[Ben Holmes]

(08-04-2016, 04:22 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-04-2016, 02:38 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-04-2016, 09:36 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

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

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

And, of course, you've still refused to actually list the witnesses that Mark Lane cited.

Ad hominem will not replace that fact.

No retraction of the truth is ever needed...

The obvious truth here is that Lane's numbers were wrong, which I demonstrated and you keep lying about.

If this were actually true, then you'd simply list the people in the citations given by Mark Lane.

Yet you continue to refuse to do so.

Nor are you allowed to label someone a liar without CITING the evidence that they are in conflict with.

Future assertions of that type will simply be deleted.