[Mark Ulrik]

(08-07-2016, 11:07 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-07-2016, 10:19 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-07-2016, 06:53 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-07-2016, 02:01 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-05-2016, 01:24 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  No Mark, you've not.

If YOUR numbers are right, then there should be just 20 knoll witnesses.

Non sequitur.

So you simply lied when you made the claim that "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."

I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself over and over again. Your hero Mark Lane was wrong (in Ben Holmes terms: lied) when he claimed there were only three 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."
 

Mark Ulrik Wrote:Lane cited only Decker Exhit 5323 and CE 2003.

You're lying again, Mark.

Here's the EXACT citations given:
 

Quote:23. See Appendix I; see also XIX, 467-543; XXIV, 198-231.

Now tell us Mark - why did you leave out 1/3 of the citations given?

There's nothing sinister about it, Ben. It's been a few years since I looked at this. Thank you for reminding me that there were more potential TSDB (and other non-GK) witnesses that Lane "forgot" about.

And why are you so afraid that you refuse to list the people who, on 11/22 and 11/23 stated that they heard the shots from whatever location? Could it be that if you did, you'd merely be making Mark Lane's point again?

I have listed five people who pointed to the TSBD. What have you done, other than flap your gums? What are you so afraid of?

An overwhelming majority of witnesses on Friday and Saturday stated that the Grassy Knoll was the location... and no matter how you twist the facts, the true fact is that it's you who's the liar... and Mark Lane merely told the truth.

Prove it. Show us your tabulation.

Document your claims, or continue to run... it makes no difference.

You see, lurkers to the forum are literate, I count on that. That's why I'm not afraid to cite the evidence.

Unlike you, I have documented my claim. Lane's numbers are wrong.

No Mark, you've not documented your claim. Mark Lane was ABSOLUTELY CORRECT that the overwhelming majority of witnesses who reported on 11/22 or 11/23 stated that the Grassy Knoll was the location of the shots.

Nothing you've said has changed that fact.

Your hypocrisy is breathtaking. You always demand of your opponents that they're accurate down to the last pixel, but your hero Mark Lane gets a free pass even when he's obviously wrong. Lane specifically said 22 of 25. But who says it was even an overwhelming majority? Should we just take your word for it?

Your fear of confronting the actual citations, and LISTING THE WITNESSES means nothing... you see, I don't have to list 'em... I never lied about the truthfulness of Mark Lane. You're claiming he lied, and you can't produce the lie... or any evidence of it.

Amazing. You've admitted yourself that Lane's numbers were wrong, and you're also the one who's refusing to post the data that you claim exonerates him somehow. I think we all know why.

Now you want to put the onus on me to produce a list of witnesses (something YOU should have done) - which will simply be another target for you to focus in on rather than your discredited assertion that Mark Lane lied. I've seen this tactic from WCR Supporters many times before... the changing of the topic...

I've done more than enough to prove Lane wrong. Now it's your turn to prove him right.

You lie about citations, you lie about the numbers involved, you somehow believe that lies will carry the day.

Yet you cannot cite the actual witnesses who were recorded on 11/22 and 11/23 - and show that Mark Lane was wrong in his point that he made.

One of many differences between the two of us is that I've never lied to you, Ben. And there's nothing wrong with my numbers. Lane said that only 3 of those witnesses didn't point to the GK as the source of the shots. I demonstrated - with quotes and page cites - that at least 5 not only didn't point to the GK, but actually to the TSBD instead. How many witnesses have you listed? What's stopping you from posting your data?

You focus on the minutia of numbers - and avoid the actual point he made...

I think my irony meter just burst. Again.

All you have to do is show that Mark Lane was wrong when he claimed that a majority of those witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

You haven't...

And you won't.

I can certainly understand why you desperately want to change the subject, but it's your claim that "an overwhelming majority" of the witnesses vaguely cited by Lane pointed to the GK. It's a vaguer version of Lane's original claim, of course, but still highly dubious, yet (despite claiming to have done the work) you absolutely refuse to support it. I think most of us can recognize an obvious bluff when we see one.

My comments in green above.