[Ben Holmes]

Sorry Mark... you've lost.

You're now complaining that you get different numbers than Mark Lane... so do I. We have resources today that are vastly improved over what Mark Lane had to work with.

And yet, what he said is STILL ABSOLUTELY TRUE. The witnesses who were on record on 11/22 and 11/23 are overwhelmingly Grassy Knoll witnesses.

Even YOU admit that... since you can only find 5 that aren't.

You've lost.

[Mark Ulrik]

(08-12-2016, 02:46 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  Sorry Mark... you've lost.

You're now complaining that you get different numbers than Mark Lane... so do I. We have resources today that are vastly improved over what Mark Lane had to work with.

Not the issue. Lane cited sources that were published in 1964 and lied about what they contained.

And yet, what he said is STILL ABSOLUTELY TRUE. The witnesses who were on record on 11/22 and 11/23 are overwhelmingly Grassy Knoll witnesses.

You keep saying that, but ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to support your claim.

Even YOU admit that... since you can only find 5 that aren't.

Try to be honest. I said they were the most obvious non-GK witnesses that I was aware of. All of them explicitly pointed to the TSBD as the source of the shots.

I guess you could only find 0 GK witnesses, because that's exactly the number you've posted so far.

You've lost.

How so? I've supported my claim. You refuse to support yours.

My comments in green above.

[Ben Holmes]

(08-12-2016, 03:33 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-12-2016, 02:46 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  Sorry Mark... you've lost.

You're now complaining that you get different numbers than Mark Lane... so do I. We have resources today that are vastly improved over what Mark Lane had to work with.

Not the issue. Lane cited sources that were published in 1964 and lied about what they contained.

And yet, what he said is STILL ABSOLUTELY TRUE. The witnesses who were on record on 11/22 and 11/23 are overwhelmingly Grassy Knoll witnesses.

You keep saying that, but ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to support your claim.

Even YOU admit that... since you can only find 5 that aren't.

Try to be honest. I said they were the most obvious non-GK witnesses that I was aware of. All of them explicitly pointed to the TSBD as the source of the shots.

I guess you could only find 0 GK witnesses, because that's exactly the number you've posted so far.

You've lost.

How so? I've supported my claim. You refuse to support yours.

My comments in green above.

Still can't support your claim that Mark Lane lied, can you?

Unless you can produce a majority of 11/22 & 11/23 witnesses that do not point to the Grassy Knoll - you've simply admitted that you cannot refute what Mark Lane stated.

You've lost.

[Mark Ulrik]

(08-12-2016, 04:26 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-12-2016, 03:33 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-12-2016, 02:46 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  Sorry Mark... you've lost.

You're now complaining that you get different numbers than Mark Lane... so do I. We have resources today that are vastly improved over what Mark Lane had to work with.

Not the issue. Lane cited sources that were published in 1964 and lied about what they contained.

And yet, what he said is STILL ABSOLUTELY TRUE. The witnesses who were on record on 11/22 and 11/23 are overwhelmingly Grassy Knoll witnesses.

You keep saying that, but ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to support your claim.

Even YOU admit that... since you can only find 5 that aren't.

Try to be honest. I said they were the most obvious non-GK witnesses that I was aware of. All of them explicitly pointed to the TSBD as the source of the shots.

I guess you could only find 0 GK witnesses, because that's exactly the number you've posted so far.

You've lost.

How so? I've supported my claim. You refuse to support yours.

My comments in green above.

Still can't support your claim that Mark Lane lied, can you?

Unless you can produce a majority of 11/22 & 11/23 witnesses that do not point to the Grassy Knoll - you've simply admitted that you cannot refute what Mark Lane stated.

You've lost.

Wow. Talk about moving the goal post. Lane's claim was very specific: count(src=knoll)) = 22 and count(src!=knoll) = 3.

To prove it wrong, it's sufficient to demonstrate that count(src=knoll)) != 22 or that count(src!=knoll) != 3.

I demonstated, with quotes and page cites, that count(src=tsbd) >= 5.

