[Ben Holmes]

(08-24-2016, 09:15 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-16-2016, 03:03 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

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

(08-16-2016, 01:46 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  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.

You KNOW that Mark Lane's numbers are objectively wrong. You KNOW that you can't support your "overwhelming majority" claim. This explains why you'll never post the witnesses tabulation you (*cough*) claim to have done.

 
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?

OIC. When Mark Lane fudges his numbers, he's "absolutely correct." When McAdams doesn't count a "railroad yards adjacent to the TSBD" witness as a GK witness, he's a "liar." When I point out something that is objectively wrong, I "lose." When you point out something that is merely subject to interpretation, you "win." There is clearly a double standard at play here, but you're too biased to see it.

Mark Lane IS absolutely correct. His point had virtually nothing to do with exact numbers... his point, and you've proven it, is that the MAJORITY of witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll on 11/22 & 11/23

John McAdams certainly was lying when he misleadingly put a witness in the wrong category. He did the same thing a number of times.

Can you actually defend McAdams' tabulation?

Mark Ulrik Wrote:Can you defend Lane's? He was unable to support his, just like you're unable to support your "overwhelming majority" claim. Why don't you post the tabulation you (*cough*) claim to have done, using Lane's sources and selection criteria? What are you so afraid of?

So the answer is no... you can't defend McAdams' tabulation.

That means that you realize that McAdams was indeed, a liar. So you don't have anything to complain about.

Nor do I need to document what YOU have already documented... that an overwhelming majority of witnesses documented on 11/22 or 11/23 pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

Why do you ask me to support what you've already proven?
 

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...

Mark Ulrik Wrote:If I "lose" when I point out something that is objectively wrong (like 3 = 5+), then you also lose when you point out something that is merely subject to interpretation (like whether or not a "railroad yards adjacent to the TSBD" witness should be counted as a GK witness).

BINGO... you refused to defend how McAdams refused to put a "Railroad yard" witness in the correct category. You have, indeed, proven yourself a liar.

Patrick, although he ran for many days & posts from that topic, finally admitted that there wasn't any way to differentiate between the Railroad yard and the Grassy Knoll from the TSBD... you're simply refusing to answer.

Since you are trying to paint McAdams as an honest man - that means you realize you can't defend that claim.

You've lost all the way 'round...
 

• You clearly understand that Mark Lane's point about where the overwhelming numbers of eyewitnesses on 11/22 & 11/23 pointed is correct.
  
• You clearly know that McAdams was dishonest when he removed a Grassy Knoll eyewitness from his tabulation.
  
• You clearly know that you cannot find even a simple majority of witnesses who pointed to the TSBD on 11/22 & 11/23
  
• You desperately want me to provide more evidence for you to take aim at... but there's no need.
  
• You rather consistently refuse to answer the questions on the evidence that would force you to admit the truth.
  

You lost.