Vincent Bugliosi's 53 "Reasons", #1

judos...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 21, 2017, 12:47:26 PM1/21/17

to

Vincent Bugliosi, famed prosecutor who put away Charles Manson for the Tate-LaBianca murders, has written what is indisputably the longest book defending the Warren Commission's conclusion that a lone nut, Lee Harvey Oswald, shot JFK. Weighing in at 1,612 pages, and a CD that has an additional 1,159 pages of footnotes, Mr. Bugliosi makes a strong case.

That is, if you don't know the evidence.

Mr. Bugliosi lists 53 reasons that "proved Oswald's guilt," and I'd like to go through them one by one, and show that they do no such thing. Please keep in mind that I've abbreviated most of Bugliosi's points, and lest I be accused of being misleading, I've actually taken the abbreviated list from McAdam's Forum - a Warren Commission Believer compiled this list. I've been careful to expand the point Bugliosi was making on occasion for more accuracy - but I've not shortened any of these...

(1) Oswald always visited Marina in Irving on a Friday. Nov 21 was the first Thursday visit ever.

Background: Oswald and Marina were married, but living apart at the time. Oswald almost always spent the weekends with Marina, but didn't usually visit midweek.

On the day before President Kennedy was assassinated, Oswald went to Irving Texas to visit Marina.

The Warren Commission and Vincent Bugliosi wish to argue that because this was an unique event, it had to be related to Oswald picking up a rifle to kill the President with. (this is, in fact, exactly what Bugliosi asserts.) If Oswald had visited midweek before, this argument loses much of it's force.

And, in fact, Bugliosi is lying about Nov 21st being the 'first Thursday visit ever.' Nor is it the first midweek visit. It's true that such midweek visits weren't common - but it's a lie to state that they never occurred.

Let's examine the evidence that Bugliosi surely knew of:

"Mrs. Tarrants stated as best as she recalls, on Thursday night, October 31, 1963 LEE HARVEY OSWALD appeared at the cashier's cage and presented the above check to her and requested that it be cashed." (CE 1165 pg 6)
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1165.pdf

While this is certainly short of absolute proof of a prior Thursday visit, it's also certainly evidence of one. Evidence that Bugliosi surely knew of, and has not refuted. So he knew he was lying when he tried to make the claim that Nov 21st was the 'first Thursday visit ever.'

Oswald is also known to have gone back to Irving on a Monday, Oct 21, after the birth of his second child. Bugliosi surely knew this from the testimony of witnesses before the Warren Commission.

Lying about the known evidence in order to 'create' evidence for your belief isn't very convincing.

It's CERTAINLY not proof that Oswald murdered JFK.

Bud

unread,

Jan 22, 2017, 8:40:16 AM1/22/17

to

You failed to show that Bugliosi`s assertion is untrue.

> It's CERTAINLY not proof that Oswald murdered JFK.

I suppose Bugs was saying that *collectively* they prove Oswald`s guilt.

judos...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 22, 2017, 11:01:27 AM1/22/17

to

You're lying again, "Bud".

You're going to have to do much better than this.

> > It's CERTAINLY not proof that Oswald murdered JFK.
>
> I suppose Bugs was saying that *collectively* they prove Oswald`s guilt.

If none of them individually demonstrate guilt, then they cannot add up to guilt.

I can see why you're afraid of these posts... I cite the evidence, and all you have to counter it is your naked opinion.

Bud

unread,

Jan 22, 2017, 11:54:56 AM1/22/17

to

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 11:01:27 AM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 5:40:16 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 12:47:26 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Vincent Bugliosi, famed prosecutor who put away Charles Manson for the Tate-LaBianca murders, has written what is indisputably the longest book defending the Warren Commission's conclusion that a lone nut, Lee Harvey Oswald, shot JFK. Weighing in at 1,612 pages, and a CD that has an additional 1,159 pages of footnotes, Mr. Bugliosi makes a strong case.
> > >
> > > That is, if you don't know the evidence.
> > >
> > > Mr. Bugliosi lists 53 reasons that "proved Oswald's guilt," and I'd like to go through them one by one, and show that they do no such thing. Please keep in mind that I've abbreviated most of Bugliosi's points, and lest I be accused of being misleading, I've actually taken the abbreviated list from McAdam's Forum - a Warren Commission Believer compiled this list. I've been careful to expand the point Bugliosi was making on occasion for more accuracy - but I've not shortened any of these...
> > >
> > >
> > > (1) Oswald always visited Marina in Irving on a Friday. Nov 21 was the first Thursday visit ever.
> > >
> > > Background: Oswald and Marina were married, but living apart at the time. Oswald almost always spent the weekends with Marina, but didn't usually visit midweek.
> > >
> > > On the day before President Kennedy was assassinated, Oswald went to Irving Texas to visit Marina.
> > >
> > > The Warren Commission and Vincent Bugliosi wish to argue that because this was an unique event, it had to be related to Oswald picking up a rifle to kill the President with. (this is, in fact, exactly what Bugliosi asserts.) If Oswald had visited midweek before, this argument loses much of it's force.
> > >
> > > And, in fact, Bugliosi is lying about Nov 21st being the 'first Thursday visit ever.' Nor is it the first midweek visit. It's true that such midweek visits weren't common - but it's a lie to state that they never occurred.
> > >
> > > Let's examine the evidence that Bugliosi surely knew of:
> > >
> > > "Mrs. Tarrants stated as best as she recalls, on Thursday night, October 31, 1963 LEE HARVEY OSWALD appeared at the cashier's cage and presented the above check to her and requested that it be cashed." (CE 1165 pg 6)
> > > http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1165.pdf
> > >
> > > While this is certainly short of absolute proof of a prior Thursday visit, it's also certainly evidence of one. Evidence that Bugliosi surely knew of, and has not refuted. So he knew he was lying when he tried to make the claim that Nov 21st was the 'first Thursday visit ever.'
> > >
> > > Oswald is also known to have gone back to Irving on a Monday, Oct 21, after the birth of his second child. Bugliosi surely knew this from the testimony of witnesses before the Warren Commission.
> > >
> > > Lying about the known evidence in order to 'create' evidence for your belief isn't very convincing.
> >
> > You failed to show that Bugliosi`s assertion is untrue.
>
> You're lying again, "Bud".

You bluster and this statement by me remains true...

"You failed to show that Bugliosi`s assertion is untrue."

> You're going to have to do much better than this.

I hope you aren`t to stupid to realize that to show Bugliosi to be wrong you would have to show that Oswald stayed over the Paine`s house during the week. Do you really believe you have done this?

>
>
> > > It's CERTAINLY not proof that Oswald murdered JFK.
> >
> > I suppose Bugs was saying that *collectively* they prove Oswald`s guilt.
>
> If none of them individually demonstrate guilt, then they cannot add up to guilt.

Bugliosi seems to assert that collectively they do. You assert they do not.

You`re off to a bad start.

> I can see why you're afraid of these posts... I cite the evidence, and all you have to counter it is your naked opinion.

What evidence did you cite that established that Oswald stayed overnight at the Paine`s house during the week?

judos...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 22, 2017, 1:03:44 PM1/22/17

to

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 8:54:56 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 11:01:27 AM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 5:40:16 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 12:47:26 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Vincent Bugliosi, famed prosecutor who put away Charles Manson for the Tate-LaBianca murders, has written what is indisputably the longest book defending the Warren Commission's conclusion that a lone nut, Lee Harvey Oswald, shot JFK. Weighing in at 1,612 pages, and a CD that has an additional 1,159 pages of footnotes, Mr. Bugliosi makes a strong case.
> > > >
> > > > That is, if you don't know the evidence.
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Bugliosi lists 53 reasons that "proved Oswald's guilt," and I'd like to go through them one by one, and show that they do no such thing. Please keep in mind that I've abbreviated most of Bugliosi's points, and lest I be accused of being misleading, I've actually taken the abbreviated list from McAdam's Forum - a Warren Commission Believer compiled this list. I've been careful to expand the point Bugliosi was making on occasion for more accuracy - but I've not shortened any of these...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (1) Oswald always visited Marina in Irving on a Friday. Nov 21 was the first Thursday visit ever.
> > > >
> > > > Background: Oswald and Marina were married, but living apart at the time. Oswald almost always spent the weekends with Marina, but didn't usually visit midweek.
> > > >
> > > > On the day before President Kennedy was assassinated, Oswald went to Irving Texas to visit Marina.
> > > >
> > > > The Warren Commission and Vincent Bugliosi wish to argue that because this was an unique event, it had to be related to Oswald picking up a rifle to kill the President with. (this is, in fact, exactly what Bugliosi asserts.) If Oswald had visited midweek before, this argument loses much of it's force.
> > > >
> > > > And, in fact, Bugliosi is lying about Nov 21st being the 'first Thursday visit ever.' Nor is it the first midweek visit. It's true that such midweek visits weren't common - but it's a lie to state that they never occurred.
> > > >
> > > > Let's examine the evidence that Bugliosi surely knew of:
> > > >
> > > > "Mrs. Tarrants stated as best as she recalls, on Thursday night, October 31, 1963 LEE HARVEY OSWALD appeared at the cashier's cage and presented the above check to her and requested that it be cashed." (CE 1165 pg 6)
> > > > http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1165.pdf
> > > >
> > > > While this is certainly short of absolute proof of a prior Thursday visit, it's also certainly evidence of one. Evidence that Bugliosi surely knew of, and has not refuted. So he knew he was lying when he tried to make the claim that Nov 21st was the 'first Thursday visit ever.'
> > > >
> > > > Oswald is also known to have gone back to Irving on a Monday, Oct 21, after the birth of his second child. Bugliosi surely knew this from the testimony of witnesses before the Warren Commission.
> > > >
> > > > Lying about the known evidence in order to 'create' evidence for your belief isn't very convincing.
> > >
> > > You failed to show that Bugliosi`s assertion is untrue.
> >
> > You're lying again, "Bud".
>
> You bluster and this statement by me remains true...
>
> "You failed to show that Bugliosi`s assertion is untrue."
>
> > You're going to have to do much better than this.
>
> I hope you aren`t to stupid to realize that to show Bugliosi to be wrong you would have to show that Oswald stayed over the Paine`s house during the week. Do you really believe you have done this?

Nope. I merely have to cite the evidence showing that he did.

Bugliosi lied by evading this evidence.

> > > > It's CERTAINLY not proof that Oswald murdered JFK.
> > >
> > > I suppose Bugs was saying that *collectively* they prove Oswald`s guilt.
> >
> > If none of them individually demonstrate guilt, then they cannot add up to guilt.
>
> Bugliosi seems to assert that collectively they do. You assert they do not.
>
> You`re off to a bad start.

Nah... I'm off to an HONEST one. I'm not making an assertion that the average person would disagree with.

> > I can see why you're afraid of these posts... I cite the evidence, and all you have to counter it is your naked opinion.
>
> What evidence did you cite that established that Oswald stayed overnight at the Paine`s house during the week?

Nope. Logical fallacy. You'll have to play with your own strawman...

Bud

unread,

Jan 22, 2017, 1:17:18 PM1/22/17

to

Are you really this stupid? Your cite does not establish that Oswald ever stayed over the Paine`s house during the week.

> Bugliosi lied by evading this evidence.
>
>
>
> > > > > It's CERTAINLY not proof that Oswald murdered JFK.
> > > >
> > > > I suppose Bugs was saying that *collectively* they prove Oswald`s guilt.
> > >
> > > If none of them individually demonstrate guilt, then they cannot add up to guilt.
> >
> > Bugliosi seems to assert that collectively they do. You assert they do not.
> >
> > You`re off to a bad start.
>
>
> Nah... I'm off to an HONEST one. I'm not making an assertion that the average person would disagree with.

