[Mark Ulrik]

(08-11-2016, 02:07 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(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.

Lane's claim was "22 of 25," not just "a majority." Either claim is unsubstantiated. He didn't list his 25 witnesses, and his numbers are demonstrably wrong.

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.

Lane said there were only 3 non-GK witnesses. I've listed 5 witnesses who explicitly pointed to the TSBD. You? Nothing. You claim to have done a tabulation, based on Lane's cites and selection criteria, that somehow proves he was "quite correct," but refuse to post it here for all to see. We know why. A: You know it won't hold up to scrutiny (if it even exists). B: You're only here to play games and call your opponents liars and cowards.
 

(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.

And you weren't nitpicking when you complained about a single questionable categorization in McAdams' tabulation? What a hypocrite you are.

I'll repeat: Lane said there were only 3 non-GK witnesses. I've listed 5 witnesses who explicitly pointed to the TSBD. How is that "admitting that the majority of witnesses were GK 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!!!

His numbers were also wrong in 1964. The 5 TSDB witnesses I listed were found in two of Lane's sources, Decker Exhibit 5323 and CE 2003, both published by the WC.

It's true, however, that I also listed 4 TSBD witnesses found in unpublished Commission Documents, so it could be argued that Lane's numbers are even more wrong today.

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

Not a lie. I simply forgot about that part of the citation. I vaguely remember deciding to focus on the two exhibits mentioned above because that's were all the relevant affidavits seemed to be located. It turned out that there were more than enough to prove Lane wrong, so it seemed pointless to dig any deeper. It's typically hypocritical of you to call me a liar when I'm inaccurate and Lane "quite correct" when he's inaccurate.
 

(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.

I've already proven my claim. It's your claim that an overwhelming majority of the witnesses matching Lane's selection criteria were GK witnesses, but you seem strangely unwilling to support it. Why is that?

My comments in green above.