Extreme conspiracy theories

***Ben Holmes*** · 08-24-2016, 01:49 PM

(08-24-2016, 09:15 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:
(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.

Why is it "gibberish" to point out 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...

As predicted, you refused to even try to refute that.

I predict that once again, you'll simply run away from that statement. Here it is again:

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...

***Ben Holmes*** · 08-24-2016, 02:12 PM

(08-24-2016, 09:15 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:
(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: 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.

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.

Mark Lane IS absolutely correct. His point had virtually nothing to do with exact numbers... his point, and you've proven it, is that the MAJORITY of witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll on 11/22 & 11/23

John McAdams certainly was lying when he misleadingly put a witness in the wrong category. He did the same thing a number of times.

Can you actually defend McAdams' tabulation?

Mark Ulrik Wrote: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?

So the answer is no... you can't defend McAdams' tabulation.

That means that you realize that McAdams was indeed, a liar. So you don't have anything to complain about.

Nor do I need to document what YOU have already documented... that an overwhelming majority of witnesses documented on 11/22 or 11/23 pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

Why do you ask me to support what you've already proven?

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...

Mark Ulrik Wrote: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).

BINGO... you refused to defend how McAdams refused to put a "Railroad yard" witness in the correct category. You have, indeed, proven yourself a liar.

Patrick, although he ran for many days & posts from that topic, finally admitted that there wasn't any way to differentiate between the Railroad yard and the Grassy Knoll from the TSBD... you're simply refusing to answer.

Since you are trying to paint McAdams as an honest man - that means you realize you can't defend that claim.

You've lost all the way 'round...

You clearly understand that Mark Lane's point about where the overwhelming numbers of eyewitnesses on 11/22 & 11/23 pointed is correct.
You clearly know that McAdams was dishonest when he removed a Grassy Knoll eyewitness from his tabulation.
You clearly know that you cannot find even a simple majority of witnesses who pointed to the TSBD on 11/22 & 11/23
You desperately want me to provide more evidence for you to take aim at... but there's no need.
You rather consistently refuse to answer the questions on the evidence that would force you to admit the truth.

You lost.

Mark Ulrik · 08-24-2016, 02:21 PM

(08-24-2016, 01:49 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
(08-24-2016, 09:15 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:
(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.

Why is it "gibberish" to point out 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...

As predicted, you refused to even try to refute that.

I predict that once again, you'll simply run away from that statement. Here it is again:

Your own numbers prove two things... that Mark Lane counted different people than you,

That's just your weasel way of admitting that his numbers are wrong.

and that in the first two days the overwhelming majority of witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll...

Lane's claim of "22 of 25" is demonstably wrong. Your vaguer claim of "an overwhelming majority" is unsupported. You refuse to post the tabulation you (*cough*) claim to have done. I think we all understand why.

My comments in green above.

***Ben Holmes*** · 08-24-2016, 03:21 PM

(08-24-2016, 02:21 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:
(08-24-2016, 01:49 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
(08-24-2016, 09:15 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:
(08-16-2016, 03:03 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
(08-16-2016, 02:34 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote: "...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.

Why is it "gibberish" to point out 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...

As predicted, you refused to even try to refute that.

I predict that once again, you'll simply run away from that statement. Here it is again:

Your own numbers prove two things... that Mark Lane counted different people than you,

That's just your weasel way of admitting that his numbers are wrong.

I've already stated that. As I've previously stated:

Ben Holmes Wrote: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!!!

So how can it be a "weasel way" of stating what I've plainly said several times now?

But the POINT he was making ... provably was not wrong.

The point was not the precise numbers... the point was that the overwhelming majority of witnesses documented on 11/22 & 11/23 pointed to the Grassy Knoll. An ABSOLUTE FACT according to you, since you can't produce more than five witnesses who point to the TSBD.

Mark Ulrik Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:and that in the first two days the overwhelming majority of witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll...

Lane's claim of "22 of 25" is demonstably wrong. Your vaguer claim of "an overwhelming majority" is unsupported. You refuse to post the tabulation you (*cough*) claim to have done. I think we all understand why.

Yep... his precise numbers were wrong. But even YOU cannot produce any numbers that refute his point, which I'll just keep repeating, that the overwhelming numbers of eyewitnesses documented on 11/22 or 11/23 pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

This is the point that Mark Lane made...

And no matter how many times you run from that fact, and refuse to admit it - it's still true today.

Embarrassing, isn't it?

Mark Ulrik · 08-25-2016, 08:52 AM

(08-24-2016, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
(08-24-2016, 02:21 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:
(08-24-2016, 01:49 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
(08-24-2016, 09:15 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:
(08-16-2016, 03:03 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: 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.

Why is it "gibberish" to point out 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...