You can bitch and moan about it, but Lane's numbers are demonstrably wrong, Ben. There are only two possibilities: Lane was either sloppy or intentionally deceptive. My money is on the latter. Why didn't he list his 25 witnesses? Probably for the same reason that you refuse to post the tabulation you claim to have done.

Btw, it doesn't even matter, according to the forum rules, if the deception was intentional or not: Lane "lied." I guess you could still redeem your hero somewhat by posting your (ha-ha) tabulation showing that count(src=knoll) >> count(src!=knoll), but that's never going to happen, of course.

[Ben Holmes]

(08-12-2016, 03:33 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-12-2016, 02:46 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  Sorry Mark... you've lost.

Still can't support your claim that Mark Lane lied, can you?

Unless you can produce a majority of 11/22 & 11/23 witnesses that do not point to the Grassy Knoll - you've simply admitted that you cannot refute what Mark Lane stated.

You've lost.

Wow. Talk about moving the goal post. Lane's claim was very specific: count(src=knoll)) = 22 and count(src!=knoll) = 3.

To prove it wrong, it's sufficient to demonstrate that count(src=knoll)) != 22 or that count(src!=knoll) != 3.

I demonstated, with quotes and page cites, that count(src=tsbd) >= 5.

You can bitch and moan about it, but Lane's numbers are demonstrably wrong, Ben. There are only two possibilities: Lane was either sloppy or intentionally deceptive. My money is on the latter. Why didn't he list his 25 witnesses? Probably for the same reason that you refuse to post the tabulation you claim to have done.

Btw, it doesn't even matter, according to the forum rules, if the deception was intentional or not: Lane "lied." I guess you could still redeem your hero somewhat by posting your (ha-ha) tabulation showing that count(src=knoll) >> count(src!=knoll), but that's never going to happen, of course.

YOUR OWN NUMBERS prove two things... that Mark Lane counted different people than you... and that his point that the overwhelming majority of the first few days witnesses pointed to the TSBD is absolutely true.

You cannot refute that.

You lose.

[Mark Ulrik]

(08-16-2016, 01:46 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-12-2016, 03:33 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-12-2016, 02:46 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  Sorry Mark... you've lost.

Still can't support your claim that Mark Lane lied, can you?

Unless you can produce a majority of 11/22 & 11/23 witnesses that do not point to the Grassy Knoll - you've simply admitted that you cannot refute what Mark Lane stated.

You've lost.

Wow. Talk about moving the goal post. Lane's claim was very specific: count(src=knoll)) = 22 and count(src!=knoll) = 3.

To prove it wrong, it's sufficient to demonstrate that count(src=knoll)) != 22 or that count(src!=knoll) != 3.

I demonstated, with quotes and page cites, that count(src=tsbd) >= 5.

You can bitch and moan about it, but Lane's numbers are demonstrably wrong, Ben. There are only two possibilities: Lane was either sloppy or intentionally deceptive. My money is on the latter. Why didn't he list his 25 witnesses? Probably for the same reason that you refuse to post the tabulation you claim to have done.

Btw, it doesn't even matter, according to the forum rules, if the deception was intentional or not: Lane "lied." I guess you could still redeem your hero somewhat by posting your (ha-ha) tabulation showing that count(src=knoll) >> count(src!=knoll), but that's never going to happen, of course.

YOUR OWN NUMBERS prove two things... that Mark Lane counted different people than you... and that his point that the overwhelming majority of the first few days witnesses pointed to the TSBD is absolutely true.

"...his point that the overwhelming majority of the first few days witnesses pointed to the TSBD is absolutely true."

Freudian slip?

You cannot refute that.

My "numbers" (it's really only one) prove that Lane's numbers are wrong. Period.

You lose.

In pretty much the same way you lost when you complained about McAdams' witness tabulation in another thread?

It's worth noting that McAdams, unlike the cowardly Lane, published his data, making it much easier for people like you to find minutiae to complain about.

My comments in green above.

