
>> >it coul=3D3D
>> >> > > >d
>> >> > > >> > >>> have been either.
>>
>> >> > > >> > >> =3D3DA0Wow, no wonder Ben didn`t want to name them, I migh=
>t loo=3D
>hat=3D
>> > Mark L=3D3D
>r conte=3D
>> >xt by Lane =3D3D
>> >> > > >whose
>> >> > > >> > >>> testimony has some relevance as to the conflicting opinio=
>ns =3D
>> >of wher=3D3D
>> >> > > >e
>> >> > > >> > >>> the shots came from. He is Lee E. Bowers. He was working =
>in =3D
>> >a signa=3D3D
>> >> > > >l
>> >> > > >> > >>> tower in the railroad area behind the knoll. His testimon=
>y i=3D
>> >s in
>> >> > > >> > >>> Volume VI.
>> >> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Bowers: "The sounds came from either f=
>rom up =3D
>> >against the=3D3D
>> >> > > > school
>> >> > > >> > >>> book depository building or near the mouth of the triple =
>ove=3D
>> >rpass."
>nce bef=3D
>> >ore being i=3D3D
>> >> > > >n the towe=3D3D3D
>ower fo=3D
>> >r some 10 o=3D3D
>> >> > > >r 12 years=3D3D3D
>> >> > > >> > >>,
>> >> > > >> > >>> and was there during the time they were renovating the sc=
>hoo=3D
>> >l
>> >> > > >> > >>> depository building, and had noticed at that time the sim=
>ila=3D
> knoll.=3D
>> > It doesn't=3D3D
>> >> > > > rule out
>> >> > > >> > >>> the depository. It does help those investigators trying t=
>o e=3D
>> >xplain =3D3D
>> >> > > >why
>> >> > > >> > >>> witnesses to the assassination gave conflicting opinions =
>as =3D
>> >to the
>> >> > > >> > >>> sound of the shots. If Bowers was helpful in this regard =
>to =3D
>fut=3D
>> >e what =3D3D
>> >> > > >Mark Lane
>> >> > > >> > stated.
>>
>> >> > > >> Mark Lane: "Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given state=
>men=3D
>> >ts
>> >> > > >> or affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin o=
>f t=3D
>> >he
>> >> > > >> shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came from t=
>he
>> >> > > >> knoll."
>>
>> >> > > >> Ben Holmes: "Devastating to the WCR's theory! Any kooks care to=
> re=3D
>> >fute
>> >> > > >> this?"
>>
>> >> > > >> It's not particularly difficult to find four (25 minus 22 plus =
>1) =3D
>> >of
>> >> > > >> these witnesses that didn't say they believed the shots came fr=
>om =3D
>> >the
>> >> > > >> knoll. The following four clearly believed the shots came from =
>s t=3D
>> >he
>> >> > > >> street and up the hill and saw a man running toward the monumen=
>t a=3D
>> >nd I
>> >> > > >> started running over there") didn't really say where the shots =
>see=3D
>> >med
>> >> > > >> to come from.
>>
>> >> > > >> Howard Leslie Brennan (11/22/63): "It run in my mind that it mi=
>ght=3D
>> > be
>> >> > > >> someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick b=
>uil=3D
>> >ding
>> >> > > >> and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have des=
>cri=3D
> lo=3D
>> >oked
>> >> > > >> up in the red brick building. I saw a man in a window with a gu=
>n a=3D
>fro=3D
>> >m
>> >> > > >> immediately behind us and over our heads. We did see the shooti=
>ng.=3D
>> > I
>> >> > > >> immediately turned and looked at the Texas Book Depository buil=
>din=3D
>> >g
>> >> > > >> and did not see anyone. The shots sounded like they definitely =
>cam=3D
>fro=3D
>hat=3D
>> > this
>> >> > > somehow refutes the fact that Mark Lane pointed out that others po=
>int=3D
>oduce=3D
>> >d
>> >> > from Lane...
>>
>> >> > =3DA0 =3DA0Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant f=
> TSBD=3D
>s Hester, and E=3D
>> >ddie
>> >> Piper. =3DA0Here are three more:
>>
>> >> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Bonnie Ray Williams (11/23) =3DA0"=
>right over his he=3D
>> >ad"
>>
>> >>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3D1=
>...
>> >.
>>
>> >> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Bob Jackson (11/23)http://www.mary=
>ferrell.org/mf=3D
>> >fweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3D104...
>>
>> >> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 James Worrell (11/23)http://www.ma=
>ryferrell.org/=3D
>> >mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3D104...
>>
>> >> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Jackson and Worrell reported =
>seeing a rifle in=3D
>> > the TSBD.
>>
>> >> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Twenty-five minus twenty-two =
>equals seven?
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Oops, make that nine.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Mrs. Reid, who was standing in front of=
>>
>> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Lane's statement -- "Twenty-five witnes=
chickenshit and all.
Bill Clarke
Bud says...
>
>On May 22, 12:22=A0am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <53add88a-b284-4ce5-a550-5cdfcc5d9...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Jean says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 21, 10:16=3DA0pm, Jean <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On May 21, 8:09=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On May 21, 8:56=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > In article <6a53000b-dde6-4702-8581-50f1453be...@pr7g2000pbb.googl=
>egr=3D
>> >oups.com>,
>> >> > > aeffects says...
>>
>> >> > > >On May 21, 2:18=3D3DA0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > >> On 18 Maj, 16:04, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > >> > In article <jp4k7m01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >> > > >> > >In article <42614c48-7eb0-46dc-83da-03fcaa325...@t23g2000yqj=
>> >> > > >On May 21, 2:18=3D3DA0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > >> On 18 Maj, 16:04, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > >> > In article <jp4k7m01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>.go=3D
>> >oglegro=3D3D
>> >> > > >ups.com>,
>> >> > > >> > >Bud says...
>>
>> >> > > >> > >>On May 17, 6:05=3D3D3DA0pm, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wro=
>te:
>> >> > > >> > >>> On 16 Maj, 15:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wro=
>te:
>>
>> >> > > >> > >>> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to try to "pl=
>eas=3D
>> >e the c=3D3D
>> >> > > >ourt",=3D3D3D
>> >> > > >> > >> and that
>> >> > > >> > >>> > the Warren Commission "called most of its witnesses lon=
>g a=3D
>> >fter it=3D3D
>> >> > > > had m=3D3D3D
>> >> > > >> > >>ade plain
>> >> > > >> > >>> > that in its view the shots had come from the Book Depos=
>ito=3D
>> >ry Buil=3D3D
>> >> > > >ding a=3D3D3D
>> >> > > >> > >>lone and
>> >> > > >> > >>> > implied that those who rejected this thesis were irresp=
>ons=3D
>> >ible sp=3D3D
>> >> > > >eculat=3D3D3D
>> >> > > >> > >>ors."
>>
>> >> > > >> > >>> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation which I've point=
>ed =3D
>> >out and=3D3D
>> >> > > > cited=3D3D3D
>> >> > > >> > >> for...
>>
>> >> > > >> > >>> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant=
> fi=3D
>> >gures t=3D3D
>> >> > > >herefo=3D3D3D
>> >> > > >> > >>re - more
>> >> > > >> > >>> > significant even than the ones given above - are those =
>att=3D
>> >esting =3D3D
>> >> > > >the im=3D3D3D
>> >> > > >> > >>mediate
>> >> > > >> > >>> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before =
>the=3D
>> >re was =3D3D
>> >> > > >any of=3D3D3D
>> >> > > >> > >>ficial
>> >> > > >> > >>> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given =
>sta=3D
>> >tements=3D3D
>> >> > > > or af=3D3D3D
>> >> > > >> > >>fidavits
>> >> > > >> > >>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the =
>sho=3D
>> >ts. Twe=3D3D
>> >> > > >nty-tw=3D3D3D
>> >> > > >> > >>o said
>> >> > > >> > >>> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> >> > > >> > >>> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> >> > > >> > >>> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>> >> > > >> > >>> > You can't keep claiming that Mark Lane lies, yet allow =
>> >> > > >> > >>> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> >> > > >> > >>> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> >> > > >> > >>> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>all=3D
>> > of the=3D3D
>> >> > > >se quo=3D3D3D
>> >> > > >> > >>tes to be
>> >> > > >> > >>> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>>
>> >> > > >> > >>> It seems a couple of AP staff writers refuted Lane's clai=
>> >> > > >> > >>> > shown correct by your inability to refute them...
>>
>m s=3D
>> >ome 45
>> >> > > >> > >>> years ago:
>>
>> >> > > >> > If this happened, then all you have to do is provide the cita=
>tio=3D
>> >ns that=3D3D
>> >> > > > refute
>> >> > > >> > the Mark Lane quotes I keep raising.
>>
>> >> > > >> > >>>http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%=
>> >> > > >> > the Mark Lane quotes I keep raising.
>>
>20F=3D
>> >iles/A%=3D3D
>> >> > > >2...
>>
>> >> > > >> > >>> Volumes Don't Support Lane
>>
>> >> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0In the second chapter of his book, Lan=
>>
>> >> > > >> > >>> Volumes Don't Support Lane
>>
>e write=3D
>> >s: "Twenty-=3D3D
>> >> > > >five
>> >> > > >> > >>> witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavit=
>s o=3D
>> >n Nov. =3D3D
>> >> > > >22
>> >> > > >> > >>> or Nov. 23--the day of and the day after the assassinatio=
>n--=3D
>> >about t=3D3D
>> >> > > >he
>> >> > > >> > >>> origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they believed that t=
>he =3D
>> >shots c=3D3D
>> >> > > >ame
>> >> > > >> > >>> from the knoll."
>> >> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Should one check the commission's volu=
>mes, he=3D
>> > would find=3D3D
>> >> > > > that, yes=3D3D3D
>> >> > > >> > >>,
>> >> > > >> > >>> 23 people did give statements to law officials on those t=
>wo =3D
>> >days. N=3D3D
>> >> > > >ine
>> >> > > >> > >>> cited the knoll. Twelve cited the depository. Two indicat=
>ed =3D
>> >it coul=3D3D
>> >> > > >d
>> >> > > >> > >>> have been either.
>>
>> >> > > >> > >> =3D3DA0Wow, no wonder Ben didn`t want to name them, I migh=
>t loo=3D
>> >k them up
>> >> > > >> > >>and see that Lane was lying.
>>
>> >> > > >> > Since its the *KOOKS* such as yourself and Billy that argue t=
>> >> > > >> > >>and see that Lane was lying.
>>
>hat=3D
>> > Mark L=3D3D
>> >> > > >ane lied,
>> >> > > >> > it's incumbent on *YOU* to provide this evidence.
>>
>> >> > > >> > I'm merely proving, by your inability to do so, that you can'=
>> >> > > >> > it's incumbent on *YOU* to provide this evidence.
>>
>t.
>>
>> >> > > >> > >Yeah, a nice piece of work.
>>
>> >> > > >> > Ah Billy! Coward to the very end, aren't you?
>>
>> >> > > >> > >Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0There is a witness mentioned in anothe=
>>
>> >> > > >> > >Yeah, a nice piece of work.
>>
>> >> > > >> > Ah Billy! Coward to the very end, aren't you?
>>
>> >> > > >> > >Bill Clarke
>>
>r conte=3D
>> >xt by Lane =3D3D
>> >> > > >whose
>> >> > > >> > >>> testimony has some relevance as to the conflicting opinio=
>ns =3D
>> >of wher=3D3D
>> >> > > >e
>> >> > > >> > >>> the shots came from. He is Lee E. Bowers. He was working =
>in =3D
>> >a signa=3D3D
>> >> > > >l
>> >> > > >> > >>> tower in the railroad area behind the knoll. His testimon=
>y i=3D
>> >s in
>> >> > > >> > >>> Volume VI.
>> >> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Bowers: "The sounds came from either f=
>rom up =3D
>> >against the=3D3D
>> >> > > > school
>> >> > > >> > >>> book depository building or near the mouth of the triple =
>ove=3D
>> >rpass."
>> >> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Q: "You were not able to tell which?"
>> >> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Bowers: "No, I could not."
>> >> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Q: "Well, now, had you had any experie=
>> >> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Bowers: "No, I could not."
>nce bef=3D
>> >ore being i=3D3D
>> >> > > >n the towe=3D3D3D
>> >> > > >> > >>r
>> >> > > >> > >>> as to sounds coming from these various places?"
>> >> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Bowers: "Yes, I had worked this same t=
>> >> > > >> > >>> as to sounds coming from these various places?"
>ower fo=3D
>> >r some 10 o=3D3D
>> >> > > >r 12 years=3D3D3D
>> >> > > >> > >>,
>> >> > > >> > >>> and was there during the time they were renovating the sc=
>hoo=3D
>> >l
>> >> > > >> > >>> depository building, and had noticed at that time the sim=
>ila=3D
>> >rity of
>> >> > > >> > >>> sounds occuring in either of these two locations."
>> >> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Bower's testimony doesn't rule out the=
>> >> > > >> > >>> sounds occuring in either of these two locations."
> knoll.=3D
>> > It doesn't=3D3D
>> >> > > > rule out
>> >> > > >> > >>> the depository. It does help those investigators trying t=
>o e=3D
>> >xplain =3D3D
>> >> > > >why
>> >> > > >> > >>> witnesses to the assassination gave conflicting opinions =
>as =3D
>> >to the
>> >> > > >> > >>> sound of the shots. If Bowers was helpful in this regard =
>to =3D
>> >Lane or
>> >> > > >> > >>> Epstein, they didn't mention it.
>>
>> >> > > >> > >>> (Bernard Gavzer & Sid Moody, AP, 1967)
>>
>> >> > > >> > >>> Can you refute this, Ben?
>>
>> >> > > >> > Refute what, moron? You've not provided any citations that re=
>> >> > > >> > >>> Epstein, they didn't mention it.
>>
>> >> > > >> > >>> (Bernard Gavzer & Sid Moody, AP, 1967)
>>
>> >> > > >> > >>> Can you refute this, Ben?
>>
>fut=3D
>> >e what =3D3D
>> >> > > >Mark Lane
>> >> > > >> > stated.
>>
>> >> > > >> Mark Lane: "Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given state=
>men=3D
>> >ts
>> >> > > >> or affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin o=
>f t=3D
>> >he
>> >> > > >> shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came from t=
>he
>> >> > > >> knoll."
>>
>> >> > > >> Ben Holmes: "Devastating to the WCR's theory! Any kooks care to=
> re=3D
>> >fute
>> >> > > >> this?"
>>
>> >> > > >> It's not particularly difficult to find four (25 minus 22 plus =
>1) =3D
>> >of
>> >> > > >> these witnesses that didn't say they believed the shots came fr=
>om =3D
>> >the
>> >> > > >> knoll. The following four clearly believed the shots came from =
>the
>> >> > > >> TSBD. Others couldn't tell where the shots came from, or their
>> >> > > >> statements can be interpreted either way. Several reported seei=
>> >> > > >> TSBD. Others couldn't tell where the shots came from, or their
>ng
>> >> > > >> people rush to the knoll after the shots, but didn't offer an
>> >> > > >> independent opinion. Even CT darling Jean Hill ("I looked acros=
>> >> > > >> people rush to the knoll after the shots, but didn't offer an
>s t=3D
>> >he
>> >> > > >> street and up the hill and saw a man running toward the monumen=
>t a=3D
>> >nd I
>> >> > > >> started running over there") didn't really say where the shots =
>see=3D
>> >med
>> >> > > >> to come from.
>>
>> >> > > >> Howard Leslie Brennan (11/22/63): "It run in my mind that it mi=
>ght=3D
>> > be
>> >> > > >> someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick b=
>uil=3D
>> >ding
>> >> > > >> and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have des=
>cri=3D
>> >bed
>> >> > > >> in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered
>> >> > > >> rifle." (19H470)
>>
>> >> > > >> Amos Lee Euins (11/22/63): "I started looking around and then I=
>> >> > > >> in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered
>> >> > > >> rifle." (19H470)
>>
> lo=3D
>> >oked
>> >> > > >> up in the red brick building. I saw a man in a window with a gu=
>n a=3D
>> >nd I
>> >> > > >> saw him shoot twice." (19H474)
>>
>> >> > > >> Charles Hester (11/22/63): "[The shots] sounded like they came =
>> >> > > >> saw him shoot twice." (19H474)
>>
>fro=3D
>> >m
>> >> > > >> immediately behind us and over our heads. We did see the shooti=
>ng.=3D
>> > I
>> >> > > >> immediately turned and looked at the Texas Book Depository buil=
>din=3D
>> >g
>> >> > > >> and did not see anyone. The shots sounded like they definitely =
>cam=3D
>> >e
>> >> > > >> from in or around the building." (19H478)
>>
>> >> > > >> Eddie Piper (11/23/63): "The shots seemed to me like they came =
>> >> > > >> from in or around the building." (19H478)
>>
>fro=3D
>> >m up
>> >> > > >> inside the building." (19H499)
>>
>> >> > > >focus Studley..... FOCUS!
>>
>> >> > > The sheer *STUPIDITY* of these kooks is amazing!
>>
>> >> > > They pretend that because some eyewitnesses pointed at the TSBD, t=
>> >> > > >> inside the building." (19H499)
>>
>> >> > > >focus Studley..... FOCUS!
>>
>> >> > > The sheer *STUPIDITY* of these kooks is amazing!
>>
>hat=3D
>> > this
>> >> > > somehow refutes the fact that Mark Lane pointed out that others po=
>int=3D
>> >ed to the
>> >> > > Grassy Knoll.
>>
>> >> > > Amazing!!!
>>
>> >> > =3DA0 It is amazing, are you really this stupid? This is what you pr=
>> >> > > Grassy Knoll.
>>
>> >> > > Amazing!!!
>>
>oduce=3D
>> >d
>> >> > from Lane...
>>
>> >> > =3DA0 =3DA0Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the most significant f=
>igures
>> >> > therefore - more
>> >> > significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the
>> >> > immediate
>> >> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any
>> >> > official
>> >> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
>> >> > affidavits
>> >> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty=
>> >> > therefore - more
>> >> > significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the
>> >> > immediate
>> >> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any
>> >> > official
>> >> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
>> >> > affidavits
>-
>> >> > two said
>> >> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> >> > =3DA0 Mark produced four witnesses who said that shots came from the=
>> >> > two said
>> >> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
> TSBD=3D
>> >.
>> >> > Where are they represented in Lane`s figures?
>>
>> >> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Mark listed Brennan, Euins, Charle=
>> >> > Where are they represented in Lane`s figures?
>>
>s Hester, and E=3D
>> >ddie
>> >> Piper. =3DA0Here are three more:
>>
>> >> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Bonnie Ray Williams (11/23) =3DA0"=
>right over his he=3D
>> >ad"
>>
>> >>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3D1=
>...
>> >.
>>
>> >> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Bob Jackson (11/23)http://www.mary=
>ferrell.org/mf=3D
>> >fweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3D104...
>>
>> >> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 James Worrell (11/23)http://www.ma=
>ryferrell.org/=3D
>> >mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3D104...
>>
>> >> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Jackson and Worrell reported =
>seeing a rifle in=3D
>> > the TSBD.
>>
>> >> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Twenty-five minus twenty-two =
>equals seven?
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Oops, make that nine.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Mrs. Reid, who was standing in front of=
> the TSBD,
>> >(11/23): "I remarked to Mr. [Ochus] Campbell, who was standing near
>> >by, that I thought the shots had come from our building."
>>
>> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...
>> >1a.htm
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0And of course Marrion Baker (11/22):
>> >(11/23): "I remarked to Mr. [Ochus] Campbell, who was standing near
>> >by, that I thought the shots had come from our building."
>>
>> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...
>> >1a.htm
>>
>>
>> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Lane's statement -- "Twenty-five witnes=
>ses are known
>> >to have given statements or
>> >affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the
>> >shots. Twenty-two said
>> >they believed that the shots came from the knoll" -- doesn't add up.
>>
>> >=3D20
>> >to have given statements or
>> >affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the
>> >shots. Twenty-two said
>> >they believed that the shots came from the knoll" -- doesn't add up.
>>
>> >Jean
>>
>> Watch Benny run from this one.
>>
>> Bill Clarke
>
> Why should this one be any different than all the others?
No reason Bud. I notice Benny hasn't shown up yet. I doubt he will, being a
>>
>> Watch Benny run from this one.
>>
>> Bill Clarke
>
> Why should this one be any different than all the others?
chickenshit and all.
Bill Clarke
Bud
May 22, 2012, 8:34:32 PM5/22/12
to
people who indicated a direction for the shots they heard, and you are
offering people who are in that group, a totally different thing in
some way Ben has failed to explain.
Bud
May 22, 2012, 8:38:15 PM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 6:47 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <79460903-80c0-4bcb-85e3-94ba61170...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Chickenshit and batshit crazy, an entertaining combination.
> In article <79460903-80c0-4bcb-85e3-94ba61170...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Ben Holmes
May 22, 2012, 9:35:50 PM5/22/12
to
Bill Clarke
May 23, 2012, 12:29:38 AM5/23/12
to
In article <jphet...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
What? No refute from Benny. I told you, Bud. Being is all hat and no cows.
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
May 23, 2012, 12:33:51 AM5/23/12
to
In article <jpg3f...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
I don't know Benny, you tell me you big ole hunk of garrison Marine.
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
Jean
May 23, 2012, 12:54:09 AM5/23/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On May 22, 2:07 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <42935ce1-d8d9-4a9b-81e3-adc70f9b5...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3...
said: "Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
(or anything else), please go ahead.
>
> >> Trying to use oranges to fight apples won't work in a forum where people can
> >> point out lies and half-truths.
>
> > I've just pointed out Lane's lie or half-truth (or
> >error). He's wrong, based on simple arithmetic.
>
> >Jean
>
> You expect to be civil, then you use apples to debate oranges, and expect people
> not to point it out.
I responded to your argument. How about responding to
mine?
Jean
> In article <42935ce1-d8d9-4a9b-81e3-adc70f9b5...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
> >..
> >> >elPageId=3D3D335
>
> >> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Bob Jackson (11/23)
> >> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3...
> >> >elPageId=3D3D335
>
> >> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Bob Jackson (11/23)
> >..
> >> >elPageId=3D3D18
>
> >> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0James Worrell (11/23)
> >> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3...
> >> >elPageId=3D3D18
>
> >> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0James Worrell (11/23)
> >..
> >> >elPageId=3D3D22
>
> >> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Jackson and Worrell reported seeing a rifle in =
> >the TSBD.
>
> >> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Twenty-five minus twenty-two equals seven?
> >> >=3D20
> >> >Jean
>
> >> Good of you to join us Jean ... but are you planning to stick around and =
> >defend
> >> this, or are you just doing a 'hit and run'?
>
> > I'll stick around as long as the conversation is civil.
>
> IOW's, you'll be soon running away.
>
> >> You can *start* by actually reading Mark Lane's book, locate what I'm
> >> quoting, then READ THE CITATIONS.
>
> > That's not how it works. You quoted Lane, it's up to YOU to
> >post his citations. I've already posted MINE, above.
>
> If you're going to contradict Mark Lane, you'll have to do so on the basis of
> what *HE* said, not what you think or claim he said.
Excuse me?? I replied to what *YOU* claimed Mark Lane
> >> >elPageId=3D3D22
>
> >> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Jackson and Worrell reported seeing a rifle in =
> >the TSBD.
>
> >> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Twenty-five minus twenty-two equals seven?
> >> >=3D20
> >> >Jean
>
> >> Good of you to join us Jean ... but are you planning to stick around and =
> >defend
> >> this, or are you just doing a 'hit and run'?
>
> > I'll stick around as long as the conversation is civil.
>
> IOW's, you'll be soon running away.
>
> >> You can *start* by actually reading Mark Lane's book, locate what I'm
> >> quoting, then READ THE CITATIONS.
>
> > That's not how it works. You quoted Lane, it's up to YOU to
> >post his citations. I've already posted MINE, above.
>
> If you're going to contradict Mark Lane, you'll have to do so on the basis of
> what *HE* said, not what you think or claim he said.
said: "Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the
shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came from the
knoll."
If you can defend those numbers using anything Lane cited
knoll."
(or anything else), please go ahead.
>
> >> Trying to use oranges to fight apples won't work in a forum where people can
> >> point out lies and half-truths.
>
> > I've just pointed out Lane's lie or half-truth (or
> >error). He's wrong, based on simple arithmetic.
>
> >Jean
>
> You expect to be civil, then you use apples to debate oranges, and expect people
> not to point it out.
mine?
Jean
Ben Holmes
May 23, 2012, 9:15:46 AM5/23/12
to
In article <jphp3...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
Still the coward, eh Billy? Why the cowardice? You don't *have* to be a coward,
you *CAN* engage and debate the topic.
You'd lose, of course...
you *CAN* engage and debate the topic.
You'd lose, of course...
Ben Holmes
May 23, 2012, 9:16:47 AM5/23/12
to
In article <jphpb...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
Billy - we *KNOW* that you're demonstrating cowardice on the topic of this
forum... you can't hide from that fact.
So how does it feel to be a coward?
forum... you can't hide from that fact.
So how does it feel to be a coward?
Bill Clarke
May 23, 2012, 11:21:12 AM5/23/12
to
In article <jpinv...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
If I could buy you for what you KNOW and sell you for what you think you KNOW
I'd be a rich man Benny.
Now, will you be refuting later on today or have you ran? You've already ran
haven't you. What a coward.
Bill Clarke
I'd be a rich man Benny.
Now, will you be refuting later on today or have you ran? You've already ran
haven't you. What a coward.
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
May 23, 2012, 11:23:45 AM5/23/12
to
In article <jpinu...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
I hear you whining Benny but I see no much bragged about refute. Coward. Lots
of noise but not much action. A joke.
Bill Clarke
of noise but not much action. A joke.
Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
May 23, 2012, 3:32:50 PM5/23/12
to
In article <jpiv9...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
5cdfcc...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
I've already answered... you've refused to do so... why the cowardice, Billy?
>
>In article <jpinv...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>In article <jphpb...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>
>>>In article <jpg3f...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>>
>>>>In article <jpf49...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>>>
>>>>>In article <53add88a-b284-4ce5-a550-
>In article <jpinv...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>In article <jphpb...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>
>>>In article <jpg3f...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>>
>>>>In article <jpf49...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>>>
5cdfcc...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
Ben Holmes
May 23, 2012, 3:55:15 PM5/23/12
to
In article <jpive...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
94ba61...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Still nothing but ad hominem...
Why the cowardice, Billy? Can't find your copy of "Rush to Judgment"?
Or are you so dishonest that you're trying to debate a book you don't even own?
>
>In article <jpinu...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>In article <jphp3...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>
>>>In article <jphet...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>>
>>>>In article <jph52...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>>>
>>>>>In article <79460903-80c0-4bcb-85e3-
>In article <jpinu...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>In article <jphp3...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>
>>>In article <jphet...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>>
>>>>In article <jph52...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>>>
94ba61...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Why the cowardice, Billy? Can't find your copy of "Rush to Judgment"?
Or are you so dishonest that you're trying to debate a book you don't even own?
Bill Clarke
May 23, 2012, 5:31:41 PM5/23/12
to
In article <jpjfb...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
I own only one Mark Lane book. It was enough to show me what a dishonest prick
he is. Why should I waste money buying more bullshit.
Are you going to refute what Jean blew you out of the water with or will you
just slink away like you always do?
Bill Clarke
he is. Why should I waste money buying more bullshit.
Are you going to refute what Jean blew you out of the water with or will you
just slink away like you always do?
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
May 23, 2012, 5:34:37 PM5/23/12
to
In article <jpje1...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
No you haven't answered. You came back with a smart ass reply that didn't
address the dishonesty of the Lane quote you made. You're dodging the evidence
that shows Lane to be dishonest. Despite your bragging you can't refute it.
Bill Clarke
address the dishonesty of the Lane quote you made. You're dodging the evidence
that shows Lane to be dishonest. Despite your bragging you can't refute it.
Bill Clarke
Bud
May 23, 2012, 6:09:20 PM5/23/12
to
On May 23, 5:34 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <jpje1202...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
>
>
> >In article <jpiv9802...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>In article <jpinvv01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>In article <jphpbf0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>>In article <jpg3f30...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>>>In article <jpf49t01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>>>>In article <53add88a-b284-4ce5-a550-
> >5cdfcc5d9...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
If Ben admits Lane lied his whole fragile belief system will come
crashing down.
> In article <jpje1202...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
>
>
> >In article <jpiv9802...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>In article <jpinvv01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>In article <jphpbf0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>>In article <jpg3f30...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>>>In article <jpf49t01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>>>>In article <53add88a-b284-4ce5-a550-
> >5cdfcc5d9...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
crashing down.
