Vincent Bugliosi's 53 "Reasons", #5 - Refuted.

[Ben Holmes]

(5) Friday morning, Oswald left almost all his cash and his wedding ring in Irving.

This is by no means a certain issue. We don't even know who found the ring ... the earliest report stated that the police had found it. 22H764 (CE 1401) - Then we have both Marina finding it 23H399 (CE 1787) and 23H475-476 (CE 1820), and Ruth Paine finding it 3H111-112

(Watch as believers both refuse to acknowledge this, and also refuse to cite.)

Marina had testified that Oswald didn't like wearing his ring when he went to work, due to the width of the ring:

Mr. RANKIN. Had your husband ever left his wedding ring at home that way before?
Mrs. OSWALD. At one time while he was still at Fort Worth, it was inconvenient for him to work with his wedding ring on and he would remove it, but at work--he would not leave it at home. His wedding ring was rather wide, and it bothered him. I don't know now. He would take it off at work.

Another major problem here is that you can see him wearing a ring on his 'ring finger' of his left hand when arrested. Although records state that this was a Marine Corps ring - the fact that such a ring is not in the National Archives, and the fact that he was wearing it where a wedding ring should go - cause problems for this case. It's not at all certain that the story told by the Warren Commission is a truthful one.

As for the cash he left, it's sheer speculation that this was "almost all his cash". As anyone married knows, his wife and children needed more money than he did. I find it particularly amusing that financially caring for his family is turned into evidence that he murdered the President.

I can't even recall how many times I've left my ring at home... but I've not been charged with shooting the President yet...

(Lurkers, carefully note how believers will refuse to acknowledge cited factual evidence, and will begin changing the topic. I predict it in advance.)

[Bud]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:15:50 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> (5) Friday morning, Oswald left almost all his cash and his wedding ring in Irving.
>
> This is by no means a certain issue.

Admitting failure already? You are supposed to be refuting Bugliosi.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:37:18 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:15:50 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > (5) Friday morning, Oswald left almost all his cash and his wedding ring in Irving.
> >
> > This is by no means a certain issue.
>
> Admitting failure already? You are supposed to be refuting Bugliosi.

Can't read, can you "Bud"... there's no credible evidence that Oswald left his wedding ring in Irving. It's not provably factual, as Bugliosi implies.

The evidence that exists, AS I CITED FOR - is contradictory.

So the person admitting defeat is you.

> > We don't even know who found the ring ... the earliest report stated that the police had found it. 22H764 (CE 1401) - Then we have both Marina finding it 23H399 (CE 1787) and 23H475-476 (CE 1820), and Ruth Paine finding it 3H111-112
> >
> > (Watch as believers both refuse to acknowledge this, and also refuse to cite.)
> >
> > Marina had testified that Oswald didn't like wearing his ring when he went to work, due to the width of the ring:
> >
> > Mr. RANKIN. Had your husband ever left his wedding ring at home that way before?
> > Mrs. OSWALD. At one time while he was still at Fort Worth, it was inconvenient for him to work with his wedding ring on and he would remove it, but at work--he would not leave it at home. His wedding ring was rather wide, and it bothered him. I don't know now. He would take it off at work.
> >
> > Another major problem here is that you can see him wearing a ring on his 'ring finger' of his left hand when arrested. Although records state that this was a Marine Corps ring - the fact that such a ring is not in the National Archives, and the fact that he was wearing it where a wedding ring should go - cause problems for this case. It's not at all certain that the story told by the Warren Commission is a truthful one.
> >
> > As for the cash he left, it's sheer speculation that this was "almost all his cash". As anyone married knows, his wife and children needed more money than he did. I find it particularly amusing that financially caring for his family is turned into evidence that he murdered the President.
> >
> > I can't even recall how many times I've left my ring at home... but I've not been charged with shooting the President yet...
> >
> > (Lurkers, carefully note how believers will refuse to acknowledge cited factual evidence, and will begin changing the topic. I predict it in advance.)

Anyone notice that my prediction came true?