[Ben Holmes]

(08-16-2016, 02:34 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-16-2016, 01:46 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  YOUR OWN NUMBERS prove two things... that Mark Lane counted different people than you... and that his point that the overwhelming majority of the first few days witnesses pointed to the TSBD is absolutely true.

"...his point that the overwhelming majority of the first few days witnesses pointed to the TSBD is absolutely true."

Freudian slip?

Nope... simply a mistake. Run if you wish, but you cannot refute the fact that your own numbers prove two things... that Mark Lane counted different people than you, and that in the first two days the overwhelming majority of witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

You cannot refute that.

Nor will you even try. Remember folks - my crystal ball is once again making a prediction - and Mark can't help but make it come true.
 

Mark Ulrik Wrote:My "numbers" (it's really only one) prove that Lane's numbers are wrong. Period.

It's wonderful that you think the precise numbers were the issue.

But they weren't.

You KNOW that Mark Lane was absolutely correct in his basic point. This explains why you'll never list the witnesses, and what direction they pointed.
 

Mark Ulrik Wrote:In pretty much the same way you lost when you complained about McAdams' witness tabulation in another thread?

How could I have "lost?"

Unless YOU can explain how to differentiate a Grassy Knoll shot from a Railroad yard shot from the entrance to the TSBD - you're lying.

Tell us Mark, are you lying?

Can you actually defend McAdams' tabulation?

Mark Ulrik Wrote:It's worth noting that McAdams, unlike the cowardly Lane, published his data, making it much easier for people like you to find minutiae to complain about.

Actually, it simply made it easy to point out his misrepresentations and lies.

Now, explain how to differentiate between a Grassy Knoll shot from a Railroad yard shot if you're standing at the entrance to the TSBD. If you don't, then you're proving yourself a liar. Tell us Mark, are you a liar? Or can you defend your assertion that I "lost" when I pointed out McAdams' wrong tabulation? I'll also note for the record that Patrick ran from that debate...

[Guest]

Ben Holmes Wrote:Notice how long it's taken for you to get to the point where you cannot but accept that you're wrong. It's taken DAYS of posts just to get you to admit the basic facts... facts that prove that your "opinion" is wrong.

I don't care whether it takes 1 day or 10 days to respond - I am not that interested!

I don't live for the JFK assassination Ben....

And NO I am not wrong. The majority of witnesses thought the shots came from the rear, a significant number thought the shots came from the front - an area usually reffered to as the Knoll. If some people thought the rail road tracks or even behind Zapruder - who cares. They were wrong. They thought ALL the shots came from ONE location.

Which part of that do you not understand!

I good lawyer would have shown in court that the witnesses who thought ALL the shots came from the Knoll area were simply mistaken.

The GK gunman is THE red herring of thecase. It is a myth, nonsense, twiddle twaddle, bonkers.

[Ben Holmes]

(08-18-2016, 12:08 PM)Guest Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:Notice how long it's taken for you to get to the point where you cannot but accept that you're wrong. It's taken DAYS of posts just to get you to admit the basic facts... facts that prove that your "opinion" is wrong.

I don't care whether it takes 1 day or 10 days to respond - I am not that interested!

Having problems reading, Patrick? I stated that it's taken DAYS of posts... it's not a matter of how long it took you to post, as you assert... it's the fact that you write post after post refusing to acknowledge the truth.

(08-18-2016, 12:08 PM)Guest Wrote:  I don't live for the JFK assassination Ben....

And NO I am not wrong. The majority of witnesses thought the shots came from the rear, a significant number thought the shots came from the front - an area usually reffered to as the Knoll. If some people thought the rail road tracks or even behind Zapruder - who cares. They were wrong. They thought ALL the shots came from ONE location.

The topic is the witnesses who were documented on 11/22 and 11/23.

You're not "wrong" Patrick, you're lying. (and yes, I'm quite sure it's you... despite you not logging in prior to posting.)

Of witnesses who were documented as to the direction of the shots on 11/22 and 11/23 - THE VAST OVERWHELMING MAJORITY stated that the shots came from the direction of the Grassy Knoll.

