info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
David Von Pein's Refusal To Defend Vincent Bugliosi
32 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Mar 16, 2017, 11:09:01 AM3/16/17
to
The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete, and David simply refused to engage in debate.
He tried a couple of times, and ignored the overwhelming mass of points I raised to show that Bugliosi was a kook.
Only a kook would argue that reading or not reading a newspaper is evidence for murder.
Only a kook would argue that changing clothes is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would argue that getting a coke is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would use outright lies (such as the "missing" roll call) to make his case.
The fact that the Internet's biggest defender of Vincent Bugliosi was unable to defend him on such a MAJOR issue - Bugliosi's attempt to show that Oswald was guilty... shows a consciousness on David's part of just how weak his case is. He *KNOWS* it can't withstand critical review from someone who knows the evidence.
David has been schooled enough times by me that he knows well the folly of trying to argue the evidence against a knowledgeable critic.
And that fact tells the tale.
He tried a couple of times, and ignored the overwhelming mass of points I raised to show that Bugliosi was a kook.
Only a kook would argue that reading or not reading a newspaper is evidence for murder.
Only a kook would argue that changing clothes is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would argue that getting a coke is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would use outright lies (such as the "missing" roll call) to make his case.
The fact that the Internet's biggest defender of Vincent Bugliosi was unable to defend him on such a MAJOR issue - Bugliosi's attempt to show that Oswald was guilty... shows a consciousness on David's part of just how weak his case is. He *KNOWS* it can't withstand critical review from someone who knows the evidence.
David has been schooled enough times by me that he knows well the folly of trying to argue the evidence against a knowledgeable critic.
And that fact tells the tale.
Bud
Mar 16, 2017, 12:56:05 PM3/16/17
to
On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 11:09:01 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete, and David simply refused to engage in debate.
You set out to refute the items on Bugliosi`s list. In most cases you fell way short. What is there to debate?
> The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete, and David simply refused to engage in debate.
> He tried a couple of times, and ignored the overwhelming mass of points I raised to show that Bugliosi was a kook.
>
> Only a kook would argue that reading or not reading a newspaper is evidence for murder.
> Only a kook would argue that changing clothes is evidence of murder.
> Only a kook would argue that getting a coke is evidence of murder.
> Only a kook would use outright lies (such as the "missing" roll call) to make his case.
> The fact that the Internet's biggest defender of Vincent Bugliosi was unable to defend him on such a MAJOR issue - Bugliosi's attempt to show that Oswald was guilty... shows a consciousness on David's part of just how weak his case is. He *KNOWS* it can't withstand critical review from someone who knows the evidence.
> David has been schooled enough times by me that he knows well the folly of trying to argue the evidence against a knowledgeable critic.
> And that fact tells the tale.
Ben Holmes
Mar 16, 2017, 2:40:17 PM3/16/17
to
On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 9:56:05 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 11:09:01 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete, and David simply refused to engage in debate.
>
> You set out to refute the items on Bugliosi`s list. In most cases you fell way short. What is there to debate?
You're lying again, "Bud."
> On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 11:09:01 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete, and David simply refused to engage in debate.
>
> You set out to refute the items on Bugliosi`s list. In most cases you fell way short. What is there to debate?
If this were actually true, then David would have had no problem pointing this out. But he couldn't do it, and neither could you.
You've simply lied.
> > He tried a couple of times, and ignored the overwhelming mass of points I raised to show that Bugliosi was a kook.
> >
> > Only a kook would argue that reading or not reading a newspaper is evidence for murder.
>
> Only an idiot would think that a change in routine on this day out of all others couldn`t be significant.
The most CREDIBLE evidence is that he did the same thing on 11/22 as he did any other day.
You know quite well, since I've schooled you on this fact, that the earliest and most credible evidence is that he *DID* read the newspaper as was normal.
BUT EVEN IF HE DID NOT - THERE ARE MANY POSSIBLE REASONS FOR NOT READING THE NEWSPAPER THAT HAVE NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH OSWALD COMMITTING MURDER BY HIMSELF.
> > Only a kook would argue that changing clothes is evidence of murder.
>
> Criminals often try to change their appearance after committing a crime.
I've already answered this.
> > Only a kook would argue that getting a coke is evidence of murder.
>
> You think all that commotion outside got him thirsty?
It takes a real moron to think that there's something suspicious about drinking a coke at lunch.
> > Only a kook would use outright lies (such as the "missing" roll call) to make his case.
>
> Conspiracy retards have to call the witnesses liars, what they related does not support their faith.
You KNOW FOR A FACT that there was no such "roll call" where only Oswald was "missing."
