Vincent Bugliosi's 53 "Reasons", #8 - Refuted.

[Ben Holmes]

(8) On arrival at the TSBD, Oswald walked faster and ahead of Frazier for the first time ever.

Silly! Since when does "walking fast" have anything at all to do with indicting someone??? Sometimes Bugliosi really stretches to try to find something to 'prove' Oswald's guilt, this is a good example of his tendency to do this.

Again we see the theme of presuming guilt on Oswald's part, then pretending that everything he did and said shows that guilt. Since when does "walking fast" show guilt of anything at all???

Lurkers: Watch carefully as not a *SINGLE* believer will acknowledge the obvious - and will all try to defend the fact that if someone walks ahead of another person, they are guilty of committing, by themselves, a murder.

[Bud]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:21:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> (8) On arrival at the TSBD, Oswald walked faster and ahead of Frazier for the first time ever.

Here is the entire passage that Ben is dishonestly omitting parts of...

8. When Frazier and Oswald arrived in the parking lot for the Book Depository Building on the morning of the assassination, Oswald picked up the long package on the backseat and, for the first time ever, walked quickly ahead of Frazier all the way into the building, Oswald being approximately fifty feet ahead at the time he entered the building. Always previously, they had walked the three hundred or so yards from the car to the building together.

> Silly! Since when does "walking fast" have anything at all to do with indicting someone???

What does asking this question have to do with refuting Bugliosi?

>Sometimes Bugliosi really stretches to try to find something to 'prove' Oswald's guilt, this is a good example of his tendency to do this.

It is what one might expect Oswald to do if he had the rifle in the bag, stupid.

> Again we see the theme of presuming guilt on Oswald's part, then pretending that everything he did and said shows that guilt. Since when does "walking fast" show guilt of anything at all???

He did this for the first day ever, and it was the first day ever he was the prime suspect in a murder that was committed from his workplace. Conspiracy retards can`t make simple connections because they have no aptitude for investigation. They should stick to criticizing real investigations, whenever they put ideas on the table for consideration they are just plain retarded.

> Lurkers: Watch carefully as not a *SINGLE* believer will acknowledge the obvious - and will all try to defend the fact that if someone walks ahead of another person, they are guilty of committing, by themselves, a murder.

Lurkers note that Ben claimed to be refuting Bugliosi. Anyone who knows the definition of the word "refute" knows that to achieve this Ben must show that what Bugliosi asserted cannot be true. But wait, Ben doesn`t even seem to be contesting that what Bugliosi asserted is true. Another fail!

[David Von Pein]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:21:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

As Bud has pointed out so many times, and it deserves repeating in every single one of Ben's silly threads where he has deluded himself into thinking he has "refuted" Vincent Bugliosi's "53 Things".....

Conspiracy theorists (particularly "Internet CTers") are the *last* people on the face of the globe who should be looking into the JFK assassination---because virtually *none* of those CTers have the slightest capacity for properly and reasonably and rationally examining the evidence (and Lee Harvey Oswald's actions and movements) associated with the events on 11/22/63.

And Ben just proved that point yet again with his thread-opening post above.

Hint for Ben --- Did you ever once ask yourself: ***WHY does Lee Oswald, for the FIRST TIME EVER, decide that he wants to walk well AHEAD of Buell Wesley Frazier as they walk toward the Depository Building on November 22nd, 1963?***

[Ben Holmes]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 9:09:10 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:21:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > (8) On arrival at the TSBD, Oswald walked faster and ahead of Frazier for the first time ever.
>
> Here is the entire passage that Ben is dishonestly omitting parts of...

Keep in mind that "Bud" will not label BT George as "dishonest" - despite the fact that I'm simply requoting the list as he posted it in John McAdams' censored forum.

This illustrates the hypocrisy that believers engage in all the time. Nothing was said at all as long as it was a believer giving a summary of what Bugliosi stated, but should I merely quote it - suddenly I'm tagged as "dishonest".

Clearly, there's only one dishonest person among these three listed.

> 8. When Frazier and Oswald arrived in the parking lot for the Book Depository Building on the morning of the assassination, Oswald picked up the long package on the backseat and, for the first time ever, walked quickly ahead of Frazier all the way into the building, Oswald being approximately fifty feet ahead at the time he entered the building. Always previously, they had walked the three hundred or so yards from the car to the building together.

