Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Mark Lane - (#150)

41 views

Skip to first unread message

Ben Holmes

unread,

Dec 10, 2021, 9:30:20 AM12/10/21

In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane continued showing the dishonesty
of the rifle tests conducted at the behest of the Warren Commission -
a blatant dishonesty that no LNT'er has yet admitted to... Mark Lane
wraps it up and explains:

"The mathematical probability test was developed in the following way.
The rifle first was placed in a vise or machine rest, the scope was
rebuilt and two or three shims were welded to the weapon. It was then
fired from the machine rest to determine its innate round-to-round
dispersion. Simmons explained, 'We wanted to determine what the aiming
error itself was associated with the rifle.' Then, once its inaccuracy
had been established, the rifle was given to the three riflemen.

The marksmen were expert; the targets were fixed; they were wrong in
respect to angle and size; the tower from which the experts fired was
approximately one-half as high as it should have been; and the sight
on the rifle had been rebuilt. They fired, taking all the time they
needed for the first shot, and, as the Report says:

'On the basis of these results, Simmons testified that in his opinion
the probability of hitting the targets at the relatively short range
at which they were hit was very high.'

Just what enabled Simmons to conclude that the probability was very
high? He subtracted the rifle's inherent inaccuracy from the final
score. Simmons said, 'Yes. We have subtracted out the round-to-round
dispersion.'

That is, Simmons determined the rifle's aiming error after it had been
rebuilt, omitted this factor from his calculations and then concluded
— and the Commission adopted his conclusion — that the probability of
hitting the target was very high. In other words, the probability of
the Commission's carefully selected riflemen hitting large, stationary
targets was high if an absolutely perfect weapon was employed. The
weapon was not tested; the skill of the experts was tested, assuming
them to be armed with an ideal weapon in perfect shape.

The Commission ended this passage of the Report on an unmistakably
light note. After correcting the rifle's aiming faults and making
allowance for those that still remained, it remarked of the original
weapon:

'Moreover, the defect was one which would have assisted the assassin
aiming at a target which was moving away.'"

Mark Lane points out how dishonest the Warren Commission was in their
rifle testing. If Oswald was the 'lone assassin' - why was this
dishonesty needed? Of course, this is a question that the kooks will
never answer - because they deny the *facts* pointed out by Mark Lane.

Huckster has disappeared, and Chuckles is trying to fill in, but Mark
Lane continues spaniking believers...

Ben Holmes

unread,

Dec 17, 2021, 10:19:43 AM12/17/21

Huckster is feeling the burn of his spanking, and is crying too hard
to do anything other than run away...

Such cowardice!

Hank Sienzant

unread,

Dec 17, 2021, 1:04:56 PM12/17/21

On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 9:30:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane continued showing the dishonesty
> of the rifle tests conducted at the behest of the Warren Commission -
> a blatant dishonesty that no LNT'er has yet admitted to... Mark Lane
> wraps it up and explains:
>
> "The mathematical probability test was developed in the following way.
> The rifle first was placed in a vise or machine rest, the scope was
> rebuilt and two or three shims were welded to the weapon. It was then
> fired from the machine rest to determine its innate round-to-round
> dispersion.

Fixing the scope by rebuilding it or welding shims to the weapon does not affect the innate dispersion whatsoever. Mark Lane does not make that clear. In fact, he obscures that fact.
All weapons have dispersion characteristics.

Simmons, the expert who conducted the weapons test, testified:
== quote ==
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you conduct a test from a machine rest, a test of round-to- round dispersion of this weapon, or have such tests conducted?
Mr. SIMMONS. May I check the serial number?
Mr. EISENBERG. I should ask first if you are familiar with this weapon.
I have handed the witness Commission Exhibit 139.
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. We fired this weapon from a machine rest for round-to-round dispersion. We fired exactly 20 rounds in this test, and the dispersion which we measured is of conventional magnitude, about the same that we get with our present military rifles, and the standard deviation of dispersion is .29 mil.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is a fraction of a degree?
Mr. SIMMONS. A mil is an angular measurement. There are 17.7 mils to a degree.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate.
==

> Simmons explained, 'We wanted to determine what the aiming
> error itself was associated with the rifle.' Then, once its inaccuracy
> had been established,

False — “once it’s *accuracy* had been established”. Simmons testified the weapon was as accurate as the then modern U.S. military weapons.

> the rifle was given to the three riflemen.
>
> The marksmen were expert; the targets were fixed; they were wrong in
> respect to angle and size;

The target size was standard silhouettes of the head and upper body of a man printed on larger square pieces of paper. These were affixed to wooden targets that were large enough to hold the targets in place. The targets were human-sized, not the wrong size.