So your invisible friends and the voices in your head agree with your assessment. Meanwhile what you cited no more establishes that Oswald stayed over the Paine`s during the week than it shows that Oswald was an alien.

>
> > > I can see why you're afraid of these posts... I cite the evidence, and all you have to counter it is your naked opinion.
> >
> > What evidence did you cite that established that Oswald stayed overnight at the Paine`s house during the week?
>
>
> Nope. Logical fallacy.

How can it be a logic fallacy to address your position?

Bugliosi said this...

"Oswald always visited Marina in Irving on a Friday. Nov 21 was the first Thursday visit ever."

Your position is that this isn`t true. In order to show this to be untrue you would have to establish that Oswald stayed over the Paine`s at other times on a weekday. Either you are too stupid to understand this or too dishonest to admit your failure. I`m going with dishonest.

judos...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 22, 2017, 2:48:39 PM1/22/17

to

Nope... I don't need to "establish" that Oswald did - merely that there's evidence he did that Bugliosi evaded.

Had Bugliosi been truthful, he could not have argued as he did.

> > Bugliosi lied by evading this evidence.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > It's CERTAINLY not proof that Oswald murdered JFK.
> > > > >
> > > > > I suppose Bugs was saying that *collectively* they prove Oswald`s guilt.
> > > >
> > > > If none of them individually demonstrate guilt, then they cannot add up to guilt.
> > >
> > > Bugliosi seems to assert that collectively they do. You assert they do not.
> > >
> > > You`re off to a bad start.
> >
> >
> > Nah... I'm off to an HONEST one. I'm not making an assertion that the average person would disagree with.
>
> So your invisible friends and the voices in your head agree with your assessment. Meanwhile what you cited no more establishes that Oswald stayed over the Paine`s during the week than it shows that Oswald was an alien.

Feel free to cite the evidence that Oswald's first Thursday visit to Irving took place on Nov. 21th, 1963.

But my crystal ball is telling me that your assertion will not be supported by any citation at all.

Why the constant cowardice, "Bud?"

> > > > I can see why you're afraid of these posts... I cite the evidence, and all you have to counter it is your naked opinion.
> > >
> > > What evidence did you cite that established that Oswald stayed overnight at the Paine`s house during the week?
> >
> >
> > Nope. Logical fallacy.
>
> How can it be a logic fallacy to address your position?
>
> Bugliosi said this...
>
> "Oswald always visited Marina in Irving on a Friday. Nov 21 was the first Thursday visit ever."

And all you have to do is cite the evidence for this false assertion.

But you won't... you're a coward.

> Your position is that this isn`t true.

No "Bud"... do try to tell the truth.

My position is that the EVIDENCE supports the fact that Bugliosi's claim is not true.

And you can't refute that.

So you make the dishonest attempt to put words in my mouth.

> In order to show this to be untrue you would have to establish that Oswald stayed over the Paine`s at other times on a weekday. Either you are too stupid to understand this or too dishonest to admit your failure. I`m going with dishonest.

I've already cited the evidence for prior Thursday visits. Where's your evidence that Nov 21st, 1963 was the first?

Quite the coward, aren't you "Bud?"

Bud

unread,

Jan 22, 2017, 4:14:22 PM1/22/17

to

Refute <verb>: prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.

Have you refuted Bugliosi`s claim? No, so you want to move the goalposts to just casting doubt. Just be honest in the headers and say you are going to cast doubt on Bugliosi`s assertions if that is your objective.

> Had Bugliosi been truthful, he could not have argued as he did.
>
>
>
> > > Bugliosi lied by evading this evidence.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > It's CERTAINLY not proof that Oswald murdered JFK.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I suppose Bugs was saying that *collectively* they prove Oswald`s guilt.
> > > > >
> > > > > If none of them individually demonstrate guilt, then they cannot add up to guilt.
> > > >
> > > > Bugliosi seems to assert that collectively they do. You assert they do not.
> > > >
> > > > You`re off to a bad start.
> > >
> > >
> > > Nah... I'm off to an HONEST one. I'm not making an assertion that the average person would disagree with.
> >
> > So your invisible friends and the voices in your head agree with your assessment. Meanwhile what you cited no more establishes that Oswald stayed over the Paine`s during the week than it shows that Oswald was an alien.
>
>
> Feel free to cite the evidence that Oswald's first Thursday visit to Irving took place on Nov. 21th, 1963.

I can`t even prove the Oswald never slept on the roof of the TSBD overnight. I think that is the kind of thing that can only be shown to have happened, hard to prove a negative.

> But my crystal ball is telling me that your assertion will not be supported by any citation at all.

Again, you misunderstand the process. I don`t have to do anything but point out that you failed to do what you claimed you were going to do.

>
> Why the constant cowardice, "Bud?"

If you are going to continue in this manner can I suggest you start backing up what you say and stop trying to shift the burden onto me to unprove what you say?

>
> > > > > I can see why you're afraid of these posts... I cite the evidence, and all you have to counter it is your naked opinion.
> > > >
> > > > What evidence did you cite that established that Oswald stayed overnight at the Paine`s house during the week?
> > >
> > >
> > > Nope. Logical fallacy.
> >
> > How can it be a logic fallacy to address your position?
> >
> > Bugliosi said this...
> >
> > "Oswald always visited Marina in Irving on a Friday. Nov 21 was the first Thursday visit ever."
>
>
> And all you have to do is cite the evidence for this false assertion.
>
> But you won't... you're a coward.

I don`t have to do a thing. You came here claiming to be able to refute Bugliosi`s assertions. I`m waiting for the show to start.

>
> > Your position is that this isn`t true.
>
>
> No "Bud"... do try to tell the truth.
>
> My position is that the EVIDENCE supports the fact that Bugliosi's claim is not true.

A distinction without a difference, and a misunderstanding of the evidence to boot. What you produced does not establish that Oswald ever stayed at the Paine`s during the week. What you think the evidence indicates and what it proves are two different things, and that is a real distinction.

> And you can't refute that.
>
> So you make the dishonest attempt to put words in my mouth.

Little room with your foot always in there.

>
> > In order to show this to be untrue you would have to establish that Oswald stayed over the Paine`s at other times on a weekday. Either you are too stupid to understand this or too dishonest to admit your failure. I`m going with dishonest.
>
> I've already cited the evidence for prior Thursday visits.

Which do nothing to establish prior Thursday visits.

> Where's your evidence that Nov 21st, 1963 was the first?

Shifting the burden. When I start a post with a premise you can hold me to it.

judos...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 22, 2017, 6:07:38 PM1/22/17

to

Yep... I've refuted his claim that Nov 21st was the first Thursday that Oswald had ever spent in Irving.

I did so by citation to the evidence showing a previous Thursday visit.

Nor is it the first non-weekend visit, as I'm sure you must be aware.

So yes, Bugliosi's claim is disproven by the evidence.

The fact that you've been unable to name ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that supports Bugliosi's lie tells the true tale, doesn't it?

Why the cowardice, "Bud?"

> > Had Bugliosi been truthful, he could not have argued as he did.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Bugliosi lied by evading this evidence.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > It's CERTAINLY not proof that Oswald murdered JFK.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I suppose Bugs was saying that *collectively* they prove Oswald`s guilt.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If none of them individually demonstrate guilt, then they cannot add up to guilt.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bugliosi seems to assert that collectively they do. You assert they do not.
> > > > >
> > > > > You`re off to a bad start.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nah... I'm off to an HONEST one. I'm not making an assertion that the average person would disagree with.
> > >
> > > So your invisible friends and the voices in your head agree with your assessment. Meanwhile what you cited no more establishes that Oswald stayed over the Paine`s during the week than it shows that Oswald was an alien.
> >
> >
> > Feel free to cite the evidence that Oswald's first Thursday visit to Irving took place on Nov. 21th, 1963.
>
> I can`t even prove the Oswald never slept on the roof of the TSBD overnight. I think that is the kind of thing that can only be shown to have happened, hard to prove a negative.

Yep... just as I thought. You have NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Bugliosi's assertion is correct...

And you're too dishonest to acknowledge that I've cited evidence contrary to Bugliosi's claim... evidence that he couldn't have been unaware of.

So both of you are liars...

> > But my crystal ball is telling me that your assertion will not be supported by any citation at all.
>
> Again, you misunderstand the process. I don`t have to do anything but point out that you failed to do what you claimed you were going to do.

But my crystal ball is telling me that your assertion will not be supported by any citation at all.

Right again...

> > Why the constant cowardice, "Bud?"
>
> If you are going to continue in this manner can I suggest you start backing up what you say and stop trying to shift the burden onto me to unprove what you say?

I've been citing, you've been speculating.

Run coward... RUN!!!

> > > > > > I can see why you're afraid of these posts... I cite the evidence, and all you have to counter it is your naked opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > What evidence did you cite that established that Oswald stayed overnight at the Paine`s house during the week?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nope. Logical fallacy.
> > >
> > > How can it be a logic fallacy to address your position?
> > >
> > > Bugliosi said this...
> > >
> > > "Oswald always visited Marina in Irving on a Friday. Nov 21 was the first Thursday visit ever."
> >
> >
> > And all you have to do is cite the evidence for this false assertion.
> >
> > But you won't... you're a coward.
>
> I don`t have to do a thing. You came here claiming to be able to refute Bugliosi`s assertions. I`m waiting for the show to start.

Quite the coward, aren't you "Bud?"

> > > Your position is that this isn`t true.
> >
> >
> > No "Bud"... do try to tell the truth.
> >
> > My position is that the EVIDENCE supports the fact that Bugliosi's claim is not true.
>
> A distinction without a difference,

Liar.

> and a misunderstanding of the evidence to boot. What you produced does not establish that Oswald ever stayed at the Paine`s during the week.

There's that distinction again...

> What you think the evidence indicates and what it proves are two different things, and that is a real distinction.

Indeed it is... which is why you're lying.

And why I caught you at it, and corrected it.

> > And you can't refute that.
> >
> > So you make the dishonest attempt to put words in my mouth.
>
> Little room with your foot always in there.

Gutless little coward, aren't you?

> > > In order to show this to be untrue you would have to establish that Oswald stayed over the Paine`s at other times on a weekday. Either you are too stupid to understand this or too dishonest to admit your failure. I`m going with dishonest.
> >
> > I've already cited the evidence for prior Thursday visits.
>
> Which do nothing to establish prior Thursday visits.

Far more than you've cited...

That yellow streak down your back is getting wider, don't you think?

Start citing for your claims, or prove your cowardice...

> > Where's your evidence that Nov 21st, 1963 was the first?
>
> Shifting the burden. When I start a post with a premise you can hold me to it.

Coward, aren't you?

Bud

unread,

Jan 22, 2017, 6:40:25 PM1/22/17

to

Really? What other weekday did you establish that Oswald slept over?

> I did so by citation to the evidence showing a previous Thursday visit.

What you cited shows no such thing.

> Nor is it the first non-weekend visit, as I'm sure you must be aware.
>
> So yes, Bugliosi's claim is disproven by the evidence.

You have no established cases of Oswald sleeping at the Paines during the week. None.

> The fact that you've been unable to name ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that supports Bugliosi's lie tells the true tale, doesn't it?

Shifting the burden.

