Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mark Lane Forces Huckster To Run Away... (#84)
83 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Sep 3, 2021, 9:36:57 AM9/3/21
to
In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that both the medical
testimony, and the ballistics testimony, could not support their SBT
claims.
"Commission Exhibit 399 is the authorities' most substantial
connection between the wounds and the rifle purported to belong to Lee
Harvey Oswald. Where did C.E. 399 come from? Who discovered it and
under what circumstances?
A bullet was reported to have been found on November 22 on the
stretcher that bore President Kennedy's body. It was said then that it
had fallen out of the back of the President's head. As the Commission
was to find that the bullet discovered at the hospital had passed
first through the President's neck and then through parts of the
Governor's body, its presence on the President's stretcher would have
been inexplicable. The Commission therefore placed the bullet not on
the President's stretcher but on Connally's."
Mark Lane is showing the history of the magic bullet, so crucial to
the WCR's theory of a "Lone Assassin".
And since I started posting the Mark Lane series again - Huckster
Sienzant has stopped posting, and has run away.
You just have to laugh at the cowardice of believers when faced with
the evidence...
testimony, and the ballistics testimony, could not support their SBT
claims.
"Commission Exhibit 399 is the authorities' most substantial
connection between the wounds and the rifle purported to belong to Lee
Harvey Oswald. Where did C.E. 399 come from? Who discovered it and
under what circumstances?
A bullet was reported to have been found on November 22 on the
stretcher that bore President Kennedy's body. It was said then that it
had fallen out of the back of the President's head. As the Commission
was to find that the bullet discovered at the hospital had passed
first through the President's neck and then through parts of the
Governor's body, its presence on the President's stretcher would have
been inexplicable. The Commission therefore placed the bullet not on
the President's stretcher but on Connally's."
Mark Lane is showing the history of the magic bullet, so crucial to
the WCR's theory of a "Lone Assassin".
And since I started posting the Mark Lane series again - Huckster
Sienzant has stopped posting, and has run away.
You just have to laugh at the cowardice of believers when faced with
the evidence...
Tim Brennan
Sep 3, 2021, 8:04:11 PM9/3/21
to
He is HARDLY in a position to make anybody run away these days.
Only really STUPID people still take KGB funded Lane seriously in 2021, Holmes.
That STUPID would be YOU, Yellow Pants.
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
ps CE399 is *undeformed*, is it, Holmes? LMFAO! Yet another RTJ lie by Mark Lane highlighted by you! KUTGW! TB
healyd...@gmail.com
Sep 3, 2021, 8:39:53 PM9/3/21
to
On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 5:04:11 PM UTC-7, Tim Brennan wrote:
Mark Lane is DEAD, Benny.
[...]
Mark Lane is DEAD, Benny.
so are you, seat sniffer -- don't run from your only viable excuse for your .john mcadams action's...
Tim Brennan
Sep 3, 2021, 10:37:03 PM9/3/21
to
Sorry, couldn't REALLY make out what you were trying to CONVEY here with your post, Dave/Ringo.
It was a classic TRUNALIMUNUMAPRZURER effort on your part, though, Dave/Ringo! Well done!
So, are you referring to the late and much missed Doctor .John McAdams, a fellow with REAL achievements in the field of JFK assassination research, Dave/Ringo?
Quite unlike YOU and your clown standard hero, Benny (Yellow Pants) Holmes, eh, Dave/Ringo?
In fact, .John used to be a bit of a GO TO man by the end, Dave/Ringo, given FOX News and similar TV outlets would have him on when there was an assassination issue to be discussed.
In contrast to you and Benny, Dave/Ringo, because NOBODY in TV was apparently interested in completely STUPID theories like *A Lady IN Yellow Pants* or a *A Lady WEARING Yellow Pants* in the Nix film, and her absence from the Zapruder film, as somehow an indication of Zapruder film alteration, Dave/Ringo.
That would have been a STUPID idea, Dave/Ringo! TV stations are interested in RATINGS, so some bloke TRUNALIMUNUMAPRZURING his way pathetically through life, all the while sporting a circa mid sixties plastic Beatles servo wig, in the company of a cavorting, beer gutted KILLFILTER SKULKER wearing YELLOW PANTS, both mumbling rubbish about Z film alteration would have been a STUPID idea, Dave/Ringo!
I trust that this CLARIFIES the matter for you, Dave/Ringo, so that you may now return to your seat sniffing duties, duties which you appear to have raised almost to an ART FORM, Dave/Ringo!