Bud
May 23, 2012, 7:12:11 PM5/23/12
to
On May 22, 9:50 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <937b6430-8d3d-4bed-95e5-d76e73a8c...@p27g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D1...
> >elPageId=3D335
>
> > Bob Jackson (11/23)
> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D1...
> >elPageId=3D18
>
> > James Worrell (11/23)
> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D1...
people who indicated the knoll as the source of the shots indicated
the knoll as the source of the shots". In this way he would have
excluded all the oranges.
> In article <937b6430-8d3d-4bed-95e5-d76e73a8c...@p27g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> >elPageId=3D335
>
> > Bob Jackson (11/23)
> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D1...
> >elPageId=3D18
>
> > James Worrell (11/23)
> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D1...
> >elPageId=3D22
>
> > Jackson and Worrell reported seeing a rifle in the TSBD.
>
> > Twenty-five minus twenty-two equals seven?
> >=20
> >Jean
>
> Good of you to join us Jean ... but are you planning to stick around and defend
> this, or are you just doing a 'hit and run'?
>
> You can *start* by actually reading Mark Lane's book, locate what I'm quoting,
> then READ THE CITATIONS.
>
> Trying to use oranges to fight apples won't work in a forum where people can
> point out lies and half-truths.
If Lane wanted all apples he should have worded it "100% of the
>
> > Jackson and Worrell reported seeing a rifle in the TSBD.
>
> > Twenty-five minus twenty-two equals seven?
> >=20
> >Jean
>
> Good of you to join us Jean ... but are you planning to stick around and defend
> this, or are you just doing a 'hit and run'?
>
> You can *start* by actually reading Mark Lane's book, locate what I'm quoting,
> then READ THE CITATIONS.
>
> Trying to use oranges to fight apples won't work in a forum where people can
> point out lies and half-truths.
people who indicated the knoll as the source of the shots indicated
the knoll as the source of the shots". In this way he would have
excluded all the oranges.
Ben Holmes
May 23, 2012, 8:53:35 PM5/23/12
to
In article <jpjkv...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
So you're trying desperately to refute what you've never read.
Good for you that I'm quoting Mark Lane - you'll learn.
>Are you going to refute what Jean blew you out of the water with or will you
>just slink away like you always do?
Already did moron. Surely you didn't miss it, so you must be stupidly dishonest.
Oh wait, we already know that you are. Trying to argue a topic you know nothing
about.
>Bill Clarke
Tell us Billy - why do you think people won't notice your cowardice on this
topic?
Good for you that I'm quoting Mark Lane - you'll learn.
>Are you going to refute what Jean blew you out of the water with or will you
>just slink away like you always do?
Oh wait, we already know that you are. Trying to argue a topic you know nothing
about.
>Bill Clarke
Tell us Billy - why do you think people won't notice your cowardice on this
topic?
Ben Holmes
May 23, 2012, 8:57:49 PM5/23/12
to
In article <jpjl5...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
You're lying again, coward.
>You came back with a smart ass reply that didn't
>address the dishonesty of the Lane quote you made.
It addressed it so well that you can't refute it. Coward, aren't you?
>You're dodging the evidence
>that shows Lane to be dishonest.
*WHAT* evidence???
Why can't you cite or quote it, moron?
>Despite your bragging you can't refute it.
Despite your bragging you can't refute it.
>Bill Clarke
Lane was lying or was wrong?
>You came back with a smart ass reply that didn't
>address the dishonesty of the Lane quote you made.
>You're dodging the evidence
>that shows Lane to be dishonest.
Why can't you cite or quote it, moron?
>Despite your bragging you can't refute it.
Despite your bragging you can't refute it.
>Bill Clarke
Still the coward, eh Billy?
When will you learn that ad hominem isn't going to convince anyone that Mark
Lane was lying or was wrong?
Bud
May 23, 2012, 9:03:10 PM5/23/12
to
On May 23, 8:57 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <jpjl5d0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
>
>
> >In article <jpje1202...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>In article <jpiv9802...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>In article <jpinvv01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>>In article <jphpbf0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>>>In article <jpg3f30...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>>>>In article <jpf49t01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>>>>>In article <53add88a-b284-4ce5-a550-
> >>5cdfcc5d9...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
Ben is cracking up.
> In article <jpjl5d0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
>
>
> >In article <jpje1202...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>In article <jpiv9802...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>In article <jpinvv01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>>In article <jphpbf0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>>>In article <jpg3f30...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>>>>In article <jpf49t01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>>>>>In article <53add88a-b284-4ce5-a550-
> >>5cdfcc5d9...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Clarke
May 23, 2012, 10:48:34 PM5/23/12
to
In article <jpk12...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
This dumb ass. Can you refute it? No, I don't believe you can. That is why
you ran from it. Well hotshot, here it is again.
>>>>>>>> Lane's statement -- "Twenty-five witnesses are known
>>>>>>>>to have given statements or
>>>>>>>>affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the
>>>>>>>>shots. Twenty-two said
>>>>>>>>they believed that the shots came from the knoll" -- doesn't add up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>Jean
you ran from it. Well hotshot, here it is again.
>>>>>>>> Lane's statement -- "Twenty-five witnesses are known
>>>>>>>>to have given statements or
>>>>>>>>affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the
>>>>>>>>shots. Twenty-two said
>>>>>>>>they believed that the shots came from the knoll" -- doesn't add up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>Jean
Bill Clarke
May 23, 2012, 10:52:17 PM5/23/12
to
In article <jpk0q...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
No, I'm not. I'm reading people that show what a dishonest shit Mark Lane and
Benny Yellow Pants are. It is funny watching you do the little dance.
>Good for you that I'm quoting Mark Lane - you'll learn.
>
>
>
>>Are you going to refute what Jean blew you out of the water with or will you
>>just slink away like you always do?
>
>
>Already did moron. Surely you didn't miss it, so you must be stupidly dishonest.
Let me see the math asshole, not your smart ass quip.
Bill Clarke
Benny Yellow Pants are. It is funny watching you do the little dance.
>Good for you that I'm quoting Mark Lane - you'll learn.
>
>
>
>>Are you going to refute what Jean blew you out of the water with or will you
>>just slink away like you always do?
>
>
>Already did moron. Surely you didn't miss it, so you must be stupidly dishonest.
Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
May 23, 2012, 11:47:55 PM5/23/12
to
In article <jpk7i...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
Are you too stupid to understand my answer?
Nor is this "evidence" that Mark Lane lied... it's a claim based on faulty
logic.
Now, how about an apology for your claim that I never answered this post?
>>Why can't you cite or quote it, moron?
>>
>>
>>
>>>Despite your bragging you can't refute it.
>>
>>
>>Despite your bragging you can't refute it.
>>
>>
>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>>Still the coward, eh Billy?
>>
>>When will you learn that ad hominem isn't going to convince anyone that Mark
>>Lane was lying or was wrong?
Nor is this "evidence" that Mark Lane lied... it's a claim based on faulty
logic.
Now, how about an apology for your claim that I never answered this post?
>>Why can't you cite or quote it, moron?
>>
>>
>>
>>>Despite your bragging you can't refute it.
>>
>>
>>Despite your bragging you can't refute it.
>>
>>
>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>>Still the coward, eh Billy?
>>
>>When will you learn that ad hominem isn't going to convince anyone that Mark
>>Lane was lying or was wrong?
Ben Holmes
May 23, 2012, 11:49:59 PM5/23/12
to
In article <jpk7p...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
Then you have nothing further to add in this forum about Mark Lane, do you
Billy?
>I'm reading people that show what a dishonest shit Mark Lane and
>Benny Yellow Pants are. It is funny watching you do the little dance.
Your cowardice is getting more noticeable Billy.
>>Good for you that I'm quoting Mark Lane - you'll learn.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Are you going to refute what Jean blew you out of the water with or will you
>>>just slink away like you always do?
>>
>>
>>Already did moron. Surely you didn't miss it, so you must be stupidly
>>dishonest.
>
>Let me see the math asshole, not your smart ass quip.
Where's your apology for lying, Billy?
>Bill Clarke
>
>
>
>>Oh wait, we already know that you are. Trying to argue a topic you know nothing
>>about.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>>Tell us Billy - why do you think people won't notice your cowardice on this
>>topic?
>>
>>
>
Billy?
>I'm reading people that show what a dishonest shit Mark Lane and
>Benny Yellow Pants are. It is funny watching you do the little dance.
>>Good for you that I'm quoting Mark Lane - you'll learn.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Are you going to refute what Jean blew you out of the water with or will you
>>>just slink away like you always do?
>>
>>
>>Already did moron. Surely you didn't miss it, so you must be stupidly
>>dishonest.
>
>Let me see the math asshole, not your smart ass quip.
>Bill Clarke
>
>
>
>>Oh wait, we already know that you are. Trying to argue a topic you know nothing
>>about.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>>Tell us Billy - why do you think people won't notice your cowardice on this
>>topic?
>>
>>
>
timstter
May 24, 2012, 6:10:17 AM5/24/12
to
TOP POST
Let's have a look at what Jean wrote, so that Holmes can't hide down
at the bottom of a thread, hoping it will all go away:
QUOTE ON:
Excuse me?? I replied to what *YOU* claimed Mark Lane
said: "Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the
shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came from the
knoll."
QUOTE OFF
Yeah, I agree with Jean, Holmes.
Let's see you produce your list of Lane's twenty two witnesses.
I say you won't because Lane's nonsense simply won't stand up to
scrutiny, Holmes.
That's probably why you STILL haven't supplied a cite for the page
from Rush To Judgment that you were quoting from, too.
Pretty transparent tactics, Holmes.
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> ...
>
> read more »
Let's have a look at what Jean wrote, so that Holmes can't hide down
at the bottom of a thread, hoping it will all go away:
QUOTE ON:
Excuse me?? I replied to what *YOU* claimed Mark Lane
said: "Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the
shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came from the
knoll."
Yeah, I agree with Jean, Holmes.
Let's see you produce your list of Lane's twenty two witnesses.
I say you won't because Lane's nonsense simply won't stand up to
scrutiny, Holmes.
That's probably why you STILL haven't supplied a cite for the page
from Rush To Judgment that you were quoting from, too.
Pretty transparent tactics, Holmes.
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> read more »
Bill Clarke
May 24, 2012, 9:45:46 AM5/24/12
to
In article <jpkb5...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
Only when you lie about him.
>>I'm reading people that show what a dishonest shit Mark Lane and
>>Benny Yellow Pants are. It is funny watching you do the little dance.
>
>
>Your cowardice is getting more noticeable Billy.
Still haven't seen you refute Jean's numbers yet. You can't do the simple math
or what? Speaking of cowards.
Bill Clarke
>>I'm reading people that show what a dishonest shit Mark Lane and
>>Benny Yellow Pants are. It is funny watching you do the little dance.
>
>
>Your cowardice is getting more noticeable Billy.
or what? Speaking of cowards.
Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
May 24, 2012, 9:53:01 AM5/24/12
to
In article <jple2...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
27, 39, 1.23, 197.
Go ahead moron... refute those numbers. Then retract your dishonest claim that
I've not answered Jean.
>Bill Clarke
In the meantime, why the cowardice Billy? Why can't you refute any of these
posts?
Am I moving too fast for you?
>>>>Good for you that I'm quoting Mark Lane - you'll learn.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Are you going to refute what Jean blew you out of the water with or will you
>>>>>just slink away like you always do?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Already did moron. Surely you didn't miss it, so you must be stupidly
>>>>dishonest.
>>>
>>>Let me see the math asshole, not your smart ass quip.
>>
>>
>>
>>Where's your apology for lying, Billy?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Bill Clarke
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Oh wait, we already know that you are. Trying to argue a topic you know nothing
>>>>about.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Tell us Billy - why do you think people won't notice your cowardice on this
>>>>topic?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Go ahead moron... refute those numbers. Then retract your dishonest claim that
I've not answered Jean.
>Bill Clarke
In the meantime, why the cowardice Billy? Why can't you refute any of these
posts?
Am I moving too fast for you?
>>>>Good for you that I'm quoting Mark Lane - you'll learn.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Are you going to refute what Jean blew you out of the water with or will you
>>>>>just slink away like you always do?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Already did moron. Surely you didn't miss it, so you must be stupidly
>>>>dishonest.
>>>
>>>Let me see the math asshole, not your smart ass quip.
>>
>>
>>
>>Where's your apology for lying, Billy?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Bill Clarke
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Oh wait, we already know that you are. Trying to argue a topic you know nothing
>>>>about.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Tell us Billy - why do you think people won't notice your cowardice on this
>>>>topic?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Jean
May 24, 2012, 11:15:42 AM5/24/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On May 24, 8:53 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <jple2a03...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
>
>
> >In article <jpkb5701...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>In article <jpk7p101...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>In article <jpk0qf0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>>In article <jpjkvt0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>>>In article <jpjfb302...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>>>>In article <jpive102...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>>>>>In article <jpinu201...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>>>>>>In article <jphp3i0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>>>>>>>In article <jphetm02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>In article <jph52b02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>In article <79460903-80c0-4bcb-85e3-
> >>>>>>94ba61170...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
If you answered my last post of May 22, I didn't see it.
Here once more is the Mark Lane quote that you posted, Ben:
"Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
affidavits
on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-
the shots came from the TSBD. You have yet to explain how Mark Lane's
numbers make any sense. Did he overlook some of the witnesses? Did he
mischaracterize their statements? Or what?
Jean
> In article <jple2a03...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
>
>
> >In article <jpkb5701...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>In article <jpk7p101...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>In article <jpk0qf0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>>In article <jpjkvt0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>>>In article <jpjfb302...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>>>>In article <jpive102...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>>>>>In article <jpinu201...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>>>>>>In article <jphp3i0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>>>>>>>In article <jphetm02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>In article <jph52b02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>In article <79460903-80c0-4bcb-85e3-
> >>>>>>94ba61170...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Here once more is the Mark Lane quote that you posted, Ben:
"Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
affidavits
two said
they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
Mark and I listed nine witnesses from those dates who said
they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
the shots came from the TSBD. You have yet to explain how Mark Lane's
numbers make any sense. Did he overlook some of the witnesses? Did he
mischaracterize their statements? Or what?
Jean
Ben Holmes
May 24, 2012, 12:39:09 PM5/24/12
to
In article <836a50aa-81fb-4b78...@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
Jean says...
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>In article <53add88a-b284-4ce5-a550-
>> >>>>>>5cdfcc5d9...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>.com>,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jean says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >On May 21, 10:16=3D3DA0pm, Jean <jean.davis...@gmail.com> =
>wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> On May 21, 8:09=3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On May 21, 8:56=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.=
>com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > In article <6a53000b-dde6-4702-8581-
>> >>>>>>50f1453be...@pr7g2000pbb.googl=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>egr=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >oups.com>,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > aeffects says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >On May 21, 2:18=3D3D3DA0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.co=
>m> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Maj, 16:04, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>=
> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > In article <jp4k7m01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill =
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>.go=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >oglegro=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ups.com>,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >Bud says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>On May 17, 6:05=3D3D3D3DA0pm, mucher1 <much...@g=
>mail.com>
>> >>>>>>wro=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>te:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> On 16 Maj, 15:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningkni=
>fe.com>
>> >>>>>>wro=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>te:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to=
> try to
>> >>>>>>"pl=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>eas=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >e the c=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ourt",=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >> and that
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > the Warren Commission "called most of its wi=
>tnesses
>> >>>>>>lon=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>g a=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >fter it=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > had m=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>ade plain
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> > that in its view the shots had come from th=
>e Book
>> >>>>>>Depos=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ito=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ry Buil=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ding a=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>lone and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> > implied that those who rejected this thesi=
>s were
>> >>>>>>irresp=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ons=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ible sp=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >eculat=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>ors."
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation whic=
>h I've
>> >>>>>>point=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ed =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >out and=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > cited=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >> for...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the mos=
>t
>> >>>>>>significant=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> fi=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >gures t=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >herefo=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>re - more
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > significant even than the ones given above - ar=
>e those
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>att=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >esting =3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >the im=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>mediate
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination=
> before
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>the=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >re was =3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >any of=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>ficial
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to hav=
>e given
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>sta=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >tements=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > or af=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>fidavits
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin=
> of the
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>sho=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ts. Twe=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >nty-tw=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>o said
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> > they believed that the shots came from the =
>t allow
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>all=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > of the=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >se quo=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>tes to be
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> > shown correct by your inability to refute =
>them...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> It seems a couple of AP staff writers refuted=
> Lane's
>> >>>>>>clai=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>m s=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ome 45
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> years ago:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > If this happened, then all you have to do is prov=
>ide the
>> >>>>>>cita=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>tio=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ns that=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>20F=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >iles/A%=3D3D3D
>f his book,
>> >>>>>>Lan=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>e write=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >s: "Twenty-=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >five
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> witnesses are known to have given statements=
> or
>> >>>>>>affidavit=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>s o=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >n Nov. =3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>n--=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >about t=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >he
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they believ=
>ed that
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>he =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >shots c=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ame
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> from the knoll."
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Should one check the c=
>ommission's
>> >>>>>>volu=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>mes, he=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > would find=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > that, yes=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> 23 people did give statements to law officials o=
>n those
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>wo =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >days. N=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ine
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> cited the knoll. Twelve cited the depository=
>. Two
>> >>>>>>indicat=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ed =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >it coul=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >d
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> have been either.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >> =3D3D3DA0Wow, no wonder Ben didn`t want to nam=
>e them, I
>> >>>>>>migh=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>t loo=3D3D
>t argue
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>hat=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > Mark L=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ane lied,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > it's incumbent on *YOU* to provide this evidenc=
>e.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > I'm merely proving, by your inability to do so, t=
>hat you
>> >>>>>>can'=3D
>ntioned in
>> >>>>>>anothe=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>r conte=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >xt by Lane =3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >whose
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> testimony has some relevance as to the confl=
>icting
>> >>>>>>opinio=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ns =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >of wher=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >e
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the shots came from. He is Lee E. Bowers. He was =
>working
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>in =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >a signa=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >l
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> tower in the railroad area behind the knoll.=
> His
>> >>>>>>testimon=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>y i=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >s in
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Volume VI.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Bowers: "The sounds came =
>from either
>> >>>>>>f=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>rom up =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >against the=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > school
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> book depository building or near the mouth of the=
> triple
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ove=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >rpass."
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Q: "You were not able to t=
>ell which?"
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Bowers: "No, I could=
> not."
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Q: "Well, now, had yo=
>u had any
>> >>>>>>experie=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>nce bef=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ore being i=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >n the towe=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>r
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> as to sounds coming from these various plac=
>es?"
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Bowers: "Yes, I had worke=
>d this same
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ower fo=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >r some 10 o=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >r 12 years=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> and was there during the time they were renovat=
>ing the
>> >>>>>>sc=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>hoo=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >l
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> depository building, and had noticed at that t=
>ime the
>> >>>>>>sim=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ila=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >rity of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> sounds occuring in either of these two loca=
>tions."
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Bower's testimony doesn=
>'t rule out
>> >>>>>>the=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> knoll.=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > It doesn't=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > rule out
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> the depository. It does help those investigators=
> trying
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>o e=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >xplain =3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >why
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> witnesses to the assassination gave conflicting o=
>pinions
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>as =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >to the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound of the shots. If Bowers was helpful in this=
> regard
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>to =3D3D
>ns that
>> >>>>>>re=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>fut=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >e what =3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >Mark Lane
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > stated.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> Mark Lane: "Twenty-five witnesses are known to have=
> given
>> >>>>>>state=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>men=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ts
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>or affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the=
> origin
>> >>>>>>o=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>f t=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >he
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots ca=
>me from
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>he
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> knoll."
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben Holmes: "Devastating to the WCR's theory! Any koo=
>ks care
>> >>>>>>to=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> re=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >fute
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> this?"
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's not particularly difficult to find four (25 minus=
> 22 plus
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>1) =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these witnesses that didn't say they believed the sho=
>ts came
>> >>>>>>fr=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>om =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>knoll. The following four clearly believed the shots c=
>ame from
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>TSBD. Others couldn't tell where the shots came from, =
>or their
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> statements can be interpreted either way. Several r=
>eported
>> >>>>>>seei=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ng
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>people rush to the knoll after the shots, but didn't o=
>ffer an
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> independent opinion. Even CT darling Jean Hill ("I =
>looked
>> >>>>>>acros=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>s t=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >he
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> street and up the hill and saw a man running towar=
>d the
>> >>>>>>monumen=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>t a=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >nd I
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>started running over there") didn't really say where t=
>he shots
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>see=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >med
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> to come from.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Howard Leslie Brennan (11/22/63): "It run in my mind =
>that it
>> >>>>>>mi=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ght=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > be
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the re=
>d brick
>> >>>>>>b=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>uil=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ding
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man=
> I have
>> >>>>>>des=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>cri=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >bed
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> in the window and he was taking aim with a high p=
>owered
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> rifle." (19H470)
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Amos Lee Euins (11/22/63): "I started looking around a=
>nd then
>> >>>>>>I=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> lo=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >oked
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up in the red brick building. I saw a man in a window=
> with a
>> >>>>>>gu=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>n a=3D3D
>hey came
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>fro=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >m
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> immediately behind us and over our heads. We did s=
>ee the
>> >>>>>>shooti=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ng.=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > I
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> immediately turned and looked at the Texas Book Dep=
>ository
>> >>>>>>buil=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>din=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >g
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and did not see anyone. The shots sounded like they de=
>finitely
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>cam=3D3D
>hey came
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>fro=3D3D
>he TSBD,
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>hat=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > this
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>somehow refutes the fact that Mark Lane pointed out that=
> others
>> >>>>>>po=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>int=3D3D
>s what you
>> >>>>>>pr=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>oduce=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >d
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > from Lane...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the mos=
>t significant
>> >>>>>>f=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>igures
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > therefore - more
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>significant even than the ones given above - are those at=
>testing
>> >>>>>>the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > immediate
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before th=
>ere was
>> >>>>>>any
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > official
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given st=
>atements
>> >>>>>>or
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > affidavits
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the =
>shots.
>> >>>>>>Twenty=3D
>came from
>> >>>>>>the=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> TSBD=3D3D
>ed Brennan, Euins,
>> >>>>>>Charle=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>s Hester, and E=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ddie
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Piper. =3D3DA0Here are three more:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 Bonnie Ra=
>y Williams (11/23)
>> >>>>>>=3D3DA0"=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>right over his he=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ad"
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.d=
>o?
>> >>>>>>docId=3D3D3D1=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>...
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 Bob Jacks=
>on
>> >>>>>>(11/23)http://www.mary=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ferrell.org/mf=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >fweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3D3D104...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 James Wor=
>rell
>> >>>>>>(11/23)http://www.ma=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ryferrell.org/=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3D3D104...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Jac=
>kson and Worrell reported
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>seeing a rifle in=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > the TSBD.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Twe=
>nty-five minus twenty-two
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>equals seven?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Oops, mak=
>e that nine.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Mrs. Reid, =
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> the TSBD,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>(11/23): "I remarked to Mr. [Ochus] Campbell, who was stand=
>tement -- "Twenty-five
>> >>>>>>witnes=3D
>t add up.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >=3D3D20
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>No reason Bud. =A0I notice Benny hasn't shown up yet. =A0I dou=
>=A0Coward. =A0Lots
>> >>>>>>>of noise but not much action. =A0A joke.
>"?
>>
>> >>>>>>Or are you so dishonest that you're trying to debate a book you don=
>'t
>> >>>>>>even own?
>>
>> >>>>>I own only one Mark Lane book. =A0It was enough to show me what a di=
>shonest prick
>> >>>>>he is. =A0Why should I waste money buying more bullshit.
a few more if you tried.
But comparing apples with oranges won't get you anywhere. Unless you can list
the precise people that Mark Lane was referring to... I suspect that I can't do
it either... so I'm not too worried about it, because the point is still
accurate:
The point being made, if you've been following along, is the overwhelming
numbers of people on those first few days, before the official theory became the
law of the land, who reported something different.
Will you admit that this is true?
Can you admit the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses that began changing what was
being reported?
There are a number of examples of people *initially* indicating the knoll who
later changed to the TSBD...
Can you find any who went the opposite way, Jean?
>You have yet to explain how Mark Lane's
>numbers make any sense.
Oh yes, Jean... I did.
I pointed out that using apples to contradict oranges doesn't make sense. When
you can list the 25 eyewitnesses that Mark Lane gave, then you'll have a basis
to refute him.
>Did he overlook some of the witnesses? Did he
>mischaracterize their statements? Or what?
I'm quite sure he *did* "overlook" eyewitnesses... he wrote his book during a
time when there simply wasn't the easy access to evidence in this case that is
now available for *anyone*.
You know this, of course.
>Jean
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >Bill Clarke
>>
>> In the meantime, why the cowardice Billy? Why can't you refute any of the=
Jean says...
>
>On May 24, 8:53=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <jple2a03...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >In article <jpkb5701...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >>In article <jpk7p101...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >>>In article <jpk0qf0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >>>>In article <jpjkvt0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >>>>>In article <jpjfb302...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >>>>>>In article <jpive102...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>In article <jpinu201...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>In article <jphp3i0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>In article <jphetm02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>In article <jph52b02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>In article <79460903-80c0-4bcb-85e3-
>> >>>>>>94ba61170...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>Bud says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>On May 22, 12:22=3DA0am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com=
>On May 24, 8:53=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <jple2a03...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >In article <jpkb5701...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >>In article <jpk7p101...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >>>In article <jpk0qf0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >>>>In article <jpjkvt0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >>>>>In article <jpjfb302...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >>>>>>In article <jpive102...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>In article <jpinu201...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>In article <jphp3i0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>In article <jphetm02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>In article <jph52b02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>In article <79460903-80c0-4bcb-85e3-
>> >>>>>>94ba61170...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>Bud says...
>>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>In article <53add88a-b284-4ce5-a550-
>> >>>>>>5cdfcc5d9...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>.com>,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jean says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >On May 21, 10:16=3D3DA0pm, Jean <jean.davis...@gmail.com> =
>wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> On May 21, 8:09=3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On May 21, 8:56=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.=
>com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > In article <6a53000b-dde6-4702-8581-
>> >>>>>>50f1453be...@pr7g2000pbb.googl=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>egr=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >oups.com>,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > aeffects says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >On May 21, 2:18=3D3D3DA0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.co=
>m> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Maj, 16:04, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>=
> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > In article <jp4k7m01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill =
>Clarke
>> >>>>>>says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >In article <42614c48-7eb0-46dc-83da-
>> >>>>>>03fcaa325...@t23g2000yqj=3D
>> >>>>>>says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >In article <42614c48-7eb0-46dc-83da-
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>.go=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >oglegro=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ups.com>,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >Bud says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>On May 17, 6:05=3D3D3D3DA0pm, mucher1 <much...@g=
>mail.com>
>> >>>>>>wro=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>te:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> On 16 Maj, 15:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningkni=
>fe.com>
>> >>>>>>wro=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>te:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to=
> try to
>> >>>>>>"pl=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>eas=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >e the c=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ourt",=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >> and that
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > the Warren Commission "called most of its wi=
>tnesses
>> >>>>>>lon=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>g a=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >fter it=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > had m=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>ade plain
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> > that in its view the shots had come from th=
>e Book
>> >>>>>>Depos=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ito=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ry Buil=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ding a=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>lone and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> > implied that those who rejected this thesi=
>s were
>> >>>>>>irresp=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ons=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ible sp=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >eculat=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>ors."
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation whic=
>h I've
>> >>>>>>point=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ed =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >out and=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > cited=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >> for...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the mos=
>t
>> >>>>>>significant=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> fi=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >gures t=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >herefo=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>re - more
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > significant even than the ones given above - ar=
>e those
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>att=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >esting =3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >the im=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>mediate
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination=
> before
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>the=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >re was =3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >any of=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>ficial
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to hav=
>e given
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>sta=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >tements=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > or af=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>fidavits
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin=
> of the
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>sho=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ts. Twe=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >nty-tw=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>o said
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> > they believed that the shots came from the =
>knoll."
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > You can't keep claiming that Mark Lane lies, ye=
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>t allow
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>all=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > of the=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >se quo=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>tes to be
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> > shown correct by your inability to refute =
>them...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> It seems a couple of AP staff writers refuted=
> Lane's
>> >>>>>>clai=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>m s=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ome 45
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> years ago:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > If this happened, then all you have to do is prov=
>ide the
>> >>>>>>cita=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>tio=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ns that=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > refute
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > the Mark Lane quotes I keep raising.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > the Mark Lane quotes I keep raising.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>20F=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >iles/A%=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >2...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Volumes Don't Support Lane
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0In the second chapter o=
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Volumes Don't Support Lane
>>
>f his book,
>> >>>>>>Lan=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>e write=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >s: "Twenty-=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >five
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> witnesses are known to have given statements=
> or
>> >>>>>>affidavit=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>s o=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >n Nov. =3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >22
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> or Nov. 23--the day of and the day after the
>> >>>>>>assassinatio=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> or Nov. 23--the day of and the day after the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>n--=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >about t=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >he
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they believ=
>ed that
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>he =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >shots c=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ame
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> from the knoll."