> Why the cowardice, "Bud?"
>
>
> > > Had Bugliosi been truthful, he could not have argued as he did.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Bugliosi lied by evading this evidence.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's CERTAINLY not proof that Oswald murdered JFK.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I suppose Bugs was saying that *collectively* they prove Oswald`s guilt.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If none of them individually demonstrate guilt, then they cannot add up to guilt.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bugliosi seems to assert that collectively they do. You assert they do not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You`re off to a bad start.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nah... I'm off to an HONEST one. I'm not making an assertion that the average person would disagree with.
> > > >
> > > > So your invisible friends and the voices in your head agree with your assessment. Meanwhile what you cited no more establishes that Oswald stayed over the Paine`s during the week than it shows that Oswald was an alien.
> > >
> > >
> > > Feel free to cite the evidence that Oswald's first Thursday visit to Irving took place on Nov. 21th, 1963.
> >
> > I can`t even prove the Oswald never slept on the roof of the TSBD overnight. I think that is the kind of thing that can only be shown to have happened, hard to prove a negative.
>
>
> Yep... just as I thought. You have NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Bugliosi's assertion is correct...

Did I start a series of posts claiming I was going to show Bugliosi`s claims to be correct?

> And you're too dishonest to acknowledge that I've cited evidence contrary to Bugliosi's claim... evidence that he couldn't have been unaware of.

You have a skewed idea of what is going on here. You said you were going to refute Bugliosi. I`m waiting.

> So both of you are liars...
>
>
> > > But my crystal ball is telling me that your assertion will not be supported by any citation at all.
> >
> > Again, you misunderstand the process. I don`t have to do anything but point out that you failed to do what you claimed you were going to do.
>
> But my crystal ball is telling me that your assertion will not be supported by any citation at all.
>
> Right again...

Shifting the burden.

>
> > > Why the constant cowardice, "Bud?"
> >
> > If you are going to continue in this manner can I suggest you start backing up what you say and stop trying to shift the burden onto me to unprove what you say?
>
>
> I've been citing, you've been speculating.

What you are citing falls short of your claim. They do not establish that Bugliosi was incorrect when he said that Oswald never stayed at the Paine`s during the week prior to 11-21.

> Run coward... RUN!!!
>
>
>
> > > > > > > I can see why you're afraid of these posts... I cite the evidence, and all you have to counter it is your naked opinion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What evidence did you cite that established that Oswald stayed overnight at the Paine`s house during the week?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope. Logical fallacy.
> > > >
> > > > How can it be a logic fallacy to address your position?
> > > >
> > > > Bugliosi said this...
> > > >
> > > > "Oswald always visited Marina in Irving on a Friday. Nov 21 was the first Thursday visit ever."
> > >
> > >
> > > And all you have to do is cite the evidence for this false assertion.
> > >
> > > But you won't... you're a coward.
> >
> > I don`t have to do a thing. You came here claiming to be able to refute Bugliosi`s assertions. I`m waiting for the show to start.
>
>
> Quite the coward, aren't you "Bud?"

Don`t lay your failure off on me.

>
>
> > > > Your position is that this isn`t true.
> > >
> > >
> > > No "Bud"... do try to tell the truth.
> > >
> > > My position is that the EVIDENCE supports the fact that Bugliosi's claim is not true.
> >
> > A distinction without a difference,
>
>
> Liar.

Your position is that what Bugliosi asserted in not true. Whether you understand that is not my problem.

>
> > and a misunderstanding of the evidence to boot. What you produced does not establish that Oswald ever stayed at the Paine`s during the week.
>
>
> There's that distinction again...
>
>
> > What you think the evidence indicates and what it proves are two different things, and that is a real distinction.
>
>
> Indeed it is... which is why you're lying.
>
> And why I caught you at it, and corrected it.
>
>
> > > And you can't refute that.
> > >
> > > So you make the dishonest attempt to put words in my mouth.
> >
> > Little room with your foot always in there.
>
>
> Gutless little coward, aren't you?

Killfile not working, pussy?

>
> > > > In order to show this to be untrue you would have to establish that Oswald stayed over the Paine`s at other times on a weekday. Either you are too stupid to understand this or too dishonest to admit your failure. I`m going with dishonest.
> > >
> > > I've already cited the evidence for prior Thursday visits.
> >
> > Which do nothing to establish prior Thursday visits.
>
>
> Far more than you've cited...

Either they establish them or they don`t.

> That yellow streak down your back is getting wider, don't you think?
>
> Start citing for your claims, or prove your cowardice...

Shifting the burden.

>
> > > Where's your evidence that Nov 21st, 1963 was the first?
> >
> > Shifting the burden. When I start a post with a premise you can hold me to it.
>
> Coward, aren't you?

You just don`t understand the process.

judos...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 22, 2017, 7:22:31 PM1/22/17

to

What other weekday did I cite evidence supporting Oswald's presence in Irving?

> > I did so by citation to the evidence showing a previous Thursday visit.
>
> What you cited shows no such thing.

You're lying again, "Bud."

> > Nor is it the first non-weekend visit, as I'm sure you must be aware.
> >
> > So yes, Bugliosi's claim is disproven by the evidence.
>
> You have no established cases of Oswald sleeping at the Paines during the week. None.

Did I cite evidence supporting Oswald's presence in Irving on a weekday?

Bud

unread,

Jan 22, 2017, 9:12:04 PM1/22/17

to

You have what you don`t need and you don`t have what you do.

>
>
> > > I did so by citation to the evidence showing a previous Thursday visit.
> >
> > What you cited shows no such thing.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

You are delusional if you think what you presented establishes that Oswald stayed over at the Paine`s during the week prior to 11-21.

>
>
>
> > > Nor is it the first non-weekend visit, as I'm sure you must be aware.
> > >
> > > So yes, Bugliosi's claim is disproven by the evidence.
> >
> > You have no established cases of Oswald sleeping at the Paines during the week. None.
>
>
> Did I cite evidence supporting Oswald's presence in Irving on a weekday?

That isn`t what you need to refute Bugliosi.

You need evidence that establishes that Oswald stayed at the Paine`s on a weekday prior to 11-21.

unread,

Jan 22, 2017, 10:13:35 PM1/22/17

to

That info about the October 21 visit can be found at 3 H 40 (below), which is a citation that can quickly be grabbed via the screen capture that I posted earlier of page 798 of Bugliosi's heavily-sourced book....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0024b.htm

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 22, 2017, 10:17:23 PM1/22/17

to

My post above is a "correction" post to replace the original typo-riddled post. (I wish Usenet allowed edits. But I know that's not possible.)

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 22, 2017, 10:22:58 PM1/22/17

to

I doubt if ALL the questions will ever be answered to everybody's satisfaction. (Certainly not to the satisfaction of the longtime CTers anyway. But, that's not a surprise, of course.)

But I think enough info is now available to establish that Oswald's money order DID go through the proper banking channels. The verification of the File Locator Number (established by Lance Payette at The Edu. Forum) is the clincher, IMO.

Full M.O. discussion:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 22, 2017, 10:31:43 PM1/22/17

to

BTW, Bud, you should sign up at The Education Forum. There's a need for more "LN" balance over there. Other than an occasional post by myself, I think the only other LNer posting there is Paul Baker. And he rarely posts. Lance Payette seems to be inching closer to seeing the "LN" light, however. He has written some very good posts over there since 2015.

Bud

unread,

Jan 22, 2017, 11:13:10 PM1/22/17

to

Yah, Ben is still calling for a bank endorsement. They ignore all the supportive elements and claim if there is an unknown, that must mean conspiracy.

> But I think enough info is now available to establish that Oswald's money order DID go through the proper banking channels. The verification of the File Locator Number (established by Lance Payette at The Edu. Forum) is the clincher, IMO.
>
> Full M.O. discussion:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html

I linked to that in my discussion with Ben earlier. I started reading it, but it is rather long, I thought I`d ask you while you were here. I`m a "bottom line" kinda guy, I don`t like to slog through stuff looking for what I want. Thanks for the short, concise answer.

Jason Burke

unread,

Jan 22, 2017, 11:16:56 PM1/22/17

to

On 1/22/2017 7:31 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> BTW, Bud, you should sign up at The Education Forum. There's a need for more "LN" balance over there. Other than an occasional post by myself, I think the only other LNer posting there is Paul Baker. And he rarely posts. Lance Payette seems to be inching closer to seeing the "LN" light, however. He has written some very good posts over there since 2015.
>

Let the retards circle-jerk themselves.
It's actually quite funny to watch.

Bud

unread,

Jan 22, 2017, 11:21:55 PM1/22/17

to

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 10:31:43 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> BTW, Bud, you should sign up at The Education Forum.

They require a photo and I don`t appear on film. Plus the level of bias and self delusion there makes me sick. Plus I`m not allowed to call the other posters retarded. Not a good fit for me, I`m afraid. I`d have to grab them by their collars and make them face their delusions, like I`m doing with Ben here.

I can control myself on .John`s board, but there really are only a few CTers there, Tony Marsh who never argues aspects of the assassination, Harris, who only repeats the same stuff endlessly, Chris "mainfrantech" who is eminently ignorable, and Ralph Cinque, who is batshit crazy.

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 22, 2017, 11:28:01 PM1/22/17

to

Yeah, it's an enormous page. More twists and turns than a Trump vs. Hillary election cycle. :)

But you can cut to the chase (a little bit) by clicking on the two anchored links below (which go to specific parts of that huge M.O. discussion). The "bleed-thru" thing is very interesting too, IMO. Especially since DiEugenio was making a big deal out of the bleeding through of the ink on the money order. I think he's totally ignored the resolution to that problem shown below, however:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html#The-File-Locator-Number-On-The-Hidell-Money-Order

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html#The-Bleed-Thru-Problem-Explained

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 22, 2017, 11:42:42 PM1/22/17

to

LOL. OK, Bud. Fair enough. I find myself with a sore tongue on many days after posting at the Edu. Forum myself.

judos...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 23, 2017, 10:00:21 AM1/23/17

to

ROTFLMAO!!!

You're too scared to even admit what weekday I cited for!!!

I have EXACTLY what I need to refute Bugliosi's silly argument.

And nothing you can say will save Bugliosi.

> > > > I did so by citation to the evidence showing a previous Thursday visit.
> > >
> > > What you cited shows no such thing.
> >
> >
> > You're lying again, "Bud."
>
> You are delusional if you think what you presented establishes that Oswald stayed over at the Paine`s during the week prior to 11-21.

You are delusional if you think that Bugliosi argued that. He stated, "For the very first time, Oswald went to Irving with Frazier on Thursday."

But that's simply unsupported by the evidence.

The fact that you REFUSE to offer any evidence for Bugliosi's lie shows that very well.

Where's your evidence, "Bud?"

Why can't you cite, "Bud?"

Cat got your tongue?

(By the way, we *DO* have evidence of other weekday visits other than the one I referenced)

> > > > Nor is it the first non-weekend visit, as I'm sure you must be aware.
> > > >
> > > > So yes, Bugliosi's claim is disproven by the evidence.
> > >
> > > You have no established cases of Oswald sleeping at the Paines during the week. None.
> >
> >
> > Did I cite evidence supporting Oswald's presence in Irving on a weekday?
>
> That isn`t what you need to refute Bugliosi.

Yes... it is.

Bugliosi claimed that Oswald "FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME" went to Irving on a weekday - and that's provably false.

Tell us "Bud" - where's your evidence???

