info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mark Lane - (#86) - The Undisputed Truth.
203 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Sep 8, 2021, 8:25:09 AM9/8/21
to
In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
to about the finding of C.E. 399.
"The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
Connally'."
Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
to about the finding of C.E. 399.
"The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
Connally'."
Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
Tim Brennan
Sep 8, 2021, 8:37:16 AM9/8/21
to
This one is ALWAYS worth a repost:
http://www.jfk-online.com/mark-lane-the-left%27s-leading-hearse-chaser.pdf
Mother Jones SAVAGES Mark Lane, courtesy of the Harold Weisberg online collection.
The undisputed TRUTH is that Mark Lane was a lying ASSHOLE, Benny!
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark (KGB Codename: KRAM) Lane lied!
Chuck Schuyler
Sep 8, 2021, 2:22:47 PM9/8/21
to
Ben Holmes
Sep 8, 2021, 2:43:51 PM9/8/21
to
On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 11:22:46 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 22:25:09 UTC+10, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
>>> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
>>>
>>> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
>>> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
>>> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
>>> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
>>> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
>>> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
>>> Connally'."
>>>
>>> Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
>>> theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
>
>Bump.
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 22:25:09 UTC+10, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
>>> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
>>>
>>> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
>>> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
>>> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
>>> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
>>> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
>>> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
>>> Connally'."
>>>
>>> Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
>>> theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
>
Quite the coward, aren't you Chuckles?
Just like Huckster, you've simply RUN AWAY from these undisputed facts
that Mark Lane is schooling you on.
I do hope that you understand that this is a losing tactic... that you
can't even convince your own mother with cowardice...
You need to REFUTE what Mark Lane is pointing out.
Nothing less will do.
Chuck Schuyler
Sep 8, 2021, 3:00:39 PM9/8/21
to
On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 1:43:51 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 11:22:46 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 22:25:09 UTC+10, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
> >>> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
> >>>
> >>> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
> >>> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
> >>> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
> >>> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
> >>> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
> >>> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
> >>> Connally'."
> >>>
> >>> Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
> >>> theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
> >
> >Bump.
>
>
> Quite the coward, aren't you Chuckles?
Yawn.
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 11:22:46 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 22:25:09 UTC+10, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
> >>> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
> >>>
> >>> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
> >>> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
> >>> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
> >>> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
> >>> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
> >>> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
> >>> Connally'."
> >>>
> >>> Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
> >>> theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
> >
> >Bump.
>
>
> Quite the coward, aren't you Chuckles?
>
> Just like Huckster, you've simply RUN AWAY from these undisputed facts
> that Mark Lane is schooling you on.
The undisputed facts that something else happened, somehow, and that Lane doesn't believe LBJ was involved? Those undisputed facts? Seems to me that your buddy Mark Lane disagrees with you on a very fundamental part of your theory.
> Just like Huckster, you've simply RUN AWAY from these undisputed facts
> that Mark Lane is schooling you on.
>
> I do hope that you understand that this is a losing tactic... that you
> can't even convince your own mother with cowardice...
Whatever that means.
> I do hope that you understand that this is a losing tactic... that you
> can't even convince your own mother with cowardice...
>
> You need to REFUTE what Mark Lane is pointing out.
No, I don't need to do anything. If anything, you need to refute Mark Lane, who pointed out a major flaw in your theory: LBJ as assassin mastermind (or whatever words you want to use to describe LBJ's involvement).
> You need to REFUTE what Mark Lane is pointing out.
>
> Nothing less will do.
Then start refuting Lane, if "refuting" theories is the standard. You have deep disagreements with Lane. You can't both be right.
Why should I believe you when The Wizard himself, Mark Lane, claims LBJ wasn't involved?
Isn't Lane a more "knowledgeable" critic than you?
Sky Throne 19efppp
Sep 8, 2021, 3:11:16 PM9/8/21
to
Bud
Sep 8, 2021, 3:40:00 PM9/8/21
to
On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
>
> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
> Connally'."
What Tomlinson testified to as being on the gurney he found the bullet on is very close to what the nurse who attended Connolly said was on the gurney that Connolly was on. But of course conspiracy folks are not interested in what really happened.
> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
>
> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
> Connally'."
> Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
> theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
How does Tomlinson`s uncertainty impact the WC`s theory?
Hank Sienzant
Sep 8, 2021, 4:03:38 PM9/8/21
to
On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
>
> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
> Connally'."
Tomlinson also testified that he *couldn't be positive* which stretcher came off the elevator and *wasn't paying much attention to the stretchers*.
> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
>
> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
> Connally'."
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0071a.htm
A pity Mark Lane didn’t share that info with his readers.
>
> Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
> theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
A pity Mark Lane didn’t share that info with his readers.
The Warren Commission also eliminated the late President's stretcher as the source of the bullet.
So if not the President's stretcher, whose? How many shooting victims were in the emergency rooms at that time, anyway?
Watch Ben fail to discuss any of these points and call me names.
Hank Sienzant
Sep 8, 2021, 4:24:46 PM9/8/21
to
On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 3:40:00 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
> > to about the finding of C.E. 399.
> >
> > "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
> > from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
> > was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
> > testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
> > fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
> > the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
> > Connally'."
> What Tomlinson testified to as being on the gurney he found the bullet on is very close to what the nurse who attended Connolly said was on the gurney that Connolly was on. But of course conspiracy folks are not interested in what really happened.
Yes, this is more information the Warren Commission relied on to make an informed decision - information that Mark Lane denies his readers:
> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
> > to about the finding of C.E. 399.
> >
> > "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
> > from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
> > was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
> > testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
> > fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
> > the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
> > Connally'."
> What Tomlinson testified to as being on the gurney he found the bullet on is very close to what the nurse who attended Connolly said was on the gurney that Connolly was on. But of course conspiracy folks are not interested in what really happened.
== quote ==
Mr. SPECTER - Now, what was done with the stretcher on which he came to that point?
Miss WESTER - I took the stretcher and rolled it to the center area of the operating room suite--rolled the sheets up on the stretcher into a small bundle.
Mr. SPECTER - Was there one sheet or more than one sheet?
Miss WESTER - I believe there were two sheets and I rolled one inside the other up into a small bundle.
Mr. SPECTER - What is the next normal procedure with respect to the number of sheets on such a stretcher in like circumstances?
Miss WESTER - The cart---the mattress on the cart is covered with one sheet, the patient is usually covered with another. When they arrive in the operating room the sheet covering the patient is removed and a grey cotton blanket is placed over the patient and the sheets are rolled up and usually returned to the emergency room with the cart.
Mr. SPECTER - What else, if anything, was on that stretcher?
Miss WESTER - There were several glassine packets, small packets of hypodermic needles---well, packed in and sterilized in. There were several others---some alcohol sponges and a roll of 1-inch tape. Those things, I definitely know, were on the cart, and the sheets, of course.