Helpful Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
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!
ps Have yet ANOTHER drink, Dave/Ringo! Nice wig, though!! KUTGW!!! TB
Hank Sienzant
Sep 9, 2021, 7:39:46 AM9/9/21
to
On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 9:36:57 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that both the medical
> testimony, and the ballistics testimony, could not support their SBT
> claims.
>
> "Commission Exhibit 399 is the authorities' most substantial
> connection between the wounds and the rifle purported to belong to Lee
> Harvey Oswald. Where did C.E. 399 come from? Who discovered it and
> under what circumstances?
>
> A bullet was reported to have been found on November 22 on the
> stretcher that bore President Kennedy's body.
What is Mark Lane’s source for that and why didn’t he quote precisely what the source said?
> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that both the medical
> testimony, and the ballistics testimony, could not support their SBT
> claims.
>
> "Commission Exhibit 399 is the authorities' most substantial
> connection between the wounds and the rifle purported to belong to Lee
> Harvey Oswald. Where did C.E. 399 come from? Who discovered it and
> under what circumstances?
>
> A bullet was reported to have been found on November 22 on the
> stretcher that bore President Kennedy's body.
> It was said then that it
> had fallen out of the back of the President's head.
> As the Commission
> was to find that the bullet discovered at the hospital had passed
> first through the President's neck and then through parts of the
> Governor's body,
> its presence on the President's stretcher would have
> been inexplicable.
> The Commission therefore placed the bullet not on
> the President's stretcher but on Connally's."
>
> Mark Lane is showing the history of the magic bullet, so crucial to
> the WCR's theory of a "Lone Assassin".
>
> And since I started posting the Mark Lane series again - Huckster
> Sienzant has stopped posting, and has run away.
FYI — it’s the logical fallacy of ad hominem. Try to avoid logical fallacies in the future.
>
> You just have to laugh at the cowardice of believers when faced with
> the evidence...
The next response by Ben won’t discuss Wester’s testimony whatsoever, and won’t explain why Lane failed to mention it, but did mention hearsay accounts from five days after the assassination from the New York Times.
And it will no doubt include the words “Logical fallacy deleted” because Ben has no response to the facts.
Hank Sienzant
Sep 9, 2021, 7:47:09 AM9/9/21
to
On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 10:37:03 PM UTC-4, Tim Brennan wrote:
...
...
>
> Helpful 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
>
I wonder if Airline Toilet Seat guy ever even noticed this point of yours. And now that’s it’s been pointed out, if he is going to try to explain this away as another innocent error on Lane’s part, where Lane simply overlooked the evidence.
> Helpful 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
>
Ben Holmes
Sep 9, 2021, 10:05:29 AM9/9/21
to
On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 04:39:45 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 9:36:57 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that both the medical
>> testimony, and the ballistics testimony, could not support their SBT
>> claims.
>>
>> "Commission Exhibit 399 is the authorities' most substantial
>> connection between the wounds and the rifle purported to belong to Lee
>> Harvey Oswald. Where did C.E. 399 come from? Who discovered it and
>> under what circumstances?
>>
>> A bullet was reported to have been found on November 22 on the
>> stretcher that bore President Kennedy's body.
>
>What is Mark Lane’s source for that and why didn’t he quote precisely what the source said?
Feel free to CITE your corrections.
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 9:36:57 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that both the medical
>> testimony, and the ballistics testimony, could not support their SBT
>> claims.
>>
>> "Commission Exhibit 399 is the authorities' most substantial
>> connection between the wounds and the rifle purported to belong to Lee
>> Harvey Oswald. Where did C.E. 399 come from? Who discovered it and
>> under what circumstances?
>>
>> A bullet was reported to have been found on November 22 on the
>> stretcher that bore President Kennedy's body.
>
>What is Mark Lane’s source for that and why didn’t he quote precisely what the source said?
>> It was said then that it
>> had fallen out of the back of the President's head.
>
>What is Mark Lane’s source for that and why didn’t he quote precisely what the source said?
You won't, of course...
>> As the Commission
>> was to find that the bullet discovered at the hospital had passed
>> first through the President's neck and then through parts of the
>> Governor's body,
>
> They determined that based on an examination of the evidence that
> Mark Lane doesn’t mention here, like nurse Jane Wester’s testimony
> about what happened to Connally’s stretcher and how her description of
> it matched Tomlinson’s.
the fact that for a number of posts, Mark Lane was giving the evidence
that failed to support the SBT... then pretend that it doesn't exist.
