info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons - #1 - Refuted
101 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Apr 10, 2023, 1:12:34 PM4/10/23
to
Posting this series again just for Corbutt - who clearly doesn't
understand, and perhaps never read any critical refutations of
Bugliosi before...
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...
Note for future posts (this will come up time and time again) - many
morons will whine that I didn't quote the ENTIRE statement of Bugliosi
- yet they failed to complain when this list - IN THIS FORM, was
posted in the censored forum by a believer.
(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.
understand, and perhaps never read any critical refutations of
Bugliosi before...
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...
Note for future posts (this will come up time and time again) - many
morons will whine that I didn't quote the ENTIRE statement of Bugliosi
- yet they failed to complain when this list - IN THIS FORM, was
posted in the censored forum by a believer.
(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.
John Corbett
Apr 10, 2023, 2:29:09 PM4/10/23
to
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:12:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Posting this series again just for Corbutt - who clearly doesn't
> understand, and perhaps never read any critical refutations of
> Bugliosi before...
>
> 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.
>
You don't.
> Posting this series again just for Corbutt - who clearly doesn't
> understand, and perhaps never read any critical refutations of
> Bugliosi before...
>
> 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...
of Oswald's guilt so they invent cockamamie excuses to dismiss it. Once you
dismiss all the evidence of Oswald's guilt, you are left with no evidence at all
because all the credible evidence points to Oswald and no one else. That is
really what the conspiracy hobbyists want because without any evidence to
deal with, they are left with a blank canvas which they can paint however they
want.
conspiracy hobbyists always do. They take a piece of evidence in isolation and
because that stand alone piece doesn't prove Oswald's guilt by itself, they think
that is grounds for dismissing it. This is, of course, an illogical way to examine
evidence. The evidence has to be looked at as a whole to make sense of it.
The Thursday night visit to Irving doesn't establish by itself that Oswald was the
assassin and no one argues that it does. When we combine that with the fact
that Frazier testified Oswald carried a long narrow brown paper package into
the TSBD, that an open brown paper package was found near the sniper's nest
that had Oswald's prints on it and fibers that matched the blanket the rifle was
stored in, that Oswald's rifle was found an the same floor as the paper bag,
that shells that could only have been fired from Oswald's rifle were found at
the location where several witnesses saw a gunman, that Oswald's prints were
found at that same location, that fibers matching Oswald's shirt were found on
the butt plate of the rifle, and that the only two bullets recovered had been fired
by Oswald's rifle, there is only one sensible conclusion and that is that Oswald
made the unusual Thursday night visit to Irving to fetch his rifle and smuggle it
into the TSBD in a brown paper package. You can look at any one piece of
evidence can come up with a number of explanations for it but it you take the
body of evidence as a whole, there is only one explanation that makes sense.
Oswald went to Irving on a Thursday night to fetch his rifle because he intended
to use it to assassinate JFK.
I have no doubt Benny will make posts for each of the other pieces of evidence
I cited above and do so in isolation from the other pieces. I also know Benny will
not present a plausible alternative explanation that fits all those pieces of evidence
I cited above because he knows no such explanation is possible. That's why
conspiracy hobbyists ALWAYS choose to deal with the evidence piecemeal.
This is where Benny will delete what I wrote above and call it a logical fallacy
because he is incapable of refuting my words.
Ben Holmes
Apr 10, 2023, 4:00:12 PM4/10/23
to
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:29:07 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:12:34?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Posting this series again just for Corbutt - who clearly doesn't
>> understand, and perhaps never read any critical refutations of
>> Bugliosi before...
>>
>> 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.
>>
>You don't.
By all means, cite proof for this empty claim. (But you won't.)
You're going to get schooled in this 53 part series, unless you can
admit the truth before I post it.
>> 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...
>
>This is what conspiracy hobbyists inevitably do.
Deal with the actual evidence? Of course. Why can't you?
>They can't deal with the evidence
>of Oswald's guilt so they invent cockamamie excuses to dismiss it.
As you're about to see, much of it is sheer nonsense that *YOU* can't
back up.
Even this first one - and we have 52 more to go - doesn't have
ANYTHING AT ALL to do with showing that Oswald is guilty of murder.
And you can't show it does.
> Once you dismiss all the evidence of Oswald's guilt,
No, this is a lie on your part, as well as a logical fallacy.
> you are left with no evidence at all because all the credible
> evidence points to Oswald and no one else.
A claim you'll *NEVER* cite for.
You can't.
You're lying again.
> That is really what the conspiracy hobbyists want because without
> any evidence to deal with, they are left with a blank canvas which
> they can paint however they want.
Another logical fallacy on your part.
Sorry stupid... but if evidence doesn't support something in the
individual - it cannot support something in the aggregate.
And amusingly, I just cited the proof that Bugliosi **FLAT LIED** ...
and you had nothing to refute that with.
>and Bugliosi doesn't present it as such.
Here's what the original believer stated "Bugliosi: 53 Reasons It Was
Lee Harvey Oswald"
Now, lie, and tell me you corrected him in the censored forum when he
made that claim.
Or lie again, and tell us THE NAME OF THE CHAPTER IN BUGLIOSI'S BOOK
where these items appear.
You won't.
You can't.
Or how about QUOTING the sentences preceding this list, introducing
it, and describing what this list is for?
You won't.
You can't.
It would prove you a liar...
You lose.
> This is what
>conspiracy hobbyists always do. They take a piece of evidence in isolation and
>because that stand alone piece doesn't prove Oswald's guilt by itself, they think
>that is grounds for dismissing it. This is, of course, an illogical way to examine
>evidence. The evidence has to be looked at as a whole to make sense of it.
Nope. Completely untrue. You're simply lying.
And the proof is easy - show us how Oswald's visiting habits
supported, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER, that he pulled the trigger on a gun.
But you won't.
You can't
You lose.
>The Thursday night visit to Irving doesn't establish by itself that Oswald was the
>assassin and no one argues that it does.
YOU'RE A DAMNED LIAR. Bugliosi included this as item #1 in his list
of reasons to believe Oswald shot JFK.
>When we combine that with the fact that Frazier testified...
Tut tut tut... logical fallacies will simply be deleted and ignored.
And if you're courageous enough to stick around until the end of this
53 part series, you're going to look REEEAAALLLYYY stupid.
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:12:34?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Posting this series again just for Corbutt - who clearly doesn't
>> understand, and perhaps never read any critical refutations of
>> Bugliosi before...
>>
>> 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.
>>
>You don't.
You're going to get schooled in this 53 part series, unless you can
admit the truth before I post it.
>> 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...
>
>This is what conspiracy hobbyists inevitably do.
>They can't deal with the evidence
>of Oswald's guilt so they invent cockamamie excuses to dismiss it.
back up.
Even this first one - and we have 52 more to go - doesn't have
ANYTHING AT ALL to do with showing that Oswald is guilty of murder.
And you can't show it does.
> Once you dismiss all the evidence of Oswald's guilt,
> you are left with no evidence at all because all the credible
> evidence points to Oswald and no one else.
You can't.
You're lying again.
> That is really what the conspiracy hobbyists want because without
> any evidence to deal with, they are left with a blank canvas which
> they can paint however they want.
individual - it cannot support something in the aggregate.
And amusingly, I just cited the proof that Bugliosi **FLAT LIED** ...
and you had nothing to refute that with.
>and Bugliosi doesn't present it as such.
Lee Harvey Oswald"
Now, lie, and tell me you corrected him in the censored forum when he
made that claim.
Or lie again, and tell us THE NAME OF THE CHAPTER IN BUGLIOSI'S BOOK
where these items appear.
You won't.
