#31
Conspiracy JFK Forum
Extreme conspiracy theories
RE: Extreme conspiracy theories
(08-07-2016, 02:01 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:(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.
So you simply lied when you made the claim that "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."
Mark Ulrik Wrote:Lane cited only Decker Exhit 5323 and CE 2003.
You're lying again, Mark.
Here's the EXACT citations given:
Quote:23. See Appendix I; see also XIX, 467-543; XXIV, 198-231.
Now tell us Mark - why did you leave out 1/3 of the citations given?
And why are you so afraid that you refuse to list the people who, on 11/22 and 11/23 stated that they heard the shots from whatever location? Could it be that if you did, you'd merely be making Mark Lane's point again?
An overwhelming majority of witnesses on Friday and Saturday stated that the Grassy Knoll was the location... and no matter how you twist the facts, the true fact is that it's you who's the liar... and Mark Lane merely told the truth.
Document your claims, or continue to run... it makes no difference.
You see, lurkers to the forum are literate, I count on that. That's why I'm not afraid to cite the evidence.
RE: Extreme conspiracy theories
(08-07-2016, 06:53 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(08-07-2016, 02:01 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:(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: 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.
So you simply lied when you made the claim that "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."
I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself over and over again. Your hero Mark Lane was wrong (in Ben Holmes terms: lied) when he claimed there were only three 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."
Mark Ulrik Wrote:Lane cited only Decker Exhit 5323 and CE 2003.
You're lying again, Mark.
Here's the EXACT citations given:
Quote:23. See Appendix I; see also XIX, 467-543; XXIV, 198-231.
Now tell us Mark - why did you leave out 1/3 of the citations given?
There's nothing sinister about it, Ben. It's been a few years since I looked at this. Thank you for reminding me that there were more potential TSDB (and other non-GK) witnesses that Lane "forgot" about.
And why are you so afraid that you refuse to list the people who, on 11/22 and 11/23 stated that they heard the shots from whatever location? Could it be that if you did, you'd merely be making Mark Lane's point again?
I have listed five people who pointed to the TSBD. What have you done, other than flap your gums? What are you so afraid of?
An overwhelming majority of witnesses on Friday and Saturday stated that the Grassy Knoll was the location... and no matter how you twist the facts, the true fact is that it's you who's the liar... and Mark Lane merely told the truth.
Prove it. Show us your tabulation.
Document your claims, or continue to run... it makes no difference.
You see, lurkers to the forum are literate, I count on that. That's why I'm not afraid to cite the evidence.
Unlike you, I have documented my claim. Lane's numbers are wrong.
My comments in green above.
RE: Extreme conspiracy theories
(08-07-2016, 10:19 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:(08-07-2016, 06:53 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(08-07-2016, 02:01 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:(08-05-2016, 01:24 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: No Mark, you've not.
If YOUR numbers are right, then there should be just 20 knoll witnesses.
Non sequitur.
So you simply lied when you made the claim that "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."
I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself over and over again. Your hero Mark Lane was wrong (in Ben Holmes terms: lied) when he claimed there were only three 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."
Mark Ulrik Wrote:Lane cited only Decker Exhit 5323 and CE 2003.
You're lying again, Mark.
Here's the EXACT citations given:
Quote:23. See Appendix I; see also XIX, 467-543; XXIV, 198-231.
Now tell us Mark - why did you leave out 1/3 of the citations given?
There's nothing sinister about it, Ben. It's been a few years since I looked at this. Thank you for reminding me that there were more potential TSDB (and other non-GK) witnesses that Lane "forgot" about.
And why are you so afraid that you refuse to list the people who, on 11/22 and 11/23 stated that they heard the shots from whatever location? Could it be that if you did, you'd merely be making Mark Lane's point again?
I have listed five people who pointed to the TSBD. What have you done, other than flap your gums? What are you so afraid of?
An overwhelming majority of witnesses on Friday and Saturday stated that the Grassy Knoll was the location... and no matter how you twist the facts, the true fact is that it's you who's the liar... and Mark Lane merely told the truth.
Prove it. Show us your tabulation.
Document your claims, or continue to run... it makes no difference.
You see, lurkers to the forum are literate, I count on that. That's why I'm not afraid to cite the evidence.
Unlike you, I have documented my claim. Lane's numbers are wrong.
No Mark, you've not documented your claim. Mark Lane was ABSOLUTELY CORRECT that the overwhelming majority of witnesses who reported on 11/22 or 11/23 stated that the Grassy Knoll was the location of the shots.
