[Mark Ulrik]

(08-24-2016, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-24-2016, 02:21 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-24-2016, 01:49 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-24-2016, 09:15 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

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

Why is it "gibberish" to point out 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...

As predicted, you refused to even try to refute that.

I predict that once again, you'll simply run away from that statement. Here it is again:

Your own numbers prove two things... that Mark Lane counted different people than you,

That's just your weasel way of admitting that his numbers are wrong.

I've already stated that. As I've previously stated:

Ben Holmes Wrote: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!!!

So how can it be a "weasel way" of stating what I've plainly said several times now?

Because you're not being honest. It is the same data. Those 5 TSBD witnesses were located in the sources cited by Lane himself, using his selection critea. Why did your hero not find them? Was he being intentionally deceptive or just plain sloppy? Why didn't he list his 25 witnesses? Why do you refuse to post the tabulation you (*cough*) claim to have done?

But the POINT he was making ... provably was not wrong.

The point was not the precise numbers... the point was that the overwhelming majority of witnesses documented on 11/22 & 11/23 pointed to the Grassy Knoll. An ABSOLUTE FACT according to you, since you can't produce more than five witnesses who point to the TSBD.

Again, you're not being honest. All that's needed to prove Lane wrong is 4 witnesses pointing away from the GK, but (out of the kindness of my heart) I gave you 5 who explicitly pointed to the TSBD. I don't know how many pointed to, and how many away from, the GK. I didn't attempt to do Lane's work for him. You claim to have, but you refuse to post your "tabulation" - which tells me that it probably doesn't support your "overwhelming majority" claim.
 

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:and that in the first two days the overwhelming majority of witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll...

Lane's claim of "22 of 25" is demonstably wrong. Your vaguer claim of "an overwhelming majority" is unsupported. You refuse to post the tabulation you (*cough*) claim to have done. I think we all understand why.

Yep... his precise numbers were wrong. But even YOU cannot produce any numbers that refute his point, which I'll just keep repeating, that the overwhelming numbers of eyewitnesses documented on 11/22 or 11/23 pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

This is the point that Mark Lane made...

Then why did he have to lie and claim it was 22 of 25?

And no matter how many times you run from that fact, and refuse to admit it - it's still true today.

Embarrassing, isn't it?

It must eat you up inside that you can't prove it.

My comments in green above.