What part of the full statement NOT posted by a believer changed what Bugliosi said?

> > Silly! Since when does "walking fast" have anything at all to do with indicting someone???
>
> What does asking this question have to do with refuting Bugliosi?

What action of Oswald's did Bugliosi claim was evidence of guilt?

> >Sometimes Bugliosi really stretches to try to find something to 'prove' Oswald's guilt, this is a good example of his tendency to do this.
>
> It is what one might expect Oswald to do if he had the rifle in the bag, stupid.

Speculation is not evidence. Never has been. I've rarely had a rifle with me when I walked ahead of other people.

> > Again we see the theme of presuming guilt on Oswald's part, then pretending that everything he did and said shows that guilt. Since when does "walking fast" show guilt of anything at all???
>
> He did this for the first day ever,

This is sheer speculation and not supportable.

Indeed, in Frazier's testimony he states that it was *HIM*, not Oswald, who was the cause of them not walking in together.

Mr. FRAZIER - He got out of the car and he was wearing the jacket that has the big sleeves in them and he put the package that he had, you know, that he told me was curtain rods up under his arm, you know, and so he walked down behind the car and standing over there at the end of the cyclone fence waiting for me to get out of the car, and so quick as I cut the engine off and started out of the car, shut the door just as I was starting out just like getting out of the car, he started walking off and so I followed him in.
So, eventually there he kept getting a little further ahead of me and I noticed we had plenty of time to get there because it is not too far from the Depository and usually I walk around and watch them switching the trains because you have to watch where you are going if you have to cross the tracks.
One day you go across one track and maybe there would be some cars sitting there and there would be another diesel coming there, so you have to watch when you cross the tracks, I just walked along and I just like to watch them switch the cars, so eventually he kept getting a little further ahead of me and by that time we got down there pretty close to the Depository Building there, I say, he would be as much as, I would say, roughly 50 feet in front of me but I didn't try to catch up with him because I knew I had plenty of time so I just took my time walking up there.
Mr. BALL - Did you usually walk up there together.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; we did.
Mr. BALL - Is this the first time that he had ever walked ahead of you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.

Now, let's dissect this a little: first thing to notice is that Frazier asserts that Oswald was WAITING FOR HIM!

"and so he walked down behind the car and standing over there at the end of the cyclone fence waiting for me to get out of the car,"

Now that's COMPLETELY inconsistent with Bugliosi's claim... and both "Bud" and David Von Pein are liars when they attempt to assert otherwise.

Second to note is what David will point to:
Mr. BALL - Is this the first time that he had ever walked ahead of you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.

The answer is, of course, INCONSISTENT with the question... either Frazier didn't catch the question correctly, or the transcript has, like others, been altered. Frazer HIMSELF never stated that this was the first time Oswald walked ahead of him.

Frazier even admitted that IT WAS HIS ACTIONS of waiting and watching the switch cars that caused Oswald to move out so far ahead of him.

Go ahead, "Bud" and David - REFUTE ANYTHING I'VE JUST POINTED OUT.

But you'd be lying if you do.

>and it was the first day ever he was the prime suspect in a murder that was committed from his workplace. Conspiracy retards can`t make simple connections because they have no aptitude for investigation. They should stick to criticizing real investigations, whenever they put ideas on the table for consideration they are just plain retarded.

The "connection" being made is presuming Oswald's guilt, then looking at all actions of his as evidence of that guilt.

And since it was *FRAZIER* who caused Oswald to walk ahead of him (remember, Frazier testified that Oswald had waited for him!) then by the logic you're now employing, Frazier needs to be looked at as a suspect in the murder case... because despite Oswald waiting for him, Frazier intentionally held back - with the excuse of watching them "switch the cars" ... clearly a murderer contemplating his upcoming crime.

> > Lurkers: Watch carefully as not a *SINGLE* believer will acknowledge the obvious - and will all try to defend the fact that if someone walks ahead of another person, they are guilty of committing, by themselves, a murder.
>
> Lurkers note that Ben claimed to be refuting Bugliosi. Anyone who knows the definition of the word "refute" knows that to achieve this Ben must show that what Bugliosi asserted cannot be true. But wait, Ben doesn`t even seem to be contesting that what Bugliosi asserted is true. Another fail!

