[Ben Holmes]

(08-26-2016, 03:00 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-25-2016, 11:58 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

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

(08-24-2016, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  Let's hear you acknowledge that fact, Mark. Surely you don't want to label you a coward yet again... so acknowledge in your response that there were MORE THAN 25 WITNESSES DOCUMENTED ON 11/22 & 11/23.

Sign. I've already told you that I don't know. If we were to include unpublished documents, however, then the answer would certainly be yes, but Lane is supposed to have been found his 25 witnesses in the WC volumes.

You're lying again, Mark. I've cited the actual citation from Rush to Judgment, you acknowledged that you forgot the newspaper accounts, then you go right ahead and lie about it again.

Mark Lane gave THREE citations, not only the two found in the WC volumes.

Your abject cowardice doesn't surprise me... I rather suspect that you know very well that the true numbers support Mark Lane's statement as well.

I'm sorry to have to disappoint, but I've checked the newspaper accounts cited by Lane, and there weren't any shots from the GK area in there. One of those 11 witnesses did, however, say the shots came from the TSBD.

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.

You know Mark... you're going to keep lying, and I'm simply going to keep citing the evidence that proves you a liar.

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.

 

(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.

You can't do it, and you KNOW you can't do it.

Only the dumbest of the dumb would think that I'd pay you to do nothing... and nothing is what you'd be able to do. Because a majority of documented witnesses in those first two days DID point to the Grassy Knoll. And nothing you can say or do will change that fact.

Mark Lane pointed it out in 1966 - and no believer has refuted it yet...

[Ray Mitcham]

TESTIMONY OF (some of the) EYE-WITNESSES WHO THOUGHT SHOTS CAME FROM OTHER THAN TSBD

Danny Garcia Arces - Shots came from railroad track yards. 

Mrs. Donald Sam Baker - Shots came from railroad yards;not possible to come from the TSBD. 

Mrs. A. G.(Jane)Berry- Thought shots came from west of her position. 

O. V. Campbell - Thought shots came from railroad yard to west of the TSBD.“The shots came from the grassy area down this way in the direction the parade was going, in the bottom of that direction.” 

Mrs. Charles Thomas (Avery) Davis - Thought shots came from triple underpass. 

Mrs. John T. (Elsie) Dorman) - She was on the 4th floor of TSBD and thought shots came from Records Building. 

Mr. and Mrs. Jack Franzen - Thought shots came from area adjacent to TSBD. 

Buell Wesley Frazier - Thought shots came from railroad overpass. 

Dorothy Ann Garner - shots came from west of TSBD (she was on 4th floor or TSBD)

Bobby W. Hargis - Believes shot came from right front (grassy knoll area) - from overpass

Mrs. John Hawkins - Thought shots came from railroad yards adjacent to TSBD. 

Mrs. Jean Lollis Hill - Thought shots were coming from the knoll, just west of the TSBD. 

Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes - Thought shots came from crowd. 

Mrs. Yola D. Hopson - Did not think the sound (of the shots) came from the TSBD. 

Emmet Joseph Hudson - Shots came from behind and above him; from rear, high. (He was on steps leading up knoll)

Mrs. George Andrew Kounas - Thought shots came from the west. 

Secret Service Agent Paul E. Landis Jr. - 1st shot came from behind and over right shoulder; 2nd shot came from right   front and hit President's head. 

Billy Nolan Lovelady - Thought shots came from the knoll of from across the street. 

Judith L. McCully - From right side of arcade building.

Austin Lawerence Miller - Shots came from his left (he was standing on the triple underpass).A railroad worker standing on the overpass said “I saw something which i thought was smoke or steam coming from a group of trees to the north side of Elm Street. 

A. J. Millican - Shots came from the pergola.Joe R. Molina - Shots came from west side (he was on steps of TSBD. 

Thomas J. Murphy - Shots came from spot just west of TSBD.Said the shots “came from a tree to the (President’s) immediate right.” and he saw smoke  “in that tree.. up there where the concrete facade is located. 

Mrs. P. E. Newman - Shots came from her right (west). She was halfway from TSBD to Stemmons Freeway sign. 

William E Newman, Jr. - Shots came from "garden" directly behind Newman (he was standing at east end of pergola) 

Mrs. William V. Parker - First shot came from pergola. 

J. C. Price - Assumed shots from Triple Underpass. 

Frank E. Reilly - Shots came from trees at west end of pergola on north side of Elm. (He was standing onTriple Underpass). 

Mrs. A. L. Rowland - Shots came from railroad yard. 