I've schooled you on this many times before.
So you're simply lying again.
> > The fact that the Internet's biggest defender of Vincent Bugliosi was unable to defend him on such a MAJOR issue - Bugliosi's attempt to show that Oswald was guilty... shows a consciousness on David's part of just how weak his case is. He *KNOWS* it can't withstand critical review from someone who knows the evidence.
>
> Ben has no conception about how the things on the list build a case that Oswald was guilty. He is a stump.
> > David has been schooled enough times by me that he knows well the folly of trying to argue the evidence against a knowledgeable critic.
>
> Use that evidence to put a cohesive and reasonable explanation for what occurred on the table for scrutiny. Never happened and never will.
I provided EXACTLY what you provided... a link to a book containing the scenario.
> > And that fact tells the tale.
>
> The fact is that conspiracy retards have been playing silly games with the deaths of these men for decades.
Bud
Mar 16, 2017, 4:14:18 PM3/16/17
to
On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 2:40:17 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 9:56:05 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 11:09:01 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete, and David simply refused to engage in debate.
> >
> > You set out to refute the items on Bugliosi`s list. In most cases you fell way short. What is there to debate?
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."
Not at all. Until you figure out what the word "refutation" means there isn`t much to talk about.
> On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 9:56:05 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 11:09:01 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete, and David simply refused to engage in debate.
> >
> > You set out to refute the items on Bugliosi`s list. In most cases you fell way short. What is there to debate?
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."
> If this were actually true, then David would have had no problem pointing this out. But he couldn't do it, and neither could you.
>
> You've simply lied.
>
> > > He tried a couple of times, and ignored the overwhelming mass of points I raised to show that Bugliosi was a kook.
> > >
> > > Only a kook would argue that reading or not reading a newspaper is evidence for murder.
> >
> > Only an idiot would think that a change in routine on this day out of all others couldn`t be significant.
>
> There wasn't a "change" of routine.
>
> The most CREDIBLE evidence is that he did the same thing on 11/22 as he did any other day.
> You know quite well, since I've schooled you on this fact, that the earliest and most credible evidence is that he *DID* read the newspaper as was normal.
> BUT EVEN IF HE DID NOT - THERE ARE MANY POSSIBLE REASONS FOR NOT READING THE NEWSPAPER THAT HAVE NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH OSWALD COMMITTING MURDER BY HIMSELF.
> > > Only a kook would argue that changing clothes is evidence of murder.
> >
> > Criminals often try to change their appearance after committing a crime.
>
>
> Yep... the blood on his shirt would have been a dead giveaway...
>
> I've already answered this.
> > > Only a kook would argue that getting a coke is evidence of murder.
> >
> > You think all that commotion outside got him thirsty?
>
>
> That coke machine was creating murderers? What, exactly, about drinking a coke at lunchtime is grounds for believing someone to be a murderer?
>
> It takes a real moron to think that there's something suspicious about drinking a coke at lunch.
> > > Only a kook would use outright lies (such as the "missing" roll call) to make his case.
> >
> > Conspiracy retards have to call the witnesses liars, what they related does not support their faith.
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."
>
> You KNOW FOR A FACT that there was no such "roll call" where only Oswald was "missing."
> I've schooled you on this many times before.
>
> So you're simply lying again.
>
>
> > > The fact that the Internet's biggest defender of Vincent Bugliosi was unable to defend him on such a MAJOR issue - Bugliosi's attempt to show that Oswald was guilty... shows a consciousness on David's part of just how weak his case is. He *KNOWS* it can't withstand critical review from someone who knows the evidence.
> >
> > Ben has no conception about how the things on the list build a case that Oswald was guilty. He is a stump.
>
>
> Can't build a real forest out of fake trees.
> > > David has been schooled enough times by me that he knows well the folly of trying to argue the evidence against a knowledgeable critic.
> >
> > Use that evidence to put a cohesive and reasonable explanation for what occurred on the table for scrutiny. Never happened and never will.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."
>
> I provided EXACTLY what you provided... a link to a book containing the scenario.
Ben Holmes
Mar 16, 2017, 5:07:01 PM3/16/17
to
On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 1:14:18 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 2:40:17 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 9:56:05 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 11:09:01 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete, and David simply refused to engage in debate.
> > >
> > > You set out to refute the items on Bugliosi`s list. In most cases you fell way short. What is there to debate?
> >
> > You're lying again, "Bud."
>
> Not at all.
Still lying, "Bud."
> On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 2:40:17 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 9:56:05 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 11:09:01 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete, and David simply refused to engage in debate.
