Mark Lane - (#138)

[Ben Holmes]

In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane began discussing Weitzman -
someone whom the WCR defenders wish had kept his mouth shut.

"These remarks [See previous post - Mark Lane #137] constitute the
entire comment by the Warren Commission Report on this vital issue.
The Commissioners did not publish or comment on Weitzman's affidavit
in the Report; if they had, they would have had to explain how by a
'glimpse' or a 'glance', and not at close range, Weitzman was able to
describe the telescopic sight precisely, as well as the material and
color of the sling, not to mention why he swore to an affidavit in the
first place if, as the Commission insisted, he could not have known
the details he deposed.

We might be inclined to think of Weitzman, a Dallas cop, as a man of
limited knowledge and education, perhaps even unfamiliar with weapons
and inexperienced in their use. Place the Report to one side, however,
and examine Volume VII, which contains his testimony. There one reads
that Weitzman is a college graduate — indeed a graduate engineer. He
owned and operated a ladies' garment business in Dallas and later was
general manager of a corporation operating stores in several states.
He was supervisor of 26 stores for 15 years before that and he may
confidently be presumed to know the meaning of individual
responsibility and the significance of legal documents. He also knows
rifles, being 'fairly familiar' with weapons, as he said, 'because I
was in the sporting goods business awhile'."

Mark Lane is continuing to give the background on Weitzman.

And Huckster can't admit that the WCR lied by omission on this topic.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9:27:49 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane began discussing Weitzman -
> someone whom the WCR defenders wish had kept his mouth shut.
>
> "These remarks [See previous post - Mark Lane #137] constitute the
> entire comment by the Warren Commission Report on this vital issue.

Lane ignored the films and photographs showing Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world, and went with a witness who admitted he only glanced at the weapon and then described it in terms fitting Oswald's weapon.

Is he serious? Are you?

> The Commissioners did not publish or comment on Weitzman's affidavit
> in the Report;

Asked and answered. They didn't comment or publish anyone's affidavit in the report. Lane hasn't made an argument Weitzman should be an exception, instead, he's pretending publishing and commenting on other affidavits is something done in the report, and pretending to point out Weitzman is an exception to that rule.

> if they had, they would have had to explain how by a
> 'glimpse' or a 'glance', and not at close range, Weitzman was able to
> describe the telescopic sight precisely, as well as the material and
> color of the sling, not to mention why he swore to an affidavit in the
> first place if, as the Commission insisted, he could not have known
> the details he deposed.

The details you can't read unless close up is the "Made Italy" and "6.5 Cal". Those are the details Weitzman got wrong. Do I think that's a coincidence? Not at all. Lane apparently thinks Weitzman should have gleaned those details at a glance, unlike the color and condition of the stock or the material of the strap.

>
> We might be inclined to think of Weitzman, a Dallas cop, as a man of
> limited knowledge and education, perhaps even unfamiliar with weapons
> and inexperienced in their use. Place the Report to one side, however,
> and examine Volume VII, which contains his testimony. There one reads
> that Weitzman is a college graduate — indeed a graduate engineer. He
> owned and operated a ladies' garment business in Dallas and later was
> general manager of a corporation operating stores in several states.
> He was supervisor of 26 stores for 15 years before that and he may
> confidently be presumed to know the meaning of individual
> responsibility and the significance of legal documents. He also knows
> rifles, being 'fairly familiar' with weapons, as he said, 'because I
> was in the sporting goods business awhile'."

So that explains why Weitzman got so much right and got wrong only the details you'd need to be up close to the weapon to read.

Tell Mark Lane thanks for making that point for me. But as usual, he comes at these points from the wrong direction and reaches the wrong conclusion.

>
> Mark Lane is continuing to give the background on Weitzman.
>
> And Huckster can't admit that the WCR lied by omission on this topic.

Because they didn't. Mark Lane, in making the nonsense argument about the Commission not publishing or commenting on his affidavit in the report, lies by commission.

Ben to delete my points and call me names.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:40:09 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9:27:49 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane began discussing Weitzman -
>> someone whom the WCR defenders wish had kept his mouth shut.
>>
>> "These remarks [See previous post - Mark Lane #137] constitute the
>> entire comment by the Warren Commission Report on this vital issue.

LFD.

>Is he serious? Are you?

You clearly aren't. Perhaps because you simply have no explanation
for the lying of the WCR.