W. H. (Bill) Shelly - Shots came from west (he was on TSBD steps) 

Police Officer Edgar Leon Smith, Jr. - Shots came from railroad yard or grassy knoll area. 

Police Officer Joe Marshall Smith - Thought shots came from Elm St.extension, bushes of the overpass. 

Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrels - Shots came from knoll;'top of terrace to my right. ““Turned around to look at the terrace part [Grassy Knoll] there,  because the sound came as though it came from the back and up in that direction” To the right and back. That is about the only way I can express it. And, as I said, the noise from the shots sounded like they may have come back up on the terrace there. And that is the reason I was looking around like that when the first shot.” 

James Thomas Tague - Shots came from bushes at pergola. 

Roy S. Truly - Shots came from west of TSBD. Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford - Shots came from railroad yard. 

County Surveyor Robert M. West - Shots came from NE quadrant of Dealy Plaza. 

Lupe Whitaker - Shots came from west of TSBD. 

Otis Neville Williams - Came from direction of Triple Underpass.

Steven F. Wilson - Shots came from west end of building or pergola; not above. 

Mary Elizabeth Woodward - Possibly came from overpass.stated her “first reaction was that the shots had been fired from above her head. her next reaction was that the shots might have come from the underpass which was to her right.”She never  looked at any time towards the TSBD building...About ten feet away a man and his wife had thrown a small child and were covering his body with theirs; apparently the bullets had whizzed directly over their heads” 

Abraham Zapruder - Shots came from in back of him.“Some of them were motorcycle cops..and they were running directly behind me, of course, in the line of the shooting. I guess they thought it came from right behind me.. I also thought it came from back of me.”.. between the underpass and the building 

Deputy Sheriff Harold Elkins was standing close to the crossroads at Main Street and Houston Street.“I immediately ran to the area from which it sounded like the shots had been fired. This is an area between the railroads and the Texas School Book Depository which is east of the railroads.”  

Victoria Adams was watching the motorcade from a window on the fourth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. She believed the sound came from toward the right of the building, rather than from the left and above as it must have been according to subsequent information disseminated by the news services. 

Charles Brehm (not called to testify by the W.C.)  told the Dallas Herald times that he “seemed to think that the shots came from in front of or beside the President. The President did not slump forward as he would have had been shot from the rear.” 

Patrolman E.V. Brown “Smelled gunpowder in the air whilst he was on the Underpass. 

John Arthur Chism (Not called to testify by W.C.)  told the FBI that he was standing on the curb “in front of the concrete memorial on Elm Street, which is just east of the triple underpass” and he was “of the opinion that the shots came from behind him” “I looked behind me, to see whether it was a fireworks display or something. His wife swore “ It came from what I thought was behind me.”

Faye Chism was  standing with her husband close to the Stemmons Freeway sign on the north side of Elm Street.“It came from what I thought was behind us.” 

Richard Dodd (not called to testify by the W.C.) said that  the smoke came from “behind the hedge” 

Jack Faulkner, Sheriff’s office,(not called to testify by the W.C.) said “I asked a woman where the shots came from, and she pointed towards the concrete arcade on the east side of Elm Street, just west of Houston Street,” 

Ronald Fischer was standing on the southwest corner of the crossroads at Houston Street and Elm Street, just opposite the TSBD.
Mr Belin : Where did the shots appear to be coming from?
Mr Fischer :They appeared to be coming from just west of the School Book Depository Building. There were some railroad tracks and there were some railroad cars back in there.
Mr Belin :And they appeared to be coming from those railroad cars?
Mr Fischer :Well, that area somewhere.  

Ed Hoffman, who was deaf, was standing on Stemmons Freeway, about 200 yards to the west of Dealey Plaza. He claimed to have seen two men in the railway yard behind the fence on the grassy knoll, followed by a puff of smoke among the trees, and finally one of the men passing a rifle to the other, who disassembled it, packed it in a bag, and made his escape while the first man went back to the fence. Sam Holland "I am a signal supervisor for the Union Terminal and I was inspecting signal and switches and stopped to watch the parade. I was standing on top of the triple underpass and the President's Car was coming down Elm Street and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked toward the arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke I saw. I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and did not see anyone running from there. But the puff of smoke I saw definitely came from behind the arcade through the trees. “There was a shot, a report.I don’t know whether it was a shot. I can’t say that. And a puff of smoke came out about six or eight feet above the ground right out from under those trees. There were definitely four reports... I have no doubt about it. I have no doubt about seeing that puff of smoke and heard the report  from under those trees.. The puff of smoke definitely came from behind the arcade to the trees.” 

