[Ben Holmes]

(08-16-2016, 02:34 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-16-2016, 01:46 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  YOUR OWN NUMBERS prove two things... that Mark Lane counted different people than you... and that his point that the overwhelming majority of the first few days witnesses pointed to the TSBD is absolutely true.

"...his point that the overwhelming majority of the first few days witnesses pointed to the TSBD is absolutely true."

Freudian slip?

Nope... simply a mistake. Run if you wish, but you cannot refute the fact that your own numbers prove two things... that Mark Lane counted different people than you, and that in the first two days the overwhelming majority of witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

You cannot refute that.

Nor will you even try. Remember folks - my crystal ball is once again making a prediction - and Mark can't help but make it come true.
 

Mark Ulrik Wrote:My "numbers" (it's really only one) prove that Lane's numbers are wrong. Period.

It's wonderful that you think the precise numbers were the issue.

But they weren't.

You KNOW that Mark Lane was absolutely correct in his basic point. This explains why you'll never list the witnesses, and what direction they pointed.
 

Mark Ulrik Wrote:In pretty much the same way you lost when you complained about McAdams' witness tabulation in another thread?

How could I have "lost?"

Unless YOU can explain how to differentiate a Grassy Knoll shot from a Railroad yard shot from the entrance to the TSBD - you're lying.

Tell us Mark, are you lying?

Can you actually defend McAdams' tabulation?

Mark Ulrik Wrote:It's worth noting that McAdams, unlike the cowardly Lane, published his data, making it much easier for people like you to find minutiae to complain about.

Actually, it simply made it easy to point out his misrepresentations and lies.

Now, explain how to differentiate between a Grassy Knoll shot from a Railroad yard shot if you're standing at the entrance to the TSBD. If you don't, then you're proving yourself a liar. Tell us Mark, are you a liar? Or can you defend your assertion that I "lost" when I pointed out McAdams' wrong tabulation? I'll also note for the record that Patrick ran from that debate...