I've demonstrated that what Bugliosi claimed is not true. You've failed in your attempt to defend him.

[Bud]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:51:31 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 9:09:10 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:21:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > (8) On arrival at the TSBD, Oswald walked faster and ahead of Frazier for the first time ever.
> >
> > Here is the entire passage that Ben is dishonestly omitting parts of...
>
>
> Keep in mind that "Bud" will not label BT George as "dishonest" - despite the fact that I'm simply requoting the list as he posted it in John McAdams' censored forum.

As I pointed out earlier you seem to be jumping back and forth between that version and the version from Bugliosi`s book.

> This illustrates the hypocrisy that believers engage in all the time. Nothing was said at all as long as it was a believer giving a summary of what Bugliosi stated, but should I merely quote it - suddenly I'm tagged as "dishonest".

Don`t cry victim, I asked you several times to link from to the version you are working from.

And since you do seem to have Bugliosi`s book you should know of any deficiencies in any of the various versions that might be floating around the internet.

> Clearly, there's only one dishonest person among these three listed.

Indeed.

>
>
> > 8. When Frazier and Oswald arrived in the parking lot for the Book Depository Building on the morning of the assassination, Oswald picked up the long package on the backseat and, for the first time ever, walked quickly ahead of Frazier all the way into the building, Oswald being approximately fifty feet ahead at the time he entered the building. Always previously, they had walked the three hundred or so yards from the car to the building together.
>
>
> What part of the full statement NOT posted by a believer changed what Bugliosi said?

If you want to refute what Bugliosi said you have to do it in context, including everything he said in the item you are claiming to refute. Not snippets and excerpts. Why do you need me to tell you these things.

> > > Silly! Since when does "walking fast" have anything at all to do with indicting someone???
> >
> > What does asking this question have to do with refuting Bugliosi?
>
>
> What action of Oswald's did Bugliosi claim was evidence of guilt?

Strawman. Refute means to disprove. You are failing to show that the things Bugliosi said cannot be true.

You can change you argument anytime by editing your headers, I won`t make a big deal out of it. You can move the goalpost to disputing that the things Bugliosi is offering are indications of Oswald guilt. You just have to say this is what you are doing.

>
> > >Sometimes Bugliosi really stretches to try to find something to 'prove' Oswald's guilt, this is a good example of his tendency to do this.
> >
> > It is what one might expect Oswald to do if he had the rifle in the bag, stupid.
>
>
> Speculation is not evidence.

So, to here a retard tell it if Oswald is seen one place by someone and later by someone else, that he flew or was transported by a spaceship are equal to the idea that he walked.

> Never has been. I've rarely had a rifle with me when I walked ahead of other people.

How often have you been the prime suspect in a murder? I`m not talking about child abductions, just murders.

> > > Again we see the theme of presuming guilt on Oswald's part, then pretending that everything he did and said shows that guilt. Since when does "walking fast" show guilt of anything at all???
> >
> > He did this for the first day ever,
>
> This is sheer speculation and not supportable.

Strawman. You have to show that what he said was false.

> Indeed, in Frazier's testimony he states that it was *HIM*, not Oswald, who was the cause of them not walking in together.
>
> Mr. FRAZIER - He got out of the car and he was wearing the jacket that has the big sleeves in them and he put the package that he had, you know, that he told me was curtain rods up under his arm, you know, and so he walked down behind the car and standing over there at the end of the cyclone fence waiting for me to get out of the car, and so quick as I cut the engine off and started out of the car, shut the door just as I was starting out just like getting out of the car, he started walking off and so I followed him in.

Oswald was out and away from the car. As Frazier was exiting it Oswald turned and started towards the Depository. This indicates he had no intention of walking with Frazier.

The FBI determined from their interview of Frazier that he was no closer than 12 feet to Oswald on the walk in. Bugliosi claims a 50 foot gap by the time Oswald reached the Depository. I`d have to check a map to find the distance from where they parked to the Depository.

