The Dishonesty of Bugliosi
Robert Harris
professor at Oxford who is often referred to as the world's best known
atheist, because of his hugely popular book *the God Delusion* and his
documentaries for the BBC, on the same subject.
Dawkins however, doesn't actually consider himself an atheist at all, but
rather, an agnostic because as he has pointed out many times, he
acknowledges that he cannot actually prove that gods do not exist. Of
course, he always hastens to add that he also cannot disprove the
existence of unicorns or the tooth fairy.
It is interesting to contrast the fanatical integrity of such a man, with
Vincent Bugliosi who in recent times, has replaced Posner as the spokesman
for conspiracy deniers.
LIke the question of supernatural deities, the question of conspiracy in
the JFK case is nonfalsifiable - that is, even if one is absolutely
convinced that Oswald acted alone, he could never prove it.
And that is where Bugliosi reveals his lack of integrity. He not only
declares that Oswald absolutely, positively acted alone, but amplifies his
dishonesty by endlessly prefacing statements in interviews and speeches,
with "There is no evidence that..." continuing with every conceivable
conspiracy theory in existence.
Of course, the first problem with those statements is that Mr. Bugliosi
cannot know the totality of all evidence. He cannot know what evidence
exists which he is unaware of.
In his shoes, a Dr. Dawkins might say something like, "I am not aware of
any evidence which proves conspiracy.". But then, that would not have the
powerful impact of the lie that Bugliosi chooses instead.
The other problem of course is, that there are mountains of evidence which
prove that Oswald could not have acted alone. Bugliosi is fully aware of
this evidence but has refused to ever address it.
The difference between pitchmen and honest researchers is immense.
Fortunately for us however, both types are quick to reveal themselves for
what they are.
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes
Robert Harris says...
I find it amusing that he is *provably* aware of the 16 smoking guns, but
couldn't find the time to address it in his lengthy tome.
YoHarvey
> In article <reharris1-5A668C.19064623122...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The other problem of course is, that there are mountains of evidence
which
prove that Oswald could not have acted alone. Bugliosi is fully aware
of
this evidence but has refused to ever address it.
Typical Harris. Duly noted he makes no mention of whether he has read
RC. This is not unusual for conspiracy theorists. Nor is claiming
"mountains of evidnece" exists for conspiracy. Heard this crap for 45
years. It's nothing new.
bigdog
This is a matter of semantics. In Bugliosi's world, the courtroom,
something is not in evidence unless one side or the other presents it to
the court. From that perspective, when he uses the phrase "there is no
evidence that...", he is simply stating that no one has presented evidence
of a specific aspect of the case. Given the degree to which the JFK
assassination has been researched, by stating that there is no evidence of
something, there is a clear implication that there is no such evidence to
present or it likely would have been uncovered by now and presented to the
world. If there are/were any facts in existence which would indicate there
was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, they are not in evidence at this
time. Given the futility of the efforts by conspiracy researchers to
present any evidence that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, I think we
can safely say that unicorns, the tooth fairy, and a conspiracy to
assassinate JFK are non-existent, even if we cannot prove that.
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think we
>ccan safely say that unicorns, the tooth fairy, and a conspiracy to
> assassinate JFK are non-existent, even if we cannot prove that.- Hide quoted text
Valid point big. How does one prove what never occurred?
jas
Robert wrote "LIke the question of supernatural deities, the question of
conspiracy in the JFK case is nonfalsifiable - that is, even if one is
absolutely convinced that Oswald acted alone, he could never prove it"
nonfalsifiable-- whew! That's a $10 college grad term if I ever heard one!
Now substitute "Oswald acted alone" with "there was a conspiracy."
Bingo.
In this one sentence you've summed up what the JFK case is: non- provable.
But the trouble for conspiracists is the available evidence points in the
direction of Oswald, not a conspiracy.
Gerry Simone
One can argue that physical or direct evidence for a lone assassin is
questionable if not planted.
One can also argue that there is circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy,
but that the apparent success of the such a conspiracy has left no direct
or physical evidence of its existence.
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b4384488-c358-4e6d...@41g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Gerry Simone
After all, the HSCA said there probably was a conspiracy and never
renounced their conclusion.
"Chuck Schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:1789b235-7385-4c29...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
Bob, when you get the case reopened, and good men and women of conscience
pinpoint the how-and-why mechanics of a JFK conspiracy, you'll make a
believer out of me.
Keep tilting at those windmills, Don Quixote.
Robert Harris
<b4384488-c358-4e6d...@41g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Let me see if I am getting your logic here.
Bugsi doesn't consider anything real evidence until someone "presents it
to the court". Ergo, since there is no court involved, then NO evidence!
Naa.. I'm afraid we'll have to stick with him being a lying sack of poop.
BTW, if you think it is safe to assume there is no conspiracy in the JFK
case, then you should have no trouble debunking this, (you'll need a
recent version of quicktime).
http://www.jfkhistory.com/Nellie2/Nellie2.mov
Robert Harris
cdddraftsman
You don't need proof, all you need is belief .
That's another staple of the conspiracy disinformmation campaign You'll
probably find over yonder under 'logic : proving a negative'
But you've always got one in the crowd or several, makes for a handy
tool when inventing
'Big Whoppers' :
www.infidels.org
"The myth of 'you can't prove a negative' circulates throughout the
nontheist community, and it is good to dispell myths whenever we can".
Snifle pift :-(
tl
lazu...@webtv.net
infested these boards have adopted his methods-close minded, supremely
arrogant, no curiosity, no objectivity, just establishment bullshit from
the first page to the last.
bigdog
Of course we are closed minded because there is absolutely no doubt
that LHO assassinated JFK as the lone gunman. The evidence is
irrefutable. Why should we be open minded to nonsense. Should we be
open minded about the possibility of a flat earth? That would make
about as much sense.
No curiosity? Why should we be curious? We know what happened. That
would be like being curious about the outcome of last week's football
games.
Objectivity? Don't even go there. Nobody who objectively looks at the
evidence can come to any other conclusion other than Oswald was the
assassin. The CTs refuse to look objectively at the evidence because
it doesn't yield the conclusion they want. You cannot believe Oswald
is innocent unless you desperately want to believe he is innocent. The
mental gymnastics you assholes go through to try to explain away the
absolutely rock solid proof of Oswald's guilt is a fucking joke.
Oswald was the lone gunman. There is no reasonable doubt about that
fact. There is no unreasonable doubt about that fact. There is no
doubt whatsoever.