Notice that "Bud" couldn't explain how leaving cash & ring (even if perfectly true) indicts someone as a murderer.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 2:06:48 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:37:18 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:15:50 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > (5) Friday morning, Oswald left almost all his cash and his wedding ring in Irving.
> > >
> > > This is by no means a certain issue.
> >
> > Admitting failure already? You are supposed to be refuting Bugliosi.
>
>
> Can't read, can you "Bud"...

Sure can. I even know what the word "refute: means, and why what you are offering falls short.

> there's no credible evidence that Oswald left his wedding ring in Irving. It's not provably factual, as Bugliosi implies.

Are you saying that you have shown that Oswald didn`t leave his ring?

> The evidence that exists, AS I CITED FOR - is contradictory.

So you are too stupid to recognize the difference between contradicting someone and refuting them.

You are attempting to move the bar from refuting to casting doubt. Which is fine, but you need to change the header.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 11:28:46 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 2:06:48 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:37:18 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:15:50 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > (5) Friday morning, Oswald left almost all his cash and his wedding ring in Irving.
> > > >
> > > > This is by no means a certain issue.
> > >
> > > Admitting failure already? You are supposed to be refuting Bugliosi.
> >
> >
> > Can't read, can you "Bud"...
>
> Sure can. I even know what the word "refute: means, and why what you are offering falls short.

Your opinion means nothing.

Cite for Bugliosi's claim.

> > there's no credible evidence that Oswald left his wedding ring in Irving. It's not provably factual, as Bugliosi implies.
>
> Are you saying that you have shown that Oswald didn`t leave his ring?

What does the evidence show, "Bud?"

Cite it, as I did.

> > The evidence that exists, AS I CITED FOR - is contradictory.
>
> So you are too stupid to recognize the difference between contradicting someone and refuting them.

Then simply provide the citations to the evidence that *support* Bugliosi.

I provided the citations that show he wasn't very accurate - yet you're trying to claim he was.

Cite the evidence.

> You are attempting to move the bar from refuting to casting doubt. Which is fine, but you need to change the header.

Nope... these are refutations.

Feel free to defend Bugliosi, but your opinion won't do the job. Only the evidence and logical argument BASED on the known evidence will work.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 2:42:30 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 11:28:46 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 2:06:48 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:37:18 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:15:50 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > (5) Friday morning, Oswald left almost all his cash and his wedding ring in Irving.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is by no means a certain issue.
> > > >
> > > > Admitting failure already? You are supposed to be refuting Bugliosi.
> > >
> > >
> > > Can't read, can you "Bud"...
> >
> > Sure can. I even know what the word "refute: means, and why what you are offering falls short.
>
>
> Your opinion means nothing.
>
> Cite for Bugliosi's claim.

You still misunderstand the process.

>
>
> > > there's no credible evidence that Oswald left his wedding ring in Irving. It's not provably factual, as Bugliosi implies.
> >
> > Are you saying that you have shown that Oswald didn`t leave his ring?
>
>
> What does the evidence show, "Bud?"

The evidence you produced does not refute Bugliosi`s claim.

> Cite it, as I did.

I prefer to point out the failure of your cites to achieve your stated purpose.

>
> > > The evidence that exists, AS I CITED FOR - is contradictory.
> >
> > So you are too stupid to recognize the difference between contradicting someone and refuting them.
>
> Then simply provide the citations to the evidence that *support* Bugliosi.

Shifting the burden. You claimed to be able to refute Bugliosi. Get to it.

> I provided the citations that show he wasn't very accurate -

But you haven`t refuted him.

> yet you're trying to claim he was.
>
> Cite the evidence.
>
>
> > You are attempting to move the bar from refuting to casting doubt. Which is fine, but you need to change the header.
>
>
> Nope... these are refutations.

<snicker> Repeating it don`t make it so.

> Feel free to defend Bugliosi,

Not what I`m doing.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 12:05:46 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 2:42:30 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 11:28:46 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 2:06:48 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:37:18 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:15:50 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > (5) Friday morning, Oswald left almost all his cash and his wedding ring in Irving.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is by no means a certain issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > Admitting failure already? You are supposed to be refuting Bugliosi.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can't read, can you "Bud"...
> > >
> > > Sure can. I even know what the word "refute: means, and why what you are offering falls short.
> >
> >
> > Your opinion means nothing.
> >
> > Cite for Bugliosi's claim.
>
> You still misunderstand the process.