== Unquote ==
Tomlinson recalled there were one or two sheets, some glassine packets, and there could have been a sponge on the stretcher the bullet came from:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0071a.htm
A pity Mark Lane didn’t share that info with his readers. Especially if he wanted them to make an informed decision. Apparently he didn't want an informed decision.
Bud
Sep 8, 2021, 4:27:28 PM9/8/21
to
I`m looking for what the nurse said was on the gurney and what Tomlinson said was on the one he found the bullet on.
Hank Sienzant
Sep 8, 2021, 5:06:01 PM9/8/21
to
On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 4:27:28 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 4:03:38 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
> > > to about the finding of C.E. 399.
> > >
> > > "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
> > > from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
> > > was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
> > > testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
> > > fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
> > > the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
> > > Connally'."
> > Tomlinson also testified that he *couldn't be positive* which stretcher came off the elevator and *wasn't paying much attention to the stretchers*.
> > https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0071a.htm
> > A pity Mark Lane didn’t share that info with his readers.
> > >
> > > Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
> > > theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
> > No, he's presenting a biased account that leaves off everything that points to the stretcher that came off the elevator as the one containing the bullet. For example, one of those two stretchers contained a bullet, and the bullet in evidence was determined to have been fired from Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
> >
> > A pity Mark Lane didn’t share that info with his readers.
> >
> > The Warren Commission also eliminated the late President's stretcher as the source of the bullet.
> >
> > So if not the President's stretcher, whose?
> Not the President`s stretcher, Hank, I think it was Connolly`s.
Yeah, that's my point. It's not the President's stretcher. The only other known shooting victim in an emergency room at the time was Connally. So did the kid with the nosebleed blow his nose really hard and get a bullet that way, or did the bullet come from Connally's stretcher?
> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 4:03:38 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
> > > to about the finding of C.E. 399.
> > >
> > > "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
> > > from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
> > > was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
> > > testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
> > > fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
> > > the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
> > > Connally'."
> > Tomlinson also testified that he *couldn't be positive* which stretcher came off the elevator and *wasn't paying much attention to the stretchers*.
> > https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0071a.htm
> > A pity Mark Lane didn’t share that info with his readers.
> > >
> > > Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
> > > theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
> > No, he's presenting a biased account that leaves off everything that points to the stretcher that came off the elevator as the one containing the bullet. For example, one of those two stretchers contained a bullet, and the bullet in evidence was determined to have been fired from Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
> >
> > A pity Mark Lane didn’t share that info with his readers.
> >
> > The Warren Commission also eliminated the late President's stretcher as the source of the bullet.
> >
> > So if not the President's stretcher, whose?
> Not the President`s stretcher, Hank, I think it was Connolly`s.
>
> I`m looking for what the nurse said was on the gurney and what Tomlinson said was on the one he found the bullet on.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/e0zAyXn2fSU/m/cD_EN69wBgAJ
Bud
Sep 8, 2021, 5:31:26 PM9/8/21
to
On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 5:06:01 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 4:27:28 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 4:03:38 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
> > > > to about the finding of C.E. 399.
> > > >
> > > > "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
> > > > from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
> > > > was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
> > > > testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
> > > > fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
> > > > the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
> > > > Connally'."
> > > Tomlinson also testified that he *couldn't be positive* which stretcher came off the elevator and *wasn't paying much attention to the stretchers*.
> > > https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0071a.htm
> > > A pity Mark Lane didn’t share that info with his readers.
> > > >
> > > > Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
> > > > theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
> > > No, he's presenting a biased account that leaves off everything that points to the stretcher that came off the elevator as the one containing the bullet. For example, one of those two stretchers contained a bullet, and the bullet in evidence was determined to have been fired from Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
> > >
> > > A pity Mark Lane didn’t share that info with his readers.
> > >
> > > The Warren Commission also eliminated the late President's stretcher as the source of the bullet.
> > >
> > > So if not the President's stretcher, whose?
> > Not the President`s stretcher, Hank, I think it was Connolly`s.
> Yeah, that's my point. It's not the President's stretcher.
Sorry, my faulty reading.
> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 4:27:28 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 4:03:38 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
> > > > to about the finding of C.E. 399.
> > > >
> > > > "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
> > > > from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
> > > > was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
> > > > testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
> > > > fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
> > > > the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
> > > > Connally'."
> > > Tomlinson also testified that he *couldn't be positive* which stretcher came off the elevator and *wasn't paying much attention to the stretchers*.
> > > https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0071a.htm
> > > A pity Mark Lane didn’t share that info with his readers.
> > > >
> > > > Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
> > > > theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
> > > No, he's presenting a biased account that leaves off everything that points to the stretcher that came off the elevator as the one containing the bullet. For example, one of those two stretchers contained a bullet, and the bullet in evidence was determined to have been fired from Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
> > >
> > > A pity Mark Lane didn’t share that info with his readers.
> > >
> > > The Warren Commission also eliminated the late President's stretcher as the source of the bullet.
> > >
> > > So if not the President's stretcher, whose?
> > Not the President`s stretcher, Hank, I think it was Connolly`s.
> Yeah, that's my point. It's not the President's stretcher.
>The only other known shooting victim in an emergency room at the time was Connally. So did the kid with the nosebleed blow his nose really hard and get a bullet that way, or did the bullet come from Connally's stretcher?
> >
> > I`m looking for what the nurse said was on the gurney and what Tomlinson said was on the one he found the bullet on.
> Some guy named "Bud" posted that here:
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/e0zAyXn2fSU/m/cD_EN69wBgAJ
Ben Holmes
Sep 8, 2021, 6:16:05 PM9/8/21
to
On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 12:00:38 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
>> Just like Huckster, you've simply RUN AWAY from these undisputed facts
>> that Mark Lane is schooling you on.
>
> The undisputed facts ...
Yep.
You haven't disputed them. So they are, indeed - undisputed... the
evidence that Mark Lane gave, both medical and ballistic, that
contradict the SBT.
Run coward... RUN!
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 1:43:51 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 11:22:46 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 22:25:09 UTC+10, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
>>>>> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
>>>>> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
>>>>> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
>>>>> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
>>>>> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
>>>>> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
>>>>> Connally'."
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
>>>>> theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
>>>
>>>Bump.
>>
>>
>> Quite the coward, aren't you Chuckles?
>
>Yawn.
Chuckles doesn't want to deny it...
>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 1:43:51 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 11:22:46 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 22:25:09 UTC+10, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
>>>>> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
>>>>> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
>>>>> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
>>>>> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
>>>>> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
>>>>> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
>>>>> Connally'."
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
>>>>> theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
>>>
>>>Bump.
>>
>>
>> Quite the coward, aren't you Chuckles?
>
>Yawn.
>> Just like Huckster, you've simply RUN AWAY from these undisputed facts
>> that Mark Lane is schooling you on.
>
Yep.
You haven't disputed them. So they are, indeed - undisputed... the
evidence that Mark Lane gave, both medical and ballistic, that
contradict the SBT.
