[Mark Ulrik]

(08-16-2016, 03:03 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-16-2016, 02:34 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-16-2016, 01:46 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  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.

"...his point that the overwhelming majority of the first few days witnesses pointed to the TSBD is absolutely true."

Freudian slip?

Nope... simply a mistake. Run if you wish, but you cannot refute the fact that your own numbers prove two things... that Mark Lane counted different people than you, and that in the first two days the overwhelming majority of witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

You cannot refute that.

Nor will you even try. Remember folks - my crystal ball is once again making a prediction - and Mark can't help but make it come true.

How am I supposed to refute gibberish? What my numbers prove is that Lane pulled his numbers out of his hat.
 

Mark Ulrik Wrote:My "numbers" (it's really only one) prove that Lane's numbers are wrong. Period.

It's wonderful that you think the precise numbers were the issue.

But they weren't.

You KNOW that Mark Lane was absolutely correct in his basic point. This explains why you'll never list the witnesses, and what direction they pointed.

You KNOW that Mark Lane's numbers are objectively wrong. You KNOW that you can't support your "overwhelming majority" claim. This explains why you'll never post the witnesses tabulation you (*cough*) claim to have done.
 

Mark Ulrik Wrote:In pretty much the same way you lost when you complained about McAdams' witness tabulation in another thread?

How could I have "lost?"

Unless YOU can explain how to differentiate a Grassy Knoll shot from a Railroad yard shot from the entrance to the TSBD - you're lying.

Tell us Mark, are you lying?

OIC. When Mark Lane fudges his numbers, he's "absolutely correct." When McAdams doesn't count a "railroad yards adjacent to the TSBD" witness as a GK witness, he's a "liar." When I point out something that is objectively wrong, I "lose." When you point out something that is merely subject to interpretation, you "win." There is clearly a double standard at play here, but you're too biased to see it.

Can you actually defend McAdams' tabulation?

Can you defend Lane's? He was unable to support his, just like you're unable to support your "overwhelming majority" claim. Why don't you post the tabulation you (*cough*) claim to have done, using Lane's sources and selection criteria? What are you so afraid of?
 

Mark Ulrik Wrote:It's worth noting that McAdams, unlike the cowardly Lane, published his data, making it much easier for people like you to find minutiae to complain about.

Actually, it simply made it easy to point out his misrepresentations and lies.

Now, explain how to differentiate between a Grassy Knoll shot from a Railroad yard shot if you're standing at the entrance to the TSBD. If you don't, then you're proving yourself a liar. Tell us Mark, are you a liar? Or can you defend your assertion that I "lost" when I pointed out McAdams' wrong tabulation? I'll also note for the record that Patrick ran from that debate...

If I "lose" when I point out something that is objectively wrong (like 3 = 5+), then you also lose when you point out something that is merely subject to interpretation (like whether or not a "railroad yards adjacent to the TSBD" witness should be counted as a GK witness).

My comments in green above.