Lane is counting the entire paper the target was printed on, not the human-sized silhouette itself.

> the tower from which the experts fired was
> approximately one-half as high as it should have been;

He’s padding the complaint, mentioning the angle and the height separately. But as you change the height, you change the angle. Those two factors are tied together, and mentioning both separately is disingenuous.

Lane treats the lower height as an advantage, when it’s a disadvantage. Otherwise guard towers in prisons would not be tall, they’d be short or non-existent. And thousands of years of military strategy is also wrong, as it’s always been considered important to take the high ground, not the low ground.

>and the sight
> on the rifle had been rebuilt.

Yeah, Lane said that already. So again, counting it twice. And there’s no evidence the telescopic sight was used by Oswald in any case. So this complaint is meaningless. Using the iron sights allowed the shooter to accomplish the fastest time. Lane doesn’t mention that, either.

> They fired, taking all the time they
> needed for the first shot,

So essentially, as much time as did Oswald. He could have chosen to shoot when the President first became visible on Main Street, all the way down Houston, and then onto Elm. He waited until he was ready. So did they.

> and, as the Report says:
>
> 'On the basis of these results, Simmons testified that in his opinion
> the probability of hitting the targets at the relatively short range
> at which they were hit was very high.'
>
> Just what enabled Simmons to conclude that the probability was very
> high?

Simmons answered that. It was a relatively short distance and Oswald’s weapon was as accurate as then-modern military weapons.

> He subtracted the rifle's inherent inaccuracy from the final
> score. Simmons said, 'Yes. We have subtracted out the round-to-round
> dispersion.'
>
> That is, Simmons determined the rifle's aiming error after it had been
> rebuilt,

The scope was rebuild — it affected the dispersion not at all. He wasn’t subtracting out the aiming error, aiming error is attributable to the human shooter, which is not what dispersion measures.

I trust you caught Lane’s dishonesty here, but I suspect you don’t care.

> omitted this factor from his calculations and then concluded
> — and the Commission adopted his conclusion — that the probability of
> hitting the target was very high. In other words, the probability of
> the Commission's carefully selected riflemen hitting large,

*Human Sized*, no larger than JFK would have appeared to Oswald.

> stationary

Because of Oswald firing from the sixth floor, and the declination of Elm, the Presidential limo would appear to Oswald to be almost stationary, but receding and getting smaller. Remember, Oswald was trained at 200 and 500 yards in the Marines, and the longest shot in the assassination was only 88 yards. Less than one-fifth what Oswald trained at.

> targets was high if an absolutely perfect weapon was employed. The
> weapon was not tested;

Yes, it was. That’s what the bench-rest test determined, the dispersion, and it was determined Oswald’s weapon was as accurate as modern military weapons, remember?

> the skill of the experts was tested, assuming
> them to be armed with an ideal weapon in perfect shape.

No, they were armed with Oswald’s weapon, and it was determined Oswald’s weapon was as accurate as modern military weapons, remember?

>
> The Commission ended this passage of the Report on an unmistakably
> light note. After correcting the rifle's aiming faults and making
> allowance for those that still remained, it remarked of the original
> weapon:
>
> 'Moreover, the defect was one which would have assisted the assassin
> aiming at a target which was moving away.'"

Lane appears to remove the entire context from this point. I don’t have his book in front of me, but this is all you quote. The context is the limo was moving away from Oswald and not directly away but slightly up (relative to his vision) and to the right. Therefore, a scope that showed the target point slightly high and to the right would reduce the lead the shooter would have to take into account.

But the damage may have occurred when the rifle was dropped into its hiding place on the sixth floor. Or may have pre-existed.

But the iron targets worked fine and there’s no evidence Oswald used the scope to fire at the President. The evidence isn’t clear whether Oswald had an opportunity to sight it in — as I understand it, Ben agrees with me that Oswald test-fired his weapon on the Sunday before the assassination, while the Commission concluded the witnesses to that were guilty of mistaken identity — but if Oswald didn’t sight it in, then he would have not used the scope, but trusted the fixed iron sights more.

>
> Mark Lane points out how dishonest the Warren Commission was in their
> rifle testing. If Oswald was the 'lone assassin' - why was this
> dishonesty needed? Of course, this is a question that the kooks will
> never answer - because they deny the *facts* pointed out by Mark Lane.

Lane is disingenuous and leaves out a lot of facts. Some of facts are simply logical fallacies or quotes out of context. Or falsehoods to sell a conspiracy so he can reap the rewards in dollars and accolades.

>
> Huckster has disappeared, and Chuckles is trying to fill in, but Mark
> Lane continues spaniking believers...