There is a fundamental difference between LNs and CTs. LNs explain the
evidence. CTs explain the evidence away. LNs looked at the evidence
and allowed it to lead us to our conclusion. CTs locked into the
belief that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK and then set up
trying to force fit the evidence to that belief with the most bizarre
interpretations of that evidence. What evidence they can't bend,
twist, or manipulate into a conspiracy they simply dismiss as
fraudulent or manufactured. No matter how much evidence of Oswald's
guilt you are faced with, you simply refuse to accept it because you
decided long ago there was a conspiracy and you cling to that belief
with a religous fervor. Reason and common sense have no place in your
make believe worlds.
bigdog
> Does he have to re-open the case?
>
> After all, the HSCA said there probably was a conspiracy and never
> renounced their conclusion.
>
matter. After all, they're doing such a bang up job managing the
economy.
bigdog
>
> Let me see if I am getting your logic here.
>
> Bugsi doesn't consider anything real evidence until someone "presents it
> to the court". Ergo, since there is no court involved, then NO evidence!
>
> Naa.. I'm afraid we'll have to stick with him being a lying sack of poop.
>
> BTW, if you think it is safe to assume there is no conspiracy in the JFK
> case, then you should have no trouble debunking this, (you'll need a
> recent version of quicktime).
>
> http://www.jfkhistory.com/Nellie2/Nellie2.mov
>
>
No, you missed the point. Evidence is something that is present, not
theoretical, whether we are talking about in a court of law or the court
of public opinion. Anything that is not present is not evidence. It is
therefore not dishonest for Bugliosi to say there is no evidence of a
conspiracy. Now if you can find something which proves there was a
conspiracy, for the first time, we would have evidence of one. As things
stand, there is no evidence of a conspiracy.
Robert Harris
"Gerry Simone" <newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> One can argue that physical or direct evidence for a lone assassin is
> questionable if not planted.
No, there IS NO evidence which supports the argument that only one
assassin was involved.
>
> One can also argue that there is circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy,
> but that the apparent success of the such a conspiracy has left no direct
> or physical evidence of its existence.
Yes, one can but only if he is an idiot.
The evidence for conspiracy is not "circumstantial". It is conclusive
and beyond all reasonable doubt.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<dffea2cb-016e-4b25...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
NO!
Unlike negatives, positive arguments are falsifiable. In fact, if you
can falsify this one, you will be the first person in 14 years to do so.
http://www.jfkhistory.com/Nellie2/Nellie2.mov
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<4c95b4c8-7038-40c8...@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
YoHarvey <bail...@gmail.com> wrote:
Did you mean to ask, how does one prove that something didn't occur?
If so, then you usually cannot. There are exceptions of course. If I claim
that some individual committed a crime at a certain time and place, you
might be able to prove that he was elsewhere then.
On the question of conspiracy in the JFK case, you might honestly state
that you have not yet seen evidence of conspiracy that you accept.
Of course, in your case, you cannot honestly state that you have not seen
evidence that you are unable to refute:-)
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
"Reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men." -- John F.
Kennedy
Robert Harris
<72a12729-22c4-42a4...@u14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 24, 2:59 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Let me see if I am getting your logic here.
> >
> > Bugsi doesn't consider anything real evidence until someone "presents it
> > to the court". Ergo, since there is no court involved, then NO evidence!
> >
> > Naa.. I'm afraid we'll have to stick with him being a lying sack of poop.
> >
> > BTW, if you think it is safe to assume there is no conspiracy in the JFK
> > case, then you should have no trouble debunking this, (you'll need a
> > recent version of quicktime).
> >
> > http://www.jfkhistory.com/Nellie2/Nellie2.mov
> >
> > Robert Harris- Hide quoted text -
> >
>
> No, you missed the point. Evidence is something that is present, not
> theoretical, whether we are talking about in a court of law or the court
> of public opinion.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
The issue is whether Bugliosi could be aware of all possible evidence,
which he would have to be for his proclamations to be truthful.
He could not, therefore he is a liar.
> Anything that is not present is not evidence.
WTH are you talking about?
He did NOT say there is no evidence present, whatever that term is
supposed to mean. If he really meant to say that, then HE should have
said it instead of you.
> It is
> therefore not dishonest for Bugliosi to say there is no evidence of a
> conspiracy.
Nonsense
You are putting words in his mouth that he never said.
> Now if you can find something which proves there was a
> conspiracy, for the first time, we would have evidence of one. As things
> stand, there is no evidence of a conspiracy.
BS, I just gave you exactly that evidence.
http://www.jfkhistory.com/Nellie2/Nellie2.mov
Robert Harris
John Fiorentino
Vince Bugliosi can be rather abrasive at times. But that is nothing new.
Recently, however, I personally believe Mr. Bugliosi may just need some type
of counseling or mental health help. But that's just the opinion of someone
who has followed his career for years.
The best ANY LN can say, is that there is no credible evidence for any
conspiracy.
I too have worked in the law for many years, not as an attorney however. I
do think it's important to understand that those of us in that field are
daily presented with the idea of "beyond a reasonable
doubt."................that of course does not say........."beyond ALL
doubt."
Frankly, I would love to see some evidence which points to anyone other than
LHO. But I haven't seen that, and apparently neither has Bugliosi.
Best of the season to you.
John F.
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:reharris1-5A668...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
Robert Harris
<e8affd2b-6c44-4e27...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
cdddraftsman <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hmm.. sounds like the chorus of a conspiracy denier anthem!
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
"John Fiorentino" <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Bob:
>
> Vince Bugliosi can be rather abrasive at times. But that is nothing new.
>
> Recently, however, I personally believe Mr. Bugliosi may just need some type
> of counseling or mental health help. But that's just the opinion of someone
> who has followed his career for years.
>
> The best ANY LN can say, is that there is no credible evidence for any
> conspiracy.
No sir, that statement is equally dishonest, since you cannot know about
evidence you are unaware of.
For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc&watch_response
The people in this forum have done a fine job debunking numerous
conspiracy theories, but they have not been able to touch mine.
If you will study those films carefully, you will understand why.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "No sir, that statement is equally dishonest, since you cannot know about evidence you are unaware of." <<<
LOL.
Instead of focusing on the evidence that is in existence, you
conspiracy nuts are always more interested in the evidence that
doesn't exist, or in make-believe evidence that "you are unaware of".
BTW, I wonder what makes Robert Harris think that any evidence that
nobody on Earth is aware of leads automatically to "conspiracy"?
And I wonder if this cloaked evidence that Bob, for some reason,
apparently thinks exists can somehow manage to wipe out the mountain
of lone-killer evidence that exists against Oswald?