As predicted, you refused to even try to refute that.

I predict that once again, you'll simply run away from that statement. Here it is again:

Your own numbers prove two things... that Mark Lane counted different people than you,

That's just your weasel way of admitting that his numbers are wrong.

I've already stated that. As I've previously stated:

Ben Holmes Wrote: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!!!

So how can it be a "weasel way" of stating what I've plainly said several times now?

Because you're not being honest. It is the same data. Those 5 TSBD witnesses were located in the sources cited by Lane himself, using his selection critea. Why did your hero not find them? Was he being intentionally deceptive or just plain sloppy? Why didn't he list his 25 witnesses? Why do you refuse to post the tabulation you (*cough*) claim to have done?

But the POINT he was making ... provably was not wrong.

The point was not the precise numbers... the point was that the overwhelming majority of witnesses documented on 11/22 & 11/23 pointed to the Grassy Knoll. An ABSOLUTE FACT according to you, since you can't produce more than five witnesses who point to the TSBD.

Again, you're not being honest. All that's needed to prove Lane wrong is 4 witnesses pointing away from the GK, but (out of the kindness of my heart) I gave you 5 who explicitly pointed to the TSBD. I don't know how many pointed to, and how many away from, the GK. I didn't attempt to do Lane's work for him. You claim to have, but you refuse to post your "tabulation" - which tells me that it probably doesn't support your "overwhelming majority" claim.

Mark Ulrik Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:and that in the first two days the overwhelming majority of witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll...

Lane's claim of "22 of 25" is demonstably wrong. Your vaguer claim of "an overwhelming majority" is unsupported. You refuse to post the tabulation you (*cough*) claim to have done. I think we all understand why.

Yep... his precise numbers were wrong. But even YOU cannot produce any numbers that refute his point, which I'll just keep repeating, that the overwhelming numbers of eyewitnesses documented on 11/22 or 11/23 pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

This is the point that Mark Lane made...

Then why did he have to lie and claim it was 22 of 25?

And no matter how many times you run from that fact, and refuse to admit it - it's still true today.

Embarrassing, isn't it?

It must eat you up inside that you can't prove it.

My comments in green above.

***Ben Holmes*** · 08-25-2016, 02:04 PM

(08-25-2016, 08:52 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:
(08-24-2016, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
(08-24-2016, 02:21 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote: That's just your weasel way of admitting that his numbers are wrong.

I've already stated that. As I've previously stated:

Ben Holmes Wrote: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!!!

So how can it be a "weasel way" of stating what I've plainly said several times now?

Because you're not being honest. It is the same data. Those 5 TSBD witnesses were located in the sources cited by Lane himself, using his selection critea. Why did your hero not find them? Was he being intentionally deceptive or just plain sloppy? Why didn't he list his 25 witnesses? Why do you refuse to post the tabulation you (*cough*) claim to have done?

Then you're a liar.

I've stated several times before, and quoted one of the instances right above - that Mark Lane was wrong in the number count. The "weasel" is clearly you... as you continue to refuse to state what Mark Lane was actually saying.

BY YOUR OWN COUNT, 20 out of 25 witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

That count is wrong... there are more than 25 witnesses, THERE ARE MORE THAN 20 THAT POINTED TO THE GRASSY KNOLL.

Now, you claim that when I say "His numbers were wrong" - that this is a "weasel way" of admitting that his numbers were wrong.

Once again: Now, you claim that when I say "His numbers were wrong" - that this is a "weasel way" of admitting that his numbers were wrong.

You're a liar.

How can their be any "weaseling" going on when I stated the same thing you stated?

Who's the true weasel around here?

You STILL refuse to acknowledge that your own numbers PROVE THAT MARK LANE WAS CORRECT TO ATTRIBUTE THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF 11/22 & 11/23 WITNESSES AS GRASSY KNOLL WITNESSES.

Since your own numbers make the same point that Mark Lane made, there's no need for me to list the witnesses, is there?

(08-25-2016, 08:52 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:
(08-24-2016, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: But the POINT he was making ... provably was not wrong.

The point was not the precise numbers... the point was that the overwhelming majority of witnesses documented on 11/22 & 11/23 pointed to the Grassy Knoll. An ABSOLUTE FACT according to you, since you can't produce more than five witnesses who point to the TSBD.

Again, you're not being honest. All that's needed to prove Lane wrong is 4 witnesses pointing away from the GK, but (out of the kindness of my heart) I gave you 5 who explicitly pointed to the TSBD. I don't know how many pointed to, and how many away from, the GK. I didn't attempt to do Lane's work for him. You claim to have, but you refuse to post your "tabulation" - which tells me that it probably doesn't support your "overwhelming majority" claim.

And you're a liar.