Nothing you've said has changed that fact.
Your fear of confronting the actual citations, and LISTING THE WITNESSES means nothing... you see, I don't have to list 'em... I never lied about the truthfulness of Mark Lane. You're claiming he lied, and you can't produce the lie... or any evidence of it.
Now you want to put the onus on me to produce a list of witnesses (something YOU should have done) - which will simply be another target for you to focus in on rather than your discredited assertion that Mark Lane lied. I've seen this tactic from WCR Supporters many times before... the changing of the topic...
You lie about citations, you lie about the numbers involved, you somehow believe that lies will carry the day.
Yet you cannot cite the actual witnesses who were recorded on 11/22 and 11/23 - and show that Mark Lane was wrong in his point that he made.
You focus on the minutia of numbers - and avoid the actual point he made...
All you have to do is show that Mark Lane was wrong when he claimed that a majority of those witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll.
You haven't...
And you won't.
RE: Extreme conspiracy theories
(08-07-2016, 11:07 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(08-07-2016, 10:19 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:(08-07-2016, 06:53 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(08-07-2016, 02:01 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:(08-05-2016, 01:24 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: No Mark, you've not.
If YOUR numbers are right, then there should be just 20 knoll witnesses.
Non sequitur.
So you simply lied when you made the claim that "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."
I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself over and over again. Your hero Mark Lane was wrong (in Ben Holmes terms: lied) when he claimed there were only three 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."
Mark Ulrik Wrote:Lane cited only Decker Exhit 5323 and CE 2003.
You're lying again, Mark.
Here's the EXACT citations given:
Quote:23. See Appendix I; see also XIX, 467-543; XXIV, 198-231.
Now tell us Mark - why did you leave out 1/3 of the citations given?
There's nothing sinister about it, Ben. It's been a few years since I looked at this. Thank you for reminding me that there were more potential TSDB (and other non-GK) witnesses that Lane "forgot" about.
And why are you so afraid that you refuse to list the people who, on 11/22 and 11/23 stated that they heard the shots from whatever location? Could it be that if you did, you'd merely be making Mark Lane's point again?
I have listed five people who pointed to the TSBD. What have you done, other than flap your gums? What are you so afraid of?
An overwhelming majority of witnesses on Friday and Saturday stated that the Grassy Knoll was the location... and no matter how you twist the facts, the true fact is that it's you who's the liar... and Mark Lane merely told the truth.
Prove it. Show us your tabulation.
Document your claims, or continue to run... it makes no difference.
You see, lurkers to the forum are literate, I count on that. That's why I'm not afraid to cite the evidence.
Unlike you, I have documented my claim. Lane's numbers are wrong.
No Mark, you've not documented your claim. Mark Lane was ABSOLUTELY CORRECT that the overwhelming majority of witnesses who reported on 11/22 or 11/23 stated that the Grassy Knoll was the location of the shots.
Nothing you've said has changed that fact.
Your hypocrisy is breathtaking. You always demand of your opponents that they're accurate down to the last pixel, but your hero Mark Lane gets a free pass even when he's obviously wrong. Lane specifically said 22 of 25. But who says it was even an overwhelming majority? Should we just take your word for it?
Your fear of confronting the actual citations, and LISTING THE WITNESSES means nothing... you see, I don't have to list 'em... I never lied about the truthfulness of Mark Lane. You're claiming he lied, and you can't produce the lie... or any evidence of it.
Amazing. You've admitted yourself that Lane's numbers were wrong, and you're also the one who's refusing to post the data that you claim exonerates him somehow. I think we all know why.
Now you want to put the onus on me to produce a list of witnesses (something YOU should have done) - which will simply be another target for you to focus in on rather than your discredited assertion that Mark Lane lied. I've seen this tactic from WCR Supporters many times before... the changing of the topic...
I've done more than enough to prove Lane wrong. Now it's your turn to prove him right.
You lie about citations, you lie about the numbers involved, you somehow believe that lies will carry the day.
Yet you cannot cite the actual witnesses who were recorded on 11/22 and 11/23 - and show that Mark Lane was wrong in his point that he made.
One of many differences between the two of us is that I've never lied to you, Ben. And there's nothing wrong with my numbers. Lane said that only 3 of those witnesses didn't point to the GK as the source of the shots. I demonstrated - with quotes and page cites - that at least 5 not only didn't point to the GK, but actually to the TSBD instead. How many witnesses have you listed? What's stopping you from posting your data?