============================================
"The reader [of conspiracy books] will understand the difficulty
these writers have sidestepped if he or she tries to invent a story
that explains why an INNOCENT Oswald went to Irving for 'curtain
rods', left his wedding ring behind the next morning, brought a
package into the Depository, and so on. Because the evidence against
Oswald is strong, any detailed reconstruction that argues a frame-up
will inevitably sound less plausible than one that argues his guilt."
-- JEAN DAVISON; Page 276 of "Oswald's Game" (c.1983)
============================================
Bud
> professor at Oxford who is often referred to as the world's best known
> atheist, because of his hugely popular book *the God Delusion* and his
> documentaries for the BBC, on the same subject.
>
> Dawkins however, doesn't actually consider himself an atheist at all, but
> rather, an agnostic because as he has pointed out many times, he
> acknowledges that he cannot actually prove that gods do not exist. Of
> course, he always hastens to add that he also cannot disprove the
> existence of unicorns or the tooth fairy.
Exactly right. And extraordinary ideas need extraordinary proof. The
idea that Hitler started WWII because he was mind-controlled by
Martians is not equally as valid as the idea that he did so on his own
accord. The same applies to the assassination, despite the attempts of
the kooks to portray it as two sides of the same coin. That Oswald
took his rifle into his work and shot some people is not a
particularly extraordinary idea, considering JFK was shot. That a
massive conspiracy did so and framed Oswald for it is an extraordinary
idea that I haven`t seen extraordinary support for (and by
"extraordinary support", I don`t mean some idiot saying "I say these
movements are startle reactions, prove to me they are not").
> It is interesting to contrast the fanatical integrity of such a man, with
> Vincent Bugliosi who in recent times, has replaced Posner as the spokesman
> for conspiracy deniers.
>
> LIke the question of supernatural deities, the question of conspiracy in
> the JFK case is nonfalsifiable - that is, even if one is absolutely
> convinced that Oswald acted alone, he could never prove it.
He can say that it has not been shown. And the evidence supporting
it has not been shown either, which I think is what he did say.
But I also see problems for conspiracy using this line of thinking.
Have you taken every conceivable consideration into account in your
conspiracy theories, Robert? Have you considered that you could be
wrong about those startle reactions, and it was something you failed
to consider (and, no, I don`t have to supply what that something is,
although I will say that the occupants might have all panicked at the
same time, thinking it was a close in attack on them). Have you ever
considered that Oswald may have had two rifles, maybe one an
automatic, maybe one that was silenced? Can the human mind consider
every possibility? And then, of course, is the fact that even two
people shooting at JFK does not in itself prove conspiracy. It could
be that two people selected this place to shoot the same person. And
that idea also is non-falsifiable.
> And that is where Bugliosi reveals his lack of integrity. He not only
> declares that Oswald absolutely, positively acted alone, but amplifies his
> dishonesty by endlessly prefacing statements in interviews and speeches,
> with "There is no evidence that..." continuing with every conceivable
> conspiracy theory in existence.
>
> Of course, the first problem with those statements is that Mr. Bugliosi
> cannot know the totality of all evidence. He cannot know what evidence
> exists which he is unaware of.
Perhaps the fault lies in your understanding of the use of the word
"evidence". I looked at some definitions, and they seem to indicate
the fault is yours. Heres the definitions I found at one source, an
online dictionary,and a comment of mine under each.
"1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment."
A thing unknown cannot help you form an opinion. Therefore a thing
must be known in order to be "evidence", and therefore helpful.
"2. Something indicative, and outward sign."
Again, to indicate it must exist and be known in order to be
indicative.
"3. Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material
objects admissible in a court of law."
I`d avoid the semantics fight that there was no trial and point out
that again, it is saying evidence is something that can be examined.
If it can`t be examined, it isn`t "evidence", it is something else. So
Bugliosi could be correct in his assessment that there is no
*evidence* that there was a conspiracy.
> In his shoes, a Dr. Dawkins might say something like, "I am not aware of
> any evidence which proves conspiracy.". But then, that would not have the
> powerful impact of the lie that Bugliosi chooses instead.
Is he lying, or is the fault your misunderstanding of his use of the
word?
> The other problem of course is, that there are mountains of evidence which
> prove that Oswald could not have acted alone. Bugliosi is fully aware of
> this evidence but has refused to ever address it.
It is only your opinion that such a mountain exists. I looked at
many of the aspects that make up this "mountain", and always have
found them not to be compelling. It is like saying the sheer number of
UFO sightings prove we`ve been visited by extraterrestrials.
> The difference between pitchmen and honest researchers is immense.
Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. Moreso when biased
fanatics are the beholders.
Bud
> In article <49532...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > Bob:
>
> > Vince Bugliosi can be rather abrasive at times. But that is nothing new.
>
> > Recently, however, I personally believe Mr. Bugliosi may just need some type
> > of counseling or mental health help. But that's just the opinion of someone
> > who has followed his career for years.
>
> > The best ANY LN can say, is that there is no credible evidence for any
> > conspiracy.
>
> No sir, that statement is equally dishonest, since you cannot know about
> evidence you are unaware of.
Actually, to be evidence, it would have to be known. there is no
unknown evidence, that is something else. Evidence is something that
helps you form an opinion or make a conclusion, something that
indicates something. Something unknown cannot do this.
> For example:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s&feature=channel_page
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ&feature=channel_pagehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc&watch_response
>
> The people in this forum have done a fine job debunking numerous
> conspiracy theories, but they have not been able to touch mine.
Ew.
> If you will study those films carefully, you will understand why.
Robert, how does your theories rule out two people who did not
conspire with one another shooting at Kennedy at the same time? That
is non-falsifiable in this case also, isn`t it?
> Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<afb87a44-ffc6-4150...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Dec 25, 12:44 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <49532...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Bob:
> >
> > > Vince Bugliosi can be rather abrasive at times. But that is nothing new.
> >
> > > Recently, however, I personally believe Mr. Bugliosi may just need some
> > > type
> > > of counseling or mental health help. But that's just the opinion of
> > > someone
> > > who has followed his career for years.
> >
> > > The best ANY LN can say, is that there is no credible evidence for any
> > > conspiracy.
> >
> > No sir, that statement is equally dishonest, since you cannot know about
> > evidence you are unaware of.
>
> Actually, to be evidence, it would have to be known.
Nonsense, no dictionary on this planet defines the term that way.
And even if one did, Bugsi would still be guilty of denying evidence
that might be "known" by others but not him.