You can't.
Or how about QUOTING the sentences preceding this list, introducing
it, and describing what this list is for?
You won't.
You can't.
It would prove you a liar...
You lose.
> This is what
>conspiracy hobbyists always do. They take a piece of evidence in isolation and
>because that stand alone piece doesn't prove Oswald's guilt by itself, they think
>that is grounds for dismissing it. This is, of course, an illogical way to examine
>evidence. The evidence has to be looked at as a whole to make sense of it.
And the proof is easy - show us how Oswald's visiting habits
supported, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER, that he pulled the trigger on a gun.
But you won't.
You can't
You lose.
>The Thursday night visit to Irving doesn't establish by itself that Oswald was the
>assassin and no one argues that it does.
of reasons to believe Oswald shot JFK.
>When we combine that with the fact that Frazier testified...
Tut tut tut... logical fallacies will simply be deleted and ignored.
And if you're courageous enough to stick around until the end of this
53 part series, you're going to look REEEAAALLLYYY stupid.
Ben Holmes
Apr 10, 2023, 4:12:37 PM4/10/23
to
list of reasons why Oswald was guilty of murder...
The list was taken from the censored forum, and this is is what the
original poster claimed:
>"The 1st list of 53 reasons for LHO's guilt summarize why the OVERALL
>*evidence* suggests that Oswald---and Oswald alone---pulled any
> triggers on 11-22-63."
Not a **SINGLE** believer complained in the censored forum when this
believer said this.
Now suddenly they do when a critic says it.
That dishonesty shows honest people where the truth lies....
Gil Jesus
Apr 10, 2023, 4:15:25 PM4/10/23
to
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.
What they DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and ( when that doesn't work ) insults.
Bud
Apr 10, 2023, 4:23:23 PM4/10/23
to
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:12:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Posting this series again just for Corbutt - who clearly doesn't
> understand, and perhaps never read any critical refutations of
> Bugliosi before...
>
> 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...
>
> Note for future posts (this will come up time and time again) - many
> morons will whine that I didn't quote the ENTIRE statement of Bugliosi
> - yet they failed to complain when this list - IN THIS FORM, was
> posted in the censored forum by a believer.
Either you are addressing the points Bugliosi actually made or you are not. You are not.
> understand, and perhaps never read any critical refutations of
> Bugliosi before...
>
> 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...
>
> Note for future posts (this will come up time and time again) - many
> morons will whine that I didn't quote the ENTIRE statement of Bugliosi
> - yet they failed to complain when this list - IN THIS FORM, was
> posted in the censored forum by a believer.
> (1) Oswald always visited Marina in Irving on a Friday. Nov 21 was the
> first Thursday visit ever.
"1. Whenever Oswald had Wesley Frazier drive him out to visit his wife and daughters at the Paine residence in Irving, he’d go on a Friday evening and return to Dallas on Monday morning. The assassination was on Friday, November 22, 1963. For the very first time, Oswald went to Irving with Frazier on Thursday evening, November 21, obviously to pick up his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle for the following day."
This is true, according to Frazier.
Mr. BALL - Did he ride home with you in your car on weekends?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.
Mr. BALL - On Friday nights.
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Also...
Mr. BALL - Your memory is that he went,, he rode home with you every Friday and came back the following Monday?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
The rest below is irrelevant, it doesn`t speak to when Frazier drove Oswald to Oak Cliff. That was always on Fridays, and only on Fridays.
Ben Holmes
Apr 10, 2023, 4:25:17 PM4/10/23
to
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 13:15:22 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
Indeed!
That's all they have... lies and logical fallacies... that is, when
they aren't running away.
We've only looked at item #1 out of 53 reasons Oswald is the sole
murderer of JFK.
And it failed to support the claim.
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
That's all they have... lies and logical fallacies... that is, when
they aren't running away.
We've only looked at item #1 out of 53 reasons Oswald is the sole
murderer of JFK.
And it failed to support the claim.
Ben Holmes
Apr 10, 2023, 4:28:36 PM4/10/23
to
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 13:23:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:12:34?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Posting this series again just for Corbutt - who clearly doesn't
>> understand, and perhaps never read any critical refutations of
>> Bugliosi before...
>>
>> 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...
>>
>> Note for future posts (this will come up time and time again) - many
>> morons will whine that I didn't quote the ENTIRE statement of Bugliosi
>> - yet they failed to complain when this list - IN THIS FORM, was
>> posted in the censored forum by a believer.
>
> Either you are addressing the points Bugliosi actually made or you are not. You are not.
Quote the name of the chapter that these items are found in.
Quote the preceding sentences that introduced these 53 items.
You know... CITE & SUPPORT WHAT YOU CLAIMED.
But, of course... you won't.
>> (1) Oswald always visited Marina in Irving on a Friday. Nov 21 was the
>> first Thursday visit ever.
>
> This is what Bugs actually wrote...
This is what BT George actually wrote...
Oops, I already posted it.
Have you told him he lied???
wrote:
>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:12:34?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Posting this series again just for Corbutt - who clearly doesn't
>> understand, and perhaps never read any critical refutations of
>> Bugliosi before...
>>
>> 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...
>>
>> Note for future posts (this will come up time and time again) - many
>> morons will whine that I didn't quote the ENTIRE statement of Bugliosi
>> - yet they failed to complain when this list - IN THIS FORM, was
>> posted in the censored forum by a believer.
>
> Either you are addressing the points Bugliosi actually made or you are not. You are not.
Quote the preceding sentences that introduced these 53 items.
You know... CITE & SUPPORT WHAT YOU CLAIMED.
But, of course... you won't.
>> (1) Oswald always visited Marina in Irving on a Friday. Nov 21 was the
>> first Thursday visit ever.
>
> This is what Bugs actually wrote...
Oops, I already posted it.
Have you told him he lied???
Bud
Apr 10, 2023, 4:37:30 PM4/10/23
to
John Corbett
Apr 10, 2023, 4:37:45 PM4/10/23
to
other evidence I presented and you ignored, it provides the means by which Oswald
retrieved the rifle he would kill JFK with.
> > Once you dismiss all the evidence of Oswald's guilt,
> No, this is a lie on your part, as well as a logical fallacy.
> > you are left with no evidence at all because all the credible
> > evidence points to Oswald and no one else.
> A claim you'll *NEVER* cite for.
>
> You can't.
>
present the three best pieces of evidence you have that someone other than Oswald took
part in the crime. Offering your objections to the evidence presented by the WC is not
evidence of the involvement of others which is all you have ever done.
> You're lying again.
> > That is really what the conspiracy hobbyists want because without
> > any evidence to deal with, they are left with a blank canvas which
> > they can paint however they want.
> Another logical fallacy on your part.
given the amount of dumb things you have written over the years. When a prosecutor takes
a case to court, he typically presents numerous pieces of evidence of the accused person's
guilt to build his case. If any one piece of evidence by itself proved a person's guilt it would
be unnecessary to present anything but that one piece. Prosecutors know that it is the
accumulation of evidence that proves a person's guilt, not one piece by itself.
> And amusingly, I just cited the proof that Bugliosi **FLAT LIED** ...
> and you had nothing to refute that with.
with the other evidence to show how Oswald moved his rifle from the Paine house to the TSBD.
> >and Bugliosi doesn't present it as such.
> Here's what the original believer stated "Bugliosi: 53 Reasons It Was
> Lee Harvey Oswald"
>
> Now, lie, and tell me you corrected him in the censored forum when he
> made that claim.
a single piece of evidence.
>
> Or lie again, and tell us THE NAME OF THE CHAPTER IN BUGLIOSI'S BOOK
> where these items appear.