>> The Commissioners did not publish or comment on Weitzman's affidavit
>> in the Report;
>
>Asked and answered.

Nope.

You know, I know, and any HONEST person knows that an investigation
would have dealt with such issues... while a prosecution wouldn't.

>> if they had, they would have had to explain how by a
>> 'glimpse' or a 'glance', and not at close range, Weitzman was able to
>> describe the telescopic sight precisely, as well as the material and
>> color of the sling, not to mention why he swore to an affidavit in the
>> first place if, as the Commission insisted, he could not have known
>> the details he deposed.

LFD.

>> We might be inclined to think of Weitzman, a Dallas cop, as a man of
>> limited knowledge and education, perhaps even unfamiliar with weapons
>> and inexperienced in their use. Place the Report to one side, however,
>> and examine Volume VII, which contains his testimony. There one reads
>> that Weitzman is a college graduate — indeed a graduate engineer. He
>> owned and operated a ladies' garment business in Dallas and later was
>> general manager of a corporation operating stores in several states.
>> He was supervisor of 26 stores for 15 years before that and he may
>> confidently be presumed to know the meaning of individual
>> responsibility and the significance of legal documents. He also knows
>> rifles, being 'fairly familiar' with weapons, as he said, 'because I
>> was in the sporting goods business awhile'."

LFD.

>> Mark Lane is continuing to give the background on Weitzman.
>>
>> And Huckster can't admit that the WCR lied by omission on this topic.

Lies deleted.

[Hank Sienzant]

“LFD”, “Nope”, “LFD”, “LFD”, and “Lies deleted” is the extent of Ben’s Rebuttal (if you can even call it that) to this:

== quote ==

On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9:27:49 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane began discussing Weitzman -
> someone whom the WCR defenders wish had kept his mouth shut.
>
> "These remarks [See previous post - Mark Lane #137] constitute the
> entire comment by the Warren Commission Report on this vital issue.

Ben deleted, ignored, and failed to address this: “Lane ignored the films and photographs showing Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world, and went with a witness who admitted he only glanced at the weapon and then described it in terms fitting Oswald's weapon.”

“Is he serious? Are you?”

> The Commissioners did not publish or comment on Weitzman's affidavit
> in the Report;

Ben deleted, ignored, and failed to address this: “Asked and answered. They didn't comment or publish anyone's affidavit in the report. Lane hasn't made an argument Weitzman should be an exception, instead, he's pretending publishing and commenting on other affidavits is something done in the report, and pretending to point out Weitzman is an exception to that rule.”

> if they had, they would have had to explain how by a
> 'glimpse' or a 'glance', and not at close range, Weitzman was able to
> describe the telescopic sight precisely, as well as the material and
> color of the sling, not to mention why he swore to an affidavit in the
> first place if, as the Commission insisted, he could not have known
> the details he deposed.

Ben deleted, ignored, and failed to address this: “The details you can't read unless close up is the "Made Italy" and "6.5 Cal". Those are the details Weitzman got wrong. Do I think that's a coincidence? Not at all. Lane apparently thinks Weitzman should have gleaned those details at a glance, unlike the color and condition of the stock or the material of the strap.”

>
> We might be inclined to think of Weitzman, a Dallas cop, as a man of
> limited knowledge and education, perhaps even unfamiliar with weapons
> and inexperienced in their use. Place the Report to one side, however,
> and examine Volume VII, which contains his testimony. There one reads
> that Weitzman is a college graduate — indeed a graduate engineer. He
> owned and operated a ladies' garment business in Dallas and later was
> general manager of a corporation operating stores in several states.
> He was supervisor of 26 stores for 15 years before that and he may
> confidently be presumed to know the meaning of individual
> responsibility and the significance of legal documents. He also knows
> rifles, being 'fairly familiar' with weapons, as he said, 'because I
> was in the sporting goods business awhile'."

Ben deleted, ignored, and failed to address this: “So that explains why Weitzman got so much right and got wrong only the details you'd need to be up close to the weapon to read.”

“Tell Mark Lane thanks for making that point for me. But as usual, he comes at these points from the wrong direction and reaches the wrong conclusion.”

>
> Mark Lane is continuing to give the background on Weitzman.
>
> And Huckster can't admit that the WCR lied by omission on this topic.

Ben deleted, ignored, and failed to address this: “Because they didn't. Mark Lane, in making the nonsense argument about the Commission not publishing or commenting on his affidavit in the report, lies by commission.”