> there is no
> unknown evidence, that is something else. Evidence is something that
> helps you form an opinion or make a conclusion, something that
> indicates something. Something unknown cannot do this.
Police search for evidence all the time that is unknown to them. That's
not a very good argument.
>
> > For example:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s&feature=channel_page
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ&feature=channel_pagehttp://www.yo
> > utube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc&watch_response
> >
> > The people in this forum have done a fine job debunking numerous
> > conspiracy theories, but they have not been able to touch mine.
>
> Ew.
>
> > If you will study those films carefully, you will understand why.
>
> Robert, how does your theories rule out two people who did not
> conspire with one another shooting at Kennedy at the same time? That
> is non-falsifiable in this case also, isn`t it?
Bud, I have used the term "beyond reasonable doubt" on numerous
occasions. I'm quite certain that the possibility of multiple snipers
coincidentally attacking the President at the same time and place, falls
at best, into the category of extremely unreasonable doubt.
Robert Harris
aeffects
> On Dec 23, 8:09 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > One of the most brilliant scientists of our time is Dr. Richard Dawkins, a
> > professor at Oxford who is often referred to as the world's best known
> > atheist, because of his hugely popular book *the God Delusion* and his
> > documentaries for the BBC, on the same subject.
>
> > Dawkins however, doesn't actually consider himself an atheist at all, but
> > rather, an agnostic because as he has pointed out many times, he
> > acknowledges that he cannot actually prove that gods do not exist. Of
> > course, he always hastens to add that he also cannot disprove the
> > existence of unicorns or the tooth fairy.
>
> > Vincent Bugliosi who in recent times, has replaced Posner as the spokesman
> > for conspiracy deniers.
>
> > LIke the question of supernatural deities, the question of conspiracy in
> > the JFK case is nonfalsifiable - that is, even if one is absolutely
> > convinced that Oswald acted alone, he could never prove it.
>
> > declares that Oswald absolutely, positively acted alone, but amplifies his
> > dishonesty by endlessly prefacing statements in interviews and speeches,
> > with "There is no evidence that..." continuing with every conceivable
> > conspiracy theory in existence.
>
> > Of course, the first problem with those statements is that Mr. Bugliosi
> > cannot know the totality of all evidence. He cannot know what evidence
> > exists which he is unaware of.
>
> > any evidence which proves conspiracy.". But then, that would not have the
> > powerful impact of the lie that Bugliosi chooses instead.
>
> > prove that Oswald could not have acted alone. Bugliosi is fully aware of
> > this evidence but has refused to ever address it.
>
> > what they are.
>
> > Robert Harris
>
> conscience pinpoint the how-and-why mechanics of a JFK conspiracy,
> you'll make a believer out of me.
>
> Keep tilting at those windmills, Don Quixote.
spit it put Chuck daShoe Schuyler, how many of your mortgages
defaulted this week? We're keeping score?
Bud
>
>
>
> Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 25, 12:44 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article <49532...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > > "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Bob:
>
> > > > Vince Bugliosi can be rather abrasive at times. But that is nothing new.
>
> > > > Recently, however, I personally believe Mr. Bugliosi may just need some
> > > > type
> > > > of counseling or mental health help. But that's just the opinion of
> > > > someone
> > > > who has followed his career for years.
>
> > > > The best ANY LN can say, is that there is no credible evidence for any
> > > > conspiracy.
>
> > > No sir, that statement is equally dishonest, since you cannot know about
> > > evidence you are unaware of.
>
> > Actually, to be evidence, it would have to be known.
>
> Nonsense, no dictionary on this planet defines the term that way.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
"1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment."
Something unknown cannnot help you to draw a conclusion.
"2 Something indicative or an outward sign"
Again, it must be something known to be indicative.
"3. Law. The documentary or oral statements and material objects
admissible in a court of law"
You couldn`t get unknown statements or unknown material objects admitted
into a court of law.
> And even if one did, Bugsi would still be guilty of denying evidence
> that might be "known" by others but not him.
If it wasn`t known to him, he couldn`t consider it, could he? If he
can`t consider it, or to use it to help form a conclusion, than it would
not be evidence to him. Unknown things cannot indicate anything, and
evidence is something that indicates something.
> > there is no
> > unknown evidence, that is something else. Evidence is something that
> > helps you form an opinion or make a conclusion, something that
> > indicates something. Something unknown cannot do this.
>
> Police search for evidence all the time that is unknown to them. That's
> not a very good argument.
I don`t think much of your counter argument. Do you think they
investigate murders before they become known to them? They need some
information with which to start an investigation. This is evidence,
whether they witness the murder, or someone tell them about it, or
whatever way they come across the information that a murder occurred, that
information is "evidence". This information could lead to other
information, and when it becomes known, then it is evidence, not before.
People indicated the 6th floor as the source of shots. They followed this
evidence, and it led to further evidence. Even if they checked all the
windows facing the shooting, they would still be working from the evidence
that Kennedy was shot here. They don`t work from unknown information.
> > > For example:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s&feature=channel_page
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ&feature=channel_pagehttp:/...
> > > utube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc&watch_response
>
> > > The people in this forum have done a fine job debunking numerous
> > > conspiracy theories, but they have not been able to touch mine.
>
> > Ew.
>
> > > If you will study those films carefully, you will understand why.
>
> > Robert, how does your theories rule out two people who did not
> > conspire with one another shooting at Kennedy at the same time? That
> > is non-falsifiable in this case also, isn`t it?
>
> Bud, I have used the term "beyond reasonable doubt" on numerous
> occasions. I'm quite certain that the possibility of multiple snipers
> coincidentally attacking the President at the same time and place, falls
> at best, into the category of extremely unreasonable doubt.
This would be meaningful, if I asked you to assign a likelyhood to the
possibility. But, your scenario does nothing to rule out the possibility
of two (or more) unconnected people shooting Kennedy, right? So, you can`t
honestly claim there was a conspiracy, the best you can hope for is to
show that he was shot by more than one person, isn`t that right?
> Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<1789b235-7385-4c29...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com>,
Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
Chuck, if you saw a corpse with a bullet hole in the back of the head,
would you need to know the "how and why" in order to determine that the
victim was murdered?
The question of conspiracy is not dependent on our knowing the names and
addresses of the killers. It is answered by the known evidence - something
I have never seen you address in all the years you have been trying to
attack me.
This was a conspiracy. It's just that simple.
Robert Harris
Bud
> In article
> <1789b235-7385-4c29-92aa-5eb53ecc8...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com>,
Multiple shooters would not necessarily mean conspiracy, Harris. You
need to show conspiring to show conspiracy.