Yeah, maybe(not sure what ‘spaniking’ is), but the truth spanks Lane until he bleeds. I read photos of him during the Garrison investigation surfaced and he seemed to be enjoying it. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Dec 17, 2021, 1:18:22 PM12/17/21

On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 10:04:54 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 9:30:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane continued showing the dishonesty
>> of the rifle tests conducted at the behest of the Warren Commission -
>> a blatant dishonesty that no LNT'er has yet admitted to... Mark Lane
>> wraps it up and explains:
>>
>> "The mathematical probability test was developed in the following way.
>> The rifle first was placed in a vise or machine rest, the scope was
>> rebuilt and two or three shims were welded to the weapon. It was then
>> fired from the machine rest to determine its innate round-to-round
>> dispersion.
>

>Fixing the scope by rebuilding it or welding shims to the weapon ...

Demonstrates that the weapon wasn't the same as it was during the
shooting.

Your blatant attempts to change the goalpost to "dispersion" noted,
and ignored.

>> Simmons explained, 'We wanted to determine what the aiming
>> error itself was associated with the rifle.' Then, once its inaccuracy
>> had been established,
>
>False — “once it’s *accuracy* had been established”.

Simmons himself testified to aiming error.

Are you some sort of expert that can call Simmons a liar?

>> the rifle was given to the three riflemen.
>>
>> The marksmen were expert; the targets were fixed; they were wrong in
>> respect to angle and size;
>

> The target size was standard silhouettes ...

Not a refutation.

>> the tower from which the experts fired was
>> approximately one-half as high as it should have been;
>
>He’s padding the complaint, mentioning the angle and the height separately.

Cry some more, coward.

Why can't you address the FACTS that Mark Lane is speaking of?

>Lane treats the lower height as an advantage, when it’s a disadvantage.

And you're a damned liar who has no shooting expertise or knowledge of
physics.

>>and the sight
>> on the rifle had been rebuilt.
>

>Yeah...

Note folks, Huckster STILL hasn't explained these facts...

>> They fired, taking all the time they
>> needed for the first shot,
>
>So essentially, as much time as did Oswald.

No, you're lying again, Huckster...

>> and, as the Report says:
>>
>> 'On the basis of these results, Simmons testified that in his opinion
>> the probability of hitting the targets at the relatively short range
>> at which they were hit was very high.'
>>
>> Just what enabled Simmons to conclude that the probability was very
>> high?
>
>Simmons answered that.

Yes... immediately below:

>> He subtracted the rifle's inherent inaccuracy from the final
>> score. Simmons said, 'Yes. We have subtracted out the round-to-round
>> dispersion.'
>>
>> That is, Simmons determined the rifle's aiming error after it had been
>> rebuilt,
>

>The scope was rebuild...

That *IS* what you use to aim with.

Did anyone notice Huckster's lie here?

>> omitted this factor from his calculations and then concluded
>> — and the Commission adopted his conclusion — that the probability of
>> hitting the target was very high. In other words, the probability of
>> the Commission's carefully selected riflemen hitting large,
>
>*Human Sized*

You're lying again, Huckster. Interested lurkers can view the targets
for themselves with a simple Google search.

>> stationary
>
>Because ...

No. There's no possible explanation for this other than to make the
"test" easier.

>> targets was high if an absolutely perfect weapon was employed. The
>> weapon was not tested;
>
>Yes, it was.

No moron, it wasn't. It was repaired first.

>> the skill of the experts was tested, assuming
>> them to be armed with an ideal weapon in perfect shape.
>

>No...

Yes.

>> The Commission ended this passage of the Report on an unmistakably
>> light note. After correcting the rifle's aiming faults and making
>> allowance for those that still remained, it remarked of the original
>> weapon:
>>
>> 'Moreover, the defect was one which would have assisted the assassin
>> aiming at a target which was moving away.'"
>

>Lane...

Is pointing out facts that you've simply been ignoring.

Run coward... RUN!

>> Mark Lane points out how dishonest the Warren Commission was in their
>> rifle testing. If Oswald was the 'lone assassin' - why was this
>> dishonesty needed? Of course, this is a question that the kooks will
>> never answer - because they deny the *facts* pointed out by Mark Lane.
>

>Lane is ...

Pointing out facts that you can't explain...

>> Huckster has disappeared, and Chuckles is trying to fill in, but Mark

>> Lane continues spanking believers...
>
>Yeah, maybe...

Embarrassed, aren't you?

