[Ben Holmes]

(08-10-2016, 08:39 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-09-2016, 03:12 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  It all boils down to one irrefutable fact.

The overwhelming majority of witnesses who made statements on 11/22 or 11/23 stated that the shots came from the direction of the Grassy Knoll.

You absolute MUST AGREE with Mark Lane on that fact.

Do you think I'm an idiot? His numbers are demonstrably wrong.

Once again... the fact that you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to list the witnesses, and document which location they pointed to, shows your awareness that Mark Lane was quite correct when he stated that the majority of witnesses in those first two days were for the Grassy Knoll.

You can keep twisting and running away - but this is simply indisputable.

YOU REFUSE TO OPENLY DISPUTE IT WITH THE EVIDENCE!

And that fact tells the tale.

If you dispute him, then its up to you to produce your list of eyewitnesses, and cite what they said.

(08-10-2016, 08:39 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-09-2016, 03:12 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  I have already produced 5 who pointed to the TSBD. Lane claimed there were only 3 non-GK witnesses. How many witnesses have you produced? In another thread, you claimed there were more than 22 GK witnesses. List them!

Since you refuse to do so - it's clear that you understand that Mark Lane told the truth. I'm not required to cite and support YOUR claim.  That's up to you to do.

Lane's "22 of 25" claim has already been refuted. The "overwhelming majority" is your claim. Which you refuse to support (we all know why).

It's quite nitpicking to complain about the raw numbers ... then run like a coward from the POINT that Mark Lane was making. Even YOUR NUMBERS show this... you clearly admit that the majority of witnesses are Grassy Knoll witnesses.

His numbers were wrong, as we see them today. But we aren't looking at the same data. The point he was making IS STILL TRUE TODAY - NO-MATTER HOW YOU COUNT THE WITNESSES!!!

You, for example, simply lied about Mark Lane's citation in order to support your nonsensical point about the numbers... (previously cited for...)

(08-10-2016, 08:39 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-09-2016, 03:12 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  Denying the accuracy of Mark Lane's point, even as you REFUSE to cite the evidence, shows that you know what that evidence actually shows.

There's nothing accurate about Lane's claim. [5 TSDB witnesses] > [3 non-GK witnesses]. Had the WC made a mistake like that, you're be over them like a cheap suit.

Like your hero Mark Lane, you're too much of a coward to post the tabulation you (ha-ha) claim to have done.

No requirement for me to cite the evidence for YOUR claim. You want targets to change the issue some more... you'll have to provide them.

Once again, it's a FACT THAT YOU CANNOT DISPUTE WITH EVIDENCE that Mark Lane was completely correct about his assertion that the majority of witnesses in those first two days pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

You've lost.