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Should one check the c=
>ommission's
>> >>>>>>volu=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>mes, he=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > would find=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > that, yes=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> 23 people did give statements to law officials o=
>n those
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>wo =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >days. N=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ine
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> cited the knoll. Twelve cited the depository=
>. Two
>> >>>>>>indicat=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ed =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >it coul=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >d
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> have been either.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >> =3D3D3DA0Wow, no wonder Ben didn`t want to nam=
>e them, I
>> >>>>>>migh=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>t loo=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >k them up
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>and see that Lane was lying.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since its the *KOOKS* such as yourself and Billy tha=
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>and see that Lane was lying.
>>
>t argue
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>hat=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > Mark L=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ane lied,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > it's incumbent on *YOU* to provide this evidenc=
>e.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > I'm merely proving, by your inability to do so, t=
>hat you
>> >>>>>>can'=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>t.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >Yeah, a nice piece of work.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > Ah Billy! Coward to the very end, aren't you?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >Bill Clarke
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0There is a witness me=
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >Yeah, a nice piece of work.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > Ah Billy! Coward to the very end, aren't you?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >Bill Clarke
>>
>ntioned in
>> >>>>>>anothe=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>r conte=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >xt by Lane =3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >whose
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> testimony has some relevance as to the confl=
>icting
>> >>>>>>opinio=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ns =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >of wher=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >e
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the shots came from. He is Lee E. Bowers. He was =
>working
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>in =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >a signa=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >l
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> tower in the railroad area behind the knoll.=
> His
>> >>>>>>testimon=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>y i=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >s in
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Volume VI.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Bowers: "The sounds came =
>from either
>> >>>>>>f=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>rom up =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >against the=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > school
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> book depository building or near the mouth of the=
> triple
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ove=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >rpass."
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Q: "You were not able to t=
>ell which?"
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Bowers: "No, I could=
> not."
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Q: "Well, now, had yo=
>u had any
>> >>>>>>experie=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>nce bef=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ore being i=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >n the towe=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>r
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> as to sounds coming from these various plac=
>es?"
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Bowers: "Yes, I had worke=
>d this same
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ower fo=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >r some 10 o=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >r 12 years=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> and was there during the time they were renovat=
>ing the
>> >>>>>>sc=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>hoo=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >l
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> depository building, and had noticed at that t=
>ime the
>> >>>>>>sim=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ila=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >rity of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> sounds occuring in either of these two loca=
>tions."
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Bower's testimony doesn=
>'t rule out
>> >>>>>>the=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> knoll.=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > It doesn't=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > rule out
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> the depository. It does help those investigators=
> trying
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>o e=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >xplain =3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >why
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> witnesses to the assassination gave conflicting o=
>pinions
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>as =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >to the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound of the shots. If Bowers was helpful in this=
> regard
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>to =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >Lane or
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Epstein, they didn't mention it.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> (Bernard Gavzer & Sid Moody, AP, 1967)
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Can you refute this, Ben?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Refute what, moron? You've not provided any citatio=
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Epstein, they didn't mention it.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> (Bernard Gavzer & Sid Moody, AP, 1967)
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Can you refute this, Ben?
>>
>ns that
>> >>>>>>re=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>fut=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >e what =3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >Mark Lane
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > stated.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> Mark Lane: "Twenty-five witnesses are known to have=
> given
>> >>>>>>state=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>men=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ts
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>or affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the=
> origin
>> >>>>>>o=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>f t=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >he
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots ca=
>me from
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>he
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> knoll."
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben Holmes: "Devastating to the WCR's theory! Any koo=
>ks care
>> >>>>>>to=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> re=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >fute
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> this?"
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's not particularly difficult to find four (25 minus=
> 22 plus
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>1) =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these witnesses that didn't say they believed the sho=
>ts came
>> >>>>>>fr=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>om =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>knoll. The following four clearly believed the shots c=
>ame from
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>TSBD. Others couldn't tell where the shots came from, =
>or their
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> statements can be interpreted either way. Several r=
>eported
>> >>>>>>seei=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ng
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>people rush to the knoll after the shots, but didn't o=
>ffer an
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> independent opinion. Even CT darling Jean Hill ("I =
>looked
>> >>>>>>acros=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>s t=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >he
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> street and up the hill and saw a man running towar=
>d the
>> >>>>>>monumen=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>t a=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >nd I
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>started running over there") didn't really say where t=
>he shots
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>see=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >med
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> to come from.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Howard Leslie Brennan (11/22/63): "It run in my mind =
>that it
>> >>>>>>mi=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ght=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > be
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the re=
>d brick
>> >>>>>>b=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>uil=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ding
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man=
> I have
>> >>>>>>des=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>cri=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >bed
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> in the window and he was taking aim with a high p=
>owered
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> rifle." (19H470)
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Amos Lee Euins (11/22/63): "I started looking around a=
>nd then
>> >>>>>>I=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> lo=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >oked
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up in the red brick building. I saw a man in a window=
> with a
>> >>>>>>gu=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>n a=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >nd I
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> saw him shoot twice." (19H474)
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Charles Hester (11/22/63): "[The shots] sounded like t=
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> saw him shoot twice." (19H474)
>>
>hey came
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>fro=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >m
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> immediately behind us and over our heads. We did s=
>ee the
>> >>>>>>shooti=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ng.=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > I
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> immediately turned and looked at the Texas Book Dep=
>ository
>> >>>>>>buil=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>din=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >g
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and did not see anyone. The shots sounded like they de=
>finitely
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>cam=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >e
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> from in or around the building." (19H478)
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Eddie Piper (11/23/63): "The shots seemed to me like t=
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> from in or around the building." (19H478)
>>
>hey came
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>fro=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >m up
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> inside the building." (19H499)
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >focus Studley..... FOCUS!
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > The sheer *STUPIDITY* of these kooks is amazing!
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They pretend that because some eyewitnesses pointed at t=
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> inside the building." (19H499)
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >focus Studley..... FOCUS!
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > The sheer *STUPIDITY* of these kooks is amazing!
>>
>he TSBD,
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>hat=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > this
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>somehow refutes the fact that Mark Lane pointed out that=
> others
>> >>>>>>po=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>int=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ed to the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > Grassy Knoll.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > Amazing!!!
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3DA0 It is amazing, are you really this stupid? This i=
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > Grassy Knoll.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > Amazing!!!
>>
>s what you
>> >>>>>>pr=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>oduce=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >d
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > from Lane...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the mos=
>t significant
>> >>>>>>f=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>igures
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > therefore - more
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>significant even than the ones given above - are those at=
>testing
>> >>>>>>the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > immediate
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before th=
>ere was
>> >>>>>>any
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > official
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given st=
>atements
>> >>>>>>or
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > affidavits
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the =
>shots.
>> >>>>>>Twenty=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>-
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > two said
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3DA0 Mark produced four witnesses who said that shots =
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > two said
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>came from
>> >>>>>>the=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> TSBD=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > Where are they represented in Lane`s figures?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 Mark list=
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > Where are they represented in Lane`s figures?
>>
>ed Brennan, Euins,
>> >>>>>>Charle=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>s Hester, and E=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ddie
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Piper. =3D3DA0Here are three more:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 Bonnie Ra=
>y Williams (11/23)
>> >>>>>>=3D3DA0"=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>right over his he=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ad"
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.d=
>o?
>> >>>>>>docId=3D3D3D1=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>...
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 Bob Jacks=
>on
>> >>>>>>(11/23)http://www.mary=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ferrell.org/mf=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >fweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3D3D104...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 James Wor=
>rell
>> >>>>>>(11/23)http://www.ma=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ryferrell.org/=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3D3D104...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Jac=
>kson and Worrell reported
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>seeing a rifle in=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > the TSBD.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Twe=
>nty-five minus twenty-two
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>equals seven?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Oops, mak=
>e that nine.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Mrs. Reid, =
>who was standing in front
>> >>>>>>of=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> the TSBD,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>(11/23): "I remarked to Mr. [Ochus] Campbell, who was stand=
>ing near
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >by, that I thought the shots had come from our building."
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >http://www.history-
>> >>>>>>matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >1a.htm
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0And =
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >by, that I thought the shots had come from our building."
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >http://www.history-
>> >>>>>>matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >1a.htm
>>
>of course Marrion Baker
>> >>>>>>(11/22):
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Lane's sta=
>> >>>>>>(11/22):
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
>>
>tement -- "Twenty-five
>> >>>>>>witnes=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ses are known
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >to have given statements or
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin=
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >to have given statements or
> of the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >shots. Twenty-two said
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>they believed that the shots came from the knoll" -- doesn'=
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >shots. Twenty-two said
>t add up.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >=3D3D20
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >Jean
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Watch Benny run from this one.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> =A0Why should this one be any different than all the others?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Watch Benny run from this one.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>No reason Bud. =A0I notice Benny hasn't shown up yet. =A0I dou=
>bt he will, being
>> >>>>>>a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>chickenshit and all.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>Still the coward, eh Billy?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>What? =A0No refute from Benny. =A0I told you, Bud. =A0Being is a=
>> >>>>>>a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>chickenshit and all.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>Still the coward, eh Billy?
>>
>ll hat and no cows.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >>>>>>>>Still the coward, eh Billy? Why the cowardice? You don't *have* t=
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>o be a
>> >>>>>>coward,
>> >>>>>>>>you *CAN* engage and debate the topic.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>You'd lose, of course...
>>
>> >>>>>>>I hear you whining Benny but I see no much bragged about refute. =
>> >>>>>>coward,
>> >>>>>>>>you *CAN* engage and debate the topic.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>You'd lose, of course...
>>
>=A0Coward. =A0Lots
>> >>>>>>>of noise but not much action. =A0A joke.
>>
>> >>>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >>>>>>Still nothing but ad hominem...
>>
>> >>>>>>Why the cowardice, Billy? Can't find your copy of "Rush to Judgment=
>> >>>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >>>>>>Still nothing but ad hominem...
>>
>"?
>>
>> >>>>>>Or are you so dishonest that you're trying to debate a book you don=
>'t
>> >>>>>>even own?
>>
>> >>>>>I own only one Mark Lane book. =A0It was enough to show me what a di=
>shonest prick
>> >>>>>he is. =A0Why should I waste money buying more bullshit.
>>
>> >>>>So you're trying desperately to refute what you've never read.
>>
>> >>>No, I'm not.
>>
>> >>Then you have nothing further to add in this forum about Mark Lane, do =
>> >>>>So you're trying desperately to refute what you've never read.
>>
>> >>>No, I'm not.
>>
>you
>> >>Billy?
>>
>> >Only when you lie about him.
>>
>> >>>I'm reading people that show what a dishonest shit Mark Lane and
>> >>>Benny Yellow Pants are. =A0It is funny watching you do the little danc=
>> >>Billy?
>>
>> >Only when you lie about him.
>>
>> >>>I'm reading people that show what a dishonest shit Mark Lane and
>e.
>>
>> >>Your cowardice is getting more noticeable Billy.
>>
>> >Still haven't seen you refute Jean's numbers yet. =A0You can't do the si=
>>
>> >>Your cowardice is getting more noticeable Billy.
>>
>mple math
>> >or what? Speaking of cowards.
>>
>> 27, 39, 1.23, 197.
>>
>> Go ahead moron... refute those numbers. Then retract your dishonest claim=
>> >or what? Speaking of cowards.
>>
>> 27, 39, 1.23, 197.
>>
> that
>> I've not answered Jean.
>
> If you answered my last post of May 22, I didn't see it.
>
> Here once more is the Mark Lane quote that you posted, Ben:
>
>"Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
>affidavits
>on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-
>two said
>they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>
> Mark and I listed nine witnesses from those dates who said
>the shots came from the TSBD.
I'm quite sure, that given the amount of information today, that you could find
>> I've not answered Jean.
>
> If you answered my last post of May 22, I didn't see it.
>
> Here once more is the Mark Lane quote that you posted, Ben:
>
>"Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
>affidavits
>on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-
>two said
>they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>
> Mark and I listed nine witnesses from those dates who said
>the shots came from the TSBD.
a few more if you tried.
But comparing apples with oranges won't get you anywhere. Unless you can list
the precise people that Mark Lane was referring to... I suspect that I can't do
it either... so I'm not too worried about it, because the point is still
accurate:
The point being made, if you've been following along, is the overwhelming
numbers of people on those first few days, before the official theory became the
law of the land, who reported something different.
Will you admit that this is true?
Can you admit the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses that began changing what was
being reported?
There are a number of examples of people *initially* indicating the knoll who
later changed to the TSBD...
Can you find any who went the opposite way, Jean?
>You have yet to explain how Mark Lane's
>numbers make any sense.
I pointed out that using apples to contradict oranges doesn't make sense. When
you can list the 25 eyewitnesses that Mark Lane gave, then you'll have a basis
to refute him.
>Did he overlook some of the witnesses? Did he
>mischaracterize their statements? Or what?
time when there simply wasn't the easy access to evidence in this case that is
now available for *anyone*.
You know this, of course.
>Jean
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >Bill Clarke
>>
>> In the meantime, why the cowardice Billy? Why can't you refute any of the=
>se
>> posts?
>>
>> Am I moving too fast for you?
>>
>> >>>>Good for you that I'm quoting Mark Lane - you'll learn.
>>
>> >>>>>Are you going to refute what Jean blew you out of the water with or =
>> posts?
>>
>> Am I moving too fast for you?
>>
>> >>>>Good for you that I'm quoting Mark Lane - you'll learn.
>>
>will you
>> >>>>>just slink away like you always do?
>>
>> >>>>Already did moron. Surely you didn't miss it, so you must be stupidly
>> >>>>dishonest.
>>
>> >>>Let me see the math asshole, not your smart ass quip.
>>
>> >>Where's your apology for lying, Billy?
>>
>> >>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >>>>Oh wait, we already know that you are. Trying to argue a topic you kn=
>> >>>>>just slink away like you always do?
>>
>> >>>>Already did moron. Surely you didn't miss it, so you must be stupidly
>> >>>>dishonest.
>>
>> >>>Let me see the math asshole, not your smart ass quip.
>>
>> >>Where's your apology for lying, Billy?
>>
>> >>>Bill Clarke
>>
>ow nothing
>> >>>>about.
>>
>> >>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >>>>Tell us Billy - why do you think people won't notice your cowardice o=
>> >>>>about.
>>
>> >>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
Bud
May 24, 2012, 5:26:55 PM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 12:39 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <836a50aa-81fb-4b78-99d4-66bd9d86f...@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
Lane is allowed to lie to the reader because he didn`t bother to do
the proper research? And the point is still valid even if the data is
flawed?
> The point being made, if you've been following along, is the overwhelming
> numbers of people on those first few days, before the official theory became the
> law of the land, who reported something different.
Like?
> Will you admit that this is true?
Will you support the idea with examples?
> Can you admit the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses that began changing what was
> being reported?
Can you show this happened?
> There are a number of examples of people *initially* indicating the knoll who
> later changed to the TSBD...
Maybe they read in the paper about where the rifle and shells were
found. Maybe that didn`t have a strong impression of where the shots
came from to begin with.
> Can you find any who went the opposite way, Jean?
The evidence didn`t pile up the opposite way.
> >You have yet to explain how Mark Lane's
> >numbers make any sense.
>
> Oh yes, Jean... I did.
>
> I pointed out that using apples to contradict oranges doesn't make sense. When
> you can list the 25 eyewitnesses that Mark Lane gave, then you'll have a basis
> to refute him.
I believe Mark used the source Lane referenced.
> >Did he overlook some of the witnesses? Did he
> >mischaracterize their statements? Or what?
>
> I'm quite sure he *did* "overlook" eyewitnesses... he wrote his book during a
> time when there simply wasn't the easy access to evidence in this case that is
> now available for *anyone*.
If thats the case why did Lane claim these were the only "known
witnesses", implying to the reader that this was all there were.
Shouldn`t he have worded it "I have located 25 witnesses...", and let
it be known there likely were more?
> You know this, of course.
This just shows that a lot of what Lane says on examination doesn`t
amount to much. Just like Ben`s claims.
> In article <836a50aa-81fb-4b78-99d4-66bd9d86f...@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
the proper research? And the point is still valid even if the data is
flawed?
> The point being made, if you've been following along, is the overwhelming
> numbers of people on those first few days, before the official theory became the
> law of the land, who reported something different.
> Will you admit that this is true?
> Can you admit the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses that began changing what was
> being reported?
> There are a number of examples of people *initially* indicating the knoll who
> later changed to the TSBD...
found. Maybe that didn`t have a strong impression of where the shots
came from to begin with.
> Can you find any who went the opposite way, Jean?
> >You have yet to explain how Mark Lane's
> >numbers make any sense.
>
> Oh yes, Jean... I did.
>
> I pointed out that using apples to contradict oranges doesn't make sense. When
> you can list the 25 eyewitnesses that Mark Lane gave, then you'll have a basis
> to refute him.
> >Did he overlook some of the witnesses? Did he
> >mischaracterize their statements? Or what?
>
> I'm quite sure he *did* "overlook" eyewitnesses... he wrote his book during a
> time when there simply wasn't the easy access to evidence in this case that is
> now available for *anyone*.
witnesses", implying to the reader that this was all there were.
Shouldn`t he have worded it "I have located 25 witnesses...", and let
it be known there likely were more?
> You know this, of course.
amount to much. Just like Ben`s claims.
mucher1
May 24, 2012, 6:13:33 PM5/24/12
to
On 24 Maj, 18:39, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <836a50aa-81fb-4b78-99d4-66bd9d86f...@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
Sure, the claim was based on Lane's 1966 knowledge, but you only
posted the naked, context-free claim. Would it have hurt to cite for a
change?
Here's the source, pp. 38-9:
http://nyc.indymedia.org/media/application/6/RushtoJudgment_MarkLane.pdf#page=32
> But comparing apples with oranges won't get you anywhere. Unless you can list
> the precise people that Mark Lane was referring to...
No. When Lane claims his fruit basket contains 25 apples, of which 22
are of the 'Pink Lady' variety, it's more than enough to find 4
'Golden Delicious' apples in the same basket. Lane's fruit basket
includes Decker Exhibit 5323, in which Brennan, Euins, Charles Hester,
and Eddie Piper are clear examples of 'Gold Delicious' apples.
> I suspect that I can't do
> it either... so I'm not too worried about it, because the point is still
> accurate:
I suspect that even Mark Lane wouldn't be able to, as he appears to
have pulled those numbers out of his hat.
> The point being made, if you've been following along, is the overwhelming
> numbers of people on those first few days, before the official theory became the
> law of the land, who reported something different.
>
> Will you admit that this is true?
These people were, presumably, looking at the same data as Lane had
access to:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%20Disk/Associated%20Press/Times-Picayune/Item%2004.pdf
This is what they found:
"Should one check the commission's volumes, he would find that, yes,
23 people did give statements to law officials on those two days. Nine
cited the knoll. Twelve cited the depository. Two indicated it could
have been either."
Will you admit that their numbers and Lane's numbers are significantly
different? How will you explain this? Other than blind faith, what's
your basis for accepting Lane's numbers as accurate?
> Can you admit the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses that began changing what was
> being reported?
Citations, please?
Swamp post alert #1.
> There are a number of examples of people *initially* indicating the knoll who
> later changed to the TSBD...
>
> Can you find any who went the opposite way, Jean?
Citations, please?
Swamp post alert #2.
> >You have yet to explain how Mark Lane's
> >numbers make any sense.
>
> Oh yes, Jean... I did.
>
> I pointed out that using apples to contradict oranges doesn't make sense. When
> you can list the 25 eyewitnesses that Mark Lane gave, then you'll have a basis
> to refute him.
But the content of Lane's own fruit basket clearly proves him wrong.
If you really want to contest that, then you're the one who needs to
find those 25 apples and determine their cultivars. Are you up for
that?
> >Did he overlook some of the witnesses? Did he
> >mischaracterize their statements? Or what?
>
> I'm quite sure he *did* "overlook" eyewitnesses... he wrote his book during a
> time when there simply wasn't the easy access to evidence in this case that is
> now available for *anyone*.
>
> You know this, of course.
Nice dodge!
(snip)
> In article <836a50aa-81fb-4b78-99d4-66bd9d86f...@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
posted the naked, context-free claim. Would it have hurt to cite for a
change?
Here's the source, pp. 38-9:
http://nyc.indymedia.org/media/application/6/RushtoJudgment_MarkLane.pdf#page=32
> But comparing apples with oranges won't get you anywhere. Unless you can list
> the precise people that Mark Lane was referring to...
are of the 'Pink Lady' variety, it's more than enough to find 4
'Golden Delicious' apples in the same basket. Lane's fruit basket
includes Decker Exhibit 5323, in which Brennan, Euins, Charles Hester,
and Eddie Piper are clear examples of 'Gold Delicious' apples.
> I suspect that I can't do
> it either... so I'm not too worried about it, because the point is still
> accurate:
have pulled those numbers out of his hat.
> The point being made, if you've been following along, is the overwhelming
> numbers of people on those first few days, before the official theory became the
> law of the land, who reported something different.
>
> Will you admit that this is true?
access to:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%20Disk/Associated%20Press/Times-Picayune/Item%2004.pdf
This is what they found:
"Should one check the commission's volumes, he would find that, yes,
23 people did give statements to law officials on those two days. Nine
cited the knoll. Twelve cited the depository. Two indicated it could
have been either."
Will you admit that their numbers and Lane's numbers are significantly
different? How will you explain this? Other than blind faith, what's
your basis for accepting Lane's numbers as accurate?
> Can you admit the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses that began changing what was
> being reported?
Swamp post alert #1.
> There are a number of examples of people *initially* indicating the knoll who
> later changed to the TSBD...
>
> Can you find any who went the opposite way, Jean?
Swamp post alert #2.
> >You have yet to explain how Mark Lane's
> >numbers make any sense.
>
> Oh yes, Jean... I did.
>
> I pointed out that using apples to contradict oranges doesn't make sense. When
> you can list the 25 eyewitnesses that Mark Lane gave, then you'll have a basis
> to refute him.
If you really want to contest that, then you're the one who needs to
find those 25 apples and determine their cultivars. Are you up for
that?
> >Did he overlook some of the witnesses? Did he
> >mischaracterize their statements? Or what?
>
> I'm quite sure he *did* "overlook" eyewitnesses... he wrote his book during a
> time when there simply wasn't the easy access to evidence in this case that is
> now available for *anyone*.
>
> You know this, of course.
(snip)
Jean
May 24, 2012, 9:45:32 PM5/24/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On May 24, 11:39 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <836a50aa-81fb-4b78-99d4-66bd9d86f...@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
There probably are more, but not because of information
today. All this info appeared in the WC volumes in 1964.
>
> But comparing apples with oranges won't get you anywhere. Unless you can list
> the precise people that Mark Lane was referring to... I suspect that I can't do
> it either... so I'm not too worried about it, because the point is still
> accurate:
It's not my job to name them, and it's not necessary. His
*numbers* are wrong.
>
> The point being made, if you've been following along, is the overwhelming
> numbers of people on those first few days, before the official theory became the
> law of the land, who reported something different.
>
> Will you admit that this is true?
I don't agree. Lane claimed that 22 out of 25 known
witnesses were knoll witnesses, but the actual numbers were not so
"overwhelming." That's the impression he created, but it's
misleading.
No one that I know of denies that there were many "knoll
witnesses." But there were also many who pointed to the TSBD.
Earwitness testimony about the direction was contradictory and
inconclusive -- some witnesses standing right next to one another
disagreed about where the shots came from.
>
> Can you admit the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses that began changing what was
> being reported?
That's the claim. Doesn't it strike you as odd that an
"intimidated" witness would freely talk about being "intimidated"?
It's not unusual for lawmen to ask witnesses not to discuss their
testimony while an investigation is still going on.
>
> There are a number of examples of people *initially* indicating the knoll who
> later changed to the TSBD...
>
> Can you find any who went the opposite way, Jean?
Yes. Phil Willis.
>
> >You have yet to explain how Mark Lane's
> >numbers make any sense.
>
> Oh yes, Jean... I did.
>
> I pointed out that using apples to contradict oranges doesn't make sense. When
> you can list the 25 eyewitnesses that Mark Lane gave, then you'll have a basis
> to refute him.
Again, the names don't matter. Whoever they were, his
numbers don't add up.
>
> >Did he overlook some of the witnesses? Did he
> >mischaracterize their statements? Or what?
>
> I'm quite sure he *did* "overlook" eyewitnesses... he wrote his book during a
> time when there simply wasn't the easy access to evidence in this case that is
> now available for *anyone*.
>
> You know this, of course.
His book appeared in 1966. All the witness statements
were published in 1964.
Jean
> In article <836a50aa-81fb-4b78-99d4-66bd9d86f...@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
today. All this info appeared in the WC volumes in 1964.
>
> But comparing apples with oranges won't get you anywhere. Unless you can list
> the precise people that Mark Lane was referring to... I suspect that I can't do
> it either... so I'm not too worried about it, because the point is still
> accurate:
*numbers* are wrong.
>
> The point being made, if you've been following along, is the overwhelming
> numbers of people on those first few days, before the official theory became the
> law of the land, who reported something different.
>
> Will you admit that this is true?
witnesses were knoll witnesses, but the actual numbers were not so
"overwhelming." That's the impression he created, but it's
misleading.
No one that I know of denies that there were many "knoll
witnesses." But there were also many who pointed to the TSBD.
Earwitness testimony about the direction was contradictory and
inconclusive -- some witnesses standing right next to one another
disagreed about where the shots came from.
>
> Can you admit the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses that began changing what was
> being reported?
"intimidated" witness would freely talk about being "intimidated"?
It's not unusual for lawmen to ask witnesses not to discuss their
testimony while an investigation is still going on.
>
> There are a number of examples of people *initially* indicating the knoll who
> later changed to the TSBD...
>
> Can you find any who went the opposite way, Jean?
>
> >You have yet to explain how Mark Lane's
> >numbers make any sense.
>
> Oh yes, Jean... I did.
>
> I pointed out that using apples to contradict oranges doesn't make sense. When
> you can list the 25 eyewitnesses that Mark Lane gave, then you'll have a basis
> to refute him.
numbers don't add up.
>
> >Did he overlook some of the witnesses? Did he
> >mischaracterize their statements? Or what?
>
> I'm quite sure he *did* "overlook" eyewitnesses... he wrote his book during a
> time when there simply wasn't the easy access to evidence in this case that is
> now available for *anyone*.
>
> You know this, of course.
were published in 1964.
Jean
Bill Clarke
May 24, 2012, 11:08:47 PM5/24/12
to
Top post. Has anyone seen Benny?
Bill Clarke
>On May 24, 8:53=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <jple2a03...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >In article <jpkb5701...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >>In article <jpk7p101...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >>>In article <jpk0qf0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >>>>In article <jpjkvt0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >>>>>In article <jpjfb302...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >>>>>>In article <jpive102...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>In article <jpinu201...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>In article <jphp3i0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>In article <jphetm02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>In article <jph52b02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>In article <79460903-80c0-4bcb-85e3-
>> >>>>>>94ba61170...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>Bud says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jean says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >On May 21, 10:16=3D3DA0pm, Jean <jean.davis...@gmail.com> =
>wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > aeffects says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >On May 21, 2:18=3D3D3DA0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.co=
>m> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Maj, 16:04, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>=
> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > In article <jp4k7m01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill =
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>.go=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >oglegro=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ups.com>,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >Bud says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> On 16 Maj, 15:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningkni=
>fe.com>
>> >>>>>>wro=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>te:
>>
>>
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> > they believed that the shots came from the =
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> > shown correct by your inability to refute =
>them...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> years ago:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>20F=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >iles/A%=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>n--=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >about t=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >he
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > it's incumbent on *YOU* to provide this evidenc=
>e.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > stated.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> Mark Lane: "Twenty-five witnesses are known to have=
> given
>> >>>>>>state=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>men=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ts
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots ca=
>me from
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>he
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> knoll."
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> this?"
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>knoll. The following four clearly believed the shots c=
>ame from
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>TSBD. Others couldn't tell where the shots came from, =
>or their
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> statements can be interpreted either way. Several r=
>eported
>> >>>>>>seei=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ng
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>people rush to the knoll after the shots, but didn't o=
>ffer an
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> to come from.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> in the window and he was taking aim with a high p=
>owered
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> rifle." (19H470)
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> immediately turned and looked at the Texas Book Dep=
>ository
>> >>>>>>buil=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>din=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >g
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and did not see anyone. The shots sounded like they de=
>finitely
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>cam=3D3D
>hey came
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>fro=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>somehow refutes the fact that Mark Lane pointed out that=
> others
>> >>>>>>po=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>int=3D3D
>t significant
>> >>>>>>f=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>igures
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > therefore - more
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>significant even than the ones given above - are those at=
>testing
>> >>>>>>the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > immediate
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before th=
>ere was
>> >>>>>>any
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > official
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given st=
>atements
>> >>>>>>or
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > affidavits
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the =
>shots.