> So, eventually there he kept getting a little further ahead of me and I noticed we had plenty of time to get there because it is not too far from the Depository and usually I walk around and watch them switching the trains because you have to watch where you are going if you have to cross the tracks.
> One day you go across one track and maybe there would be some cars sitting there and there would be another diesel coming there, so you have to watch when you cross the tracks, I just walked along and I just like to watch them switch the cars, so eventually he kept getting a little further ahead of me and by that time we got down there pretty close to the Depository Building there, I say, he would be as much as, I would say, roughly 50 feet in front of me but I didn't try to catch up with him because I knew I had plenty of time so I just took my time walking up there.
> Mr. BALL - Did you usually walk up there together.
> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; we did.
> Mr. BALL - Is this the first time that he had ever walked ahead of you?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.

Now Ben has to show that the pace Frazier walked that day wasn`t the pace he and Oswald ordinarily walked when they walked together.

> Now, let's dissect this a little: first thing to notice is that Frazier asserts that Oswald was WAITING FOR HIM!

Proven wrong by the fact that he didn`t.

> "and so he walked down behind the car and standing over there at the end of the cyclone fence waiting for me to get out of the car,"

But apparently not waiting for Frazier to catch up and walk with him.

> Now that's COMPLETELY inconsistent with Bugliosi's claim...

Not really, and a strawman. You bar you set was refutation, not mere disputing.

>and both "Bud" and David Von Pein are liars when they attempt to assert otherwise.
>
> Second to note is what David will point to:
> Mr. BALL - Is this the first time that he had ever walked ahead of you?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.
>
> The answer is, of course, INCONSISTENT with the question... either Frazier didn't catch the question correctly, or the transcript has, like others, been altered. Frazer HIMSELF never stated that this was the first time Oswald walked ahead of him.
>
> Frazier even admitted that IT WAS HIS ACTIONS of waiting and watching the switch cars that caused Oswald to move out so far ahead of him.

Frazier would have likely walked at any pace Oswald did had Oswald chosen to wait for him to catch up.

> Go ahead, "Bud" and David - REFUTE ANYTHING I'VE JUST POINTED OUT.

You still don`t understand the process.

> But you'd be lying if you do.
>
>
>
> >and it was the first day ever he was the prime suspect in a murder that was committed from his workplace. Conspiracy retards can`t make simple connections because they have no aptitude for investigation. They should stick to criticizing real investigations, whenever they put ideas on the table for consideration they are just plain retarded.
>
>
> The "connection" being made is presuming Oswald's guilt, then looking at all actions of his as evidence of that guilt.

It is possible to work forward or backwards from information.

> And since it was *FRAZIER* who caused Oswald to walk ahead of him

Pretty clear that Oswald turning and heading in while Frazier was still just getting out of the car that caused them to walk in apart. Frazier could chose either to try to hurry and close the 12 foot gap between the two men or continue on a leisurely pace alone.

>(remember, Frazier testified that Oswald had waited for him!) then by the logic you're now employing, Frazier needs to be looked at as a suspect in the murder case... because despite Oswald waiting for him, Frazier intentionally held back - with the excuse of watching them "switch the cars" ... clearly a murderer contemplating his upcoming crime.

How do you know that they didn`t always walk together at the pace Frazier did that day?

>
> > > Lurkers: Watch carefully as not a *SINGLE* believer will acknowledge the obvious - and will all try to defend the fact that if someone walks ahead of another person, they are guilty of committing, by themselves, a murder.
> >
> > Lurkers note that Ben claimed to be refuting Bugliosi. Anyone who knows the definition of the word "refute" knows that to achieve this Ben must show that what Bugliosi asserted cannot be true. But wait, Ben doesn`t even seem to be contesting that what Bugliosi asserted is true. Another fail!
>
> I've demonstrated that what Bugliosi claimed is not true. You've failed in your attempt to defend him.

You`ve failed once more in you attempt to refute him.

[Ben Holmes]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 12:48:33 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:51:31 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 9:09:10 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:21:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > (8) On arrival at the TSBD, Oswald walked faster and ahead of Frazier for the first time ever.
> > >
> > > Here is the entire passage that Ben is dishonestly omitting parts of...
> >
> >
> > Keep in mind that "Bud" will not label BT George as "dishonest" - despite the fact that I'm simply requoting the list as he posted it in John McAdams' censored forum.
>
> As I pointed out earlier you seem to be jumping back and forth between that version and the version from Bugliosi`s book.

There's no difference between them, nor am I "jumping back and forth."

You're lying again, "Bud".