Run coward... RUN!
Ben Holmes
Sep 8, 2021, 6:17:30 PM9/8/21
to
On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 12:39:59 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
>> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
>>
>> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
>> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
>> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
>> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
>> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
>> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
>> Connally'."
Logical fallacy deleted.
>> Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
>> theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
>
> Mr.TOMLINSON. "Well, today or any other day, I'm just not sure of it, whether it was A or B that I took off."
>
> How does Tomlinson`s uncertainty impact the WC`s theory?
Having problems, aren't you?
wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
>> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
>>
>> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
>> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
>> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
>> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
>> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
>> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
>> Connally'."
>> Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
>> theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
>
> Mr.TOMLINSON. "Well, today or any other day, I'm just not sure of it, whether it was A or B that I took off."
>
> How does Tomlinson`s uncertainty impact the WC`s theory?
Ben Holmes
Sep 8, 2021, 6:19:08 PM9/8/21
to
On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 13:24:42 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 3:40:00 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
>>> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
>>>
>>> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
>>> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
>>> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
>>> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
>>> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
>>> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
>>> Connally'."
>> What Tomlinson testified to as being on the gurney he found the bullet on is very close to what the nurse who attended Connolly said was on the gurney that Connolly was on. But of course conspiracy folks are not interested in what really happened.
Logical fallacies deleted.
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 3:40:00 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
>>> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
>>>
>>> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
>>> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
>>> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
>>> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
>>> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
>>> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
>>> Connally'."
>> What Tomlinson testified to as being on the gurney he found the bullet on is very close to what the nurse who attended Connolly said was on the gurney that Connolly was on. But of course conspiracy folks are not interested in what really happened.
Sorry Huckster - you're going to be limited to the truth... with no
logical fallacies allowed.
And if you're back posting now, **YOU** need to address the lies you
told about Mark Lane.
Ben Holmes
Sep 8, 2021, 6:19:51 PM9/8/21
to
On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 13:03:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
>> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
>>
>> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
>> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
>> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
>> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
>> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
>> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
>> Connally'."
Logical fallacy deleted.
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
>> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
>>
>> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
>> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
>> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
>> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
>> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
>> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
>> Connally'."
>> Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
>> theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
>
Which logical fallacy would you label that one?
Bud
Sep 8, 2021, 6:22:39 PM9/8/21
to
On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:17:30 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 12:39:59 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
> >> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
> >>
> >> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
> >> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
> >> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
> >> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
> >> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
> >> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
> >> Connally'."
> Logical fallacy deleted.
<snicker> The conspiracy crackpots avoid anything that might put them on the right path at all costs.
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 12:39:59 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
> >> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
> >>
> >> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
> >> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
> >> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
> >> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
> >> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
> >> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
> >> Connally'."
> Logical fallacy deleted.
> >> Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
> >> theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
> >
> > Mr.TOMLINSON. "Well, today or any other day, I'm just not sure of it, whether it was A or B that I took off."
> >
> > How does Tomlinson`s uncertainty impact the WC`s theory?
> Having problems, aren't you?
Ben Holmes
Sep 8, 2021, 6:26:31 PM9/8/21
to
On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 15:22:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
>>>> theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
>>>
>>> Mr.TOMLINSON. "Well, today or any other day, I'm just not sure of it, whether it was A or B that I took off."
>>>
>>> How does Tomlinson`s uncertainty impact the WC`s theory?
>>
>> Having problems, aren't you?
>
> Apparently...
Well, just ask... Mark Lane will correct your misunderstandings...
wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:17:30 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 12:39:59 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
>>>> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
>>>>
>>>> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
>>>> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
>>>> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
>>>> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
>>>> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
>>>> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
>>>> Connally'."
>>
>> Logical fallacy deleted.
Another logical fallacy deleted.
>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:17:30 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 12:39:59 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
>>>> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
>>>>
>>>> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
>>>> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
>>>> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
>>>> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
>>>> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
>>>> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
>>>> Connally'."
>>
>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>>> Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
>>>> theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
>>>
>>> Mr.TOMLINSON. "Well, today or any other day, I'm just not sure of it, whether it was A or B that I took off."
>>>
>>> How does Tomlinson`s uncertainty impact the WC`s theory?
>>
>> Having problems, aren't you?
>
Well, just ask... Mark Lane will correct your misunderstandings...
Bud
Sep 8, 2021, 6:30:11 PM9/8/21
to
On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:26:31 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 15:22:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:17:30 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 12:39:59 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
> >>>> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
> >>>>
> >>>> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
> >>>> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
> >>>> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
> >>>> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
> >>>> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
> >>>> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
> >>>> Connally'."
> >>
> >> Logical fallacy deleted.
> Another logical fallacy deleted.
Can you see how this might speak to which stretcher the bullet was found on...
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 15:22:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:17:30 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 12:39:59 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
> >>>> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
> >>>>
> >>>> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
> >>>> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
> >>>> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
> >>>> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
> >>>> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
> >>>> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
> >>>> Connally'."
> >>
> >> Logical fallacy deleted.
> Another logical fallacy deleted.
Nurse Jane Westers description of the gurney Connally was on...
"rolled up the sheet on which the Governor was lying which was covered
with blood, along with several pieces of paper and placed it on one end of
the stretcher. She then placed some tools, which she cannot identify, on
the other end of the stretcher" and asked orderly Jimison to take it to
the elevator. Jimison said he saw the nurse roll up the bloody sheets and
put them on the stretcher.
Tomlinson`s description of the gurney he found the bullet, as told to the Secret Service...
"At the time he arrived at the elevator, a stretcher was on the elevator.
The stretcher contained some bloody sheets rolled in a ball, some medical
tools, two bandage pads, and a glove. Mr. Tomlinson stated that he removed
the stretcher from the elevator and placed it in a foyer ...."
> >>>> Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
> >>>> theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
> >>>
> >>> Mr.TOMLINSON. "Well, today or any other day, I'm just not sure of it, whether it was A or B that I took off."
> >>>
> >>> How does Tomlinson`s uncertainty impact the WC`s theory?
> >>
> >> Having problems, aren't you?
> >
> > Apparently...
>
>
> Well, just ask... Mark Lane will correct your misunderstandings...
Sky Throne 19efppp
Sep 8, 2021, 10:16:46 PM9/8/21
to
Hank Sienzant
Sep 9, 2021, 7:01:44 AM9/9/21
to
That’s three times you’ve admitted to Lane errors by my count.
And yeah, to be honest, that’s exactly what I thought when I saw the first few “innocent errors” by Lane. But as the errors accumulate, it gets tougher to keep excusing them as you start to see the pattern of Lane failing to mention any testimony that points to the Warren Commission conclusions and bringing hearsay accounts (like from newspapers) to the fore and stressing those. And eventually it becomes apparent they are not innocent errors at all.