>
I didn't bring up the 53 pieces. You did. It's in the title of your thread.
> Or lie again, and tell us THE NAME OF THE CHAPTER IN BUGLIOSI'S BOOK
> where these items appear.
>
> You won't.
>
> You can't.
>
>
> Or how about QUOTING the sentences preceding this list, introducing
> it, and describing what this list is for?
>
> You won't.
>
> You can't.
>
> It would prove you a liar...
>
> You lose.
> > This is what
> >conspiracy hobbyists always do. They take a piece of evidence in isolation and
> >because that stand alone piece doesn't prove Oswald's guilt by itself, they think
> >that is grounds for dismissing it. This is, of course, an illogical way to examine
> >evidence. The evidence has to be looked at as a whole to make sense of it.
> Nope. Completely untrue. You're simply lying.
>
> And the proof is easy - show us how Oswald's visiting habits
> supported, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER, that he pulled the trigger on a gun.
>
> But you won't.
>
> You can't
>
> You lose.
> >The Thursday night visit to Irving doesn't establish by itself that Oswald was the
> >assassin and no one argues that it does.
> YOU'RE A DAMNED LIAR. Bugliosi included this as item #1 in his list
> of reasons to believe Oswald shot JFK.
>
evidence that establishes Oswald's guilt.
You couldn't establish that it was Jack Ruby who shot Oswald with a single piece of
evidence. You could show a jury a film of a man in a suit and hat shooting Oswald but you
still would need witnesses to establish the man was Jack Ruby. You would need to
introduce the gun into evidence and probably match the bullet taken form Oswald's body
to Ruby's gun. I'm sure he prosecutors in Ruby's trial did all that. They didn't rely on one
piece of evidence.
> >When we combine that with the fact that Frazier testified...
>
>
> Tut tut tut... logical fallacies will simply be deleted and ignored.
>
As I predicted when I wrote:
"This is where Benny will delete what I wrote above and call it a logical fallacy
because he is incapable of refuting my words."
Benny couldn't deal with the evidence I presented that ties together with Oswald's
"This is where Benny will delete what I wrote above and call it a logical fallacy
because he is incapable of refuting my words."
Thursday trip to Irving, so the coward just deleted it all and claimed it was a logical
fallacy. He's a coward and a liar. He never changes.
> And if you're courageous enough to stick around until the end of this
> 53 part series, you're going to look REEEAAALLLYYY stupid.
piece of evidence in isolation and claim it has no probative value because by itself it
doesn't prove Oswald's guilt. Only an idiot would take such a position, but look who I'm
talking to.
I don't need to do this 52 more times. I've made my point.
Bud
Apr 10, 2023, 4:40:52 PM4/10/23
to
> Quote the preceding sentences that introduced these 53 items.
> You know... CITE & SUPPORT WHAT YOU CLAIMED.
> But, of course... you won't.
> >> (1) Oswald always visited Marina in Irving on a Friday. Nov 21 was the
> >> first Thursday visit ever.
> >
> > This is what Bugs actually wrote...
> This is what BT George actually wrote...
>
> Oops, I already posted it.
>
> Have you told him he lied???
Either you are addressing the points Bugliosi actually made or you are not. You are not.
John Corbett
Apr 10, 2023, 4:43:51 PM4/10/23
to
to the one Benny presented. Count them for yourself.
Charles Schuyler
Apr 10, 2023, 6:14:56 PM4/10/23
to
Ben Holmes
Apr 10, 2023, 6:28:07 PM4/10/23
to
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 13:37:43 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 4:00:12?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:29:07 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:12:34?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> Posting this series again just for Corbutt - who clearly doesn't
>>>> understand, and perhaps never read any critical refutations of
>>>> Bugliosi before...
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>You don't.
>> By all means, cite proof for this empty claim. (But you won't.)
And, validating my prediction, you didn't. You were lying.
>> You're going to get schooled in this 53 part series, unless you can
>> admit the truth before I post it.
>>
>>>> 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...
>>>
>>>This is what conspiracy hobbyists inevitably do.
>>
>> Deal with the actual evidence? Of course. Why can't you?
Dead silence...
>>>They can't deal with the evidence
>>>of Oswald's guilt so they invent cockamamie excuses to dismiss it.
>>
>> As you're about to see, much of it is sheer nonsense that *YOU* can't
>> back up.
>>
>> Even this first one - and we have 52 more to go - doesn't have
>> ANYTHING AT ALL to do with showing that Oswald is guilty of murder.
>>
>> And you can't show it does.
>
>By itself, Oswald's Thursday trip to Irving is proof of nothing
Cite for your apparent claim that nothing plus nothing equals
something.
If this particular item DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE OR SUPPORT that Oswald
was the lone killer of JFK - then you don't have 53... you only have
52. And in the coming days, you'll find out that you have much less
than that.
>>> Once you dismiss all the evidence of Oswald's guilt,
>> No, this is a lie on your part, as well as a logical fallacy.
>
>Your whole case for conspiracy is based on dismissing the evidence the WC presented.
Your whole case revolves around believing everything the WC said.
Not *EVIDENCE*... but the WCR.
>>> you are left with no evidence at all because all the credible
>>> evidence points to Oswald and no one else.
>>
>> A claim you'll *NEVER* cite for.
>>
>> You can't.
>
>If you dispute my claim
I do. Didn't you understand that?
> you should be able to refute it quite easily.
No moron, it doesn't work that way. *YOU* made the claim, **YOU**
have to cite for it...
JFK was shot by multiple assassins. I don't need to cite for it,
since if you dispute my claim you should be able to refute it quite
easily.
I predict that you will neither refute my claim, nor retract your
assertion that I'm required to refute claims.
Moron.
> All you have to do is present the three best pieces of evidence you
> have that someone other than Oswald took part in the crime.
ARE YOU STUPID???
This was already done. Do try to keep up...
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/WsiTxkV0XSc/m/nJW918N4AAAJ
>Offering your objections to the evidence presented by the WC is not
>evidence of the involvement of others which is all you have ever done.
The above cite proves you a liar. But I understand why you want to
change the topic... we're only on number 1 of 53, and you're already
losing.
>> You're lying again.
>
>>> That is really what the conspiracy hobbyists want because without
>>> any evidence to deal with, they are left with a blank canvas which
>>> they can paint however they want.
>> Another logical fallacy on your part.
>
>Another empty claim by you which is unsupported.
Your logical fallacy is posted above. Just how do you think I need to
"support" it?
>That might be the dumbest thing you have ever written ...
I know *you* think that zero plus zero equals some other number... but
you can't cite for this wacky claim of yours.
You won't even try.
>> And amusingly, I just cited the proof that Bugliosi **FLAT LIED** ...
>> and you had nothing to refute that with.
>
>Bugliosi never said the Thursday trip to Irving proved Oswald's guilt.
HEY STUPID!!! HE SAID THAT A PARTICULAR THURSDAY WAS THE FIRST
THURSDAY EVER...
Do try to keep up.
>>>and Bugliosi doesn't present it as such.
>> Here's what the original believer stated "Bugliosi: 53 Reasons It Was
>> Lee Harvey Oswald"
>>
>> Now, lie, and tell me you corrected him in the censored forum when he
>> made that claim.
>
>Yes, 53 reasons. Not just one. Few, if any, criminal convictions could be obtained based on
>a single piece of evidence.
HEY MORON!!!! STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE TOPIC. Did you correct BT
George in the censored forum when he first made that statement?
Yes or no.
>> Or lie again, and tell us THE NAME OF THE CHAPTER IN BUGLIOSI'S BOOK
>> where these items appear.
>>
>I didn't bring up the 53 pieces. You did. It's in the title of your thread.
