#11
Conspiracy JFK Forum
Extreme conspiracy theories
RE: Extreme conspiracy theories
(08-01-2016, 05:32 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(08-01-2016, 03:46 PM)Patrick C Wrote: McAdams categorises the rail road tracks as "Knoll" - well based on for example - see statement from Danny Arce.
No Patrick, you are provably wrong.
McAdams DOES NOT categorize the Railroad yard as the Grassy Knoll.
For example, Peggy Hawkins CD897 - yet McAdams places her as a "RR Yard" witness - removing her from her logical place as a Knoll witness.
That ONE PROVABLE EXAMPLE shows that the McAdams tabulation is not accurate, as you keep implying.
Now, would you like to retract your false claim that "Oh I think the McAdams Post direction assimilation is unassailable in terms of accuracy of interpretation of witness statements.?"
Since it's now been proven wrong...
Notice how long it's taken for you to get to the point where you cannot but accept that you're wrong. It's taken DAYS of posts just to get you to admit the basic facts... facts that prove that your "opinion" is wrong.
Wow, Ben has found one(!) arguable designation in McAdams' earwitness tabulation. That still makes it a million times more accurate and reliable than anything that someone like Mark Lane ever published on the matter.
RE: Extreme conspiracy theories
(08-02-2016, 02:33 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:(08-01-2016, 05:32 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(08-01-2016, 03:46 PM)Patrick C Wrote: McAdams categorises the rail road tracks as "Knoll" - well based on for example - see statement from Danny Arce.
No Patrick, you are provably wrong.
McAdams DOES NOT categorize the Railroad yard as the Grassy Knoll.
For example, Peggy Hawkins CD897 - yet McAdams places her as a "RR Yard" witness - removing her from her logical place as a Knoll witness.
That ONE PROVABLE EXAMPLE shows that the McAdams tabulation is not accurate, as you keep implying.
Now, would you like to retract your false claim that "Oh I think the McAdams Post direction assimilation is unassailable in terms of accuracy of interpretation of witness statements.?"
Since it's now been proven wrong...
Notice how long it's taken for you to get to the point where you cannot but accept that you're wrong. It's taken DAYS of posts just to get you to admit the basic facts... facts that prove that your "opinion" is wrong.
Wow, Ben has found one(!) arguable designation in McAdams' earwitness tabulation. That still makes it a million times more accurate and reliable than anything that someone like Mark Lane ever published on the matter.
One is all that's needed to prove that McAdams' tabulation isn't accurate. Many more examples can be provided, but it's hard enough to force believers to admit that they're wrong. I chose a single example... had I chosen a dozen examples, I'd have been accused of a 'Gish Gallop'. So apparently, the truth isn't good enough...
It's now up to Patrick to retract his provably false statement that McAdams' tabulation is "unassailable" ...
And unless, Mark - you can provide an example of Mark Lane being inaccurate on this topic, I'll be happy to label you a liar as well.
This is a very common tactic among WCR Supporters... they make the generalized claim that Mark Lane was wrong - yet absolutely REFUSE to provide and defend any example.
RE: Extreme conspiracy theories
(08-02-2016, 02:54 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(08-02-2016, 02:33 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:(08-01-2016, 05:32 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(08-01-2016, 03:46 PM)Patrick C Wrote: McAdams categorises the rail road tracks as "Knoll" - well based on for example - see statement from Danny Arce.
No Patrick, you are provably wrong.
McAdams DOES NOT categorize the Railroad yard as the Grassy Knoll.
For example, Peggy Hawkins CD897 - yet McAdams places her as a "RR Yard" witness - removing her from her logical place as a Knoll witness.
That ONE PROVABLE EXAMPLE shows that the McAdams tabulation is not accurate, as you keep implying.
Now, would you like to retract your false claim that "Oh I think the McAdams Post direction assimilation is unassailable in terms of accuracy of interpretation of witness statements.?"
Since it's now been proven wrong...
Notice how long it's taken for you to get to the point where you cannot but accept that you're wrong. It's taken DAYS of posts just to get you to admit the basic facts... facts that prove that your "opinion" is wrong.
