[Ben Holmes]

(08-04-2016, 09:36 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(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.

And, of course, you've still refused to actually list the witnesses that Mark Lane cited.

Ad hominem will not replace that fact.

No retraction of the truth is ever needed...

[Mark Ulrik]

(08-04-2016, 02:38 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-04-2016, 09:36 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(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.

And, of course, you've still refused to actually list the witnesses that Mark Lane cited.

Ad hominem will not replace that fact.

No retraction of the truth is ever needed...

The obvious truth here is that Lane's numbers were wrong, which I demonstrated and you keep lying about.

[Ben Holmes]

(08-04-2016, 04:22 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-04-2016, 02:38 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-04-2016, 09:36 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-03-2016, 03:20 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-03-2016, 12:02 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  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.

And, of course, you've still refused to actually list the witnesses that Mark Lane cited.

Ad hominem will not replace that fact.

No retraction of the truth is ever needed...

The obvious truth here is that Lane's numbers were wrong, which I demonstrated and you keep lying about.

If this were actually true, then you'd simply list the people in the citations given by Mark Lane.

Yet you continue to refuse to do so.

Nor are you allowed to label someone a liar without CITING the evidence that they are in conflict with.

Future assertions of that type will simply be deleted.

[Mark Ulrik]

(08-04-2016, 04:40 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-04-2016, 04:22 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-04-2016, 02:38 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-04-2016, 09:36 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-03-2016, 03:20 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  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.

And, of course, you've still refused to actually list the witnesses that Mark Lane cited.

Ad hominem will not replace that fact.

No retraction of the truth is ever needed...

The obvious truth here is that Lane's numbers were wrong, which I demonstrated and you keep lying about.

If this were actually true, then you'd simply list the people in the citations given by Mark Lane.

I both CITED and QUOTED five TSBD witnesses from Lane's own sources. He claimed there were only three non-GK witnesses. How can you not understand this?

Yet you continue to refuse to do so.

Why should I waste my time? Five TSBD witnesses are more than enough to demonstrate that Lane's numbers are wrong.

Nor are you allowed to label someone a liar without CITING the evidence that they are in conflict with.

But you're allowed to randomly attack me and call me a liar? Even though I both CITED and QUOTED from the sources cited by Lane, you accused me of not having checked them. Unbelievable.

Future assertions of that type will simply be deleted.

You can start by deleting your false accusations about me. An apology would also be nice.

My comments in green above.

[Ben Holmes]

(08-04-2016, 05:49 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  If this were actually true, then you'd simply list the people in the citations given by Mark Lane.

I both CITED and QUOTED five TSBD witnesses from Lane's own sources. He claimed there were only three non-GK witnesses. How can you not understand this?

Yet you continue to refuse to do so.

Why should I waste my time? Five TSBD witnesses are more than enough  to demonstrate that Lane's numbers are wrong.

Nor are you allowed to label someone a liar without CITING the evidence that they are in conflict with.

But you're allowed to randomly attack me and  call me a liar? Even though I both CITED and QUOTED from the sources cited by Lane, you accused me of not having checked them. Unbelievable.

Future assertions of that type will simply be deleted.

You can start by deleting your false accusations about me. An apology would also be nice.

My comments in green above.

Still afraid of Mark Lane's citations...

Cite the witnesses FROM Mark Lane's citations... or continue to run.

[Mark Ulrik]

(08-04-2016, 09:38 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-04-2016, 05:49 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  If this were actually true, then you'd simply list the people in the citations given by Mark Lane.

I both CITED and QUOTED five TSBD witnesses from Lane's own sources. He claimed there were only three non-GK witnesses. How can you not understand this?

Yet you continue to refuse to do so.

Why should I waste my time? Five TSBD witnesses are more than enough  to demonstrate that Lane's numbers are wrong.

Nor are you allowed to label someone a liar without CITING the evidence that they are in conflict with.

But you're allowed to randomly attack me and call me a liar? Even though I both CITED and QUOTED from the sources cited by Lane, you accused me of not having checked them. Unbelievable.

Future assertions of that type will simply be deleted.

You can start by deleting your false accusations about me. An apology would also be nice.

My comments in green above.

Still afraid of Mark Lane's citations...

Cite the witnesses FROM Mark Lane's citations... or continue to run.

You make absolutely zero sense. I used Lane's sources and selection criteria and had no problem finding 5 witnesses who pointed to the TSBD. Lane stated that, of 25 witnesses that met his criteria, 22 pointed to the GK. You do understand that 5 > (25 - 22), don't you?

[Ben Holmes]

(08-01-2016, 01:25 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  You make absolutely zero sense. I used Lane's sources and selection criteria and had no problem finding 5 witnesses who pointed to the TSBD. Lane stated that, of 25 witnesses that met his criteria, 22 pointed to the GK. You do understand that 5 > (25 - 22), don't you?