You need to go back and ADDRESS THAT EVIDENCE!
Because your failure to address it simply shows the world your
hypocrisy and cowardice.
>> its presence on the President's stretcher would have
>> been inexplicable.
>
> It is inexplicable. And that’s why the hearsay report in the New
> York Times from five days after the assassination that Lane references
> is in error. And the Commission’s version, which corrects that error,
> is correct.
now reveals that he already knew the answer to the question he raised
above.
>> The Commission therefore placed the bullet not on
>> the President's stretcher but on Connally's."
>
> Yeah, because that’s exactly where the evidence Lane ignored
> indicates it should be placed.
logical fallacies, we've seen that you aren't honest enough to do
so...
>> Mark Lane is showing the history of the magic bullet, so crucial to
>> the WCR's theory of a "Lone Assassin".
>
> He’s selecting judiciously from the evidence to build an false
> account that points to an error in the Commission’s conclusion about
> which stretcher the bullet was found on. But a full examination of all
> the evidence (including the Wester testimony Lane failed to mention)
> establishes the Commission conclusion is supported by the evidence.
is quite accurate indeed.
>> And since I started posting the Mark Lane series again - Huckster
>> Sienzant has stopped posting, and has run away.
>
>Oh? What are you talking about and how did you determine that?
gone.
>FYI — it’s the logical fallacy of ad hominem. Try to avoid logical fallacies in the future.
You have indeed refused to address *ANY* of the medical or ballistic
evidence failing to support the SBT.
We understand your cowardice...
>> You just have to laugh at the cowardice of believers when faced with
>> the evidence...
Run coward... RUN!
Hank Sienzant
Sep 11, 2021, 12:18:20 AM9/11/21
to
On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 10:05:29 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 04:39:45 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 9:36:57 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that both the medical
> >> testimony, and the ballistics testimony, could not support their SBT
> >> claims.
> >>
> >> "Commission Exhibit 399 is the authorities' most substantial
> >> connection between the wounds and the rifle purported to belong to Lee
> >> Harvey Oswald. Where did C.E. 399 come from? Who discovered it and
> >> under what circumstances?
> >>
> >> A bullet was reported to have been found on November 22 on the
> >> stretcher that bore President Kennedy's body.
> >
> >What is Mark Lane’s source for that and why didn’t he quote precisely what the source said?
> Feel free to CITE your corrections.
Attempting to shift the burden of proof. Lane makes an assertion sourced to the NY Times, but does not quote what they said or tell us the Times source, so we cannot judge the accuracy of his assertion. Newspapers don’t make the news, they only report it. What did the Times say precisely, and what was their source?
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 04:39:45 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 9:36:57 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that both the medical
> >> testimony, and the ballistics testimony, could not support their SBT
> >> claims.
> >>
> >> "Commission Exhibit 399 is the authorities' most substantial
> >> connection between the wounds and the rifle purported to belong to Lee
> >> Harvey Oswald. Where did C.E. 399 come from? Who discovered it and
> >> under what circumstances?
> >>
> >> A bullet was reported to have been found on November 22 on the
> >> stretcher that bore President Kennedy's body.
> >
> >What is Mark Lane’s source for that and why didn’t he quote precisely what the source said?
> Feel free to CITE your corrections.
> >> It was said then that it
> >> had fallen out of the back of the President's head.
> >
> >What is Mark Lane’s source for that and why didn’t he quote precisely what the source said?
> Feel free to CITE your corrections.
>
> You won't, of course...
> >> As the Commission
> >> was to find that the bullet discovered at the hospital had passed
> >> first through the President's neck and then through parts of the
> >> Governor's body,
> >
> > They determined that based on an examination of the evidence that
> > Mark Lane doesn’t mention here, like nurse Jane Wester’s testimony
> > about what happened to Connally’s stretcher and how her description of
> > it matched Tomlinson’s.
> Tut tut tut, coward. You cannot make this assertion, and then deny
> the fact that for a number of posts, Mark Lane was giving the evidence
> that failed to support the SBT... then pretend that it doesn't exist.
1. Ad hominem - you call me a coward.
2. A red herring (change of subject). Instead of responding to the point of Lane ignoring Wester’s testimony that I made, you want to talk instead about something Lane said elsewhere about something else.