Ed Johnson, a reporter for the Fort Worth Star–Telegram, was in the press bus, a few car–lengths back in the motorcade, and described his experiences in the next day’s paper:The shots snapped out in the brisk, clear noon air.Some reporter said, “My God, what’s that? It must be shots.”The caravan kept wheeling on, picking up speed.Some of the White House reporters yelled for the bus driver to stop. He kept on going, heading toward the Stemmons Expressway.Some of us saw little puffs of white smoke that seemed to hit the grassy area in the esplanade that divides Dallas’ main downtown streets.(Fort Worth Star–Telegram, 23 November 1963, p.2)  Clemmon Johnson (not called to testify by the W.C.)  stated that “white smoke was observed near the pavilion.”

Cheryl McKinnon. As we stood watching the motorcade turn onto Elm Street, I tried to grasp every tiny detail of both President and Mrs Kennedy, “How happy they look,” I thought. Suddenly, three shots in rapid succession rang out. Myself and dozens of others standing nearby turned in horror toward the back of the grassy knoll where it seemed the sounds had originated. Puffs of white smoke still hung in the air in small patches. But no one was visible. 

Luke Mooney, a deputy sheriff, was standing on Main Street, on the edge of Dealey Plaza. He was one of the officers who found the rifle hidden under boxes on the sixth floor.Mr Ball : Why did you go over to the railroad yard?Mr Mooney : Well, that was — from the echo of the shots, we thought they came from that direction. 

Doris Mumford, who at the time of the assassination was 36 years old and living in Richardson, a few miles north of Dallas.  Karen Moore, her daughter,  writes that her mother was standing near William Newman,[on the North side of Elm Street] and “heard three shots, they came from behind her, and she saw the life leave the President’s face.” 

Mr Arnold Rowland :”Well, I began looking, I didn’t look at the building mainly, and as practically any of the police officers there will tell you, the echo effect was such that it sounded like it came from the railroad yards. That is where I looked, that is where all the policemen, everyone, converged on the railroads.” 

James Simmons (not called to testify by the W.C.) thought he saw exhaust fumes or  near the embankment.smoke …the sound of the shots “came from the left and in front of us, towards thew wooden fence and there was a puff of smoke that came from under the trees on the embankment.”

L.C.Smith,  Sheriff’s office. (not called to testify by the W.C.)“Just a few seconds later, I heard the first shot, which I thought was a backfire, then the second shot and third shot rang out. I knew then that this was gun shots and everyone else did also. I ran as fast as I could to Elm Street just West of Houston and I heard a woman unknown to me say the President was shot, in the head, and the shots came from the fence on the North side of Elm. I went at once behind the fence and searched also in the parking area.”   

Seymour Weitzman was one of the police officers who discovered the rifle on the sixth floor of the TSBD. At the time of the shooting, he was on the corner of Main Street and Houston Street.I ran in a northwest direction and scaled a fence towards where we thought the shots came from.  Walter Wimborne (not called to testify by the W.C.) “there was a lot of smoke ….from out of the trees to the left.” “ he described it as  “a little haze..it looked like it was 3 to 10’ long and about 2 to 3’ wide.. right underneath those tress.

[Mark Ulrik]

(08-27-2016, 04:04 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-26-2016, 03:00 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-25-2016, 11:58 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

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

(08-24-2016, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  Let's hear you acknowledge that fact, Mark. Surely you don't want to label you a coward yet again... so acknowledge in your response that there were MORE THAN 25 WITNESSES DOCUMENTED ON 11/22 & 11/23.

Sign. I've already told you that I don't know. If we were to include unpublished documents, however, then the answer would certainly be yes, but Lane is supposed to have been found his 25 witnesses in the WC volumes.

You're lying again, Mark. I've cited the actual citation from Rush to Judgment, you acknowledged that you forgot the newspaper accounts, then you go right ahead and lie about it again.

Mark Lane gave THREE citations, not only the two found in the WC volumes.

Your abject cowardice doesn't surprise me... I rather suspect that you know very well that the true numbers support Mark Lane's statement as well.

I'm sorry to have to disappoint, but I've checked the newspaper accounts cited by Lane, and there weren't any shots from the GK area in there. One of those 11 witnesses did, however, say the shots came from the TSBD.

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.

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.

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.

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?
 

(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.

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.

Only the dumbest of the dumb would think that I'd pay you to do nothing... and nothing is what you'd be able to do. Because a majority of documented witnesses in those first two days DID point to the Grassy Knoll. And nothing you can say or do will change that fact.

Yeah, I figured you were too cheap. Good luck with your "research."