HEY STUPID!!! I'm asking the questions here. If you can't answer
them, then stop lying.
You made a claim about what Bugliosi presented... yet you can't cite
ANYTHING to show it.
Why is that, liar?
>> You won't.
>>
>> You can't.
>>
>>
>> Or how about QUOTING the sentences preceding this list, introducing
>> it, and describing what this list is for?
>>
>I didn't present a list.
NO MORON, YOU JUST DENIED WHAT BT GEORGE, AND VINCENT BUGLIOSI MADE
CRYSTAL CLEAR!
>> You won't.
>>
>> You can't.
>>
>> It would prove you a liar...
>>
>> You lose.
And indeed, you couldn't.
You lose.
>>> This is what
>>>conspiracy hobbyists always do. They take a piece of evidence in isolation and
>>>because that stand alone piece doesn't prove Oswald's guilt by itself, they think
>>>that is grounds for dismissing it. This is, of course, an illogical way to examine
>>>evidence. The evidence has to be looked at as a whole to make sense of it.
>>
>> Nope. Completely untrue. You're simply lying.
>>
>> And the proof is easy - show us how Oswald's visiting habits
>> supported, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER, that he pulled the trigger on a gun.
>>
>> But you won't.
>>
>> You can't
>>
>> You lose.
Another perfect prediction.
>>>The Thursday night visit to Irving doesn't establish by itself that Oswald was the
>>>assassin and no one argues that it does.
>>
>> YOU'RE A DAMNED LIAR. Bugliosi included this as item #1 in his list
>> of reasons to believe Oswald shot JFK.
>>
>That's why Bugliosi list 53 pieces of evidence, not just one.
And I've just proven that it's not 53... you're left with 52.
> It is the sum total of the
>evidence that establishes Oswald's guilt.
Cite for your claim that zero plus zero can equal some other number.
>You couldn't establish that it was Jack Ruby who shot Oswald with a single piece of
>evidence. You could show a jury a film of a man in a suit and hat shooting Oswald but you
>still would need witnesses to establish the man was Jack Ruby. You would need to
>introduce the gun into evidence and probably match the bullet taken form Oswald's body
>to Ruby's gun. I'm sure he prosecutors in Ruby's trial did all that. They didn't rely on one
>piece of evidence.
How does a proven lie about the first Thursday Oswald visited show
that Oswald is the lone assassin of JFK?
>>>When we combine that with the fact that Frazier testified...
>>
>>
>> Tut tut tut... logical fallacies will simply be deleted and ignored.
>>
might mention that you've not addressed AT ALL...
Your lies have been nearly as transparent.
>I don't need to do this 52 more times. I've made my point.
Run coward... RUN!!!
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 4:00:12?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:29:07 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:12:34?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> Posting this series again just for Corbutt - who clearly doesn't
>>>> understand, and perhaps never read any critical refutations of
>>>> Bugliosi before...
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>You don't.
>> By all means, cite proof for this empty claim. (But you won't.)
>> You're going to get schooled in this 53 part series, unless you can
>> admit the truth before I post it.
>>
>>>> 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...
>>>
>>>This is what conspiracy hobbyists inevitably do.
>>
>> Deal with the actual evidence? Of course. Why can't you?
>>>They can't deal with the evidence
>>>of Oswald's guilt so they invent cockamamie excuses to dismiss it.
>>
>> As you're about to see, much of it is sheer nonsense that *YOU* can't
>> back up.
>>
>> Even this first one - and we have 52 more to go - doesn't have
>> ANYTHING AT ALL to do with showing that Oswald is guilty of murder.
>>
>> And you can't show it does.
>
>By itself, Oswald's Thursday trip to Irving is proof of nothing
something.
If this particular item DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE OR SUPPORT that Oswald
was the lone killer of JFK - then you don't have 53... you only have
52. And in the coming days, you'll find out that you have much less
than that.
>>> Once you dismiss all the evidence of Oswald's guilt,
>> No, this is a lie on your part, as well as a logical fallacy.
>
>Your whole case for conspiracy is based on dismissing the evidence the WC presented.
Not *EVIDENCE*... but the WCR.
>>> you are left with no evidence at all because all the credible
>>> evidence points to Oswald and no one else.
>>
>> A claim you'll *NEVER* cite for.
>>
>> You can't.
>
>If you dispute my claim
> you should be able to refute it quite easily.
have to cite for it...
JFK was shot by multiple assassins. I don't need to cite for it,
since if you dispute my claim you should be able to refute it quite
easily.
I predict that you will neither refute my claim, nor retract your
assertion that I'm required to refute claims.
Moron.
> All you have to do is present the three best pieces of evidence you
> have that someone other than Oswald took part in the crime.
This was already done. Do try to keep up...
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/WsiTxkV0XSc/m/nJW918N4AAAJ
>Offering your objections to the evidence presented by the WC is not
>evidence of the involvement of others which is all you have ever done.
change the topic... we're only on number 1 of 53, and you're already
losing.
>> You're lying again.
>
>>> That is really what the conspiracy hobbyists want because without
>>> any evidence to deal with, they are left with a blank canvas which
>>> they can paint however they want.
>> Another logical fallacy on your part.
>
>Another empty claim by you which is unsupported.
"support" it?
I know *you* think that zero plus zero equals some other number... but
you can't cite for this wacky claim of yours.
You won't even try.
>> And amusingly, I just cited the proof that Bugliosi **FLAT LIED** ...
>> and you had nothing to refute that with.
>
>Bugliosi never said the Thursday trip to Irving proved Oswald's guilt.
THURSDAY EVER...
Do try to keep up.
>>>and Bugliosi doesn't present it as such.
>> Here's what the original believer stated "Bugliosi: 53 Reasons It Was
>> Lee Harvey Oswald"
>>
>> Now, lie, and tell me you corrected him in the censored forum when he
>> made that claim.
>
>Yes, 53 reasons. Not just one. Few, if any, criminal convictions could be obtained based on
>a single piece of evidence.
George in the censored forum when he first made that statement?
Yes or no.
>> Or lie again, and tell us THE NAME OF THE CHAPTER IN BUGLIOSI'S BOOK
>> where these items appear.
>>
>I didn't bring up the 53 pieces. You did. It's in the title of your thread.
them, then stop lying.
You made a claim about what Bugliosi presented... yet you can't cite
ANYTHING to show it.
Why is that, liar?
>> You won't.
>>
>> You can't.
>>
>>
>> Or how about QUOTING the sentences preceding this list, introducing
>> it, and describing what this list is for?
>>
>I didn't present a list.
CRYSTAL CLEAR!
>> You won't.
>>
>> You can't.
>>
>> It would prove you a liar...
>>
>> You lose.
You lose.
>>> This is what
>>>conspiracy hobbyists always do. They take a piece of evidence in isolation and
>>>because that stand alone piece doesn't prove Oswald's guilt by itself, they think
>>>that is grounds for dismissing it. This is, of course, an illogical way to examine
>>>evidence. The evidence has to be looked at as a whole to make sense of it.
>>
>> Nope. Completely untrue. You're simply lying.
>>
>> And the proof is easy - show us how Oswald's visiting habits
>> supported, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER, that he pulled the trigger on a gun.
>>
>> But you won't.
>>
>> You can't
>>
>> You lose.
>>>The Thursday night visit to Irving doesn't establish by itself that Oswald was the
>>>assassin and no one argues that it does.
>>
>> YOU'RE A DAMNED LIAR. Bugliosi included this as item #1 in his list
>> of reasons to believe Oswald shot JFK.
>>
>That's why Bugliosi list 53 pieces of evidence, not just one.