3. Two wrongs make a right - you’re apparently trying to argue that because I didn’t address something else to your satisfaction, you can play the two wrongs make a right card, and you don’t have to respond to the points made about what Wester’s testimony indicates, and you don’t have to address why Lane failed to address that evidence.
>
> You need to go back and ADDRESS THAT EVIDENCE!
>
> Because your failure to address it simply shows the world your
> hypocrisy and cowardice.
> >> its presence on the President's stretcher would have
> >> been inexplicable.
> >
> > It is inexplicable. And that’s why the hearsay report in the New
> > York Times from five days after the assassination that Lane references
> > is in error. And the Commission’s version, which corrects that error,
> > is correct.
> Folks - here we see a perfect example of Huckster's dishonesty. He
> now reveals that he already knew the answer to the question he raised
> above.
> >> The Commission therefore placed the bullet not on
> >> the President's stretcher but on Connally's."
> >
> > Yeah, because that’s exactly where the evidence Lane ignored
> > indicates it should be placed.
> logical fallacies, we've seen that you aren't honest enough to do
> so...
No, we’ve examined the testimony of Jane Wester, which the commission heard and Lane ignored, and we’ve seen how her testimony indicates Connally’s stretcher is one of the two Tomlinson dealt with.
> so...
> >> Mark Lane is showing the history of the magic bullet, so crucial to
> >> the WCR's theory of a "Lone Assassin".
> >
> > He’s selecting judiciously from the evidence to build an false
> > account that points to an error in the Commission’s conclusion about
> > which stretcher the bullet was found on. But a full examination of all
> > the evidence (including the Wester testimony Lane failed to mention)
> > establishes the Commission conclusion is supported by the evidence.
> Swap out Mark Lane's name, and put in the WCR - and the same statement
> is quite accurate indeed.
> >> And since I started posting the Mark Lane series again - Huckster
> >> Sienzant has stopped posting, and has run away.
> >
> >Oh? What are you talking about and how did you determine that?
> I'm talking about the last few weeks where you've been completely
> gone.
> >FYI — it’s the logical fallacy of ad hominem. Try to avoid logical fallacies in the future.
> No moron... I listed a FACT.
> You have indeed refused to address *ANY* of the medical or ballistic
> evidence failing to support the SBT.
>
> We understand your cowardice...
And more ad hominem.
> >> You just have to laugh at the cowardice of believers when faced with
> >> the evidence...
> Logical fallacies deleted.
Failure to support the claims you made noted.
>
> Run coward... RUN!
And more ad hominem.
Sky Throne 19efppp
Sep 11, 2021, 12:22:25 AM9/11/21
to
Hank Sienzant
Sep 11, 2021, 6:36:16 AM9/11/21
to
Sky Throne 19efppp
Sep 11, 2021, 7:27:02 AM9/11/21
to
Hank Sienzant
Sep 11, 2021, 10:27:42 AM9/11/21
to
Hank Sienzant
Sep 12, 2021, 8:10:56 AM9/12/21
to
Repost for Ben:
On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 10:05:29 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 04:39:45 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 9:36:57 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that both the medical
> >> testimony, and the ballistics testimony, could not support their SBT
> >> claims.
> >>
> >> "Commission Exhibit 399 is the authorities' most substantial
> >> connection between the wounds and the rifle purported to belong to Lee
> >> Harvey Oswald. Where did C.E. 399 come from? Who discovered it and
> >> under what circumstances?
> >>
> >> A bullet was reported to have been found on November 22 on the
> >> stretcher that bore President Kennedy's body.
> >
> >What is Mark Lane’s source for that and why didn’t he quote precisely what the source said?
> Feel free to CITE your corrections.
On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 10:05:29 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 04:39:45 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 9:36:57 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that both the medical
> >> testimony, and the ballistics testimony, could not support their SBT
> >> claims.
> >>
> >> "Commission Exhibit 399 is the authorities' most substantial
> >> connection between the wounds and the rifle purported to belong to Lee
> >> Harvey Oswald. Where did C.E. 399 come from? Who discovered it and
> >> under what circumstances?
> >>
> >> A bullet was reported to have been found on November 22 on the
> >> stretcher that bore President Kennedy's body.
> >
> >What is Mark Lane’s source for that and why didn’t he quote precisely what the source said?
> Feel free to CITE your corrections.
Attempting to shift the burden of proof. Lane makes an assertion sourced to the NY Times, but does not quote what they said or tell us the Times source, so we cannot judge the accuracy of his assertion. Newspapers don’t make the news, they only report it. What did the Times say precisely, and what was their source?