>> >>>>>>Twenty=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> the TSBD,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>(11/23): "I remarked to Mr. [Ochus] Campbell, who was stand=
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>No reason Bud. =A0I notice Benny hasn't shown up yet. =A0I dou=
>=A0Coward. =A0Lots
>> >>>>>>>of noise but not much action. =A0A joke.
>"?
>>
>> >>>>>>Or are you so dishonest that you're trying to debate a book you don=
>'t
>> >>>>>>even own?
>>
>Jean
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >Bill Clarke
>>
>> In the meantime, why the cowardice Billy? Why can't you refute any of the=
Bill Clarke
>On May 24, 8:53=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <jple2a03...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >In article <jpkb5701...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >>In article <jpk7p101...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >>>In article <jpk0qf0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >>>>In article <jpjkvt0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >>>>>In article <jpjfb302...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >>>>>>In article <jpive102...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>In article <jpinu201...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>In article <jphp3i0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>In article <jphetm02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>In article <jph52b02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>In article <79460903-80c0-4bcb-85e3-
>> >>>>>>94ba61170...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>Bud says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>On May 22, 12:22=3DA0am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com=
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>In article <53add88a-b284-4ce5-a550-
>> >>>>>>5cdfcc5d9...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>.com>,
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>In article <53add88a-b284-4ce5-a550-
>> >>>>>>5cdfcc5d9...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jean says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >On May 21, 10:16=3D3DA0pm, Jean <jean.davis...@gmail.com> =
>wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> On May 21, 8:09=3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On May 21, 8:56=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.=
>com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > In article <6a53000b-dde6-4702-8581-
>> >>>>>>50f1453be...@pr7g2000pbb.googl=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>egr=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >oups.com>,
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On May 21, 8:56=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.=
>com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > In article <6a53000b-dde6-4702-8581-
>> >>>>>>50f1453be...@pr7g2000pbb.googl=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>egr=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > aeffects says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >On May 21, 2:18=3D3D3DA0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.co=
>m> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Maj, 16:04, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>=
> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > In article <jp4k7m01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill =
>Clarke
>> >>>>>>says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >In article <42614c48-7eb0-46dc-83da-
>> >>>>>>03fcaa325...@t23g2000yqj=3D
>> >>>>>>says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >In article <42614c48-7eb0-46dc-83da-
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>.go=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >oglegro=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ups.com>,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >Bud says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>On May 17, 6:05=3D3D3D3DA0pm, mucher1 <much...@g=
>mail.com>
>> >>>>>>wro=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>te:
>mail.com>
>> >>>>>>wro=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> On 16 Maj, 15:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningkni=
>fe.com>
>> >>>>>>wro=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>te:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend to=
> try to
>> >>>>>>"pl=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>eas=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >e the c=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ourt",=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >> and that
> try to
>> >>>>>>"pl=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>eas=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >e the c=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ourt",=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > the Warren Commission "called most of its wi=
>tnesses
>> >>>>>>lon=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>g a=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >fter it=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > had m=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>ade plain
>tnesses
>> >>>>>>lon=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>g a=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >fter it=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > had m=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> > that in its view the shots had come from th=
>e Book
>> >>>>>>Depos=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ito=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ry Buil=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ding a=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>lone and
>e Book
>> >>>>>>Depos=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ito=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ry Buil=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ding a=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> > implied that those who rejected this thesi=
>s were
>> >>>>>>irresp=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ons=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ible sp=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >eculat=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>ors."
>s were
>> >>>>>>irresp=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ons=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ible sp=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >eculat=3D3D3D3D
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation whic=
>h I've
>> >>>>>>point=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ed =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >out and=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > cited=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >> for...
>h I've
>> >>>>>>point=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ed =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >out and=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > cited=3D3D3D3D
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the mos=
>t
>> >>>>>>significant=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> fi=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >gures t=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >herefo=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>re - more
>t
>> >>>>>>significant=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> fi=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >gures t=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >herefo=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > significant even than the ones given above - ar=
>e those
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>att=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >esting =3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >the im=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>mediate
>e those
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>att=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >esting =3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >the im=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassination=
> before
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>the=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >re was =3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >any of=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>ficial
> before
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>the=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >re was =3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >any of=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to hav=
>e given
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>sta=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >tements=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > or af=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>fidavits
>e given
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>sta=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >tements=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > or af=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin=
> of the
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>sho=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ts. Twe=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >nty-tw=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>o said
> of the
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>sho=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ts. Twe=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >nty-tw=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> > they believed that the shots came from the =
>knoll."
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > You can't keep claiming that Mark Lane lies, ye=
>t allow
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>all=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > of the=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >se quo=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>tes to be
>t allow
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>all=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > of the=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >se quo=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> > shown correct by your inability to refute =
>them...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> It seems a couple of AP staff writers refuted=
> Lane's
>> >>>>>>clai=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>m s=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ome 45
> Lane's
>> >>>>>>clai=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>m s=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> years ago:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > If this happened, then all you have to do is prov=
>ide the
>> >>>>>>cita=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>tio=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ns that=3D3D3D
>ide the
>> >>>>>>cita=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>tio=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ns that=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > refute
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > the Mark Lane quotes I keep raising.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > the Mark Lane quotes I keep raising.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>20F=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >iles/A%=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >2...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Volumes Don't Support Lane
>>
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Volumes Don't Support Lane
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0In the second chapter o=
>f his book,
>> >>>>>>Lan=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>e write=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >s: "Twenty-=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >five
>f his book,
>> >>>>>>Lan=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>e write=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >s: "Twenty-=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> witnesses are known to have given statements=
> or
>> >>>>>>affidavit=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>s o=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >n Nov. =3D3D3D
> or
>> >>>>>>affidavit=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>s o=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >n Nov. =3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >22
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> or Nov. 23--the day of and the day after the
>> >>>>>>assassinatio=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> or Nov. 23--the day of and the day after the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>n--=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >about t=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >he
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they believ=
>ed that
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>he =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >shots c=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ame
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> from the knoll."
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Should one check the c=
>ommission's
>> >>>>>>volu=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>mes, he=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > would find=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > that, yes=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>,
>ed that
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>he =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >shots c=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ame
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> from the knoll."
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Should one check the c=
>ommission's
>> >>>>>>volu=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>mes, he=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > would find=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > that, yes=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> 23 people did give statements to law officials o=
>n those
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>wo =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >days. N=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ine
>n those
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>wo =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >days. N=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> cited the knoll. Twelve cited the depository=
>. Two
>> >>>>>>indicat=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ed =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >it coul=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >d
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> have been either.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >> =3D3D3DA0Wow, no wonder Ben didn`t want to nam=
>e them, I
>> >>>>>>migh=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>t loo=3D3D
>. Two
>> >>>>>>indicat=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ed =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >it coul=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >d
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> have been either.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >> =3D3D3DA0Wow, no wonder Ben didn`t want to nam=
>e them, I
>> >>>>>>migh=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>t loo=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >k them up
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>and see that Lane was lying.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>and see that Lane was lying.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since its the *KOOKS* such as yourself and Billy tha=
>t argue
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>hat=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > Mark L=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ane lied,
>t argue
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>hat=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > Mark L=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > it's incumbent on *YOU* to provide this evidenc=
>e.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > I'm merely proving, by your inability to do so, t=
>hat you
>> >>>>>>can'=3D
>hat you
>> >>>>>>can'=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>t.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >Yeah, a nice piece of work.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > Ah Billy! Coward to the very end, aren't you?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >Yeah, a nice piece of work.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > Ah Billy! Coward to the very end, aren't you?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >Bill Clarke
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0There is a witness me=
>ntioned in
>> >>>>>>anothe=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>r conte=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >xt by Lane =3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >whose
>ntioned in
>> >>>>>>anothe=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>r conte=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >xt by Lane =3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> testimony has some relevance as to the confl=
>icting
>> >>>>>>opinio=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ns =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >of wher=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >e
>icting
>> >>>>>>opinio=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ns =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >of wher=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the shots came from. He is Lee E. Bowers. He was =
>working
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>in =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >a signa=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >l
>working
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>in =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >a signa=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> tower in the railroad area behind the knoll.=
> His
>> >>>>>>testimon=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>y i=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >s in
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Volume VI.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Bowers: "The sounds came =
>from either
>> >>>>>>f=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>rom up =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >against the=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > school
> His
>> >>>>>>testimon=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>y i=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >s in
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Volume VI.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Bowers: "The sounds came =
>from either
>> >>>>>>f=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>rom up =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >against the=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> book depository building or near the mouth of the=
> triple
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ove=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >rpass."
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Q: "You were not able to t=
>ell which?"
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Bowers: "No, I could=
> not."
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Q: "Well, now, had yo=
>u had any
>> >>>>>>experie=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>nce bef=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ore being i=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >n the towe=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>r
> triple
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ove=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >rpass."
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Q: "You were not able to t=
>ell which?"
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Bowers: "No, I could=
> not."
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Q: "Well, now, had yo=
>u had any
>> >>>>>>experie=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>nce bef=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ore being i=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >n the towe=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> as to sounds coming from these various plac=
>es?"
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Bowers: "Yes, I had worke=
>d this same
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ower fo=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >r some 10 o=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >r 12 years=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>,
>es?"
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Bowers: "Yes, I had worke=
>d this same
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ower fo=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >r some 10 o=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >r 12 years=3D3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> and was there during the time they were renovat=
>ing the
>> >>>>>>sc=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>hoo=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >l
>ing the
>> >>>>>>sc=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>hoo=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> depository building, and had noticed at that t=
>ime the
>> >>>>>>sim=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ila=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >rity of
>ime the
>> >>>>>>sim=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ila=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> sounds occuring in either of these two loca=
>tions."
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Bower's testimony doesn=
>'t rule out
>> >>>>>>the=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> knoll.=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > It doesn't=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > rule out
>tions."
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Bower's testimony doesn=
>'t rule out
>> >>>>>>the=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> knoll.=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > It doesn't=3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> the depository. It does help those investigators=
> trying
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>o e=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >xplain =3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >why
> trying
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>o e=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >xplain =3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> witnesses to the assassination gave conflicting o=
>pinions
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>as =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >to the
>pinions
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>as =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound of the shots. If Bowers was helpful in this=
> regard
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>to =3D3D
> regard
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>to =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >Lane or
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Epstein, they didn't mention it.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> (Bernard Gavzer & Sid Moody, AP, 1967)
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Can you refute this, Ben?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Epstein, they didn't mention it.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> (Bernard Gavzer & Sid Moody, AP, 1967)
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Can you refute this, Ben?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Refute what, moron? You've not provided any citatio=
>ns that
>> >>>>>>re=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>fut=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >e what =3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >Mark Lane
>ns that
>> >>>>>>re=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>fut=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >e what =3D3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > stated.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> Mark Lane: "Twenty-five witnesses are known to have=
> given
>> >>>>>>state=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>men=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ts
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>or affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the=
> origin
>> >>>>>>o=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>f t=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >he
> origin
>> >>>>>>o=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>f t=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots ca=
>me from
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>he
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> knoll."
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben Holmes: "Devastating to the WCR's theory! Any koo=
>ks care
>> >>>>>>to=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> re=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >fute
>ks care
>> >>>>>>to=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> re=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> this?"
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's not particularly difficult to find four (25 minus=
> 22 plus
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>1) =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >of
> 22 plus
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>1) =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these witnesses that didn't say they believed the sho=
>ts came
>> >>>>>>fr=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>om =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >the
>ts came
>> >>>>>>fr=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>om =3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>knoll. The following four clearly believed the shots c=
>ame from
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>TSBD. Others couldn't tell where the shots came from, =
>or their
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> statements can be interpreted either way. Several r=
>eported
>> >>>>>>seei=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ng
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>people rush to the knoll after the shots, but didn't o=
>ffer an
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> independent opinion. Even CT darling Jean Hill ("I =
>looked
>> >>>>>>acros=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>s t=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >he
>looked
>> >>>>>>acros=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>s t=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> street and up the hill and saw a man running towar=
>d the
>> >>>>>>monumen=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>t a=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >nd I
>d the
>> >>>>>>monumen=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>t a=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>started running over there") didn't really say where t=
>he shots
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>see=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >med
>he shots
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>see=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> to come from.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Howard Leslie Brennan (11/22/63): "It run in my mind =
>that it
>> >>>>>>mi=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ght=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > be
>that it
>> >>>>>>mi=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ght=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the re=
>d brick
>> >>>>>>b=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>uil=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ding
>d brick
>> >>>>>>b=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>uil=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man=
> I have
>> >>>>>>des=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>cri=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >bed
> I have
>> >>>>>>des=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>cri=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> in the window and he was taking aim with a high p=
>owered
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> rifle." (19H470)
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Amos Lee Euins (11/22/63): "I started looking around a=
>nd then
>> >>>>>>I=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> lo=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >oked
>nd then
>> >>>>>>I=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> lo=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up in the red brick building. I saw a man in a window=
> with a
>> >>>>>>gu=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>n a=3D3D
> with a
>> >>>>>>gu=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>n a=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >nd I
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> saw him shoot twice." (19H474)
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> saw him shoot twice." (19H474)
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Charles Hester (11/22/63): "[The shots] sounded like t=
>hey came
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>fro=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >m
>hey came
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>fro=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> immediately behind us and over our heads. We did s=
>ee the
>> >>>>>>shooti=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ng.=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > I
>ee the
>> >>>>>>shooti=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ng.=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> immediately turned and looked at the Texas Book Dep=
>ository
>> >>>>>>buil=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>din=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >g
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and did not see anyone. The shots sounded like they de=
>finitely
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>cam=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >e
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> from in or around the building." (19H478)
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Eddie Piper (11/23/63): "The shots seemed to me like t=
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> from in or around the building." (19H478)
>>
>hey came
>> >>>>>>=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>fro=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >m up
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> inside the building." (19H499)
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >focus Studley..... FOCUS!
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > The sheer *STUPIDITY* of these kooks is amazing!
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> inside the building." (19H499)
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >focus Studley..... FOCUS!
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > The sheer *STUPIDITY* of these kooks is amazing!
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They pretend that because some eyewitnesses pointed at t=
>he TSBD,
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>hat=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > this
>he TSBD,
>> >>>>>>t=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>hat=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>somehow refutes the fact that Mark Lane pointed out that=
> others
>> >>>>>>po=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>int=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ed to the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > Grassy Knoll.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > Amazing!!!
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > Grassy Knoll.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > Amazing!!!
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3DA0 It is amazing, are you really this stupid? This i=
>s what you
>> >>>>>>pr=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>oduce=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >d
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > from Lane...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3DA0 =3D3DA0Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the mos=
>s what you
>> >>>>>>pr=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>oduce=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >d
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > from Lane...
>>
>t significant
>> >>>>>>f=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>igures
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > therefore - more
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>significant even than the ones given above - are those at=
>testing
>> >>>>>>the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > immediate
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before th=
>ere was
>> >>>>>>any
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > official
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given st=
>atements
>> >>>>>>or
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > affidavits
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the =
>shots.
>> >>>>>>Twenty=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>-
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > two said
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > two said
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3DA0 Mark produced four witnesses who said that shots =
>came from
>> >>>>>>the=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> TSBD=3D3D
>came from
>> >>>>>>the=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> TSBD=3D3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > Where are they represented in Lane`s figures?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > Where are they represented in Lane`s figures?
>>
>who was standing in front
>> >>>>>>of=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> the TSBD,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>(11/23): "I remarked to Mr. [Ochus] Campbell, who was stand=
>ing near
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >by, that I thought the shots had come from our building."
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >http://www.history-
>> >>>>>>matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >1a.htm
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0And =
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >by, that I thought the shots had come from our building."
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >http://www.history-
>> >>>>>>matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >1a.htm
>>
>of course Marrion Baker
>> >>>>>>(11/22):
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
>>
>> >>>>>>(11/22):
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Lane's sta=
>tement -- "Twenty-five
>> >>>>>>witnes=3D
>tement -- "Twenty-five
>> >>>>>>witnes=3D
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ses are known
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >to have given statements or
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin=
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >to have given statements or
> of the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >shots. Twenty-two said
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >shots. Twenty-two said
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>they believed that the shots came from the knoll" -- doesn'=
>t add up.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >=3D3D20
>t add up.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >=3D3D20
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >Jean
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Watch Benny run from this one.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> =A0Why should this one be any different than all the others?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Watch Benny run from this one.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>No reason Bud. =A0I notice Benny hasn't shown up yet. =A0I dou=
>bt he will, being
>> >>>>>>a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>chickenshit and all.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>Still the coward, eh Billy?
>>
>> >>>>>>a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>chickenshit and all.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>Still the coward, eh Billy?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>What? =A0No refute from Benny. =A0I told you, Bud. =A0Being is a=
>ll hat and no cows.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >>>>>>>>Still the coward, eh Billy? Why the cowardice? You don't *have* t=
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>o be a
>> >>>>>>coward,
>> >>>>>>>>you *CAN* engage and debate the topic.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>You'd lose, of course...
>>
>> >>>>>>>I hear you whining Benny but I see no much bragged about refute. =
>> >>>>>>coward,
>> >>>>>>>>you *CAN* engage and debate the topic.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>You'd lose, of course...
>>
>=A0Coward. =A0Lots
>> >>>>>>>of noise but not much action. =A0A joke.
>>
>> >>>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >>>>>>Still nothing but ad hominem...
>>
>> >>>>>>Why the cowardice, Billy? Can't find your copy of "Rush to Judgment=
>> >>>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >>>>>>Still nothing but ad hominem...
>>
>"?
>>
>> >>>>>>Or are you so dishonest that you're trying to debate a book you don=
>'t
>> >>>>>>even own?
>>
>> >>>>>I own only one Mark Lane book. =A0It was enough to show me what a di=
>shonest prick
>> >>>>>he is. =A0Why should I waste money buying more bullshit.
>shonest prick
>>
>> >>>>So you're trying desperately to refute what you've never read.
>>
>> >>>No, I'm not.
>>
>> >>Then you have nothing further to add in this forum about Mark Lane, do =
>> >>>>So you're trying desperately to refute what you've never read.
>>
>> >>>No, I'm not.
>>
>you
>> >>Billy?
>>
>> >Only when you lie about him.
>>
>> >>>I'm reading people that show what a dishonest shit Mark Lane and
>> >>>Benny Yellow Pants are. =A0It is funny watching you do the little danc=
>> >>Billy?
>>
>> >Only when you lie about him.
>>
>> >>>I'm reading people that show what a dishonest shit Mark Lane and
>e.
>>
>> >>Your cowardice is getting more noticeable Billy.
>>
>>
>> >>Your cowardice is getting more noticeable Billy.
>>
>> >Still haven't seen you refute Jean's numbers yet. =A0You can't do the si=
>mple math
>> >or what? Speaking of cowards.
>>
>> 27, 39, 1.23, 197.
>>
>> Go ahead moron... refute those numbers. Then retract your dishonest claim=
>> >or what? Speaking of cowards.
>>
>> 27, 39, 1.23, 197.
>>
> that
>> I've not answered Jean.
>
> If you answered my last post of May 22, I didn't see it.
>
> Here once more is the Mark Lane quote that you posted, Ben:
>
>"Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
>affidavits
>on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-
>two said
>they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>
> Mark and I listed nine witnesses from those dates who said
>the shots came from the TSBD. You have yet to explain how Mark Lane's
>numbers make any sense. Did he overlook some of the witnesses? Did he
>mischaracterize their statements? Or what?
>
>=20
>> I've not answered Jean.
>
> If you answered my last post of May 22, I didn't see it.
>
> Here once more is the Mark Lane quote that you posted, Ben:
>
>"Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
>affidavits
>on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-
>two said
>they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>
> Mark and I listed nine witnesses from those dates who said
>the shots came from the TSBD. You have yet to explain how Mark Lane's
>numbers make any sense. Did he overlook some of the witnesses? Did he
>mischaracterize their statements? Or what?
>
>Jean
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >Bill Clarke
>>
>> In the meantime, why the cowardice Billy? Why can't you refute any of the=
>se
>> posts?
>>
>> Am I moving too fast for you?
>>
>> >>>>Good for you that I'm quoting Mark Lane - you'll learn.
>>
>> >>>>>Are you going to refute what Jean blew you out of the water with or =
>> posts?
>>
>> Am I moving too fast for you?
>>
>> >>>>Good for you that I'm quoting Mark Lane - you'll learn.
>>
>will you
>> >>>>>just slink away like you always do?
>>
>> >>>>Already did moron. Surely you didn't miss it, so you must be stupidly
>> >>>>dishonest.
>>
>> >>>Let me see the math asshole, not your smart ass quip.
>>
>> >>Where's your apology for lying, Billy?
>>
>> >>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >>>>Oh wait, we already know that you are. Trying to argue a topic you kn=
>> >>>>>just slink away like you always do?
>>
>> >>>>Already did moron. Surely you didn't miss it, so you must be stupidly
>> >>>>dishonest.
>>
>> >>>Let me see the math asshole, not your smart ass quip.
>>
>> >>Where's your apology for lying, Billy?
>>
>> >>>Bill Clarke
>>
>ow nothing
>> >>>>about.
>>
>> >>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >>>>Tell us Billy - why do you think people won't notice your cowardice o=
>> >>>>about.
>>
>> >>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
Ben Holmes
May 24, 2012, 11:44:10 PM5/24/12
to
In article <jpmt3...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
responded to *MY* response, coward?
>
>In article <836a50aa-81fb-4b78...@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
>Jean says...
>
>
>Top post. Has anyone seen Benny?
>
>Bill Clarke
You are, of course, implying that I didn't respond. Can you explain how Jean
>In article <836a50aa-81fb-4b78...@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
>Jean says...
>
>
>Top post. Has anyone seen Benny?
>
>Bill Clarke
responded to *MY* response, coward?
Ben Holmes
May 24, 2012, 11:58:05 PM5/24/12
to
In article <1d6b529c-f924-4571...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
Jean says...
>
>On May 24, 11:39=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <836a50aa-81fb-4b78-99d4-66bd9d86f...@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups=
>y.com=3D
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>In article <53add88a-b284-4ce5-a550-
>> >> >>>>>>5cdfcc5d9...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>.com>,
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jean says...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >On May 21, 10:16=3D3D3DA0pm, Jean <jean.davis...@gmail.=
>com> =3D
>> >wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> On May 21, 8:09=3D3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> w=
>rote:
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On May 21, 8:56=3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningk=
>nife.=3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>egr=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >oups.com>,
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > aeffects says...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >On May 21, 2:18=3D3D3D3DA0am, mucher1 <much...@gma=
>il.co=3D
>> >m> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Maj, 16:04, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.c=
>om>=3D
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > In article <jp4k7m01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bi=
>ll =3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>.go=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >oglegro=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ups.com>,
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >Bud says...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>On May 17, 6:05=3D3D3D3D3DA0pm, mucher1 <much=
>...@g=3D
>> >mail.com>
>> >> >>>>>>wro=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>te:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> On 16 Maj, 15:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@burning=
>kni=3D
>> >fe.com>
>> >> >>>>>>wro=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>te:
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend=
> to=3D
>> > try to
>> >> >>>>>>"pl=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>eas=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >e the c=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ourt",=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >> and that
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > the Warren Commission "called most of its=
> wi=3D
>> >tnesses
>> >> >>>>>>lon=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>g a=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >fter it=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > had m=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>ade plain
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> > that in its view the shots had come from=
> th=3D
>> >e Book
>> >> >>>>>>Depos=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ito=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ry Buil=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ding a=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>lone and
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> > implied that those who rejected this th=
>esi=3D
>> >s were
>> >> >>>>>>irresp=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ons=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ible sp=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >eculat=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>ors."
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation w=
>hic=3D
>> >h I've
>> >> >>>>>>point=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ed =3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >out and=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > cited=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >> for...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the =
>mos=3D
>> >t
>> >> >>>>>>significant=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> fi=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >gures t=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >herefo=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>re - more
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > significant even than the ones given above -=
> ar=3D
>> >e those
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>att=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >esting =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >the im=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>mediate
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassinat=
>ion=3D
>> > before
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>the=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >re was =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >any of=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>ficial
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to =
>hav=3D
>> >e given
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>sta=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >tements=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > or af=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>fidavits
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the ori=
>gin=3D
>> > of the
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>sho=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ts. Twe=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >nty-tw=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>o said
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> > they believed that the shots came from t=
>he =3D
> ye=3D
>> >t allow
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>all=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > of the=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >se quo=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>tes to be
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> > shown correct by your inability to refu=
>te =3D
>> >them...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> It seems a couple of AP staff writers refu=
>ted=3D
>> > Lane's
>> >> >>>>>>clai=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>m s=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ome 45
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> years ago:
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > If this happened, then all you have to do is p=
>rov=3D
>> >ide the
>> >> >>>>>>cita=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>tio=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ns that=3D3D3D3D
>3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>20F=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >iles/A%=3D3D3D3D
>apter o=3D
>> >f his book,
>> >> >>>>>>Lan=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>e write=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >s: "Twenty-=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >five
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> witnesses are known to have given stateme=
>nts=3D
>> > or
>> >> >>>>>>affidavit=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>s o=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >n Nov. =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >22
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> or Nov. 23--the day of and the day after =
>the
>> >> >>>>>>assassinatio=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>n--=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >about t=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >he
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they bel=
>iev=3D
>> >ed that
>> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>he =3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >shots c=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ame
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> from the knoll."
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3DA0Should one chec=
>k the c=3D
>> >ommission's
>> >> >>>>>>volu=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>mes, he=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > would find=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > that, yes=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>,
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> 23 people did give statements to law official=
>s o=3D
>> >n those
>> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>wo =3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >days. N=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ine
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> cited the knoll. Twelve cited the deposit=
>ory=3D
>> >. Two
>> >> >>>>>>indicat=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ed =3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >it coul=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >d
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> have been either.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >> =3D3D3D3DA0Wow, no wonder Ben didn`t want t=
>o nam=3D
>> >e them, I
>> >> >>>>>>migh=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>t loo=3D3D3D
>tha=3D
>> >t argue
>> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>hat=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > Mark L=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ane lied,
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > it's incumbent on *YOU* to provide this evid=
>enc=3D
>> >e.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > I'm merely proving, by your inability to do so=
>, t=3D
>> >hat you
>> >> >>>>>>can'=3D3D
>?
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3DA0There is a wit=
>ness me=3D
>> >ntioned in
>> >> >>>>>>anothe=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>r conte=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >xt by Lane =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >whose
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> testimony has some relevance as to the co=
>nfl=3D
>> >icting
>> >> >>>>>>opinio=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ns =3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >of wher=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >e
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the shots came from. He is Lee E. Bowers. He w=
>as =3D
>> >working
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>in =3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >a signa=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >l
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> tower in the railroad area behind the kno=
>ll.=3D
>> > His
>> >> >>>>>>testimon=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>y i=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >s in
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Volume VI.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> =3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3DA0Bowers: "The sound=
>s came =3D
>> >from either
>> >> >>>>>>f=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>rom up =3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >against the=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > school
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> book depository building or near the mouth of =
>the=3D
>> > triple
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ove=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >rpass."
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3DA0Q: "You were not ab=
>le to t=3D
>> >ell which?"
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3DA0Bowers: "No, =
>I could=3D
>> > not."
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3DA0Q: "Well, now,=
> had yo=3D
>> >u had any
>> >> >>>>>>experie=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>nce bef=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ore being i=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >n the towe=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>r
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> as to sounds coming from these various p=
>lac=3D
>> >es?"
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> =3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3DA0Bowers: "Yes, I ha=
>d worke=3D
>> >d this same
>> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ower fo=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >r some 10 o=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >r 12 years=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>,
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> and was there during the time they were reno=
>vat=3D
>> >ing the
>> >> >>>>>>sc=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>hoo=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >l
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> depository building, and had noticed at tha=
>t t=3D
>> >ime the
>> >> >>>>>>sim=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ila=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >rity of
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> sounds occuring in either of these two l=
>oca=3D
>> >tions."