Mark Lane pointed it out in 1966 - and no believer has refuted it yet...

Gavzer and Moody came to a different conclusion in 1967, and no conspiracy believer has refuted it yet.
(Therefore it must be true.)

My comments in green above.

[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...

[Mark Ulrik]

(08-29-2016, 03:34 AM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(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.

Illiteracy rears its ugly head. This is what I wrote:

"I've checked the newspaper accounts cited by Lane, and there weren't any shots from the GK area in there. One of those 11 witnesses did, however, say the shots came from the TSBD."

I was specifically talking about the 11 witnesses whose newspaper accounts are referenced in Lane's Appendix 1. Mary Woodward is not among those witnesses.
 

(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 was specifically talking about the 11 witnesses whose newspaper accounts are referenced in Lane's Appendix 1. Mary Woodward is not among those witnesses.

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

You're like the little boy who cried "wolf" too many times. You have no credibility.
 

(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.

I was specifically talking about the 11 witnesses whose newspaper accounts are referenced in Lane's Appendix 1.

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?

Who are those 20 witnesses you're talking about? List them here (or run for the hills as you usually do).
 

(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.

He was quite a bit more specific than that. Why would an honest man cheat with his numbers?

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.

The conclusion by Gavzer and Moody is just as true today as it was in 1967 when they wrote it. You've been completely unable to put a dent in 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.

An empty claim. Your refusal to post the tabulation you claim to have done tells us everything we need to know.

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

Are you talking about the 11 witnesses whose newspaper accounts are referenced in Appendix 1? The number is 11, Ben. Eleven. Not a single one of them pointed to the GK. I hope that helps.

My comments in green above.

[Ben Holmes]

(08-29-2016, 08:38 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-29-2016, 03:34 AM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(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.

Illiteracy rears its ugly head. This is what I wrote:

"I've checked the newspaper accounts cited by Lane, and there weren't any shots from the GK area in there. One of those 11 witnesses did, however, say the shots came from the TSBD."

I was specifically talking about the 11 witnesses whose newspaper accounts are referenced in Lane's Appendix 1. Mary Woodward is not among those witnesses.

As I've pointed out, YOUR LYING!!!

Mark Lane did not cite newspaper accounts, nor does the mention of "newspaper accounts" in the Appendix refer to witnesses who'd documented on 11/22 or 11/23 their account of where the bullets had come from.

You've simply quite dishonestly attempted to conflate different things.

You've also claimed to check the "11" witnesses, but you'll NEVER name them and list what they said. You can't... you're simply lying again.

You lied first about what Mark Lane's citations were, then when you were corrected, you simply turn around AND LIE AGAIN ABOUT WHAT HIS CITATIONS WERE.

If this is the best you can do to refute what he said, you lose.
 

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

Ben Holmes Wrote:

(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 was specifically talking about the 11 witnesses whose newspaper accounts are referenced in Lane's Appendix 1. Mary Woodward is not among those witnesses.

You're lying again...

You've NEVER checked those "11 witnesses"... The proof is that you can't name them, and name where they thought the shots came from.

Why not tell the truth, Mark?
 

Ben Holmes Wrote: 

(08-28-2016, 04:42 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  I keep telling you Mark, you're not going to get away with telling lies in this forum without it being pointed out.

You're like the little boy who cried "wolf" too many times. You have no credibility.

Pretending that I've not caught you lying repeatedly???

Defend your lie that Mary Woodward isn't cited by Mark Lane as a witness documented on 11/22 or 11/23 who pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

Do so by CITING MARK LANE'S ACTUAL CITATION. And demonstrate that her name is not cited in those citations.

But you can't.

You've been caught lying.
 

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

(08-27-2016, 04:04 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(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.

I was specifically talking about the 11 witnesses whose newspaper accounts are referenced in Lane's Appendix 1.

But you're lying again.

Mark Lane's reference to "newspaper accounts" in Appendix 1 aren't those who pointed out the direction of shots... it's a reference to exactly what he said... those who were eyewitnesses not documented in Warren Commission records...

Tell us Mark - why can't you name these "11 witnesses" - and tell us which direction they thought the shots were coming from?

If you were telling the truth about Mark Lane's citations - it should be quite simple to do...

Or run away again... who cares?
 

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

(08-27-2016, 04:04 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

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

Who are those 20 witnesses you're talking about? List them here (or run for the hills as you usually do).

 
Don't need to list 'em.

That's what you want... a target to confuse the issue.

You know quite well that there were more than 25 witnesses that were documented on 11/22 or 11/23... but even presuming only 25, YOU'VE BEEN UNABLE TO COME UP WITH MORE THAN FIVE WHO POINTED TO THE TSBD.