Wow, Ben has found one(!) arguable designation in McAdams' earwitness tabulation. That still makes it a million times more accurate and reliable than anything that someone like Mark Lane ever published on the matter.
One is all that's needed to prove that McAdams' tabulation isn't accurate. Many more examples can be provided, but it's hard enough to force believers to admit that they're wrong. I chose a single example... had I chosen a dozen examples, I'd have been accused of a 'Gish Gallop'. So apparently, the truth isn't good enough...
It's now up to Patrick to retract his provably false statement that McAdams' tabulation is "unassailable" ...
And unless, Mark - you can provide an example of Mark Lane being inaccurate on this topic, I'll be happy to label you a liar as well.
This is a very common tactic among WCR Supporters... they make the generalized claim that Mark Lane was wrong - yet absolutely REFUSE to provide and defend any example.
How about this nugget from RTJ?
Quote: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.
It's such a bold lie that it almost deserves a thread of its own.
RE: Extreme conspiracy theories
(08-02-2016, 03:15 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:(08-02-2016, 02:54 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(08-02-2016, 02:33 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:(08-01-2016, 05:32 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(08-01-2016, 03:46 PM)Patrick C Wrote: McAdams categorises the rail road tracks as "Knoll" - well based on for example - see statement from Danny Arce.
No Patrick, you are provably wrong.
McAdams DOES NOT categorize the Railroad yard as the Grassy Knoll.
For example, Peggy Hawkins CD897 - yet McAdams places her as a "RR Yard" witness - removing her from her logical place as a Knoll witness.
That ONE PROVABLE EXAMPLE shows that the McAdams tabulation is not accurate, as you keep implying.
Now, would you like to retract your false claim that "Oh I think the McAdams Post direction assimilation is unassailable in terms of accuracy of interpretation of witness statements.?"
Since it's now been proven wrong...
Notice how long it's taken for you to get to the point where you cannot but accept that you're wrong. It's taken DAYS of posts just to get you to admit the basic facts... facts that prove that your "opinion" is wrong.
Wow, Ben has found one(!) arguable designation in McAdams' earwitness tabulation. That still makes it a million times more accurate and reliable than anything that someone like Mark Lane ever published on the matter.
One is all that's needed to prove that McAdams' tabulation isn't accurate. Many more examples can be provided, but it's hard enough to force believers to admit that they're wrong. I chose a single example... had I chosen a dozen examples, I'd have been accused of a 'Gish Gallop'. So apparently, the truth isn't good enough...
It's now up to Patrick to retract his provably false statement that McAdams' tabulation is "unassailable" ...
And unless, Mark - you can provide an example of Mark Lane being inaccurate on this topic, I'll be happy to label you a liar as well.
This is a very common tactic among WCR Supporters... they make the generalized claim that Mark Lane was wrong - yet absolutely REFUSE to provide and defend any example.
How about this nugget from RTJ?
Quote: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.
It's such a bold lie that it almost deserves a thread of its own.
Again... mere assertion instead of citation.
Mark - unless you can start citing for your assertions, I'm merely going to start labeling you a liar.
Mark Lane listed citations for that statement - if you're going to claim that he's wrong - you're going to have to list the people named in those citations, and tabulate them.
If you don't - then it's clear that you can't ... and the only reason you can't is because you're lying.
This isn't the first time this issue has come up without a cite from a supporter.
I suspect it won't be the last either.
Believers just HATE Mark Lane.
RE: Extreme conspiracy theories
By the way... Patrick appears to have disappeared again.
It's a common tactic among believers... Henry Sienzant was famous for it.
But when Patrick finally appears again, I expect a retraction of his claim that McAdam's tabulation is "unassailable" - since it's clear that such is not the case at all.
McAdams lied in his tabulation - and quite provably so.
It's a common tactic among believers... Henry Sienzant was famous for it.
But when Patrick finally appears again, I expect a retraction of his claim that McAdam's tabulation is "unassailable" - since it's clear that such is not the case at all.