> You need evidence that establishes that Oswald stayed at the Paine`s on a weekday prior to 11-21.

Certainly. He quite provably stayed there on 10/21 and 10/22. A Monday and Tuesday... Do you need the citation? Or are you competent enough to read Marina's testimony?

Ready to throw in the towel and admit that Bugliosi lied?

judos...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 23, 2017, 10:09:36 AM1/23/17

to

And Tuesday, October 22. Interesting that you lied about that.

However, "Bud" will now have to go after David, since David has just PROVEN that Bugliosi was lying when he claimed that Nov. 21st was the "very first time".

> And Vince Bugliosi fully acknowledges LHO's 10/21/63 visit to the Paine home, in a footnote on Page 798 of "Reclaiming History":
>
> https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nPyuM4R4pus/WIVq70WbCHI/AAAAAAABLUQ/EDc0EK2ht3sNeZPESTknAJBxfMKQ-yn6ACLcB/s1600/RH-Excerpt-Page-798-Footnote.png

Contradicting his assertion in the book that Nov 21st. was the "very first time"... many critics have previously pointed out that Bugliosi liked to demolish his own arguments in the notes... which he knew wouldn't be read like the main part of the book.

> As for Holmes' paper-thin argument about LHO going out to Irving on a Thursday in late October or early November (via Mrs. Tarrants' FBI interview), that topic is also fully addressed and covered by Bugliosi in his book....as I discuss here:
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1108.html

But you won't DEFEND it here.

You're a coward, David Von Pein... you prefer to make your arguments where no-one can point out your lies and omissions.

Can you explain this?

judos...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 23, 2017, 10:10:59 AM1/23/17

to

David pointed out that you and Bugliosi lied about that "first time" visit, and you congratulate him. :)

David has just proven what I've been saying all along...

Bugliosi is turning over in his grave.

judos...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 23, 2017, 10:12:07 AM1/23/17

to

Of course! You don't know the evidence very well.

Good of you to admit it.

> If you are still around lurking, I was wondering, how close do you think you have gotten answering all the questions about the Postal Money Order?

Not at all.

He's still where he was in the beginning... no bank endorsements to be found anywhere...

judos...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 23, 2017, 10:16:55 AM1/23/17

to

ROTFLMAO!!!

Critics are quite happy with this proof of framing...

It's ONLY believers that wish that the money order could be explained.

> But I think enough info is now available to establish that Oswald's money order DID go through the proper banking channels. The verification of the File Locator Number (established by Lance Payette at The Edu. Forum) is the clincher, IMO.

Nope.

You'll have to do better than this.

You'll have to PUBLICLY ADMIT that the money order has no bank endorsements - AS IT MUST HAVE HAD IF IT HAD BEEN LEGITIMATE.

But you won't... you're a coward and a liar. Aren't you David?

> Full M.O. discussion:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html

You're lying again... anyone interested can see a rather full discussion, not at the censored DVP website, but at the Education Forum where DVP got schooled quite severely.

I completely understand DVP's reluctance to offer THAT link...

judos...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 23, 2017, 10:17:42 AM1/23/17

to

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 7:31:43 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> BTW, Bud, you should sign up at The Education Forum. There's a need for more "LN" balance over there. Other than an occasional post by myself, I think the only other LNer posting there is Paul Baker. And he rarely posts. Lance Payette seems to be inching closer to seeing the "LN" light, however. He has written some very good posts over there since 2015.

"Bud" couldn't survive there... ad hominem will be stepped on.

judos...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 23, 2017, 10:19:39 AM1/23/17

to

It's *NOT* "unknown" - IT'S MISSING!!!

And that's simply not possible... nor has anyone even *tried* to explain how it would be possible.

The *ONLY* explanation that holds water is that the money order was part of the frameup of Oswald.

> > But I think enough info is now available to establish that Oswald's money order DID go through the proper banking channels. The verification of the File Locator Number (established by Lance Payette at The Edu. Forum) is the clincher, IMO.
> >
> > Full M.O. discussion:
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html
>
> I linked to that in my discussion with Ben earlier. I started reading it, but it is rather long, I thought I`d ask you while you were here. I`m a "bottom line" kinda guy, I don`t like to slog through stuff looking for what I want. Thanks for the short, concise answer.

Yep... the evidence isn't something that believers enjoy reading.

judos...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 23, 2017, 10:21:11 AM1/23/17

to

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 8:21:55 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 10:31:43 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > BTW, Bud, you should sign up at The Education Forum.
>
> They require a photo and I don`t appear on film. Plus the level of bias and self delusion there makes me sick. Plus I`m not allowed to call the other posters retarded. Not a good fit for me, I`m afraid. I`d have to grab them by their collars and make them face their delusions, like I`m doing with Ben here.

Yep... ad hominem is "Bud's" replacement for the missing evidence.

> I can control myself on .John`s board, but there really are only a few CTers there, Tony Marsh who never argues aspects of the assassination, Harris, who only repeats the same stuff endlessly, Chris "mainfrantech" who is eminently ignorable, and Ralph Cinque, who is batshit crazy.

And serious critics are censored out of the picture.

judos...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 23, 2017, 10:21:46 AM1/23/17

to

Still afraid to post the links to the actual discussions...

That fact tells the tale.

judos...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 23, 2017, 10:22:45 AM1/23/17

to

The lack of evidence isn't the cause of a "sore tongue" - it's your ability to ignore the evidence and keep your faith.

Bud

unread,

Jan 23, 2017, 11:59:58 AM1/23/17

to

You seem off the deep end.

>
>
>
> > > > > I did so by citation to the evidence showing a previous Thursday visit.
> > > >
> > > > What you cited shows no such thing.
> > >
> > >
> > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> >
> > You are delusional if you think what you presented establishes that Oswald stayed over at the Paine`s during the week prior to 11-21.
>
>
> You are delusional if you think that Bugliosi argued that. He stated, "For the very first time, Oswald went to Irving with Frazier on Thursday."

What source are you quoting?

> But that's simply unsupported by the evidence.
>
> The fact that you REFUSE to offer any evidence for Bugliosi's lie shows that very well.
>
> Where's your evidence, "Bud?"

Shifting the burden. This is your show, you claimed to be able to refute Bugliosi.

> Why can't you cite, "Bud?"

I win when I show that what you have cited falls short of what you claimed it showed. If someone claims to be able to support the existence of a blue elephant, but they cite evidence of a red elephant, then what they have cited doesn`t support their claim.

> Cat got your tongue?

You still don`t understand the process.

> (By the way, we *DO* have evidence of other weekday visits other than the one I referenced)

Yes, DVP provided one.

>
>
> > > > > Nor is it the first non-weekend visit, as I'm sure you must be aware.
> > > > >
> > > > > So yes, Bugliosi's claim is disproven by the evidence.
> > > >
> > > > You have no established cases of Oswald sleeping at the Paines during the week. None.
> > >
> > >
> > > Did I cite evidence supporting Oswald's presence in Irving on a weekday?
> >
> > That isn`t what you need to refute Bugliosi.
>
>
> Yes... it is.
>
> Bugliosi claimed that Oswald "FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME" went to Irving on a weekday - and that's provably false.

What are you quoting?

> Tell us "Bud" - where's your evidence???

Shifting the burden.

>
> > You need evidence that establishes that Oswald stayed at the Paine`s on a weekday prior to 11-21.
>
> Certainly. He quite provably stayed there on 10/21 and 10/22. A Monday and Tuesday... Do you need the citation? Or are you competent enough to read Marina's testimony?

That is what I was waiting for you to produce, information from one of the two principle witnesses. Cashiers who may have dealt with Oswald on a certain day was much to weak to support your claims.

> Ready to throw in the towel and admit that Bugliosi lied?

I don`t even know what he said. I only have your assertions of what he said. Show that Bugliosi made the assertions you are attributing to him.

Bud

unread,

Jan 23, 2017, 2:35:22 PM1/23/17

to

David provided sufficient evidence to support the idea. You did not.

> David has just proven what I've been saying all along...
>
> Bugliosi is turning over in his grave.

We aren`t afraid of the truth. DVP has a whole list of things that contradict Bugliosi`s assertions.

Bud

unread,

Jan 23, 2017, 2:39:17 PM1/23/17

to

Assumes it must be there. Also assumes there is no other manner to endorse a Money Order.

> And that's simply not possible... nor has anyone even *tried* to explain how it would be possible.

Nor have you explained all the evidence lending legitimacy to the idea that the money order was cashed.

> The *ONLY* explanation that holds water is that the money order was part of the frameup of Oswald.

Another retarded opinion heard from.

>
> > > But I think enough info is now available to establish that Oswald's money order DID go through the proper banking channels. The verification of the File Locator Number (established by Lance Payette at The Edu. Forum) is the clincher, IMO.
> > >
> > > Full M.O. discussion:
> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html
> >
> > I linked to that in my discussion with Ben earlier. I started reading it, but it is rather long, I thought I`d ask you while you were here. I`m a "bottom line" kinda guy, I don`t like to slog through stuff looking for what I want. Thanks for the short, concise answer.
>
> Yep... the evidence isn't something that believers enjoy reading.

Did you hit the link and read the whole thing?

Bud

unread,

Jan 23, 2017, 2:42:09 PM1/23/17

to

On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 10:21:11 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 8:21:55 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 10:31:43 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > BTW, Bud, you should sign up at The Education Forum.
> >
> > They require a photo and I don`t appear on film. Plus the level of bias and self delusion there makes me sick. Plus I`m not allowed to call the other posters retarded. Not a good fit for me, I`m afraid. I`d have to grab them by their collars and make them face their delusions, like I`m doing with Ben here.
>
>
> Yep... ad hominem is "Bud's" replacement for the missing evidence.
>
>
> > I can control myself on .John`s board, but there really are only a few CTers there, Tony Marsh who never argues aspects of the assassination, Harris, who only repeats the same stuff endlessly, Chris "mainfrantech" who is eminently ignorable, and Ralph Cinque, who is batshit crazy.
>
>
> And serious critics are censored out of the picture.

Assumes there are critics who should be taken seriously.

What do critics produce?

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 23, 2017, 3:33:28 PM1/23/17

to

I not only offered up one Edu. Forum source link, I offered up more than a dozen of them. (At the bottom of the "Part 1058" page. All just a click away.)

Bud

unread,

Jan 23, 2017, 6:00:58 PM1/23/17

to

At least I knew where to look, with the principle witnesses, not the vague memories of some clerk.

>
>
> > If you are still around lurking, I was wondering, how close do you think you have gotten answering all the questions about the Postal Money Order?
>
> Not at all.
>
> He's still where he was in the beginning... no bank endorsements to be found anywhere...

Had you hit the link you`d know they made great progress answering many of the questions about the money order.

Bud

unread,

Jan 23, 2017, 6:03:54 PM1/23/17

to

On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 10:21:11 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 8:21:55 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 10:31:43 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > BTW, Bud, you should sign up at The Education Forum.
> >
> > They require a photo and I don`t appear on film. Plus the level of bias and self delusion there makes me sick. Plus I`m not allowed to call the other posters retarded. Not a good fit for me, I`m afraid. I`d have to grab them by their collars and make them face their delusions, like I`m doing with Ben here.
>
>
> Yep... ad hominem is "Bud's" replacement for the missing evidence.
>
>
> > I can control myself on .John`s board, but there really are only a few CTers there, Tony Marsh who never argues aspects of the assassination, Harris, who only repeats the same stuff endlessly, Chris "mainfrantech" who is eminently ignorable, and Ralph Cinque, who is batshit crazy.
>
>
> And serious critics are censored out of the picture.