Hank Sienzant

unread,

Dec 17, 2021, 2:14:46 PM12/17/21

On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 1:18:22 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 10:04:54 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 9:30:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane continued showing the dishonesty
> >> of the rifle tests conducted at the behest of the Warren Commission -
> >> a blatant dishonesty that no LNT'er has yet admitted to... Mark Lane
> >> wraps it up and explains:
> >>
> >> "The mathematical probability test was developed in the following way.
> >> The rifle first was placed in a vise or machine rest, the scope was
> >> rebuilt and two or three shims were welded to the weapon. It was then
> >> fired from the machine rest to determine its innate round-to-round
> >> dispersion.
> >
> >Fixing the scope by rebuilding it or welding shims to the weapon ...
>
>
> Demonstrates that the weapon wasn't the same as it was during the
> shooting.
>
> Your blatant attempts to change the goalpost to "dispersion" noted,
> and ignored.

Lane discussed dispersion. I pointed out he mentioned two things unrelated to the dispersion as if they affected the dispersion. They didn’t, and they don’t.

> >> Simmons explained, 'We wanted to determine what the aiming
> >> error itself was associated with the rifle.' Then, once its inaccuracy
> >> had been established,
> >
> >False — “once it’s *accuracy* had been established”.
> Simmons himself testified to aiming error.

Yes, and ad I said, and you deleted, the aiming error is the *human* error, which is different than the dispersion.
== quote ==
Mr. HEISENBERG. After these tests were finished, did you make a determination of the amount of error--average amount of error in the aim of these riflemen?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. By assuming that all riflemen had aimed at the inter section of the lines that we have drawn on these pictures, we calculated the total aiming--the aiming error associated with the three riflemen--this is one number to describe the accuracy of all three riflemen. And against the first target the accuracy observed was about .7 mils, in standard deviation. Against the second target, the accuracy was 1.4 mils. And against the third target, it was 1.2 mils.
== unquote ==

>
> Are you some sort of expert that can call Simmons a liar?

No, but I’m not calling him a liar. You and Lane are the ones being misleading by taking quotes out of context.

> >> the rifle was given to the three riflemen.
> >>
> >> The marksmen were expert; the targets were fixed; they were wrong in
> >> respect to angle and size;
> >
> > The target size was standard silhouettes ...
>
>
> Not a refutation.

Sure it is. Lane said they were the wrong size. They were human-sized silhouettes. What’s wrong with that?

Should they have Barbie Doll-sized?

> >> the tower from which the experts fired was
> >> approximately one-half as high as it should have been;
> >
> >He’s padding the complaint, mentioning the angle and the height separately.
> Cry some more, coward.

Ad hominem, and not a rebuttal.

>
> Why can't you address the FACTS that Mark Lane is speaking of?

== quote ==
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you conduct a test from a machine rest, a test of round-to- round dispersion of this weapon, or have such tests conducted?
Mr. SIMMONS. May I check the serial number?
Mr. EISENBERG. I should ask first if you are familiar with this weapon.
I have handed the witness Commission Exhibit 139.
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. We fired this weapon from a machine rest for round-to-round dispersion. We fired exactly 20 rounds in this test, and the dispersion which we measured is of conventional magnitude, about the same that we get with our present military rifles, and the standard deviation of dispersion is .29 mil.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is a fraction of a degree?
Mr. SIMMONS. A mil is an angular measurement. There are 17.7 mils to a degree.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate.

== unquote ==

Why can’t you address the rebuttal to the disingenuous claims Lane made, that I am pointing out?

> >Lane treats the lower height as an advantage, when it’s a disadvantage.
> And you're a damned liar who has no shooting expertise or knowledge of
> physics.

Not a rebuttal. Deleting the point isn’t going to cut it, Ben. And in fact, we established your knowledge of physic was entirely mistaken, and only one of us had been a college physics major.

> >>and the sight
> >> on the rifle had been rebuilt.
> >
> >Yeah...

Quote out of context. You *lose* credibility points when you do that.

>
>
> Note folks, Huckster STILL hasn't explained these facts...

You deleted and ignored my explanations, pretending they didn’t exist.

Your loss of credibility, not mine.

> >> They fired, taking all the time they
> >> needed for the first shot,
> >
> >So essentially, as much time as did Oswald.
> No, you're lying again, Huckster...

How much time did Oswald take for his first shot from the moment Kennedy first came into view on Main Street? How much time did the shooters take for their first shot? The falsehood isn’t on my part. It’s on Lane (and you for supporting his falsehood).

> >> and, as the Report says:
> >>
> >> 'On the basis of these results, Simmons testified that in his opinion
> >> the probability of hitting the targets at the relatively short range
> >> at which they were hit was very high.'
> >>
> >> Just what enabled Simmons to conclude that the probability was very
> >> high?
> >
> >Simmons answered that.