> This was a conspiracy. It's just that simple.
Well, that you have a great desire for their to have been a
conspiracy is certain.
> Robert Harris
jas
> In article
> <1789b235-7385-4c29-92aa-5eb53ecc8...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
How can you manufacture a conspiracy out of your own made up points of
view and political opinions? Sure, in your own mind you can, but then
that's called "fiction."
Fiction is not fact. In the JFK case there is no solid, factual evidence
pointing to a conspiracy, therefore there was no conspiracy. I'm surprised
that your analytical mind doesn't see this.
If you're intrigued by "conspiracy," then go write a work of fiction with
the backdrop of the JFK case being a conspiracy, like Jim Marrs did and
Stone portrayed in "JFK."
jas
> In article
> <b4384488-c358-4e6d-9ca8-244897b1d...@41g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Robert wrote "Bugsi doesn't consider anything real evidence until
someone "presents it
> to the court".
Oh, now we're referring to Vincent Bugliosi as "Bugsi?" Ha Ha hehehehehe!
You mean, "Bugsi" like Bugsy Siegel, the famous Las Vegas Flamingo Hotel
mafia dude?
Hmmmmm. Interesting. Now Bugliosi is being compared by conspiracists to a
mafia thug. Anything....anything to try to discredit his name.
Yeah, Bugliosi is a prosecutor, so what? His presenting evidence in the
JFK case as it would be to a court of law is his way of eliminating all
the riff raff, innuendo and hearsay that inevitably pops up during course
of an investigation and trial. Anyone with an inkling of legal knowledge
knows that courts of law require hard physical evidence to be entered into
the record, or it's not valid and cannot be used. Can you imagine what a
trial would be like if anything were allowed in?
Can you spell K-A-N-G-E-R-O-O? (Ooops, I think I just described JFK
conspiracy theories)
Robert Harris
<cc565678-e8e9-4dce...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm.. interesting question, but I have to wonder why you would want to.
Perhaps some kind of chemical stimulants would be helpful.
Robert Harris
aeffects
> On Dec 26, 10:11 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Chuck, if you saw a corpse with a bullet hole in the back of the head,
> > would you need to know the "how and why" in order to determine that the
> > victim was murdered?
>
> handle it. They're the professionals.
>
focus dipship!
<snip Schuler's Lone Nut idiocy>
aeffects
focus moron....
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Dec 24, 8:33=A0pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 2:58=A0pm, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:> D=
>oes he have to re-open the case?
>>
>> > After all, the HSCA said there probably was a conspiracy and never
>> > renounced their conclusion.
>>
>> That's the answer. Let's let Congress have the final word on this
>> matter. After all, they're doing such a bang up job managing the
>> economy.
>
>focus moron....
Amusing that they believe it when the government says it - if it supports their
faith, but if the government says it, and it contradicts their faith, then the
government is clearly wrong.
The only standard is their faith, not the evidence.
aeffects
> In article <384f4b23-0c17-4ebd-8dd1-f13679fa9...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
great summation!
Gerry Simone
evidence for the lone gunman has been called into question.
"jas" <lle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc565678-e8e9-4dce...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Gerry Simone
persona in that mock trial of 1988.
A conspiracy theorist (sorry, can't remember who) mentioned that the
problem with the case against Oswald is that the evidence with the
greatest weight in any trial happens to be the physical evidence
implicating Oswald (prints, gun, presence at TSBD, CE399), and unless one
can raise doubt as to it's authenticity (if shown to have been planted or
tampered with), it would stand.
I'm not sure about precise legal definitions here but when I say direct or
physical evidence of a conspiracy, I mean like a photo of another shooter
or a print of another known assassin on the picket fence or other TSBD
window, or a recorded tape of a plot, etc.
Furthermore, a lot of circumstantial or indirect evidence alone could
prove a conspiracy beyond all reasonable doubt.
Happy New Year (please send me your gif or jpeg showing the reduction of
the distance from JFK's ear to the top of head)
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:reharris1-E5A57...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
Robert Harris
"Gerry Simone" <newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Well Bob, I wish Gerry Spence had consulted you when he defended the LHO
> persona in that mock trial of 1988.
>
> A conspiracy theorist (sorry, can't remember who) mentioned that the
> problem with the case against Oswald is that the evidence with the
> greatest weight in any trial happens to be the physical evidence
> implicating Oswald (prints, gun, presence at TSBD, CE399), and unless one
> can raise doubt as to it's authenticity (if shown to have been planted or
> tampered with), it would stand.
Yes, Oswald was guilty as hell. So what?
The fact is, that he could not have acted alone, and there is not a
shred of evidence which suggests that he did.
Robert Harris
aeffects
> On Dec 30, 9:08 am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > great summation!
>
> (slurp, slurp)
off your knees, then wipe
Phil Ossofee
refers to him except these lone nut dickwads? HeHeHe
Robert Harris
Bud, Mr. Bugliosi has no way of knowing what evidence exists that he is
unaware of, which may or may not be known to others.
To pretend that evidence which is unknown to him is not real, is beyond
goofy.
And you are badly misrepresenting your own definitions, since none of
them exclude the validity of evidence due to one or more individuals
being ignorant of its existence.
And finally, even if you were correct that unknown evidence is not
really evidence, you are acutely aware of evidence which neither you nor
any of your colleagues can refute, which Mr. Bugliosi at least, pretends
to be ignorant of.
That evidence was enormously "helpful in forming a conclusion",
"indicative", and "admissable in a court of law".
Therefore, we know that evidence exists which meets the standard in all
three of your definitions.
Therefore, Mr. Bugliosi is a liar, whether he is aware of that evidence
or not. An honest man would claim that he has not seen evidence of
conspiracy, which he is willing to accept.
But Bugliosi is NOT an honest man.
Robert Harris
In article
<fb7e0b45-69ee-4809...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com>,
Gerry Simone
but it's possible that he was one of the guilty ones like you say.
I wasn't kidding you when I said that Gerry Spence should have consulted
you (plus Anthony Marsh and other experts) because I felt he was
unprepared and no match for Bugliosi with his select list of witnesses
(with many more missing or dead that would have made the trial
'balanced').
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:reharris1-1CC1B...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
Gerry Simone
Not exactly.
People can be acquitted or convicted on circumstantial evidence alone.
Circumstantial evidence can be submitted in a court of law and is
ordinarily admissable.
(Circumstantial evidence is evidence of an indirect nature; from which the
fact is not directly proven but may be inferred by the tribunal)
"jas" <lle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e614321e-5b9e-4da6...@f20g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
jas
> In article <495a7d5...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well Bob, I wish Gerry Spence had consulted you when he defended the LHO
> > persona in that mock trial of 1988.
