[Ben Holmes]

(08-28-2016, 04:42 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-27-2016, 04:04 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  You're lying again, Mark.

A perfect example is Mary Woodward. Published on 11/23, and even McAdams admits is a Grassy Knoll witness. Found in Appendix 1, exactly as the citation gives.

Perfect example? But Woodward's DMN article isn't referenced in Appendix 1 - only her 12/7 FBI interview. You're lying if you claim otherwise.

The citation that Mark Lane gives is to Appendix 1. She is indeed referenced in Appendix 1. The only references to newspaper articles was to those witnesses not mentioned by the Warren Commission. Mark Lane made that perfectly clear when he stated:

Mark Lane Wrote:At least 11 additional witnesses were mentioned in newspaper dispatches published on November 22 and 23, 1963. In these instances the names are followed by a reference to the issue of a newspaper which offered either a statement by the witness or information indicating his presence at the scene on November 22

What part of that did you not understand?

Now... let's hear a retraction of your lie that no witnesses from the Appendix citation pointed to the Grassy Knoll.
 

(08-28-2016, 04:42 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  In the article, she mentions seeing the Newmans lying on the ground and infers that they must've been in the line of fire. Enough to make her a GK witness, I suppose, albeit not a particularly strong one.

Strong enough to even force McAdams to admit that she's a Grassy Knoll witness. I don't particularly care for your opinion of how "strong" a witness she is - YOU LIED AND CLAIMED THAT NONE EXISTED.

I keep telling you Mark, you're not going to get away with telling lies in this forum without it being pointed out.
 

(08-28-2016, 04:42 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-27-2016, 04:04 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  You know Mark... you're going to keep lying, and I'm simply going to keep citing the evidence that proves you a liar.

One of many differences between us is that I don't lie to you.

ROTFLMAO!!! I've just PROVEN another lie on your part - and you have the gall to claim you don't lie!!!

Now, admit that you lied about any of the Appendix witnesses being Grassy Knoll witnesses.

Or run away again... who cares?
 

(08-28-2016, 04:42 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-27-2016, 04:04 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  It's a FACT that Mark Lane was completely correct in the actual point he made:
 

Mark Lane Wrote:Perhaps the most significant figures therefore—more significant even than the ones given above—are those attesting the immediate reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any official version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came from the knoll.

You still refuse to refute what Mark Lane actually said - which is that the majority of witnesses on the record in the first two days pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

You can keep lying - and I'll simply keep pointing it out.

Earth to Ben: You have produced one GK witness! Is that what you consider an overwhelming majority?

I thought you claimed that you didn't lie?

I produced all I needed to produce to prove you lying about the Appendix witnesses. You yourself refuse to cite 20 of the witnesses - knowing full well that you aren't going to find a majority of TSBD witnesses in that bunch... so tell us Mark - why do you keep lying?

 

(08-25-2016, 08:52 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-24-2016, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-25-2016, 08:52 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-24-2016, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  If you could have found more, you'd have listed them by now.

It wouldn't be difficult to find additional non-GK witnesses, but I frankly have better things to do with my time. You haven't contributed anything of value to this discussion, so you're hardly in a position to make demands. Would you, however, be willing to pay me to do the research you're too lazy to do yourself, then I'll take your offer into consideration.

You're lying again, Mark. You need to find a MAJORITY of the witnesses documented on 11/22 and 11/23 in order to impugn Mark Lane's point.

Oh, I've already demonstrated that his numbers are (shall we say) less than reliable. It's your job (as fan club president) to salvage whatever is left of his honor.

His "honor" is intact. He claimed that a majority of the first two day documented witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

You've been completely unable to put a dent in that statement... it's as true today as it was in 1966 when he wrote it.
 

(08-25-2016, 08:52 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-24-2016, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  You can't do it, and you KNOW you can't do it.

Lane claimed "22 of 25," and you claim "an overwhelming majority," but you refuse to support your claim. Enough said.

You can't refute what Mark Lane said by begging critics to make your case. That's something YOU have to do.

The overwhelming majority of witnesses documented on 11/22 and 11/23 were Grassy Knoll witnesses... and the fact that you've been rather consistently caught lying shows that you completely understand the weakness of your faith.

Congratulations on your proven cowardice... you've refused to admit a basic evidential fact on the number of witnesses referenced in the citations...