> It is the sum total of the
>evidence that establishes Oswald's guilt.
>You couldn't establish that it was Jack Ruby who shot Oswald with a single piece of
>evidence. You could show a jury a film of a man in a suit and hat shooting Oswald but you
>still would need witnesses to establish the man was Jack Ruby. You would need to
>introduce the gun into evidence and probably match the bullet taken form Oswald's body
>to Ruby's gun. I'm sure he prosecutors in Ruby's trial did all that. They didn't rely on one
>piece of evidence.
that Oswald is the lone assassin of JFK?
>>>When we combine that with the fact that Frazier testified...
>>
>>
>> Tut tut tut... logical fallacies will simply be deleted and ignored.
>>
>> And if you're courageous enough to stick around until the end of this
>> 53 part series, you're going to look REEEAAALLLYYY stupid.
>
>So you intend to do what you have done here 52 more times.
Certainly. It was easy to prove that Bugliosi lied here - something I
>> 53 part series, you're going to look REEEAAALLLYYY stupid.
>
>So you intend to do what you have done here 52 more times.
might mention that you've not addressed AT ALL...
Your lies have been nearly as transparent.
>I don't need to do this 52 more times. I've made my point.
Ben Holmes
Apr 10, 2023, 6:31:28 PM4/10/23
to
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 13:43:50 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 4:15:25?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
No stupid, you count 8 pieces of UNCITED, UNSOURCED, and UNSUPPORTED
EMPTY CLAIMS.
And Chickenshit says that those who make empty claims are only telling
lies.
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 4:15:25?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
EMPTY CLAIMS.
And Chickenshit says that those who make empty claims are only telling
lies.
Ben Holmes
Apr 10, 2023, 6:38:26 PM4/10/23
to
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:14:54 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
It's your stick.
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
Bud
Apr 10, 2023, 6:39:29 PM4/10/23
to
But there is only one real point to make. He is claiming to be refuting Bugliosi but he isn`t even addressing what the man actually said.
John Corbett
Apr 10, 2023, 6:47:39 PM4/10/23
to
pieces of evidence tie together and strengthen one another, I don't know how to dumb it down
to your level. It's quite easy to break a dozen pencils one at a time. Put all 12 together and try to
break them all at once. It's a case of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.
John Corbett
Apr 10, 2023, 6:51:53 PM4/10/23
to
source, and support every one of them and jam them up your nose. All you have to do is
claim I made them up. Go ahead. Make my day.
Steven Galbraith
Apr 10, 2023, 6:59:31 PM4/10/23
to
We have in this case a series of unrelated/unconnected sources of evidence that come to agreement on Oswald's guilt, that point in one direction: his murder of JFK. Each single source by itself is insufficient to show this; we don't claim it does. But the totality of the evidence coming from a mix of sources all lead to his guilt. The alternate explanations for the existence of these sources cannot withstand the slightest scrutiny. It's why, in part, we have all of these bizarre claims about people being manipulated or controlled like cogs in a conspiracy machine. They did this and they did that; that was planted and this was manufactured. A near endless series of such claims. It's a fantasy world nor a real one.
Ben Holmes
Apr 10, 2023, 7:30:18 PM4/10/23
to
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:47:38 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 6:28:07?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 13:37:43 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 4:00:12?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:29:07 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>>>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:12:34?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> Posting this series again just for Corbutt - who clearly doesn't
>>>>>> understand, and perhaps never read any critical refutations of
>>>>>> Bugliosi before...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>You don't.
>>>> By all means, cite proof for this empty claim. (But you won't.)
>>
>> And, validating my prediction, you didn't. You were lying.
Don't you just HATE that?
>>>> You're going to get schooled in this 53 part series, unless you can
>>>> admit the truth before I post it.
>>>>
>>>>>> 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...
>>>>>
>>>>>This is what conspiracy hobbyists inevitably do.
>>>>
>>>> Deal with the actual evidence? Of course. Why can't you?
>>
>> Dead silence...
Can't you handle the truth?
>>>>>They can't deal with the evidence
>>>>>of Oswald's guilt so they invent cockamamie excuses to dismiss it.
>>>>
>>>> As you're about to see, much of it is sheer nonsense that *YOU* can't
>>>> back up.
>>>>
>>>> Even this first one - and we have 52 more to go - doesn't have
>>>> ANYTHING AT ALL to do with showing that Oswald is guilty of murder.
>>>>
>>>> And you can't show it does.
>>>
>>>By itself, Oswald's Thursday trip to Irving is proof of nothing
>>
>> Cite for your apparent claim that nothing plus nothing equals
>> something.
>>
>> If this particular item DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE OR SUPPORT that Oswald
>> was the lone killer of JFK - then you don't have 53... you only have
>> 52. And in the coming days, you'll find out that you have much less
>> than that.
Dead silence. You must have been lying ... you can't cite any
reference for your empty claim.
>>>>> Once you dismiss all the evidence of Oswald's guilt,
>>>> No, this is a lie on your part, as well as a logical fallacy.
>>>
>>>Your whole case for conspiracy is based on dismissing the evidence the WC presented.
>>
>> Your whole case revolves around believing everything the WC said.
>>
>> Not *EVIDENCE*... but the WCR.
Again, you've been schooled... so you run away...
>>>>> you are left with no evidence at all because all the credible
>>>>> evidence points to Oswald and no one else.
>>>>
>>>> A claim you'll *NEVER* cite for.
>>>>
>>>> You can't.
>>>
>>>If you dispute my claim
>>
>> I do. Didn't you understand that?
Dead slience.
>>> you should be able to refute it quite easily.
>>
>> No moron, it doesn't work that way. *YOU* made the claim, **YOU**
>> have to cite for it...
>>
>> JFK was shot by multiple assassins. I don't need to cite for it,
>> since if you dispute my claim you should be able to refute it quite
>> easily.
>>
>> I predict that you will neither refute my claim, nor retract your
>> assertion that I'm required to refute claims.
>>
>> Moron.
And again, Corbutt proves me right. Don't you just HATE that?
>>> All you have to do is present the three best pieces of evidence you
>>> have that someone other than Oswald took part in the crime.
>>
>> ARE YOU STUPID???
>>
>> This was already done. Do try to keep up...
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/WsiTxkV0XSc/m/nJW918N4AAAJ
Notice that Corbutt just got schooled... and all he can do is run
away...
>>>Offering your objections to the evidence presented by the WC is not
>>>evidence of the involvement of others which is all you have ever done
>>.
>> The above cite proves you a liar. But I understand why you want to
>> change the topic... we're only on number 1 of 53, and you're already
>> losing.
And are now proving yourself to be a coward.
>>>> You're lying again.
>>>
>>>>> That is really what the conspiracy hobbyists want because without
>>>>> any evidence to deal with, they are left with a blank canvas which
>>>>> they can paint however they want.
>>>> Another logical fallacy on your part.
>>>
>>>Another empty claim by you which is unsupported.
>>
>> Your logical fallacy is posted above. Just how do you think I need to
>> "support" it?
Corbutt couldn't think of anything to say...
And you proved me right.
>> You won't even try.
Right again!
>>>> And amusingly, I just cited the proof that Bugliosi **FLAT LIED** ...
>>>> and you had nothing to refute that with.
>>>
>>>Bugliosi never said the Thursday trip to Irving proved Oswald's guilt.
>>
>> HEY STUPID!!! HE SAID THAT A PARTICULAR THURSDAY WAS THE FIRST
>> THURSDAY EVER...
>>
>> Do try to keep up.
Amusing that Corbutt ran...
>>>>>and Bugliosi doesn't present it as such.