Conspiracy crackpots marginalize themselves.

unread,

Jan 23, 2017, 10:42:11 PM1/23/17

to

*YOUR* problem is that your mama didn't abort you, Benny Boy.

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 23, 2017, 10:50:09 PM1/23/17

"(1) Oswald always visited Marina in Irving on a Friday. Nov 21 was the first Thursday visit ever."

Did you think I wouldn`t notice the goalposts being moved?

> I quoted Bugliosi on that fact, you questioned it, I cited... and you've run from that post.

It depends where you are quoting from. You are claiming to be able to refute what he said on his list of 53 things, but you seem to have expanded that to attack anything he has ever said or written.

> Tell us "Bud" - why do you prove your cowardice all the time?

Just examining your ideas Ben, nothing to be afraid of if you are honest.

>
> > Davis cited one of the principle witnesses who lived at the location he stayed. Even a retard such as yourself should be able to see that what DVP presented was much stronger than what you presented.
>
> He's "presented" virtually nothing.

That is your assessment. My assessment is that you suck at making such assessments.

> His website doesn't count, because he refuses to address critical review of his claims.

"snicker" "His website doesn`t count". The evidence he produces there to support his contentions is invalidated because it is on his website? Thats like saying "that is from the Warren Commission, that doesn`t count".

This is why it is almost impossible to hold a rational discussion with a conspiracy retard.

>
> > But of course conspiracy retards suck at weighing evidence, they just can`t do it properly.
>
>
> And you're a coward, but what can we do about it?

I speak the truth to idiots.

>
>
> > And don`t get to wrapped up in your misconception that I am defending Bugliosi. I`m am merely trying to keep you honest, ensure that your claims are valid, a tough enough task.
>
>
> Nope.
>
> You either defend him, or you correctly label him a liar when he's been caught in a lie.

No, you merely misunderstand the process. You started these posts with the intention of supporting a premise, that you could refute Bugliosi`s 53 Reasons. I can merely stay on the sidelines and remark whether you`ve accomplished this is not if I choose. You put this burden of being able to refute Bugliosi on yourself.

> Straddling the fence won't work.

I`m a spectator waiting for the show to start.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 24, 2017, 2:24:25 PM1/24/17

to

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 8:10:29 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 9:43:14 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 5:50:42 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 10:05:34 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

> > > Why would I need to explain the existence of information that supports my idea that it was cashed?
> >
> > For the same reason you demand I cite for my claims.
>
> That doesn`t work. You know of the evidence I am referring to.

Keep this in mind the next time you demand a citation... I'll simply state that you know the evidence, and I don't need to cite.

I'll refer to this post when you whine about it.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 24, 2017, 2:25:59 PM1/24/17

to

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 8:30:32 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 9:50:56 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 5:59:00 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 10:01:06 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 11:35:22 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 10:10:59 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > David pointed out that you and Bugliosi lied about that "first time" visit, and you congratulate him. :)
> > > > >
> > > > > David provided sufficient evidence to support the idea. You did not.
> > > >
> > > > You're lying, "Bud".
> > > >
> > > > I cite the Warren Commission Report ITSELF - and you duck and run.
> > >
> > > You cited some sort of clerk or cashier who thought she might have waited on Oswald during a weekday. That wasn`t strong enough to support the idea that Oswald stayed over on a weekday (If she was *sure* of the incident it would only be an indication).
> >
> >
> > Tut tut tut, "Bud"... you're lying again.
> >
> > Bugliosi clearly stated that the topic was Oswald GOING TO IRVING.
>
> Not in this version he doesn`t.
>
> http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6085.0;wap2
>
> You haven`t linked to the version you are working from.

I've cited the page number from "Reclaiming History".

There is no other source more credible than the original.

You lose!!!

Bud

unread,

Jan 24, 2017, 3:05:50 PM1/24/17

to

This is a ploy to bog down the discussion. If I say there was a rifle in the TSBD you demand a cite even when you know what I am referring to. If you say "Bugliosi said this..." we are talking about a man who said a lot of things a lot of different places.

> I'll refer to this post when you whine about it.

Actually I did say what support I was talking about (the MO being deposited in Klein`s coffers and the records of the Federal Reserve) and did link to the discussion that contained the information. Somehow this information was removed from the discussion without a snip. It wasn`t me who removed it.

But of course this is just a weak attempt to make it about me to misdirect from your failure to refute Bugliosi.

Bud

unread,

Jan 24, 2017, 3:07:47 PM1/24/17

to

You claimed to be refuting Bugliosi`s list of 63 things. Is the list on that page?

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 24, 2017, 5:41:10 PM1/24/17

to

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 12:05:50 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 2:24:25 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 8:10:29 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 9:43:14 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 5:50:42 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 10:05:34 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >
> > > > > Why would I need to explain the existence of information that supports my idea that it was cashed?
> > > >
> > > > For the same reason you demand I cite for my claims.
> > >
> > > That doesn`t work. You know of the evidence I am referring to.
> >
> >
> > Keep this in mind the next time you demand a citation... I'll simply state that you know the evidence, and I don't need to cite.
>
> This is a ploy to bog down the discussion. If I say there was a rifle in the TSBD you demand a cite even when you know what I am referring to. If you say "Bugliosi said this..." we are talking about a man who said a lot of things a lot of different places.

You're lying again, "Bud".

You keep demanding what you yourself refuse to provide.

Why you object when others simply follow your lead simply shows what a kid you are.

> > I'll refer to this post when you whine about it.
>
> Actually I did say what support I was talking about (the MO being deposited in Klein`s coffers and the records of the Federal Reserve) and did link to the discussion that contained the information. Somehow this information was removed from the discussion without a snip. It wasn`t me who removed it.

Why are you bothering? You'll refuse to defend that as well when I challenge it...

You are, in fact, trying desperately to throw so many issues out, that it's not quite as obvious that you still haven't answered why there's no bank endorsement.

You see, I can *ALSO* answer your new objections... but I'd rather wait until you admit that there's no bank endorsement, and that this fact is IMPOSSIBLE for a real money order transaction.

> But of course this is just a weak attempt to make it about me to misdirect from your failure to refute Bugliosi.

I'm refuting him just fine.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 24, 2017, 5:53:29 PM1/24/17

to

53, not 63. And don't you think you should actually look it up before you try to defend it?

Now, let's hear an admission from you that you've been caught lying about my quote from Bugliosi.

Bud

unread,

Jan 24, 2017, 6:26:22 PM1/24/17

to

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 5:41:10 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 12:05:50 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 2:24:25 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 8:10:29 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 9:43:14 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 5:50:42 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 10:05:34 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > Why would I need to explain the existence of information that supports my idea that it was cashed?
> > > > >
> > > > > For the same reason you demand I cite for my claims.
> > > >
> > > > That doesn`t work. You know of the evidence I am referring to.
> > >
> > >
> > > Keep this in mind the next time you demand a citation... I'll simply state that you know the evidence, and I don't need to cite.
> >
> > This is a ploy to bog down the discussion. If I say there was a rifle in the TSBD you demand a cite even when you know what I am referring to. If you say "Bugliosi said this..." we are talking about a man who said a lot of things a lot of different places.
>
> You're lying again, "Bud".
>
> You keep demanding what you yourself refuse to provide.

I didn`t refuse. I supplied it and you removed it. Here it is again...

"All covered under the discussion on the Education Forum that was linked to several times. I specifically mentioned what several were, the deposit in Klein`s account, the record with the Federal Reserve. DVP mentioned another, the verification of the File Locator Number. That you are too stupid to understand how these things are supportive of the money order being cashed is also supportive of my contention that conspiracy retards have no aptitude for investigation, and are merely playing silly games."

> Why you object when others simply follow your lead simply shows what a kid you are.

Actually it was mistake to allow you to bait me off on an irrelevant tangent. It had nothing to do with refuting Bugliosi.

>
>
> > > I'll refer to this post when you whine about it.
> >
> > Actually I did say what support I was talking about (the MO being deposited in Klein`s coffers and the records of the Federal Reserve) and did link to the discussion that contained the information. Somehow this information was removed from the discussion without a snip. It wasn`t me who removed it.
>
> Why are you bothering? You'll refuse to defend that as well when I challenge it...

You have to make further charges of faked evidence is all.

> You are, in fact, trying desperately to throw so many issues out, that it's not quite as obvious that you still haven't answered why there's no bank endorsement.
>
> You see, I can *ALSO* answer your new objections... but I'd rather wait until you admit that there's no bank endorsement, and that this fact is IMPOSSIBLE for a real money order transaction.

That isn`t the only evidence concerning the money order. You can either focus on the unknown and go nowhere or you can make empty, meaningless claims about knowing.

> > But of course this is just a weak attempt to make it about me to misdirect from your failure to refute Bugliosi.
>
> I'm refuting him just fine.

You`ve been stepping on your own dick since you started. You should stay a critic, you are weak when it comes to supporting your own ideas.

Bud

unread,

Jan 24, 2017, 6:32:13 PM1/24/17

to

As explained, I`m not trying to defend Bugliosi. This is the problem with having a discussion with a stupid person, you end up having to repeat yourself a lot.

As far as the book goes, I don`t have it. I tried google books, but it was one of the pages they didn`t make available.

>
> Now, let's hear an admission from you that you've been caught lying about my quote from Bugliosi.

Is Bugliosi`s list of 53 things on that page, Ben?

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 24, 2017, 6:45:20 PM1/24/17

to

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 3:26:22 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 5:41:10 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 12:05:50 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 2:24:25 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 8:10:29 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 9:43:14 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 5:50:42 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 10:05:34 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > Why would I need to explain the existence of information that supports my idea that it was cashed?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For the same reason you demand I cite for my claims.
> > > > >
> > > > > That doesn`t work. You know of the evidence I am referring to.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Keep this in mind the next time you demand a citation... I'll simply state that you know the evidence, and I don't need to cite.
> > >
> > > This is a ploy to bog down the discussion. If I say there was a rifle in the TSBD you demand a cite even when you know what I am referring to. If you say "Bugliosi said this..." we are talking about a man who said a lot of things a lot of different places.
> >
> > You're lying again, "Bud".
> >
> > You keep demanding what you yourself refuse to provide.
>
> I didn`t refuse. I supplied it and you removed it. Here it is again...
>
> "All covered under the discussion on the Education Forum that was linked to several times. I specifically mentioned what several were, the deposit in Klein`s account, the record with the Federal Reserve. DVP mentioned another, the verification of the File Locator Number. That you are too stupid to understand how these things are supportive of the money order being cashed is also supportive of my contention that conspiracy retards have no aptitude for investigation, and are merely playing silly games."

The topic is your refusal to supply citations for your claims.

You've made the claim that a "Postal" money order can go through the banking system without any endorsements.

Cite for your claim or withdraw it.

Then we can address your new claims listed here.

(But, of course, you won't... you're a dishonest coward...)

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 24, 2017, 6:48:12 PM1/24/17

to

Then you're a liar.

You've asserted that I wasn't providing an accurate quote, and accurate summaries of what Bugliosi had stated... all the while knowing that you couldn't even read it.

Quite despicable of you, isn't it?

And why are you refusing to state whether or not you spoke of President Trump today?

Afraid that the Secret Service will come knocking at your door if you admit that you didn't?

Bud

unread,

Jan 24, 2017, 7:04:19 PM1/24/17

to

Never said that. That is a strawman. I challenged you explain the supportive elements that exist in evidence that it was cashed. You ran.

