On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 1:50:07 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 10:36:27 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 10:54:56 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that Hoover was wrong in
his assertion that "the expertness of the shooter ... can [not] be
determined for the time of the assassination".
"Could an inferior rifleman, with that weapon and ammunition, fire at
least three times from a point 60 feet above the ground and strike the >>>> President at least twice, in the neck and head, as the Presidential
limousine moved west on Elm Street?
Hoover was undoubtedly right when he said that no test today can
exactly reproduce the conditions in Dealey Plaza on November 22 as
depicted by the Commission. For one thing, the alleged assassin is
dead, and a valid test must embrace not only the weapon's intrinsic
capability but also its potential in its user's hands.
Lane is saying the only valid test should include the accused assassin.
Of course.
What a bizarre argument.
No, an honest one. Is it possible for someone to do a back handspring
into a back summersault?
Absolutely.
Is is possible for *YOU* to do so.
No.
Yet you'd call this a "bizarre" argument. IT'S FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL
TO THE ONE YOU JUST CALLED 'BIZARRE'
Maybe a larger font and boldface would help. Uppercase doesn’t make your argument any stronger.
All you've done is show what a dishonest moron you are.
Try to make a reasoned argument.
But it's good to see you finally responding again, after skipping so
many Mark Lane posts that you have no answer for... Do you plan to go
back and answer them?
LFD.
However, it is possible to construct a test to prove whether the rifle >>>> in expert hands is capable of firing at least three shots at a moving
target, hitting the target at least twice, in the period of time fixed >>>> by the Commission as between 4-8 and 5-6 seconds.
Certainly. If you say so.If that can be done,
then the Commission's case may still be argued. If it cannot be done,
then the case against Oswald must collapse. Mark Twain wrote, 'Who so, >>>> clinging to a rope, severeth it above his hands, must fall; it being
no defense that the rest of the rope is sound.'"
Mark Lane is about to describe the firing tests conducted by the
Warren Commission... are there any Warren Commission defenders willing >>>> to state right now that they were not honestly conducted? Mark Lane is >>>> about to show exactly that...
Ben to delete my points and call me names.
It was a prediction, not a request. A very accurate prediction.
On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 14:40:47 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 1:50:07 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 10:36:27 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 10:54:56 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that Hoover was wrong in >>>> his assertion that "the expertness of the shooter ... can [not] beOf course.
determined for the time of the assassination".
"Could an inferior rifleman, with that weapon and ammunition, fire at >>>> least three times from a point 60 feet above the ground and strike the >>>> President at least twice, in the neck and head, as the Presidential >>>> limousine moved west on Elm Street?
Hoover was undoubtedly right when he said that no test today can
exactly reproduce the conditions in Dealey Plaza on November 22 as
depicted by the Commission. For one thing, the alleged assassin is
dead, and a valid test must embrace not only the weapon's intrinsic >>>> capability but also its potential in its user's hands.
Lane is saying the only valid test should include the accused assassin. >>
What a bizarre argument.
No, an honest one. Is it possible for someone to do a back handspring
into a back summersault?
Absolutely.
Is is possible for *YOU* to do so.
No.
Yet you'd call this a "bizarre" argument. IT'S FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL
TO THE ONE YOU JUST CALLED 'BIZARRE'
Maybe a larger font and boldface would help. Uppercase doesn’t make your argument any stronger.
My "argument" is so indisputable, that you were unable to dispute it.
LFD.
You cannot dispute the truth with logical fallacies.
You lose!
All you've done is show what a dishonest moron you are.
Try to make a reasoned argument.
Just did.
You're too dishonest to acknowledge it.
But it's good to see you finally responding again, after skipping so
many Mark Lane posts that you have no answer for... Do you plan to go
back and answer them?
LFD.
However, it is possible to construct a test to prove whether the rifle >>>> in expert hands is capable of firing at least three shots at a moving >>>> target, hitting the target at least twice, in the period of time fixed >>>> by the Commission as between 4-8 and 5-6 seconds.