It's up to you to provide those names - since it's you that claimed Mark Lane was lying when he pointed out the overwhelming majority of those who were documented in the first two days pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

Just another lie on your part... since all you've been able to show is that his precise numbers were incorrect.

The point he made is still untouched by you.

(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:  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.[/quote]

He was quite a bit more specific than that. Why would an honest man cheat with his numbers?[/quote]

He didn't.

Produce the actual documents from 1966 that he had access to. Until you can do that, your accusation is mere speculation.

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

(08-24-2016, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  Congratulations on your proven cowardice... you've refused to admit a basic evidential fact on the number of witnesses referenced in the citations...

Are you talking about the 11 witnesses whose newspaper accounts are referenced in Appendix 1? The number is 11, Ben. Eleven. Not a single one of them pointed to the GK. I hope that helps.

You're lying again... And anyone who opens their copy of Rush to Judgment to Appendix 1 can easy see the lie you're telling.

Tell us Mark - WHY ARE YOU LYING ABOUT MARK LANE'S CITATIONS?

[Mark Ulrik]

(08-29-2016, 02:29 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-29-2016, 08:38 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-29-2016, 03:34 AM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(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.

Illiteracy rears its ugly head. This is what I wrote:

"I've checked the newspaper accounts cited by Lane, and there weren't any shots from the GK area in there. One of those 11 witnesses did, however, say the shots came from the TSBD."

I was specifically talking about the 11 witnesses whose newspaper accounts are referenced in Lane's Appendix 1. Mary Woodward is not among those witnesses.

As I've pointed out, YOUR LYING!!!

I'm getting tired of your trash talk. I'll respond to this post, but after that you'll probably have to get used to talking to yourself.

Mark Lane did not cite newspaper accounts, nor does the mention of "newspaper accounts" in the Appendix refer to witnesses who'd documented on 11/22 or 11/23 their account of where the bullets had come from.

You've simply quite dishonestly attempted to conflate different things.

??? First you chide me for forgetting the newspaper accounts mentioned in Appendix 1, and when I tell you that I've checked them out and they contain nothing that supports your "overwhelming majority" theory, they're suddenly no longer relevant, and I'm trying to mislead you ???

You've also claimed to check the "11" witnesses, but you'll NEVER name them and list what they said. You can't... you're simply lying again.

Why wouldn't I be able to name them? Lane included them in the list of DP witnesses in Appendix 1. One of many differences between us is that I don't lie to you.

You lied first about what Mark Lane's citations were, then when you were corrected, you simply turn around AND LIE AGAIN ABOUT WHAT HIS CITATIONS WERE.

You seem to want to turn this into a discussion about semantics. Sorry, I'm not interested.

If this is the best you can do to refute what he said, you lose.

Keep telling yourself that.
 

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

Ben Holmes Wrote:

(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 was specifically talking about the 11 witnesses whose newspaper accounts are referenced in Lane's Appendix 1. Mary Woodward is not among those witnesses.

You're lying again...

You've NEVER checked those "11 witnesses"... The proof is that you can't name them, and name where they thought the shots came from.

Why not tell the truth, Mark?

I did; you just don't like it.
 

Ben Holmes Wrote: 

(08-28-2016, 04:42 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  I keep telling you Mark, you're not going to get away with telling lies in this forum without it being pointed out.

You're like the little boy who cried "wolf" too many times. You have no credibility.

Pretending that I've not caught you lying repeatedly???

You haven't caught me lying at all.

Defend your lie that Mary Woodward isn't cited by Mark Lane as a witness documented on 11/22 or 11/23 who pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

Do so by CITING MARK LANE'S ACTUAL CITATION. And demonstrate that her name is not cited in those citations.

Sigh. Illiteracy strikes again. We were specifically talking about the newspaper accounts referenced in Lane's Appendix 1. The Woodward entry in Appendix 1 does, however, not include a reference to her DMN article, but rather - Woodward, Mary E. (XXIV, 520) - to her 12/7 FBI interview which is included in CE 2084 (CD 7).

NB! The DMN article is cited elsewhere in RTJ, but that's another matter.

But you can't.

You've been caught lying.
 

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

(08-27-2016, 04:04 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(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.

I was specifically talking about the 11 witnesses whose newspaper accounts are referenced in Lane's Appendix 1.

But you're lying again.

Mark Lane's reference to "newspaper accounts" in Appendix 1 aren't those who pointed out the direction of shots... it's a reference to exactly what he said... those who were eyewitnesses not documented in Warren Commission records...