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> =3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3DA0Bower's testimon=
>y doesn=3D
>> >'t rule out
>> >> >>>>>>the=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> knoll.=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > It doesn't=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > rule out
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> the depository. It does help those investigat=
>ors=3D
>> > trying
>> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>o e=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >xplain =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >why
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> witnesses to the assassination gave conflictin=
>g o=3D
>> >pinions
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>as =3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >to the
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound of the shots. If Bowers was helpful in t=
>his=3D
>> > regard
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>to =3D3D3D
>tio=3D
>> >ns that
>> >> >>>>>>re=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>fut=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >e what =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >Mark Lane
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > stated.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> Mark Lane: "Twenty-five witnesses are known to h=
>ave=3D
>> > given
>> >> >>>>>>state=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>men=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ts
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>or affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about =
>the=3D
>> > origin
>> >> >>>>>>o=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>f t=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >he
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots=
> ca=3D
>> >me from
>> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>he
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> knoll."
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben Holmes: "Devastating to the WCR's theory! Any =
>koo=3D
>> >ks care
>> >> >>>>>>to=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> re=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >fute
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> this?"
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's not particularly difficult to find four (25 mi=
>nus=3D
>> > 22 plus
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>1) =3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >of
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these witnesses that didn't say they believed the =
>sho=3D
>> >ts came
>> >> >>>>>>fr=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>om =3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >the
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>knoll. The following four clearly believed the shot=
>s c=3D
>> >ame from
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>the
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>TSBD. Others couldn't tell where the shots came fro=
>m, =3D
>> >or their
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> statements can be interpreted either way. Severa=
>l r=3D
>> >eported
>> >> >>>>>>seei=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ng
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>people rush to the knoll after the shots, but didn'=
>t o=3D
>> >ffer an
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> independent opinion. Even CT darling Jean Hill (=
>"I =3D
>> >looked
>> >> >>>>>>acros=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>s t=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >he
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> street and up the hill and saw a man running to=
>war=3D
>> >d the
>> >> >>>>>>monumen=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>t a=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >nd I
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>started running over there") didn't really say wher=
>e t=3D
>> >he shots
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>see=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >med
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> to come from.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Howard Leslie Brennan (11/22/63): "It run in my mi=
>nd =3D
>> >that it
>> >> >>>>>>mi=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ght=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > be
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the=
> re=3D
>> >d brick
>> >> >>>>>>b=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>uil=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ding
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> and I looked up at the building. I then saw this =
>man=3D
>> > I have
>> >> >>>>>>des=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>cri=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >bed
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> in the window and he was taking aim with a hig=
>h p=3D
>> >owered
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> rifle." (19H470)
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Amos Lee Euins (11/22/63): "I started looking aroun=
>d a=3D
>> >nd then
>> >> >>>>>>I=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> lo=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >oked
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up in the red brick building. I saw a man in a win=
>dow=3D
>> > with a
>> >> >>>>>>gu=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>n a=3D3D3D
>e t=3D
>> >hey came
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>fro=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >m
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> immediately behind us and over our heads. We di=
>d s=3D
>> >ee the
>> >> >>>>>>shooti=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ng.=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > I
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> immediately turned and looked at the Texas Book =
>Dep=3D
>> >ository
>> >> >>>>>>buil=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>din=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >g
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and did not see anyone. The shots sounded like they=
> de=3D
>> >finitely
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>cam=3D3D3D
>e t=3D
>> >hey came
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>fro=3D3D3D
>t t=3D
>> >he TSBD,
>> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>hat=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > this
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>somehow refutes the fact that Mark Lane pointed out t=
>hat=3D
>> > others
>> >> >>>>>>po=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>int=3D3D3D
>his i=3D
>> >s what you
>> >> >>>>>>pr=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>oduce=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >d
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > from Lane...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps =
>the mos=3D
>> >t significant
>> >> >>>>>>f=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>igures
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > therefore - more
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>significant even than the ones given above - are those=
> at=3D
>> >testing
>> >> >>>>>>the
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > immediate
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before=
> th=3D
>> >ere was
>> >> >>>>>>any
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > official
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given=
> st=3D
>> >atements
>> >> >>>>>>or
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > affidavits
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of t=
>he =3D
>> >shots.
>> >> >>>>>>Twenty=3D3D
>hots =3D
>> >came from
>> >> >>>>>>the=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> TSBD=3D3D3D
>D3DA0 Mark list=3D
>> >ed Brennan, Euins,
>> >> >>>>>>Charle=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>s Hester, and E=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ddie
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Piper. =3D3D3DA0Here are three more:
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3=
>D3DA0 Bonnie Ra=3D
>> >y Williams (11/23)
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3DA0"=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>right over his he=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ad"
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDo=
>c.d=3D
>> >o?
>> >> >>>>>>docId=3D3D3D3D1=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>...
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3=
>D3DA0 Bob Jacks=3D
>> >on
>> >> >>>>>>(11/23)http://www.mary=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ferrell.org/mf=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >fweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3D3D3D104...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3=
>D3DA0 James Wor=3D
>> >rell
>> >> >>>>>>(11/23)http://www.ma=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ryferrell.org/=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3D3D3D104...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D=
>3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Jac=3D
>> >kson and Worrell reported
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>seeing a rifle in=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > the TSBD.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D=
>3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Twe=3D
>> >nty-five minus twenty-two
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>equals seven?
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA=
>0 =3D3DA0 Oops, mak=3D
>> >e that nine.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =
>=3D3DA0 Mrs. Reid, =3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> the TSBD,
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>(11/23): "I remarked to Mr. [Ochus] Campbell, who was st=
>and=3D
>> >ing near
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >by, that I thought the shots had come from our building=
>."
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >http://www.history-
>> >> >>>>>>matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >1a.htm
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA=
>0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0And =3D
> =3D3DA0 Lane's sta=3D
>> >tement -- "Twenty-five
>> >> >>>>>>witnes=3D3D
>gin=3D
>sn'=3D
>> >t add up.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >=3D3D3D20
>hers?
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>No reason Bud. =3DA0I notice Benny hasn't shown up yet. =3D=
>A0I dou=3D
>eing is a=3D
>* t=3D
>. =3D
>> >=3DA0Coward. =3DA0Lots
>> >> >>>>>>>of noise but not much action. =3DA0A joke.
>ent=3D
>> >"?
>>
>> >> >>>>>>Or are you so dishonest that you're trying to debate a book you =
>don=3D
>> >'t
>> >> >>>>>>even own?
>>
>> >> >>>>>I own only one Mark Lane book. =3DA0It was enough to show me what=
> a di=3D
>> >shonest prick
>> >> >>>>>he is. =3DA0Why should I waste money buying more bullshit.
>do =3D
> danc=3D
>he si=3D
>aim=3D
>e it.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Here once more is the Mark Lane quote that you post=
>list
>> the precise people that Mark Lane was referring to... I suspect that I ca=
More importantly, you *KNOW* you haven't.
>> The point being made, if you've been following along, is the overwhelming
>> numbers of people on those first few days, before the official theory bec=
and I've posted quite a few more since then... that are all dealing with the
same topic.
> No one that I know of denies that there were many "knoll
>witnesses." But there were also many who pointed to the TSBD.
>Earwitness testimony about the direction was contradictory and
>inconclusive -- some witnesses standing right next to one another
>disagreed about where the shots came from.
And yet, you believe one group, and completely disregard the other group.
>> Can you admit the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses that began changing wh=
Intimidation". Toddy refused to refute it, despite numerous claims that he
would.
Refute it.
But don't assert that this is just a "claim" unless you're willing to defend
that assertion.
I'll give you the opportunity to do so.
>Doesn't it strike you as odd that an
>"intimidated" witness would freely talk about being "intimidated"?
Some of them did, most of them probably did not. Tell the truth Jean, are you
claiming that you are unaware of the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses?
>It's not unusual for lawmen to ask witnesses not to discuss their
>testimony while an investigation is still going on.
Sorry Jean, this goes far beyond that.
>> There are a number of examples of people *initially* indicating the knoll=
For some strange reason, all I see is his indication that they came from the
TSBD in his testimony.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have occasion to look up toward the railroad tracks that
go across the triple underpass at any time, at about the time the President was
shot?
Mr. WILLIS. Yes; I did, after the third shot was fired.
Mr. LIEBELER. Was there anybody up there? Did you see anybody up there on those
railroad tracks?
Mr. WILLIS. Yes, sir; I had noticed before the President's arrival that there
were spectators up there, but there were also policemen up there.
Mr. LIEBELER. You did see policemen up there?
Mr. WILLIS. Yes, sir; there were definitely policemen up there among the
spectators.
Mr. LIEBELER. About how many spectators would you say were up there? Was there a
big crowd?
Mr. WILLIS. No, sir; there was no big crowd in the area, actually. But I would
say, and this is strictly a wild guess, maybe 2 dozen.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see any evidence of any shots having been fired from that
direction?
Mr. WILLIS. No, sir; there was no doubt in my mind. I saw people falling on the
ground and police officers racing over toward a concrete wall.
Mr. LIEBELER. Across the street from Elm Street?
Mr. WILLIS. Across the street from Elm Street on the same side as the School
Book Depository, which goes down the hill toward the underpass, and the
policemen started going over there, called to see if someone, evidently thinking
it came from that direction, and then is when I started to ring this building. I
knew it came from high above directly across the street from me, and that is the
one thing I was absolutely positive about.
Mr. LIEBELER. You made that judgment from the sound of the shots?
Mr. WILLIS. From the sound, absolutely. And this may be verified by the fact
that I took several pictures of the crowd immediately around that building.
>> >You have yet to explain how Mark Lane's
>> >numbers make any sense.
>>
>> Oh yes, Jean... I did.
>>
>> I pointed out that using apples to contradict oranges doesn't make sense.=
> When
>> you can list the 25 eyewitnesses that Mark Lane gave, then you'll have a =
Why not produce it?
>> >Did he overlook some of the witnesses? Did he
>> >mischaracterize their statements? =A0Or what?
>>
>> I'm quite sure he *did* "overlook" eyewitnesses... he wrote his book duri=
>ng a
>> time when there simply wasn't the easy access to evidence in this case th=
>the=3D
>or =3D
> kn=3D
>e o=3D
Jean says...
>
>On May 24, 11:39=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <836a50aa-81fb-4b78-99d4-66bd9d86f...@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Jean says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 24, 8:53=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <jple2a03...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >> >In article <jpkb5701...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >> >>In article <jpk7p101...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >> >>>In article <jpk0qf0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >> >>>>In article <jpjkvt0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >> >>>>>In article <jpjfb302...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>In article <jpive102...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>In article <jpinu201...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>In article <jphp3i0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>In article <jphetm02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>In article <jph52b02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says..=
>> Jean says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 24, 8:53=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <jple2a03...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >> >In article <jpkb5701...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >> >>In article <jpk7p101...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >> >>>In article <jpk0qf0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >> >>>>In article <jpjkvt0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >> >>>>>In article <jpjfb302...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>In article <jpive102...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>In article <jpinu201...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>In article <jphp3i0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>In article <jphetm02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>In article <79460903-80c0-4bcb-85e3-
>> >> >>>>>>94ba61170...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>Bud says...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>On May 22, 12:22=3D3DA0am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsgu=
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>In article <79460903-80c0-4bcb-85e3-
>> >> >>>>>>94ba61170...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>Bud says...
>>
>y.com=3D
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>In article <53add88a-b284-4ce5-a550-
>> >> >>>>>>5cdfcc5d9...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>.com>,
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jean says...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >On May 21, 10:16=3D3D3DA0pm, Jean <jean.davis...@gmail.=
>com> =3D
>> >wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> On May 21, 8:09=3D3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> w=
>rote:
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On May 21, 8:56=3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningk=
>nife.=3D
>> >com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > In article <6a53000b-dde6-4702-8581-
>> >> >>>>>>50f1453be...@pr7g2000pbb.googl=3D3D
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > In article <6a53000b-dde6-4702-8581-
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>egr=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >oups.com>,
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > aeffects says...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >On May 21, 2:18=3D3D3D3DA0am, mucher1 <much...@gma=
>il.co=3D
>> >m> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Maj, 16:04, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.c=
>om>=3D
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > In article <jp4k7m01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bi=
>ll =3D
>> >Clarke
>> >> >>>>>>says...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >In article <42614c48-7eb0-46dc-83da-
>> >> >>>>>>03fcaa325...@t23g2000yqj=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>says...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >In article <42614c48-7eb0-46dc-83da-
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>.go=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >oglegro=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ups.com>,
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >Bud says...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>On May 17, 6:05=3D3D3D3D3DA0pm, mucher1 <much=
>...@g=3D
>> >mail.com>
>> >> >>>>>>wro=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>te:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> On 16 Maj, 15:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@burning=
>kni=3D
>> >fe.com>
>> >> >>>>>>wro=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>te:
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > Mark Lane made the point that people tend=
> to=3D
>> > try to
>> >> >>>>>>"pl=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>eas=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >e the c=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ourt",=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >> and that
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > the Warren Commission "called most of its=
> wi=3D
>> >tnesses
>> >> >>>>>>lon=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>g a=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >fter it=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > had m=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>ade plain
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> > that in its view the shots had come from=
> th=3D
>> >e Book
>> >> >>>>>>Depos=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ito=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ry Buil=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ding a=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>lone and
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> > implied that those who rejected this th=
>esi=3D
>> >s were
>> >> >>>>>>irresp=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ons=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ible sp=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >eculat=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>ors."
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidation w=
>hic=3D
>> >h I've
>> >> >>>>>>point=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ed =3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >out and=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > cited=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >> for...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps the =
>mos=3D
>> >t
>> >> >>>>>>significant=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> fi=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >gures t=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >herefo=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>re - more
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > significant even than the ones given above -=
> ar=3D
>> >e those
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>att=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >esting =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >the im=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>mediate
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassinat=
>ion=3D
>> > before
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>the=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >re was =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >any of=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>ficial
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to =
>hav=3D
>> >e given
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>sta=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >tements=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > or af=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>fidavits
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the ori=
>gin=3D
>> > of the
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>sho=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ts. Twe=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >nty-tw=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>o said
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> > they believed that the shots came from t=
>he =3D
>> >knoll."
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > You can't keep claiming that Mark Lane lies,=
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
> ye=3D
>> >t allow
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>all=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > of the=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >se quo=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>tes to be
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> > shown correct by your inability to refu=
>te =3D
>> >them...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> It seems a couple of AP staff writers refu=
>ted=3D
>> > Lane's
>> >> >>>>>>clai=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>m s=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ome 45
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> years ago:
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > If this happened, then all you have to do is p=
>rov=3D
>> >ide the
>> >> >>>>>>cita=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>tio=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ns that=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > refute
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > the Mark Lane quotes I keep raising.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%=3D=
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > the Mark Lane quotes I keep raising.
>>
>3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>20F=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >iles/A%=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >2...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Volumes Don't Support Lane
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> =3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3DA0In the second ch=
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Volumes Don't Support Lane
>>
>apter o=3D
>> >f his book,
>> >> >>>>>>Lan=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>e write=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >s: "Twenty-=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >five
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> witnesses are known to have given stateme=
>nts=3D
>> > or
>> >> >>>>>>affidavit=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>s o=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >n Nov. =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >22
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> or Nov. 23--the day of and the day after =
>the
>> >> >>>>>>assassinatio=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>n--=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >about t=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >he
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they bel=
>iev=3D
>> >ed that
>> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>he =3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >shots c=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ame
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> from the knoll."
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3DA0Should one chec=
>k the c=3D
>> >ommission's
>> >> >>>>>>volu=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>mes, he=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > would find=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > that, yes=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>,
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> 23 people did give statements to law official=
>s o=3D
>> >n those
>> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>wo =3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >days. N=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ine
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> cited the knoll. Twelve cited the deposit=
>ory=3D
>> >. Two
>> >> >>>>>>indicat=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ed =3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >it coul=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >d
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> have been either.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >> =3D3D3D3DA0Wow, no wonder Ben didn`t want t=
>o nam=3D
>> >e them, I
>> >> >>>>>>migh=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>t loo=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >k them up
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>and see that Lane was lying.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since its the *KOOKS* such as yourself and Billy =
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>and see that Lane was lying.
>>
>tha=3D
>> >t argue
>> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>hat=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > Mark L=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ane lied,
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > it's incumbent on *YOU* to provide this evid=
>enc=3D
>> >e.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > I'm merely proving, by your inability to do so=
>, t=3D
>> >hat you
>> >> >>>>>>can'=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>t.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >Yeah, a nice piece of work.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > Ah Billy! Coward to the very end, aren't you=
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >Yeah, a nice piece of work.
>>
>?
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3DA0There is a wit=
>ness me=3D
>> >ntioned in
>> >> >>>>>>anothe=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>r conte=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >xt by Lane =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >whose
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> testimony has some relevance as to the co=
>nfl=3D
>> >icting
>> >> >>>>>>opinio=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ns =3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >of wher=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >e
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the shots came from. He is Lee E. Bowers. He w=
>as =3D
>> >working
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>in =3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >a signa=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >l
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> tower in the railroad area behind the kno=
>ll.=3D
>> > His
>> >> >>>>>>testimon=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>y i=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >s in
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Volume VI.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> =3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3DA0Bowers: "The sound=
>s came =3D
>> >from either
>> >> >>>>>>f=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>rom up =3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >against the=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > school
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> book depository building or near the mouth of =
>the=3D
>> > triple
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ove=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >rpass."
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3DA0Q: "You were not ab=
>le to t=3D
>> >ell which?"
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3DA0Bowers: "No, =
>I could=3D
>> > not."
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3DA0Q: "Well, now,=
> had yo=3D
>> >u had any
>> >> >>>>>>experie=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>nce bef=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ore being i=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >n the towe=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>r
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> as to sounds coming from these various p=
>lac=3D
>> >es?"
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> =3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3DA0Bowers: "Yes, I ha=
>d worke=3D
>> >d this same
>> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ower fo=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >r some 10 o=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >r 12 years=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>,
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> and was there during the time they were reno=
>vat=3D
>> >ing the
>> >> >>>>>>sc=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>hoo=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >l
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> depository building, and had noticed at tha=
>t t=3D
>> >ime the
>> >> >>>>>>sim=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ila=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >rity of
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> sounds occuring in either of these two l=
>oca=3D
>> >tions."
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> =3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3DA0Bower's testimon=
>y doesn=3D
>> >'t rule out
>> >> >>>>>>the=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> knoll.=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > It doesn't=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > rule out
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> the depository. It does help those investigat=
>ors=3D
>> > trying
>> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>o e=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >xplain =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >why
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> witnesses to the assassination gave conflictin=
>g o=3D
>> >pinions
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>as =3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >to the
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound of the shots. If Bowers was helpful in t=
>his=3D
>> > regard
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>to =3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >Lane or
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Epstein, they didn't mention it.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> (Bernard Gavzer & Sid Moody, AP, 1967)
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Can you refute this, Ben?
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Refute what, moron? You've not provided any cita=
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Epstein, they didn't mention it.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> (Bernard Gavzer & Sid Moody, AP, 1967)
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Can you refute this, Ben?
>>
>tio=3D
>> >ns that
>> >> >>>>>>re=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>fut=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >e what =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >Mark Lane
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > stated.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> Mark Lane: "Twenty-five witnesses are known to h=
>ave=3D
>> > given
>> >> >>>>>>state=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>men=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ts
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>or affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about =
>the=3D
>> > origin
>> >> >>>>>>o=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>f t=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >he
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots=
> ca=3D
>> >me from
>> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>he
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> knoll."
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben Holmes: "Devastating to the WCR's theory! Any =
>koo=3D
>> >ks care
>> >> >>>>>>to=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> re=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >fute
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> this?"
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's not particularly difficult to find four (25 mi=
>nus=3D
>> > 22 plus
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>1) =3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >of
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these witnesses that didn't say they believed the =
>sho=3D
>> >ts came
>> >> >>>>>>fr=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>om =3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >the
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>knoll. The following four clearly believed the shot=
>s c=3D
>> >ame from
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>the
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>TSBD. Others couldn't tell where the shots came fro=
>m, =3D
>> >or their
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> statements can be interpreted either way. Severa=
>l r=3D
>> >eported
>> >> >>>>>>seei=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ng
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>people rush to the knoll after the shots, but didn'=
>t o=3D
>> >ffer an
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> independent opinion. Even CT darling Jean Hill (=
>"I =3D
>> >looked
>> >> >>>>>>acros=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>s t=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >he
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> street and up the hill and saw a man running to=
>war=3D
>> >d the
>> >> >>>>>>monumen=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>t a=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >nd I
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>started running over there") didn't really say wher=
>e t=3D
>> >he shots
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>see=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >med
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> to come from.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Howard Leslie Brennan (11/22/63): "It run in my mi=
>nd =3D
>> >that it
>> >> >>>>>>mi=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ght=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > be
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the=
> re=3D
>> >d brick
>> >> >>>>>>b=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>uil=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ding
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> and I looked up at the building. I then saw this =
>man=3D
>> > I have
>> >> >>>>>>des=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>cri=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >bed
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> in the window and he was taking aim with a hig=
>h p=3D
>> >owered
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> rifle." (19H470)
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Amos Lee Euins (11/22/63): "I started looking aroun=
>d a=3D
>> >nd then
>> >> >>>>>>I=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> lo=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >oked
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up in the red brick building. I saw a man in a win=
>dow=3D
>> > with a
>> >> >>>>>>gu=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>n a=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >nd I
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> saw him shoot twice." (19H474)
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Charles Hester (11/22/63): "[The shots] sounded lik=
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> saw him shoot twice." (19H474)
>>
>e t=3D
>> >hey came
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>fro=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >m
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> immediately behind us and over our heads. We di=
>d s=3D
>> >ee the
>> >> >>>>>>shooti=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ng.=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > I
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> immediately turned and looked at the Texas Book =
>Dep=3D
>> >ository
>> >> >>>>>>buil=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>din=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >g
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and did not see anyone. The shots sounded like they=
> de=3D
>> >finitely
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>cam=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >e
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> from in or around the building." (19H478)
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Eddie Piper (11/23/63): "The shots seemed to me lik=
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> from in or around the building." (19H478)
>>
>e t=3D
>> >hey came
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>fro=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >m up
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> inside the building." (19H499)
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >focus Studley..... FOCUS!
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > The sheer *STUPIDITY* of these kooks is amazing!
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They pretend that because some eyewitnesses pointed a=
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> inside the building." (19H499)
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >focus Studley..... FOCUS!
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > The sheer *STUPIDITY* of these kooks is amazing!
>>
>t t=3D
>> >he TSBD,
>> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>hat=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > this
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>somehow refutes the fact that Mark Lane pointed out t=
>hat=3D
>> > others
>> >> >>>>>>po=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>int=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ed to the
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > Grassy Knoll.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > Amazing!!!
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3D3DA0 It is amazing, are you really this stupid? T=
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > Grassy Knoll.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > Amazing!!!
>>
>his i=3D
>> >s what you
>> >> >>>>>>pr=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>oduce=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >d
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > from Lane...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps =
>the mos=3D
>> >t significant
>> >> >>>>>>f=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>igures
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > therefore - more
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>significant even than the ones given above - are those=
> at=3D
>> >testing
>> >> >>>>>>the
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > immediate
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before=
> th=3D
>> >ere was
>> >> >>>>>>any
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > official
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given=
> st=3D
>> >atements
>> >> >>>>>>or
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > affidavits
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of t=
>he =3D
>> >shots.
>> >> >>>>>>Twenty=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>-
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > two said
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3D3DA0 Mark produced four witnesses who said that s=
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > two said
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>hots =3D
>> >came from
>> >> >>>>>>the=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> TSBD=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > Where are they represented in Lane`s figures?
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3=
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > Where are they represented in Lane`s figures?
>>
>D3DA0 Mark list=3D
>> >ed Brennan, Euins,
>> >> >>>>>>Charle=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>s Hester, and E=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ddie
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Piper. =3D3D3DA0Here are three more:
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3=
>D3DA0 Bonnie Ra=3D
>> >y Williams (11/23)
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3DA0"=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>right over his he=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ad"
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDo=
>c.d=3D
>> >o?
>> >> >>>>>>docId=3D3D3D3D1=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>...
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3=
>D3DA0 Bob Jacks=3D
>> >on
>> >> >>>>>>(11/23)http://www.mary=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ferrell.org/mf=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >fweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3D3D3D104...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3=
>D3DA0 James Wor=3D
>> >rell
>> >> >>>>>>(11/23)http://www.ma=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ryferrell.org/=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3D3D3D104...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D=
>3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Jac=3D
>> >kson and Worrell reported
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>seeing a rifle in=3D3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > the TSBD.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D=
>3DA0 =3D3D3DA0Twe=3D
>> >nty-five minus twenty-two
>> >> >>>>>>=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>equals seven?
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA=
>0 =3D3DA0 Oops, mak=3D
>> >e that nine.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =
>=3D3DA0 Mrs. Reid, =3D
>> >who was standing in front
>> >> >>>>>>of=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> the TSBD,
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>(11/23): "I remarked to Mr. [Ochus] Campbell, who was st=
>and=3D
>> >ing near
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >by, that I thought the shots had come from our building=
>."
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >http://www.history-
>> >> >>>>>>matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >1a.htm
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA=
>0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0And =3D
>> >of course Marrion Baker
>> >> >>>>>>(11/22):
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0=
>> >> >>>>>>(11/22):
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
>>
> =3D3DA0 Lane's sta=3D
>> >tement -- "Twenty-five
>> >> >>>>>>witnes=3D3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ses are known
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >to have given statements or
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the ori=
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >to have given statements or
>gin=3D
>> > of the
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >shots. Twenty-two said
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>they believed that the shots came from the knoll" -- doe=
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >shots. Twenty-two said
>sn'=3D
>> >t add up.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >=3D3D3D20
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >Jean
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Watch Benny run from this one.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> =3DA0Why should this one be any different than all the ot=
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Watch Benny run from this one.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>hers?
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>No reason Bud. =3DA0I notice Benny hasn't shown up yet. =3D=
>A0I dou=3D
>> >bt he will, being
>> >> >>>>>>a
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>chickenshit and all.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>Still the coward, eh Billy?
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>What? =3DA0No refute from Benny. =3DA0I told you, Bud. =3DA0B=
>> >> >>>>>>a
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>chickenshit and all.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>Still the coward, eh Billy?
>>
>eing is a=3D
>> >ll hat and no cows.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>Still the coward, eh Billy? Why the cowardice? You don't *have=
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>* t=3D
>> >o be a
>> >> >>>>>>coward,
>> >> >>>>>>>>you *CAN* engage and debate the topic.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>You'd lose, of course...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>I hear you whining Benny but I see no much bragged about refute=
>> >> >>>>>>coward,
>> >> >>>>>>>>you *CAN* engage and debate the topic.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>You'd lose, of course...
>>
>. =3D
>> >=3DA0Coward. =3DA0Lots
>> >> >>>>>>>of noise but not much action. =3DA0A joke.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >>>>>>Still nothing but ad hominem...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>Why the cowardice, Billy? Can't find your copy of "Rush to Judgm=
>> >> >>>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >>>>>>Still nothing but ad hominem...
>>
>ent=3D
>> >"?
>>
>> >> >>>>>>Or are you so dishonest that you're trying to debate a book you =
>don=3D
>> >'t
>> >> >>>>>>even own?
>>
>> >> >>>>>I own only one Mark Lane book. =3DA0It was enough to show me what=
> a di=3D
>> >shonest prick
>> >> >>>>>he is. =3DA0Why should I waste money buying more bullshit.
>>
>> >> >>>>So you're trying desperately to refute what you've never read.
>>
>> >> >>>No, I'm not.
>>
>> >> >>Then you have nothing further to add in this forum about Mark Lane, =
>> >> >>>>So you're trying desperately to refute what you've never read.
>>
>> >> >>>No, I'm not.
>>
>do =3D
>> >you
>> >> >>Billy?
>>
>> >> >Only when you lie about him.
>>
>> >> >>>I'm reading people that show what a dishonest shit Mark Lane and
>> >> >>>Benny Yellow Pants are. =3DA0It is funny watching you do the little=
>> >> >>Billy?
>>
>> >> >Only when you lie about him.
>>
>> >> >>>I'm reading people that show what a dishonest shit Mark Lane and
> danc=3D
>> >e.
>>
>> >> >>Your cowardice is getting more noticeable Billy.
>>
>> >> >Still haven't seen you refute Jean's numbers yet. =3DA0You can't do t=
>>
>> >> >>Your cowardice is getting more noticeable Billy.
>>
>he si=3D
>> >mple math
>> >> >or what? Speaking of cowards.
>>
>> >> 27, 39, 1.23, 197.
>>
>> >> Go ahead moron... refute those numbers. Then retract your dishonest cl=
>> >> >or what? Speaking of cowards.
>>
>> >> 27, 39, 1.23, 197.
>>
>aim=3D
>> > that
>> >> I've not answered Jean.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 If you answered my last post of May 22, I didn't se=
>> >> I've not answered Jean.