>
> > A conspiracy theorist (sorry, can't remember who) mentioned that the
> > problem with the case against Oswald is that the evidence with the
> > greatest weight in any trial happens to be the physical evidence
> > implicating Oswald (prints, gun, presence at TSBD, CE399), and unless one
> > can raise doubt as to it's authenticity (if shown to have been planted or
> > tampered with), it would stand.
>
> Yes, Oswald was guilty as hell. So what?
>
> The fact is, that he could not have acted alone, and there is not a
> shred of evidence which suggests that he did.
>
> Robert Harris
>
Again, it's hard for me to understand your analytical mind making this
sort of statement. It really doesn't make much sense.
The first part, "The fact is, that he could not have acted alone..." is
false because Oswald *could* have acted alone, and,
The second part, "and there is not a shred of evidence which suggests that
he did" is moot in a pro-conspiracy argument because the lack of any solid
evidence of a conspiracy in the JFK case indicates Oswald did act alone.
In other words, we don't need evidence to show he acted alone, the lack of
conspiracy evidence automatically indicates this.
>
> > I'm not sure about precise legal definitions here but when I say direct or
> > physical evidence of a conspiracy, I mean like a photo of another shooter
> > or a print of another known assassin on the picket fence or other TSBD
> > window, or a recorded tape of a plot, etc.
>
> > Furthermore, a lot of circumstantial or indirect evidence alone could
> > prove a conspiracy beyond all reasonable doubt.
>
> > Happy New Year (please send me your gif or jpeg showing the reduction of
> > the distance from JFK's ear to the top of head)
>
> > "Robert Harris" <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:reharris1-E5A57...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
> > > In article <49527c4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Robert Harris
<reharris1-1CC1B...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <495a7d51$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> "Gerry Simone" <newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well Bob, I wish Gerry Spence had consulted you when he defended the LHO
> > persona in that mock trial of 1988.
> >
> > A conspiracy theorist (sorry, can't remember who) mentioned that the
> > problem with the case against Oswald is that the evidence with the
> > greatest weight in any trial happens to be the physical evidence
> > implicating Oswald (prints, gun, presence at TSBD, CE399), and unless one
> > can raise doubt as to it's authenticity (if shown to have been planted or
> > tampered with), it would stand.
>
>
> Yes, Oswald was guilty as hell. So what?
>
> The fact is, that he could not have acted alone, and there is not a
> shred of evidence which suggests that he did.
Er.. umm... what I meant to say was that I am not aware of any evidence
which suggests that he did:-)
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
What a bunch of convoluted crap by Harris up there in his last couple
of posts.
I guess since the unknown/unseen evidence of conspiracy (which may or
may not exist and may or may not be known by somebody on the planet)
could be out there somewhere, this somehow equates to (in Harris'
topsy-turvy world) Oswald positively not acting alone -- even though
all the actual evidence in the case says he did act alone. (And Bob
Harris knows full well that every scrap of hard, physical evidence
suggests a 1-man shooting pulled off by Lee Harvey.)
But maybe Joe Schmoe in Kokomo has a document that he's keeping to
himself that proves conspiracy (he'll let the world in on it in 2076).
Right, Bob?
Bud
> Bud, Mr. Bugliosi has no way of knowing what evidence exists that he is
> unaware of, which may or may not be known to others.
>
> To pretend that evidence which is unknown to him is not real, is beyond
> goofy.
Thats why I didn`t make that argument. I said that information he
was unaware of could not be used by him to help him form a conclusion,
so it could not be "evidence" to him.
> And you are badly misrepresenting your own definitions, since none of
> them exclude the validity of evidence due to one or more individuals
> being ignorant of its existence.
You can`t have "known" unknown information. Also, you`re use of the
word makes it impossible to use "evidence" to form conclusions,
because there could be unknown information refuting your conclusions.
If someone were to say "There is no evidence of life on the moon",
someone like yourself could say "Well, someone somewhere may just have
such evidence".
> And finally, even if you were correct that unknown evidence is not
> really evidence, you are acutely aware of evidence which neither you nor
> any of your colleagues can refute, which Mr. Bugliosi at least, pretends
> to be ignorant of.
What evidence is that? Testimony and the z-film? They certainly are
evidence, and evidence that Bugliosi is aware of. Your opinions about
what you see in the z-film and what the testimony of certain witnesses
mean is merely your opinions, and your opinions are not facts
(although you may have trouble seeing the difference between the two).
By saying your theories are not refuted, you are really saying "My
theories are not refuted until someone can convince me they aren`t
valid". You like your theories, so it is unlikely they will be refuted
in your eyes.
> That evidence was enormously "helpful in forming a conclusion",
> "indicative", and "admissable in a court of law".
Certainly you have yourself convinced that your conclusions are
valid. Others don`t find your conclusions compelling. The things you
think you see in the z-film are not fact, they are your opinions. That
the testimony of witness under attack is factually accurate is your
opinion, not fact.
> Therefore, we know that evidence exists which meets the standard in all
> three of your definitions.
Only in your eyes. A person can look at a pile of laundry, and if he
wants to see that laundry dance very badly, and looks at that laundry
long and hard enough, you can bet he is going to see that laundry
dance.
> Therefore, Mr. Bugliosi is a liar, whether he is aware of that evidence
> or not. An honest man would claim that he has not seen evidence of
> conspiracy, which he is willing to accept.
How can conclusions ever be made using evidence if there is always
the possibility of evidence countering your conclusions exists
somewhere?
> But Bugliosi is NOT an honest man.
So you say.
> Robert Harris
>
> In article
> <fb7e0b45-69ee-4809-a28d-7db0449c5...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com>,
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bugliosi's entire life is one of honor and integrity. The kooks don't
know the meaning of the words.
aeffects
sitdown you ignorant fuck, next you'll be telling us LHO did the deed
all by his lonesome..... what do they feed you lower than whale shit
morons?
Sam Brown
"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bfbb182a-6c5c-48da...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
You're quite the expert Junkie.
Robert Harris
<44df6e88-0f1f-415c...@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 10:20 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <495a7d5...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Well Bob, I wish Gerry Spence had consulted you when he defended the LHO
> > > persona in that mock trial of 1988.
> >
> > > A conspiracy theorist (sorry, can't remember who) mentioned that the
> > > problem with the case against Oswald is that the evidence with the
> > > greatest weight in any trial happens to be the physical evidence
> > > implicating Oswald (prints, gun, presence at TSBD, CE399), and unless one
> > > can raise doubt as to it's authenticity (if shown to have been planted or
> > > tampered with), it would stand.