No, you again deleted my response, so more loss of credibility (not that you have much to spare).

> Yes... immediately below:
> >> He subtracted the rifle's inherent inaccuracy from the final
> >> score. Simmons said, 'Yes. We have subtracted out the round-to-round
> >> dispersion.'
> >>
> >> That is, Simmons determined the rifle's aiming error after it had been
> >> rebuilt,
> >
> >The scope was rebuild...
>
>
> That *IS* what you use to aim with.

Not necessarily. The iron sights were perfectly adequate for the short distance involved. Neither Lane nor you have established the scope was used, nor have either of you established the scope was damaged if and when Oswald used it.

>
> Did anyone notice Huckster's lie here?

I didn’t notice any. If I committed one, you would not have deleted my point but pointed out the lie.

> >> omitted this factor from his calculations and then concluded
> >> — and the Commission adopted his conclusion — that the probability of
> >> hitting the target was very high. In other words, the probability of
> >> the Commission's carefully selected riflemen hitting large,
> >
> >*Human Sized*
> You're lying again, Huckster. Interested lurkers can view the targets
> for themselves with a simple Google search.

Hell, I’ll link to them right here:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

==quote ==
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you have a test run to determine the possibility of scoring hits with this weapon, Exhibit 139, on a given target at a given distance under rapid fire conditions?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we did. We placed three targets, which were head and shoulder silhouettes…
The targets are standard head-and-shoulders silhouettes, and they consist of approximately 2 square feet in area.
== unquote ==

>
>
> >> stationary
> >
> >Because ...
>
>
> No. There's no possible explanation for this other than to make the
> "test" easier.

Sorry, just because you don’t accept any other possible explanation doesn’t mean other explanations aren’t possible. This is in fact the logical fallacy of personal incredulity.

> >> targets was high if an absolutely perfect weapon was employed. The
> >> weapon was not tested;
> >
> >Yes, it was.
> No moron, it wasn't. It was repaired first.

That’s a moving of the goalposts. AND ad hominem, which you resort to frequently.

Lane said the weapon wasn’t tested, the shooters skills were. But the weapon was tested, and that’s how the dispersion was determined. He claims the weapon wasn’t tested. It was.

He told a falsehood.

> >> the skill of the experts was tested, assuming
> >> them to be armed with an ideal weapon in perfect shape.
> >
> >No...
>
>
> Yes.

Taking my claim out of context and merely replying with the opposite is not an argument. That’s a different department.

Monty Python established that five decades ago here:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

And you wonder why we find conspiracy theorists funny.

> >> The Commission ended this passage of the Report on an unmistakably
> >> light note. After correcting the rifle's aiming faults and making
> >> allowance for those that still remained, it remarked of the original
> >> weapon:
> >>
> >> 'Moreover, the defect was one which would have assisted the assassin
> >> aiming at a target which was moving away.'"
> >
> >Lane...
>
>
> Is pointing out facts that you've simply been ignoring.

No, I didn’t ignore them. I rebutted them. You’re the one guilty of ignoring arguments.

Taking my claim out of context and merely replying with the opposite is not an argument. That’s a different department.

Monty Python established that five decades ago here:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

And you wonder why we find conspiracy theorists funny.

>
> Run coward... RUN!

Ad hominem and begging the question logical fallacies.

> >> Mark Lane points out how dishonest the Warren Commission was in their
> >> rifle testing. If Oswald was the 'lone assassin' - why was this
> >> dishonesty needed? Of course, this is a question that the kooks will
> >> never answer - because they deny the *facts* pointed out by Mark Lane.
> >
> >Lane is ...
>
>
> Pointing out facts that you can't explain...

Already explained them. You deleted them and pretended they did exist. And you call me the liar and the coward. Hilarious!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

> >> Huckster has disappeared, and Chuckles is trying to fill in, but Mark
> >> Lane continues spanking believers...
> >
> >Yeah, maybe...
>
> Embarrassed, aren't you?

Quoting out of context and deleting all but a few words is a coward’s way out, wouldn’t you agree?

Ben Holmes

unread,

Dec 17, 2021, 3:36:00 PM12/17/21

On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 11:14:44 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 1:18:22 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 10:04:54 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 9:30:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane continued showing the dishonesty
>>>> of the rifle tests conducted at the behest of the Warren Commission -
>>>> a blatant dishonesty that no LNT'er has yet admitted to... Mark Lane
>>>> wraps it up and explains:
>>>>
>>>> "The mathematical probability test was developed in the following way.
>>>> The rifle first was placed in a vise or machine rest, the scope was
>>>> rebuilt and two or three shims were welded to the weapon. It was then
>>>> fired from the machine rest to determine its innate round-to-round
>>>> dispersion.
>>>
>>>Fixing the scope by rebuilding it or welding shims to the weapon ...
>>
>> Demonstrates that the weapon wasn't the same as it was during the
>> shooting.
>>
>> Your blatant attempts to change the goalpost to "dispersion" noted,
>> and ignored.
>
>Lane discussed dispersion.

