Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Vincent Bugliosi's SBT - #4 - Refuted
35 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Aug 11, 2023, 11:16:28 AM8/11/23
to
Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my
responses...)
> "4. Another reason why we know Connally was hit by the same bullet
> that had struck Kennedy is that the argument that there wasn't enough
> time to fire a second shot from the bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano
> rifle, and hence Connally must have been hit by a second assassin,
> *doesn't go anywhere*. It would only go somewhere if Commission
> Exhibit No. 399, *the bullet that struck Connally* (and which the
> Warren Commission and HSCA concluded had first struck Kennedy), hadn't
> been fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
> Therefore, even if we assume that Commission Exhibit No. 399 did not
> first pass through Kennedy's body, *we still know that it was fired
> from Oswald's rifle, not a different rifle*, and we don't have any
> evidence of a second assassin, only Oswald. Or did Oswald, after
> shooting Kennedy in the back, hand his rifle to a second gunman
> standing beside him and say, 'I just shot Kennedy, now you shoot
> Connally?' " Pg. 463-464
Bugliosi correctly notes that if a *separate* shot hit Connally, then
there was a second assassin. He makes the presumption that CE399
struck JFK ... then Connally - although the evidence that such
happened just isn't there. Most of the medical and some of the
ballistic testimony was in disagreement with this scenario.
But you won't hear that from Bugliosi, or from his number one defender
in this forum, David Von Penis.
Nor will Chickenshit publicly admit the truth of this statement.
Bugliosi's argument can be explained as:
1. Must have been an SBT - because otherwise there was a second
assassin.
2. CE399 is that SBT, despite virtually all expert testimony refuting
that idea.
3. Begging the question as to who was firing the rifle. (and who owned
it.)
4. Ending with the logical fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule - showing
that Bugliosi understood how weak his arguments were.
He doesn't explain how he rules out a second assassin.
Bugliosi also makes the presumption that we "don't have any evidence
of a second shooter" - which, of course, is a misrepresentation of the
testimony that we have. There is *indeed* "evidence" of a second
assassin.
Bugliosi's final logical fallacy demonstrates (in my opinion, of
course) the desperation that Bugliosi is feeling...
Bugliosi has failed with #4
Cue Chickenshit to stop in with some more cowardice & logical
fallacies, but he still has #3 to answer...
responses...)
> "4. Another reason why we know Connally was hit by the same bullet
> that had struck Kennedy is that the argument that there wasn't enough
> time to fire a second shot from the bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano
> rifle, and hence Connally must have been hit by a second assassin,
> *doesn't go anywhere*. It would only go somewhere if Commission
> Exhibit No. 399, *the bullet that struck Connally* (and which the
> Warren Commission and HSCA concluded had first struck Kennedy), hadn't
> been fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
> Therefore, even if we assume that Commission Exhibit No. 399 did not
> first pass through Kennedy's body, *we still know that it was fired
> from Oswald's rifle, not a different rifle*, and we don't have any
> evidence of a second assassin, only Oswald. Or did Oswald, after
> shooting Kennedy in the back, hand his rifle to a second gunman
> standing beside him and say, 'I just shot Kennedy, now you shoot
> Connally?' " Pg. 463-464
Bugliosi correctly notes that if a *separate* shot hit Connally, then
there was a second assassin. He makes the presumption that CE399
struck JFK ... then Connally - although the evidence that such
happened just isn't there. Most of the medical and some of the
ballistic testimony was in disagreement with this scenario.
But you won't hear that from Bugliosi, or from his number one defender
in this forum, David Von Penis.
Nor will Chickenshit publicly admit the truth of this statement.
Bugliosi's argument can be explained as:
1. Must have been an SBT - because otherwise there was a second
assassin.
2. CE399 is that SBT, despite virtually all expert testimony refuting
that idea.
3. Begging the question as to who was firing the rifle. (and who owned
it.)
4. Ending with the logical fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule - showing
that Bugliosi understood how weak his arguments were.
He doesn't explain how he rules out a second assassin.
Bugliosi also makes the presumption that we "don't have any evidence
of a second shooter" - which, of course, is a misrepresentation of the
testimony that we have. There is *indeed* "evidence" of a second
assassin.
Bugliosi's final logical fallacy demonstrates (in my opinion, of
course) the desperation that Bugliosi is feeling...
Bugliosi has failed with #4
Cue Chickenshit to stop in with some more cowardice & logical
fallacies, but he still has #3 to answer...
Bud
Aug 11, 2023, 1:25:01 PM8/11/23
to
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:16:28 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my
> responses...)