Certainly. If you say so.If that can be done,
then the Commission's case may still be argued. If it cannot be done, >>>> then the case against Oswald must collapse. Mark Twain wrote, 'Who so, >>>> clinging to a rope, severeth it above his hands, must fall; it being >>>> no defense that the rest of the rope is sound.'"
Mark Lane is about to describe the firing tests conducted by the
Warren Commission... are there any Warren Commission defenders willing >>>> to state right now that they were not honestly conducted? Mark Lane is >>>> about to show exactly that...
Ben to delete my points and call me names.
It was a prediction, not a request. A very accurate prediction.
And a fulfilled request.
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:18:51?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 14:40:47 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 1:50:07 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 10:36:27 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 10:54:56 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that Hoover was wrong in >>>>>> his assertion that "the expertness of the shooter ... can [not] be >>>>>> determined for the time of the assassination".Of course.
"Could an inferior rifleman, with that weapon and ammunition, fire at >>>>>> least three times from a point 60 feet above the ground and strike the >>>>>> President at least twice, in the neck and head, as the Presidential >>>>>> limousine moved west on Elm Street?
Hoover was undoubtedly right when he said that no test today can
exactly reproduce the conditions in Dealey Plaza on November 22 as >>>>>> depicted by the Commission. For one thing, the alleged assassin is >>>>>> dead, and a valid test must embrace not only the weapon's intrinsic >>>>>> capability but also its potential in its user's hands.
Lane is saying the only valid test should include the accused assassin. >>>>
What a bizarre argument.
No, an honest one. Is it possible for someone to do a back handspring
into a back summersault?
Absolutely.
Is is possible for *YOU* to do so.
No.
Yet you'd call this a "bizarre" argument. IT'S FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL
TO THE ONE YOU JUST CALLED 'BIZARRE'
Maybe a larger font and boldface would help. Uppercase doesn’t make your argument any stronger.
My "argument" is so indisputable, that you were unable to dispute it.
LFD.
You cannot dispute the truth with logical fallacies.
You lose!
All you've done is show what a dishonest moron you are.
Try to make a reasoned argument.
Just did.
You're too dishonest to acknowledge it.
But it's good to see you finally responding again, after skipping so
many Mark Lane posts that you have no answer for... Do you plan to go
back and answer them?
LFD.
However, it is possible to construct a test to prove whether the rifle >>>>>> in expert hands is capable of firing at least three shots at a moving >>>>>> target, hitting the target at least twice, in the period of time fixed >>>>>> by the Commission as between 4-8 and 5-6 seconds.
Certainly. If you say so.If that can be done,
then the Commission's case may still be argued. If it cannot be done, >>>>>> then the case against Oswald must collapse. Mark Twain wrote, 'Who so, >>>>>> clinging to a rope, severeth it above his hands, must fall; it being >>>>>> no defense that the rest of the rope is sound.'"
Mark Lane is about to describe the firing tests conducted by the
Warren Commission... are there any Warren Commission defenders willing >>>>>> to state right now that they were not honestly conducted? Mark Lane is >>>>>> about to show exactly that...
Ben to delete my points and call me names.
It was a prediction, not a request. A very accurate prediction.
And a fulfilled request.
Ben is desperately seeking to change the subject and thinks doing a series of fringe reset posts will accomplish that.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 13:44:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:18:51?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 14:40:47 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 1:50:07 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 10:36:27 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 10:54:56 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that Hoover was wrong in >>>>>> his assertion that "the expertness of the shooter ... can [not] be >>>>>> determined for the time of the assassination".Of course.
"Could an inferior rifleman, with that weapon and ammunition, fire at >>>>>> least three times from a point 60 feet above the ground and strike the
President at least twice, in the neck and head, as the Presidential >>>>>> limousine moved west on Elm Street?
Hoover was undoubtedly right when he said that no test today can >>>>>> exactly reproduce the conditions in Dealey Plaza on November 22 as >>>>>> depicted by the Commission. For one thing, the alleged assassin is >>>>>> dead, and a valid test must embrace not only the weapon's intrinsic >>>>>> capability but also its potential in its user's hands.