Nope.

Your problem is that I all too well understand.

I refute Bugliosi's claims with citations, evidence, and logical argument.

If you want to defend Bugliosi, YOU CAN ONLY DO SO WITH CITATIONS, EVIDENCE AND LOGICAL DEBATE.

Nothing else will work... ad hominem certainly fails the test.

Now, presuming that Bugliosi - DESPITE THE CONTRARY EVIDENCE - was absolutely correct that "Oswald left almost all his cash and his wedding ring in Irving." - how does that support the theory that he's a murderer?

You may cite, provide evidence, or give a logical argument.

What you cannot do is merely say you don't believe....

Your opinion is fairly meaningless, as you've shown yourself to be the sort of person that no-one could trust.

Citation, Evidence, or Logical Argument.

You may begin. (after, that is, you've purchased the book you're defending, and have read it.)

[Ben Holmes]

I hope everyone has noticed that David Von Pein, posting every day, has virtually completely ignored this series thus far (except for schooling "Bud" that Bugliosi wasn't telling the truth about Oswald's weekday visit to Irving)

David Von Pein has long been the premier defender of Vincent Bugliosi's tome, yet when he faces critical, AND KNOWLEDGEABLE refutations of Vincent Bugliosi - he backs down.

I suspect that he learned his lesson back when Bugliosi's lie about Carrico stating that the throat wound was "ragged" was being debated.

He learned (probably for the first time) that he didn't know the case evidence nearly as well as he thought he did... confusing for a long time the wound description on the skin of the throat with the tracheal wound.

David is "twice shy" nowadays, and afraid to defend Bugliosi from my critical review.

And that fact tells the tale... David isn't sure that Bugliosi will escape unscathed - and is therefore remaining in the background, and refusing to help save Bugliosi's reputation.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 3:50:35 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 12:05:46 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 2:42:30 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 11:28:46 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 2:06:48 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:37:18 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:15:50 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > (5) Friday morning, Oswald left almost all his cash and his wedding ring in Irving.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is by no means a certain issue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Admitting failure already? You are supposed to be refuting Bugliosi.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Can't read, can you "Bud"...
> > > >
> > > > Sure can. I even know what the word "refute: means, and why what you are offering falls short.
> > >
> > >
> > > Your opinion means nothing.
> > >
> > > Cite for Bugliosi's claim.
> >
> > You still misunderstand the process.
>
> Nope.
>
> Your problem is that I all too well understand.
>
> I refute Bugliosi's claims with citations, evidence, and logical argument.

Empty claim.

> If you want to defend Bugliosi, YOU CAN ONLY DO SO WITH CITATIONS, EVIDENCE AND LOGICAL DEBATE.

Wrong. I can also point out that you are going under the bar that you`ve set.

> Nothing else will work... ad hominem certainly fails the test.
>
> Now, presuming that Bugliosi - DESPITE THE CONTRARY EVIDENCE - was absolutely correct that "Oswald left almost all his cash and his wedding ring in Irving." - how does that support the theory that he's a murderer?

You probably think it was a coincidence that OJ had an injured finger the day his ex-wife was murdered.

> You may cite, provide evidence, or give a logical argument.
>
> What you cannot do is merely say you don't believe....

I can point out when you fail to refute, like you have in this case.

[David Von Pein]

Egads, what an egomaniac!

As for the "ragged" topic....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/reclaiming-history-errors.html

[Ben Holmes]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 3:08:10 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 3:50:35 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 12:05:46 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 2:42:30 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 11:28:46 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 2:06:48 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:37:18 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:15:50 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > (5) Friday morning, Oswald left almost all his cash and his wedding ring in Irving.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is by no means a certain issue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Admitting failure already? You are supposed to be refuting Bugliosi.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can't read, can you "Bud"...
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure can. I even know what the word "refute: means, and why what you are offering falls short.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your opinion means nothing.
> > > >
> > > > Cite for Bugliosi's claim.
> > >
> > > You still misunderstand the process.
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> > Your problem is that I all too well understand.
> >
> > I refute Bugliosi's claims with citations, evidence, and logical argument.
>
> Empty claim.