[Bud]

Really? This is #8 from the list found in Bugliosi`s book...

8. When Frazier and Oswald arrived in the parking lot for the Book Depository Building on the morning of the assassination, Oswald picked up the long package on the backseat and, for the first time ever, walked quickly ahead of Frazier all the way into the building, Oswald being approximately fifty feet ahead at the time he entered the building. Always previously, they had walked the three hundred or so yards from the car to the building together.

This is the #8 you presented and addressed....

(8) On arrival at the TSBD, Oswald walked faster and ahead of Frazier for the first time ever.

Are you really going to take the position that these two are identical?

[Ben Holmes]

You started this by claiming that *I* am "jumping back and forth" - yet you cannot quote me quoting the entire #8.

So you're lying.

Now, on to your latest complaint. What action of Oswald's was Bugliosi making a point about?

Gutless liar that you are, you'll refuse to admit that it's precisely what BT George summarized, and what I quoted and answered.

So tell us "Bud" - why are you wasting everyone's time with this lie?

[Bud]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 4:54:07 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:38:30 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 4:32:39 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 12:48:33 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:51:31 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 9:09:10 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:21:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > (8) On arrival at the TSBD, Oswald walked faster and ahead of Frazier for the first time ever.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here is the entire passage that Ben is dishonestly omitting parts of...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Keep in mind that "Bud" will not label BT George as "dishonest" - despite the fact that I'm simply requoting the list as he posted it in John McAdams' censored forum.
> > > >
> > > > As I pointed out earlier you seem to be jumping back and forth between that version and the version from Bugliosi`s book.
> > >
> > > There's no difference between them, nor am I "jumping back and forth."
> > >
> > > You're lying again, "Bud".
> >
> > Really? This is #8 from the list found in Bugliosi`s book...
> >
> > 8. When Frazier and Oswald arrived in the parking lot for the Book Depository Building on the morning of the assassination, Oswald picked up the long package on the backseat and, for the first time ever, walked quickly ahead of Frazier all the way into the building, Oswald being approximately fifty feet ahead at the time he entered the building. Always previously, they had walked the three hundred or so yards from the car to the building together.
> >
> > This is the #8 you presented and addressed....
> >
> > (8) On arrival at the TSBD, Oswald walked faster and ahead of Frazier for the first time ever.
> >
> > Are you really going to take the position that these two are identical?
>
> You started this by claiming that *I* am "jumping back and forth" - yet you cannot quote me quoting the entire #8.

You have been, I established that on the first one. Here is the relevant exchange...

You "Bugliosi clearly stated that the topic was Oswald GOING TO IRVING."

Me: 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.

You: Any honest person would presume he stayed somewhere in Irving that night, but that's not needed... only the fact that he went to Irving.

Me: This is the initial assertion you said you were going to refute.

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

When I pressed you, you said this...


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

There is no other source more credible than the original."

Problem is what you were addressing in your first post doesn`t match what appears in Bugliosi`s book. You`ve been jumping back and forth between the "BT George" version" of the list and the list from Bugliosi`s book. I would suggest you just stick to what appears in the book.

> So you're lying.
>
> Now, on to your latest complaint. What action of Oswald's was Bugliosi making a point about?
>
> Gutless liar that you are, you'll refuse to admit that it's precisely what BT George summarized, and what I quoted and answered.
>
> So tell us "Bud" - why are you wasting everyone's time with this lie?

The better question is why, if you have the book, didn`t you address Bugliosi`s actual assertions rather than the summary of someone else?

[Ben Holmes]

Still a coward, eh "Bud?"

Still can't answer the questions that show you to be wrong...

[Ben Holmes]

And, of course, not a *SINGLE* believer, including David, was willing to publicly acknowledge the truth...


David Von Pein responded on his website:

>As Bud has pointed out so many times, and it deserves repeating in every single one of Ben's silly threads where he has deluded himself into thinking he has "refuted" Vincent Bugliosi's "53 Things".....

Yet strangely, David ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to defend Bugliosi against my credible and reasonable refutations.

If David cannot, and no-one else steps up to the plate to argue the points I raised, then yes, Bugliosi HAS BEEN REFUTED.

It's just that simple.