> >
> > Yes, Oswald was guilty as hell. So what?
> >
> > The fact is, that he could not have acted alone, and there is not a
> > shred of evidence which suggests that he did.
> >
> > Robert Harris
> >
>
> Again, it's hard for me to understand your analytical mind making this
> sort of statement. It really doesn't make much sense.
If you believe that then you are not aware of the relevant evidence.
>
> The first part, "The fact is, that he could not have acted alone..." is
> false because Oswald *could* have acted alone, and,
No sir, he could not have acted alone because shots were too closely
spaced to have all come from his rifle.
>
> The second part, "and there is not a shred of evidence which suggests that
> he did" is moot in a pro-conspiracy argument because the lack of any solid
> evidence of a conspiracy in the JFK case indicates Oswald did act alone.
> In other words, we don't need evidence to show he acted alone, the lack of
> conspiracy evidence automatically indicates this.
There is not only evidence that Oswald did not act alone, but there is
conclusive evidence, which settles the matter beyond any reasonable
doubt.
http://www.jfkhistory.com/Nellie2/Nellie2.mov
Watch it all, and listen closely. Then, if you still disagree, tell me
exactly where I went wrong.
Robert Harris
Raymond
>
> - Show quoted text -
What do you think of mensh Posner's work?
There seems to be an intense difference of opinion about the
reliability of the contents of Gerald Posner's book Case Closed.
I personally think that his book is the worst that I have ever
read,and I have read over two hundred books dealing with the ambush
and murder of JFK.
The author of Case Closed tells his readers that "Due to the bedlam
at
Dealey Plaza, many contradictory statements were produced from scores
of witnesses resulting in conflicting accounts of what happened."
Posner says, " Testimony closer to the event must be given greater
weight than changes or additions made years later, when the
witnesses'
own memory is often muddled or influenced by television programs,
films, books, and discussions with others.
This is good advice, especially for people that write for posterity.
Does Posner follow his own advice? In trying to solidify the concept
that three shots were fired on November 22, 1963, we read from Case
Closed: "Beyond the eyewitnesses already discussed, the author has
discovered several people who saw the assassination and have never
before testified or told their stories...most are now retired, some
deceased, and their memories nearly three decades after the event are
not what they would have been within days of the shooting. But their
revelations are still pertinent, The six interviewed for this book
each remembered hearing three distinct shots, and more important,
three of them watched the assassination with a pair of binoculars."
pp.261-262.
Posner tells us that six were interviewed for the book and three
watched with binoculars, but leaves us in the dark as to who they
were
except for one of them, Francine Burrows, who said she remembered
three shots. Francine told Gerald, " I was very close to him when he
got shot. And I looked up at that window immediately. I knew
instinctively 'That's where the shots came from.' She ran back to her
office after the third shot, and she said she ' was in shock-I didn't
want to discuss it, I just wanted to forget it'." p262.
And that's exactly what Francine did for thirty years; she didn't
discuss it and she just forgot it. Thanks to Posner Francine has
come
forward at last to help us close the case.
Even more interesting than Francine is another tardy witness, Travis
Linn, once a reporter and now a professor of journalism. Posner says
of Linn, "Despite his reluctance , he finally agreed to tell, for
the
first time publicly, the story of the only sound recording known to
have been made of the assassination." p.243.
It turns out that Linn had planted a tape recorder on one of the
columns near the reflective pool at the corner of Houston and Elm
Streets. He wanted to capture the sounds of the motorcade going by,
All went well until Linn transferred the recording to a reel-to-reel
tape machine and don't you know, it erased itself. (Shades of Mission
Impossible). Not to worry; when asked if he heard the sounds of the
shots on the tape when he played it back, Linn told Posner, " When I
was dubbing it, I did hear three shots and they were rifle shots. I
know rifles and pistols. There is no question about those sounds.
They
were hugh over the crowd noise...the first two, my recollection is,
were close together and there was a slightly longer pause until the
third one, as the guy hurried his shots, and then said, 'No, I am
going to aim this time.'" p.244.
We are fortunate that Posner found Travis Linn before Oliver Stone
discovered him. Here we have not only a witness to the tragic event,
but someone who writes dialogue as well. Also, Linn was able to
correct witnesses who reported that it was the last two shots that
were cose together with a longer pause after the first shot.
If Linn would have come forward at the time, he could have saved
Secret Service Agent , Forest Sorrels from giving false testimony to
the Commission. Sorrels was in the lead car of the motorcade and when
asked if he could testify to the spacing of the shots, Sorels said,
"Yes. There was to me about twice as much time between the first and
second shots as there was between the second and third shots."
MR. STERN: Can you estimate the overall time from the first shot
to the third shot?
SORRELS: Yes, I have called it out to myself. I have timed it,
and I would say it was very, very close to six seconds.
MR.STERN: It sounds like you can still hear the shots.
SORRELS: I will hear them forever. Vol VII, p.345.
Posner critizes testimony of witnesses who made statements within
hours of the assassination, and uses Travis Linn thirty years later
to
describe the shots from a self-destructed tape and with the sequence
of the shots in the wrong order.
What happened to the author's advise about testimony closer to the
event being given greater weight than testimony made years later?
CASE CLOSED? Maybe not.
The case against Posner's work will be long examined. There is a
collection
of badly researched reports from Posner , some rather hysterical.
Martin Shackelford
1986 "On Trial:
Lee Harvey Oswald," recently released on DVD.
Martin
"Raymond" <Bluer...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a8f41d16-2781-4233...@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 1, 12:32?pm, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 10:37?am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 1, 4:50 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Bud, Mr. Bugliosi has no way of knowing what evidence exists that he
> > > is
> > > unaware of, which may or may not be known to others.
>
> > > To pretend that evidence which is unknown to him is not real, is
> > > beyond
> > > goofy.
>
> > ? Thats why I didn`t make that argument. I said that information he
> > was unaware of could not be used by him to help him form a conclusion,
> > so it could not be "evidence" to him.
>
> > > And you are badly misrepresenting your own definitions, since none of
> > > them exclude the validity of evidence due to one or more individuals
> > > being ignorant of its existence.
>
> > ? You can`t have "known" unknown information. Also, you`re use of the
> > word makes it impossible to use "evidence" to form conclusions,
> > because there could be unknown information refuting your conclusions.
> > If someone were to say "There is no evidence of life on the moon",
> > someone like yourself could say "Well, someone somewhere may just have
> > such evidence".