Ben to delete my points and call me names.

== unquote ==

And as predicted, Ben deleted my points and called me names.

If he had the evidence on his side, you’d think he could do a better job of rebuttal.

Ben to pretend he has the evidence and his responses above are expansive enough.

[Ben Holmes]

When I see a response triple the size of my post, I alway know I'm
about to delete a lot of logical fallacies...


On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 05:20:43 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

And deleted again...

As predicted, Huckster can't deal with the topic Mark Lane raises.

[Chuck Schuyler]

The rest of us have no problem seeing that Hank is dealing with your Mark Lane hobby points just fine.

Too bad you can't see it. He's doing a heck of a job.

It's almost as if you don't read what he writes...

Oh, did I poison the well or something there? Lol.

[Ben Holmes]

>The rest of us...

Can't refute Mark Lane either.

Embarrassing, isn't it?

[Hank Sienzant]

He can see it. That’s why his only recourse is to delete almost everything I write and label it a logical fallacy or something akin to that.

LFD”, “Nope”, “LFD”, “LFD”, and “Lies deleted” was the extent of Ben’s Rebuttal (if you can even call it that) above. If he had facts and evidence on his side, he would defend Lane. But he doesn’t even try to defend Lane assertions. Because the evidence doesn’t support Ben, or Lane.

>
> It's almost as if you don't read what he writes...
>
> Oh, did I poison the well or something there? Lol.

No, he reads it. He just can’t summon any evidence to refute it. So he’s reduced to deleting what I write and the evidence I cite and call it all a logical false. And we’ve seen him do this repeatedly. So much so, one would be justified in thinking Ben cannot defend Lane and Lane was building a false case for conspiracy.

[Hank Sienzant]

Quote out of context.

> Can't refute Mark Lane either.

The logical fallacy of a Begged Question.


>
> Embarrassing, isn't it?

For Lane. And his defender(s) here.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 09:28:28 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

>> Can't refute Mark Lane either.
>>

>> Embarrassing, isn't it?

Huckster had nothing meaningful to say...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 09:26:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

And effectively point out the logical fallacies and lies...

[Hank Sienzant]

Then why must you delete it instead of rebutting it?

[Hank Sienzant]

Quote out of context.

> And effectively point out the logical fallacies and lies...

You haven’t done so. You’ve deleted all my points and ignored every one. There’s nothing effective about that.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 12:50:58 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

>> And effectively point out the logical fallacies and lies...
>

>You haven’t ...

I have.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 12:48:57 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

>Then...

There...

[Hank Sienzant]

What Ben wrote is above.

What I wrote is below:

On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 12:40:10 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9:27:49 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane began discussing Weitzman -
> > someone whom the WCR defenders wish had kept his mouth shut.
> >
> > "These remarks [See previous post - Mark Lane #137] constitute the
> > entire comment by the Warren Commission Report on this vital issue.

> Lane ignored the films and photographs showing Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world, and went with a witness who admitted he only glanced at the weapon and then described it in terms fitting Oswald's weapon.
>

> Is he serious? Are you?

> > The Commissioners did not publish or comment on Weitzman's affidavit
> > in the Report;

> Asked and answered. They didn't comment or publish anyone's affidavit in the report. Lane hasn't made an argument Weitzman should be an exception, instead, he's pretending publishing and commenting on other affidavits is something done in the report, and pretending to point out Weitzman is an exception to that rule.

> > if they had, they would have had to explain how by a
> > 'glimpse' or a 'glance', and not at close range, Weitzman was able to
> > describe the telescopic sight precisely, as well as the material and
> > color of the sling, not to mention why he swore to an affidavit in the
> > first place if, as the Commission insisted, he could not have known
> > the details he deposed.

> The details you can't read unless close up is the "Made Italy" and "6.5 Cal". Those are the details Weitzman got wrong. Do I think that's a coincidence? Not at all. Lane apparently thinks Weitzman should have gleaned those details at a glance, unlike the color and condition of the stock or the material of the strap.
> >

> > We might be inclined to think of Weitzman, a Dallas cop, as a man of
> > limited knowledge and education, perhaps even unfamiliar with weapons
> > and inexperienced in their use. Place the Report to one side, however,
> > and examine Volume VII, which contains his testimony. There one reads
> > that Weitzman is a college graduate — indeed a graduate engineer. He
> > owned and operated a ladies' garment business in Dallas and later was
> > general manager of a corporation operating stores in several states.
> > He was supervisor of 26 stores for 15 years before that and he may
> > confidently be presumed to know the meaning of individual
> > responsibility and the significance of legal documents. He also knows
> > rifles, being 'fairly familiar' with weapons, as he said, 'because I
> > was in the sporting goods business awhile'."

