[Mark Ulrik]

(08-04-2016, 09:38 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-04-2016, 05:49 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  If this were actually true, then you'd simply list the people in the citations given by Mark Lane.

I both CITED and QUOTED five TSBD witnesses from Lane's own sources. He claimed there were only three non-GK witnesses. How can you not understand this?

Yet you continue to refuse to do so.

Why should I waste my time? Five TSBD witnesses are more than enough  to demonstrate that Lane's numbers are wrong.

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

But you're allowed to randomly attack me and call me a liar? Even though I both CITED and QUOTED from the sources cited by Lane, you accused me of not having checked them. Unbelievable.

Future assertions of that type will simply be deleted.

You can start by deleting your false accusations about me. An apology would also be nice.

My comments in green above.

Still afraid of Mark Lane's citations...

Cite the witnesses FROM Mark Lane's citations... or continue to run.

You make absolutely zero sense. I used Lane's sources and selection criteria and had no problem finding 5 witnesses who pointed to the TSBD. Lane stated that, of 25 witnesses that met his criteria, 22 pointed to the GK. You do understand that 5 > (25 - 22), don't you?