McAdams lied in his tabulation - and quite provably so.
RE: Extreme conspiracy theories
(08-01-2016, 05:32 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(08-01-2016, 03:46 PM)Patrick C Wrote: McAdams categorises the rail road tracks as "Knoll" - well based on for example - see statement from Danny Arce.
"It's taken DAYS of posts just to get you to admit the basic facts... facts that prove that your "opinion" is wrong."
It may take days ...my prerogative. I am not that active these days with the JFK case.
So what you are saying is that McAdams does not always throw the frontal shots as Knoll - fair enough, I did not check them all. I don't really care. He does however categorise the locations accurately in terms of the statistical reliability in the data - and that is the point. So what if there are a few outliers there.
What is important is that the majority of people thought ALL the shots came from the Knoll area or the TSBD area. And you know what that means.
If I misrepresented a fraction of a % of the data - I really don't care. My point still stands. That you have a seemingly OCD for irrelevant minutia is your problem.
Maybe that is the reason you can't see the wood from the trees...? The glaring reality that Oswald acting alone, shot JFK and Tippit.
This post was last modified: 08-03-2016, 03:07 PM by Ben Holmes.
RE: Extreme conspiracy theories
(08-02-2016, 03:30 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(08-02-2016, 03:15 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:(08-02-2016, 02:54 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(08-02-2016, 02:33 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:(08-01-2016, 05:32 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: No Patrick, you are provably wrong.
McAdams DOES NOT categorize the Railroad yard as the Grassy Knoll.
For example, Peggy Hawkins CD897 - yet McAdams places her as a "RR Yard" witness - removing her from her logical place as a Knoll witness.
That ONE PROVABLE EXAMPLE shows that the McAdams tabulation is not accurate, as you keep implying.
Now, would you like to retract your false claim that "Oh I think the McAdams Post direction assimilation is unassailable in terms of accuracy of interpretation of witness statements.?"
Since it's now been proven wrong...
Notice how long it's taken for you to get to the point where you cannot but accept that you're wrong. It's taken DAYS of posts just to get you to admit the basic facts... facts that prove that your "opinion" is wrong.
Wow, Ben has found one(!) arguable designation in McAdams' earwitness tabulation. That still makes it a million times more accurate and reliable than anything that someone like Mark Lane ever published on the matter.
One is all that's needed to prove that McAdams' tabulation isn't accurate. Many more examples can be provided, but it's hard enough to force believers to admit that they're wrong. I chose a single example... had I chosen a dozen examples, I'd have been accused of a 'Gish Gallop'. So apparently, the truth isn't good enough...
It's now up to Patrick to retract his provably false statement that McAdams' tabulation is "unassailable" ...
And unless, Mark - you can provide an example of Mark Lane being inaccurate on this topic, I'll be happy to label you a liar as well.
This is a very common tactic among WCR Supporters... they make the generalized claim that Mark Lane was wrong - yet absolutely REFUSE to provide and defend any example.
How about this nugget from RTJ?
Quote: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.
It's such a bold lie that it almost deserves a thread of its own.
Again... mere assertion instead of citation.
Mark - unless you can start citing for your assertions, I'm merely going to start labeling you a liar.
Mark Lane listed citations for that statement - if you're going to claim that he's wrong - you're going to have to list the people named in those citations, and tabulate them.
If you don't - then it's clear that you can't ... and the only reason you can't is because you're lying.
This isn't the first time this issue has come up without a cite from a supporter.
I suspect it won't be the last either.
Believers just HATE Mark Lane.
Come on. I don't need to make a complete tabulation to prove Lane wrong. I only have to find more than three (25 minus 22) witnesses known to have "given statements or affidavits on 11/22 or 11/23 about the origin of the shots" who didn't say they "believed the shots came from the knoll."