> > >
> > > You set out to refute the items on Bugliosi`s list. In most cases you fell way short. What is there to debate?
> >
> > You're lying again, "Bud."
>
> Not at all.
David Von Pein
Mar 17, 2017, 12:04:31 AM3/17/17
to
To repeat for about the 17th time now....
"Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case. Among the items on Mr. Bugliosi's list of "53 Things", I can think of only two items that really don't belong there (IMO) -- Item #41 (about the paraffin test) and item #23 (concerning Oswald changing his trousers). More of my thoughts about 'The VB 53' [below]." -- DVP; January 25, 2017
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-674.html
"Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case. Among the items on Mr. Bugliosi's list of "53 Things", I can think of only two items that really don't belong there (IMO) -- Item #41 (about the paraffin test) and item #23 (concerning Oswald changing his trousers). More of my thoughts about 'The VB 53' [below]." -- DVP; January 25, 2017
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-674.html
David Von Pein
Mar 17, 2017, 1:41:36 AM3/17/17
to
Another comment worth a replay....
"[Vincent Bugliosi's "53 Items"] are items that ANY reasonable person would certainly consider when trying to determine whether or not the person charged with committing the murder of JFK was actually guilty of that crime or not.
The individual items being considered are then PLACED TOGETHER IN A BUNDLE (instead of being kept isolated from one another, which is what CTers always do), and then the WHOLE SUM TOTAL of those individual elements are weighed to reach a final conclusion.
That's exactly what Vincent Bugliosi does in his "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his book "Reclaiming History", and only a biased conspiracy-giddy person who is bent on exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald would have a desire to start up 53 separate forum threads in order to isolate each of Mr. Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence in an effort to try and trash each of those fifty-three items.
It's only by ISOLATING each of those 53 things individually that a conspiracy theorist can have a prayer at pretending Lee Oswald was innocent of killing either John Kennedy or J.D. Tippit.
But when those 53 things are PACKAGED TOGETHER as one unit, Oswald's guilt is undeniable. And there's NOTHING a conspiracy nut like Ben Holmes can do about it." -- DVP; February 1, 2017
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8nzyuR2YWV0/XNGB-JU4DgAJ
"[Vincent Bugliosi's "53 Items"] are items that ANY reasonable person would certainly consider when trying to determine whether or not the person charged with committing the murder of JFK was actually guilty of that crime or not.
The individual items being considered are then PLACED TOGETHER IN A BUNDLE (instead of being kept isolated from one another, which is what CTers always do), and then the WHOLE SUM TOTAL of those individual elements are weighed to reach a final conclusion.
That's exactly what Vincent Bugliosi does in his "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his book "Reclaiming History", and only a biased conspiracy-giddy person who is bent on exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald would have a desire to start up 53 separate forum threads in order to isolate each of Mr. Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence in an effort to try and trash each of those fifty-three items.
It's only by ISOLATING each of those 53 things individually that a conspiracy theorist can have a prayer at pretending Lee Oswald was innocent of killing either John Kennedy or J.D. Tippit.
But when those 53 things are PACKAGED TOGETHER as one unit, Oswald's guilt is undeniable. And there's NOTHING a conspiracy nut like Ben Holmes can do about it." -- DVP; February 1, 2017
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8nzyuR2YWV0/XNGB-JU4DgAJ
Ben Holmes
Mar 17, 2017, 9:49:08 AM3/17/17
to
You *KNOW* the sheer stupidity and dishonesty of some of Bugliosi's arguments, and I don't blame you for not wanting to defend them.
But that's a FACT - you've run like the coward you are from defending Bugliosi on what is clearly the most CRITICAL part of his entire book.
Why are you afraid to post your "thoughts" on the matter here? You know, where others can respond...
Ben Holmes
Mar 17, 2017, 9:51:34 AM3/17/17
to
That's not difficult to understand now, is it David?
You can keep squirming and whining, but the truth of the matter is that you refused to defend Bugliosi on the vast majority of his "evidence."
And that fact tells the tale.
Bud
Mar 17, 2017, 12:04:24 PM3/17/17
to
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:51:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 10:41:36 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > Another comment worth a replay....
> >
> > "[Vincent Bugliosi's "53 Items"] are items that ANY reasonable person would certainly consider when trying to determine whether or not the person charged with committing the murder of JFK was actually guilty of that crime or not.
> >
> > The individual items being considered are then PLACED TOGETHER IN A BUNDLE (instead of being kept isolated from one another, which is what CTers always do), and then the WHOLE SUM TOTAL of those individual elements are weighed to reach a final conclusion.