Bud

unread,

Jan 24, 2017, 7:08:21 PM1/24/17

to

You are too stupid to talk to. I asked you why you were using sources you claimed that were "reflecting" of the ideas that Bugliosi expressed instead of the actual words. You use the concept of them only being reflective of Bugliosi`s words, not me.

> Quite despicable of you, isn't it?
>
> And why are you refusing to state whether or not you spoke of President Trump today?
>
> Afraid that the Secret Service will come knocking at your door if you admit that you didn't?

Deep end, this is Ben. Ben, this is the deep end. I expect you`ve met.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 24, 2017, 8:01:37 PM1/24/17

to

unread,

Jan 24, 2017, 10:14:12 PM1/24/17

to

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 5:23:27 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 8:01:37 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 4:04:19 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 6:45:20 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 3:26:22 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 5:41:10 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

> > > > You've made the claim that a "Postal" money order can go through the banking system without any endorsements.
> > >
> > > Never said that. That is a strawman. I challenged you explain the supportive elements that exist in evidence that it was cashed. You ran.
> >
> >
> > You've never said ANYTHING when challenged to support it.
> >
> > Just a gutless coward...
> >
> > I've already stated that I can deal with the "supportive elements" as soon as we deal with the first topic.
>
> You don`t get to set conditions.

On the contrary, I most certainly do.

I'm going to KEEP RIGHT ON pointing out your desperate change of topic, and your ABSOLUTE REFUSAL to address the lack of bank endorsements on the money order.

Interestingly enough, the "supportive elements" you desperately want to bring in ... support a frameup, not what you *think* it proves. But before I go into detail, you're just going to have to deal with the first topic.

> > You're desperate to change the topic, and I'm simply not interested.
> >
> > Admit PUBLICLY that the money order has no bank endorsement, AND SHOULD HAVE, and then I'll move on to refuting your "supportive elements".
>
> You don`t get to set conditions.

Of course I do.

I just did.

I have no intention of changing the topic until the first one has been dealt with.

You are, of course, going to keep running...

> > But, of course, you won't.
> >
> > You're a coward.
>
> I offered support for the idea that it had been cashed and you ran from it.

ROTFLMAO!!! What you did is run from the lack of bank endorsements, and desperately tried to sidetrack the debate.

Not going to happen.

> > > > Cite for your claim or withdraw it.
> > > >
> > > > Then we can address your new claims listed here.
> > > >
> > > > (But, of course, you won't... you're a dishonest coward...)

Yep... still true.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 24, 2017, 10:19:56 PM1/24/17

to

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 5:32:24 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 8:03:33 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 4:08:21 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 6:48:12 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 3:32:13 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:

> > > > > As far as the book goes, I don`t have it. I tried google books, but it was one of the pages they didn`t make available.
> > > >
> > > > Then you're a liar.
> > > >
> > > > You've asserted that I wasn't providing an accurate quote, and accurate summaries of what Bugliosi had stated... all the while knowing that you couldn't even read it.
> > >
> > > You are too stupid to talk to. I asked you why you were using sources you claimed that were "reflecting" of the ideas that Bugliosi expressed instead of the actual words. You use the concept of them only being reflective of Bugliosi`s words, not me.
> >
> >
> > You've admitted that you don't even have the book.
>
> Don`t even know whether this list of 53 things is something that can be found in his book. Could be a separate thing for all I know.

And you're a gutless liar.

And where are you, David Von Pein... *YOU* at least know what starts on page 955 of Reclaiming History... *YOU* could correct your fellow believer if you had any honesty.

> I found this version of his 53 things, but I don`t know if it is what you are working from...
>
> http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6085.0;wap2

I've already referenced where I got the list... what part of it didn't you understand?

Are you a moron?

> > So you have no idea what Bugliosi said, or didn't say.
>
> I only know that you said that what you were addressing was "reflecting" of Bugliosi`s actual words. That is a red flag coming from a dishonest scoundrel such as yourself.

Yep... you are, of course, only labeling another believer a "dishonest scoundrel"... not me. I'm sure BT George would be upset to think you'd said that.

> > > > Quite despicable of you, isn't it?
> > > >
> > > > And why are you refusing to state whether or not you spoke of President Trump today?
> > > >
> > > > Afraid that the Secret Service will come knocking at your door if you admit that you didn't?
> > >
> > > Deep end, this is Ben. Ben, this is the deep end. I expect you`ve met.
> >
> >
> > Not the "deep end" at all - merely the COMPLETE refutation of an assertion by Bugliosi that you refuse to address.
>
> I addressed it when DVP refuted it.

Nope... you're lying again. You've refused to even *mention* the "delayed reaction" and whether or not both the WC and believers argued for it.

> > Quite the coward, aren't you?

You're certainly proving the truth of this....

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 24, 2017, 10:28:13 PM1/24/17

to

For Ben's information....

Vince Bugliosi's quote on page 955 of his book (re: Oswald always going to Irving on Fridays prior to 11/21/63) is actually refuted by *Bugliosi himself* in his very own book (as I proved earlier when I posted the image from VB's book below)....

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nPyuM4R4pus/WIVq70WbCHI/AAAAAAABLUQ/EDc0EK2ht3sNeZPESTknAJBxfMKQ-yn6ACLcB/s1600/RH-Excerpt-Page-798-Footnote.png

So, obviously, Vince himself knew that the remark on Page 955 was not entirely accurate. That's part of the problem with such a huge, long book that is written over a number of years (even decades). Some things that Vince might have written in the 1980s or 1990s end up needing modifications or corrections by the time the book finally gets published. And on a few occasions, these corrections just never got done in VB's book. And I think that (very minor) error that crops up on page 955 might be one of those occasions.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 24, 2017, 10:51:03 PM1/24/17

to

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 7:28:13 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> For Ben's information....
>
> Vince Bugliosi's quote on page 955 of his book (re: Oswald always going to Irving on Fridays prior to 11/21/63) is actually refuted by *Bugliosi himself* in his very own book (as I proved earlier when I posted the image from VB's book below)....

Quote the EXACT SENTENCE found on page 955.

If you have trouble finding it, it's the last sentence in number 1.

Then tell us exactly where Bugliosi labeled himself a liar.

> https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nPyuM4R4pus/WIVq70WbCHI/AAAAAAABLUQ/EDc0EK2ht3sNeZPESTknAJBxfMKQ-yn6ACLcB/s1600/RH-Excerpt-Page-798-Footnote.png
>
> So, obviously, Vince himself knew

No, he didn't. He either told an INTENTIONAL lie, or you're simply speculating on what he "knew".

> that the remark on Page 955 was not entirely accurate.

THEN WHY DO I HAVE TO BEAT SUCH AN ADMISSION OUT OF ANY BELIEVER???

WHY IS EVERY BELIEVER SO COMPLETELY DISHONEST THAT THEY AREN'T WILLING TO LABEL A LIE FOR WHAT IT IS?

WHY AREN'T YOU CORRECTING "BUD" ON THIS OBVIOUS LIE THAT BUGLIOSI TRIED TO RAMROD AS "EVIDENCE" FOR HIS FAITH?

And when are lies suitable as evidence in a murder case?

> That's part of the problem with such a huge, long book that is written over a number of years (even decades). Some things that Vince might have written in the 1980s or 1990s end up needing modifications or corrections by the time the book finally gets published. And on a few occasions, these corrections just never got done in VB's book. And I think that (very minor) error that crops up on page 955 might be one of those occasions.

You always have an excuse.

Even the most *OBVIOUS* lies, those that cannot be anything other than a blatant lie, you excuse when it comes to Vincent Bugliosi.

That fact tells the tale... you have faith.

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 24, 2017, 11:22:36 PM1/24/17

to

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 10:51:03 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 7:28:13 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > For Ben's information....
> >
> > Vince Bugliosi's quote on page 955 of his book (re: Oswald always going to Irving on Fridays prior to 11/21/63) is actually refuted by *Bugliosi himself* in his very own book (as I proved earlier when I posted the image from VB's book below)....
>
> Quote the EXACT SENTENCE found on page 955.
>
> If you have trouble finding it, it's the last sentence in number 1.
>
> Then tell us exactly where Bugliosi labeled himself a liar.
>
>
> > https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nPyuM4R4pus/WIVq70WbCHI/AAAAAAABLUQ/EDc0EK2ht3sNeZPESTknAJBxfMKQ-yn6ACLcB/s1600/RH-Excerpt-Page-798-Footnote.png
> >
> > So, obviously, Vince himself knew
>
>
> No, he didn't. He either told an INTENTIONAL lie, or you're simply speculating on what he "knew".

Well, Ben, I can tell you that it's almost certainly true that Vincent Bugliosi, as of July 1986 (the date of the filming of the mock trial in London, England), had no knowledge of Oswald's excursion to Irving on Monday, October 21st.

Why do I say that?

Because of the questions Vince asked Ruth Paine while Ruth was on the witness stand during the 1986 mock trial. Have a look and listen to the words Vince uses when he's asking Ruth questions regarding the days of the week when Oswald would visit the Paine home (fast forward to 4:33):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-bEyazi8WAueVFvanIzZW1LUm8/view

Now, you can argue (if you want to) that Bugliosi was just doing what he was hired to do by London Weekend Television in 1986---he was just playing the part of a prosecuting attorney. And you can argue (if you desire) that Vince knew full well (even in 1986) that the way he asked Ruth Paine the "invariably on Friday night" question was not the proper way to ask that question. And you can surmise that Vince, even in '86, knew darn well that Lee Oswald had, indeed, visited Ruth's dwelling on a day other than a Friday, but he asked the question the way he asked it anyway, regardless of what he knew the truth of the matter to be. (Do you want to suggest that?)

But if you do argue such points, I'll beg to differ with you. And the main reason I would be inclined to differ with you is because of something I said about Vince in 2011:

"I refuse to ever believe that Vincent Bugliosi is (or ever was) an outright liar. I refuse to believe that Vince would be willing to print something in one of his books that he KNOWS IS A FLAT-OUT LIE. I will never believe that kind of thing could ever apply to Mr. Vincent Bugliosi. Because, in my opinion, Vince is just not cut from that sort of devious cloth. If certain conspiracy theorists want to disagree with my last comment, so be it. But I'll always stand by what I just said." -- DVP; July 14, 2011

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/iluduxbnzlc/qUYsqkdySycJ

Bud

unread,

Jan 25, 2017, 5:46:19 AM1/25/17

to

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 10:14:12 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 5:23:27 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 8:01:37 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 4:04:19 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 6:45:20 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 3:26:22 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 5:41:10 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> > > > > You've made the claim that a "Postal" money order can go through the banking system without any endorsements.
> > > >
> > > > Never said that. That is a strawman. I challenged you explain the supportive elements that exist in evidence that it was cashed. You ran.
> > >
> > >
> > > You've never said ANYTHING when challenged to support it.
> > >
> > > Just a gutless coward...
> > >
> > > I've already stated that I can deal with the "supportive elements" as soon as we deal with the first topic.
> >
> > You don`t get to set conditions.
>
> On the contrary, I most certainly do.
>
> I'm going to KEEP RIGHT ON pointing out your desperate change of topic,

I didn`t bring up the money order, retard.

> and your ABSOLUTE REFUSAL to address the lack of bank endorsements on the money order.

Actually, I did address it. It is unknown to me why the endorsements don`t appear. Possible they are there in a form I don`t recognize.

