[Mark Ulrik]

(08-02-2016, 02:54 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-02-2016, 02:33 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-01-2016, 05:32 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(08-01-2016, 03:46 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  McAdams categorises the rail road tracks as "Knoll" - well based on for example - see statement from Danny Arce.

No Patrick, you are provably wrong.

McAdams DOES NOT categorize the Railroad yard as the Grassy Knoll.

For example, Peggy Hawkins CD897 - yet McAdams places her as a "RR Yard" witness - removing her from her logical place as a Knoll witness.

That ONE PROVABLE EXAMPLE shows that the McAdams tabulation is not accurate, as you keep implying.

Now, would you like to retract your false claim that "Oh I think the McAdams Post direction assimilation is unassailable in terms of accuracy of interpretation of witness statements.?"

Since it's now been proven wrong...

Notice how long it's taken for you to get to the point where you cannot but accept that you're wrong. It's taken DAYS of posts just to get you to admit the basic facts... facts that prove that your "opinion" is wrong.

Wow, Ben has found one(!) arguable designation in McAdams' earwitness tabulation. That still makes it a million times more accurate and reliable than anything that someone like Mark Lane ever published on the matter.

One is all that's needed to prove that McAdams' tabulation isn't accurate. Many more examples can be provided, but it's hard enough to force believers to admit that they're wrong. I chose a single example... had I chosen a dozen examples, I'd have been accused of a 'Gish Gallop'. So apparently, the truth isn't good enough...

It's now up to Patrick to retract his provably false statement that McAdams' tabulation is "unassailable" ...

And unless, Mark - you can provide an example of Mark Lane being inaccurate on this topic, I'll be happy to label you a liar as well.

This is a very common tactic among WCR Supporters... they make the generalized claim that Mark Lane was wrong - yet absolutely REFUSE to provide and defend any example.

How about this nugget from RTJ?

Quote:Perhaps the most significant figures therefore - more significant even than the ones given above - are those attesting the immediate reactions of the witnesses to the assassination before there was any official version. Twenty-five witnesses are known to have given statements or affidavits on November 22 and November 23 about the origin of the shots. Twenty-two said they believed that the shots came from the knoll.

It's such a bold lie that it almost deserves a thread of its own.