Lane is saying the only valid test should include the accused assassin. >>>>
What a bizarre argument.
No, an honest one. Is it possible for someone to do a back handspring >>>> into a back summersault?
Absolutely.
Is is possible for *YOU* to do so.
No.
Yet you'd call this a "bizarre" argument. IT'S FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL >>>> TO THE ONE YOU JUST CALLED 'BIZARRE'
Maybe a larger font and boldface would help. Uppercase doesn’t make your argument any stronger.
My "argument" is so indisputable, that you were unable to dispute it.
LFD.
You cannot dispute the truth with logical fallacies.
You lose!
All you've done is show what a dishonest moron you are.
Try to make a reasoned argument.
Just did.
You're too dishonest to acknowledge it.
But it's good to see you finally responding again, after skipping so >>>> many Mark Lane posts that you have no answer for... Do you plan to go >>>> back and answer them?
LFD.
However, it is possible to construct a test to prove whether the rifle
in expert hands is capable of firing at least three shots at a moving >>>>>> target, hitting the target at least twice, in the period of time fixed
by the Commission as between 4-8 and 5-6 seconds.
Certainly. If you say so.If that can be done,
then the Commission's case may still be argued. If it cannot be done, >>>>>> then the case against Oswald must collapse. Mark Twain wrote, 'Who so,
clinging to a rope, severeth it above his hands, must fall; it being >>>>>> no defense that the rest of the rope is sound.'"
Mark Lane is about to describe the firing tests conducted by the >>>>>> Warren Commission... are there any Warren Commission defenders willing
to state right now that they were not honestly conducted? Mark Lane is
about to show exactly that...
Ben to delete my points and call me names.
It was a prediction, not a request. A very accurate prediction.
And a fulfilled request.
Ben is desperately seeking to change the subject and thinks doing a series of fringe reset posts will accomplish that.The subject has never changed. It's that WCR believers are liars and cowards.
Nothing's changed.
You're still a liar and coward...
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 3:46:46?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 13:44:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:18:51?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:The subject has never changed. It's that WCR believers are liars and
On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 14:40:47 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 1:50:07 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 10:36:27 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 10:54:56 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that Hoover was wrong in >>>>>>>> his assertion that "the expertness of the shooter ... can [not] be >>>>>>>> determined for the time of the assassination".Of course.
"Could an inferior rifleman, with that weapon and ammunition, fire at >>>>>>>> least three times from a point 60 feet above the ground and strike the >>>>>>>> President at least twice, in the neck and head, as the Presidential >>>>>>>> limousine moved west on Elm Street?
Hoover was undoubtedly right when he said that no test today can >>>>>>>> exactly reproduce the conditions in Dealey Plaza on November 22 as >>>>>>>> depicted by the Commission. For one thing, the alleged assassin is >>>>>>>> dead, and a valid test must embrace not only the weapon's intrinsic >>>>>>>> capability but also its potential in its user's hands.
Lane is saying the only valid test should include the accused assassin. >>>>>>
What a bizarre argument.
No, an honest one. Is it possible for someone to do a back handspring >>>>>> into a back summersault?
Absolutely.
Is is possible for *YOU* to do so.
No.
Yet you'd call this a "bizarre" argument. IT'S FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL >>>>>> TO THE ONE YOU JUST CALLED 'BIZARRE'
Maybe a larger font and boldface would help. Uppercase doesn’t make your argument any stronger.
My "argument" is so indisputable, that you were unable to dispute it.
LFD.
You cannot dispute the truth with logical fallacies.
You lose!
All you've done is show what a dishonest moron you are.
Try to make a reasoned argument.
Just did.
You're too dishonest to acknowledge it.
But it's good to see you finally responding again, after skipping so >>>>>> many Mark Lane posts that you have no answer for... Do you plan to go >>>>>> back and answer them?
LFD.
However, it is possible to construct a test to prove whether the rifle >>>>>>>> in expert hands is capable of firing at least three shots at a moving >>>>>>>> target, hitting the target at least twice, in the period of time fixed >>>>>>>> by the Commission as between 4-8 and 5-6 seconds.
Certainly. If you say so.If that can be done,
then the Commission's case may still be argued. If it cannot be done, >>>>>>>> then the case against Oswald must collapse. Mark Twain wrote, 'Who so, >>>>>>>> clinging to a rope, severeth it above his hands, must fall; it being >>>>>>>> no defense that the rest of the rope is sound.'"
Mark Lane is about to describe the firing tests conducted by the >>>>>>>> Warren Commission... are there any Warren Commission defenders willing >>>>>>>> to state right now that they were not honestly conducted? Mark Lane is >>>>>>>> about to show exactly that...
Ben to delete my points and call me names.
It was a prediction, not a request. A very accurate prediction.
And a fulfilled request.
Ben is desperately seeking to change the subject and thinks doing a series of fringe reset posts will accomplish that.
cowards.
Nothing's changed.
You're still a liar and coward...
You'll never get over your short man syndrome, will you?
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 18:36:06 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 3:46:46?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 13:44:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:18:51?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:The subject has never changed. It's that WCR believers are liars and
On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 14:40:47 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 1:50:07 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 10:36:27 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 10:54:56 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that Hoover was wrong in
his assertion that "the expertness of the shooter ... can [not] be >>>>>>>> determined for the time of the assassination".
"Could an inferior rifleman, with that weapon and ammunition, fire at
least three times from a point 60 feet above the ground and strike the
President at least twice, in the neck and head, as the Presidential >>>>>>>> limousine moved west on Elm Street?
Hoover was undoubtedly right when he said that no test today can >>>>>>>> exactly reproduce the conditions in Dealey Plaza on November 22 as >>>>>>>> depicted by the Commission. For one thing, the alleged assassin is >>>>>>>> dead, and a valid test must embrace not only the weapon's intrinsic >>>>>>>> capability but also its potential in its user's hands.
Lane is saying the only valid test should include the accused assassin.
Of course.
What a bizarre argument.
No, an honest one. Is it possible for someone to do a back handspring >>>>>> into a back summersault?
Absolutely.
Is is possible for *YOU* to do so.
No.
Yet you'd call this a "bizarre" argument. IT'S FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL >>>>>> TO THE ONE YOU JUST CALLED 'BIZARRE'
Maybe a larger font and boldface would help. Uppercase doesn’t make your argument any stronger.
My "argument" is so indisputable, that you were unable to dispute it. >>>>
LFD.
You cannot dispute the truth with logical fallacies.
You lose!
All you've done is show what a dishonest moron you are.
Try to make a reasoned argument.
Just did.
You're too dishonest to acknowledge it.
But it's good to see you finally responding again, after skipping so >>>>>> many Mark Lane posts that you have no answer for... Do you plan to go >>>>>> back and answer them?
LFD.
However, it is possible to construct a test to prove whether the rifle
in expert hands is capable of firing at least three shots at a moving
target, hitting the target at least twice, in the period of time fixed
by the Commission as between 4-8 and 5-6 seconds.
Certainly. If you say so.If that can be done,
then the Commission's case may still be argued. If it cannot be done,
then the case against Oswald must collapse. Mark Twain wrote, 'Who so,
clinging to a rope, severeth it above his hands, must fall; it being
no defense that the rest of the rope is sound.'"
Mark Lane is about to describe the firing tests conducted by the >>>>>>>> Warren Commission... are there any Warren Commission defenders willing
to state right now that they were not honestly conducted? Mark Lane is
about to show exactly that...
Ben to delete my points and call me names.
It was a prediction, not a request. A very accurate prediction.
And a fulfilled request.
Ben is desperately seeking to change the subject and thinks doing a series of fringe reset posts will accomplish that.
cowards.
Nothing's changed.
You're still a liar and coward...
You'll never get over your short man syndrome, will you?You'll never get over molesting your own mother, will you?
Both statements are equally true.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 101:07:09 |
| Calls: | 6,659 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,859 |