>>
>e it.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Here once more is the Mark Lane quote that you post=
>ed, Ben:
>>
>> >"Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
>> >affidavits
>> >on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-
>> >two said
>> >they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Mark and I listed nine witnesses from those dates w=
>>
>> >"Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
>> >affidavits
>> >on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-
>> >two said
>> >they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>ho said
>> >the shots came from the TSBD.
>>
>> I'm quite sure, that given the amount of information today, that you coul=
>> >the shots came from the TSBD.
>>
>d find
>> a few more if you tried.
>
> There probably are more, but not because of information
>today. All this info appeared in the WC volumes in 1964.
>
>>
>> But comparing apples with oranges won't get you anywhere. Unless you can =
>> a few more if you tried.
>
> There probably are more, but not because of information
>today. All this info appeared in the WC volumes in 1964.
>
>>
>list
>> the precise people that Mark Lane was referring to... I suspect that I ca=
>n't do
>> it either... so I'm not too worried about it, because the point is still
>> accurate:
>
> It's not my job to name them, and it's not necessary. His
>*numbers* are wrong.
Sorry Jean... you haven't listed the 25.
>> it either... so I'm not too worried about it, because the point is still
>> accurate:
>
> It's not my job to name them, and it's not necessary. His
>*numbers* are wrong.
More importantly, you *KNOW* you haven't.
>> The point being made, if you've been following along, is the overwhelming
>ame the
>> law of the land, who reported something different.
>>
>> Will you admit that this is true?
>
> I don't agree. Lane claimed that 22 out of 25 known
>witnesses were knoll witnesses, but the actual numbers were not so
>"overwhelming." That's the impression he created, but it's
>misleading.
Well, it seems that you have your work cut out for you... you're still on #3,
>> law of the land, who reported something different.
>>
>> Will you admit that this is true?
>
> I don't agree. Lane claimed that 22 out of 25 known
>witnesses were knoll witnesses, but the actual numbers were not so
>"overwhelming." That's the impression he created, but it's
>misleading.
and I've posted quite a few more since then... that are all dealing with the
same topic.
> No one that I know of denies that there were many "knoll
>witnesses." But there were also many who pointed to the TSBD.
>Earwitness testimony about the direction was contradictory and
>inconclusive -- some witnesses standing right next to one another
>disagreed about where the shots came from.
>> Can you admit the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses that began changing wh=
>at was
>> being reported?
>
> That's the claim.
Sorry Jean, if you can't admit it, then be sure to look for a post titled "FBI
>> being reported?
>
> That's the claim.
Intimidation". Toddy refused to refute it, despite numerous claims that he
would.
Refute it.
But don't assert that this is just a "claim" unless you're willing to defend
that assertion.
I'll give you the opportunity to do so.
>Doesn't it strike you as odd that an
>"intimidated" witness would freely talk about being "intimidated"?
claiming that you are unaware of the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses?
>It's not unusual for lawmen to ask witnesses not to discuss their
>testimony while an investigation is still going on.
>> There are a number of examples of people *initially* indicating the knoll=
> who
>> later changed to the TSBD...
>>
>> Can you find any who went the opposite way, Jean?
>
> Yes. Phil Willis.
Cites?
>> later changed to the TSBD...
>>
>> Can you find any who went the opposite way, Jean?
>
> Yes. Phil Willis.
For some strange reason, all I see is his indication that they came from the
TSBD in his testimony.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have occasion to look up toward the railroad tracks that
go across the triple underpass at any time, at about the time the President was
shot?
Mr. WILLIS. Yes; I did, after the third shot was fired.
Mr. LIEBELER. Was there anybody up there? Did you see anybody up there on those
railroad tracks?
Mr. WILLIS. Yes, sir; I had noticed before the President's arrival that there
were spectators up there, but there were also policemen up there.
Mr. LIEBELER. You did see policemen up there?
Mr. WILLIS. Yes, sir; there were definitely policemen up there among the
spectators.
Mr. LIEBELER. About how many spectators would you say were up there? Was there a
big crowd?
Mr. WILLIS. No, sir; there was no big crowd in the area, actually. But I would
say, and this is strictly a wild guess, maybe 2 dozen.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see any evidence of any shots having been fired from that
direction?
Mr. WILLIS. No, sir; there was no doubt in my mind. I saw people falling on the
ground and police officers racing over toward a concrete wall.
Mr. LIEBELER. Across the street from Elm Street?
Mr. WILLIS. Across the street from Elm Street on the same side as the School
Book Depository, which goes down the hill toward the underpass, and the
policemen started going over there, called to see if someone, evidently thinking
it came from that direction, and then is when I started to ring this building. I
knew it came from high above directly across the street from me, and that is the
one thing I was absolutely positive about.
Mr. LIEBELER. You made that judgment from the sound of the shots?
Mr. WILLIS. From the sound, absolutely. And this may be verified by the fact
that I took several pictures of the crowd immediately around that building.
>> >You have yet to explain how Mark Lane's
>> >numbers make any sense.
>>
>> Oh yes, Jean... I did.
>>
> When
>> you can list the 25 eyewitnesses that Mark Lane gave, then you'll have a =
>basis
>> to refute him.
>
> Again, the names don't matter. Whoever they were, his
>numbers don't add up.
You are presuming that you have the list of 25.
>> to refute him.
>
> Again, the names don't matter. Whoever they were, his
>numbers don't add up.
Why not produce it?
>> >Did he overlook some of the witnesses? Did he
>>
>> I'm quite sure he *did* "overlook" eyewitnesses... he wrote his book duri=
>ng a
>> time when there simply wasn't the easy access to evidence in this case th=
>at is
>> now available for *anyone*.
>>
>> You know this, of course.
>
> His book appeared in 1966. All the witness statements
>were published in 1964.
>
>
>Jean
>
>>
>> >Jean
>>
>> >> >Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> In the meantime, why the cowardice Billy? Why can't you refute any of =
>> now available for *anyone*.
>>
>> You know this, of course.
>
> His book appeared in 1966. All the witness statements
>were published in 1964.
>
>
>Jean
>
>>
>> >Jean
>>
>> >> >Bill Clarke
>>
>the=3D
>> >se
>> >> posts?
>>
>> >> Am I moving too fast for you?
>>
>> >> >>>>Good for you that I'm quoting Mark Lane - you'll learn.
>>
>> >> >>>>>Are you going to refute what Jean blew you out of the water with =
>> >> posts?
>>
>> >> Am I moving too fast for you?
>>
>> >> >>>>Good for you that I'm quoting Mark Lane - you'll learn.
>>
>or =3D
>> >will you
>> >> >>>>>just slink away like you always do?
>>
>> >> >>>>Already did moron. Surely you didn't miss it, so you must be stupi=
>> >> >>>>>just slink away like you always do?
>>
>dly
>> >> >>>>dishonest.
>>
>> >> >>>Let me see the math asshole, not your smart ass quip.
>>
>> >> >>Where's your apology for lying, Billy?
>>
>> >> >>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >>>>Oh wait, we already know that you are. Trying to argue a topic you=
>> >> >>>>dishonest.
>>
>> >> >>>Let me see the math asshole, not your smart ass quip.
>>
>> >> >>Where's your apology for lying, Billy?
>>
>> >> >>>Bill Clarke
>>
> kn=3D
>> >ow nothing
>> >> >>>>about.
>>
>> >> >>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >>>>Tell us Billy - why do you think people won't notice your cowardic=
>> >> >>>>about.
>>
>> >> >>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>e o=3D
Bill Clarke
May 25, 2012, 9:51:50 AM5/25/12
to
In article <jpmv6...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
You're toast Benny. What about all your boast of destroying all comers? Just
more of your hot air. You failed here and you failed big. You won't bounce
back from this embarrassment. Even Healy has left you on this one. I bet that
hurts.
Bill Clarke
>
>In article <jpmt3...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>>In article <836a50aa-81fb-4b78...@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
>>Jean says...
>>
>>
>>Top post. Has anyone seen Benny?
>>
>>Bill Clarke javascript:PostMessage()
>In article <jpmt3...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>>In article <836a50aa-81fb-4b78...@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
>>Jean says...
>>
>>
>>Top post. Has anyone seen Benny?
>>
>
>
>You are, of course, implying that I didn't respond. Can you explain how Jean
>responded to *MY* response, coward?
Of course I am. Your "apple and oranges" pathetic crap was really rather sad.
>
>You are, of course, implying that I didn't respond. Can you explain how Jean
>responded to *MY* response, coward?
You're toast Benny. What about all your boast of destroying all comers? Just
more of your hot air. You failed here and you failed big. You won't bounce
back from this embarrassment. Even Healy has left you on this one. I bet that
hurts.
Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
May 25, 2012, 10:03:45 AM5/25/12
to
In article <jpo2p...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
That *YOU* can't understand my point is neither here nor there.
You wouldn't understand that the sun is shining if Mark Lane stated it was...
>You're toast Benny. What about all your boast of destroying all comers?
If you cannot quote my words accurately, Billy... I'll stop quoting *your* words
accurately.
>Just
>more of your hot air. You failed here and you failed big. You won't bounce
>back from this embarrassment. Even Healy has left you on this one. I bet that
>hurts.
>
>Bill Clarke
How silly! And, as we've just seen, Billy "The Coward" Clarke was forced to
admit that I *DID* respond to Jean.
But Billy *STILL* can't debate the topic... whether out of stupidity, ignorance,
or as I think, cowardice... doesn't matter.
>
>In article <jpmv6...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>In article <jpmt3...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>
>>>In article <836a50aa-81fb-4b78...@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
>>>Jean says...
>>>
>>>
>>>Top post. Has anyone seen Benny?
>>>
>>>Bill Clarke javascript:PostMessage()
>>
>>
>>You are, of course, implying that I didn't respond. Can you explain how Jean
>>responded to *MY* response, coward?
>
>Of course I am. Your "apple and oranges" pathetic crap was really rather sad.
Ah! Good of you to admit that I *DID* respond.
>In article <jpmv6...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>In article <jpmt3...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>
>>>In article <836a50aa-81fb-4b78...@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
>>>Jean says...
>>>
>>>
>>>Top post. Has anyone seen Benny?
>>>
>>>Bill Clarke javascript:PostMessage()
>>
>>
>>You are, of course, implying that I didn't respond. Can you explain how Jean
>>responded to *MY* response, coward?
>
>Of course I am. Your "apple and oranges" pathetic crap was really rather sad.
That *YOU* can't understand my point is neither here nor there.
You wouldn't understand that the sun is shining if Mark Lane stated it was...
>You're toast Benny. What about all your boast of destroying all comers?
accurately.
>Just
>more of your hot air. You failed here and you failed big. You won't bounce
>back from this embarrassment. Even Healy has left you on this one. I bet that
>hurts.
>
>Bill Clarke
admit that I *DID* respond to Jean.
But Billy *STILL* can't debate the topic... whether out of stupidity, ignorance,
or as I think, cowardice... doesn't matter.
Jean
May 25, 2012, 12:37:09 PM5/25/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On May 24, 10:58 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <1d6b529c-f924-4571-9efe-7e6650e7c...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
Sorry, what? Didn't you read what I just said?
>
> >> The point being made, if you've been following along, is the overwhelming
> >> numbers of people on those first few days, before the official theory bec=
> >ame the
> >> law of the land, who reported something different.
>
> >> Will you admit that this is true?
>
> > I don't agree. Lane claimed that 22 out of 25 known
> >witnesses were knoll witnesses, but the actual numbers were not so
> >"overwhelming." That's the impression he created, but it's
> >misleading.
>
> Well, it seems that you have your work cut out for you... you're still on #3,
> and I've posted quite a few more since then... that are all dealing with the
> same topic.
Please understand that I'm not obligated to respond to
everything you post, Ben, especially when you keep opening new topics
with my name in the header. But I do intend to respond to #4 and
others here soon.
>
> > No one that I know of denies that there were many "knoll
> >witnesses." But there were also many who pointed to the TSBD.
> >Earwitness testimony about the direction was contradictory and
> >inconclusive -- some witnesses standing right next to one another
> >disagreed about where the shots came from.
>
> And yet, you believe one group, and completely disregard the other group.
Certainly I believe the TSBD witnesses -- but only because
of all the *other* evidence that puts the gunman there.
>
> >> Can you admit the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses that began changing wh=
> >at was
> >> being reported?
>
> > That's the claim.
>
> Sorry Jean, if you can't admit it, then be sure to look for a post titled "FBI
> Intimidation". Toddy refused to refute it, despite numerous claims that he
> would.
>
> Refute it.
>
> But don't assert that this is just a "claim" unless you're willing to defend
> that assertion.
>
> I'll give you the opportunity to do so.
>
> >Doesn't it strike you as odd that an
> >"intimidated" witness would freely talk about being "intimidated"?
>
> Some of them did, most of them probably did not. Tell the truth Jean, are you
> claiming that you are unaware of the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses?
I'm aware that some witnesses have made that claim, yes.
I'm hoping to answer that post soon.
Yes, that was Willis's first opinion on record, so far as
I know. He also gave the WC his photo captions saying that all three
shots came from the rear (slide 5 and 6 here):
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0395a.htm
However, by the time he appeared on "The Men Who Killed
Kennedy" in the 1980s he was "very dead certain" that at least one
shot came from the front. (I don't think he was lying either time.
Imo, his memory probably changed.)
>
> >> >You have yet to explain how Mark Lane's
> >> >numbers make any sense.
>
> >> Oh yes, Jean... I did.
>
> >> I pointed out that using apples to contradict oranges doesn't make sense.=
> > When
> >> you can list the 25 eyewitnesses that Mark Lane gave, then you'll have a =
> >basis
> >> to refute him.
>
> > Again, the names don't matter. Whoever they were, his
> >numbers don't add up.
>
> You are presuming that you have the list of 25.
I'm presuming no such thing.
>
> Why not produce it?
It was LANE's statement, which YOU quoted. Why is it my
job to supply names when you and Lane didn't?? Anyway, the names are
irrelevant!
Jean
> In article <1d6b529c-f924-4571-9efe-7e6650e7c...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> The point being made, if you've been following along, is the overwhelming
> >> numbers of people on those first few days, before the official theory bec=
> >ame the
> >> law of the land, who reported something different.
>
> >> Will you admit that this is true?
>
> > I don't agree. Lane claimed that 22 out of 25 known
> >witnesses were knoll witnesses, but the actual numbers were not so
> >"overwhelming." That's the impression he created, but it's
> >misleading.
>
> Well, it seems that you have your work cut out for you... you're still on #3,
> and I've posted quite a few more since then... that are all dealing with the
> same topic.
everything you post, Ben, especially when you keep opening new topics
with my name in the header. But I do intend to respond to #4 and
others here soon.
>
> > No one that I know of denies that there were many "knoll
> >witnesses." But there were also many who pointed to the TSBD.
> >Earwitness testimony about the direction was contradictory and
> >inconclusive -- some witnesses standing right next to one another
> >disagreed about where the shots came from.
>
> And yet, you believe one group, and completely disregard the other group.
of all the *other* evidence that puts the gunman there.
>
> >> Can you admit the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses that began changing wh=
> >at was
> >> being reported?
>
> > That's the claim.
>
> Sorry Jean, if you can't admit it, then be sure to look for a post titled "FBI
> Intimidation". Toddy refused to refute it, despite numerous claims that he
> would.
>
> Refute it.
>
> But don't assert that this is just a "claim" unless you're willing to defend
> that assertion.
>
> I'll give you the opportunity to do so.
>
> >Doesn't it strike you as odd that an
> >"intimidated" witness would freely talk about being "intimidated"?
>
> Some of them did, most of them probably did not. Tell the truth Jean, are you
> claiming that you are unaware of the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses?
I'm hoping to answer that post soon.
I know. He also gave the WC his photo captions saying that all three
shots came from the rear (slide 5 and 6 here):
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0395a.htm
However, by the time he appeared on "The Men Who Killed
Kennedy" in the 1980s he was "very dead certain" that at least one
shot came from the front. (I don't think he was lying either time.
Imo, his memory probably changed.)
>
> >> >You have yet to explain how Mark Lane's
> >> >numbers make any sense.
>
> >> Oh yes, Jean... I did.
>
> >> I pointed out that using apples to contradict oranges doesn't make sense.=
> > When
> >> you can list the 25 eyewitnesses that Mark Lane gave, then you'll have a =
> >basis
> >> to refute him.
>
> > Again, the names don't matter. Whoever they were, his
> >numbers don't add up.
>
> You are presuming that you have the list of 25.
>
> Why not produce it?
It was LANE's statement, which YOU quoted. Why is it my
job to supply names when you and Lane didn't?? Anyway, the names are
irrelevant!
Jean
Bill Clarke
May 25, 2012, 5:53:01 PM5/25/12
to
In article <jpo3g...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
evasion message. A very weak one at that. I didn't expect any better from a
garrison trooper.
>That *YOU* can't understand my point is neither here nor there.
Oh hell no. I understand your point very well. Your point was finding a way of
running away from trying to defend Mark Lane's lie that you posted and I assume
endorsed. A poor show.
>You wouldn't understand that the sun is shining if Mark Lane stated it was...
>
>
>>You're toast Benny. What about all your boast of destroying all comers?
>
>
>If you cannot quote my words accurately, Billy... I'll stop quoting *your* words
>accurately.
I didn't put it in quotes, Benny. But you have bragged about yourself. How you
feel now with a kicked ass?
Bill Clarke
>
>In article <jpo2p...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>>In article <jpmv6...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>
>>>In article <jpmt3...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>>
>>>>In article <836a50aa-81fb-4b78...@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>Jean says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Top post. Has anyone seen Benny?
>>>>
>>>>Bill Clarke javascript:PostMessage()
>>>
>>>
>>>You are, of course, implying that I didn't respond. Can you explain how Jean
>>>responded to *MY* response, coward?
>>
>>Of course I am. Your "apple and oranges" pathetic crap was really rather sad.
>
>
>Ah! Good of you to admit that I *DID* respond.
Ah! That apple and oranges crap was not a response. It was an escape and
>In article <jpo2p...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>>In article <jpmv6...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>
>>>In article <jpmt3...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>>
>>>>In article <836a50aa-81fb-4b78...@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>Jean says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Top post. Has anyone seen Benny?
>>>>
>>>>Bill Clarke javascript:PostMessage()
>>>
>>>
>>>You are, of course, implying that I didn't respond. Can you explain how Jean
>>>responded to *MY* response, coward?
>>
>>Of course I am. Your "apple and oranges" pathetic crap was really rather sad.
>
>
>Ah! Good of you to admit that I *DID* respond.
evasion message. A very weak one at that. I didn't expect any better from a
garrison trooper.
>That *YOU* can't understand my point is neither here nor there.
running away from trying to defend Mark Lane's lie that you posted and I assume
endorsed. A poor show.
>You wouldn't understand that the sun is shining if Mark Lane stated it was...
>
>
>>You're toast Benny. What about all your boast of destroying all comers?
>
>
>If you cannot quote my words accurately, Billy... I'll stop quoting *your* words
>accurately.
feel now with a kicked ass?
Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
May 25, 2012, 9:23:39 PM5/25/12
to
In article <50783a59-3472-4ab1...@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
Jean says...
>
>On May 24, 10:58=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <1d6b529c-f924-4571-9efe-7e6650e7c...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Jean says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 24, 11:39=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <836a50aa-81fb-4b78-99d4-66bd9d86f...@b26g2000vbt.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> Jean says...
>.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>In article <jphetm02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says.=
>..
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>In article <jph52b02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke say=
>s..=3D
>ewsgu=3D
>> >y.com=3D3D
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>In article <53add88a-b284-4ce5-a550-
>> >> >> >>>>>>5cdfcc5d9...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>.com>,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jean says...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >On May 21, 10:16=3D3D3D3DA0pm, Jean <jean.davis...@g=
>mail.=3D
>> >com> =3D3D
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> On May 21, 8:09=3D3D3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.n=
>et> w=3D
>> >rote:
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On May 21, 8:56=3D3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@bur=
>ningk=3D
>> >nife.=3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>egr=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >oups.com>,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > aeffects says...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >On May 21, 2:18=3D3D3D3D3DA0am, mucher1 <much..=
>.@gma=3D
>> >il.co=3D3D
>> >> >m> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Maj, 16:04, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknif=
>e.c=3D
>> >om>=3D3D
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > In article <jp4k7m01...@drn.newsguy.com>,=
> Bi=3D
>> >ll =3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>.go=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >oglegro=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ups.com>,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >Bud says...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>On May 17, 6:05=3D3D3D3D3D3DA0pm, mucher1 =
><much=3D
>> >...@g=3D3D
>> >> >mail.com>
>> >> >> >>>>>>wro=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>te:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> On 16 Maj, 15:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@burn=
>ing=3D
>> >kni=3D3D
>> >> >fe.com>
>> >> >> >>>>>>wro=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>te:
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > Mark Lane made the point that people t=
>end=3D
>> > to=3D3D
>> >> > try to
>> >> >> >>>>>>"pl=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>eas=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >e the c=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ourt",=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >> and that
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > the Warren Commission "called most of =
>its=3D
>> > wi=3D3D
>> >> >tnesses
>> >> >> >>>>>>lon=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>g a=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >fter it=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > had m=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>ade plain
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> > that in its view the shots had come f=
>rom=3D
>> > th=3D3D
>> >> >e Book
>> >> >> >>>>>>Depos=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ito=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ry Buil=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ding a=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>lone and
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> > implied that those who rejected this=
> th=3D
>> >esi=3D3D
>> >> >s were
>> >> >> >>>>>>irresp=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ons=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ible sp=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >eculat=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>ors."
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidatio=
>n w=3D
>> >hic=3D3D
>> >> >h I've
>> >> >> >>>>>>point=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ed =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >out and=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > cited=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >> for...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps t=
>he =3D
>> >mos=3D3D
>> >> >t
>> >> >> >>>>>>significant=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> fi=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >gures t=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >herefo=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>re - more
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > significant even than the ones given abov=
>e -=3D
>> > ar=3D3D
>> >> >e those
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>att=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >esting =3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >the im=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>mediate
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassi=
>nat=3D
>> >ion=3D3D
>> >> > before
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>the=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >re was =3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >any of=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>ficial
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known =
>to =3D
>> >hav=3D3D
>> >> >e given
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>sta=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >tements=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > or af=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>fidavits
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the =
>ori=3D
>> >gin=3D3D
>> >> > of the
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>sho=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ts. Twe=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >nty-tw=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>o said
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> > they believed that the shots came fro=
>m t=3D
>> >he =3D3D
>es,=3D
>> > ye=3D3D
>> >> >t allow
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>all=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > of the=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >se quo=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>tes to be
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> > shown correct by your inability to r=
>efu=3D
>> >te =3D3D
>> >> >them...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> It seems a couple of AP staff writers r=
>efu=3D
>> >ted=3D3D
>> >> > Lane's
>> >> >> >>>>>>clai=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>m s=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ome 45
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> years ago:
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > If this happened, then all you have to do i=
>s p=3D
>> >rov=3D3D
>> >> >ide the
>> >> >> >>>>>>cita=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>tio=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ns that=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>20F=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >iles/A%=3D3D3D3D3D
>cond ch=3D
>> >apter o=3D3D
>> >> >f his book,
>> >> >> >>>>>>Lan=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>e write=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >s: "Twenty-=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >five
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> witnesses are known to have given stat=
>eme=3D
>> >nts=3D3D
>> >> > or
>> >> >> >>>>>>affidavit=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>s o=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >n Nov. =3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >22
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> or Nov. 23--the day of and the day aft=
>er =3D
>> >the
>> >> >> >>>>>>assassinatio=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>n--=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >about t=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >he
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they =
>bel=3D
>> >iev=3D3D
>> >> >ed that
>> >> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>he =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >shots c=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ame
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> from the knoll."
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0Should o=
>ne chec=3D
>> >k the c=3D3D
>> >> >ommission's
>> >> >> >>>>>>volu=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>mes, he=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > would find=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > that, yes=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> 23 people did give statements to law offic=
>ial=3D
>> >s o=3D3D
>> >> >n those
>> >> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>wo =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >days. N=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ine
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> cited the knoll. Twelve cited the depo=
>sit=3D
>> >ory=3D3D
>> >> >. Two
>> >> >> >>>>>>indicat=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ed =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >it coul=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >d
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> have been either.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >> =3D3D3D3D3DA0Wow, no wonder Ben didn`t w=
>ant t=3D
>> >o nam=3D3D
>> >> >e them, I
>> >> >> >>>>>>migh=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>t loo=3D3D3D3D
>ly =3D
>> >tha=3D3D
>> >> >t argue
>> >> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>hat=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > Mark L=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ane lied,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > it's incumbent on *YOU* to provide this e=
>vid=3D
>> >enc=3D3D
>> >> >e.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > I'm merely proving, by your inability to do=
> so=3D
>> >, t=3D3D
>> >> >hat you
>> >> >> >>>>>>can'=3D3D3D
>you=3D
>> >?
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0There i=
>s a wit=3D
>> >ness me=3D3D
>> >> >ntioned in
>> >> >> >>>>>>anothe=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>r conte=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >xt by Lane =3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >whose
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> testimony has some relevance as to the=
> co=3D
>> >nfl=3D3D
>> >> >icting
>> >> >> >>>>>>opinio=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ns =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >of wher=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >e
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the shots came from. He is Lee E. Bowers. H=
>e w=3D
>> >as =3D3D
>> >> >working
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>in =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >a signa=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >l
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> tower in the railroad area behind the =
>kno=3D
>> >ll.=3D3D
>> >> > His
>> >> >> >>>>>>testimon=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>y i=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >s in
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Volume VI.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0Bowers: "Th=
>e sound=3D
>> >s came =3D3D
>> >> >from either
>> >> >> >>>>>>f=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>rom up =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >against the=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > school
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> book depository building or near the mouth =
>of =3D
>> >the=3D3D
>> >> > triple
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ove=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >rpass."
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0Q: "You were=
> not ab=3D
>> >le to t=3D3D
>> >> >ell which?"
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0Bowers=
>: "No, =3D
>> >I could=3D3D
>> >> > not."
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0Q: "Wel=
>l, now,=3D
>> > had yo=3D3D
>> >> >u had any
>> >> >> >>>>>>experie=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>nce bef=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ore being i=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >n the towe=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>r
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> as to sounds coming from these variou=
>s p=3D
>> >lac=3D3D
>> >> >es?"
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0Bowers: "Ye=
>s, I ha=3D
>> >d worke=3D3D
>> >> >d this same
>> >> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ower fo=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >r some 10 o=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >r 12 years=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> and was there during the time they were r=
>eno=3D
>> >vat=3D3D
>> >> >ing the
>> >> >> >>>>>>sc=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>hoo=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >l
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> depository building, and had noticed at =
>tha=3D
>> >t t=3D3D
>> >> >ime the
>> >> >> >>>>>>sim=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ila=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >rity of
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> sounds occuring in either of these tw=
>o l=3D
>> >oca=3D3D
>> >> >tions."
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0Bower's t=
>estimon=3D
>> >y doesn=3D3D
>> >> >'t rule out
>> >> >> >>>>>>the=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> knoll.=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > It doesn't=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > rule out
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> the depository. It does help those investi=
>gat=3D
>> >ors=3D3D
>> >> > trying
>> >> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>o e=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >xplain =3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >why
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> witnesses to the assassination gave conflic=
>tin=3D
>> >g o=3D3D
>> >> >pinions
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>as =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >to the
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound of the shots. If Bowers was helpful i=
>n t=3D
>> >his=3D3D
>> >> > regard
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>to =3D3D3D3D
>ita=3D
>> >tio=3D3D
>> >> >ns that
>> >> >> >>>>>>re=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>fut=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >e what =3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >Mark Lane
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > stated.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> Mark Lane: "Twenty-five witnesses are known t=
>o h=3D
>> >ave=3D3D
>> >> > given
>> >> >> >>>>>>state=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>men=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ts
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>or affidavits on November 22 and November 23 abo=
>ut =3D
>> >the=3D3D
>> >> > origin
>> >> >> >>>>>>o=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>f t=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >he
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the sh=
>ots=3D
>> > ca=3D3D
>> >> >me from
>> >> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>he
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> knoll."
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben Holmes: "Devastating to the WCR's theory! A=
>ny =3D
>> >koo=3D3D
>> >> >ks care
>> >> >> >>>>>>to=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> re=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >fute
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> this?"