> >
> > That's exactly what Vincent Bugliosi does in his "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his book "Reclaiming History", and only a biased conspiracy-giddy person who is bent on exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald would have a desire to start up 53 separate forum threads in order to isolate each of Mr. Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence in an effort to try and trash each of those fifty-three items.
> >
> > It's only by ISOLATING each of those 53 things individually that a conspiracy theorist can have a prayer at pretending Lee Oswald was innocent of killing either John Kennedy or J.D. Tippit.
> >
> > But when those 53 things are PACKAGED TOGETHER as one unit, Oswald's guilt is undeniable. And there's NOTHING a conspiracy nut like Ben Holmes can do about it." -- DVP; February 1, 2017
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8nzyuR2YWV0/XNGB-JU4DgAJ
>
>
> If you cannot defend the individual items, THEN YOU CANNOT DEFEND THE ENTIRETY.
This is retarded thinking. You can associate ANY action with a non-malicious cause, including pulling a trigger or plunging a knife.
> On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 10:41:36 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > Another comment worth a replay....
> >
> > "[Vincent Bugliosi's "53 Items"] are items that ANY reasonable person would certainly consider when trying to determine whether or not the person charged with committing the murder of JFK was actually guilty of that crime or not.
> >
> > The individual items being considered are then PLACED TOGETHER IN A BUNDLE (instead of being kept isolated from one another, which is what CTers always do), and then the WHOLE SUM TOTAL of those individual elements are weighed to reach a final conclusion.
> >
> > That's exactly what Vincent Bugliosi does in his "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his book "Reclaiming History", and only a biased conspiracy-giddy person who is bent on exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald would have a desire to start up 53 separate forum threads in order to isolate each of Mr. Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence in an effort to try and trash each of those fifty-three items.
> >
> > It's only by ISOLATING each of those 53 things individually that a conspiracy theorist can have a prayer at pretending Lee Oswald was innocent of killing either John Kennedy or J.D. Tippit.
> >
> > But when those 53 things are PACKAGED TOGETHER as one unit, Oswald's guilt is undeniable. And there's NOTHING a conspiracy nut like Ben Holmes can do about it." -- DVP; February 1, 2017
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8nzyuR2YWV0/XNGB-JU4DgAJ
>
>
> If you cannot defend the individual items, THEN YOU CANNOT DEFEND THE ENTIRETY.
Could you see a defense attorney trying "My client is guilty of merely pulling the trigger that fired the bullet, plenty of people pull triggers that fire bullets and we don`t try them all for murder, so why should my client be any different?"
Ben Holmes
Mar 17, 2017, 12:31:07 PM3/17/17
to
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:04:24 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:51:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 10:41:36 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > Another comment worth a replay....
> > >
> > > "[Vincent Bugliosi's "53 Items"] are items that ANY reasonable person would certainly consider when trying to determine whether or not the person charged with committing the murder of JFK was actually guilty of that crime or not.
> > >
> > > The individual items being considered are then PLACED TOGETHER IN A BUNDLE (instead of being kept isolated from one another, which is what CTers always do), and then the WHOLE SUM TOTAL of those individual elements are weighed to reach a final conclusion.
> > >
> > > That's exactly what Vincent Bugliosi does in his "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his book "Reclaiming History", and only a biased conspiracy-giddy person who is bent on exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald would have a desire to start up 53 separate forum threads in order to isolate each of Mr. Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence in an effort to try and trash each of those fifty-three items.
> > >
> > > It's only by ISOLATING each of those 53 things individually that a conspiracy theorist can have a prayer at pretending Lee Oswald was innocent of killing either John Kennedy or J.D. Tippit.
> > >
> > > But when those 53 things are PACKAGED TOGETHER as one unit, Oswald's guilt is undeniable. And there's NOTHING a conspiracy nut like Ben Holmes can do about it." -- DVP; February 1, 2017
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8nzyuR2YWV0/XNGB-JU4DgAJ
> >
> >
> > If you cannot defend the individual items, THEN YOU CANNOT DEFEND THE ENTIRETY.
>
> This is retarded thinking. You can associate ANY action with a non-malicious cause, including pulling a trigger or plunging a knife.
Indeed you can. You can plunge your knife into the dead carcass of a pig as you butcher it.
> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:51:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 10:41:36 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > Another comment worth a replay....
> > >
> > > "[Vincent Bugliosi's "53 Items"] are items that ANY reasonable person would certainly consider when trying to determine whether or not the person charged with committing the murder of JFK was actually guilty of that crime or not.