Sky Throne 19efppp
Sep 9, 2021, 7:31:28 AM9/9/21
to
Hank Sienzant
Sep 9, 2021, 9:14:58 AM9/9/21
to
I’m pointing out the evidence that Mark Lane ignored, and documenting why and how I reached the conclusion that Mark Lane dishonestly dealt with the evidence.
> WF Buckley JR., I notice, does the same thing as you, he premises his show as an ad hominem attack on Lane. Buckley is not interested in the "minutia," that is the evidence.
> He wants to talk about Mark Lane's motivations. It's a very old game you're playing, Sienzant.
> Mark Lane's mistakes are trivial compared to some of the things I've seen from Posner and Bugliosi.
> Mark Lane told the truth about Tomlinson, so you say he was lying about Wester, whom he never mentioned at all.
> This is nitpicking stuff designed to be an ad hominem attack.
Indeed, it can be argued that’s exactly what Mark Lane’s book Rush to Judgment is purporting to do. Isn’t the subject of his book how the Warren Commission ignored evidence that pointed to a conspiracy? So how can my pointing out the evidence Lane ignored be anything except tit-for-tat?
And how do I get some tat and where do exchange it for the other stuff? (Dennis Miller, Weekend Update, SNL).
To date you’ve admitted to three times Mark Lane failed to mention the evidence that disproves Lane’s assertions but excused all three as perhaps him not being aware of that evidence. At some point you’ll understand that excuse for Lane’s supposed ignorance of the case evidence becomes untenable. How can he be a legit critic of the Commission’s conclusions if he’s repeatedly ignorant of the evidence the Commission used to reach their conclusions?
And perhaps after you’ve used that excuse two, three or four dozen more times you’ll understand it’s not an ad hominem attack on Lane to point out all the times Lane ignored the evidence that supported the Commission’s conclusions. And you’ll start to see it for what it was.
Sky Throne 19efppp
Sep 9, 2021, 9:32:53 AM9/9/21
to
Hank Sienzant
Sep 11, 2021, 12:58:37 AM9/11/21
to
> Tomlinson, the guy who found, allegedly, the Magic Bullet, did not know which stretcher it came off. That is true. Sure, Mark Lane could have got into a speculative argument about which stretcher it did come from, but that is irrelevant to the point. The guy who found the bullet did not know where it came from. You can speculate that it fell out of Connally onto his stretcher, but that is just speculation. You do not know that it was on his stretcher. And I don't have to make an alternative argument for where it came from just because you cannot prove that it came from Connally's stretcher. You, the prosecution, have failed to prove your point. You have a bullet that came off some stretcher, if it even is the same bullet now in evidence. It is ridiculous to expect Mark Lane to make the prosecution's case.
But that’s nonsense at this point in time, not least because Oswald is dead, so there’s no way to set him free or execute him if guilty. There’s no point to your argument above, it’s meaningless.
This is a historical case. At this point we’re looking for the best solution that encompasses most of the evidence and does so in the simplest manner with the fewest assumptions. That automatically eliminates most conspiracy theories, because “the evidence points to Oswald because he did it” is far simpler as a historical explanation and has far fewer assumptions than “the evidence points to Oswald because the plotters had multiple shooters kill Kennedy and then had the body altered, had the film altered, swapped out the rifle found, created fake photos of Oswald with the rifle, created fake paperwork showing Oswald purchased the rifle, planted all the bullets, had an Oswald double since he was a teen (along with a doubled mother!), lied about what Oswald said in custody, etc., killed a lot of witnesses, ad nauseum.”
So you don’t get off the hook by pretending you’re a defense lawyer. You’re not. We’re debating the best historical explanation to the crime of the last century, and I have a nuclear weapon arsenal on my side and you’re coming to this firefight with a peashooter.
Besides, the bullet in evidence speaks for itself. It was fired from Oswald’s weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. The guy who found it can’t eliminate Connally’s stretcher, but other testimony eliminates JFK’s stretcher. So give a more reasonable explanation to the jury - if you want to pretend this is a jury trial - for how a bullet from Oswald’s gun wound up in evidence as the bullet which was found in Parkland. Go ahead, Mr. Defense Counsel, the jury has heard how the evidence points to Oswald firing the bullets that wounded the Governor and killed the President, tell them why they should disregard that evidence and let the guy whose rifle is in evidence walk. “All that evidence is bullshit” isn’t going to cut it here.
Make your case. Cite your evidence. We’ll wait.
Sky Throne 19efppp
Sep 11, 2021, 1:04:12 AM9/11/21
to
Hank Sienzant
Sep 11, 2021, 6:40:21 AM9/11/21
to
Sky Throne 19efppp
Sep 11, 2021, 9:07:41 AM9/11/21
to
healyd...@gmail.com
Sep 11, 2021, 4:03:48 PM9/11/21
to
On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 12:00:39 PM UTC-7, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 1:43:51 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 11:22:46 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
> > <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 22:25:09 UTC+10, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
> > >>> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
> > >>>
> > >>> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
> > >>> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
> > >>> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
> > >>> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
> > >>> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
> > >>> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
> > >>> Connally'."
> > >>>
> > >>> Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
> > >>> theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
> > >
> > >Bump.
> >
> >
> > Quite the coward, aren't you Chuckles?
> Yawn.
Mother already knows you're quite the coward, eh Tinsel Tongue?
> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 1:43:51 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 11:22:46 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
> > <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 22:25:09 UTC+10, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
> > >>> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
> > >>>
> > >>> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
> > >>> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
> > >>> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
> > >>> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
> > >>> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
> > >>> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
> > >>> Connally'."
> > >>>
> > >>> Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
> > >>> theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
> > >
> > >Bump.
> >
> >
> > Quite the coward, aren't you Chuckles?
> Yawn.
healyd...@gmail.com
Sep 11, 2021, 4:09:26 PM9/11/21
to
Hank Sienzant
Sep 11, 2021, 6:18:52 PM9/11/21
to
Hank Sienzant
Sep 12, 2021, 7:48:13 AM9/12/21
to
On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:19:51 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 13:03:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
> >> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
> >>
> >> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
> >> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
> >> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
> >> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
> >> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
> >> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
> >> Connally'."
> Logical fallacy deleted.
That’s a “Proof by Assertion” LOGICAL FALLACY — by you. You have yet to show any logical fallacy by me.
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 13:03:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
> >> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
> >>
> >> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
> >> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
> >> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
> >> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
> >> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
> >> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
> >> Connally'."
> Logical fallacy deleted.
Here’s what I wrote and you deleted:
== quote ==
Tomlinson also testified that he *couldn't be positive* which stretcher came off the elevator and *wasn't paying much attention to the stretchers*.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0071a.htm
A pity Mark Lane didn’t share that info with his readers.
== unquote ==
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0071a.htm
A pity Mark Lane didn’t share that info with his readers.
Show the logical fallacy. You won’t. Because there is none.
> >> Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
> >> theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
> >
> >No, he's presenting a biased account ...
>
> Which logical fallacy would you label that one?