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's not particularly difficult to find four (25=
> mi=3D
>> >nus=3D3D
>> >> > 22 plus
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>1) =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >of
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these witnesses that didn't say they believed t=
>he =3D
>> >sho=3D3D
>> >> >ts came
>> >> >> >>>>>>fr=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>om =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >the
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>knoll. The following four clearly believed the s=
>hot=3D
>> >s c=3D3D
>> >> >ame from
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>the
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>TSBD. Others couldn't tell where the shots came =
>fro=3D
>> >m, =3D3D
>> >> >or their
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> statements can be interpreted either way. Sev=
>era=3D
>> >l r=3D3D
>> >> >eported
>> >> >> >>>>>>seei=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ng
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>people rush to the knoll after the shots, but di=
>dn'=3D
>> >t o=3D3D
>> >> >ffer an
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> independent opinion. Even CT darling Jean Hil=
>l (=3D
>> >"I =3D3D
>> >> >looked
>> >> >> >>>>>>acros=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>s t=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >he
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> street and up the hill and saw a man running=
> to=3D
>> >war=3D3D
>> >> >d the
>> >> >> >>>>>>monumen=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>t a=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >nd I
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>started running over there") didn't really say w=
>her=3D
>> >e t=3D3D
>> >> >he shots
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>see=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >med
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> to come from.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Howard Leslie Brennan (11/22/63): "It run in my=
> mi=3D
>> >nd =3D3D
>> >> >that it
>> >> >> >>>>>>mi=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ght=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > be
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>someone throwing firecrackers out the window of =
>the=3D
>> > re=3D3D
>> >> >d brick
>> >> >> >>>>>>b=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>uil=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ding
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> and I looked up at the building. I then saw th=
>is =3D
>> >man=3D3D
>> >> > I have
>> >> >> >>>>>>des=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>cri=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >bed
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> in the window and he was taking aim with a =
>hig=3D
>> >h p=3D3D
>> >> >owered
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> rifle." (19H470)
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Amos Lee Euins (11/22/63): "I started looking ar=
>oun=3D
>> >d a=3D3D
>> >> >nd then
>> >> >> >>>>>>I=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> lo=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >oked
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up in the red brick building. I saw a man in a =
>win=3D
>> >dow=3D3D
>> >> > with a
>> >> >> >>>>>>gu=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>n a=3D3D3D3D
>lik=3D
>> >e t=3D3D
>> >> >hey came
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>fro=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >m
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> immediately behind us and over our heads. We=
> di=3D
>> >d s=3D3D
>> >> >ee the
>> >> >> >>>>>>shooti=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ng.=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > I
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> immediately turned and looked at the Texas Bo=
>ok =3D
>> >Dep=3D3D
>> >> >ository
>> >> >> >>>>>>buil=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>din=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >g
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and did not see anyone. The shots sounded like t=
>hey=3D
>> > de=3D3D
>> >> >finitely
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>cam=3D3D3D3D
>lik=3D
>> >e t=3D3D
>> >> >hey came
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>fro=3D3D3D3D
>g!
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They pretend that because some eyewitnesses pointe=
>d a=3D
>> >t t=3D3D
>> >> >he TSBD,
>> >> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>hat=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > this
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>somehow refutes the fact that Mark Lane pointed ou=
>t t=3D
>> >hat=3D3D
>> >> > others
>> >> >> >>>>>>po=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>int=3D3D3D3D
>id? T=3D
>> >his i=3D3D
>> >> >s what you
>> >> >> >>>>>>pr=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>oduce=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >d
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > from Lane...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Mark Lane goes on to say: "P=
>erhaps =3D
>> >the mos=3D3D
>> >> >t significant
>> >> >> >>>>>>f=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>igures
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > therefore - more
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>significant even than the ones given above - are th=
>ose=3D
>> > at=3D3D
>> >> >testing
>> >> >> >>>>>>the
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > immediate
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reactions of the witnesses to the assassination bef=
>ore=3D
>> > th=3D3D
>> >> >ere was
>> >> >> >>>>>>any
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > official
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have gi=
>ven=3D
>> > st=3D3D
>> >> >atements
>> >> >> >>>>>>or
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > affidavits
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin o=
>f t=3D
>> >he =3D3D
>> >> >shots.
>> >> >> >>>>>>Twenty=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>-
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > two said
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll=
>."
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3D3D3DA0 Mark produced four witnesses who said t=
>hat s=3D
>> >hots =3D3D
>> >> >came from
>> >> >> >>>>>>the=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> TSBD=3D3D3D3D
>3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3=3D
>> >D3DA0 Mark list=3D3D
>> >> >ed Brennan, Euins,
>> >> >> >>>>>>Charle=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>s Hester, and E=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ddie
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Piper. =3D3D3D3DA0Here are three more:
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D=
>3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3=3D
>> >D3DA0 Bonnie Ra=3D3D
>> >> >y Williams (11/23)
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D3DA0"=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>right over his he=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ad"
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/sho=
>wDo=3D
>> >c.d=3D3D
>> >> >o?
>> >> >> >>>>>>docId=3D3D3D3D3D1=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>...
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D=
>3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3=3D
>> >D3DA0 Bob Jacks=3D3D
>> >> >on
>> >> >> >>>>>>(11/23)http://www.mary=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ferrell.org/mf=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >fweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3D3D3D3D104..=
>.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D=
>3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3=3D
>> >D3DA0 James Wor=3D3D
>> >> >rell
>> >> >> >>>>>>(11/23)http://www.ma=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ryferrell.org/=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3D3D3D3D104=
>...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3=
>D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D=3D
>> >3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Jac=3D3D
>> >> >kson and Worrell reported
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>seeing a rifle in=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > the TSBD.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3=
>D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D=3D
>> >3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Twe=3D3D
>> >> >nty-five minus twenty-two
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>equals seven?
>> >0 =3D3D3DA0 Oops, mak=3D3D
>> >> >e that nine.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D=
>3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D
>> >=3D3D3DA0 Mrs. Reid, =3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> the TSBD,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>(11/23): "I remarked to Mr. [Ochus] Campbell, who was=
> st=3D
>> >and=3D3D
>> >> >ing near
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >by, that I thought the shots had come from our build=
>ing=3D
>> >0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0And =3D3D
>tm
>> > =3D3D3DA0 Lane's sta=3D3D
>> >> >tement -- "Twenty-five
>> >> >> >>>>>>witnes=3D3D3D
>ori=3D
>> >gin=3D3D
>doe=3D
>> >sn'=3D3D
>> >> >t add up.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >=3D3D3D3D20
>he ot=3D
>> >hers?
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>No reason Bud. =3D3DA0I notice Benny hasn't shown up yet=
>. =3D3D=3D
>> >A0I dou=3D3D
> =3D3DA0B=3D
>> >eing is a=3D3D
>ave=3D
>> >* t=3D3D
>ute=3D
>> >. =3D3D
>> >> >=3D3DA0Coward. =3D3DA0Lots
>> >> >> >>>>>>>of noise but not much action. =3D3DA0A joke.
>dgm=3D
>> >ent=3D3D
>> >> >"?
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>Or are you so dishonest that you're trying to debate a book y=
>ou =3D
>> >don=3D3D
>> >> >'t
>> >> >> >>>>>>even own?
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>I own only one Mark Lane book. =3D3DA0It was enough to show me=
> what=3D
>> > a di=3D3D
>> >> >shonest prick
>> >> >> >>>>>he is. =3D3DA0Why should I waste money buying more bullshit.
>e, =3D
>> >do =3D3D
>ittle=3D
>> > danc=3D3D
> do t=3D
>> >he si=3D3D
> cl=3D
>> >aim=3D3D
>, I didn't se=3D
>> >e it.
>>
>> >> > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Here once more is the Mark Lane quote =
>that you post=3D
>those dates w=3D
>oul=3D
>ion
>> >today. =A0 All this info appeared in the WC volumes in 1964.
>>
>> >> But comparing apples with oranges won't get you anywhere. Unless you c=
>an =3D
>> >list
>> >> the precise people that Mark Lane was referring to... I suspect that I=
> ca=3D
>> >n't do
>> >> it either... so I'm not too worried about it, because the point is sti=
in, when you throw around numbers that might not be in the same playground, then
you're comparing apples and oranges.
You're quite aware of the fact that the eyewitnesses for the Grassy Knoll can
even, depending on who's counting and when, exceed the numbers that pointed to
the TSBD. Even McAdams - a completely unbiased observer - admits to over a third
pointing to the Grassy Knoll.
>> >> The point being made, if you've been following along, is the overwhelm=
>ing
>> >> numbers of people on those first few days, before the official theory =
>bec=3D
>> >misleading.
>>
>> Well, it seems that you have your work cut out for you... you're still on=
> #3,
>> and I've posted quite a few more since then... that are all dealing with =
of trying to defend the evidence in this case.
So no need to plan your retreat, we know it's coming... it's only a matter of
time.
>> > No one that I know of denies that there were many "knoll
>> >witnesses." =A0But there were also many who pointed to the TSBD.
>> >> Can you admit the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses that began changing=
> wh=3D
>> >at was
>> >> being reported?
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 That's the claim.
>>
>> Sorry Jean, if you can't admit it, then be sure to look for a post titled=
> "FBI
>> Intimidation". Toddy refused to refute it, despite numerous claims that h=
>e
>> would.
>>
>> Refute it.
>>
>> But don't assert that this is just a "claim" unless you're willing to def=
since he claimed that he'd refute my assertion of FBI intimidation of many
eyewitnesses.
>> >It's not unusual for lawmen to ask witnesses not to discuss their
>> >testimony while an investigation is still going on.
>>
>> Sorry Jean, this goes far beyond that.
>>
>> >> There are a number of examples of people *initially* indicating the kn=
>oll=3D
>>
>> Cites?
>>
>> For some strange reason, all I see is his indication that they came from =
> that
>> go across the triple underpass at any time, at about the time the Preside=
> those
>> railroad tracks?
>> Mr. WILLIS. Yes, sir; I had noticed before the President's arrival that t=
>there a
>> big crowd?
>> Mr. WILLIS. No, sir; there was no big crowd in the area, actually. But I =
>m that
>> direction?
>> Mr. WILLIS. No, sir; there was no doubt in my mind. I saw people falling =
>hinking
>> it came from that direction, and then is when I started to ring this buil=
>ding. I
>> knew it came from high above directly across the street from me, and that=
>act
>> that I took several pictures of the crowd immediately around that buildin=
>1_0395a.htm
1964...
Hmmm.... looks like another LNT'er unwilling to examine the first early
statements, and attempting to hang their hat on statements made decades later.
> However, by the time he appeared on "The Men Who Killed
>Kennedy" in the 1980s he was "very dead certain" that at least one
>shot came from the front. (I don't think he was lying either time.
>Imo, his memory probably changed.)
Decades later...
Amusing!
You see, I was rather hoping for something like contemporary first week
statements vs. WC testimony.
But we'll let it lie there for all to see and ponder.
>> >> >You have yet to explain how Mark Lane's
>> >> >numbers make any sense.
>>
>> >> Oh yes, Jean... I did.
>>
>> >> I pointed out that using apples to contradict oranges doesn't make sen=
>se.=3D
>> > When
>> >> you can list the 25 eyewitnesses that Mark Lane gave, then you'll have=
> a =3D
>> >basis
>> >> to refute him.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Again, the names don't matter. =A0Whoever they w=
You see, 197 minus 33 is equal to 164 - which demonstrates that *YOU* are wrong.
See how this works? (I'm quite sure that you're intelligent enough to pick this
up without me going into excruciating detail)
>
>Jean
>
>>
>> >> >Did he overlook some of the witnesses? Did he
>> >> >mischaracterize their statements? =3DA0Or what?
>>
>> >> I'm quite sure he *did* "overlook" eyewitnesses... he wrote his book d=
>uri=3D
>> >ng a
>> >> time when there simply wasn't the easy access to evidence in this case=
> th=3D
>of =3D
>> >the=3D3D
>th =3D
>> >or =3D3D
>upi=3D
>you=3D
>> > kn=3D3D
>dic=3D
>> >e o=3D3D
Jean says...
>
>On May 24, 10:58=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <1d6b529c-f924-4571-9efe-7e6650e7c...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Jean says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 24, 11:39=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <836a50aa-81fb-4b78-99d4-66bd9d86f...@b26g2000vbt.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> Jean says...
>>
>> >> >On May 24, 8:53=3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <jple2a03...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >> >> >In article <jpkb5701...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >> >> >>In article <jpk7p101...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >> >> >>>In article <jpk0qf0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>In article <jpjkvt0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>In article <jpjfb302...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>In article <jpive102...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>In article <jpinu201...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>In article <jphp3i0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says..=
>> >> >On May 24, 8:53=3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <jple2a03...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >> >> >In article <jpkb5701...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >> >> >>In article <jpk7p101...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >> >> >>>In article <jpk0qf0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>In article <jpjkvt0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>In article <jpjfb302...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>In article <jpive102...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>In article <jpinu201...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>In article <jphetm02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says.=
>..
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>In article <jph52b02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke say=
>s..=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>In article <79460903-80c0-4bcb-85e3-
>> >> >> >>>>>>94ba61170...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>Bud says...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>On May 22, 12:22=3D3D3DA0am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@n=
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>In article <79460903-80c0-4bcb-85e3-
>> >> >> >>>>>>94ba61170...@j10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>Bud says...
>>
>ewsgu=3D
>> >y.com=3D3D
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>In article <53add88a-b284-4ce5-a550-
>> >> >> >>>>>>5cdfcc5d9...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>.com>,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jean says...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >On May 21, 10:16=3D3D3D3DA0pm, Jean <jean.davis...@g=
>mail.=3D
>> >com> =3D3D
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> On May 21, 8:09=3D3D3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.n=
>et> w=3D
>> >rote:
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On May 21, 8:56=3D3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@bur=
>ningk=3D
>> >nife.=3D3D
>> >> >com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > In article <6a53000b-dde6-4702-8581-
>> >> >> >>>>>>50f1453be...@pr7g2000pbb.googl=3D3D3D
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > In article <6a53000b-dde6-4702-8581-
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>egr=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >oups.com>,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > aeffects says...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >On May 21, 2:18=3D3D3D3D3DA0am, mucher1 <much..=
>.@gma=3D
>> >il.co=3D3D
>> >> >m> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Maj, 16:04, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknif=
>e.c=3D
>> >om>=3D3D
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > In article <jp4k7m01...@drn.newsguy.com>,=
> Bi=3D
>> >ll =3D3D
>> >> >Clarke
>> >> >> >>>>>>says...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >In article <42614c48-7eb0-46dc-83da-
>> >> >> >>>>>>03fcaa325...@t23g2000yqj=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>says...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >In article <42614c48-7eb0-46dc-83da-
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>.go=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >oglegro=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ups.com>,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >Bud says...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>On May 17, 6:05=3D3D3D3D3D3DA0pm, mucher1 =
><much=3D
>> >...@g=3D3D
>> >> >mail.com>
>> >> >> >>>>>>wro=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>te:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> On 16 Maj, 15:17, Ben Holmes <ad...@burn=
>ing=3D
>> >kni=3D3D
>> >> >fe.com>
>> >> >> >>>>>>wro=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>te:
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > Mark Lane made the point that people t=
>end=3D
>> > to=3D3D
>> >> > try to
>> >> >> >>>>>>"pl=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>eas=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >e the c=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ourt",=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >> and that
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> > the Warren Commission "called most of =
>its=3D
>> > wi=3D3D
>> >> >tnesses
>> >> >> >>>>>>lon=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>g a=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >fter it=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > had m=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>ade plain
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> > that in its view the shots had come f=
>rom=3D
>> > th=3D3D
>> >> >e Book
>> >> >> >>>>>>Depos=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ito=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ry Buil=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ding a=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>lone and
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> > implied that those who rejected this=
> th=3D
>> >esi=3D3D
>> >> >s were
>> >> >> >>>>>>irresp=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ons=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ible sp=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >eculat=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>ors."
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> > To say nothing of the FBI intimidatio=
>n w=3D
>> >hic=3D3D
>> >> >h I've
>> >> >> >>>>>>point=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ed =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >out and=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > cited=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >> for...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> > Mark Lane goes on to say: "Perhaps t=
>he =3D
>> >mos=3D3D
>> >> >t
>> >> >> >>>>>>significant=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> fi=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >gures t=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >herefo=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>re - more
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > significant even than the ones given abov=
>e -=3D
>> > ar=3D3D
>> >> >e those
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>att=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >esting =3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >the im=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>mediate
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > reactions of the witnesses to the assassi=
>nat=3D
>> >ion=3D3D
>> >> > before
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>the=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >re was =3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >any of=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>ficial
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > version. Twenty-five witnesses are known =
>to =3D
>> >hav=3D3D
>> >> >e given
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>sta=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >tements=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > or af=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>fidavits
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the =
>ori=3D
>> >gin=3D3D
>> >> > of the
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>sho=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ts. Twe=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >nty-tw=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>o said
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> > they believed that the shots came fro=
>m t=3D
>> >he =3D3D
>> >> >knoll."
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > You can't keep claiming that Mark Lane li=
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> > Devastating to the WCR's theory!
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> > Any kooks care to refute this?
>>
>es,=3D
>> > ye=3D3D
>> >> >t allow
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>all=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > of the=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >se quo=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>tes to be
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> > shown correct by your inability to r=
>efu=3D
>> >te =3D3D
>> >> >them...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> It seems a couple of AP staff writers r=
>efu=3D
>> >ted=3D3D
>> >> > Lane's
>> >> >> >>>>>>clai=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>m s=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ome 45
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> years ago:
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > If this happened, then all you have to do i=
>s p=3D
>> >rov=3D3D
>> >> >ide the
>> >> >> >>>>>>cita=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>tio=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ns that=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > refute
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > the Mark Lane quotes I keep raising.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%=
>=3D3D=3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > the Mark Lane quotes I keep raising.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%=
>> >3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>20F=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >iles/A%=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >2...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Volumes Don't Support Lane
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0In the se=
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Volumes Don't Support Lane
>>
>cond ch=3D
>> >apter o=3D3D
>> >> >f his book,
>> >> >> >>>>>>Lan=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>e write=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >s: "Twenty-=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >five
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> witnesses are known to have given stat=
>eme=3D
>> >nts=3D3D
>> >> > or
>> >> >> >>>>>>affidavit=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>s o=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >n Nov. =3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >22
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> or Nov. 23--the day of and the day aft=
>er =3D
>> >the
>> >> >> >>>>>>assassinatio=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>n--=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >about t=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >he
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they =
>bel=3D
>> >iev=3D3D
>> >> >ed that
>> >> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>he =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >shots c=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ame
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> from the knoll."
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0Should o=
>ne chec=3D
>> >k the c=3D3D
>> >> >ommission's
>> >> >> >>>>>>volu=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>mes, he=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > would find=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > that, yes=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> 23 people did give statements to law offic=
>ial=3D
>> >s o=3D3D
>> >> >n those
>> >> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>wo =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >days. N=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ine
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> cited the knoll. Twelve cited the depo=
>sit=3D
>> >ory=3D3D
>> >> >. Two
>> >> >> >>>>>>indicat=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ed =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >it coul=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >d
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> have been either.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >> =3D3D3D3D3DA0Wow, no wonder Ben didn`t w=
>ant t=3D
>> >o nam=3D3D
>> >> >e them, I
>> >> >> >>>>>>migh=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>t loo=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >k them up
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>and see that Lane was lying.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since its the *KOOKS* such as yourself and Bil=
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>and see that Lane was lying.
>>
>ly =3D
>> >tha=3D3D
>> >> >t argue
>> >> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>hat=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > Mark L=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >ane lied,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > it's incumbent on *YOU* to provide this e=
>vid=3D
>> >enc=3D3D
>> >> >e.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > I'm merely proving, by your inability to do=
> so=3D
>> >, t=3D3D
>> >> >hat you
>> >> >> >>>>>>can'=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>t.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >Yeah, a nice piece of work.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > Ah Billy! Coward to the very end, aren't =
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >Yeah, a nice piece of work.
>>
>you=3D
>> >?
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0There i=
>s a wit=3D
>> >ness me=3D3D
>> >> >ntioned in
>> >> >> >>>>>>anothe=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>r conte=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >xt by Lane =3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >whose
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> testimony has some relevance as to the=
> co=3D
>> >nfl=3D3D
>> >> >icting
>> >> >> >>>>>>opinio=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ns =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >of wher=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >e
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the shots came from. He is Lee E. Bowers. H=
>e w=3D
>> >as =3D3D
>> >> >working
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>in =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >a signa=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >l
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> tower in the railroad area behind the =
>kno=3D
>> >ll.=3D3D
>> >> > His
>> >> >> >>>>>>testimon=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>y i=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >s in
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Volume VI.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0Bowers: "Th=
>e sound=3D
>> >s came =3D3D
>> >> >from either
>> >> >> >>>>>>f=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>rom up =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >against the=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > school
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> book depository building or near the mouth =
>of =3D
>> >the=3D3D
>> >> > triple
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ove=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >rpass."
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0Q: "You were=
> not ab=3D
>> >le to t=3D3D
>> >> >ell which?"
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0Bowers=
>: "No, =3D
>> >I could=3D3D
>> >> > not."
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> > >>> =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0Q: "Wel=
>l, now,=3D
>> > had yo=3D3D
>> >> >u had any
>> >> >> >>>>>>experie=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>nce bef=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ore being i=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >n the towe=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>r
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> as to sounds coming from these variou=
>s p=3D
>> >lac=3D3D
>> >> >es?"
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0Bowers: "Ye=
>s, I ha=3D
>> >d worke=3D3D
>> >> >d this same
>> >> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ower fo=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >r some 10 o=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >r 12 years=3D3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> and was there during the time they were r=
>eno=3D
>> >vat=3D3D
>> >> >ing the
>> >> >> >>>>>>sc=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>hoo=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >l
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> depository building, and had noticed at =
>tha=3D
>> >t t=3D3D
>> >> >ime the
>> >> >> >>>>>>sim=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ila=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >rity of
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> sounds occuring in either of these tw=
>o l=3D
>> >oca=3D3D
>> >> >tions."
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>> =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3D3D3DA0Bower's t=
>estimon=3D
>> >y doesn=3D3D
>> >> >'t rule out
>> >> >> >>>>>>the=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> knoll.=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > It doesn't=3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > rule out
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> the depository. It does help those investi=
>gat=3D
>> >ors=3D3D
>> >> > trying
>> >> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>o e=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >xplain =3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >why
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> witnesses to the assassination gave conflic=
>tin=3D
>> >g o=3D3D
>> >> >pinions
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>as =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >to the
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound of the shots. If Bowers was helpful i=
>n t=3D
>> >his=3D3D
>> >> > regard
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>to =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >Lane or
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Epstein, they didn't mention it.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> (Bernard Gavzer & Sid Moody, AP, 1967=
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Epstein, they didn't mention it.
>>
>)
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Can you refute this, Ben?
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Refute what, moron? You've not provided any c=
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > >>> Can you refute this, Ben?
>>
>ita=3D
>> >tio=3D3D
>> >> >ns that
>> >> >> >>>>>>re=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>fut=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >e what =3D3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >Mark Lane
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > stated.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> Mark Lane: "Twenty-five witnesses are known t=
>o h=3D
>> >ave=3D3D
>> >> > given
>> >> >> >>>>>>state=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>men=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ts
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>or affidavits on November 22 and November 23 abo=
>ut =3D
>> >the=3D3D
>> >> > origin
>> >> >> >>>>>>o=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>f t=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >he
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the sh=
>ots=3D
>> > ca=3D3D
>> >> >me from
>> >> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>he
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> knoll."
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben Holmes: "Devastating to the WCR's theory! A=
>ny =3D
>> >koo=3D3D
>> >> >ks care
>> >> >> >>>>>>to=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> re=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >fute
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> this?"
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's not particularly difficult to find four (25=
> mi=3D
>> >nus=3D3D
>> >> > 22 plus
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>1) =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >of
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these witnesses that didn't say they believed t=
>he =3D
>> >sho=3D3D
>> >> >ts came
>> >> >> >>>>>>fr=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>om =3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >the
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>knoll. The following four clearly believed the s=
>hot=3D
>> >s c=3D3D
>> >> >ame from
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>the
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>TSBD. Others couldn't tell where the shots came =
>fro=3D
>> >m, =3D3D
>> >> >or their
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> statements can be interpreted either way. Sev=
>era=3D
>> >l r=3D3D
>> >> >eported
>> >> >> >>>>>>seei=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ng
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>people rush to the knoll after the shots, but di=
>dn'=3D
>> >t o=3D3D
>> >> >ffer an
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> independent opinion. Even CT darling Jean Hil=
>l (=3D
>> >"I =3D3D
>> >> >looked
>> >> >> >>>>>>acros=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>s t=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >he
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> street and up the hill and saw a man running=
> to=3D
>> >war=3D3D
>> >> >d the
>> >> >> >>>>>>monumen=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>t a=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >nd I
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>started running over there") didn't really say w=
>her=3D
>> >e t=3D3D
>> >> >he shots
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>see=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >med
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> to come from.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Howard Leslie Brennan (11/22/63): "It run in my=
> mi=3D
>> >nd =3D3D
>> >> >that it
>> >> >> >>>>>>mi=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ght=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > be
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>someone throwing firecrackers out the window of =
>the=3D
>> > re=3D3D
>> >> >d brick
>> >> >> >>>>>>b=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>uil=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ding
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> and I looked up at the building. I then saw th=
>is =3D
>> >man=3D3D
>> >> > I have
>> >> >> >>>>>>des=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>cri=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >bed
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> in the window and he was taking aim with a =
>hig=3D
>> >h p=3D3D
>> >> >owered
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> rifle." (19H470)
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Amos Lee Euins (11/22/63): "I started looking ar=
>oun=3D
>> >d a=3D3D
>> >> >nd then
>> >> >> >>>>>>I=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> lo=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >oked
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up in the red brick building. I saw a man in a =
>win=3D
>> >dow=3D3D
>> >> > with a
>> >> >> >>>>>>gu=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>n a=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >nd I
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> saw him shoot twice." (19H474)
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Charles Hester (11/22/63): "[The shots] sounded =
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> saw him shoot twice." (19H474)
>>
>lik=3D
>> >e t=3D3D
>> >> >hey came
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>fro=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >m
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> immediately behind us and over our heads. We=
> di=3D
>> >d s=3D3D
>> >> >ee the
>> >> >> >>>>>>shooti=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ng.=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > I
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> immediately turned and looked at the Texas Bo=
>ok =3D
>> >Dep=3D3D
>> >> >ository
>> >> >> >>>>>>buil=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>din=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >g
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and did not see anyone. The shots sounded like t=
>hey=3D
>> > de=3D3D
>> >> >finitely
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>cam=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >e
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> from in or around the building." (19H478)
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Eddie Piper (11/23/63): "The shots seemed to me =
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> from in or around the building." (19H478)
>>
>lik=3D
>> >e t=3D3D
>> >> >hey came
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>fro=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >m up
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> inside the building." (19H499)
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >focus Studley..... FOCUS!
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > The sheer *STUPIDITY* of these kooks is amazin=
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> inside the building." (19H499)
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >focus Studley..... FOCUS!
>>
>g!
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They pretend that because some eyewitnesses pointe=
>d a=3D
>> >t t=3D3D
>> >> >he TSBD,
>> >> >> >>>>>>t=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>hat=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > this
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>somehow refutes the fact that Mark Lane pointed ou=
>t t=3D
>> >hat=3D3D
>> >> > others
>> >> >> >>>>>>po=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>int=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ed to the
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > Grassy Knoll.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > Amazing!!!
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3D3D3DA0 It is amazing, are you really this stup=
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > Grassy Knoll.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > Amazing!!!
>>
>id? T=3D
>> >his i=3D3D
>> >> >s what you
>> >> >> >>>>>>pr=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>oduce=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >d
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > from Lane...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Mark Lane goes on to say: "P=
>erhaps =3D
>> >the mos=3D3D
>> >> >t significant
>> >> >> >>>>>>f=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>igures
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > therefore - more
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>significant even than the ones given above - are th=
>ose=3D
>> > at=3D3D
>> >> >testing
>> >> >> >>>>>>the
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > immediate
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reactions of the witnesses to the assassination bef=
>ore=3D
>> > th=3D3D
>> >> >ere was
>> >> >> >>>>>>any
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > official
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have gi=
>ven=3D
>> > st=3D3D
>> >> >atements
>> >> >> >>>>>>or
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > affidavits
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > on November 22 and November 23 about the origin o=
>f t=3D
>> >he =3D3D
>> >> >shots.
>> >> >> >>>>>>Twenty=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>-
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > two said
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > they believed that the shots came from the knoll=
>."
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3D3D3DA0 Mark produced four witnesses who said t=
>hat s=3D
>> >hots =3D3D
>> >> >came from
>> >> >> >>>>>>the=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> TSBD=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > Where are they represented in Lane`s figures?
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D=
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > Where are they represented in Lane`s figures?
>>
>3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3=3D
>> >D3DA0 Mark list=3D3D
>> >> >ed Brennan, Euins,
>> >> >> >>>>>>Charle=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>s Hester, and E=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ddie
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Piper. =3D3D3D3DA0Here are three more:
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D=
>3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3=3D
>> >D3DA0 Bonnie Ra=3D3D
>> >> >y Williams (11/23)
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D3DA0"=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>right over his he=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >ad"
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/sho=
>wDo=3D
>> >c.d=3D3D
>> >> >o?