> >> It was said then that it
> >> had fallen out of the back of the President's head.
> >
> >What is Mark Lane’s source for that and why didn’t he quote precisely what the source said?
> Feel free to CITE your corrections.
> >> had fallen out of the back of the President's head.
> >
> >What is Mark Lane’s source for that and why didn’t he quote precisely what the source said?
> Feel free to CITE your corrections.
Attempting to shift the burden of proof. Lane makes an assertion sourced to the NY Times, but does not quote what they said or tell us the Times source, so we cannot judge the accuracy of his assertion. Newspapers don’t make the news, they only report it. What did the Times say precisely, and what was *their* source? Try to establish Lane’s assertion. This is your burden.
>
>
> You won't, of course...
Because I have no obligation to refute anything Lane says. You have to establish his assertions are true. You’re the one quoting him, and proclaiming his points are true. We’re waiting for you to establish this one. Go ahead, we’ll wait.
> >> As the Commission
> >> was to find that the bullet discovered at the hospital had passed
> >> first through the President's neck and then through parts of the
> >> Governor's body,
> >
> > They determined that based on an examination of the evidence that
> > Mark Lane doesn’t mention here, like nurse Jane Wester’s testimony
> > about what happened to Connally’s stretcher and how her description of
> > it matched Tomlinson’s.
> Tut tut tut, coward. You cannot make this assertion, and then deny
> the fact that for a number of posts, Mark Lane was giving the evidence
> that failed to support the SBT... then pretend that it doesn't exist.
> >> was to find that the bullet discovered at the hospital had passed
> >> first through the President's neck and then through parts of the
> >> Governor's body,
> >
> > They determined that based on an examination of the evidence that
> > Mark Lane doesn’t mention here, like nurse Jane Wester’s testimony
> > about what happened to Connally’s stretcher and how her description of
> > it matched Tomlinson’s.
> Tut tut tut, coward. You cannot make this assertion, and then deny
> the fact that for a number of posts, Mark Lane was giving the evidence
> that failed to support the SBT... then pretend that it doesn't exist.
How many logical fallacies will you invoke in an attempt to deflect from Lane’s ignoring Wester’s testimony?
1. Ad hominem - you call me a coward.
2. A red herring (change of subject). Instead of responding to the point of Lane ignoring Wester’s testimony that I made, you want to talk instead about something Lane said elsewhere about something else.
3. Two wrongs make a right - you’re apparently trying to argue that because I didn’t address something else to your satisfaction, you can play the two wrongs make a right card, and you don’t have to respond to the points made about what Wester’s testimony indicates, and you don’t have to address why Lane failed to address that evidence.
>
1. Ad hominem - you call me a coward.
2. A red herring (change of subject). Instead of responding to the point of Lane ignoring Wester’s testimony that I made, you want to talk instead about something Lane said elsewhere about something else.
3. Two wrongs make a right - you’re apparently trying to argue that because I didn’t address something else to your satisfaction, you can play the two wrongs make a right card, and you don’t have to respond to the points made about what Wester’s testimony indicates, and you don’t have to address why Lane failed to address that evidence.
>
> You need to go back and ADDRESS THAT EVIDENCE!
No, you have no right to make no demands on my time, and I have no obligation to refute anything you post. You have the obligation to support your posts. You are the one posting Mark Lane’s claims as apparently holy writ, you need to support the claims of Lane as challenged. Not shift the burden of proof, not avoid your responsibility to do so by changing the subject or by pretending I need address something else first. Address the point made here, or we’ll understand why you invoked three logical fallacies instead.
>
>
> Because your failure to address it simply shows the world your
> hypocrisy and cowardice.
> hypocrisy and cowardice.
And more ad hominem. Do you think anyone finds your constant repetition of ad hominem the least bit convincing?
> >> its presence on the President's stretcher would have
> >> been inexplicable.
> >
> > It is inexplicable. And that’s why the hearsay report in the New
> > York Times from five days after the assassination that Lane references
> > is in error. And the Commission’s version, which corrects that error,
> > is correct.
> Folks - here we see a perfect example of Huckster's dishonesty. He
> now reveals that he already knew the answer to the question he raised
> above.
> >> been inexplicable.
> >
> > It is inexplicable. And that’s why the hearsay report in the New
> > York Times from five days after the assassination that Lane references
> > is in error. And the Commission’s version, which corrects that error,
> > is correct.