>
> > > And finally, even if you were correct that unknown evidence is not
> > > really evidence, you are acutely aware of evidence which neither you
> > > nor
> > > any of your colleagues can refute, which Mr. Bugliosi at least,
> > > pretends
> > > to be ignorant of.
>
> > ? What evidence is that? Testimony and the z-film? They certainly are
> > evidence, and evidence that Bugliosi is aware of. Your opinions about
> > what you see in the z-film and what the testimony of certain witnesses
> > mean is merely your opinions, and your opinions are not facts
> > (although you may have trouble seeing the difference between the two).
> > By saying your theories are not refuted, you are really saying "My
> > theories are not refuted until someone can convince me they aren`t
> > valid". You like your theories, so it is unlikely they will be refuted
> > in your eyes.
>
> > > That evidence was enormously "helpful in forming a conclusion",
> > > "indicative", and "admissable in a court of law".
>
> > ? Certainly you have yourself convinced that your conclusions are
> > valid. Others don`t find your conclusions compelling. The things you
> > think you see in the z-film are not fact, they are your opinions. That
> > the testimony of witness under attack is factually accurate is your
> > opinion, not fact.
>
> > > Therefore, we know that evidence exists which meets the standard in
> > > all
> > > three of your definitions.
>
> > ? Only in your eyes. A person can look at a pile of laundry, and if he
> > wants to see that laundry dance very badly, and looks at that laundry
> > long and hard enough, you can bet he is going to see that laundry
> > dance.
>
> > > Therefore, Mr. Bugliosi is a liar, whether he is aware of that
> > > evidence
> > > or not. An honest man would claim that he has not seen evidence of
> > > conspiracy, which he is willing to accept.
>
> > ? How can conclusions ever be made using evidence if there is always
> > the possibility of evidence countering your conclusions exists
> > somewhere?
>
> > > But Bugliosi is NOT an honest man.
>
> > ? ?So you say.
>
> > > Robert Harris
>
> > > In article
> > > <fb7e0b45-69ee-4809-a28d-7db0449c5...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > ?Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 26, 12:21 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <afb87a44-ffc6-4150-aa2d-5b992f4eb...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > > ?Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Dec 25, 12:44 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > In article <49532...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > > > > > > ?"John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Bob:
>
> > > > > > > > Vince Bugliosi can be rather abrasive at times. But that is
> > > > > > > > nothing
> > > > > > > > new.
>
> > > > > > > > Recently, however, I personally believe Mr. Bugliosi may
> > > > > > > > just need
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > of counseling or mental health help. But that's just the
> > > > > > > > opinion of
> > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > who has followed his career for years.
>
> > > > > > > > The best ANY LN can say, is that there is no credible
> > > > > > > > evidence for
> > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > conspiracy.
>
> > > > > > > No sir, that statement is equally dishonest, since you cannot
> > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > evidence you are unaware of.
>
> > > > > > ? Actually, to be evidence, it would have to be known.
>
> > > > > Nonsense, no dictionary on this planet defines the term that way.
>
> > > > ? ?http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
>
> > > > ? "1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or
> > > > judgment."
>
> > > > ? Something unknown cannnot help you to draw a conclusion.
>
> > > > ? ?"2 Something indicative or an outward sign"
>
> > > > ? ?Again, it must be something known to be indicative.
>
> > > > ? ?"3. Law. The documentary or oral statements and material objects
> > > > admissible in a court of law"
>
> > > > ? You couldn`t get unknown statements or unknown material objects
> > > > admitted
> > > > into a court of law.
>
> > > > > And even if one did, Bugsi would still be guilty of denying
> > > > > evidence
> > > > > that might be "known" by others but not him.
>
> > > > ? If it wasn`t known to him, he couldn`t consider it, could he? If
> > > > he
> > > > can`t consider it, or to use it to help form a conclusion, than it
> > > > would
> > > > not be evidence to him. Unknown things cannot indicate anything, and
> > > > evidence is something that indicates something.
>
> > > > > > there is no
> > > > > > unknown evidence, that is something else. Evidence is something
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > helps you form an opinion or make a conclusion, something that
> > > > > > indicates something. Something unknown cannot do this.
>
> > > > > Police search for evidence all the time that is unknown to them.
> > > > > That's
> > > > > not a very good argument.
>
> > > > ? I don`t think much of your counter argument. Do you think they
> > > > investigate murders before they become known to them? They need some
> > > > information with which to start an investigation. This is evidence,
> > > > whether they witness the murder, or someone tell them about it, or
> > > > whatever way they come across the information that a murder
> > > > occurred, that
> > > > information is "evidence". This information could lead to other
> > > > information, and when it becomes known, then it is evidence, not
> > > > before.
> > > > People indicated the 6th floor as the source of shots. They followed
> > > > this
> > > > evidence, and it led to further evidence. Even if they checked all
> > > > the
> > > > windows facing the shooting, they would still be working from the
> > > > evidence
> > > > that Kennedy was shot here. They don`t work from unknown
> > > > information.
>
> > > > > > > For example:
>
> > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s&feature=channel_page
>
> > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ&feature=channel_pagehttp:/...
> > > > > > > utube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc&watch_response
>
> > > > > > > The people in this forum have done a fine job debunking
> > > > > > > numerous
> > > > > > > conspiracy theories, but they have not been able to touch
> > > > > > > mine.
>
> > > > > > ? Ew.
>
> > > > > > > If you will study those films carefully, you will understand
> > > > > > > why.
>
> > > > > > ? Robert, how does your theories rule out two people who did not
> > > > > > conspire with one another shooting at Kennedy at the same time?
> > > > > > That
> > > > > > is non-falsifiable in this case also, isn`t it?
>
> > > > > Bud, I have used the term "beyond reasonable doubt" on numerous
> > > > > occasions. I'm quite certain that the possibility of multiple
> > > > > snipers
> > > > > coincidentally attacking the President at the same time and place,
> > > > > falls
> > > > > at best, into the category of extremely unreasonable doubt.
>
> > > > ? This would be meaningful, if I asked you to assign a likelyhood to
> > > > the
> > > > possibility. But, your scenario does nothing to rule out the
> > > > possibility
> > > > of two (or more) unconnected people shooting Kennedy, right? So, you
> > > > can`t
> > > > honestly claim there was a conspiracy, the best you can hope for is
> > > > to
> > > > show that he was shot by more than one person, isn`t that right?
>
> > > > > Robert Harris- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Bugliosi's entire life is one of honor and integrity. ?The kooks don't