Decker Exhibit 5323
Howard Brennan (11/22) "It run in my mind that it might be someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick building and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered rifle." (19H, p.470)
Amos Euins (11/22) "I started looking around and then I looked up in the red brick building. I saw a man in a window with a gun and I saw him shoot twice." (19H, p.474)
Charles Hester (11/22) "[The shots] sounded like they came from immediately behind us and over our heads. We did see the shooting. I immediately turned and looked at the [TSBD] and did not see anyone. The shots sounded like they definitely came from in or around the building." (19H, p.478)
Eddie Piper (11/23) "The shots seemed to me like they came from up inside the building." (19H, p.499)
CE 2003
Mrs. R. A. Reid (11/23) "I remarked to Mr. Campbell who was standing near by that I thought the shots had come from our building." (24H, p.223)
CD 5
Bonnie Ray Williams (11/23) "While they were watching this car pass, WILLIAMS heard two shots which sounded like they came from right over his head." (CD 5, p.330)
Bob Jackson (11/23) "JACKSON advised that upon hearing the three shots, he looked upward and straight ahead at a window in the [TSDB], in time to see the barrel of a rifle being pulled inside the window." (CD 5, p.15)
James Worrell (11/23) "He heard a shot from above his head and at first thought it was a firecracker, but when he looked up, he saw about 12 inches of a gun barrel sticking out of a window of the building. He said this window was either on the 5th or 6th floor." (CD 5, p.19)
CD 87
Marrion Baker (11/22) "Just as I approached Elm Street and Houston I heard three shots. I realized those shots were rifle shots and I began to try to figure out where they came from. I decided the shots had come from the building on the northwest corner of Elm and Houston." (CD 87, p.285)
---
There is also this 1967 piece by two AP staff writers:
Bernard Gavzer & Sid Moody Wrote:Volumes Don't Support Lane
In the second chapter of his book, Lane writes: "Twenty-five
witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits on Nov. 22
or Nov. 23--the day of and the day after the assassination--about the
origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came
from the knoll."
Should one check the commission's volumes, he would find that, yes,
23 people did give statements to law officials on those two days. Nine
cited the knoll. Twelve cited the depository. Two indicated it could
have been either.
There is a witness mentioned in another context by Lane whose
testimony has some relevance as to the conflicting opinions of where
the shots came from. He is Lee E. Bowers. He was working in a signal
tower in the railroad area behind the knoll. His testimony is in
Volume VI.
Bowers: "The sounds came from either from up against the school
book depository building or near the mouth of the triple overpass."
Q: "You were not able to tell which?"
Bowers: "No, I could not."
Q: "Well, now, had you had any experience before being in the tower
as to sounds coming from these various places?"
Bowers: "Yes, I had worked this same tower for some 10 or 12 years,
and was there during the time they were renovating the school
depository building, and had noticed at that time the similarity of
sounds occurring in either of these two locations."
Bower's testimony doesn't rule out the knoll. It doesn't rule out
the depository. It does help those investigators trying to explain why
witnesses to the assassination gave conflicting opinions as to the
sound of the shots. If Bowers was helpful in this regard to Lane or
Epstein, they didn't mention it.
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%...m%2004.pdf
This post was last modified: 08-03-2016, 12:09 PM by Mark Ulrik.
RE: Extreme conspiracy theories
(08-03-2016, 11:26 AM)Patrick C Wrote:(08-01-2016, 05:32 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(08-01-2016, 03:46 PM)Patrick C Wrote: McAdams categorises the rail road tracks as "Knoll" - well based on for example - see statement from Danny Arce.
"It's taken DAYS of posts just to get you to admit the basic facts... facts that prove that your "opinion" is wrong."
It may take days ...my prerogative. I am not that active these days with the JFK case.
So what you are saying is that McAdams does not always throw the frontal shots as Knoll - fair enough, I did not check them all.
Then why did you claim (and STILL not retract) that McAdams' tabulation is "unassailable?"
YOU LIED, AND RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW IT WAS A LIE.
(08-03-2016, 11:26 AM)Patrick C Wrote: I don't really care.
Of course you don't... the truth isn't all that important to you. This really isn't some great revelation.
(08-03-2016, 11:26 AM)Patrick C Wrote: He does however categorise the locations accurately in terms of the statistical reliability in the data - and that is the point. So what if there are a few outliers there.