> Folks - here we see a perfect example of Huckster's dishonesty. He
> now reveals that he already knew the answer to the question he raised
> above.
No, I don’t know the answer. I do not know what The NY Times said - I only know Mark Lane’s summation of it, and I do not know the Times’ source. Lane didn’t provide either of those pieces of information. So I’m asking you to close the gap here in Lane’s assertion.
> >> The Commission therefore placed the bullet not on
> >> the President's stretcher but on Connally's."
> >
> > Yeah, because that’s exactly where the evidence Lane ignored
> > indicates it should be placed.
> Begging the questionI know you won't correctly identify your
> >> the President's stretcher but on Connally's."
> >
> > Yeah, because that’s exactly where the evidence Lane ignored
> > indicates it should be placed.
> logical fallacies, we've seen that you aren't honest enough to do
> so...
> so...
No, we’ve examined the testimony of Jane Wester, which the commission heard and Lane ignored, and we’ve seen how her testimony indicates Connally’s stretcher is one of the two Tomlinson dealt with.
> >> Mark Lane is showing the history of the magic bullet, so crucial to
> >> the WCR's theory of a "Lone Assassin".
> >
> > He’s selecting judiciously from the evidence to build an false
> > account that points to an error in the Commission’s conclusion about
> > which stretcher the bullet was found on. But a full examination of all
> > the evidence (including the Wester testimony Lane failed to mention)
> > establishes the Commission conclusion is supported by the evidence.
> Swap out Mark Lane's name, and put in the WCR - and the same statement
> is quite accurate indeed.
> >> the WCR's theory of a "Lone Assassin".
> >
> > He’s selecting judiciously from the evidence to build an false
> > account that points to an error in the Commission’s conclusion about
> > which stretcher the bullet was found on. But a full examination of all
> > the evidence (including the Wester testimony Lane failed to mention)
> > establishes the Commission conclusion is supported by the evidence.
> Swap out Mark Lane's name, and put in the WCR - and the same statement
> is quite accurate indeed.
That’s the logical fallacies of proof by assertion and proof by repetition. No matter how many times you assertion it, it doesn’t become true by mere repetition.
> >> And since I started posting the Mark Lane series again - Huckster
> >> Sienzant has stopped posting, and has run away.
> >
> >Oh? What are you talking about and how did you determine that?
> I'm talking about the last few weeks where you've been completely
> gone.
> >> Sienzant has stopped posting, and has run away.
> >
> >Oh? What are you talking about and how did you determine that?
> I'm talking about the last few weeks where you've been completely
> gone.
But it’s not true because I am here and posting this. I didn’t know my responses were invalid and and I was “running away” solely because they did fit your schedule. I have other obligations. And this is low on my to do list.
> >FYI — it’s the logical fallacy of ad hominem. Try to avoid logical fallacies in the future.
> No moron... I listed a FACT.
> No moron... I listed a FACT.
So you’re argument is I’m not posting, because it’s a fact I ran away. That makes as much sense as anything else you’ve ever said here.
> You have indeed refused to address *ANY* of the medical or ballistic
> evidence failing to support the SBT.
>
> evidence failing to support the SBT.
>
I don’t have any obligation to refute anything and everything Mark Lane or you ever claimed. You appear to be laboring under the mistaken belief that I do. You have the obligation to support it. That’s what I’ve been giving you every opportunity to do. And that’s what you’ve been failing to do. What you’re doing is shifting the burden of proof with every one of the posts in your series. You’re posting Lane’s claims as gospel, and asking others to disprove them. But no one has that obligation. You alone have the burden to establish Lane’s claims, and you don’t avoid your responsibility by shifting the burden of proof and ad hominem.
> We understand your cowardice...
And more ad hominem.
> We understand your cowardice...
And more ad hominem.
> >> You just have to laugh at the cowardice of believers when faced with
> >> the evidence...
> >> the evidence...
healyd...@gmail.com
Sep 13, 2021, 12:32:37 AM9/13/21
to
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of the argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".Wikipedia
sound familiar, poopsey?
healyd...@gmail.com
Sep 13, 2021, 12:37:09 AM9/13/21
to
Ben Holmes
Sep 13, 2021, 10:48:07 AM9/13/21
to
On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 21:18:19 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
fallacies?
>>>> It was said then that it
>>>> had fallen out of the back of the President's head.
>>>
>>>What is Mark Lane’s source for that and why didn’t he quote precisely what the source said?
