[Ben Holmes]

(08-29-2016, 09:46 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  

(08-29-2016, 02:29 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(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:  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!!!

I'm getting tired of the way you treat your members. I'll respond to this post, but after that you'll probably have to get used to talking to yourself.

Yep... Patrick ran away too.

Notice that the believers RUN AWAY rather than to simply refute the charge of lying.

You know quite clearly that you were lying about the "newspaper" accounts... the citation is to Appendix 1 - and the reference to "newspaper" accounts WAS NOT TO WITNESSES DOCUMENTED ON 11/22 OR 11/23.

You're running because you can't tell lies here and get away with it - I simply know the evidence better than you do.

 

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

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

??? First you chide me for forgetting the newspaper accounts mentioned in Appendix 1

You can stop right there.

YOU'RE LYING AGAIN!!!

I "chided" you for not listing Appendix 1 - not for 'not listing the newspaper accounts mentioned in Appendix 1' - THOSE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WITNESSES DOCUMENTED IN THE FIRST TWO DAYS!!!

Why do you keep lying, Mark???

Why do you think you can get away with lying???
 

(08-29-2016, 08:38 AM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  ... and when I tell you that I've checked them out and they contain nothing that supports your "overwhelming majority" theory, they're suddenly no longer relevant, and I'm trying to mislead you ???

They never were relevant - and you cannot POSSIBLY quote me ever saying that they were.

I QUOTED MARK LANE'S EXACT CITATIONS - and nowhere does it talk about newspaper accounts.

Your own numbers show that at least (and actually more) 20 witnesses pointed to the Grassy Knoll. Nothing you can do about that except run away...
 

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

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

Why wouldn't I be able to name them? Lane included them in the list of DP witnesses in Appendix 1. One of many differences between us is that I don't lie to you.

You've been repeatedly lying, and each time I point out a lie, you just twist and swerve in a new direction.

Here's a simple example: WHAT WERE THE THREE CITATIONS GIVEN FOR MARK LANE'S STATEMENT ABOUT THE DOCUMENTED FIRST TWO DAYS OF WITNESSES?

Dare you to do this, you'll be unable to use the word "Newspaper accounts" - because it is NOT one of the three citations.

That's a provable lie on your part.

That's a provable lie on your part.
 

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

Ben Holmes Wrote:

(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?

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.

Sigh. Illiteracy strikes again. We were specifically talking about the newspaper accounts referenced in Lane's Appendix 1.

THAT'S ANOTHER LIE ON YOUR PART!!!

The "newspaper" accounts mentioned in Appendix 1 have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THIS TOPIC.

Mary Woodward does indeed have a newspaper account in those first few days - yet that isn't mentioned in Appendix 1 - BECAUSE THE NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS MENTIONED IN APPENDIX 1 WERE REFERRING TO WITNESSES OTHERWISE UNKNOWN - and not to witnesses who documented their opinion on shot location in the first two days.

YOU'RE DESPERATELY TRYING TO CONFUSE THE ISSUE - aren't you Mark?

 

(08-28-2016, 04:42 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  The Woodward entry in Appendix 1 does, however, not include a reference to her DMN article, but rather - Woodward, Mary E. (XXIV, 520) - to her 12/7 FBI interview which is included in CE 2084 (CD 7).

Then how do you explain her article in the Dallas Morning News on 11/23?

And how do you explain the fact that most of the "newspaper article" reference say absolutely nothing about the location of the shooter?


You can't, of course... so you'll simply run away rather than confront the truth.

 

(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:  

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

From my notes:

Bell, Jack (NYT, 11/23/63)
(National Press Pool Car; 5th vehicle behind JFK limo; heard the shots)
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54893&relPageId=483

Bothun, Richard (DMN, 11/23/63)
(no statement; photograph only)
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-jfk-np/id/289/rec/23

Broseh, Jerry (DMN, 11/23/63)
(heard shot; saw JFK sort of slump down in the seat)
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-jfk-np/id/289/rec/23

Burney, Peggy (DTH, 11/22/63)
(heard shots; saw JFK duck)
http://www.patspeer.com/more-pieces-in-the-plaza

Clark, Robert (NYT, 11/23/63)
(National Press Pool Car; 5th vehicle behind JFK limo; described JFK being carried into hospital)
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54893&relPageId=486

Hilburn, Robert (FWST, 11/23/63)
(WH Press Bus; 13th or 15th vehicle behind JFK limo; didn't hear shots due to hearing impairment)
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-jfk-np/id/205

Johnson, Ed (FWST, 11/23/63)
(WH Press Bus; 13th or 15th vehicle behind JFK limo; occupants heard shots just after turning onto Houston)
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-jfk-np/id/205

McNeill, Robert (NYT, 11/23/63)
(WH Press Bus; 13th or 15th vehicle behind JFK limo; saw police take two eye-witnesses (apparently Euins and Brennan) into custody)
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54893&relPageId=486

Richardson, Barbara (FWST, 11/23/63)
(WH Press Bus; 13th or 15th vehicle behind JFK limo; occupants heard shots just after turning onto Houston)
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-jfk-np/id/205

Similas, Norman (NYT, 11/23/63)
(doubtful he was even in DP - see http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/similas.htm; said he heard sharp crack that made him turn away from the limo and look back to where the noise seemed to come from)
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54893&relPageId=483

Smith, Alan (NYT, 11/23/63)
(said shots came from a window right over his head in the building in front of which he and his friends were standing)
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54893&relPageId=483
http://www.patspeer.com/more-pieces-in-the-plaza

You've listed TWO witnesses who could be used to point to shot locations...

I thought you had 11 witnesses that were documented on 11/22 or 11/23 as to the shot locations???

WHY DID YOU LIE??? WHY DO I HAVE TO FORCE YOU TO DOCUMENT YOUR CLAIMS - THEN IT TURNS OUT YOU'RE LYING???

More importantly, why are none of these witnesses documented in the Warren Commission volumes? Could it possibly be that Mark Lane did EXACTLY AS HE SAID HE DID???

 

Quote:Two hundred and fifty-five of these witnesses were mentioned in the 26 volumes of Hearings Before the Presidents Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. The names of these persons are followed by a reference to the volume and page of the Hearings (e.g., VI, 388) at which one may find either the witness's own testimony relating to the assassination or other testimony or evidence indicating the presence of the witness at the scene of the assassination.

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 this didn't you understand?
 

(08-28-2016, 04:42 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  Lane: "See Appendix I; see also XIX, 467-543; XXIV, 198-231."

I see no reference there to "newspaper articles"...

I DO see a reference to Appendix 1...

Tell us Mark - are you claiming that you can't read Mary Woodward's name in Appendix 1???
 

(08-28-2016, 04:42 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote:  So long, Ben. I hope you enjoy talking to yourself.

Forever the coward, aren't you Mark?

Just like Patrick - YOU REFUSED TO EVEN TRY TO DEFEND ANY OF THE LIES I POINTED OUT!!!

And now you're running away. The truth is, you're running from the evidence in this case... you've been totally unable to refute even a single statement I've made... yet I've caught you lying repeatedly. It's a good thing that you're running away, because the truth always triumphs over lies in the end.