>
> > "4. Another reason why we know Connally was hit by the same bullet
> > that had struck Kennedy is that the argument that there wasn't enough
> > time to fire a second shot from the bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano
> > rifle, and hence Connally must have been hit by a second assassin,
> > *doesn't go anywhere*. It would only go somewhere if Commission
> > Exhibit No. 399, *the bullet that struck Connally* (and which the
> > Warren Commission and HSCA concluded had first struck Kennedy), hadn't
> > been fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
> > Therefore, even if we assume that Commission Exhibit No. 399 did not
> > first pass through Kennedy's body, *we still know that it was fired
> > from Oswald's rifle, not a different rifle*, and we don't have any
> > evidence of a second assassin, only Oswald. Or did Oswald, after
> > shooting Kennedy in the back, hand his rifle to a second gunman
> > standing beside him and say, 'I just shot Kennedy, now you shoot
> > Connally?' " Pg. 463-464
>
> Bugliosi correctly notes that if a *separate* shot hit Connally, then
> there was a second assassin. He makes the presumption that CE399
> struck JFK ... then Connally - although the evidence that such
> happened just isn't there.
Ben likes to just *say* stuff.
> Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my
> responses...)
>
> > "4. Another reason why we know Connally was hit by the same bullet
> > that had struck Kennedy is that the argument that there wasn't enough
> > time to fire a second shot from the bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano
> > rifle, and hence Connally must have been hit by a second assassin,
> > *doesn't go anywhere*. It would only go somewhere if Commission
> > Exhibit No. 399, *the bullet that struck Connally* (and which the
> > Warren Commission and HSCA concluded had first struck Kennedy), hadn't
> > been fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
> > Therefore, even if we assume that Commission Exhibit No. 399 did not
> > first pass through Kennedy's body, *we still know that it was fired
> > from Oswald's rifle, not a different rifle*, and we don't have any
> > evidence of a second assassin, only Oswald. Or did Oswald, after
> > shooting Kennedy in the back, hand his rifle to a second gunman
> > standing beside him and say, 'I just shot Kennedy, now you shoot
> > Connally?' " Pg. 463-464
>
> Bugliosi correctly notes that if a *separate* shot hit Connally, then
> there was a second assassin. He makes the presumption that CE399
> struck JFK ... then Connally - although the evidence that such
> happened just isn't there.
>Most of the medical and some of the
> ballistic testimony was in disagreement with this scenario.
> But you won't hear that from Bugliosi, or from his number one defender
> in this forum, David Von Penis.
>
> Nor will Chickenshit publicly admit the truth of this statement.
> Bugliosi's argument can be explained as:
>
> 1. Must have been an SBT - because otherwise there was a second
> assassin.
>
> 2. CE399 is that SBT, despite virtually all expert testimony refuting
> that idea.
> 3. Begging the question as to who was firing the rifle. (and who owned
> it.)
> 4. Ending with the logical fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule - showing
> that Bugliosi understood how weak his arguments were.
> He doesn't explain how he rules out a second assassin.
> Bugliosi also makes the presumption that we "don't have any evidence
> of a second shooter" - which, of course, is a misrepresentation of the
> testimony that we have. There is *indeed* "evidence" of a second
> assassin.
> Bugliosi's final logical fallacy demonstrates (in my opinion, of
> course) the desperation that Bugliosi is feeling...
>
> Bugliosi has failed with #4
> Cue Chickenshit to stop in with some more cowardice & logical
> fallacies, but he still has #3 to answer...
Ben Holmes
Aug 11, 2023, 2:11:06 PM8/11/23
to
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 10:24:59 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
wrote:
>Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my
>responses...)
>
>> "4. Another reason why we know Connally was hit by the same bullet
>> that had struck Kennedy is that the argument that there wasn't enough
>> time to fire a second shot from the bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano
>> rifle, and hence Connally must have been hit by a second assassin,
>> *doesn't go anywhere*. It would only go somewhere if Commission
>> Exhibit No. 399, *the bullet that struck Connally* (and which the
>> Warren Commission and HSCA concluded had first struck Kennedy), hadn't
>> been fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
>> Therefore, even if we assume that Commission Exhibit No. 399 did not
>> first pass through Kennedy's body, *we still know that it was fired
>> from Oswald's rifle, not a different rifle*, and we don't have any
>> evidence of a second assassin, only Oswald. Or did Oswald, after
>> shooting Kennedy in the back, hand his rifle to a second gunman
>> standing beside him and say, 'I just shot Kennedy, now you shoot
>> Connally?' " Pg. 463-464
>
>Bugliosi correctly notes that if a *separate* shot hit Connally, then
>there was a second assassin. He makes the presumption that CE399
>struck JFK ... then Connally - although the evidence that such
>happened just isn't there. Most of the medical and some of the
>Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my
>responses...)
