[Ben Holmes]

(08-29-2016, 08:38 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-29-2016, 03:34 AM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-28-2016, 04:42 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-27-2016, 04:04 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  You're lying again, Mark.

A perfect example is Mary Woodward. Published on 11/23, and even McAdams admits is a Grassy Knoll witness. Found in Appendix 1, exactly as the citation gives.

Perfect example? But Woodward's DMN article isn't referenced in Appendix 1 - only her 12/7 FBI interview. You're lying if you claim otherwise.

The citation that Mark Lane gives is to Appendix 1. She is indeed referenced in Appendix 1. The only references to newspaper articles was to those witnesses not mentioned by the Warren Commission. Mark Lane made that perfectly clear when he stated:

Mark Lane Wrote:At least 11 additional witnesses were mentioned in newspaper dispatches published on November 22 and 23, 1963. In these instances the names are followed by a reference to the issue of a newspaper which offered either a statement by the witness or information indicating his presence at the scene on November 22

What part of that did you not understand?

Now... let's hear a retraction of your lie that no witnesses from the Appendix citation pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

Illiteracy rears its ugly head. This is what I wrote:

"I've checked the newspaper accounts cited by Lane, and there weren't any shots from the GK area in there. One of those 11 witnesses did, however, say the shots came from the TSBD."

I was specifically talking about the 11 witnesses whose newspaper accounts are referenced in Lane's Appendix 1. Mary Woodward is not among those witnesses.

As I've pointed out, YOUR LYING!!!

Mark Lane did not cite newspaper accounts, nor does the mention of "newspaper accounts" in the Appendix refer to witnesses who'd documented on 11/22 or 11/23 their account of where the bullets had come from.

You've simply quite dishonestly attempted to conflate different things.

You've also claimed to check the "11" witnesses, but you'll NEVER name them and list what they said. You can't... you're simply lying again.

You lied first about what Mark Lane's citations were, then when you were corrected, you simply turn around AND LIE AGAIN ABOUT WHAT HIS CITATIONS WERE.

If this is the best you can do to refute what he said, you lose.
 

(08-28-2016, 04:42 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:

(08-28-2016, 04:42 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  In the article, she mentions seeing the Newmans lying on the ground and infers that they must've been in the line of fire. Enough to make her a GK witness, I suppose, albeit not a particularly strong one.

Strong enough to even force McAdams to admit that she's a Grassy Knoll witness. I don't particularly care for your opinion of how "strong" a witness she is - YOU LIED AND CLAIMED THAT NONE EXISTED.

I was specifically talking about the 11 witnesses whose newspaper accounts are referenced in Lane's Appendix 1. Mary Woodward is not among those witnesses.

You're lying again...

You've NEVER checked those "11 witnesses"... The proof is that you can't name them, and name where they thought the shots came from.

Why not tell the truth, Mark?
 

Ben Holmes Wrote: 

(08-28-2016, 04:42 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  I keep telling you Mark, you're not going to get away with telling lies in this forum without it being pointed out.

You're like the little boy who cried "wolf" too many times. You have no credibility.

Pretending that I've not caught you lying repeatedly???

Defend your lie that Mary Woodward isn't cited by Mark Lane as a witness documented on 11/22 or 11/23 who pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

Do so by CITING MARK LANE'S ACTUAL CITATION. And demonstrate that her name is not cited in those citations.

But you can't.

You've been caught lying.
 

(08-28-2016, 04:42 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-27-2016, 04:04 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-28-2016, 04:42 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-27-2016, 04:04 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  You know Mark... you're going to keep lying, and I'm simply going to keep citing the evidence that proves you a liar.

One of many differences between us is that I don't lie to you.

ROTFLMAO!!! I've just PROVEN another lie on your part - and you have the gall to claim you don't lie!!!

Now, admit that you lied about any of the Appendix witnesses being Grassy Knoll witnesses.

I was specifically talking about the 11 witnesses whose newspaper accounts are referenced in Lane's Appendix 1.

But you're lying again.

Mark Lane's reference to "newspaper accounts" in Appendix 1 aren't those who pointed out the direction of shots... it's a reference to exactly what he said... those who were eyewitnesses not documented in Warren Commission records...

Tell us Mark - why can't you name these "11 witnesses" - and tell us which direction they thought the shots were coming from?

If you were telling the truth about Mark Lane's citations - it should be quite simple to do...

Or run away again... who cares?
 

(08-28-2016, 04:42 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-27-2016, 04:04 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-28-2016, 04:42 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  Earth to Ben: You have produced one GK witness! Is that what you consider an overwhelming majority?

I thought you claimed that you didn't lie?

I produced all I needed to produce to prove you lying about the Appendix witnesses. You yourself refuse to cite 20 of the witnesses - knowing full well that you aren't going to find a majority of TSBD witnesses in that bunch... so tell us Mark - why do you keep lying?

Who are those 20 witnesses you're talking about? List them here (or run for the hills as you usually do).

 
Don't need to list 'em.

That's what you want... a target to confuse the issue.

You know quite well that there were more than 25 witnesses that were documented on 11/22 or 11/23... but even presuming only 25, YOU'VE BEEN UNABLE TO COME UP WITH MORE THAN FIVE WHO POINTED TO THE TSBD.

It's up to you to provide those names - since it's you that claimed Mark Lane was lying when he pointed out the overwhelming majority of those who were documented in the first two days pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

Just another lie on your part... since all you've been able to show is that his precise numbers were incorrect.

The point he made is still untouched by you.

(08-25-2016, 08:52 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

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

(08-25-2016, 08:52 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  It wouldn't be difficult to find additional non-GK witnesses, but I frankly have better things to do with my time. You haven't contributed anything of value to this discussion, so you're hardly in a position to make demands. Would you, however, be willing to pay me to do the research you're too lazy to do yourself, then I'll take your offer into consideration.

You're lying again, Mark. You need to find a MAJORITY of the witnesses documented on 11/22 and 11/23 in order to impugn Mark Lane's point.

Oh, I've already demonstrated that his numbers are (shall we say) less than reliable. It's your job (as fan club president) to salvage whatever is left of his honor.

His "honor" is intact. He claimed that a majority of the first two day documented witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll.[/quote]

He was quite a bit more specific than that. Why would an honest man cheat with his numbers?[/quote]

He didn't.

Produce the actual documents from 1966 that he had access to. Until you can do that, your accusation is mere speculation.

(08-25-2016, 08:52 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-24-2016, 03:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  Congratulations on your proven cowardice... you've refused to admit a basic evidential fact on the number of witnesses referenced in the citations...

Are you talking about the 11 witnesses whose newspaper accounts are referenced in Appendix 1? The number is 11, Ben. Eleven. Not a single one of them pointed to the GK. I hope that helps.

You're lying again... And anyone who opens their copy of Rush to Judgment to Appendix 1 can easy see the lie you're telling.

Tell us Mark - WHY ARE YOU LYING ABOUT MARK LANE'S CITATIONS?