>>
>> Feel free to CITE your corrections.
>>
>>>> As the Commission
>>>> was to find that the bullet discovered at the hospital had passed
>>>> first through the President's neck and then through parts of the
>>>> Governor's body,
>>>
>>> They determined that based on an examination of the evidence that
>>> Mark Lane doesn’t mention here, like nurse Jane Wester’s testimony
>>> about what happened to Connally’s stretcher and how her description of
>>> it matched Tomlinson’s.
>>
>> Tut tut tut, coward. You cannot make this assertion, and then deny
>> the fact that for a number of posts, Mark Lane was giving the evidence
>> that failed to support the SBT... then pretend that it doesn't exist.
Dead silence...
Or, more accurately, Huckster refused to address what I stated.
>> You need to go back and ADDRESS THAT EVIDENCE!
>
>No...
Then continue to expect me to ignore your cowardice...
>> Because your failure to address it simply shows the world your
>> hypocrisy and cowardice.
>>
Yes.
>>>> The Commission therefore placed the bullet not on
>>>> the President's stretcher but on Connally's."
>>>
>>> Yeah, because that’s exactly where the evidence Lane ignored
>>> indicates it should be placed.
>>
>> Begging the questionI know you won't correctly identify your
>> logical fallacies, we've seen that you aren't honest enough to do
>> so...
>
>No...
Yes.
>>>> Mark Lane is showing the history of the magic bullet, so crucial to
>>>> the WCR's theory of a "Lone Assassin".
>>>
>>> He’s selecting judiciously from the evidence to build an false
>>> account that points to an error in the Commission’s conclusion about
>>> which stretcher the bullet was found on. But a full examination of all
>>> the evidence (including the Wester testimony Lane failed to mention)
>>> establishes the Commission conclusion is supported by the evidence.
>> Swap out Mark Lane's name, and put in the WCR - and the same statement
>> is quite accurate indeed.
>
>That’s the logical fallacies...
Cry me a river...
>>>> And since I started posting the Mark Lane series again - Huckster
>>>> Sienzant has stopped posting, and has run away.
>>>
>>>Oh? What are you talking about and how did you determine that?
>>
>> I'm talking about the last few weeks where you've been completely
>> gone.
>
>But it’s not true ...
Who are you trying to convince?
>>>FYI — it’s the logical fallacy of ad hominem. Try to avoid logical fallacies in the future.
>>
>> No moron... I listed a FACT.
>
>So you’re argument is I’m not posting...
Not an "argument."
>> You have indeed refused to address *ANY* of the medical or ballistic
>> evidence failing to support the SBT.
>>
>I don’t have any obligation ...
Nor do I have any obligation to respond to all you're whining.
I merely point out your lies & cowardice, and move on...
>> We understand your cowardice...
You're truly a moron if you think I have any obligation to prove
something to *YOU*.
PLEASE tell us you're not that moronic...
>> Run coward... RUN!
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 10:05:29 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 04:39:45 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 9:36:57 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that both the medical
>>>> testimony, and the ballistics testimony, could not support their SBT
>>>> claims.
>>>>
>>>> "Commission Exhibit 399 is the authorities' most substantial
>>>> connection between the wounds and the rifle purported to belong to Lee
>>>> Harvey Oswald. Where did C.E. 399 come from? Who discovered it and
>>>> under what circumstances?
>>>>
>>>> A bullet was reported to have been found on November 22 on the
>>>> stretcher that bore President Kennedy's body.
>>>
>>>What is Mark Lane’s source for that and why didn’t he quote precisely what the source said?
>>
>> Feel free to CITE your corrections.
>
>Attempting to shift the burden of proof
Don't you just HATE it when people laugh at (and ignore) your logical
>On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 10:05:29 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 04:39:45 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 9:36:57 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that both the medical
>>>> testimony, and the ballistics testimony, could not support their SBT
>>>> claims.
>>>>
>>>> "Commission Exhibit 399 is the authorities' most substantial
>>>> connection between the wounds and the rifle purported to belong to Lee
>>>> Harvey Oswald. Where did C.E. 399 come from? Who discovered it and
>>>> under what circumstances?
>>>>
>>>> A bullet was reported to have been found on November 22 on the
>>>> stretcher that bore President Kennedy's body.
>>>
>>>What is Mark Lane’s source for that and why didn’t he quote precisely what the source said?
>>
>> Feel free to CITE your corrections.
>
>Attempting to shift the burden of proof
fallacies?