You focus on the minutia of numbers - and avoid the actual point he made...
I think my irony meter just burst. Again.
All you have to do is show that Mark Lane was wrong when he claimed that a majority of those witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll.
You haven't...
And you won't.
I can certainly understand why you desperately want to change the subject, but it's your claim that "an overwhelming majority" of the witnesses vaguely cited by Lane pointed to the GK. It's a vaguer version of Lane's original claim, of course, but still highly dubious, yet (despite claiming to have done the work) you absolutely refuse to support it. I think most of us can recognize an obvious bluff when we see one.
My comments in green above.
This post was last modified: 08-09-2016, 12:10 PM by Mark Ulrik.
RE: Extreme conspiracy theories
(08-09-2016, 12:04 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote: No Mark, you've not documented your claim. Mark Lane was ABSOLUTELY CORRECT that the overwhelming majority of witnesses who reported on 11/22 or 11/23 stated that the Grassy Knoll was the location of the shots.
Nothing you've said has changed that fact.
Your hypocrisy is breathtaking. You always demand of your opponents that they're accurate down to the last pixel, but your hero Mark Lane gets a free pass even when he's obviously wrong. Lane specifically said 22 of 25. But who says it was even an overwhelming majority? Should we just take your word for it?
Your fear of confronting the actual citations, and LISTING THE WITNESSES means nothing... you see, I don't have to list 'em... I never lied about the truthfulness of Mark Lane. You're claiming he lied, and you can't produce the lie... or any evidence of it.
Amazing. You've admitted yourself that Lane's numbers were wrong, and you're also the one who's refusing to post the data that you claim exonerates him somehow. I think we all know why.
Now you want to put the onus on me to produce a list of witnesses (something YOU should have done) - which will simply be another target for you to focus in on rather than your discredited assertion that Mark Lane lied. I've seen this tactic from WCR Supporters many times before... the changing of the topic...
I've done more than enough to prove Lane wrong. Now it's your turn to prove him right.
You lie about citations, you lie about the numbers involved, you somehow believe that lies will carry the day.
Yet you cannot cite the actual witnesses who were recorded on 11/22 and 11/23 - and show that Mark Lane was wrong in his point that he made.
One of many differences between the two of us is that I've never lied to you, Ben. And there's nothing wrong with my numbers. Lane said that only 3 of those witnesses didn't point to the GK as the source of the shots. I demonstrated - with quotes and page cites - that at least 5 not only didn't point to the GK, but actually to the TSBD instead. How many witnesses have you listed? What's stopping you from posting your data?
You focus on the minutia of numbers - and avoid the actual point he made...
I think my irony meter just burst. Again.
All you have to do is show that Mark Lane was wrong when he claimed that a majority of those witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll.
You haven't...
And you won't.
I can certainly understand why you desperately want to change the subject, but it's your claim that "an overwhelming majority" of the witnesses vaguely cited by Lane pointed to the GK. It's a vaguer version of Lane's original claim, of course, but still highly dubious, yet (despite claiming to have done the work) you absolutely refuse to support it. I think most of us can recognize an obvious bluff when we see one.
It all boils down to one irrefutable fact.
The overwhelming majority of witnesses who made statements on 11/22 or 11/23 stated that the shots came from the direction of the Grassy Knoll.
You absolute MUST AGREE with Mark Lane on that fact.
If you dispute him, then its up to you to produce your list of eyewitnesses, and cite what they said.
Since you refuse to do so - it's clear that you understand that Mark Lane told the truth.
RE: Extreme conspiracy theories
(08-09-2016, 03:12 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(08-09-2016, 12:04 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote: No Mark, you've not documented your claim. Mark Lane was ABSOLUTELY CORRECT that the overwhelming majority of witnesses who reported on 11/22 or 11/23 stated that the Grassy Knoll was the location of the shots.
Nothing you've said has changed that fact.
Your hypocrisy is breathtaking. You always demand of your opponents that they're accurate down to the last pixel, but your hero Mark Lane gets a free pass even when he's obviously wrong. Lane specifically said 22 of 25. But who says it was even an overwhelming majority? Should we just take your word for it?
Your fear of confronting the actual citations, and LISTING THE WITNESSES means nothing... you see, I don't have to list 'em... I never lied about the truthfulness of Mark Lane. You're claiming he lied, and you can't produce the lie... or any evidence of it.
Amazing. You've admitted yourself that Lane's numbers were wrong, and you're also the one who's refusing to post the data that you claim exonerates him somehow. I think we all know why.