So it's your assertion that there were only 20 witnesses that pointed to the knoll?

Careful now, Mark... I've tabulated them, so if you tell a lie, I'll be happy to point it out.

[Mark Ulrik]

(08-05-2016, 03:04 AM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-01-2016, 01:25 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  You make absolutely zero sense. I used Lane's sources and selection criteria and had no problem finding 5 witnesses who pointed to the TSBD. Lane stated that, of 25 witnesses that met his criteria, 22 pointed to the GK. You do understand that 5 > (25 - 22), don't you?

So it's your assertion that there were only 20 witnesses that pointed to the knoll?

Careful now, Mark... I've tabulated them, so if you tell a lie, I'll be happy to point it out.

Quit playing games. I've already demonstrated that Lane's numbers are wrong. Are you denying that the 5 witnesses I gave you meet Lane's selection criteria? Are you denying that all 5 pointed to the TSBD as the source of the shots? Are you denying that Lane's "tabulation" only leaves room for 3 non-GK witnesses?

[Ben Holmes]

(08-01-2016, 01:25 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  Can someone give me the lowdown on what it is, specifically, that Ben doesn't like (or understand) about McAdams' tabulation?

(08-05-2016, 08:01 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-05-2016, 03:04 AM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-01-2016, 01:25 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  You make absolutely zero sense. I used Lane's sources and selection criteria and had no problem finding 5 witnesses who pointed to the TSBD. Lane stated that, of 25 witnesses that met his criteria, 22 pointed to the GK. You do understand that 5 > (25 - 22), don't you?

So it's your assertion that there were only 20 witnesses that pointed to the knoll?

Careful now, Mark... I've tabulated them, so if you tell a lie, I'll be happy to point it out.

Quit playing games. I've already demonstrated that Lane's numbers are wrong. Are you denying that the 5 witnesses I gave you meet Lane's selection criteria? Are you denying that all 5 pointed to the TSBD as the source of the shots? Are you denying that Lane's "tabulation" only leaves room for 3 non-GK witnesses?

No Mark, you've not.

If YOUR numbers are right, then there should be just 20 knoll witnesses.

But you already know that to be incorrect... yet you're too dishonest to state that publicly.  Quite clearly, Mark Lane either didn't count, or didn't credit all TSBD witnesses, BUT HE FAILED TO COUNT ALL THE KNOLL WITNESSES AS WELL.

There's no way to know who Mark Lane had in his list of 25.  But it's clear in hindsight, and with our greater ability to research the evidence, that '25' wasn't the extent of witness accounts dated to 11/22 or 11/23.

Now, since you've refused to publicly assert that the numbers are correct, you really can't document a "lie" on Mark Lane's part, can you?

[Mark Ulrik]

(08-05-2016, 01:24 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-01-2016, 01:25 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  Can someone give me the lowdown on what it is, specifically, that Ben doesn't like (or understand) about McAdams' tabulation?

 

(08-05-2016, 08:01 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-05-2016, 03:04 AM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-01-2016, 01:25 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  You make absolutely zero sense. I used Lane's sources and selection criteria and had no problem finding 5 witnesses who pointed to the TSBD. Lane stated that, of 25 witnesses that met his criteria, 22 pointed to the GK. You do understand that 5 > (25 - 22), don't you?

So it's your assertion that there were only 20 witnesses that pointed to the knoll?

Careful now, Mark... I've tabulated them, so if you tell a lie, I'll be happy to point it out.

Quit playing games. I've already demonstrated that Lane's numbers are wrong. Are you denying that the 5 witnesses I gave you meet Lane's selection criteria? Are you denying that all 5 pointed to the TSBD as the source of the shots? Are you denying that Lane's "tabulation" only leaves room for 3 non-GK witnesses?

No Mark, you've not.

If YOUR numbers are right, then there should be just 20 knoll witnesses.

Non sequitur.

But you already know that to be incorrect... yet you're too dishonest to state that publicly.  Quite clearly, Mark Lane either didn't count, or didn't credit all TSBD witnesses, BUT HE FAILED TO COUNT ALL THE KNOLL WITNESSES AS WELL.

So you admit his numbers are wrong? That must have been a tough one to swallow.

There's no way to know who Mark Lane had in his list of 25.  But it's clear in hindsight, and with our greater ability to research the evidence, that '25' wasn't the extent of witness accounts dated to 11/22 or 11/23.

Lane cited only Decker Exhit 5323 and CE 2003. Yes, searchable versions are available today, but the content hasn't changed over the years, so that's a very weak excuse.

Now, since you've refused to publicly assert that the numbers are correct, you really can't document a "lie" on Mark Lane's part, can you?

But Lane's numbers are not correct! You even admitted that yourself.

My comments in green above.