Tell us Mark - why can't you name these "11 witnesses" - and tell us which direction they thought the shots were coming from?

If you were telling the truth about Mark Lane's citations - it should be quite simple to do...

Or run away again... who cares?

From my notes:

Bell, Jack (NYT, 11/23/63)
(National Press Pool Car; 5th vehicle behind JFK limo; heard the shots)
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54893&relPageId=483

Bothun, Richard (DMN, 11/23/63)
(no statement; photograph only)
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-jfk-np/id/289/rec/23

Broseh, Jerry (DMN, 11/23/63)
(heard shot; saw JFK sort of slump down in the seat)
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-jfk-np/id/289/rec/23

Burney, Peggy (DTH, 11/22/63)
(heard shots; saw JFK duck)
http://www.patspeer.com/more-pieces-in-the-plaza

Clark, Robert (NYT, 11/23/63)
(National Press Pool Car; 5th vehicle behind JFK limo; described JFK being carried into hospital)
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54893&relPageId=486

Hilburn, Robert (FWST, 11/23/63)
(WH Press Bus; 13th or 15th vehicle behind JFK limo; didn't hear shots due to hearing impairment)
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-jfk-np/id/205

Johnson, Ed (FWST, 11/23/63)
(WH Press Bus; 13th or 15th vehicle behind JFK limo; occupants heard shots just after turning onto Houston)
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-jfk-np/id/205

McNeill, Robert (NYT, 11/23/63)
(WH Press Bus; 13th or 15th vehicle behind JFK limo; saw police take two eye-witnesses (apparently Euins and Brennan) into custody)
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54893&relPageId=486

Richardson, Barbara (FWST, 11/23/63)
(WH Press Bus; 13th or 15th vehicle behind JFK limo; occupants heard shots just after turning onto Houston)
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-jfk-np/id/205

Similas, Norman (NYT, 11/23/63)
(doubtful he was even in DP - see http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/similas.htm; said he heard sharp crack that made him turn away from the limo and look back to where the noise seemed to come from)
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54893&relPageId=483

Smith, Alan (NYT, 11/23/63)
(said shots came from a window right over his head in the building in front of which he and his friends were standing)
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54893&relPageId=483
http://www.patspeer.com/more-pieces-in-the-plaza
 

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

(08-27-2016, 04:04 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

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

Who are those 20 witnesses you're talking about? List them here (or run for the hills as you usually do).

 
Don't need to list 'em.

That's what you want... a target to confuse the issue.

You know quite well that there were more than 25 witnesses that were documented on 11/22 or 11/23... but even presuming only 25, YOU'VE BEEN UNABLE TO COME UP WITH MORE THAN FIVE WHO POINTED TO THE TSBD.

The irony...! AND YOU'VE BEEN UNABLE TO COME UP WITH MORE THAN ONE (WOODWARD) WHO POINTED TO THE GRASSY KNOLL.

It's up to you to provide those names - since it's you that claimed Mark Lane was lying when he pointed out the overwhelming majority of those who were documented in the first two days pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

Lane claimed "22 of 25." You claim "overwhelming majority." Lane cheated with his numbers. You refuse to support your claim. Enough said.

Just another lie on your part... since all you've been able to show is that his precise numbers were incorrect.

The point he made is still untouched by you.

Lane claimed "22 of 25." You claim "overwhelming majority." Lane cheated with his numbers. You refuse to support your claim. Enough said.
 

(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:  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.

He was quite a bit more specific than that. Why would an honest man cheat with his numbers?[/quote]

He didn't.

Produce the actual documents from 1966 that he had access to. Until you can do that, your accusation is mere speculation.

Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself?

Lane: "See Appendix I; see also XIX, 467-543; XXIV, 198-231."
 

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

(08-24-2016, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  Congratulations on your proven cowardice... you've refused to admit a basic evidential fact on the number of witnesses referenced in the citations...

Are you talking about the 11 witnesses whose newspaper accounts are referenced in Appendix 1? The number is 11, Ben. Eleven. Not a single one of them pointed to the GK. I hope that helps.

You're lying again... And anyone who opens their copy of Rush to Judgment to Appendix 1 can easy see the lie you're telling.

Tell us Mark - WHY ARE YOU LYING ABOUT MARK LANE'S CITATIONS?

So long, Ben. I hope you enjoy talking to yourself.

[/quote]

My comments in green above.