Now you want to put the onus on me to produce a list of witnesses (something YOU should have done) - which will simply be another target for you to focus in on rather than your discredited assertion that Mark Lane lied. I've seen this tactic from WCR Supporters many times before... the changing of the topic...
I've done more than enough to prove Lane wrong. Now it's your turn to prove him right.
You lie about citations, you lie about the numbers involved, you somehow believe that lies will carry the day.
Yet you cannot cite the actual witnesses who were recorded on 11/22 and 11/23 - and show that Mark Lane was wrong in his point that he made.
One of many differences between the two of us is that I've never lied to you, Ben. And there's nothing wrong with my numbers. Lane said that only 3 of those witnesses didn't point to the GK as the source of the shots. I demonstrated - with quotes and page cites - that at least 5 not only didn't point to the GK, but actually to the TSBD instead. How many witnesses have you listed? What's stopping you from posting your data?
You focus on the minutia of numbers - and avoid the actual point he made...
I think my irony meter just burst. Again.
All you have to do is show that Mark Lane was wrong when he claimed that a majority of those witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll.
You haven't...
And you won't.
I can certainly understand why you desperately want to change the subject, but it's your claim that "an overwhelming majority" of the witnesses vaguely cited by Lane pointed to the GK. It's a vaguer version of Lane's original claim, of course, but still highly dubious, yet (despite claiming to have done the work) you absolutely refuse to support it. I think most of us can recognize an obvious bluff when we see one.
It all boils down to one irrefutable fact.
The overwhelming majority of witnesses who made statements on 11/22 or 11/23 stated that the shots came from the direction of the Grassy Knoll.
You absolute MUST AGREE with Mark Lane on that fact.
If you dispute him, then its up to you to produce your list of eyewitnesses, and cite what they said.
Since you refuse to do so - it's clear that you understand that Mark Lane told the truth.
Thank you for admitting that Lane's numbers are wrong. As his unofficial fan club president, that must have been a bitter pill to swallow.
And, no, I won't simply take your word for an "overwhelming majority." It's your (highly dubious) claim, so the onus is on you to support it. Lane was too much of a coward to list his 25 witnesses, and you refuse to post the tabulation you claim to have done. The lurkers are free to draw their own conclusions, but I frankly doubt it even exists.
This post was last modified: 08-10-2016, 08:39 AM by Mark Ulrik.
RE: Extreme conspiracy theories
(08-10-2016, 08:39 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:(08-09-2016, 03:12 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: It all boils down to one irrefutable fact.
The overwhelming majority of witnesses who made statements on 11/22 or 11/23 stated that the shots came from the direction of the Grassy Knoll.
You absolute MUST AGREE with Mark Lane on that fact.
If you dispute him, then its up to you to produce your list of eyewitnesses, and cite what they said.
Since you refuse to do so - it's clear that you understand that Mark Lane told the truth.
Thank you for admitting that Lane's numbers are wrong. As his unofficial fan club president, that must have been a bitter pill to swallow.
And, no, I won't simply take your word for an "overwhelming majority." It's your (highly dubious) claim, so the onus is on you to support it. Lane was too much of a coward to list his 25 witnesses, and you refuse to post the tabulation you claim to have done. The lurkers are free to draw their own conclusions, but I frankly doubt it even exists.
It all boils down to one irrefutable fact.
The overwhelming majority of witnesses who made statements on 11/22 or 11/23 stated that the shots came from the direction of the Grassy Knoll.
You absolute MUST AGREE with Mark Lane on that fact.
If you dispute him, then its up to you to produce your list of eyewitnesses, and cite what they said.
Since you refuse to do so - it's clear that you understand that Mark Lane told the truth. I'm not required to cite and support YOUR claim. That's up to you to do.
Denying the accuracy of Mark Lane's point, even as you REFUSE to cite the evidence, shows that you know what that evidence actually shows.
RE: Extreme conspiracy theories
(08-10-2016, 02:00 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(08-10-2016, 08:39 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:(08-09-2016, 03:12 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: It all boils down to one irrefutable fact.
The overwhelming majority of witnesses who made statements on 11/22 or 11/23 stated that the shots came from the direction of the Grassy Knoll.
You absolute MUST AGREE with Mark Lane on that fact.
If you dispute him, then its up to you to produce your list of eyewitnesses, and cite what they said.
Since you refuse to do so - it's clear that you understand that Mark Lane told the truth.