>>>> Here's what the original believer stated "Bugliosi: 53 Reasons It Was
>>>> Lee Harvey Oswald"
>>>>
>>>> Now, lie, and tell me you corrected him in the censored forum when he
>>>> made that claim.
>>>
>>>Yes, 53 reasons. Not just one. Few, if any, criminal convictions could be obtained based on
>>>a single piece of evidence.
>>
>> HEY MORON!!!! STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE TOPIC. Did you correct BT
>> George in the censored forum when he first made that statement?
>>
>> Yes or no.
Of course you can't answer... the only correct answer proves you a
hypocrite at the least.
>>>> Or lie again, and tell us THE NAME OF THE CHAPTER IN BUGLIOSI'S BOOK
>>>> where these items appear.
>>>>
>>>I didn't bring up the 53 pieces. You did. It's in the title of your thread.
>> HEY STUPID!!! I'm asking the questions here. If you can't answer
>> them, then stop lying.
>>
>> You made a claim about what Bugliosi presented... yet you can't cite
>> ANYTHING to show it.
>>
>> Why is that, liar?
And of course, Corbutt ran again.
>>>> You won't.
>>>>
>>>> You can't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or how about QUOTING the sentences preceding this list, introducing
>>>> it, and describing what this list is for?
>>>>
>>>I didn't present a list.
>> NO MORON, YOU JUST DENIED WHAT BT GEORGE, AND VINCENT BUGLIOSI MADE
>> CRYSTAL CLEAR!
>>>> You won't.
>>>>
>>>> You can't.
>>>>
>>>> It would prove you a liar...
>>>>
>>>> You lose.
>>
>> And indeed, you couldn't.
>> You lose.
Slink away to your safe place, Corbutt!
>>>>> This is what
>>>>>conspiracy hobbyists always do. They take a piece of evidence in isolation and
>>>>>because that stand alone piece doesn't prove Oswald's guilt by itself, they think
>>>>>that is grounds for dismissing it. This is, of course, an illogical way to examine
>>>>>evidence. The evidence has to be looked at as a whole to make sense of it.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Completely untrue. You're simply lying.
>>>>
>>>> And the proof is easy - show us how Oswald's visiting habits
>>>> supported, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER, that he pulled the trigger on a gun.
>>>>
>>>> But you won't.
>>>>
>>>> You can't
>>>>
>>>> You lose.
>> Another perfect prediction.
They just keep coming!
>>>>>The Thursday night visit to Irving doesn't establish by itself that Oswald was the
>>>>>assassin and no one argues that it does.
>>>>
>>>> YOU'RE A DAMNED LIAR. Bugliosi included this as item #1 in his list
>>>> of reasons to believe Oswald shot JFK.
>>>>
>>>That's why Bugliosi list 53 pieces of evidence, not just one.
>>
>> And I've just proven that it's not 53... you're left with 52.
Does counting pose problems for you?
>>> It is the sum total of the
>>>evidence that establishes Oswald's guilt.
>> Cite for your claim that zero plus zero can equal some other number.
Dead silence...
>>>You couldn't establish that it was Jack Ruby who shot Oswald with a single piece of
>>>evidence. You could show a jury a film of a man in a suit and hat shooting Oswald but you
>>>still would need witnesses to establish the man was Jack Ruby. You would need to
>>>introduce the gun into evidence and probably match the bullet taken form Oswald's body
>>>to Ruby's gun. I'm sure he prosecutors in Ruby's trial did all that. They didn't rely on one
>>>piece of evidence.
>> How does a proven lie about the first Thursday Oswald visited show
>> that Oswald is the lone assassin of JFK?
And again Corbutt runs away.
Such a loser!!!
>>>>>When we combine that with the fact that Frazier testified...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tut tut tut... logical fallacies will simply be deleted and ignored.
>>>>
>>>> And if you're courageous enough to stick around until the end of this
>>>> 53 part series, you're going to look REEEAAALLLYYY stupid.
>>>
>>>So you intend to do what you have done here 52 more times.
>> Certainly. It was easy to prove that Bugliosi lied here - something I
>> might mention that you've not addressed AT ALL...
>>
>> Your lies have been nearly as transparent.
>>>I don't need to do this 52 more times. I've made my point.
>> Run coward... RUN!!!
>
>I have no obligation to school you in remedial logic.
You *DO* have an obligation to support your claims.
Why can't you?
Nor is it possible to school me on remedial logic - you cannot cite
for your claim that a lie by Bugliosi is evidence.
And you won't even try.
> If you can't understand how individual pieces of evidence tie
> together and strengthen one another, I don't know how to dumb it down
> to your level.
If you don't understand how to explain that a blatant *LIE* by
Bugliose isn't evidence of anything other than Bugliosi's honesty,
then I don't know how to dumb it down to your level.
You lose.
> It's quite easy to break a dozen pencils one at a time. Put all 12 together and try to
>break them all at once. It's a case of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.
But when none of them are actual pencils, your analogy falls apart.
Cite for YOUR claim that a lie can be evidence against anyone other
than the person telling the lie.
Run coward... RUN!!!
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 6:28:07?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 13:37:43 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 4:00:12?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:29:07 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>>>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:12:34?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> Posting this series again just for Corbutt - who clearly doesn't
>>>>>> understand, and perhaps never read any critical refutations of
>>>>>> Bugliosi before...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>You don't.
>>>> By all means, cite proof for this empty claim. (But you won't.)
>>
>> And, validating my prediction, you didn't. You were lying.
>>>> You're going to get schooled in this 53 part series, unless you can
>>>> admit the truth before I post it.
>>>>
>>>>>> 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...
>>>>>
>>>>>This is what conspiracy hobbyists inevitably do.
>>>>
>>>> Deal with the actual evidence? Of course. Why can't you?
>>
>> Dead silence...
>>>>>They can't deal with the evidence
>>>>>of Oswald's guilt so they invent cockamamie excuses to dismiss it.
>>>>
>>>> As you're about to see, much of it is sheer nonsense that *YOU* can't
>>>> back up.
>>>>
>>>> Even this first one - and we have 52 more to go - doesn't have
>>>> ANYTHING AT ALL to do with showing that Oswald is guilty of murder.
>>>>
>>>> And you can't show it does.
>>>
>>>By itself, Oswald's Thursday trip to Irving is proof of nothing
>>
>> Cite for your apparent claim that nothing plus nothing equals
>> something.
>>
>> If this particular item DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE OR SUPPORT that Oswald
>> was the lone killer of JFK - then you don't have 53... you only have
>> 52. And in the coming days, you'll find out that you have much less
>> than that.
reference for your empty claim.
>>>>> Once you dismiss all the evidence of Oswald's guilt,
>>>> No, this is a lie on your part, as well as a logical fallacy.
>>>
>>>Your whole case for conspiracy is based on dismissing the evidence the WC presented.
>>
>> Your whole case revolves around believing everything the WC said.
>>
>> Not *EVIDENCE*... but the WCR.
>>>>> you are left with no evidence at all because all the credible
>>>>> evidence points to Oswald and no one else.
>>>>
>>>> A claim you'll *NEVER* cite for.
>>>>
>>>> You can't.
>>>
>>>If you dispute my claim
>>
>> I do. Didn't you understand that?
>>> you should be able to refute it quite easily.
>>
>> No moron, it doesn't work that way. *YOU* made the claim, **YOU**
>> have to cite for it...
>>
>> JFK was shot by multiple assassins. I don't need to cite for it,
>> since if you dispute my claim you should be able to refute it quite
>> easily.
>>
>> I predict that you will neither refute my claim, nor retract your
>> assertion that I'm required to refute claims.
>>
>> Moron.