> Conspiracy theorists (particularly "Internet CTers") are the very last people on the face of the globe who should be looking into the JFK assassination---because virtually none of those CTers have the slightest capacity for properly and reasonably and rationally examining the evidence (and Lee Harvey Oswald's actions and movements) associated with the events on 11/22/63.


Ad hominem simply shows that David knows he lost, and cannot debate.

He cannot put forth his "proper & reasonable & rational" explanations of the evidence, because he knows quite well that critics would demolish them.


> And Ben just proved that point yet again with his post above.

As I've frequently schooled believers - the moment you use ad hominem in place of evidence, citations, reasoned argument and logic, you've admitted to the world that you CANNOT do so.

This means that you UNDERSTAND that you've lost.


>Hint for Ben --- Did you ever once ask yourself this: WHY does Lee Oswald, for the FIRST TIME EVER, decide that he wants to walk well AHEAD of Buell Wesley Frazier as they walk toward the Book Depository Building on November 22nd, 1963?

You're lying again, David. As Frazier makes quite clear in his testimony, IT WAS *HIS* ACTIONS OF *NOT* WALKING that caused the split between the two. Nor can you cite for your speculation that this was the first time that Frazier, FRAZIER (not Oswald), slowed down & came to a stop between car and TSBD.

David likes to hide his responses on his website - because he knows that dare he put his answers where I can respond, he'll look silly.

Watch as David runs away again...

[Bud]

My question stands. Why aren`t you addressing Bugliosi`s actual arguments?

[Ben Holmes]

[Bud]

On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 8:53:03 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 4:27:00 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 5:31:36 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 2:23:30 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 4:54:07 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:38:30 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 4:32:39 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 12:48:33 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:51:31 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 9:09:10 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:21:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > (8) On arrival at the TSBD, Oswald walked faster and ahead of Frazier for the first time ever.

Note that Ben idi not show a single word of the summarization he produced to be wrong. How can it be "refutation" without and refuting?

I`ve demonstrated the truth of what I said. You aren`t using Bugliosi`s actual arguments. You said this...

"There is no other source more credible than the original."

Were you lying?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 4:11:18 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 8:53:03 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 4:27:00 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 5:31:36 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 2:23:30 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 4:54:07 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:38:30 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 4:32:39 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 12:48:33 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:51:31 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 9:09:10 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:21:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > (8) On arrival at the TSBD, Oswald walked faster and ahead of Frazier for the first time ever.
>
> Note that Ben idi not show a single word of the summarization he produced to be wrong. How can it be "refutation" without and refuting?

You're lying again, "Bud."

Frazier makes it clear in his testimony that it was he who STOPPED walking, not any mythical "Oswald walked faster"...

Lies cannot defend lies...

[Bud]

On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 10:52:13 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 4:11:18 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 8:53:03 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 4:27:00 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 5:31:36 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 2:23:30 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 4:54:07 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:38:30 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 4:32:39 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 12:48:33 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:51:31 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 9:09:10 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:21:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (8) On arrival at the TSBD, Oswald walked faster and ahead of Frazier for the first time ever.
> >
> > Note that Ben idi not show a single word of the summarization he produced to be wrong. How can it be "refutation" without and refuting?
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

You are just stupid.

> Frazier makes it clear in his testimony that it was he who STOPPED walking, not any mythical "Oswald walked faster"...

This is a strawman argument.

This is the passage you produced to address...

(8) On arrival at the TSBD, Oswald walked faster and ahead of Frazier for the first time ever.

Nothing about who stopped. Oswald got to the building because he walked faster than Frazier. Up until that day they walked together. Everything in that passage is true.

> Lies cannot defend lies...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 9:41:25 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 10:52:13 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 4:11:18 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 8:53:03 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 4:27:00 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 5:31:36 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 2:23:30 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 4:54:07 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:38:30 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 4:32:39 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 12:48:33 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:51:31 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 9:09:10 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:21:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (8) On arrival at the TSBD, Oswald walked faster and ahead of Frazier for the first time ever.
> > >
> > > Note that Ben idi not show a single word of the summarization he produced to be wrong. How can it be "refutation" without and refuting?
> >
> > You're lying again, "Bud."
>
> You are just stupid.

Ad hominem isn't a refutation, "Bud"... it's an admission that you cannot debate.

[Bud]

Running from the arguments I made shows you can`t.