You're lying again, "Bud".

[Ben Holmes]

Quite the coward, aren't you?

> As for the "ragged" topic....

I defy you to publicly state right here and now that anything I stated in this post was not completely accurate.

You're a gutless coward, David.


> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/reclaiming-history-errors.html


And still ... David runs from defending Bugliosi.

That fact tells the tale...

[Bud]

You are too crooked to be left to judge whether you refuted Bugliosi`s claims with citations, evidence and logical argument.

It would be like Hillary Clinton declaring herself the winner of the Presidential election.

[Ben Holmes]

Said the coward running desperately away from these refutations... many more to come.

[Bud]

When do they start? I`ve seen only one actual refutation, and that was by DVP.

For those playing along at home, the criteria of a refutation would be Ben establishing as fact that Bugliosi`s assertion cannot be true. Keep this in mind when Ben is presenting these so-called "refutations".

[Ben Holmes]

Yep... he agreed with me that Bugliosi wasn't telling the truth when he claimed that Nov 21st was the first weekday visit to Irving.

> For those playing along at home, the criteria of a refutation would be Ben establishing as fact that Bugliosi`s assertion cannot be true. Keep this in mind when Ben is presenting these so-called "refutations".

Certainly.

It's a FACT that anyone who leaves money at home, and has left their wedding ring at home, is no more likely to murder someone that anyone who has not left money at home, and is still wearing their wedding ring.

THAT'S A FACT THAT YOU CANNOT DISPUTE WITH ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

I establish this fact in two different ways... first, any reasonable person would immediately, and with no other 'proof' - accept as a given that leaving money at home along with a wedding ring has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the propensity to kill someone.

Second, the fact that you and David have been completely unable to defend the complete silliness of using such things as evidence that one is a murderer.

"Bud's" a kook, and David is too smart to try to defend Bugliosi on this point.

Right David?

[Bud]

I don`t care about that. I told you, I`m not trying to defend Bugliosi.

> > For those playing along at home, the criteria of a refutation would be Ben establishing as fact that Bugliosi`s assertion cannot be true. Keep this in mind when Ben is presenting these so-called "refutations".
>
> Certainly.
>
> It's a FACT that anyone who leaves money at home, and has left their wedding ring at home, is no more likely to murder someone that anyone who has not left money at home, and is still wearing their wedding ring.

Strawman. You have to refute Bugliosi`s assertions.

> THAT'S A FACT THAT YOU CANNOT DISPUTE WITH ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.
>
> I establish this fact in two different ways... first, any reasonable person would immediately, and with no other 'proof' -

"proof"? If you ignore all the indications of Oswald`s intentions there are no indications of Oswald`s intentions. Very circular.

> accept as a given that leaving money at home along with a wedding ring has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the propensity to kill someone.

And OJ wearing those glove do not indicate his intention to kill his ex-wife, people wear gloves all the time and don`t kill anyone.

> Second, the fact that you and David have been completely unable to defend the complete silliness of using such things as evidence that one is a murderer.

You keep trying to shift the burden. You said you were going to refute Bugliosi. I`m just waiting to see if you can do this. So far you have been very disappointing.

[David Von Pein]

And Ben will continue to disappoint, and that's because virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when taken AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case.

Among Mr. Bugliosi's "53 Things", I can think of only two items that really don't belong there (IMO) -- Item #41 (about the paraffin test) and item #23 (concerning Oswald changing his trousers).

More of my thoughts about "The VB 53":

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-674.html

[Ben Holmes]

Of course you are.

You're just not succeeding.

[Bud]

That is only what you are trying to make it. You started this series of posts based on a premise you claimed you could support. You just aren`t good at supporting your own ideas, mostly because they are bad.

[Ben Holmes]

Here's the post you're running from again:

(5) Friday morning, Oswald left almost all his cash and his wedding ring in Irving.

This is by no means a certain issue. We don't even know who found the ring ... the earliest report stated that the police had found it. 22H764 (CE 1401) - Then we have both Marina finding it 23H399 (CE 1787) and 23H475-476 (CE 1820), and Ruth Paine finding it 3H111-112