>>> All you have to do is present the three best pieces of evidence you
>>> have that someone other than Oswald took part in the crime.
>>
>> ARE YOU STUPID???
>>
>> This was already done. Do try to keep up...
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/WsiTxkV0XSc/m/nJW918N4AAAJ
away...
>>>Offering your objections to the evidence presented by the WC is not
>>>evidence of the involvement of others which is all you have ever done
>>.
>> The above cite proves you a liar. But I understand why you want to
>> change the topic... we're only on number 1 of 53, and you're already
>> losing.
>>>> You're lying again.
>>>
>>>>> That is really what the conspiracy hobbyists want because without
>>>>> any evidence to deal with, they are left with a blank canvas which
>>>>> they can paint however they want.
>>>> Another logical fallacy on your part.
>>>
>>>Another empty claim by you which is unsupported.
>>
>> Your logical fallacy is posted above. Just how do you think I need to
>> "support" it?
>> You won't even try.
>>>> And amusingly, I just cited the proof that Bugliosi **FLAT LIED** ...
>>>> and you had nothing to refute that with.
>>>
>>>Bugliosi never said the Thursday trip to Irving proved Oswald's guilt.
>>
>> HEY STUPID!!! HE SAID THAT A PARTICULAR THURSDAY WAS THE FIRST
>> THURSDAY EVER...
>>
>> Do try to keep up.
>>>>>and Bugliosi doesn't present it as such.
>>>> Here's what the original believer stated "Bugliosi: 53 Reasons It Was
>>>> Lee Harvey Oswald"
>>>>
>>>> Now, lie, and tell me you corrected him in the censored forum when he
>>>> made that claim.
>>>
>>>Yes, 53 reasons. Not just one. Few, if any, criminal convictions could be obtained based on
>>>a single piece of evidence.
>>
>> HEY MORON!!!! STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE TOPIC. Did you correct BT
>> George in the censored forum when he first made that statement?
>>
>> Yes or no.
hypocrite at the least.
>>>> Or lie again, and tell us THE NAME OF THE CHAPTER IN BUGLIOSI'S BOOK
>>>> where these items appear.
>>>>
>>>I didn't bring up the 53 pieces. You did. It's in the title of your thread.
>> HEY STUPID!!! I'm asking the questions here. If you can't answer
>> them, then stop lying.
>>
>> You made a claim about what Bugliosi presented... yet you can't cite
>> ANYTHING to show it.
>>
>> Why is that, liar?
>>>> You won't.
>>>>
>>>> You can't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or how about QUOTING the sentences preceding this list, introducing
>>>> it, and describing what this list is for?
>>>>
>>>I didn't present a list.
>> NO MORON, YOU JUST DENIED WHAT BT GEORGE, AND VINCENT BUGLIOSI MADE
>> CRYSTAL CLEAR!
>>>> You won't.
>>>>
>>>> You can't.
>>>>
>>>> It would prove you a liar...
>>>>
>>>> You lose.
>>
>> And indeed, you couldn't.
>> You lose.
>>>>> This is what
>>>>>conspiracy hobbyists always do. They take a piece of evidence in isolation and
>>>>>because that stand alone piece doesn't prove Oswald's guilt by itself, they think
>>>>>that is grounds for dismissing it. This is, of course, an illogical way to examine
>>>>>evidence. The evidence has to be looked at as a whole to make sense of it.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Completely untrue. You're simply lying.
>>>>
>>>> And the proof is easy - show us how Oswald's visiting habits
>>>> supported, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER, that he pulled the trigger on a gun.
>>>>
>>>> But you won't.
>>>>
>>>> You can't
>>>>
>>>> You lose.
>> Another perfect prediction.
>>>>>The Thursday night visit to Irving doesn't establish by itself that Oswald was the
>>>>>assassin and no one argues that it does.
>>>>
>>>> YOU'RE A DAMNED LIAR. Bugliosi included this as item #1 in his list
>>>> of reasons to believe Oswald shot JFK.
>>>>
>>>That's why Bugliosi list 53 pieces of evidence, not just one.
>>
>> And I've just proven that it's not 53... you're left with 52.
>>> It is the sum total of the
>>>evidence that establishes Oswald's guilt.
>> Cite for your claim that zero plus zero can equal some other number.
>>>You couldn't establish that it was Jack Ruby who shot Oswald with a single piece of
>>>evidence. You could show a jury a film of a man in a suit and hat shooting Oswald but you
>>>still would need witnesses to establish the man was Jack Ruby. You would need to
>>>introduce the gun into evidence and probably match the bullet taken form Oswald's body
>>>to Ruby's gun. I'm sure he prosecutors in Ruby's trial did all that. They didn't rely on one
>>>piece of evidence.
>> How does a proven lie about the first Thursday Oswald visited show
>> that Oswald is the lone assassin of JFK?
Such a loser!!!
>>>>>When we combine that with the fact that Frazier testified...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tut tut tut... logical fallacies will simply be deleted and ignored.
>>>>
>>>> And if you're courageous enough to stick around until the end of this
>>>> 53 part series, you're going to look REEEAAALLLYYY stupid.
>>>
>>>So you intend to do what you have done here 52 more times.
>> Certainly. It was easy to prove that Bugliosi lied here - something I
>> might mention that you've not addressed AT ALL...
>>
>> Your lies have been nearly as transparent.
>>>I don't need to do this 52 more times. I've made my point.
>> Run coward... RUN!!!
>
>I have no obligation to school you in remedial logic.
Why can't you?
Nor is it possible to school me on remedial logic - you cannot cite
for your claim that a lie by Bugliosi is evidence.
And you won't even try.
> If you can't understand how individual pieces of evidence tie
> together and strengthen one another, I don't know how to dumb it down
> to your level.
Bugliose isn't evidence of anything other than Bugliosi's honesty,
then I don't know how to dumb it down to your level.
You lose.
> It's quite easy to break a dozen pencils one at a time. Put all 12 together and try to
>break them all at once. It's a case of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.
Cite for YOUR claim that a lie can be evidence against anyone other
than the person telling the lie.
Run coward... RUN!!!
Ben Holmes
Apr 10, 2023, 7:31:33 PM4/10/23
to
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:59:30 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>There's a fancy word for it: consilience.
Can you *CITE* for your claim that this proven lie by Bugliosi is
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>There's a fancy word for it: consilience.
consilient with ANY other actual evidence
Ben Holmes
Apr 10, 2023, 7:34:07 PM4/10/23
to
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:51:51 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry moron, this is *MY* thread. If you cannot support your wacky
claims, just admit it.
> I'll be more than happy to cite, source, and support every one of
> them and jam them up your nose. All you have to do is
>claim I made them up. Go ahead. Make my day.
No, all I have to do is point out that you posted empty claims.
That's a fact.
Run coward... RUN!!!
52 to go... but I predict you'll be long gone before they are all
posted. You're a coward.
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
claims, just admit it.
> I'll be more than happy to cite, source, and support every one of
> them and jam them up your nose. All you have to do is
>claim I made them up. Go ahead. Make my day.
That's a fact.
Run coward... RUN!!!
52 to go... but I predict you'll be long gone before they are all
posted. You're a coward.
Bud
Apr 10, 2023, 7:34:54 PM4/10/23
to
Bud
Apr 10, 2023, 7:42:15 PM4/10/23
to
Ben Holmes
Apr 10, 2023, 7:49:08 PM4/10/23
to
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:12:30 -0700, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
ACKNOWLEDGED OR DEALT WITH THE LIE BUGLIOSI STATED!
As cited and proven by me.
Such cowards!!!
Bud
Apr 10, 2023, 8:02:48 PM4/10/23
to
> As cited and proven by me.