> > >
> > > The individual items being considered are then PLACED TOGETHER IN A BUNDLE (instead of being kept isolated from one another, which is what CTers always do), and then the WHOLE SUM TOTAL of those individual elements are weighed to reach a final conclusion.
> > >
> > > That's exactly what Vincent Bugliosi does in his "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his book "Reclaiming History", and only a biased conspiracy-giddy person who is bent on exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald would have a desire to start up 53 separate forum threads in order to isolate each of Mr. Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence in an effort to try and trash each of those fifty-three items.
> > >
> > > It's only by ISOLATING each of those 53 things individually that a conspiracy theorist can have a prayer at pretending Lee Oswald was innocent of killing either John Kennedy or J.D. Tippit.
> > >
> > > But when those 53 things are PACKAGED TOGETHER as one unit, Oswald's guilt is undeniable. And there's NOTHING a conspiracy nut like Ben Holmes can do about it." -- DVP; February 1, 2017
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8nzyuR2YWV0/XNGB-JU4DgAJ
> >
> >
> > If you cannot defend the individual items, THEN YOU CANNOT DEFEND THE ENTIRETY.
>
> This is retarded thinking. You can associate ANY action with a non-malicious cause, including pulling a trigger or plunging a knife.
But sadly, your sentence had absolutely NOTHING to do with what I stated.
If you cannot defend the individual bits of "evidence" as showing guilt in a murder, then you cannot add them all up and make them more than they are.
> Could you see a defense attorney trying "My client is guilty of merely pulling the trigger that fired the bullet, plenty of people pull triggers that fire bullets and we don`t try them all for murder, so why should my client be any different?"
Bud
Mar 17, 2017, 12:34:00 PM3/17/17
to
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 12:31:07 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:04:24 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:51:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 10:41:36 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > Another comment worth a replay....
> > > >
> > > > "[Vincent Bugliosi's "53 Items"] are items that ANY reasonable person would certainly consider when trying to determine whether or not the person charged with committing the murder of JFK was actually guilty of that crime or not.
> > > >
> > > > The individual items being considered are then PLACED TOGETHER IN A BUNDLE (instead of being kept isolated from one another, which is what CTers always do), and then the WHOLE SUM TOTAL of those individual elements are weighed to reach a final conclusion.
> > > >
> > > > That's exactly what Vincent Bugliosi does in his "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his book "Reclaiming History", and only a biased conspiracy-giddy person who is bent on exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald would have a desire to start up 53 separate forum threads in order to isolate each of Mr. Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence in an effort to try and trash each of those fifty-three items.
> > > >
> > > > It's only by ISOLATING each of those 53 things individually that a conspiracy theorist can have a prayer at pretending Lee Oswald was innocent of killing either John Kennedy or J.D. Tippit.
> > > >
> > > > But when those 53 things are PACKAGED TOGETHER as one unit, Oswald's guilt is undeniable. And there's NOTHING a conspiracy nut like Ben Holmes can do about it." -- DVP; February 1, 2017
> > > >
> > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8nzyuR2YWV0/XNGB-JU4DgAJ
> > >
> > >
> > > If you cannot defend the individual items, THEN YOU CANNOT DEFEND THE ENTIRETY.
> >
> > This is retarded thinking. You can associate ANY action with a non-malicious cause, including pulling a trigger or plunging a knife.
>
>
> Indeed you can. You can plunge your knife into the dead carcass of a pig as you butcher it.
>
> But sadly, your sentence had absolutely NOTHING to do with what I stated.
Of course it does. You are isolating actions as if they occurred in a vacuum.
> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:04:24 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:51:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 10:41:36 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > Another comment worth a replay....
> > > >
> > > > "[Vincent Bugliosi's "53 Items"] are items that ANY reasonable person would certainly consider when trying to determine whether or not the person charged with committing the murder of JFK was actually guilty of that crime or not.
> > > >
> > > > The individual items being considered are then PLACED TOGETHER IN A BUNDLE (instead of being kept isolated from one another, which is what CTers always do), and then the WHOLE SUM TOTAL of those individual elements are weighed to reach a final conclusion.
> > > >
> > > > That's exactly what Vincent Bugliosi does in his "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his book "Reclaiming History", and only a biased conspiracy-giddy person who is bent on exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald would have a desire to start up 53 separate forum threads in order to isolate each of Mr. Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence in an effort to try and trash each of those fifty-three items.
> > > >
> > > > It's only by ISOLATING each of those 53 things individually that a conspiracy theorist can have a prayer at pretending Lee Oswald was innocent of killing either John Kennedy or J.D. Tippit.