Here’s what I wrote and you deleted:
== quote ==
No, he's presenting a biased account that leaves off everything that points to the stretcher that came off the elevator as the one containing the bullet. For example, one of those two stretchers contained a bullet, and the bullet in evidence was determined to have been fired from Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
A pity Mark Lane didn’t share that info with his readers.
The Warren Commission also eliminated the late President's stretcher as the source of the bullet.
So if not the President's stretcher, whose? How many shooting victims were in the emergency rooms at that time, anyway?
Watch Ben fail to discuss any of these points and call me names.
== unquote ==
A pity Mark Lane didn’t share that info with his readers.
The Warren Commission also eliminated the late President's stretcher as the source of the bullet.
So if not the President's stretcher, whose? How many shooting victims were in the emergency rooms at that time, anyway?
Watch Ben fail to discuss any of these points and call me names.
He didn’t call me names — yet — but he did delete my points and fail to discuss either of them, substituting two logical fallacies where his discussion of the points should have been.
Ben Holmes
Sep 13, 2021, 10:47:15 AM9/13/21
to
On Sat, 11 Sep 2021 15:18:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> Conspiracy theorist can surmise anything they want, and frequently
> do. Above is just one example. Providing the evidence to support that
> when asked? Well, that doesn’t happen with anywhere near the same
> frequency. Far more frequent is logical fallacies like ad hominem,
> straw man arguments, and shifting the burden of proof.
Let's examine that....
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> Conspiracy theorist can surmise anything they want, and frequently
> do. Above is just one example. Providing the evidence to support that
> when asked? Well, that doesn’t happen with anywhere near the same
> frequency. Far more frequent is logical fallacies like ad hominem,
> straw man arguments, and shifting the burden of proof.
Original source:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10217726&postcount=489
Nothing deleted, all logical fallacies left in place and pointed out:
>> RoboTimbo:
>> Hank, what was his motivation for being such a liar?
>> I can only conjecture; as I'm not a mind-reader.
Notice that we start off with a logical fallacy, and Huckster pretends
not to notice that.
> I believe he was ahead of the curve and saw this assassination as his
> meal ticket. And it has proven to be, as he's written like ten books
> on the JFK and MLK assassinations now.
And Huckster replies with a logical fallacy... poisoning the well...
completely uncited speculation of Mark Lane's motivations.
To paraphrase Huckster himself: When you start with logical fallacies
we know it won't go well for you.
> He started in on the lies within less than a month of the
> assassination.
>
> http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/OI-ALB.html
Again with a logical fallacy. No "lie" has been demonstrated or
proven in any way whatsoever... merely another poisoning of the well
by the logic master, Huckster Sienzant. While Huckster can be
congratulated for supplying his sources, the mistake he made is that
his uncited sources prove *HIM* a liar, not Mark Lane.
See below for the actual news conference cite - where anyone can see
that Huckster clearly never bothered to look it up.
> He was the first person to publish any attempted defense of Oswald.
Another poisoning of the well, as well as a begged logical fallacy.
> His initial piece appeared in the National Guardian less than a month
> after the assassination and can be seen at the link above. His defense
> appeared as a rebuttal to the points made by Dallas District Attorney
> Henry Wade in a press conference on the evening of 11/24/63. This was
> later on the same day that Oswald had been killed by Jack Ruby.
Henry Wade's assertions of Oswald's guilt was VASTLY quicker than Mark
Lane's publishing of the rebuttal - if "speed" is any indicator, then
Henry Wade is who you should be attacking, not Mark Lane.
What is your point (other than another attempted poisoning of the
well) to reference the speed with which a defense attorney did what he
felt was right?
Huckster will ignore this point - and refuse to explain his words...
watch!
> Henry Wade was asked what evidence had been gathered to establish
> Oswald was the assassin.
Let's stop right there, and repeat that sentence:
HENRY WADE WAS ASKED WHAT EVIDENCE HAD BEEN
GATHERED TO ESTABLISH THAT OSWALD WAS THE ASSASSIN.
This *ONE* statement completely obliterates Huckster's attempted
framing of Mark Lane with a "lie."
Since Mark Lane was smart enough to actually address the issue. Keep
this in mind as you read Huckster's attempted character assassination
of Mark Lane... WADE WAS ANSWERING A QUESTION.
And Huckster is lying about it.
But more importantly, Huckster has the facts wrong. I invite everyone
to go view this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r43IefWoO_Y
This is the November 24th news conference that Mark Lane and Huckster
are talking about. Henry Wade begins by saying:
"The purpose of this news conference is to detail some of the evidence
against Oswald for the assassination of the President."
So - no question was asked as Huckster claims, and the topic is
PRECISELY what Mark Lane said it was.
And Wade can't be "ill-prepared" - since it's quite clear that he's
reading from notes compiled in anticipation of this news conference.
> Wade was ill-prepared for that question, as he hadn't familiarized
> himself sufficiently to correctly summarize it all.
This is more naked opinion being offered to defend Wade from the
outright lie he told. The liar *here* is Huckster.
And Huckster's opinion cannot change the facts. This was a planned
news conference where Henry Wade got up and spoke - no question was
being answered, so there was no fumbling due to being ill prepared...
In fact, it's quite clear from the video that Henry Wade was looking
down at notes as he made his speech.
SO HUCKSTER'S A PROVEN LIAR - there was no "ill-prepared" in sight...
Watch folks, as Huckster refuses to admit that he lied.
> However, some of it was accurate, and Lane had to mis-characterize it
> to attempt to make it appear erroneous.
Keep this statement in mind... it's *NEVER* going to be supported in
the entire rest of this post...
It's simply impossible to know what the "some of it" was - because
Huckster never tells you.
> Indeed, his very first point in his rebuttal deals with Henry Wade's
> first point, and Lane has to use the logical fallacy of a straw
> argument to attempt to rebut it.
Wow! Mark Lane actually *FIRST* dealt with Henry Wade's *FIRST*
point? What a shocker!
Of course, you're telling a blatant and UNSUPPORTED lie in claiming
that it was a logical fallacy - as anyone can see who actually views
the news conference by Wade.
> Here's what Wade said: "First, there was a number of witnesses that
> saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor of the bookstore
> building, in the window—detailing the window—where he was looking
> out.”
Huckster is pretending here that Wade is trying to document a shooter
firing from the TSBD. But that wasn't what he said. Let's repeat it
again for anyone that forgot: "The purpose of this news conference is
to detail some of the evidence against Oswald for the assassination of
the President."
Huckster doesn't know the facts, and pretends a question was asked,
but the topic is CLEARLY what evidence there is for Oswald's guilt.
HENRY WADE MAKES THAT CRYSTAL CLEAR!
So why are you lying, Huckster? Wade was giving the evidence for
OSWALD'S guilt. You clearly don't know this. Mark Lane is correct.
Mark Lane DIRECTLY ADDRESSED that topic. And you're desperately and
quite dishonestly changing that into a logical fallacy and a "lie."