YOU'RE LYING AGAIN, PATRICK.
You cannot admit that I've proven that McAdams took out provable witnesses of the "knoll location" - then claim that he was still accurate statistically.
IT'S NOT EVEN POSSIBLE!!
(08-03-2016, 11:26 AM)Patrick C Wrote: What is important is that the majority of people thought ALL the shots came from the Knoll area or the TSBD area. And you know what that means.
I know what you keep attempting to speculate - but I've refuted it time and time again.
The explanation that shots came from BOTH locations explains this fact as well, and indeed, better... particularly considering the rest of the evidence.
(08-03-2016, 11:26 AM)Patrick C Wrote: If I misrepresented a fraction of a % of the data - I really don't care. My point still stands. That you have a seemingly OCD for irrelevant minutia is your problem.
You don't even care when you're proven wrong... when it's proven that you're lying. I get that. Many might label that a character flaw.
Now that you've been proven wrong on one person, are you ready to move on to the next person?
The answer is quite obviously "no" - because you'd be seriously embarrassed each time I PROVED you to be wrong... and it would take days or weeks for each one... due to your extreme cowardice.
(08-03-2016, 11:26 AM)Patrick C Wrote: Maybe that is the reason you can't see the wood from the trees...? The glaring reality that Oswald acting alone, shot JFK and Tippit.
Speculation will not overcome the evidence... only evidence can do that.
RE: Extreme conspiracy theories
(08-03-2016, 12:02 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:(08-02-2016, 03:30 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: Again... mere assertion instead of citation.
Mark - unless you can start citing for your assertions, I'm merely going to start labeling you a liar.
Mark Lane listed citations for that statement - if you're going to claim that he's wrong - you're going to have to list the people named in those citations, and tabulate them.
If you don't - then it's clear that you can't ... and the only reason you can't is because you're lying.
This isn't the first time this issue has come up without a cite from a supporter.
I suspect it won't be the last either.
Believers just HATE Mark Lane.
Come on. I don't need to make a complete tabulation to prove Lane wrong. I only have to find more than three (25 minus 22) witnesses known to have "given statements or affidavits on 11/22 or 11/23 about the origin of the shots" who didn't say they "believed the shots came from the knoll."
Why are you so afraid to check Mark Lane's actual citations?
Time to do what I promised... Mark - you're lying.
You cannot document your claim that Mark Lane lied... and clearly, you're afraid to do so.
RE: Extreme conspiracy theories
(08-03-2016, 03:20 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(08-03-2016, 12:02 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:(08-02-2016, 03:30 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: Again... mere assertion instead of citation.
Mark - unless you can start citing for your assertions, I'm merely going to start labeling you a liar.
Mark Lane listed citations for that statement - if you're going to claim that he's wrong - you're going to have to list the people named in those citations, and tabulate them.
If you don't - then it's clear that you can't ... and the only reason you can't is because you're lying.
This isn't the first time this issue has come up without a cite from a supporter.
I suspect it won't be the last either.
Believers just HATE Mark Lane.
Come on. I don't need to make a complete tabulation to prove Lane wrong. I only have to find more than three (25 minus 22) witnesses known to have "given statements or affidavits on 11/22 or 11/23 about the origin of the shots" who didn't say they "believed the shots came from the knoll."
Why are you so afraid to check Mark Lane's actual citations?
Time to do what I promised... Mark - you're lying.
You cannot document your claim that Mark Lane lied... and clearly, you're afraid to do so.
You're LYING, Ben Holmes, when you claim that I didn't check Lane's citations.
He cited Decker Ex 5323 and CE 2003, and I gave you 4 TSBD witnesses (Brennan, Euins, Hester, Piper) from the Decker Ex and one (Reid) from the CE. That's 5 non-GK witnesses (and just the most obvious ones). Lane claimed there were 22 GK witnesses and only 3 non-GK witnesses. He probably didn't expect his readers to bother to check.
Now that you have been proved wrong, I expect a retraction/apology from you. Make it a good one.
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)