>> >> >> >>>>>>docId=3D3D3D3D3D1=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>...
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D=
>3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3=3D
>> >D3DA0 Bob Jacks=3D3D
>> >> >on
>> >> >> >>>>>>(11/23)http://www.mary=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ferrell.org/mf=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >fweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3D3D3D3D104..=
>.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D=
>3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3=3D
>> >D3DA0 James Wor=3D3D
>> >> >rell
>> >> >> >>>>>>(11/23)http://www.ma=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ryferrell.org/=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3D3D3D3D104=
>...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3=
>D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D=3D
>> >3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Jac=3D3D
>> >> >kson and Worrell reported
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>seeing a rifle in=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > the TSBD.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3=
>D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D=3D
>> >3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0Twe=3D3D
>> >> >nty-five minus twenty-two
>> >> >> >>>>>>=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>equals seven?
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =
>=3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA=3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =
>> >0 =3D3D3DA0 Oops, mak=3D3D
>> >> >e that nine.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>=3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D=
>3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D
>> >=3D3D3DA0 Mrs. Reid, =3D3D
>> >> >who was standing in front
>> >> >> >>>>>>of=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> the TSBD,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>(11/23): "I remarked to Mr. [Ochus] Campbell, who was=
> st=3D
>> >and=3D3D
>> >> >ing near
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >by, that I thought the shots had come from our build=
>ing=3D
>> >."
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >http://www.history-
>> >> >> >>>>>>matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >1a.htm
>>
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >http://www.history-
>> >> >> >>>>>>matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol...
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >1a.htm
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =
>=3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA=3D
>> >0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0And =3D3D
>> >> >of course Marrion Baker
>> >> >> >>>>>>(11/22):
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.h=
>> >> >> >>>>>>(11/22):
>>
>tm
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =
>=3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0=3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =
>> > =3D3D3DA0 Lane's sta=3D3D
>> >> >tement -- "Twenty-five
>> >> >> >>>>>>witnes=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ses are known
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >to have given statements or
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the =
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >to have given statements or
>ori=3D
>> >gin=3D3D
>> >> > of the
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >shots. Twenty-two said
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>they believed that the shots came from the knoll" -- =
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >shots. Twenty-two said
>doe=3D
>> >sn'=3D3D
>> >> >t add up.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >=3D3D3D3D20
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >Jean
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Watch Benny run from this one.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3DA0Why should this one be any different than all t=
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Watch Benny run from this one.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>he ot=3D
>> >hers?
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>No reason Bud. =3D3DA0I notice Benny hasn't shown up yet=
>. =3D3D=3D
>> >A0I dou=3D3D
>> >> >bt he will, being
>> >> >> >>>>>>a
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>chickenshit and all.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>Still the coward, eh Billy?
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>What? =3D3DA0No refute from Benny. =3D3DA0I told you, Bud.=
>> >> >> >>>>>>a
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>chickenshit and all.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>Still the coward, eh Billy?
>>
> =3D3DA0B=3D
>> >eing is a=3D3D
>> >> >ll hat and no cows.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>Still the coward, eh Billy? Why the cowardice? You don't *h=
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>ave=3D
>> >* t=3D3D
>> >> >o be a
>> >> >> >>>>>>coward,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>you *CAN* engage and debate the topic.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>You'd lose, of course...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>I hear you whining Benny but I see no much bragged about ref=
>> >> >> >>>>>>coward,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>you *CAN* engage and debate the topic.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>You'd lose, of course...
>>
>ute=3D
>> >. =3D3D
>> >> >=3D3DA0Coward. =3D3DA0Lots
>> >> >> >>>>>>>of noise but not much action. =3D3DA0A joke.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>Still nothing but ad hominem...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>Why the cowardice, Billy? Can't find your copy of "Rush to Ju=
>> >> >> >>>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>Still nothing but ad hominem...
>>
>dgm=3D
>> >ent=3D3D
>> >> >"?
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>Or are you so dishonest that you're trying to debate a book y=
>ou =3D
>> >don=3D3D
>> >> >'t
>> >> >> >>>>>>even own?
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>I own only one Mark Lane book. =3D3DA0It was enough to show me=
> what=3D
>> > a di=3D3D
>> >> >shonest prick
>> >> >> >>>>>he is. =3D3DA0Why should I waste money buying more bullshit.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>So you're trying desperately to refute what you've never read.
>>
>> >> >> >>>No, I'm not.
>>
>> >> >> >>Then you have nothing further to add in this forum about Mark Lan=
>> >> >> >>>>So you're trying desperately to refute what you've never read.
>>
>> >> >> >>>No, I'm not.
>>
>e, =3D
>> >do =3D3D
>> >> >you
>> >> >> >>Billy?
>>
>> >> >> >Only when you lie about him.
>>
>> >> >> >>>I'm reading people that show what a dishonest shit Mark Lane and
>> >> >> >>>Benny Yellow Pants are. =3D3DA0It is funny watching you do the l=
>> >> >> >>Billy?
>>
>> >> >> >Only when you lie about him.
>>
>> >> >> >>>I'm reading people that show what a dishonest shit Mark Lane and
>ittle=3D
>> > danc=3D3D
>> >> >e.
>>
>> >> >> >>Your cowardice is getting more noticeable Billy.
>>
>> >> >> >Still haven't seen you refute Jean's numbers yet. =3D3DA0You can't=
>>
>> >> >> >>Your cowardice is getting more noticeable Billy.
>>
> do t=3D
>> >he si=3D3D
>> >> >mple math
>> >> >> >or what? Speaking of cowards.
>>
>> >> >> 27, 39, 1.23, 197.
>>
>> >> >> Go ahead moron... refute those numbers. Then retract your dishonest=
>> >> >> >or what? Speaking of cowards.
>>
>> >> >> 27, 39, 1.23, 197.
>>
> cl=3D
>> >aim=3D3D
>> >> > that
>> >> >> I've not answered Jean.
>>
>> >> > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 If you answered my last post of May 22=
>> >> >> I've not answered Jean.
>>
>, I didn't se=3D
>> >e it.
>>
>> >> > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Here once more is the Mark Lane quote =
>that you post=3D
>> >ed, Ben:
>>
>> >> >"Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
>> >> >affidavits
>> >> >on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-
>> >> >two said
>> >> >they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>> >> > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Mark and I listed nine witnesses from =
>>
>> >> >"Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or
>> >> >affidavits
>> >> >on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-
>> >> >two said
>> >> >they believed that the shots came from the knoll."
>>
>those dates w=3D
>> >ho said
>> >> >the shots came from the TSBD.
>>
>> >> I'm quite sure, that given the amount of information today, that you c=
>> >> >the shots came from the TSBD.
>>
>oul=3D
>> >d find
>> >> a few more if you tried.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0There probably are more, but not because of informat=
>> >> a few more if you tried.
>>
>ion
>> >today. =A0 All this info appeared in the WC volumes in 1964.
>>
>> >> But comparing apples with oranges won't get you anywhere. Unless you c=
>an =3D
>> >list
>> >> the precise people that Mark Lane was referring to... I suspect that I=
> ca=3D
>> >n't do
>> >> it either... so I'm not too worried about it, because the point is sti=
>ll
>> >> accurate:
>>
>> > It's not my job to name them, and it's not necessary. His
>> >*numbers* are wrong.
>>
>> Sorry Jean... you haven't listed the 25.
>>
>> More importantly, you *KNOW* you haven't.
>
> Sorry, what? Didn't you read what I just said?
Yep... and until you can define the same playground that Mark Lane was playing
>> >> accurate:
>>
>> > It's not my job to name them, and it's not necessary. His
>> >*numbers* are wrong.
>>
>> Sorry Jean... you haven't listed the 25.
>>
>> More importantly, you *KNOW* you haven't.
>
> Sorry, what? Didn't you read what I just said?
in, when you throw around numbers that might not be in the same playground, then
you're comparing apples and oranges.
You're quite aware of the fact that the eyewitnesses for the Grassy Knoll can
even, depending on who's counting and when, exceed the numbers that pointed to
the TSBD. Even McAdams - a completely unbiased observer - admits to over a third
pointing to the Grassy Knoll.
>> >> The point being made, if you've been following along, is the overwhelm=
>ing
>> >> numbers of people on those first few days, before the official theory =
>bec=3D
>> >ame the
>> >> law of the land, who reported something different.
>>
>> >> Will you admit that this is true?
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 I don't agree. =A0 Lane claimed that 22 out of =
>> >> law of the land, who reported something different.
>>
>> >> Will you admit that this is true?
>>
>25 known
>> >witnesses were knoll witnesses, but the actual numbers were not so
>> >"overwhelming." =A0That's the impression he created, but it's
>> >witnesses were knoll witnesses, but the actual numbers were not so
>> >misleading.
>>
>> Well, it seems that you have your work cut out for you... you're still on=
> #3,
>> and I've posted quite a few more since then... that are all dealing with =
>the
>> same topic.
>
> Please understand that I'm not obligated to respond to
>everything you post, Ben, especially when you keep opening new topics
>with my name in the header. But I do intend to respond to #4 and
>others here soon.
Oh, long-time readers of this forum are well aware of the fear that LNT'ers have
>> same topic.
>
> Please understand that I'm not obligated to respond to
>everything you post, Ben, especially when you keep opening new topics
>with my name in the header. But I do intend to respond to #4 and
>others here soon.
of trying to defend the evidence in this case.
So no need to plan your retreat, we know it's coming... it's only a matter of
time.
>> > No one that I know of denies that there were many "knoll
>> >Earwitness testimony about the direction was contradictory and
>> >inconclusive -- some witnesses standing right next to one another
>> >disagreed about where the shots came from.
>>
>> And yet, you believe one group, and completely disregard the other group.
>
> Certainly I believe the TSBD witnesses -- but only because
>of all the *other* evidence that puts the gunman there.
What about the shells found in the Grassy Knoll?
>> >inconclusive -- some witnesses standing right next to one another
>> >disagreed about where the shots came from.
>>
>> And yet, you believe one group, and completely disregard the other group.
>
> Certainly I believe the TSBD witnesses -- but only because
>of all the *other* evidence that puts the gunman there.
>> >> Can you admit the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses that began changing=
> wh=3D
>> >at was
>> >> being reported?
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 That's the claim.
>>
>> Sorry Jean, if you can't admit it, then be sure to look for a post titled=
> "FBI
>> Intimidation". Toddy refused to refute it, despite numerous claims that h=
>e
>> would.
>>
>> Refute it.
>>
>> But don't assert that this is just a "claim" unless you're willing to def=
>end
>> that assertion.
>>
>> I'll give you the opportunity to do so.
>>
>> >Doesn't it strike you as odd that an
>> >"intimidated" witness would freely talk about being "intimidated"?
>>
>> Some of them did, most of them probably did not. Tell the truth Jean, are=
>> that assertion.
>>
>> I'll give you the opportunity to do so.
>>
>> >Doesn't it strike you as odd that an
>> >"intimidated" witness would freely talk about being "intimidated"?
>>
> you
>> claiming that you are unaware of the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses?
>
> I'm aware that some witnesses have made that claim, yes.
>I'm hoping to answer that post soon.
Hopefully, it will be sooner than Toddy... who's gone many years and many posts
>> claiming that you are unaware of the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses?
>
> I'm aware that some witnesses have made that claim, yes.
>I'm hoping to answer that post soon.
since he claimed that he'd refute my assertion of FBI intimidation of many
eyewitnesses.
>> >It's not unusual for lawmen to ask witnesses not to discuss their
>> >testimony while an investigation is still going on.
>>
>> Sorry Jean, this goes far beyond that.
>>
>oll=3D
>> > who
>> >> later changed to the TSBD...
>>
>> >> Can you find any who went the opposite way, Jean?
>>
>> > Phil Willis.
>> >> later changed to the TSBD...
>>
>> >> Can you find any who went the opposite way, Jean?
>>
>>
>> Cites?
>>
>> For some strange reason, all I see is his indication that they came from =
>the
>> TSBD in his testimony.
>>
>> Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have occasion to look up toward the railroad tracks=
>> TSBD in his testimony.
>>
> that
>> go across the triple underpass at any time, at about the time the Preside=
>nt was
>> shot?
>> Mr. WILLIS. Yes; I did, after the third shot was fired.
>> Mr. LIEBELER. Was there anybody up there? Did you see anybody up there on=
>> shot?
>> Mr. WILLIS. Yes; I did, after the third shot was fired.
> those
>> railroad tracks?
>> Mr. WILLIS. Yes, sir; I had noticed before the President's arrival that t=
>here
>> were spectators up there, but there were also policemen up there.
>> Mr. LIEBELER. You did see policemen up there?
>> Mr. WILLIS. Yes, sir; there were definitely policemen up there among the
>> spectators.
>> Mr. LIEBELER. About how many spectators would you say were up there? Was =
>> were spectators up there, but there were also policemen up there.
>> Mr. LIEBELER. You did see policemen up there?
>> Mr. WILLIS. Yes, sir; there were definitely policemen up there among the
>> spectators.
>there a
>> big crowd?
>> Mr. WILLIS. No, sir; there was no big crowd in the area, actually. But I =
>would
>> say, and this is strictly a wild guess, maybe 2 dozen.
>> Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see any evidence of any shots having been fired fro=
>> say, and this is strictly a wild guess, maybe 2 dozen.
>m that
>> direction?
>> Mr. WILLIS. No, sir; there was no doubt in my mind. I saw people falling =
>on the
>> ground and police officers racing over toward a concrete wall.
>> Mr. LIEBELER. Across the street from Elm Street?
>> Mr. WILLIS. Across the street from Elm Street on the same side as the Sch=
>> ground and police officers racing over toward a concrete wall.
>> Mr. LIEBELER. Across the street from Elm Street?
>ool
>> Book Depository, which goes down the hill toward the underpass, and the
>> policemen started going over there, called to see if someone, evidently t=
>> Book Depository, which goes down the hill toward the underpass, and the
>hinking
>> it came from that direction, and then is when I started to ring this buil=
>ding. I
>> knew it came from high above directly across the street from me, and that=
> is the
>> one thing I was absolutely positive about.
>> Mr. LIEBELER. You made that judgment from the sound of the shots?
>> Mr. WILLIS. From the sound, absolutely. And this may be verified by the f=
>> one thing I was absolutely positive about.
>> Mr. LIEBELER. You made that judgment from the sound of the shots?
>act
>> that I took several pictures of the crowd immediately around that buildin=
>g.
>
> Yes, that was Willis's first opinion on record, so far as
>I know. He also gave the WC his photo captions saying that all three
>shots came from the rear (slide 5 and 6 here):
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol2=
>
> Yes, that was Willis's first opinion on record, so far as
>I know. He also gave the WC his photo captions saying that all three
>shots came from the rear (slide 5 and 6 here):
>
>1_0395a.htm
1964...
Hmmm.... looks like another LNT'er unwilling to examine the first early
statements, and attempting to hang their hat on statements made decades later.
> However, by the time he appeared on "The Men Who Killed
>Kennedy" in the 1980s he was "very dead certain" that at least one
>shot came from the front. (I don't think he was lying either time.
>Imo, his memory probably changed.)
Amusing!
You see, I was rather hoping for something like contemporary first week
statements vs. WC testimony.
But we'll let it lie there for all to see and ponder.
>> >> >You have yet to explain how Mark Lane's
>> >> >numbers make any sense.
>>
>> >> Oh yes, Jean... I did.
>>
>se.=3D
>> > When
>> >> you can list the 25 eyewitnesses that Mark Lane gave, then you'll have=
> a =3D
>> >basis
>> >> to refute him.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Again, the names don't matter. =A0Whoever they w=
>ere, his
>> >numbers don't add up.
>>
>> You are presuming that you have the list of 25.
>
> I'm presuming no such thing.
>>
>> Why not produce it?
>
> It was LANE's statement, which YOU quoted. Why is it my
>job to supply names when you and Lane didn't?? Anyway, the names are
>irrelevant!
You've attempted to assert that Mark Lane was wrong.
>> >numbers don't add up.
>>
>> You are presuming that you have the list of 25.
>
> I'm presuming no such thing.
>>
>> Why not produce it?
>
> It was LANE's statement, which YOU quoted. Why is it my
>job to supply names when you and Lane didn't?? Anyway, the names are
>irrelevant!
You see, 197 minus 33 is equal to 164 - which demonstrates that *YOU* are wrong.
See how this works? (I'm quite sure that you're intelligent enough to pick this
up without me going into excruciating detail)
>
>Jean
>
>>
>> >> >Did he overlook some of the witnesses? Did he
>>
>> >> I'm quite sure he *did* "overlook" eyewitnesses... he wrote his book d=
>uri=3D
>> >ng a
>> >> time when there simply wasn't the easy access to evidence in this case=
> th=3D
>> >at is
>> >> now available for *anyone*.
>>
>> >> You know this, of course.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 His book appeared in 1966. =A0All the witne=
>> >> now available for *anyone*.
>>
>> >> You know this, of course.
>>
>ss statements
>> >were published in 1964.
>>
>> >Jean
>>
>> >> >Jean
>>
>> >> >> >Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >> In the meantime, why the cowardice Billy? Why can't you refute any =
>> >were published in 1964.
>>
>> >Jean
>>
>> >> >Jean
>>
>> >> >> >Bill Clarke
>>
>of =3D
>> >the=3D3D
>> >> >se
>> >> >> posts?
>>
>> >> >> Am I moving too fast for you?
>>
>> >> >> >>>>Good for you that I'm quoting Mark Lane - you'll learn.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>Are you going to refute what Jean blew you out of the water wi=
>> >> >> posts?
>>
>> >> >> Am I moving too fast for you?
>>
>> >> >> >>>>Good for you that I'm quoting Mark Lane - you'll learn.
>>
>th =3D
>> >or =3D3D
>> >> >will you
>> >> >> >>>>>just slink away like you always do?
>>
>> >> >> >>>>Already did moron. Surely you didn't miss it, so you must be st=
>> >> >> >>>>>just slink away like you always do?
>>
>upi=3D
>> >dly
>> >> >> >>>>dishonest.
>>
>> >> >> >>>Let me see the math asshole, not your smart ass quip.
>>
>> >> >> >>Where's your apology for lying, Billy?
>>
>> >> >> >>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >> >>>>Oh wait, we already know that you are. Trying to argue a topic =
>> >> >> >>>>dishonest.
>>
>> >> >> >>>Let me see the math asshole, not your smart ass quip.
>>
>> >> >> >>Where's your apology for lying, Billy?
>>
>> >> >> >>>Bill Clarke
>>
>you=3D
>> > kn=3D3D
>> >> >ow nothing
>> >> >> >>>>about.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >> >>>>Tell us Billy - why do you think people won't notice your cowar=
>> >> >> >>>>about.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>dic=3D
>> >e o=3D3D
Ben Holmes
May 25, 2012, 10:30:58 PM5/25/12
to
In article <jpouv...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>That *YOU* can't understand my point is neither here nor there.
>
>Oh hell no. I understand your point very well. Your point was finding a way of
>running away from trying to defend Mark Lane's lie that you posted and I assume
>endorsed. A poor show.
Do you even realize how stupid you're sounding?
>>You wouldn't understand that the sun is shining if Mark Lane stated it was...
>>
>>
>>>You're toast Benny. What about all your boast of destroying all comers?
>>
>>
>>If you cannot quote my words accurately, Billy... I'll stop quoting *your* words
>>accurately.
>
>I didn't put it in quotes, Benny. But you have bragged about yourself. How you
>feel now with a kicked ass?
>
>Bill Clarke
It's only fair to warn you, Billy.
>
>In article <jpo3g...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>In article <jpo2p...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>
>>>In article <jpmv6...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>>
>>>>In article <jpmt3...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>>>
>>>>>In article <836a50aa-81fb-4b78...@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>Jean says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Top post. Has anyone seen Benny?
>>>>>
>>>>>Bill Clarke javascript:PostMessage()
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You are, of course, implying that I didn't respond. Can you explain how Jean
>>>>responded to *MY* response, coward?
>>>
>>>Of course I am. Your "apple and oranges" pathetic crap was really rather sad.
>>
>>
>>Ah! Good of you to admit that I *DID* respond.
>
>Ah! That apple and oranges crap was not a response. It was an escape and
>evasion message. A very weak one at that. I didn't expect any better from a
>garrison trooper.
Too stupid to understand it? Or too dishonest to admit it?
>In article <jpo3g...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>In article <jpo2p...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>
>>>In article <jpmv6...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>>
>>>>In article <jpmt3...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>>>>
>>>>>In article <836a50aa-81fb-4b78...@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>Jean says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Top post. Has anyone seen Benny?
>>>>>
>>>>>Bill Clarke javascript:PostMessage()
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You are, of course, implying that I didn't respond. Can you explain how Jean
>>>>responded to *MY* response, coward?
>>>
>>>Of course I am. Your "apple and oranges" pathetic crap was really rather sad.
>>
>>
>>Ah! Good of you to admit that I *DID* respond.
>
>Ah! That apple and oranges crap was not a response. It was an escape and
>evasion message. A very weak one at that. I didn't expect any better from a
>garrison trooper.
>>That *YOU* can't understand my point is neither here nor there.
>
>Oh hell no. I understand your point very well. Your point was finding a way of
>running away from trying to defend Mark Lane's lie that you posted and I assume
>endorsed. A poor show.
>>You wouldn't understand that the sun is shining if Mark Lane stated it was...
>>
>>
>>>You're toast Benny. What about all your boast of destroying all comers?
>>
>>
>>If you cannot quote my words accurately, Billy... I'll stop quoting *your* words
>>accurately.
>
>I didn't put it in quotes, Benny. But you have bragged about yourself. How you
>feel now with a kicked ass?
>
>Bill Clarke
Mark Ulrik
May 27, 2012, 11:56:51 AM5/27/12
to
On 26 Maj, 03:23, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <50783a59-3472-4ab1-b3da-b5647491b...@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
Well, you're a special kind of stupid, Ben, but let's try to
paraphrase Lane using language that even you might be able to
comprehend.
Lane: "Included among the fruits in this basket are 25 apples of which
22 are red."
Skeptic (after examining the content of the basket): "But these 4
apples are clearly all green?!?"
NB! Lane defined his 'playground' / 'fruit basket' as Decker Ex 5323 +
CE 2003. The skeptic picked 'fruits' (Brennan, Euins, Charles Hester,
and Eddie Piper) from Decker Ex 5323.
Did the skeptic demonstrate that Lane was wrong? Yes.
Was it necessary for the skeptic to determine exactly which 25 fruits
Lane was talking about? No.
Could the skeptic have further undermined Lane's claim by pointing out
that some of the remaining apples were, in fact, not strictly red (but
either red/green or of other colors)? Yes.
> You're quite aware of the fact that the eyewitnesses for the Grassy Knoll can
> even, depending on who's counting and when, exceed the numbers that pointed to
> the TSBD. Even McAdams - a completely unbiased observer - admits to over a third
> pointing to the Grassy Knoll.
Who is "throwing around numbers" now? (As a matter of irony, you don't
believe ANY of the earwitnesses got it right. You believe that the
ones that heard the TSBD shots didn't hear the knoll shots, and vice
versa.)
Let's try to focus, OK? This discussion (which you started yourself)
is about witness statements from Nov 22+23:
Lane counted 22 "knoll" (and 3 "non-knoll") witnesses. These
gentlemen, having access to the same data as Lane, counted 9 "knoll,"
12 "depository," and 2 undecided witnesses:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%20Disk/Associated%20Press/Times-Picayune/Item%2004.pdf
You can prove them wrong by finding 10 Nov 22+23 witnesses who (in
Lane's words) "said they believed that the shots came from the knoll".
Can you do that, Ben? Can you also find 22 and show that Lane wasn't
completely wrong?
> >> >> The point being made, if you've been following along, is the overwhelm=
> >ing
> >> >> numbers of people on those first few days, before the official theory =
> >bec=3D
> >> >ame the
> >> >> law of the land, who reported something different.
>
> >> >> Will you admit that this is true?
>
> >> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 I don't agree. =A0 Lane claimed that 22 out of =
> >25 known
> >> >witnesses were knoll witnesses, but the actual numbers were not so
> >> >"overwhelming." =A0That's the impression he created, but it's
> >> >misleading.
>
> >> Well, it seems that you have your work cut out for you... you're still on=
> > #3,
> >> and I've posted quite a few more since then... that are all dealing with =
> >the
> >> same topic.
>
> > Please understand that I'm not obligated to respond to
> >everything you post, Ben, especially when you keep opening new topics
> >with my name in the header. But I do intend to respond to #4 and
> >others here soon.
>
> Oh, long-time readers of this forum are well aware of the fear that LNT'ers have
> of trying to defend the evidence in this case.
It's sometimes worthwhile to defend the evidence from the more extreme
conspiracy kooks, and our success rate is, frankly, going through the
roof. Just ask the lurkers. It has to be said, however, that our task
is made easier by the fact that the evidence is (pretty consistently)
on our side.
> So no need to plan your retreat, we know it's coming... it's only a matter of
> time.
Jean has been very patient with you, but your strategy will probably
work if you're persistent and rude enough.
This is about 'apples', so go sell your 'oranges' somewhere else. (See
how this works?)
> In article <50783a59-3472-4ab1-b3da-b5647491b...@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
paraphrase Lane using language that even you might be able to
comprehend.
Lane: "Included among the fruits in this basket are 25 apples of which
22 are red."
Skeptic (after examining the content of the basket): "But these 4
apples are clearly all green?!?"
NB! Lane defined his 'playground' / 'fruit basket' as Decker Ex 5323 +
CE 2003. The skeptic picked 'fruits' (Brennan, Euins, Charles Hester,
and Eddie Piper) from Decker Ex 5323.
Did the skeptic demonstrate that Lane was wrong? Yes.
Was it necessary for the skeptic to determine exactly which 25 fruits
Lane was talking about? No.
Could the skeptic have further undermined Lane's claim by pointing out
that some of the remaining apples were, in fact, not strictly red (but
either red/green or of other colors)? Yes.
> You're quite aware of the fact that the eyewitnesses for the Grassy Knoll can
> even, depending on who's counting and when, exceed the numbers that pointed to
> the TSBD. Even McAdams - a completely unbiased observer - admits to over a third
> pointing to the Grassy Knoll.
believe ANY of the earwitnesses got it right. You believe that the
ones that heard the TSBD shots didn't hear the knoll shots, and vice
versa.)
Let's try to focus, OK? This discussion (which you started yourself)
is about witness statements from Nov 22+23:
Lane counted 22 "knoll" (and 3 "non-knoll") witnesses. These
gentlemen, having access to the same data as Lane, counted 9 "knoll,"
12 "depository," and 2 undecided witnesses:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%20Disk/Associated%20Press/Times-Picayune/Item%2004.pdf
You can prove them wrong by finding 10 Nov 22+23 witnesses who (in
Lane's words) "said they believed that the shots came from the knoll".
Can you do that, Ben? Can you also find 22 and show that Lane wasn't
completely wrong?
> >> >> The point being made, if you've been following along, is the overwhelm=
> >ing
> >> >> numbers of people on those first few days, before the official theory =
> >bec=3D
> >> >ame the
> >> >> law of the land, who reported something different.
>
> >> >> Will you admit that this is true?
>
> >> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 I don't agree. =A0 Lane claimed that 22 out of =
> >25 known
> >> >witnesses were knoll witnesses, but the actual numbers were not so
> >> >"overwhelming." =A0That's the impression he created, but it's
> >> >misleading.
>
> >> Well, it seems that you have your work cut out for you... you're still on=
> > #3,
> >> and I've posted quite a few more since then... that are all dealing with =
> >the
> >> same topic.
>
> > Please understand that I'm not obligated to respond to
> >everything you post, Ben, especially when you keep opening new topics
> >with my name in the header. But I do intend to respond to #4 and
> >others here soon.
>
> Oh, long-time readers of this forum are well aware of the fear that LNT'ers have
> of trying to defend the evidence in this case.
conspiracy kooks, and our success rate is, frankly, going through the
roof. Just ask the lurkers. It has to be said, however, that our task
is made easier by the fact that the evidence is (pretty consistently)
on our side.
> So no need to plan your retreat, we know it's coming... it's only a matter of
> time.
work if you're persistent and rude enough.
how this works?)
ala
May 31, 2012, 10:50:27 PM5/31/12
to
"Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
news:jpk0q...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
> Tell us Billy - why do you think people won't notice your cowardice on
> this
> topic?
>
>
Actually it turned out to be something with an actual name - shrug.
>
>
> Tell us Billy - why do you think people won't notice your cowardice on
> this
> topic?
>
>
0 new messages