> Interestingly enough, the "supportive elements" you desperately want to bring in ... support a frameup, not what you *think* it proves. But before I go into detail, you're just going to have to deal with the first topic.

You can stop making the empty claims now and start doing into detail.

>
> > > You're desperate to change the topic, and I'm simply not interested.
> > >
> > > Admit PUBLICLY that the money order has no bank endorsement, AND SHOULD HAVE, and then I'll move on to refuting your "supportive elements".
> >
> > You don`t get to set conditions.
>
>
> Of course I do.

You`re insane.

> I just did.
>
> I have no intention of changing the topic until the first one has been dealt with.

Yet you had no problem diverting attention to the WC rather than supporting your claim about the several second delay.

> You are, of course, going to keep running...
>
>
> > > But, of course, you won't.
> > >
> > > You're a coward.
> >
> > I offered support for the idea that it had been cashed and you ran from it.
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!!! What you did is run from the lack of bank endorsements,

I did address it, stupid.

> and desperately tried to sidetrack the debate.

The things I brought up were relevant to whether it was cashed, stupid.

Bud

unread,

Jan 25, 2017, 5:48:15 AM1/25/17

to

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 10:19:56 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 5:32:24 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 8:03:33 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 4:08:21 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 6:48:12 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 3:32:13 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
>
> > > > > > As far as the book goes, I don`t have it. I tried google books, but it was one of the pages they didn`t make available.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then you're a liar.
> > > > >
> > > > > You've asserted that I wasn't providing an accurate quote, and accurate summaries of what Bugliosi had stated... all the while knowing that you couldn't even read it.
> > > >
> > > > You are too stupid to talk to. I asked you why you were using sources you claimed that were "reflecting" of the ideas that Bugliosi expressed instead of the actual words. You use the concept of them only being reflective of Bugliosi`s words, not me.
> > >
> > >
> > > You've admitted that you don't even have the book.
> >
> > Don`t even know whether this list of 53 things is something that can be found in his book. Could be a separate thing for all I know.
>
>
> And you're a gutless liar.

What did I say above that you feel is untrue, retard?

> And where are you, David Von Pein... *YOU* at least know what starts on page 955 of Reclaiming History... *YOU* could correct your fellow believer if you had any honesty.
>
>
> > I found this version of his 53 things, but I don`t know if it is what you are working from...
> >
> > http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6085.0;wap2
>
>
> I've already referenced where I got the list... what part of it didn't you understand?

You mentioned a name, how is that producing the version you are working from?

Bud

unread,

Jan 25, 2017, 5:56:30 AM1/25/17

to

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 10:51:03 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 7:28:13 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > For Ben's information....
> >
> > Vince Bugliosi's quote on page 955 of his book (re: Oswald always going to Irving on Fridays prior to 11/21/63) is actually refuted by *Bugliosi himself* in his very own book (as I proved earlier when I posted the image from VB's book below)....
>
> Quote the EXACT SENTENCE found on page 955.

So this isn`t from Bugliosi`s list of 53 things. So why are you even going there, why are you pulling content from his book and refuting *that*?

> If you have trouble finding it, it's the last sentence in number 1.
>
> Then tell us exactly where Bugliosi labeled himself a liar.
>
>
> > https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nPyuM4R4pus/WIVq70WbCHI/AAAAAAABLUQ/EDc0EK2ht3sNeZPESTknAJBxfMKQ-yn6ACLcB/s1600/RH-Excerpt-Page-798-Footnote.png
> >
> > So, obviously, Vince himself knew
>
>
> No, he didn't. He either told an INTENTIONAL lie, or you're simply speculating on what he "knew".

False choices.

>
> > that the remark on Page 955 was not entirely accurate.
>
>
> THEN WHY DO I HAVE TO BEAT SUCH AN ADMISSION OUT OF ANY BELIEVER???

What is the relevance? You were going to refute Bugliosi`s list of 53 things, now you are attacking things at random from his book.

> WHY IS EVERY BELIEVER SO COMPLETELY DISHONEST THAT THEY AREN'T WILLING TO LABEL A LIE FOR WHAT IT IS?
>
> WHY AREN'T YOU CORRECTING "BUD" ON THIS OBVIOUS LIE THAT BUGLIOSI TRIED TO RAMROD AS "EVIDENCE" FOR HIS FAITH?

Bud caught you moving the goalposts.

> And when are lies suitable as evidence in a murder case?

Again, you try to foist the role of Bugliosi defenders onto others. You took on the mantle of refuter of Bugliosi`s list of 53 things. Stick to that.

>
> > That's part of the problem with such a huge, long book that is written over a number of years (even decades). Some things that Vince might have written in the 1980s or 1990s end up needing modifications or corrections by the time the book finally gets published. And on a few occasions, these corrections just never got done in VB's book. And I think that (very minor) error that crops up on page 955 might be one of those occasions.
>
> You always have an excuse.

You hate the truth, don`t you Ben?

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 25, 2017, 10:05:05 AM1/25/17

to

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 8:22:36 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 10:51:03 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 7:28:13 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > For Ben's information....
> > >
> > > Vince Bugliosi's quote on page 955 of his book (re: Oswald always going to Irving on Fridays prior to 11/21/63) is actually refuted by *Bugliosi himself* in his very own book (as I proved earlier when I posted the image from VB's book below)....
> >
> > Quote the EXACT SENTENCE found on page 955.
> >
> > If you have trouble finding it, it's the last sentence in number 1.
> >
> > Then tell us exactly where Bugliosi labeled himself a liar.
> >
> >
> > > https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nPyuM4R4pus/WIVq70WbCHI/AAAAAAABLUQ/EDc0EK2ht3sNeZPESTknAJBxfMKQ-yn6ACLcB/s1600/RH-Excerpt-Page-798-Footnote.png
> > >
> > > So, obviously, Vince himself knew
> >
> >
> > No, he didn't. He either told an INTENTIONAL lie, or you're simply speculating on what he "knew".
>
> Well, Ben, I can tell you that it's almost certainly true that Vincent Bugliosi, as of July 1986 (the date of the filming of the mock trial in London, England), had no knowledge of Oswald's excursion to Irving on Monday, October 21st.
>
> Why do I say that?
>
> Because of the questions Vince asked Ruth Paine while Ruth was on the witness stand during the 1986 mock trial. Have a look and listen to the words Vince uses when he's asking Ruth questions regarding the days of the week when Oswald would visit the Paine home (fast forward to 4:33):
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-bEyazi8WAueVFvanIzZW1LUm8/view
>
> Now, you can argue (if you want to) that Bugliosi was just doing what he was hired to do by London Weekend Television in 1986---he was just playing the part of a prosecuting attorney. And you can argue (if you desire) that Vince knew full well (even in 1986) that the way he asked Ruth Paine the "invariably on Friday night" question was not the proper way to ask that question. And you can surmise that Vince, even in '86, knew darn well that Lee Oswald had, indeed, visited Ruth's dwelling on a day other than a Friday, but he asked the question the way he asked it anyway, regardless of what he knew the truth of the matter to be. (Do you want to suggest that?)
>
> But if you do argue such points, I'll beg to differ with you. And the main reason I would be inclined to differ with you is because of something I said about Vince in 2011:
>
> "I refuse to ever believe that Vincent Bugliosi is (or ever was) an outright liar. I refuse to believe that Vince would be willing to print something in one of his books that he KNOWS IS A FLAT-OUT LIE. I will never believe that kind of thing could ever apply to Mr. Vincent Bugliosi. Because, in my opinion, Vince is just not cut from that sort of devious cloth. If certain conspiracy theorists want to disagree with my last comment, so be it. But I'll always stand by what I just said." -- DVP; July 14, 2011
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/iluduxbnzlc/qUYsqkdySycJ

Sadly, all you've offered is speculation.

Bugliosi provably knew of at least one other visit, YOU QUOTED HIS NOTES ON THAT ISSUE - so when he made his claim on page 955, he was lying.

Can't get around that fact.

It's just that simple.

> > > that the remark on Page 955 was not entirely accurate.
> >
> >
> > THEN WHY DO I HAVE TO BEAT SUCH AN ADMISSION OUT OF ANY BELIEVER???
> >
> > WHY IS EVERY BELIEVER SO COMPLETELY DISHONEST THAT THEY AREN'T WILLING TO LABEL A LIE FOR WHAT IT IS?
> >
> > WHY AREN'T YOU CORRECTING "BUD" ON THIS OBVIOUS LIE THAT BUGLIOSI TRIED TO RAMROD AS "EVIDENCE" FOR HIS FAITH?
> >
> > And when are lies suitable as evidence in a murder case?

Dead silence on all these quite relevant and reasonable questions.

> > > That's part of the problem with such a huge, long book that is written over a number of years (even decades). Some things that Vince might have written in the 1980s or 1990s end up needing modifications or corrections by the time the book finally gets published. And on a few occasions, these corrections just never got done in VB's book. And I think that (very minor) error that crops up on page 955 might be one of those occasions.
> >
> > You always have an excuse.
> >
> > Even the most *OBVIOUS* lies, those that cannot be anything other than a blatant lie, you excuse when it comes to Vincent Bugliosi.
> >
> > That fact tells the tale... you have faith.

You even admit that his statement isn't "entirely accurate."

The same sort of statement by a critic would not be so defined. (as you've proved recently)

Bugliosi lied. It's just that simple.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 25, 2017, 10:06:10 AM1/25/17

to

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 2:46:19 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 10:14:12 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 5:23:27 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 8:01:37 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 4:04:19 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 6:45:20 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 3:26:22 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 5:41:10 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >
> > > > > > You've made the claim that a "Postal" money order can go through the banking system without any endorsements.
> > > > >
> > > > > Never said that. That is a strawman. I challenged you explain the supportive elements that exist in evidence that it was cashed. You ran.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You've never said ANYTHING when challenged to support it.
> > > >
> > > > Just a gutless coward...
> > > >
> > > > I've already stated that I can deal with the "supportive elements" as soon as we deal with the first topic.
> > >
> > > You don`t get to set conditions.
> >
> > On the contrary, I most certainly do.
> >
> > I'm going to KEEP RIGHT ON pointing out your desperate change of topic,
>
> I didn`t bring up the money order, retard.

Nor will you answer it, or admit the simple truth.

Changing the topic is the best you can do...

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 25, 2017, 10:07:53 AM1/25/17

to

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 2:56:30 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 10:51:03 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 7:28:13 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > For Ben's information....
> > >
> > > Vince Bugliosi's quote on page 955 of his book (re: Oswald always going to Irving on Fridays prior to 11/21/63) is actually refuted by *Bugliosi himself* in his very own book (as I proved earlier when I posted the image from VB's book below)....
> >
> > Quote the EXACT SENTENCE found on page 955.
>
> So this isn`t from Bugliosi`s list of 53 things. So why are you even going there, why are you pulling content from his book and refuting *that*?

I note for the record that you refuse to do so.

The reason, of course, is that Bugliosi lied.

P.S. And yes moron, this is EXACTLY from his list of 53... it's number one.

Bud

unread,

Jan 25, 2017, 1:49:23 PM1/25/17

to

<snicker> You charge me with a "change in topic" when it is a change in topic that you are responsible for.

> or admit the simple truth.
>
> Changing the topic is the best you can do...

You went on the tangent about the money order.

Bud

unread,

Jan 25, 2017, 2:11:37 PM1/25/17

to

OK, maybe Bugliosi`s list of 53 things can be found on page 955 of Bugliosi`s book "Reclaiming History". I don`t have the book, so this is why I asked.