[Ben Holmes]

(08-29-2016, 09:46 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-29-2016, 02:29 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-29-2016, 08:38 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-29-2016, 03:34 AM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

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

Illiteracy rears its ugly head. This is what I wrote:

"I've checked the newspaper accounts cited by Lane, and there weren't any shots from the GK area in there. One of those 11 witnesses did, however, say the shots came from the TSBD."

I was specifically talking about the 11 witnesses whose newspaper accounts are referenced in Lane's Appendix 1. Mary Woodward is not among those witnesses.

As I've pointed out, YOUR LYING!!!

I'm getting tired of the way you treat your members. I'll respond to this post, but after that you'll probably have to get used to talking to yourself.

Yep... Patrick ran away too.

Notice that the believers RUN AWAY rather than to simply refute the charge of lying.

You know quite clearly that you were lying about the "newspaper" accounts... the citation is to Appendix 1 - and the reference to "newspaper" accounts WAS NOT TO WITNESSES DOCUMENTED ON 11/22 OR 11/23.

You're running because you can't tell lies here and get away with it - I simply know the evidence better than you do.

 

(08-29-2016, 08:38 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-29-2016, 03:34 AM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  Mark Lane did not cite newspaper accounts, nor does the mention of "newspaper accounts" in the Appendix refer to witnesses who'd documented on 11/22 or 11/23 their account of where the bullets had come from.

You've simply quite dishonestly attempted to conflate different things.

??? First you chide me for forgetting the newspaper accounts mentioned in Appendix 1

You can stop right there.

YOU'RE LYING AGAIN!!!

I "chided" you for not listing Appendix 1 - not for 'not listing the newspaper accounts mentioned in Appendix 1' - THOSE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WITNESSES DOCUMENTED IN THE FIRST TWO DAYS!!!

Why do you keep lying, Mark???

Why do you think you can get away with lying???
 

(08-29-2016, 08:38 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  ... and when I tell you that I've checked them out and they contain nothing that supports your "overwhelming majority" theory, they're suddenly no longer relevant, and I'm trying to mislead you ???

They never were relevant - and you cannot POSSIBLY quote me ever saying that they were.

I QUOTED MARK LANE'S EXACT CITATIONS - and nowhere does it talk about newspaper accounts.

Your own numbers show that at least (and actually more) 20 witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll. Nothing you can do about that except run away...
 

(08-29-2016, 08:38 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-29-2016, 03:34 AM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  You've also claimed to check the "11" witnesses, but you'll NEVER name them and list what they said. You can't... you're simply lying again.

Why wouldn't I be able to name them? Lane included them in the list of DP witnesses in Appendix 1. One of many differences between us is that I don't lie to you.

You've been repeatedly lying, and each time I point out a lie, you just twist and swerve in a new direction.

Here's a simple example: WHAT WERE THE THREE CITATIONS GIVEN FOR MARK LANE'S STATEMENT ABOUT THE DOCUMENTED FIRST TWO DAYS OF WITNESSES?

Dare you to do this, you'll be unable to use the word "Newspaper accounts" - because it is NOT one of the three citations.

That's a provable lie on your part.

That's a provable lie on your part.
 

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

Ben Holmes Wrote:

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

Ben Holmes Wrote:

(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 was specifically talking about the 11 witnesses whose newspaper accounts are referenced in Lane's Appendix 1. Mary Woodward is not among those witnesses.

You're lying again...

You've NEVER checked those "11 witnesses"... The proof is that you can't name them, and name where they thought the shots came from.

Why not tell the truth, Mark?

Defend your lie that Mary Woodward isn't cited by Mark Lane as a witness documented on 11/22 or 11/23 who pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

Do so by CITING MARK LANE'S ACTUAL CITATION. And demonstrate that her name is not cited in those citations.

Sigh. Illiteracy strikes again. We were specifically talking about the newspaper accounts referenced in Lane's Appendix 1.

THAT'S ANOTHER LIE ON YOUR PART!!!

The "newspaper" accounts mentioned in Appendix 1 have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THIS TOPIC.

Mary Woodward does indeed have a newspaper account in those first few days - yet that isn't mentioned in Appendix 1 - BECAUSE THE NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS MENTIONED IN APPENDIX 1 WERE REFERRING TO WITNESSES OTHERWISE UNKNOWN - and not to witnesses who documented their opinion on shot location in the first two days.

YOU'RE DESPERATELY TRYING TO CONFUSE THE ISSUE - aren't you Mark?

 

(08-28-2016, 04:42 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  The Woodward entry in Appendix 1 does, however, not include a reference to her DMN article, but rather - Woodward, Mary E. (XXIV, 520) - to her 12/7 FBI interview which is included in CE 2084 (CD 7).