Mark Lane's point that the overwhelming majority of witnesses documented on 11/22 & 11/23 were Grassy Knoll witnesses is STILL UNREFUTED BY YOU.

You even admit that you've not examined all those witnesses to make any determination. That makes you a coward as well... since I'm quite sure that you KNOW what you'd find.

Tell us Mark - I've made it quite explicit that both cowardice and lying is allowed to be pointed out in this forum - how did you expect to get away with these lies and cowardice? Do you enjoy having your character flaws pointed out?

Mark Ulrik Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:
Mark Ulrik Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:and that in the first two days the overwhelming majority of witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll...

Lane's claim of "22 of 25" is demonstably wrong. Your vaguer claim of "an overwhelming majority" is unsupported. You refuse to post the tabulation you (*cough*) claim to have done. I think we all understand why.

Yep... his precise numbers were wrong. But even YOU cannot produce any numbers that refute his point, which I'll just keep repeating, that the overwhelming numbers of eyewitnesses documented on 11/22 or 11/23 pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

This is the point that Mark Lane made...

Then why did he have to lie and claim it was 22 of 25?

And no matter how many times you run from that fact, and refuse to admit it - it's still true today.

Embarrassing, isn't it?

It must eat you up inside that you can't prove it.

It was MORE than 22 witnesses... and the total was MORE than 25.

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.

The truth can never be embarrassing to me - you're the one running from the facts. YOUR OWN NUMBERS PROVE THAT MARK LANE'S POINT WAS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!

And that fact must eat you up inside! [Image: smile.png]

***Ben Holmes*** · 08-25-2016, 02:09 PM

As I predicted, Mark ran from this post... and as there was no answer to this post, I'm reposting it...

(08-24-2016, 09:15 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:
(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.

Why is it "gibberish" to point out 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...

As predicted, you refused to even try to refute that.

I predict that once again, you'll simply run away from that statement. Here it is again:

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...

Mark Ulrik · 08-25-2016, 04:05 PM

(08-25-2016, 02:04 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
(08-25-2016, 08:52 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:
(08-24-2016, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
(08-24-2016, 02:21 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote: That's just your weasel way of admitting that his numbers are wrong.

I've already stated that. As I've previously stated:

Ben Holmes Wrote: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!!!

So how can it be a "weasel way" of stating what I've plainly said several times now?

Because you're not being honest. It is the same data. Those 5 TSBD witnesses were located in the sources cited by Lane himself, using his selection critea. Why did your hero not find them? Was he being intentionally deceptive or just plain sloppy? Why didn't he list his 25 witnesses? Why do you refuse to post the tabulation you (*cough*) claim to have done?

Then you're a liar.

I've stated several times before, and quoted one of the instances right above - that Mark Lane was wrong in the number count. The "weasel" is clearly you... as you continue to refuse to state what Mark Lane was actually saying.

Mark Lane said "22 of 25" were GK witnesses. Using his sources and his selection criteria, I had no problem giving you 5 obvious TSBD witnesses. According to you that's because he "counted different people" than I did. That makes you the "weasel" in my book.

BY YOUR OWN COUNT, 20 out of 25 witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

Nice. Two lies in one sentence. I've never said there couldn't be (a lot) more than 5 non-GK witnesses. I simply gave you 5 of the most obvious ones. I've also never said that I accepted Lane's count of 25. On the contrary, I've demonstrated that his numbers are unreliable.

That count is wrong... there are more than 25 witnesses, THERE ARE MORE THAN 20 THAT POINTED TO THE GRASSY KNOLL.

But you refuse to list them. Mark Lane has taught you well.

Now, you claim that when I say "His numbers were wrong" - that this is a "weasel way" of admitting that his numbers were wrong.

Once again: Now, you claim that when I say "His numbers were wrong" - that this is a "weasel way" of admitting that his numbers were wrong.

You're a liar.

I was, quite obviously, commenting on your (repeated) claim that Lane "counted different people" than I did.

How can their be any "weaseling" going on when I stated the same thing you stated?

Who's the true weasel around here?

Most likely the one who keeps changing his mind about whether Lane was actually wrong, or he simply "counted different people" than I did.

You STILL refuse to acknowledge that your own numbers PROVE THAT MARK LANE WAS CORRECT TO ATTRIBUTE THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF 11/22 & 11/23 WITNESSES AS GRASSY KNOLL WITNESSES.

Of those witnesses, I listed 5 who explicitly pointed to the TSBD. That's one number, but enough to prove that Lane's "22 of 25" claim is bogus. Your "overwhelming majority" claim is also unsupported.

Since your own numbers make the same point that Mark Lane made, there's no need for me to list the witnesses, is there?

Like you were ever going to. Sorry, Ben, but no one here is falling for your bluff.