>
>> "4. Another reason why we know Connally was hit by the same bullet
>> that had struck Kennedy is that the argument that there wasn't enough
>> time to fire a second shot from the bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano
>> rifle, and hence Connally must have been hit by a second assassin,
>> *doesn't go anywhere*. It would only go somewhere if Commission
>> Exhibit No. 399, *the bullet that struck Connally* (and which the
>> Warren Commission and HSCA concluded had first struck Kennedy), hadn't
>> been fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
>> Therefore, even if we assume that Commission Exhibit No. 399 did not
>> first pass through Kennedy's body, *we still know that it was fired
>> from Oswald's rifle, not a different rifle*, and we don't have any
>> evidence of a second assassin, only Oswald. Or did Oswald, after
>> shooting Kennedy in the back, hand his rifle to a second gunman
>> standing beside him and say, 'I just shot Kennedy, now you shoot
>> Connally?' " Pg. 463-464
>
>Bugliosi correctly notes that if a *separate* shot hit Connally, then
>there was a second assassin. He makes the presumption that CE399
>struck JFK ... then Connally - although the evidence that such
>ballistic testimony was in disagreement with this scenario.
>
>
>But you won't hear that from Bugliosi, or from his number one defender
>in this forum, David Von Penis.
>
>Nor will Chickenshit publicly admit the truth of this statement.
>
>in this forum, David Von Penis.
>
>Nor will Chickenshit publicly admit the truth of this statement.
>
>Bugliosi's argument can be explained as:
>
>1. Must have been an SBT - because otherwise there was a second
>assassin.
>
>2. CE399 is that SBT, despite virtually all expert testimony refuting
>that idea.
>
>
>1. Must have been an SBT - because otherwise there was a second
>assassin.
>
>2. CE399 is that SBT, despite virtually all expert testimony refuting
>that idea.
>
>3. Begging the question as to who was firing the rifle. (and who owned
>it.)
>
>it.)
>
>4. Ending with the logical fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule - showing
>that Bugliosi understood how weak his arguments were.
>
>
>that Bugliosi understood how weak his arguments were.
>
>
>He doesn't explain how he rules out a second assassin.
>
>
>Bugliosi also makes the presumption that we "don't have any evidence
>of a second shooter" - which, of course, is a misrepresentation of the
>testimony that we have. There is *indeed* "evidence" of a second
>assassin.
>
>of a second shooter" - which, of course, is a misrepresentation of the
>testimony that we have. There is *indeed* "evidence" of a second
>assassin.
>
>Bugliosi's final logical fallacy demonstrates (in my opinion, of
>course) the desperation that Bugliosi is feeling...
>
>Bugliosi has failed with #4
>
>course) the desperation that Bugliosi is feeling...
>
>Bugliosi has failed with #4
>
>Cue Chickenshit to stop in with some more cowardice & logical
>fallacies, but he still has #3 to answer...
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that
>fallacies, but he still has #3 to answer...
was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Bud
Aug 11, 2023, 3:18:52 PM8/11/23
to
Ben Holmes
Aug 11, 2023, 3:23:59 PM8/11/23
to
Bud
Aug 11, 2023, 3:27:17 PM8/11/23
to
The response Ben is running from...
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/OgUT2Y0Kijo/m/r1-PWP9_AAAJ
Ben Holmes
Aug 11, 2023, 3:29:23 PM8/11/23
to
Bud
Aug 11, 2023, 3:30:17 PM8/11/23
to
Ben Holmes
Aug 11, 2023, 3:31:55 PM8/11/23
to
Bud
Aug 11, 2023, 3:33:07 PM8/11/23
to
Ben Holmes
Aug 11, 2023, 3:34:28 PM8/11/23
to
Bud
Aug 11, 2023, 5:26:15 PM8/11/23
to
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 3:34:28 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 12:33:05 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
I wish Ben would grow a pair and ask me a question.
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 12:33:05 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
Ben Holmes
Aug 11, 2023, 5:39:09 PM8/11/23
to
Bud
Aug 11, 2023, 5:43:31 PM8/11/23
to
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 5:39:09 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 14:26:14 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 14:26:14 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
Ben Holmes
Aug 11, 2023, 5:49:41 PM8/11/23
to
Bud
Aug 11, 2023, 9:56:45 PM8/11/23
to
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 5:49:41 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Selective quoting removed.
The post that frightens Ben...
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/OgUT2Y0Kijo/m/r1-PWP9_AAAJ
Selective quoting removed.
The post that frightens Ben...
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/OgUT2Y0Kijo/m/r1-PWP9_AAAJ
Ben Holmes
Aug 14, 2023, 11:25:39 AM8/14/23
to
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 18:56:44 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 5:49:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> Selective quoting removed.
wrote:
>On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 5:49:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> Selective quoting removed.
0 new messages