It would be nice if you would link to the list of 53 things you are working from.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 25, 2017, 2:16:08 PM1/25/17

to

Here it is again:

Vincent Bugliosi, famed prosecutor who put away Charles Manson for the Tate-LaBianca murders, has written what is indisputably the longest book defending the Warren Commission's conclusion that a lone nut, Lee Harvey Oswald, shot JFK. Weighing in at 1,612 pages, and a CD that has an additional 1,159 pages of footnotes, Mr. Bugliosi makes a strong case.

That is, if you don't know the evidence.

Mr. Bugliosi lists 53 reasons that "proved Oswald's guilt," and I'd like to go through them one by one, and show that they do no such thing. Please keep in mind that I've abbreviated most of Bugliosi's points, and lest I be accused of being misleading, I've actually taken the abbreviated list from McAdam's Forum - a Warren Commission Believer compiled this list. I've been careful to expand the point Bugliosi was making on occasion for more accuracy - but I've not shortened any of these...

(1) Oswald always visited Marina in Irving on a Friday. Nov 21 was the first Thursday visit ever.

Background: Oswald and Marina were married, but living apart at the time. Oswald almost always spent the weekends with Marina, but didn't usually visit midweek.

On the day before President Kennedy was assassinated, Oswald went to Irving Texas to visit Marina.

The Warren Commission and Vincent Bugliosi wish to argue that because this was an unique event, it had to be related to Oswald picking up a rifle to kill the President with. (this is, in fact, exactly what Bugliosi asserts.) If Oswald had visited midweek before, this argument loses much of it's force.

And, in fact, Bugliosi is lying about Nov 21st being the 'first Thursday visit ever.' Nor is it the first midweek visit. It's true that such midweek visits weren't common - but it's a lie to state that they never occurred.

Let's examine the evidence that Bugliosi surely knew of:

"Mrs. Tarrants stated as best as she recalls, on Thursday night, October 31, 1963 LEE HARVEY OSWALD appeared at the cashier's cage and presented the above check to her and requested that it be cashed." (CE 1165 pg 6)
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1165.pdf

While this is certainly short of absolute proof of a prior Thursday visit, it's also certainly evidence of one. Evidence that Bugliosi surely knew of, and has not refuted. So he knew he was lying when he tried to make the claim that Nov 21st was the 'first Thursday visit ever.'

Oswald is also known to have gone back to Irving on a Monday, Oct 21, after the birth of his second child. Bugliosi surely knew this from the testimony of witnesses before the Warren Commission.

Lying about the known evidence in order to 'create' evidence for your belief isn't very convincing.

It's CERTAINLY not proof that Oswald murdered JFK.

If you want to claim that the Mannlicher Carcano belonged to Oswald, you'll have to address the money order.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 25, 2017, 2:18:34 PM1/25/17

to

If you aren't good enough to locate BT George's post on John's censored forum, then tough luck. (Took me all of a minute or less to find it again...)

I've told you that I checked 'em enough to see that they were an accurate representation of what Bugliosi said.

It's up to YOU to prove otherwise.

You can start by stopping the lies about a book you've never read.

Bud

unread,

Jan 25, 2017, 2:38:28 PM1/25/17

to

Why would anyone trust you assessment of them being "an accurate representation" of Bugliosi`s words? And surely even you must know that it better to address his actual words rather than a "representation" of them.

> It's up to YOU to prove otherwise.

You admitted as much when you used the word "reflecting" earlier and word "representation" here.

> You can start by stopping the lies about a book you've never read.

What claim have I made about what appears in Bugliosi`s book?

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 25, 2017, 2:58:13 PM1/25/17

to

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 2:38:28 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 2:18:34 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 11:11:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:07:53 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 2:56:30 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 10:51:03 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 7:28:13 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > > > For Ben's information....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vince Bugliosi's quote on page 955 of his book (re: Oswald always going to Irving on Fridays prior to 11/21/63) is actually refuted by *Bugliosi himself* in his very own book (as I proved earlier when I posted the image from VB's book below)....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Quote the EXACT SENTENCE found on page 955.
> > > > >
> > > > > So this isn`t from Bugliosi`s list of 53 things. So why are you even going there, why are you pulling content from his book and refuting *that*?
> > > >
> > > > I note for the record that you refuse to do so.
> > > >
> > > > The reason, of course, is that Bugliosi lied.
> > > >
> > > > P.S. And yes moron, this is EXACTLY from his list of 53... it's number one.
> > >
> > > OK, maybe Bugliosi`s list of 53 things can be found on page 955 of Bugliosi`s book "Reclaiming History". I don`t have the book, so this is why I asked.
> > >
> > > It would be nice if you would link to the list of 53 things you are working from.
> >
> > If you aren't good enough to locate BT George's post on John's censored forum, then tough luck. (Took me all of a minute or less to find it again...)
> >
> > I've told you that I checked 'em enough to see that they were an accurate representation of what Bugliosi said.
>
> Why would anyone trust you assessment of them being "an accurate representation" of Bugliosi`s words?

Amen to that. I wouldn't trust Holmes to take my garbage to the curb, let alone anything else. Just look how he mangled the "several seconds" argument.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 25, 2017, 3:43:27 PM1/25/17

to

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 11:38:28 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 2:18:34 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 11:11:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:07:53 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 2:56:30 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 10:51:03 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 7:28:13 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > > > For Ben's information....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vince Bugliosi's quote on page 955 of his book (re: Oswald always going to Irving on Fridays prior to 11/21/63) is actually refuted by *Bugliosi himself* in his very own book (as I proved earlier when I posted the image from VB's book below)....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Quote the EXACT SENTENCE found on page 955.
> > > > >
> > > > > So this isn`t from Bugliosi`s list of 53 things. So why are you even going there, why are you pulling content from his book and refuting *that*?
> > > >
> > > > I note for the record that you refuse to do so.
> > > >
> > > > The reason, of course, is that Bugliosi lied.
> > > >
> > > > P.S. And yes moron, this is EXACTLY from his list of 53... it's number one.
> > >
> > > OK, maybe Bugliosi`s list of 53 things can be found on page 955 of Bugliosi`s book "Reclaiming History". I don`t have the book, so this is why I asked.
> > >
> > > It would be nice if you would link to the list of 53 things you are working from.
> >
> > If you aren't good enough to locate BT George's post on John's censored forum, then tough luck. (Took me all of a minute or less to find it again...)
> >
> > I've told you that I checked 'em enough to see that they were an accurate representation of what Bugliosi said.
>
> Why would anyone trust you assessment of them being "an accurate representation" of Bugliosi`s words? And surely even you must know that it better to address his actual words rather than a "representation" of them.

No-one needs to trust my assessment - all they need to do is pull out their copy of "Reclaiming History," and turn to page 955 and start reading.

But a dishonest person will claim or imply that I've misrepresented Bugliosi without quoting his words that differ in meaning from what I've posted.

Quite dishonest, aren't you "Bud?"

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 25, 2017, 3:44:48 PM1/25/17

to

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 11:58:13 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 2:38:28 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 2:18:34 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 11:11:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:07:53 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 2:56:30 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 10:51:03 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 7:28:13 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > > > > For Ben's information....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vince Bugliosi's quote on page 955 of his book (re: Oswald always going to Irving on Fridays prior to 11/21/63) is actually refuted by *Bugliosi himself* in his very own book (as I proved earlier when I posted the image from VB's book below)....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Quote the EXACT SENTENCE found on page 955.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So this isn`t from Bugliosi`s list of 53 things. So why are you even going there, why are you pulling content from his book and refuting *that*?
> > > > >
> > > > > I note for the record that you refuse to do so.
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason, of course, is that Bugliosi lied.
> > > > >
> > > > > P.S. And yes moron, this is EXACTLY from his list of 53... it's number one.
> > > >
> > > > OK, maybe Bugliosi`s list of 53 things can be found on page 955 of Bugliosi`s book "Reclaiming History". I don`t have the book, so this is why I asked.
> > > >
> > > > It would be nice if you would link to the list of 53 things you are working from.
> > >
> > > If you aren't good enough to locate BT George's post on John's censored forum, then tough luck. (Took me all of a minute or less to find it again...)
> > >
> > > I've told you that I checked 'em enough to see that they were an accurate representation of what Bugliosi said.
> >
> > Why would anyone trust you assessment of them being "an accurate representation" of Bugliosi`s words?
>
> Amen to that. I wouldn't trust Holmes to take my garbage to the curb, let alone anything else. Just look how he mangled the "several seconds" argument.

unread,

Jan 25, 2017, 7:59:54 PM1/25/17

to

Then you're defending what Bugliosi stated, without knowing what it was he stated... Boy are you dumb!!

Bud

unread,

Jan 25, 2017, 8:18:39 PM1/25/17

to

Certainly you can`t be trusted as a go between, which is why I asked you for a link to the list you are working off of.

But you have been good enough to give me so much to work with it hasn`t be necessary.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 25, 2017, 11:07:35 PM1/25/17

to

Certainly you aren't honest enough to check my quotes against the source.

Merely implying that I've misrepresented Bugliosi is good enough for you.

Not to an honest man... but to you.

> But you have been good enough to give me so much to work with it hasn`t be necessary.

Hate to be the one to clue you in, "Bud" - but you're losing...

Bud

unread,

Jan 26, 2017, 6:21:03 AM1/26/17

to

I`m off today, I might go to the library and see if they still have the copy of Reclaiming History they used to have. But I just heard that Trump is coming to Philly, so I might go down and taunt some protesters.

> Merely implying that I've misrepresented Bugliosi is good enough for you.

You implied it, not me. Using words like "reflecting" and "representation" indicate you aren`t working from his actual words.

> Not to an honest man... but to you.
>
>
> > But you have been good enough to give me so much to work with it hasn`t be necessary.
>
> Hate to be the one to clue you in, "Bud" - but you're losing...

You saying that is a good sign I am winning.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 26, 2017, 9:54:54 AM1/26/17

to

So the next time you dare to impugn my use of another believer's quotes of Bugliosi, you'll have "Reclaiming History" sitting next to you?

What a coward you are!!!

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 "Reasons", #1 - Refuted.

judos...@gmail.com

Bud

judos...@gmail.com

Bud

judos...@gmail.com

Bud

judos...@gmail.com

Bud

judos...@gmail.com

Bud

judos...@gmail.com

Bud

David Von Pein

Bud

Bud

David Von Pein

David Von Pein

David Von Pein

David Von Pein

Bud

Jason Burke

Bud

David Von Pein

David Von Pein

judos...@gmail.com

judos...@gmail.com

judos...@gmail.com

judos...@gmail.com

judos...@gmail.com

judos...@gmail.com

judos...@gmail.com

judos...@gmail.com

judos...@gmail.com

judos...@gmail.com

Bud

Bud

Bud

Bud

David Von Pein

Bud

Bud

Ben Holmes

Ben Holmes

Ben Holmes

Jason Burke

David Von Pein

Jason Burke

Bud

Bud

Ben Holmes

Ben Holmes

Ben Holmes

Bud

Bud

Ben Holmes

Ben Holmes

Bud

Bud

Ben Holmes

Ben Holmes

Bud

Bud

Ben Holmes

Ben Holmes

Bud

Bud

Ben Holmes

Ben Holmes

Bud

Bud

Ben Holmes

Ben Holmes

David Von Pein

Ben Holmes

David Von Pein

Bud

Bud

Bud

Ben Holmes