(08-25-2016, 08:52 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:
(08-24-2016, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: But the POINT he was making ... provably was not wrong.

The point was not the precise numbers... the point was that the overwhelming majority of witnesses documented on 11/22 & 11/23 pointed to the Grassy Knoll. An ABSOLUTE FACT according to you, since you can't produce more than five witnesses who point to the TSBD.

Again, you're not being honest. All that's needed to prove Lane wrong is 4 witnesses pointing away from the GK, but (out of the kindness of my heart) I gave you 5 who explicitly pointed to the TSBD. I don't know how many pointed to, and how many away from, the GK. I didn't attempt to do Lane's work for him. You claim to have, but you refuse to post your "tabulation" - which tells me that it probably doesn't support your "overwhelming majority" claim.

And you're a liar.

Mark Lane's point that the overwhelming majority of witnesses documented on 11/22 & 11/23 were Grassy Knoll witnesses is STILL UNREFUTED BY YOU.

Correction: Your claim, unsupported by you.

You even admit that you've not examined all those witnesses to make any determination. That makes you a coward as well... since I'm quite sure that you KNOW what you'd find.

Did you read the AP piece I posted earlier? The authors (GK:9; TSBD:12; Could be either:2) came to a vastly different conclusion than your hero (GK:22; Other:3). By not posting your fabled tabulation, aren't you tacitly admitting that their "point" is correct?

Tell us Mark - I've made it quite explicit that both cowardice and lying is allowed to be pointed out in this forum - how did you expect to get away with these lies and cowardice? Do you enjoy having your character flaws pointed out?

Irony, sweet irony.

Mark Ulrik Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:
Mark Ulrik Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:and that in the first two days the overwhelming majority of witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll...

Lane's claim of "22 of 25" is demonstably wrong. Your vaguer claim of "an overwhelming majority" is unsupported. You refuse to post the tabulation you (*cough*) claim to have done. I think we all understand why.

Yep... his precise numbers were wrong. But even YOU cannot produce any numbers that refute his point, which I'll just keep repeating, that the overwhelming numbers of eyewitnesses documented on 11/22 or 11/23 pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

This is the point that Mark Lane made...

Then why did he have to lie and claim it was 22 of 25?

And no matter how many times you run from that fact, and refuse to admit it - it's still true today.

Embarrassing, isn't it?

It must eat you up inside that you can't prove it.

It was MORE than 22 witnesses... and the total was MORE than 25.

But you refuse to list them. Mark Lane has taught you well.

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.

The truth can never be embarrassing to me - you're the one running from the facts. YOUR OWN NUMBERS PROVE THAT MARK LANE'S POINT WAS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!

A bold-faced lie!

And that fact must eat you up inside!

My comments in green above.

***Ben Holmes*** · 08-25-2016, 11:58 PM

(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.

(08-25-2016, 08:52 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:
(08-24-2016, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: The truth can never be embarrassing to me - you're the one running from the facts. YOUR OWN NUMBERS PROVE THAT MARK LANE'S POINT WAS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!

A bold-faced lie!

How can the truth be a lie?

You ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to acknowledge that the majority, indeed, the OVERWHELMING majority of the documented witnesses on 11/22 and 11/23 pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

You manage to find 5 witnesses, and you think that this proves Mark Lane wrong.

If you could have found more, you'd have listed them by now.

Now, either admit that Mark Lane was absolutely correct in his statement that most of the witnesses documented on 11/22 & 11/23 pointed to the Grassy Knoll, or run away.

You will not be allowed to label a statement a "lie" again unless you can document it... Those are the rules.

Mark Ulrik · 08-26-2016, 03:00 PM

(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.

(08-25-2016, 08:52 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:
(08-24-2016, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: The truth can never be embarrassing to me - you're the one running from the facts. YOUR OWN NUMBERS PROVE THAT MARK LANE'S POINT WAS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!

A bold-faced lie!

How can the truth be a lie?

Who says there is anything true about your gibberish?

You ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to acknowledge that the majority, indeed, the OVERWHELMING majority of the documented witnesses on 11/22 and 11/23 pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

Yes, CTs just love to make bold claims, but when you ask them to support it, they become defensive and often abusive.

You manage to find 5 witnesses, and you think that this proves Mark Lane wrong.

Of course, he's wrong. He pretended there were only 3 non-GK witnesses, and I gave you 5 who were not only non-GK witnesses, but explicitly pointed to the TSBD.

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.

Now, either admit that Mark Lane was absolutely correct in his statement that most of the witnesses documented on 11/22 & 11/23 pointed to the Grassy Knoll, or run away.

You will not be allowed to label a statement a "lie" again unless you can document it... Those are the rules.

I don't remember calling your "overwhelming majority" claim a "lie," but I have on quite a few occasions asked you to support it.

My comments in green above.