You're a liar, Patrick.

And since you know that I'm going to keep right on pointing out your lies, why do you bother?

You cannot POSSIBLY list a majority of 11/22 & 11/23 witnesses who pointed to the TSBD - and you KNOW THIS!!

Yet you willingly lie about it.

(08-18-2016, 12:08 PM)Guest Wrote:  Which part of that do you not understand!

I good lawyer would have shown in court that the witnesses who thought ALL the shots came from the Knoll area were simply mistaken.

The GK gunman is THE red herring of thecase. It is a myth, nonsense, twiddle twaddle, bonkers.

The fact that you willingly lie about the facts in this case demonstrate quite well that you completely understand the weakness of your case.

I'll simply point out that you'll NEVER produce a majority of witnesses from 11/22 & 11/23 who pointed to the TSBD. Just like Mark.

[Mark Ulrik]

(08-16-2016, 03:03 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-16-2016, 02:34 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-16-2016, 01:46 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  YOUR OWN NUMBERS prove two things... that Mark Lane counted different people than you... and that his point that the overwhelming majority of the first few days witnesses pointed to the TSBD is absolutely true.

"...his point that the overwhelming majority of the first few days witnesses pointed to the TSBD is absolutely true."

Freudian slip?

Nope... simply a mistake. Run if you wish, but you cannot refute the fact that your own numbers prove two things... that Mark Lane counted different people than you, and that in the first two days the overwhelming majority of witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

You cannot refute that.

Nor will you even try. Remember folks - my crystal ball is once again making a prediction - and Mark can't help but make it come true.

How am I supposed to refute gibberish? What my numbers prove is that Lane pulled his numbers out of his hat.
 

Mark Ulrik Wrote:My "numbers" (it's really only one) prove that Lane's numbers are wrong. Period.

It's wonderful that you think the precise numbers were the issue.

But they weren't.

You KNOW that Mark Lane was absolutely correct in his basic point. This explains why you'll never list the witnesses, and what direction they pointed.

You KNOW that Mark Lane's numbers are objectively wrong. You KNOW that you can't support your "overwhelming majority" claim. This explains why you'll never post the witnesses tabulation you (*cough*) claim to have done.
 

Mark Ulrik Wrote:In pretty much the same way you lost when you complained about McAdams' witness tabulation in another thread?

How could I have "lost?"

Unless YOU can explain how to differentiate a Grassy Knoll shot from a Railroad yard shot from the entrance to the TSBD - you're lying.

Tell us Mark, are you lying?

OIC. When Mark Lane fudges his numbers, he's "absolutely correct." When McAdams doesn't count a "railroad yards adjacent to the TSBD" witness as a GK witness, he's a "liar." When I point out something that is objectively wrong, I "lose." When you point out something that is merely subject to interpretation, you "win." There is clearly a double standard at play here, but you're too biased to see it.

Can you actually defend McAdams' tabulation?

Can you defend Lane's? He was unable to support his, just like you're unable to support your "overwhelming majority" claim. Why don't you post the tabulation you (*cough*) claim to have done, using Lane's sources and selection criteria? What are you so afraid of?
 

Mark Ulrik Wrote:It's worth noting that McAdams, unlike the cowardly Lane, published his data, making it much easier for people like you to find minutiae to complain about.

Actually, it simply made it easy to point out his misrepresentations and lies.

Now, explain how to differentiate between a Grassy Knoll shot from a Railroad yard shot if you're standing at the entrance to the TSBD. If you don't, then you're proving yourself a liar. Tell us Mark, are you a liar? Or can you defend your assertion that I "lost" when I pointed out McAdams' wrong tabulation? I'll also note for the record that Patrick ran from that debate...

If I "lose" when I point out something that is objectively wrong (like 3 = 5+), then you also lose when you point out something that is merely subject to interpretation (like whether or not a "railroad yards adjacent to the TSBD" witness should be counted as a GK witness).

My comments in green above.