[Mark Ulrik]

(08-12-2016, 04:26 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-12-2016, 03:33 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-12-2016, 02:46 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  Sorry Mark... you've lost.

You're now complaining that you get different numbers than Mark Lane... so do I. We have resources today that are vastly improved over what Mark Lane had to work with.

Not the issue. Lane cited sources that were published in 1964 and lied about what they contained.

And yet, what he said is STILL ABSOLUTELY TRUE. The witnesses who were on record on 11/22 and 11/23 are overwhelmingly Grassy Knoll witnesses.

You keep saying that, but ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to support your claim.

Even YOU admit that... since you can only find 5 that aren't.

Try to be honest. I said they were the most obvious non-GK witnesses that I was aware of. All of them explicitly pointed to the TSBD as the source of the shots.

I guess you could only find 0 GK witnesses, because that's exactly the number you've posted so far.

You've lost.

How so? I've supported my claim. You refuse to support yours.

My comments in green above.

Still can't support your claim that Mark Lane lied, can you?

Unless you can produce a majority of 11/22 & 11/23 witnesses that do not point to the Grassy Knoll - you've simply admitted that you cannot refute what Mark Lane stated.

You've lost.

Wow. Talk about moving the goal post. Lane's claim was very specific: count(src=knoll)) = 22 and count(src!=knoll) = 3.

To prove it wrong, it's sufficient to demonstrate that count(src=knoll)) != 22 or that count(src!=knoll) != 3.

I demonstated, with quotes and page cites, that count(src=tsbd) >= 5.

You can bitch and moan about it, but Lane's numbers are demonstrably wrong, Ben. There are only two possibilities: Lane was either sloppy or intentionally deceptive. My money is on the latter. Why didn't he list his 25 witnesses? Probably for the same reason that you refuse to post the tabulation you claim to have done.

Btw, it doesn't even matter, according to the forum rules, if the deception was intentional or not: Lane "lied." I guess you could still redeem your hero somewhat by posting your (ha-ha) tabulation showing that count(src=knoll) >> count(src!=knoll), but that's never going to happen, of course.