Sorry moron, that's not the topic. Explain how fixing the rifle prior
to testing is honest.

>>>> Simmons explained, 'We wanted to determine what the aiming
>>>> error itself was associated with the rifle.' Then, once its inaccuracy
>>>> had been established,
>>>
>>>False — “once it’s *accuracy* had been established”.
>> Simmons himself testified to aiming error.
>

>Yes...

End of story.

>> Are you some sort of expert that can call Simmons a liar?
>

>No...

End of story.

>>>> the rifle was given to the three riflemen.
>>>>
>>>> The marksmen were expert; the targets were fixed; they were wrong in
>>>> respect to angle and size;
>>>
>>> The target size was standard silhouettes ...
>>
>> Not a refutation.
>
>Sure it is.

No it isn't.

>>>> the tower from which the experts fired was
>>>> approximately one-half as high as it should have been;
>>>
>>>He’s padding the complaint, mentioning the angle and the height separately.
>>
>> Cry some more, coward.
>>

>> Why can't you address the FACTS that Mark Lane is speaking of?

LFD.

>>>Lane treats the lower height as an advantage, when it’s a disadvantage.
>>
>> And you're a damned liar who has no shooting expertise or knowledge of
>> physics.
>
> Not a rebuttal.

Of course it is. Pointing out that you're simply lying, instead of
explaining the WC's decisions here is quite valid.

>>>>and the sight
>>>> on the rifle had been rebuilt.
>>>
>>>Yeah...
>

>Quote ...

It is indeed.

>> Note folks, Huckster STILL hasn't explained these facts...
>

>You...

No, we're speaking of YOUR refusal to address these facts.

>>>> They fired, taking all the time they
>>>> needed for the first shot,
>>>
>>>So essentially, as much time as did Oswald.
>>
>> No, you're lying again, Huckster...
>

>How much time ...

Less than allowed.

>>>> and, as the Report says:
>>>>
>>>> 'On the basis of these results, Simmons testified that in his opinion
>>>> the probability of hitting the targets at the relatively short range
>>>> at which they were hit was very high.'
>>>>
>>>> Just what enabled Simmons to conclude that the probability was very
>>>> high?
>>>
>>>Simmons answered that.
>

>No...

Provably yes.

>> Yes... immediately below:
>>
>>>> He subtracted the rifle's inherent inaccuracy from the final
>>>> score. Simmons said, 'Yes. We have subtracted out the round-to-round
>>>> dispersion.'
>>>>
>>>> That is, Simmons determined the rifle's aiming error after it had been
>>>> rebuilt,
>>>
>>>The scope was rebuild...
>>
>> That *IS* what you use to aim with.
>
>Not necessarily.

What did the WC say about scope vs iron sights?

>> Did anyone notice Huckster's lie here?
>
>I didn’t notice any.

Of course not.

>>>> omitted this factor from his calculations and then concluded
>>>> — and the Commission adopted his conclusion — that the probability of
>>>> hitting the target was very high. In other words, the probability of
>>>> the Commission's carefully selected riflemen hitting large,
>>>
>>>*Human Sized*
>>
>> You're lying again, Huckster. Interested lurkers can view the targets
>> for themselves with a simple Google search.
>
>Hell, I’ll link to them right here:
>
>https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

That will save interested lurkers time...

>>>> stationary
>>>
>>>Because ...
>>
>>
>> No. There's no possible explanation for this other than to make the
>> "test" easier.
>

>Sorry...

Don't be sorry, it wasn't *YOU* cheating.

Now you have the opportunity to correct that false tale...

>>>> targets was high if an absolutely perfect weapon was employed. The
>>>> weapon was not tested;
>>>
>>>Yes, it was.
>>
>> No moron, it wasn't. It was repaired first.
>
>That’s a moving of the goalposts.

Sadly, you're lying again...

>>>> the skill of the experts was tested, assuming
>>>> them to be armed with an ideal weapon in perfect shape.
>>>
>>>No...
>>
>> Yes.
>>

>>>> The Commission ended this passage of the Report on an unmistakably
>>>> light note. After correcting the rifle's aiming faults and making
>>>> allowance for those that still remained, it remarked of the original
>>>> weapon:
>>>>
>>>> 'Moreover, the defect was one which would have assisted the assassin
>>>> aiming at a target which was moving away.'"
>>>
>>>Lane...
>>
>> Is pointing out facts that you've simply been ignoring.
>

>No...

