[Mark Ulrik]

(08-02-2016, 03:30 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-02-2016, 03:15 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-02-2016, 02:54 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-02-2016, 02:33 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-01-2016, 05:32 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  No Patrick, you are provably wrong.

McAdams DOES NOT categorize the Railroad yard as the Grassy Knoll.

For example, Peggy Hawkins CD897 - yet McAdams places her as a "RR Yard" witness - removing her from her logical place as a Knoll witness.

That ONE PROVABLE EXAMPLE shows that the McAdams tabulation is not accurate, as you keep implying.

Now, would you like to retract your false claim that "Oh I think the McAdams Post direction assimilation is unassailable in terms of accuracy of interpretation of witness statements.?"

Since it's now been proven wrong...

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.

Wow, Ben has found one(!) arguable designation in McAdams' earwitness tabulation. That still makes it a million times more accurate and reliable than anything that someone like Mark Lane ever published on the matter.

One is all that's needed to prove that McAdams' tabulation isn't accurate. Many more examples can be provided, but it's hard enough to force believers to admit that they're wrong. I chose a single example... had I chosen a dozen examples, I'd have been accused of a 'Gish Gallop'. So apparently, the truth isn't good enough...

It's now up to Patrick to retract his provably false statement that McAdams' tabulation is "unassailable" ...

And unless, Mark - you can provide an example of Mark Lane being inaccurate on this topic, I'll be happy to label you a liar as well.

This is a very common tactic among WCR Supporters... they make the generalized claim that Mark Lane was wrong - yet absolutely REFUSE to provide and defend any example.

How about this nugget from RTJ?

Quote:Perhaps the most significant figures therefore - more significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the immediate reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any official version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came from the knoll.

It's such a bold lie that it almost deserves a thread of its own.

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."

Decker Exhibit 5323

Howard Brennan (11/22) "It run in my mind that it might be someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick building and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered rifle." (19H, p.470)

Amos Euins (11/22) "I started looking around and then I looked up in the red brick building. I saw a man in a window with a gun and I saw him shoot twice." (19H, p.474)

Charles Hester (11/22) "[The shots] sounded like they came from immediately behind us and over our heads. We did see the shooting. I immediately turned and looked at the [TSBD] and did not see anyone. The shots sounded like they definitely came from in or around the building." (19H, p.478)

Eddie Piper (11/23) "The shots seemed to me like they came from up inside the building." (19H, p.499)

CE 2003

Mrs. R. A. Reid (11/23) "I remarked to Mr. Campbell who was standing near by that I thought the shots had come from our building." (24H, p.223)

CD 5

Bonnie Ray Williams (11/23) "While they were watching this car pass, WILLIAMS heard two shots which sounded like they came from right over his head." (CD 5, p.330)

Bob Jackson (11/23) "JACKSON advised that upon hearing the three shots, he looked upward and straight ahead at a window in the [TSDB], in time to see the barrel of a rifle being pulled inside the window." (CD 5, p.15)

James Worrell (11/23) "He heard a shot from above his head and at first thought it was a firecracker, but when he looked up, he saw about 12 inches of a gun barrel sticking out of a window of the building. He said this window was either on the 5th or 6th floor." (CD 5, p.19)

CD 87

Marrion Baker (11/22) "Just as I approached Elm Street and Houston I heard three shots. I realized those shots were rifle shots and I began to try to figure out where they came from. I decided the shots had come from the building on the northwest corner of Elm and Houston." (CD 87, p.285)

---

There is also this 1967 piece by two AP staff writers:

Bernard Gavzer & Sid Moody Wrote:Volumes Don't Support Lane

   In the second chapter of his book, Lane writes: "Twenty-five
witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits on Nov. 22
or Nov. 23--the day of and the day after the assassination--about the
origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came
from the knoll."
   Should one check the commission's volumes, he would find that, yes,
23 people did give statements to law officials on those two days. Nine
cited the knoll. Twelve cited the depository. Two indicated it could
have been either.
   There is a witness mentioned in another context by Lane whose
testimony has some relevance as to the conflicting opinions of where
the shots came from. He is Lee E. Bowers. He was working in a signal
tower in the railroad area behind the knoll. His testimony is in
Volume VI.
   Bowers: "The sounds came from either from up against the school
book depository building or near the mouth of the triple overpass."
   Q: "You were not able to tell which?"
   Bowers: "No, I could not."
   Q: "Well, now, had you had any experience before being in the tower
as to sounds coming from these various places?"
   Bowers: "Yes, I had worked this same tower for some 10 or 12 years,
and was there during the time they were renovating the school
depository building, and had noticed at that time the similarity of
sounds occurring in either of these two locations."
   Bower's testimony doesn't rule out the knoll. It doesn't rule out
the depository. It does help those investigators trying to explain why
witnesses to the assassination gave conflicting opinions as to the
sound of the shots. If Bowers was helpful in this regard to Lane or
Epstein, they didn't mention it.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%...m%2004.pdf