The following warnings occurred: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warning [2] A non-numeric value encountered - Line: 499 - File: inc/functions.php PHP 7.4.33 (Linux)
|
Warren Commission Omission. - Printable Version +- Forums (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com) +-- Forum: Main JFK Forums (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Forum-Main-JFK-Forums) +--- Forum: JFK Conspiracy Main Forum (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Forum-JFK-Conspiracy-Main-Forum) +--- Thread: Warren Commission Omission. (/Thread-Warren-Commission-Omission) |
Warren Commission Omission. - Ben Holmes - 09-28-2016 From a memorandum written by Albert Jenner to Lee Rankin on April 20th, 1964: Quote:"Delivered herewith are three preliminary memoranda prepared by John Ely at my request made in late February or early March. Let me repeat that last sentence one more time... regarding the historical details of Oswald and his family: "...THERE ARE DETAILS ... WHICH WILL REQUIRE MATERIAL ALTERATION AND, IN SOME INSTANCES, OMISSION." Now, since believers FREQUENTLY claim that Mark Lane is a "liar" based on the claim that he "omitted" something - can believers now admit that the Warren Commission lied? (Of course, none will...) RE: Warren Commission Omission. - Ben Holmes - 09-29-2016 Patrick didn't want to admit the obvious, that based on the same claim about Mark Lane, the Warren Commission was lying. Nor does he want to refute that believers have historically claimed that omission is lying... because he knows I'm ready with citations that prove otherwise. |