Yes.

>> Run coward... RUN!

>>
>>>> Mark Lane points out how dishonest the Warren Commission was in their
>>>> rifle testing. If Oswald was the 'lone assassin' - why was this
>>>> dishonesty needed? Of course, this is a question that the kooks will
>>>> never answer - because they deny the *facts* pointed out by Mark Lane.
>>>
>>>Lane is ...
>>
>>
>> Pointing out facts that you can't explain...
>>

Hank Sienzant

unread,

Dec 17, 2021, 4:12:16 PM12/17/21

Ben goes on a deletion rampage because he couldn’t rebut any of this:
The last line below speaks vol7mes.
to

Lane discussed dispersion. I pointed out he mentioned two things unrelated to the dispersion as if they affected the dispersion. They didn’t, and they don’t.

> Are you some sort of expert that can call Simmons a liar?

No, but I’m not calling him a liar. You and Lane are the ones being misleading by taking quotes out of context.

Sure it is. Lane said they were the wrong size. They were human-sized silhouettes. What’s wrong with that?

Should they have Barbie Doll-sized?

Ad hominem, and not a rebuttal.

>

> Why can't you address the FACTS that Mark Lane is speaking of?

Not a rebuttal, and in fact, it’s a Begged Question logical fallacy — neither you nor Lane has established all of his claims as facts. And some of them, like alluding to the supposed inaccuracy of the weapon, are clearly disingenuous. Simmons determined the dispersion was pretty much the same as the then-modern M-14, and testified to that.

== quote ==
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you conduct a test from a machine rest, a test of round-to- round dispersion of this weapon, or have such tests conducted?
Mr. SIMMONS. May I check the serial number?
Mr. EISENBERG. I should ask first if you are familiar with this weapon.
I have handed the witness Commission Exhibit 139.
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. We fired this weapon from a machine rest for round-to-round dispersion. We fired exactly 20 rounds in this test, and the dispersion which we measured is of conventional magnitude, about the same that we get with our present military rifles, and the standard deviation of dispersion is .29 mil.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is a fraction of a degree?
Mr. SIMMONS. A mil is an angular measurement. There are 17.7 mils to a degree.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate.
== unquote ==

Why can’t you address the rebuttal to the disingenuous claims Lane made, that I am pointing out?

> >Lane treats the lower height as an advantage, when it’s a disadvantage.
> And you're a damned liar who has no shooting expertise or knowledge of
> physics.

Not a rebuttal. Deleting the point isn’t going to cut it, Ben. And in fact, we established your knowledge of physic was entirely mistaken, and only one of us had been a college physics major.

> >>and the sight
> >> on the rifle had been rebuilt.
> >
> >Yeah...

Quote out of context. You *lose* credibility points when you do that.

>
>

> Note folks, Huckster STILL hasn't explained these facts...

You deleted and ignored my explanations, pretending they didn’t exist.

Your loss of credibility, not mine.

> >> They fired, taking all the time they
> >> needed for the first shot,
> >
> >So essentially, as much time as did Oswald.
> No, you're lying again, Huckster...

No, you again deleted my response, so more loss of credibility (not that you have much to spare).

> Did anyone notice Huckster's lie here?

I didn’t notice any. If I committed one, you would not have deleted my point but pointed out the lie.

==quote ==
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you have a test run to determine the possibility of scoring hits with this weapon, Exhibit 139, on a given target at a given distance under rapid fire conditions?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we did. We placed three targets, which were head and shoulder silhouettes…
The targets are standard head-and-shoulders silhouettes, and they consist of approximately 2 square feet in area.
== unquote ==

>
>

> >> stationary
> >
> >Because ...
>
>
> No. There's no possible explanation for this other than to make the
> "test" easier.

Sorry, just because you don’t accept any other possible explanation doesn’t mean other explanations aren’t possible. This is in fact the logical fallacy of personal incredulity.

> >> targets was high if an absolutely perfect weapon was employed. The
> >> weapon was not tested;
> >
> >Yes, it was.
> No moron, it wasn't. It was repaired first.

> >> the skill of the experts was tested, assuming
> >> them to be armed with an ideal weapon in perfect shape.
> >
> >No...
>
>
> Yes.

Already explained them. You deleted them and pretended they did exist. And you call me the liar and the coward. Hilarious!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

> >> Huckster has disappeared, and Chuckles is trying to fill in, but Mark
> >> Lane continues spanking believers...
> >
> >Yeah, maybe...
>
> Embarrassed, aren't you?

