[Patrick C]

(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?

I can only think Holmes is of the view that the witnesses stated a different opinion at another time, because there is no doubt he has the interpretation as correct in his tabulation.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm

McAdam's makes sensible deductions in an entirely reliable manner-

Quote:

So even if the majority of witnesses did hear shots from the Depository, that's not particularly strong proof of anything. 
But:

• Conspiracists should not produce bogus numbers claiming that a clear majority of witnesses thought shots came from the Knoll.
  
  
• Conspiracists should not pretend that (even if their numbers were correct) it is strong proof of anything.
  

End of Quote

If Holmes disagrees with McAdams, his numbers are bogus just like Josiah Thompson and Stuart Galanor who pull the wool over their own eyes as well as others.

---

(08-01-2016, 02:42 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?

Why not help Patrick out, and show everyone how you can differentiate a shot coming from the same direction?

Patrick has admitted that the Grassy Knoll and the Railroad yards can be found on the same vector from the entrance to the TSBD... so how can you make the determination between the two locations from an earwitness?

Or, were you honest, you'd simply admit that McAdams' tabulation is provably wrong.

Because unless you can do what Patrick has failed to do - show a way to differentiate between the two locations - then YOU'VE PROVEN THAT MCADAMS' TABULATION IS FALSE.

My prediction is that you'll refuse to answer as well...

---

(08-01-2016, 03:46 PM)Patrick C 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?

I can only think Holmes is of the view that the witnesses stated a different opinion at another time, because there is no doubt he has the interpretation as correct in his tabulation.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm

McAdam's makes sensible deductions in an entirely reliable manner-

Quote:

So even if the majority of witnesses did hear shots from the Depository, that's not particularly strong proof of anything. 
But:

• Conspiracists should not produce bogus numbers claiming that a clear majority of witnesses thought shots came from the Knoll.
  
  
• Conspiracists should not pretend that (even if their numbers were correct) it is strong proof of anything.
  

End of Quote

If Holmes disagrees with McAdams, his numbers are bogus just like Josiah Thompson and Stuart Galanor who pull the wool over their own eyes as well as others.

---

(08-01-2016, 02:42 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?

Why not help Patrick out, and show everyone how you can differentiate a shot coming from the same direction?

Patrick has admitted that the Grassy Knoll and the Railroad yards can be found on the same vector from the entrance to the TSBD... so how can you make the determination between the two locations from an earwitness?

Or, were you honest, you'd simply admit that McAdams' tabulation is provably wrong.

Because unless you can do what Patrick has failed to do - show a way to differentiate between the two locations - then YOU'VE PROVEN THAT MCADAMS' TABULATION IS FALSE.

My prediction is that you'll refuse to answer as well...

McAdams categorises the rail road tracks as "Knoll" - well based on for example - see statement from Danny Arce. Link below.

If you thought the shots came from the front right of JFK, you might describe that as being by the fence, the trees, or toward the rail tracks and because one would reasonably expect most people not to be able to differentiate between such precise locations, McAdams sensibly sorts the comments as "Knoll". He could perhaps have used the term "right front" or "front near overpass" etc.

Holmes is simply being pedantic and misses the point. The fact is that the majority thought TSBD and a significant number thought Knoll - but of those they thought all the shots came from the front which they clearly did not - a point which Holmes seems to conveniently ignore.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm