[Mark Ulrik]

(08-05-2016, 01:24 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-01-2016, 01:25 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  Can someone give me the lowdown on what it is, specifically, that Ben doesn't like (or understand) about McAdams' tabulation?

 

(08-05-2016, 08:01 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-05-2016, 03:04 AM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-01-2016, 01:25 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  You make absolutely zero sense. I used Lane's sources and selection criteria and had no problem finding 5 witnesses who pointed to the TSBD. Lane stated that, of 25 witnesses that met his criteria, 22 pointed to the GK. You do understand that 5 > (25 - 22), don't you?

So it's your assertion that there were only 20 witnesses that pointed to the knoll?

Careful now, Mark... I've tabulated them, so if you tell a lie, I'll be happy to point it out.

Quit playing games. I've already demonstrated that Lane's numbers are wrong. Are you denying that the 5 witnesses I gave you meet Lane's selection criteria? Are you denying that all 5 pointed to the TSBD as the source of the shots? Are you denying that Lane's "tabulation" only leaves room for 3 non-GK witnesses?

No Mark, you've not.

If YOUR numbers are right, then there should be just 20 knoll witnesses.

Non sequitur.

But you already know that to be incorrect... yet you're too dishonest to state that publicly.  Quite clearly, Mark Lane either didn't count, or didn't credit all TSBD witnesses, BUT HE FAILED TO COUNT ALL THE KNOLL WITNESSES AS WELL.

So you admit his numbers are wrong? That must have been a tough one to swallow.

There's no way to know who Mark Lane had in his list of 25.  But it's clear in hindsight, and with our greater ability to research the evidence, that '25' wasn't the extent of witness accounts dated to 11/22 or 11/23.

Lane cited only Decker Exhit 5323 and CE 2003. Yes, searchable versions are available today, but the content hasn't changed over the years, so that's a very weak excuse.

Now, since you've refused to publicly assert that the numbers are correct, you really can't document a "lie" on Mark Lane's part, can you?

But Lane's numbers are not correct! You even admitted that yourself.

My comments in green above.