Ben Holmes

unread,

Dec 20, 2021, 9:14:34 AM12/20/21

On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 13:12:15 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Dead silence...

Huckster just got spanked again...

>>>>>> Simmons explained, 'We wanted to determine what the aiming
>>>>>> error itself was associated with the rifle.' Then, once its inaccuracy
>>>>>> had been established,
>>>>>
>>>>>False — “once it’s *accuracy* had been established”.
>>>> Simmons himself testified to aiming error.
>>>
>>>Yes...
>>
>> End of story.
>>
>>>> Are you some sort of expert that can call Simmons a liar?
>>>
>>>No...
>>
>> End of story.
>>
>>>>>> the rifle was given to the three riflemen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The marksmen were expert; the targets were fixed; they were wrong in
>>>>>> respect to angle and size;
>>>>>
>>>>> The target size was standard silhouettes ...
>>>>
>>>> Not a refutation.
>>>
>>>Sure it is.
>>
>> No it isn't.

It always amuses me when non-shooters try to explain things to those
of us who actually have real expertise.

>>>>>> the tower from which the experts fired was
>>>>>> approximately one-half as high as it should have been;
>>>>>
>>>>>He’s padding the complaint, mentioning the angle and the height separately.
>>>>
>>>> Cry some more, coward.
>>>>
>>>> Why can't you address the FACTS that Mark Lane is speaking of?
>> LFD.
>>>>>Lane treats the lower height as an advantage, when it’s a disadvantage.
>>>>
>>>> And you're a damned liar who has no shooting expertise or knowledge of
>>>> physics.
>>>
>>> Not a rebuttal.
>>
>> Of course it is. Pointing out that you're simply lying, instead of
>> explaining the WC's decisions here is quite valid.

Once again, Huckster got spanked, and ran away crying...

>>>>>>and the sight
>>>>>> on the rifle had been rebuilt.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yeah...
>>>
>>>Quote ...
>>
>> It is indeed.
>>
>>>> Note folks, Huckster STILL hasn't explained these facts...
>>>
>>>You...
>>
>> No, we're speaking of YOUR refusal to address these facts.
>>
>>>>>> They fired, taking all the time they
>>>>>> needed for the first shot,
>>>>>
>>>>>So essentially, as much time as did Oswald.
>>>>
>>>> No, you're lying again, Huckster...
>>>
>>>How much time ...
>>
>> Less than allowed.
>>
>>>>>> and, as the Report says:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'On the basis of these results, Simmons testified that in his opinion
>>>>>> the probability of hitting the targets at the relatively short range
>>>>>> at which they were hit was very high.'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just what enabled Simmons to conclude that the probability was very
>>>>>> high?
>>>>>
>>>>>Simmons answered that.
>>>
>>>No...
>>
>> Provably yes.

Notice that Huckster got spanked again!

>>>> Yes... immediately below:
>>>>
>>>>>> He subtracted the rifle's inherent inaccuracy from the final
>>>>>> score. Simmons said, 'Yes. We have subtracted out the round-to-round
>>>>>> dispersion.'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is, Simmons determined the rifle's aiming error after it had been
>>>>>> rebuilt,
>>>>>
>>>>>The scope was rebuild...
>>>>
>>>> That *IS* what you use to aim with.
>>>
>>>Not necessarily.
>>
>> What did the WC say about scope vs iron sights?

Huckster is TERRIFIED of providing the answer... even though it's a
certainty that he knows it.

>>>> Did anyone notice Huckster's lie here?
>>>
>>>I didn’t notice any.
>>

>> Of course not.

One thing you can count on, the inability of liars to recognize their
own lies.

>>>>>> omitted this factor from his calculations and then concluded
>>>>>> — and the Commission adopted his conclusion — that the probability of
>>>>>> hitting the target was very high. In other words, the probability of
>>>>>> the Commission's carefully selected riflemen hitting large,
>>>>>
>>>>>*Human Sized*
>>>>
>>>> You're lying again, Huckster. Interested lurkers can view the targets
>>>> for themselves with a simple Google search.
>>>
>>>Hell, I’ll link to them right here:
>>>
>>>https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
>>
>> That will save interested lurkers time...
>>
>>>>>> stationary
>>>>>
>>>>>Because ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No. There's no possible explanation for this other than to make the
>>>> "test" easier.
>>>
>>>Sorry...
>>
>> Don't be sorry, it wasn't *YOU* cheating.
>>
>> Now you have the opportunity to correct that false tale...

And yet, Huckster refuses to do so...

When a response is three times the size of the post, you can be sure a
Gish Gallup is underway...

Deleted, of course.

0 new messages