> > > >
> > > > But when those 53 things are PACKAGED TOGETHER as one unit, Oswald's guilt is undeniable. And there's NOTHING a conspiracy nut like Ben Holmes can do about it." -- DVP; February 1, 2017
> > > >
> > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8nzyuR2YWV0/XNGB-JU4DgAJ
> > >
> > >
> > > If you cannot defend the individual items, THEN YOU CANNOT DEFEND THE ENTIRETY.
> >
> > This is retarded thinking. You can associate ANY action with a non-malicious cause, including pulling a trigger or plunging a knife.
>
>
> Indeed you can. You can plunge your knife into the dead carcass of a pig as you butcher it.
>
> But sadly, your sentence had absolutely NOTHING to do with what I stated.
> If you cannot defend the individual bits of "evidence" as showing guilt in a murder, then you cannot add them all up and make them more than they are.
Ben Holmes
Mar 17, 2017, 12:55:42 PM3/17/17
to
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:34:00 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 12:31:07 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:04:24 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:51:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 10:41:36 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > Another comment worth a replay....
> > > > >
> > > > > "[Vincent Bugliosi's "53 Items"] are items that ANY reasonable person would certainly consider when trying to determine whether or not the person charged with committing the murder of JFK was actually guilty of that crime or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > The individual items being considered are then PLACED TOGETHER IN A BUNDLE (instead of being kept isolated from one another, which is what CTers always do), and then the WHOLE SUM TOTAL of those individual elements are weighed to reach a final conclusion.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's exactly what Vincent Bugliosi does in his "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his book "Reclaiming History", and only a biased conspiracy-giddy person who is bent on exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald would have a desire to start up 53 separate forum threads in order to isolate each of Mr. Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence in an effort to try and trash each of those fifty-three items.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's only by ISOLATING each of those 53 things individually that a conspiracy theorist can have a prayer at pretending Lee Oswald was innocent of killing either John Kennedy or J.D. Tippit.
> > > > >
> > > > > But when those 53 things are PACKAGED TOGETHER as one unit, Oswald's guilt is undeniable. And there's NOTHING a conspiracy nut like Ben Holmes can do about it." -- DVP; February 1, 2017
> > > > >
> > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8nzyuR2YWV0/XNGB-JU4DgAJ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you cannot defend the individual items, THEN YOU CANNOT DEFEND THE ENTIRETY.
> > >
> > > This is retarded thinking. You can associate ANY action with a non-malicious cause, including pulling a trigger or plunging a knife.
> >
> >
> > Indeed you can. You can plunge your knife into the dead carcass of a pig as you butcher it.
> >
> > But sadly, your sentence had absolutely NOTHING to do with what I stated.
>
> Of course it does. You are isolating actions as if they occurred in a vacuum.
That's PRECISELY what I'm doing... and demonstrating that each and every one of them doesn't support what Bugliosi claimed it did.
> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 12:31:07 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:04:24 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:51:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 10:41:36 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > Another comment worth a replay....
> > > > >
> > > > > "[Vincent Bugliosi's "53 Items"] are items that ANY reasonable person would certainly consider when trying to determine whether or not the person charged with committing the murder of JFK was actually guilty of that crime or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > The individual items being considered are then PLACED TOGETHER IN A BUNDLE (instead of being kept isolated from one another, which is what CTers always do), and then the WHOLE SUM TOTAL of those individual elements are weighed to reach a final conclusion.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's exactly what Vincent Bugliosi does in his "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his book "Reclaiming History", and only a biased conspiracy-giddy person who is bent on exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald would have a desire to start up 53 separate forum threads in order to isolate each of Mr. Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence in an effort to try and trash each of those fifty-three items.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's only by ISOLATING each of those 53 things individually that a conspiracy theorist can have a prayer at pretending Lee Oswald was innocent of killing either John Kennedy or J.D. Tippit.
> > > > >
> > > > > But when those 53 things are PACKAGED TOGETHER as one unit, Oswald's guilt is undeniable. And there's NOTHING a conspiracy nut like Ben Holmes can do about it." -- DVP; February 1, 2017
> > > > >
> > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8nzyuR2YWV0/XNGB-JU4DgAJ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you cannot defend the individual items, THEN YOU CANNOT DEFEND THE ENTIRETY.
> > >
> > > This is retarded thinking. You can associate ANY action with a non-malicious cause, including pulling a trigger or plunging a knife.
> >
> >
> > Indeed you can. You can plunge your knife into the dead carcass of a pig as you butcher it.
> >
> > But sadly, your sentence had absolutely NOTHING to do with what I stated.