> Note Wade does not mention Oswald.
Yes he does. He begins by saying: "The purpose of this news conference
is to detail some of the evidence against Oswald for the assassination
of the President."
You're lying, Huckster, first in your pretense that Wade was
ill-prepared and got flustered answering a question, then you're lying
in your claim that Mark Lane didn't DIRECTLY ADDRESS WHAT WADE SAID.
> He is making the point that numerous witnesses saw a gunman in the
> Texas School Book Depository. And that statement is absolutely true --
> numerous witnesses did see a gunman on the sixth floor of the Texas
> School Book Depository.
So your claim here is that Henry Wade DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION (Even
though there wasn't one), then you indict Mark Lane for his "lie" of
addressing Henry Wade's evasion of that (non-existent) question.
That dog won't hunt.
You're telling an outright whopper.
Wade stated very clearly what he was doing: "The purpose of this news
conference is to detail some of the evidence against Oswald for the
assassination of the President."
Mark Lane ADDRESSED what Wade said, and showed how it was a lie.
Just as I'm showing, AND PROVING, that you're lying about the facts
here.
> Lane can't argue that point as stated, so he doesn't even try.
YOU are the liar. Mark Lane did indeed address EXACTLY what Wade
tried to claim.
You want Mark Lane to simply ignore the fact that Wade ASSERTED THAT
HE WAS GIVING THE EVIDENCE FOR OSWALD'S GUILT. But he didn't... and
you label him a liar for doing this.
**YOU** are the liar. Proven.
> Instead, he pretends Wade said "First, there was a number of
> witnesses that saw Oswald with the gun on the sixth floor of the
> bookstore building, in the window—detailing the window—where he was
> looking out.”
This was PRECISELY the intent of Wade's response to the question. As
he stated, he was giving the evidence for OSWALD as the shooter...
Mark Lane DIRECTLY ADDRESSED what Henry Wade said.
Amusingly, you're simply too dishonest to ever publicly admit it.
> Here's exactly how Mark Lane framed that straw argument:
>
>=== QUOTE ==
>Point One
>
> A number of witnesses saw Oswald at the window of the sixth floor of
> the Texas School Book Depository.
>
> SINCE IT IS ALLEGED that Oswald fired through that window, that
> assertion is important. Wade was unequivocal, stating, “First, there
> was a number of witnesses that saw the person with the gun on the
> sixth floor of the bookstore building, in the window—detailing the
> window—where he was looking out.” Subsequently, it developed that the
> “number of witnesses” was in reality one witness, who was quoted as
> follows: “I can’t identify him, but if I see a man who looks like him,
> I’ll point him out.” (Newsweek—Dec. 9) Such “identification” is at
> best speculative and would not be permitted in that form at trial.
>== UNQUOTE ==
>
> That is a straw argument, and Lane is pretending to rebut Wade's
> point, but he is actually rebutting a point of his own creation.
No Huckster, *YOUR* claim is a lie... Wade was giving the evidence for
Oswald's guilt that he said he would - and Mark Lane answered him on
THAT BASIS.
You're pretending that Wade was merely discussing where the shots came
from... THIS IS NOT TRUE.
Wade was trying his best to indict Oswald - he was detailing what
evidence they had for Oswald's guilt - and Mark Lane DIRECTLY
ADDRESSED what Wade claimed.
So there are two liars here... Wade for trying to mislead people about
the true evidence, and *YOU* for trying to label Mark Lane a liar for
CORRECTLY pointing out the facts.
> That is dishonest.
And, as I'm demonstrating, it's *YOU* that is dishonest. Mark Lane's
"creation" is the simple truth - WADE WAS EXPLAINING WHAT EVIDENCE
EXISTED FOR THE GUILT OF OSWALD.
When you lie about this, you're simply a proven liar... nothing else.
> And Lane was doing it from his very first article on the
> assassination. Indeed, in his very first rebuttal point he ever made
> on the assassination.
Lane was doing what??? Telling the truth, and correctly rebutting
lies being told to convince the public that Oswald was guilty???
You've gone no-where, Huckster... other than to tell blatant lies and
use logical fallacies. You provably don't even understand the basic
facts you're discussing. The mythical "question" not asked - the
"ill-preparation" (as he's reading from prepared notes).
You clearly tried to invent a question never asked at the November
24th news conference, and tried to pretend that Wade was
"ill-prepared." The truth, as anyone can view for themselves with my
link to the news conference - is that you're lying.
> I was tempted to challenge the conspiracy theorist poster here to pick
> a page at random from Lane's Rush to Judgment, and we'll examine what
> Lane wrote and compare it to the evidence...
It's being daily posted in this forum - and you've run from a MAJORITY
of the posts. I've kept them short and to the point, so that they can
be easily rebutted if it were possible, yet you've remained silent.
So it's good that you didn't give in to your "temptation" - because
I'm posting Mark Lane quotes each week - and you're running away.
> but I decided to just cut
> to the chase and cite one inarguable lie by Lane
You claim it's inarguable - but I've just shown your first lie about
Mark Lane to be the lie that it is... and you've not made your
argument about Nolan Potter - so there's nothing to rebut.
> - where he took a
> statement by Nolan Potter that said he saw smoke rising above the
> trees in front of the Depository and that he saw a motorcycle
> policeman drive up the slope toward the Depository and show that Lane
> falsely characterized that statement in a footnote as pointing to
> smoke on the grassy knoll.
Make your case, Huckster - and I'll undoubtedly demolish it as easily
as I did your first example.
> There are plenty of other examples. Indeed the first witness he deals
> with in Rush To Judgment is another example of a lie by Mark Lane,
> where he makes his point only by ignoring all the evidence.
>
> But that's an example for another time.
Actually, it's another excellent example of the "poisoning of the
well" fallacy.
> Hank
How many PROVABLE logical fallacies did Huckster employ above?
How many OUTRIGHT LIES did Huckster use in his smear campaign?
Will Huckster ever admit that he didn't have the facts here?
Thus far, Huckster has ABSOLUTELY REFUSED to address the facts in this
post ... will he man up?
Ben Holmes
Sep 13, 2021, 10:47:22 AM9/13/21
to
On Sun, 12 Sep 2021 04:48:12 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
Are you somehow under the wacky impression that you're the judge?
>>>> Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
>>>> theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
>>>
>>>No, he's presenting a biased account ...
>>
>> Which logical fallacy would you label that one?
Amusingly, Huckster simply ran. The answer, of course is "begged."
You're labeling his account "biased" before presenting any evidence
that it's biased.
That's a TEXTBOOK example of a "begging the question" fallacy.
But Huckster already knows this.
So ignorance isn't at fault here... it's cowardice.
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:19:51 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 13:03:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
>>>> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
>>>>
>>>> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
>>>> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
>>>> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
>>>> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
>>>> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
>>>> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
>>>> Connally'."