> So that explains why Weitzman got so much right and got wrong only the details you'd need to be up close to the weapon to read.
>
> Tell Mark Lane thanks for making that point for me. But as usual, he comes at these points from the wrong direction and reaches the wrong conclusion.
> >

> > Mark Lane is continuing to give the background on Weitzman.
> >
> > And Huckster can't admit that the WCR lied by omission on this topic.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 11:07:22 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Yep.

[Hank Sienzant]

What Ben said is “Yep.”

What I said and remains unrefuted is below:

On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9:27:49 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane began discussing Weitzman -
> someone whom the WCR defenders wish had kept his mouth shut.
>
> "These remarks [See previous post - Mark Lane #137] constitute the
> entire comment by the Warren Commission Report on this vital issue.

Lane ignored the films and photographs showing Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world, and went with a witness who admitted he only glanced at the weapon and then described it in terms fitting Oswald's weapon.

Is he serious? Are you?

> The Commissioners did not publish or comment on Weitzman's affidavit
> in the Report;

Asked and answered. They didn't comment or publish anyone's affidavit in the report. Lane hasn't made an argument Weitzman should be an exception, instead, he's pretending publishing and commenting on other affidavits is something done in the report, and pretending to point out Weitzman is an exception to that rule.

> if they had, they would have had to explain how by a
> 'glimpse' or a 'glance', and not at close range, Weitzman was able to
> describe the telescopic sight precisely, as well as the material and
> color of the sling, not to mention why he swore to an affidavit in the
> first place if, as the Commission insisted, he could not have known
> the details he deposed.

The details you can't read unless close up is the "Made Italy" and "6.5 Cal". Those are the details Weitzman got wrong. Do I think that's a coincidence? Not at all. Lane apparently thinks Weitzman should have gleaned those details at a glance, unlike the color and condition of the stock or the material of the strap.


>

> We might be inclined to think of Weitzman, a Dallas cop, as a man of
> limited knowledge and education, perhaps even unfamiliar with weapons
> and inexperienced in their use. Place the Report to one side, however,
> and examine Volume VII, which contains his testimony. There one reads
> that Weitzman is a college graduate — indeed a graduate engineer. He
> owned and operated a ladies' garment business in Dallas and later was
> general manager of a corporation operating stores in several states.
> He was supervisor of 26 stores for 15 years before that and he may
> confidently be presumed to know the meaning of individual
> responsibility and the significance of legal documents. He also knows
> rifles, being 'fairly familiar' with weapons, as he said, 'because I
> was in the sporting goods business awhile'."

So that explains why Weitzman got so much right and got wrong only the details you'd need to be up close to the weapon to read.

Tell Mark Lane thanks for making that point for me. But as usual, he comes at these points from the wrong direction and reaches the wrong conclusion.


>

> Mark Lane is continuing to give the background on Weitzman.
>
> And Huckster can't admit that the WCR lied by omission on this topic.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 07:02:24 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Mark Lane continues schooling Huckster... and Huckster doesn't like
it.

[Hank Sienzant]

It’s a faith-based belief, and Ben goes to his rosary and starts his prayer vigil when his faith wanes.

Ben refutes none of the evidence Lane was disingenuous throughout his book. He just keeps praying “Lane told the truth, Lane told the truth, Lane told the truth…”

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 09:29:25 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

End post whining deleted.

[Hank Sienzant]

So exactly as I described here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/0beNRhQGZ60/m/kwvAa928BQAJ
“So exactly what I said. Ben again rebuts nothing, deletes all the points and all the evidence cited, and then pretends he’s a knowledgeable critic willing to debate. Yet still refuses to debate anything.”

Thanks for proving my point by doing it once more.”

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 19:17:39 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

>So ...

Endpost whining deleted.

[Hank Sienzant]

What Ben deleted and what his latest post doubles down on:

So exactly what I said. “ Ben again rebuts nothing, deletes all the points and all the evidence cited, and then pretends he’s a knowledgeable critic willing to debate. Yet still refuses to debate anything.”

Thanks for proving my point by doing it once more. (Now twice more!)

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 09:22:34 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Endpost whining deleted.