>
> Of course it does. You are isolating actions as if they occurred in a vacuum.
They don't magically change character when you add them all up.
> > If you cannot defend the individual bits of "evidence" as showing guilt in a murder, then you cannot add them all up and make them more than they are.
>
> People pull triggers all the time with no ill effect. Now we can`t associate that action with gun murders.
When you can explain how reading or not reading a newspaper shows ANY SORT OF GUILT WHATSOEVER in a murder case, you'll have taken the first step forward.
Bud
Mar 17, 2017, 1:07:25 PM3/17/17
to
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 12:55:42 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:34:00 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 12:31:07 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:04:24 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:51:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 10:41:36 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > > Another comment worth a replay....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "[Vincent Bugliosi's "53 Items"] are items that ANY reasonable person would certainly consider when trying to determine whether or not the person charged with committing the murder of JFK was actually guilty of that crime or not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The individual items being considered are then PLACED TOGETHER IN A BUNDLE (instead of being kept isolated from one another, which is what CTers always do), and then the WHOLE SUM TOTAL of those individual elements are weighed to reach a final conclusion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's exactly what Vincent Bugliosi does in his "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his book "Reclaiming History", and only a biased conspiracy-giddy person who is bent on exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald would have a desire to start up 53 separate forum threads in order to isolate each of Mr. Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence in an effort to try and trash each of those fifty-three items.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's only by ISOLATING each of those 53 things individually that a conspiracy theorist can have a prayer at pretending Lee Oswald was innocent of killing either John Kennedy or J.D. Tippit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But when those 53 things are PACKAGED TOGETHER as one unit, Oswald's guilt is undeniable. And there's NOTHING a conspiracy nut like Ben Holmes can do about it." -- DVP; February 1, 2017
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8nzyuR2YWV0/XNGB-JU4DgAJ
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If you cannot defend the individual items, THEN YOU CANNOT DEFEND THE ENTIRETY.
> > > >
> > > > This is retarded thinking. You can associate ANY action with a non-malicious cause, including pulling a trigger or plunging a knife.
> > >
> > >
> > > Indeed you can. You can plunge your knife into the dead carcass of a pig as you butcher it.
> > >
> > > But sadly, your sentence had absolutely NOTHING to do with what I stated.
> >
> > Of course it does. You are isolating actions as if they occurred in a vacuum.
>
>
> That's PRECISELY what I'm doing... and demonstrating that each and every one of them doesn't support what Bugliosi claimed it did.
>
> They don't magically change character when you add them all up.
You say this because you have no aptitude for investigation. You have no concept of building a case.
> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:34:00 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 12:31:07 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:04:24 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:51:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 10:41:36 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > > Another comment worth a replay....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "[Vincent Bugliosi's "53 Items"] are items that ANY reasonable person would certainly consider when trying to determine whether or not the person charged with committing the murder of JFK was actually guilty of that crime or not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The individual items being considered are then PLACED TOGETHER IN A BUNDLE (instead of being kept isolated from one another, which is what CTers always do), and then the WHOLE SUM TOTAL of those individual elements are weighed to reach a final conclusion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's exactly what Vincent Bugliosi does in his "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his book "Reclaiming History", and only a biased conspiracy-giddy person who is bent on exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald would have a desire to start up 53 separate forum threads in order to isolate each of Mr. Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence in an effort to try and trash each of those fifty-three items.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's only by ISOLATING each of those 53 things individually that a conspiracy theorist can have a prayer at pretending Lee Oswald was innocent of killing either John Kennedy or J.D. Tippit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But when those 53 things are PACKAGED TOGETHER as one unit, Oswald's guilt is undeniable. And there's NOTHING a conspiracy nut like Ben Holmes can do about it." -- DVP; February 1, 2017
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8nzyuR2YWV0/XNGB-JU4DgAJ
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If you cannot defend the individual items, THEN YOU CANNOT DEFEND THE ENTIRETY.
> > > >
> > > > This is retarded thinking. You can associate ANY action with a non-malicious cause, including pulling a trigger or plunging a knife.
> > >
> > >
> > > Indeed you can. You can plunge your knife into the dead carcass of a pig as you butcher it.
> > >
> > > But sadly, your sentence had absolutely NOTHING to do with what I stated.
> >
> > Of course it does. You are isolating actions as if they occurred in a vacuum.
>
>
> That's PRECISELY what I'm doing... and demonstrating that each and every one of them doesn't support what Bugliosi claimed it did.
>
> They don't magically change character when you add them all up.