>>
>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>
> That’s a “Proof by Assertion” LOGICAL FALLACY — by you. You have yet
> to show any logical fallacy by me.
Who would I be showing it to?
>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:19:51 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 13:03:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
>>>> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
>>>>
>>>> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
>>>> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
>>>> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
>>>> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
>>>> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
>>>> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
>>>> Connally'."
>>
>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>
> That’s a “Proof by Assertion” LOGICAL FALLACY — by you. You have yet
> to show any logical fallacy by me.
Are you somehow under the wacky impression that you're the judge?
>>>> Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
>>>> theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
>>>
>>>No, he's presenting a biased account ...
>>
>> Which logical fallacy would you label that one?
You're labeling his account "biased" before presenting any evidence
that it's biased.
That's a TEXTBOOK example of a "begging the question" fallacy.
But Huckster already knows this.
So ignorance isn't at fault here... it's cowardice.
Bud
Sep 13, 2021, 1:34:11 PM9/13/21
to
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:47:15 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2021 15:18:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Conspiracy theorist can surmise anything they want, and frequently
> > do. Above is just one example. Providing the evidence to support that
> > when asked? Well, that doesn’t happen with anywhere near the same
> > frequency. Far more frequent is logical fallacies like ad hominem,
> > straw man arguments, and shifting the burden of proof.
> Let's examine that....
Tut, tut, tut, Yellowpanties. No fringe reset.
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2021 15:18:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Conspiracy theorist can surmise anything they want, and frequently
> > do. Above is just one example. Providing the evidence to support that
> > when asked? Well, that doesn’t happen with anywhere near the same
> > frequency. Far more frequent is logical fallacies like ad hominem,
> > straw man arguments, and shifting the burden of proof.
> Let's examine that....
Hank Sienzant
Sep 18, 2021, 4:30:47 PM9/18/21
to
On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:47:22 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2021 04:48:12 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:19:51 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 13:03:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
> >>>> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
> >>>>
> >>>> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
> >>>> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
> >>>> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
> >>>> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
> >>>> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
> >>>> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
> >>>> Connally'."
> >>
> >> Logical fallacy deleted.
> >
> > That’s a “Proof by Assertion” LOGICAL FALLACY — by you. You have yet
> > to show any logical fallacy by me.
> Who would I be showing it to?
Duh. Anyone and everyone reading this thread. Repeated bare assertions do not make anything a fact.
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2021 04:48:12 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:19:51 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 13:03:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
> >>>> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
> >>>>
> >>>> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
> >>>> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
> >>>> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
> >>>> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
> >>>> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
> >>>> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
> >>>> Connally'."
> >>
> >> Logical fallacy deleted.
> >
> > That’s a “Proof by Assertion” LOGICAL FALLACY — by you. You have yet
> > to show any logical fallacy by me.
> Who would I be showing it to?
>
> Are you somehow under the wacky impression that you're the judge?
> >>>> Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
> >>>> theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
> >>>
> >>>No, he's presenting a biased account ...
> >>
> >> Which logical fallacy would you label that one?
> Amusingly, Huckster simply ran.
----- QUOTE -----
YOUR LOGICAL FALLACY here is begging the question by inserting into your question what you have yet to establish - that I presented any logical fallacy.
Here’s what I wrote and you deleted:
== quote ==
No, he's presenting a biased account that leaves off everything that points to the stretcher that came off the elevator as the one containing the bullet. For example, one of those two stretchers contained a bullet, and the bullet in evidence was determined to have been fired from Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
A pity Mark Lane didn’t share that info with his readers.
The Warren Commission also eliminated the late President's stretcher as the source of the bullet.
So if not the President's stretcher, whose? How many shooting victims were in the emergency rooms at that time, anyway?
Watch Ben fail to discuss any of these points and call me names.
== unquote ==
He didn’t call me names — yet — but he did delete my points and fail to discuss either of them, substituting two logical fallacies where his discussion of the points should have been.
----- UNQUOTE -----
Here’s what I wrote and you deleted:
== quote ==
No, he's presenting a biased account that leaves off everything that points to the stretcher that came off the elevator as the one containing the bullet. For example, one of those two stretchers contained a bullet, and the bullet in evidence was determined to have been fired from Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
A pity Mark Lane didn’t share that info with his readers.
The Warren Commission also eliminated the late President's stretcher as the source of the bullet.
So if not the President's stretcher, whose? How many shooting victims were in the emergency rooms at that time, anyway?
Watch Ben fail to discuss any of these points and call me names.
== unquote ==
He didn’t call me names — yet — but he did delete my points and fail to discuss either of them, substituting two logical fallacies where his discussion of the points should have been.
You're not interested in a discussion. You simply delete my points and pretend I didn't make them, and then declare I run away.
> The answer, of course is "begged."
> You're labeling his account "biased" before presenting any evidence
> that it's biased.
Your claim I labeled Lane's account biased before presenting any evidence it's biased is therefore false, as is your attempt to stick me with a begging the question logical fallacy.
>
> That's a TEXTBOOK example of a "begging the question" fallacy.
>
> But Huckster already knows this.
>
> So ignorance isn't at fault here... it's cowardice.
Multiple examples of you doing that are above.
Hank
Ben Holmes
Sep 20, 2021, 9:32:20 AM9/20/21
to
On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 13:30:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
judgment.
The hidden assumption is that I need to prove this to you. I reject
that.
>> Are you somehow under the wacky impression that you're the judge?
>
>Are you under the wacky impression that I was saying I was?
Good! Then there's no reason to try to 'justify' what I stated.
>>>>>> Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
>>>>>> theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, he's presenting a biased account ...
>>>>
>>>> Which logical fallacy would you label that one?
>>
>> Amusingly, Huckster simply ran.
>
>No, that's a falsehood by you.
And yet you refused, REPEATEDLY, from giving the only correct answer.
>> The answer, of course is "begged."
>> You're labeling his account "biased" before presenting any evidence
>> that it's biased.
>>
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:47:22 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Sep 2021 04:48:12 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:19:51 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 13:03:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
>>>>>> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
>>>>>> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
>>>>>> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
>>>>>> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
>>>>>> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
>>>>>> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
>>>>>> Connally'."
>>>>
>>>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>>
>>> That’s a “Proof by Assertion” LOGICAL FALLACY — by you. You have yet
>>> to show any logical fallacy by me.
>> Who would I be showing it to?
>
>Duh. Anyone and everyone reading this thread. Repeated bare assertions do not make anything a fact.
Then there's no reason to do so. Everyone can read and use their own
>On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:47:22 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Sep 2021 04:48:12 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:19:51 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 13:03:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
>>>>>> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
>>>>>> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
>>>>>> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
>>>>>> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
>>>>>> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
>>>>>> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
>>>>>> Connally'."
>>>>
>>>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>>
>>> That’s a “Proof by Assertion” LOGICAL FALLACY — by you. You have yet
>>> to show any logical fallacy by me.
>> Who would I be showing it to?