Thank you for admitting that Lane's numbers are wrong. As his unofficial fan club president, that must have been a bitter pill to swallow.
And, no, I won't simply take your word for an "overwhelming majority." It's your (highly dubious) claim, so the onus is on you to support it. Lane was too much of a coward to list his 25 witnesses, and you refuse to post the tabulation you claim to have done. The lurkers are free to draw their own conclusions, but I frankly doubt it even exists.
It all boils down to one irrefutable fact.
The overwhelming majority of witnesses who made statements on 11/22 or 11/23 stated that the shots came from the direction of the Grassy Knoll.
You absolute MUST AGREE with Mark Lane on that fact.
Do you think I'm an idiot? His numbers are demonstrably wrong.
If you dispute him, then its up to you to produce your list of eyewitnesses, and cite what they said.
I have already produced 5 who pointed to the TSBD. Lane claimed there were only 3 non-GK witnesses. How many witnesses have you produced? In another thread, you claimed there were more than 22 GK witnesses. List them!
Since you refuse to do so - it's clear that you understand that Mark Lane told the truth. I'm not required to cite and support YOUR claim. That's up to you to do.
Lane's "22 of 25" claim has already been refuted. The "overwhelming majority" is your claim. Which you refuse to support (we all know why).
Denying the accuracy of Mark Lane's point, even as you REFUSE to cite the evidence, shows that you know what that evidence actually shows.
There's nothing accurate about Lane's claim. [5 TSDB witnesses] > [3 non-GK witnesses]. Had the WC made a mistake like that, you're be over them like a cheap suit.
Like your hero Mark Lane, you're too much of a coward to post the tabulation you (ha-ha) claim to have done.
My comments in green above.
RE: Extreme conspiracy theories
(08-10-2016, 08:39 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:(08-09-2016, 03:12 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: It all boils down to one irrefutable fact.
The overwhelming majority of witnesses who made statements on 11/22 or 11/23 stated that the shots came from the direction of the Grassy Knoll.
You absolute MUST AGREE with Mark Lane on that fact.
Do you think I'm an idiot? His numbers are demonstrably wrong.
Once again... the fact that you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to list the witnesses, and document which location they pointed to, shows your awareness that Mark Lane was quite correct when he stated that the majority of witnesses in those first two days were for the Grassy Knoll.
You can keep twisting and running away - but this is simply indisputable.
YOU REFUSE TO OPENLY DISPUTE IT WITH THE EVIDENCE!
And that fact tells the tale.
If you dispute him, then its up to you to produce your list of eyewitnesses, and cite what they said.
(08-10-2016, 08:39 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:(08-09-2016, 03:12 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: I have already produced 5 who pointed to the TSBD. Lane claimed there were only 3 non-GK witnesses. How many witnesses have you produced? In another thread, you claimed there were more than 22 GK witnesses. List them!
Since you refuse to do so - it's clear that you understand that Mark Lane told the truth. I'm not required to cite and support YOUR claim. That's up to you to do.
Lane's "22 of 25" claim has already been refuted. The "overwhelming majority" is your claim. Which you refuse to support (we all know why).
It's quite nitpicking to complain about the raw numbers ... then run like a coward from the POINT that Mark Lane was making. Even YOUR NUMBERS show this... you clearly admit that the majority of witnesses are Grassy Knoll witnesses.
His numbers were wrong, as we see them today. But we aren't looking at the same data. The point he was making IS STILL TRUE TODAY - NO-MATTER HOW YOU COUNT THE WITNESSES!!!
You, for example, simply lied about Mark Lane's citation in order to support your nonsensical point about the numbers... (previously cited for...)
(08-10-2016, 08:39 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:(08-09-2016, 03:12 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: Denying the accuracy of Mark Lane's point, even as you REFUSE to cite the evidence, shows that you know what that evidence actually shows.
There's nothing accurate about Lane's claim. [5 TSDB witnesses] > [3 non-GK witnesses]. Had the WC made a mistake like that, you're be over them like a cheap suit.
Like your hero Mark Lane, you're too much of a coward to post the tabulation you (ha-ha) claim to have done.
No requirement for me to cite the evidence for YOUR claim. You want targets to change the issue some more... you'll have to provide them.
Once again, it's a FACT THAT YOU CANNOT DISPUTE WITH EVIDENCE that Mark Lane was completely correct about his assertion that the majority of witnesses in those first two days pointed to the Grassy Knoll.
You've lost.