> > > If you cannot defend the individual bits of "evidence" as showing guilt in a murder, then you cannot add them all up and make them more than they are.
> >
> > People pull triggers all the time with no ill effect. Now we can`t associate that action with gun murders.
>
>
> Strawman again...
>
> When you can explain how reading or not reading a newspaper shows ANY SORT OF GUILT WHATSOEVER in a murder case, you'll have taken the first step forward.
Ben Holmes
Mar 17, 2017, 1:53:24 PM3/17/17
to
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 10:07:25 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 12:55:42 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:34:00 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 12:31:07 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:04:24 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:51:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 10:41:36 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > > > Another comment worth a replay....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "[Vincent Bugliosi's "53 Items"] are items that ANY reasonable person would certainly consider when trying to determine whether or not the person charged with committing the murder of JFK was actually guilty of that crime or not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The individual items being considered are then PLACED TOGETHER IN A BUNDLE (instead of being kept isolated from one another, which is what CTers always do), and then the WHOLE SUM TOTAL of those individual elements are weighed to reach a final conclusion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's exactly what Vincent Bugliosi does in his "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his book "Reclaiming History", and only a biased conspiracy-giddy person who is bent on exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald would have a desire to start up 53 separate forum threads in order to isolate each of Mr. Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence in an effort to try and trash each of those fifty-three items.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's only by ISOLATING each of those 53 things individually that a conspiracy theorist can have a prayer at pretending Lee Oswald was innocent of killing either John Kennedy or J.D. Tippit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But when those 53 things are PACKAGED TOGETHER as one unit, Oswald's guilt is undeniable. And there's NOTHING a conspiracy nut like Ben Holmes can do about it." -- DVP; February 1, 2017
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8nzyuR2YWV0/XNGB-JU4DgAJ
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you cannot defend the individual items, THEN YOU CANNOT DEFEND THE ENTIRETY.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is retarded thinking. You can associate ANY action with a non-malicious cause, including pulling a trigger or plunging a knife.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Indeed you can. You can plunge your knife into the dead carcass of a pig as you butcher it.
> > > >
> > > > But sadly, your sentence had absolutely NOTHING to do with what I stated.
> > >
> > > Of course it does. You are isolating actions as if they occurred in a vacuum.
> >
> >
> > That's PRECISELY what I'm doing... and demonstrating that each and every one of them doesn't support what Bugliosi claimed it did.
> >
> > They don't magically change character when you add them all up.
>
> You say this because you have no aptitude for investigation. You have no concept of building a case.
I say it, and you can't refute it.
> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 12:55:42 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:34:00 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 12:31:07 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:04:24 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:51:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 10:41:36 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > > > Another comment worth a replay....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "[Vincent Bugliosi's "53 Items"] are items that ANY reasonable person would certainly consider when trying to determine whether or not the person charged with committing the murder of JFK was actually guilty of that crime or not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The individual items being considered are then PLACED TOGETHER IN A BUNDLE (instead of being kept isolated from one another, which is what CTers always do), and then the WHOLE SUM TOTAL of those individual elements are weighed to reach a final conclusion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's exactly what Vincent Bugliosi does in his "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his book "Reclaiming History", and only a biased conspiracy-giddy person who is bent on exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald would have a desire to start up 53 separate forum threads in order to isolate each of Mr. Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence in an effort to try and trash each of those fifty-three items.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's only by ISOLATING each of those 53 things individually that a conspiracy theorist can have a prayer at pretending Lee Oswald was innocent of killing either John Kennedy or J.D. Tippit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But when those 53 things are PACKAGED TOGETHER as one unit, Oswald's guilt is undeniable. And there's NOTHING a conspiracy nut like Ben Holmes can do about it." -- DVP; February 1, 2017
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8nzyuR2YWV0/XNGB-JU4DgAJ
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you cannot defend the individual items, THEN YOU CANNOT DEFEND THE ENTIRETY.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is retarded thinking. You can associate ANY action with a non-malicious cause, including pulling a trigger or plunging a knife.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Indeed you can. You can plunge your knife into the dead carcass of a pig as you butcher it.
> > > >
> > > > But sadly, your sentence had absolutely NOTHING to do with what I stated.
> > >
> > > Of course it does. You are isolating actions as if they occurred in a vacuum.
> >
> >
> > That's PRECISELY what I'm doing... and demonstrating that each and every one of them doesn't support what Bugliosi claimed it did.
> >
> > They don't magically change character when you add them all up.
>
> You say this because you have no aptitude for investigation. You have no concept of building a case.
No matter how many fake trees you put in one area, they don't change into a real forest.
0 new messages