>
>Duh. Anyone and everyone reading this thread. Repeated bare assertions do not make anything a fact.
judgment.
The hidden assumption is that I need to prove this to you. I reject
that.
>> Are you somehow under the wacky impression that you're the judge?
>
>Are you under the wacky impression that I was saying I was?
>>>>>> Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
>>>>>> theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, he's presenting a biased account ...
>>>>
>>>> Which logical fallacy would you label that one?
>>
>> Amusingly, Huckster simply ran.
>
>No, that's a falsehood by you.
>> The answer, of course is "begged."
>> You're labeling his account "biased" before presenting any evidence
>> that it's biased.
>>
>> That's a TEXTBOOK example of a "begging the question" fallacy.
>>
>>
>> But Huckster already knows this.
>>
>>
John Corbett
Sep 20, 2021, 10:10:32 AM9/20/21
to
Hank Sienzant
Sep 20, 2021, 11:59:19 AM9/20/21
to
Ben Holmes
Sep 20, 2021, 2:55:16 PM9/20/21
to
On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 08:59:18 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
And you're an asshole who cannot quote me saying any such thing.
You know, of course, that your repeated attempts to pretend I said
something I've never said simply prove that *YOU* know you lost.
You know, of course, that your repeated attempts to pretend I said
something I've never said simply prove that *YOU* know you lost.
Sky Throne 19efppp
Sep 22, 2021, 2:05:10 AM9/22/21
to
Chuck Schuyler
Sep 22, 2021, 6:08:27 PM9/22/21
to
You admitted that you post the same stuff over and over again, as I captured at the Benny Tracker series. Here:
131.) At the thread Ben started titled, 'John Corbett Tells A Whopper...' Ben finally makes the admission that he recognizes that all he's really been doing at this discussion board is rehashing the same old stuff, over and over again, and that most of what he posts has been posted for twenty years!
Ben:
"How strange!? Most of my posts have been posted for decades now...
Even the posts he [John Corbett] saw when coming over here aren't "new" at all."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> You know, of course, that your repeated attempts to pretend I said
> something I've never said simply prove that *YOU* know you lost.
Your repeated attempts to move the goal posts and shift the burden of proof and misstate what your critics observe with your posting antics simply proves you're just playing games. Eristic argumentation. Arguing to argue. You argue for the sake of conflict, and never for clarity. More knots to untangle, more tar babies to fight, more tempest-in-a-teapot outrage by Ben.
> You know, of course, that your repeated attempts to pretend I said
> something I've never said simply prove that *YOU* know you lost.
Why don't you simply state your entire JFK assassination scenario and link to the research that you feel supports your premise? Why haven't you done so yet? We'd certainly love to find out why Mark Lane was wrong--according to your investigoogling adventures--about LBJ not being involved in JFK's murder. Show us what you've found out. Show us why you're right and Mark Lane is wrong.
Bud
Sep 22, 2021, 6:47:38 PM9/22/21
to
healyd...@gmail.com
Sep 22, 2021, 7:51:49 PM9/22/21
to
Ben Holmes
Sep 23, 2021, 9:10:32 AM9/23/21
to
coward to defend his own lies.
How sad...
Chuck Schuyler
Sep 23, 2021, 10:53:26 AM9/23/21
to
>
> How sad...
Indeed.
Ben Holmes
Sep 23, 2021, 12:16:30 PM9/23/21
to
On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 07:53:25 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
Anyone notice the logical inconsistency of that assertion?
>> How sad...
>> How sad...
Sky Throne 19efppp
Sep 23, 2021, 1:48:17 PM9/23/21
to
Ben Holmes
Oct 18, 2021, 10:09:11 AM10/18/21
to
On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 15:30:10 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:26:31 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 15:22:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:17:30 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 12:39:59 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Another logical fallacy deleted. People are DESPERATE to talk about
what they think Mark Lane should have said, and simply cannot address
what he did say.
>>>>>> Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
>>>>>> theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently...
>>
>>
>> Well, just ask... Mark Lane will correct your misunderstandings...
wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:26:31 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 15:22:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:17:30 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 12:39:59 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
>>>>>> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
>>>>>> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
>>>>>> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
>>>>>> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
>>>>>> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
>>>>>> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
>>>>>> Connally'."
>>>>
>>>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>> Another logical fallacy deleted.
>>>>>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> In the previous paragraph, Mark Lane showed what Tomlinson testified
>>>>>> to about the finding of C.E. 399.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The Commission alleged that the stretcher which Tomlinson had removed
>>>>>> from the elevator was the one used for Governor Connally and that it
>>>>>> was from this stretcher that the bullet had come. Tomlinson, however,
>>>>>> testified that it was his 'best recollection' that the bullet had
>>>>>> fallen off the stretcher which had not been on the elevator and which
>>>>>> the Commission said was 'wholly unconnected with the care of Governor
>>>>>> Connally'."
>>>>
>>>> Logical fallacy deleted.
Another logical fallacy deleted. People are DESPERATE to talk about
what they think Mark Lane should have said, and simply cannot address
what he did say.
>>>>>> Mark Lane is showing that Tomlinson's testimony conflicts with the
>>>>>> theory put forth by the Warren Commission.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mr.TOMLINSON. "Well, today or any other day, I'm just not sure of it, whether it was A or B that I took off."
>>>>>
>>>>> How does Tomlinson`s uncertainty impact the WC`s theory?
>>>>
>>>> Having problems, aren't you?
>>>>>
>>>>> How does Tomlinson`s uncertainty impact the WC`s theory?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently...
>>
>>
>> Well, just ask... Mark Lane will correct your misunderstandings...
Ben Holmes
Oct 18, 2021, 10:09:11 AM10/18/21
to
On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 15:47:37 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> You say that ...
It's amusing that Chickenshit jumps in to try to defend Huckster, even
when Huckster ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to defend Chickenshit's lies about
the dissection by the prosectors of the track of the bullet, and the
throat wound.
It's amusing that Chickenshit jumps in to try to defend Huckster, even
when Huckster ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to defend Chickenshit's lies about
the dissection by the prosectors of the track of the bullet, and the
throat wound.
Ben Holmes
Oct 18, 2021, 10:09:12 AM10/18/21
to
On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 10:34:10 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
Here it is again:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2021 15:18:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> Conspiracy theorist can surmise anything they want, and frequently
> do. Above is just one example. Providing the evidence to support that
> when asked? Well, that doesn’t happen with anywhere near the same
> frequency. Far more frequent is logical fallacies like ad hominem,
> straw man arguments, and shifting the burden of proof.
Let's examine that....
wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2021 15:18:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> Conspiracy theorist can surmise anything they want, and frequently
> do. Above is just one example. Providing the evidence to support that
> when asked? Well, that doesn’t happen with anywhere near the same
> frequency. Far more frequent is logical fallacies like ad hominem,
> straw man arguments, and shifting the burden of proof.
Let's examine that....
0 new messages