>>>> It was said then that it
>>>> had fallen out of the back of the President's head.
>>>
>>>What is Mark Lane’s source for that and why didn’t he quote precisely what the source said?
>>
>> Feel free to CITE your corrections.
>>
>> You won't, of course...
Another perfect prediction.
>>>> As the Commission
>>>> was to find that the bullet discovered at the hospital had passed
>>>> first through the President's neck and then through parts of the
>>>> Governor's body,
>>>
>>> They determined that based on an examination of the evidence that
>>> Mark Lane doesn’t mention here, like nurse Jane Wester’s testimony
>>> about what happened to Connally’s stretcher and how her description of
>>> it matched Tomlinson’s.
>>
>> Tut tut tut, coward. You cannot make this assertion, and then deny
>> the fact that for a number of posts, Mark Lane was giving the evidence
>> that failed to support the SBT... then pretend that it doesn't exist.
Or, more accurately, Huckster refused to address what I stated.
>> You need to go back and ADDRESS THAT EVIDENCE!
>
Then continue to expect me to ignore your cowardice...
>> Because your failure to address it simply shows the world your
>> hypocrisy and cowardice.
>>
>>>> its presence on the President's stretcher would have
>>>> been inexplicable.
>>>
>>> It is inexplicable. And that’s why the hearsay report in the New
>>> York Times from five days after the assassination that Lane references
>>> is in error. And the Commission’s version, which corrects that error,
>>> is correct.
>>
>> Folks - here we see a perfect example of Huckster's dishonesty. He
>> now reveals that he already knew the answer to the question he raised
>> above.
>
>No...
>>>> been inexplicable.
>>>
>>> It is inexplicable. And that’s why the hearsay report in the New
>>> York Times from five days after the assassination that Lane references
>>> is in error. And the Commission’s version, which corrects that error,
>>> is correct.
>>
>> Folks - here we see a perfect example of Huckster's dishonesty. He
>> now reveals that he already knew the answer to the question he raised
>> above.
>
Yes.
>>>> The Commission therefore placed the bullet not on
>>>> the President's stretcher but on Connally's."
>>>
>>> Yeah, because that’s exactly where the evidence Lane ignored
>>> indicates it should be placed.
>>
>> Begging the questionI know you won't correctly identify your
>> logical fallacies, we've seen that you aren't honest enough to do
>> so...
>
Yes.
>>>> Mark Lane is showing the history of the magic bullet, so crucial to
>>>> the WCR's theory of a "Lone Assassin".
>>>
>>> He’s selecting judiciously from the evidence to build an false
>>> account that points to an error in the Commission’s conclusion about
>>> which stretcher the bullet was found on. But a full examination of all
>>> the evidence (including the Wester testimony Lane failed to mention)
>>> establishes the Commission conclusion is supported by the evidence.
>> Swap out Mark Lane's name, and put in the WCR - and the same statement
>> is quite accurate indeed.
>
Cry me a river...
>>>> And since I started posting the Mark Lane series again - Huckster
>>>> Sienzant has stopped posting, and has run away.
>>>
>>>Oh? What are you talking about and how did you determine that?
>>
>> I'm talking about the last few weeks where you've been completely
>> gone.
>
Who are you trying to convince?
>>>FYI — it’s the logical fallacy of ad hominem. Try to avoid logical fallacies in the future.
>>
>> No moron... I listed a FACT.
>
Not an "argument."
>> You have indeed refused to address *ANY* of the medical or ballistic
>> evidence failing to support the SBT.
>>
Nor do I have any obligation to respond to all you're whining.
I merely point out your lies & cowardice, and move on...
>> We understand your cowardice...
>>
>>>> You just have to laugh at the cowardice of believers when faced with
>>>> the evidence...
>>
>>>> You just have to laugh at the cowardice of believers when faced with
>>>> the evidence...
>>
>> Logical fallacies deleted.
>
>Failure to support the claims you made noted.
Support it to WHO?
>
>Failure to support the claims you made noted.
You're truly a moron if you think I have any obligation to prove
something to *YOU*.
PLEASE tell us you're not that moronic...
>> Run coward... RUN!
Ben Holmes
Sep 13, 2021, 10:48:11 AM9/13/21
to
On Sun, 12 Sep 2021 05:10:55 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>Repost for Ben:
Repost for the coward who refuses to answer this:
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?
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>Repost for Ben:
Repost for the coward who refuses to answer this:
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?
0 new messages