[Ben Holmes]

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

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

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.

YOUR OWN NUMBERS prove two things... that Mark Lane counted different people than you... and that his point that the overwhelming majority of the first few days witnesses pointed to the TSBD is absolutely true.

You cannot refute that.

You lose.