RE: Extreme conspiracy theories
(08-11-2016, 02:07 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(08-10-2016, 08:39 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:(08-09-2016, 03:12 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: It all boils down to one irrefutable fact.
The overwhelming majority of witnesses who made statements on 11/22 or 11/23 stated that the shots came from the direction of the Grassy Knoll.
You absolute MUST AGREE with Mark Lane on that fact.
Do you think I'm an idiot? His numbers are demonstrably wrong.
Once again... the fact that you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to list the witnesses, and document which location they pointed to, shows your awareness that Mark Lane was quite correct when he stated that the majority of witnesses in those first two days were for the Grassy Knoll.
You can keep twisting and running away - but this is simply indisputable.
Lane's claim was "22 of 25," not just "a majority." Either claim is unsubstantiated. He didn't list his 25 witnesses, and his numbers are demonstrably wrong.
YOU REFUSE TO OPENLY DISPUTE IT WITH THE EVIDENCE!
And that fact tells the tale.
If you dispute him, then its up to you to produce your list of eyewitnesses, and cite what they said.
Lane said there were only 3 non-GK witnesses. I've listed 5 witnesses who explicitly pointed to the TSBD. You? Nothing. You claim to have done a tabulation, based on Lane's cites and selection criteria, that somehow proves he was "quite correct," but refuse to post it here for all to see. We know why. A: You know it won't hold up to scrutiny (if it even exists). B: You're only here to play games and call your opponents liars and cowards.
(08-10-2016, 08:39 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:(08-09-2016, 03:12 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: I have already produced 5 who pointed to the TSBD. Lane claimed there were only 3 non-GK witnesses. How many witnesses have you produced? In another thread, you claimed there were more than 22 GK witnesses. List them!
Since you refuse to do so - it's clear that you understand that Mark Lane told the truth. I'm not required to cite and support YOUR claim. That's up to you to do.
Lane's "22 of 25" claim has already been refuted. The "overwhelming majority" is your claim. Which you refuse to support (we all know why).
It's quite nitpicking to complain about the raw numbers ... then run like a coward from the POINT that Mark Lane was making. Even YOUR NUMBERS show this... you clearly admit that the majority of witnesses are Grassy Knoll witnesses.
And you weren't nitpicking when you complained about a single questionable categorization in McAdams' tabulation? What a hypocrite you are.
I'll repeat: Lane said there were only 3 non-GK witnesses. I've listed 5 witnesses who explicitly pointed to the TSBD. How is that "admitting that the majority of witnesses were GK witnesses?"
His numbers were wrong, as we see them today. But we aren't looking at the same data. The point he was making IS STILL TRUE TODAY - NO-MATTER HOW YOU COUNT THE WITNESSES!!!
His numbers were also wrong in 1964. The 5 TSDB witnesses I listed were found in two of Lane's sources, Decker Exhibit 5323 and CE 2003, both published by the WC.
It's true, however, that I also listed 4 TSBD witnesses found in unpublished Commission Documents, so it could be argued that Lane's numbers are even more wrong today.
You, for example, simply lied about Mark Lane's citation in order to support your nonsensical point about the numbers... (previously cited for...)
Not a lie. I simply forgot about that part of the citation. I vaguely remember deciding to focus on the two exhibits mentioned above because that's were all the relevant affidavits seemed to be located. It turned out that there were more than enough to prove Lane wrong, so it seemed pointless to dig any deeper. It's typically hypocritical of you to call me a liar when I'm inaccurate and Lane "quite correct" when he's inaccurate.
(08-10-2016, 08:39 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:(08-09-2016, 03:12 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: Denying the accuracy of Mark Lane's point, even as you REFUSE to cite the evidence, shows that you know what that evidence actually shows.
There's nothing accurate about Lane's claim. [5 TSDB witnesses] > [3 non-GK witnesses]. Had the WC made a mistake like that, you're be over them like a cheap suit.
Like your hero Mark Lane, you're too much of a coward to post the tabulation you (ha-ha) claim to have done.
No requirement for me to cite the evidence for YOUR claim. You want targets to change the issue some more... you'll have to provide them.
Once again, it's a FACT THAT YOU CANNOT DISPUTE WITH EVIDENCE that Mark Lane was completely correct about his assertion that the majority of witnesses in those first two days pointed to the Grassy Knoll.
You've lost.
I've already proven my claim. It's your claim that an overwhelming majority of the witnesses matching Lane's selection criteria were GK witnesses, but you seem strangely unwilling to support it. Why is that?
My comments in green above.
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)