Then how do you explain her article in the Dallas Morning News on 11/23?

And how do you explain the fact that most of the "newspaper article" reference say absolutely nothing about the location of the shooter?


You can't, of course... so you'll simply run away rather than confront the truth.

 

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

(08-27-2016, 04:04 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

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

(08-27-2016, 04:04 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

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

I was specifically talking about the 11 witnesses whose newspaper accounts are referenced in Lane's Appendix 1.

But you're lying again.

Mark Lane's reference to "newspaper accounts" in Appendix 1 aren't those who pointed out the direction of shots... it's a reference to exactly what he said... those who were eyewitnesses not documented in Warren Commission records...

Tell us Mark - why can't you name these "11 witnesses" - and tell us which direction they thought the shots were coming from?

If you were telling the truth about Mark Lane's citations - it should be quite simple to do...

Or run away again... who cares?

From my notes:

Bell, Jack (NYT, 11/23/63)
(National Press Pool Car; 5th vehicle behind JFK limo; heard the shots)
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54893&relPageId=483

Bothun, Richard (DMN, 11/23/63)
(no statement; photograph only)
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-jfk-np/id/289/rec/23

Broseh, Jerry (DMN, 11/23/63)
(heard shot; saw JFK sort of slump down in the seat)
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-jfk-np/id/289/rec/23

Burney, Peggy (DTH, 11/22/63)
(heard shots; saw JFK duck)
http://www.patspeer.com/more-pieces-in-the-plaza

Clark, Robert (NYT, 11/23/63)
(National Press Pool Car; 5th vehicle behind JFK limo; described JFK being carried into hospital)
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54893&relPageId=486

Hilburn, Robert (FWST, 11/23/63)
(WH Press Bus; 13th or 15th vehicle behind JFK limo; didn't hear shots due to hearing impairment)
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-jfk-np/id/205

Johnson, Ed (FWST, 11/23/63)
(WH Press Bus; 13th or 15th vehicle behind JFK limo; occupants heard shots just after turning onto Houston)
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-jfk-np/id/205

McNeill, Robert (NYT, 11/23/63)
(WH Press Bus; 13th or 15th vehicle behind JFK limo; saw police take two eye-witnesses (apparently Euins and Brennan) into custody)
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54893&relPageId=486

Richardson, Barbara (FWST, 11/23/63)
(WH Press Bus; 13th or 15th vehicle behind JFK limo; occupants heard shots just after turning onto Houston)
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-jfk-np/id/205

Similas, Norman (NYT, 11/23/63)
(doubtful he was even in DP - see http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/similas.htm; said he heard sharp crack that made him turn away from the limo and look back to where the noise seemed to come from)
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54893&relPageId=483

Smith, Alan (NYT, 11/23/63)
(said shots came from a window right over his head in the building in front of which he and his friends were standing)
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54893&relPageId=483
http://www.patspeer.com/more-pieces-in-the-plaza

You've listed TWO witnesses who could be used to point to shot locations...

I thought you had 11 witnesses that were documented on 11/22 or 11/23 as to the shot locations???

WHY DID YOU LIE??? WHY DO I HAVE TO FORCE YOU TO DOCUMENT YOUR CLAIMS - THEN IT TURNS OUT YOU'RE LYING???

More importantly, why are none of these witnesses documented in the Warren Commission volumes? Could it possibly be that Mark Lane did EXACTLY AS HE SAID HE DID???

 

Quote:Two hundred and fifty-five of these witnesses were mentioned in the 26 volumes of Hearings Before the Presidents Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. The names of these persons are followed by a reference to the volume and page of the Hearings (e.g., VI, 388) at which one may find either the witness's own testimony relating to the assassination or other testimony or evidence indicating the presence of the witness at the scene of the assassination.

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 this didn't you understand?
 

(08-28-2016, 04:42 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  Lane: "See Appendix I; see also XIX, 467-543; XXIV, 198-231."

I see no reference there to "newspaper articles"...

I DO see a reference to Appendix 1...

Tell us Mark - are you claiming that you can't read Mary Woodward's name in Appendix 1???
 

(08-28-2016, 04:42 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  So long, Ben. I hope you enjoy talking to yourself.

Forever the coward, aren't you Mark?

Just like Patrick - YOU REFUSED TO EVEN TRY TO DEFEND ANY OF THE LIES I POINTED OUT!!!

And now you're running away. The truth is, you're running from the evidence in this case... you've been totally unable to refute even a single statement I've made... yet I've caught you lying repeatedly. It's a good thing that you're running away, because the truth always triumphs over lies in the end.