[Mark Ulrik]

(08-03-2016, 03:20 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-03-2016, 12:02 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

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

Why are you so afraid to check Mark Lane's actual citations?

Time to do what I promised... Mark - you're lying.

You cannot document your claim that Mark Lane lied... and clearly, you're afraid to do so.

You're LYING, Ben Holmes, when you claim that I didn't check Lane's citations.

He cited Decker Ex 5323 and CE 2003, and I gave you 4 TSBD witnesses (Brennan, Euins, Hester, Piper) from the Decker Ex and one (Reid) from the CE. That's 5 non-GK witnesses (and just the most obvious ones). Lane claimed there were 22 GK witnesses and only 3 non-GK witnesses. He probably didn't expect his readers to bother to check.

Now that you have been proved wrong, I expect a retraction/apology from you. Make it a good one.