>
> Such cowards!!!
John Corbett
Apr 10, 2023, 8:14:56 PM4/10/23
to
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 6:59:31 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> There's a fancy word for it: consilience. That's defined as: "The principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence is significantly so on its own."
> We have in this case a series of unrelated/unconnected sources of evidence that come to agreement on Oswald's guilt, that point in one direction: his murder of JFK. Each single source by itself is insufficient to show this; we don't claim it does. But the totality of the evidence coming from a mix of sources all lead to his guilt. The alternate explanations for the existence of these sources cannot withstand the slightest scrutiny. It's why, in part, we have all of these bizarre claims about people being manipulated or controlled like cogs in a conspiracy machine. They did this and they did that; that was planted and this was manufactured. A near endless series of such claims. It's a fantasy world nor a real one.
A very good explanation. Maybe Benny will understand but that's probably overly optimistic.
> There's a fancy word for it: consilience. That's defined as: "The principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence is significantly so on its own."
> We have in this case a series of unrelated/unconnected sources of evidence that come to agreement on Oswald's guilt, that point in one direction: his murder of JFK. Each single source by itself is insufficient to show this; we don't claim it does. But the totality of the evidence coming from a mix of sources all lead to his guilt. The alternate explanations for the existence of these sources cannot withstand the slightest scrutiny. It's why, in part, we have all of these bizarre claims about people being manipulated or controlled like cogs in a conspiracy machine. They did this and they did that; that was planted and this was manufactured. A near endless series of such claims. It's a fantasy world nor a real one.
A long time ago, I read it put another way. All the arrows aren't going to point in the same
wrong direction. I this case, all the arrows point at Oswald. That isn't the wrong direction.
If we took Benny's approach and insisted that every piece of evidence must be conclusive on
his own, I wonder how we could conclude that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Abraham
Lincoln. What one piece of evidence could prove that on its own.
John Corbett
Apr 10, 2023, 8:18:31 PM4/10/23
to
>
> That's a fact.
>
Yes it is. Thanks for admitting it.
>
> 52 to go... but I predict you'll be long gone before they are all
> posted. You're a coward.
John Corbett
Apr 10, 2023, 8:20:22 PM4/10/23
to
your own minds.
David Von Pein
Apr 11, 2023, 6:56:13 AM4/11/23
to
From a similar 2017 discussion:
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Why are you desperately trying to imply that this [Charles Givens' testimony] supports Bugliosi's claim that Oswald said he was on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination???
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
As I said before, you have to ADD THINGS UP, Holmes. You never ever do any "adding up". You like to isolate and keep things separate. The "isolation" trick, of course, is the only conceivable way that you (or any rabid conspiracy theorist) can possibly even begin to justify your claim that LHO is innocent.
And because of this penchant for separating and isolating everything related to Lee Harvey Oswald, you are therefore not qualified to evaluate any of the evidence associated with JFK's murder. You are a total disgrace, in fact, when it comes to piecing together relevant evidence and testimony.
Such as....
You know perfectly well what I was talking about in my previous posts regarding Bugliosi PUTTING TOGETHER Harry Holmes' statements and Charles Givens' testimony, but you're too deeply invested in your silly "Oswald Is Innocent" policy to reasonably evaluate the sum total of all the evidence.
But as I also said, I'm not entirely convinced by Bugliosi's 13th item on his "53 Items" list. I think Vince might be inferring too much when he said Oswald "slipped up". But I do think it's quite POSSIBLE that Mr. Bugliosi was, indeed, correct too. I'm perched on the fence about that particular item.
However, I do know that Ben Holmes is wrong when he said that there's no evidence AT ALL to support Bugliosi's Item #13, as I clearly have demonstrated in my previous posts in this discussion.
But no matter how many times Ben Holmes is reminded that he needs to ADD THINGS TOGETHER, he'll continue to keep every piece of evidence isolated from all the other things that ADD UP to Oswald's blatantly obvious guilt.
As they say, you can lead a horse to water, but....well, you know....
Lots more here.....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1227.html
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Why are you desperately trying to imply that this [Charles Givens' testimony] supports Bugliosi's claim that Oswald said he was on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination???
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
As I said before, you have to ADD THINGS UP, Holmes. You never ever do any "adding up". You like to isolate and keep things separate. The "isolation" trick, of course, is the only conceivable way that you (or any rabid conspiracy theorist) can possibly even begin to justify your claim that LHO is innocent.
And because of this penchant for separating and isolating everything related to Lee Harvey Oswald, you are therefore not qualified to evaluate any of the evidence associated with JFK's murder. You are a total disgrace, in fact, when it comes to piecing together relevant evidence and testimony.
Such as....
You know perfectly well what I was talking about in my previous posts regarding Bugliosi PUTTING TOGETHER Harry Holmes' statements and Charles Givens' testimony, but you're too deeply invested in your silly "Oswald Is Innocent" policy to reasonably evaluate the sum total of all the evidence.
But as I also said, I'm not entirely convinced by Bugliosi's 13th item on his "53 Items" list. I think Vince might be inferring too much when he said Oswald "slipped up". But I do think it's quite POSSIBLE that Mr. Bugliosi was, indeed, correct too. I'm perched on the fence about that particular item.
However, I do know that Ben Holmes is wrong when he said that there's no evidence AT ALL to support Bugliosi's Item #13, as I clearly have demonstrated in my previous posts in this discussion.
But no matter how many times Ben Holmes is reminded that he needs to ADD THINGS TOGETHER, he'll continue to keep every piece of evidence isolated from all the other things that ADD UP to Oswald's blatantly obvious guilt.
As they say, you can lead a horse to water, but....well, you know....
Lots more here.....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1227.html
Ben Holmes
Apr 11, 2023, 9:47:35 AM4/11/23
to
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 17:14:54 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 6:59:31?PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
>
>> There's a fancy word for it: consilience. That's defined as: "The principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence is significantly so on its own."
>> We have in this case a series of unrelated/unconnected sources of evidence that come to agreement on Oswald's guilt, that point in one direction: his murder of JFK. Each single source by itself is insufficient to show this; we don't claim it does. But the totality of the evidence coming from a mix of sources all lead to his guilt. The alternate explanations for the existence of these sources cannot withstand the slightest scrutiny. It's why, in part, we have all of these bizarre claims about people being manipulated or controlled like cogs in a conspiracy machine. They did this and they did that; that was planted and this was manufactured. A near endless series of such claims. It's a fantasy world nor a real one.
>
>A very good explanation. Maybe Benny will understand but that's probably overly optimistic.
Consilience doesn't work with lies.
Maybe Corbutt will defend it, but that's probably overly optimistic.
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 6:59:31?PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
>
>> There's a fancy word for it: consilience. That's defined as: "The principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence is significantly so on its own."
>> We have in this case a series of unrelated/unconnected sources of evidence that come to agreement on Oswald's guilt, that point in one direction: his murder of JFK. Each single source by itself is insufficient to show this; we don't claim it does. But the totality of the evidence coming from a mix of sources all lead to his guilt. The alternate explanations for the existence of these sources cannot withstand the slightest scrutiny. It's why, in part, we have all of these bizarre claims about people being manipulated or controlled like cogs in a conspiracy machine. They did this and they did that; that was planted and this was manufactured. A near endless series of such claims. It's a fantasy world nor a real one.
>
>A very good explanation. Maybe Benny will understand but that's probably overly optimistic.
Maybe Corbutt will defend it, but that's probably overly optimistic.
Ben Holmes
Apr 11, 2023, 9:52:37 AM4/11/23
to
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 17:18:29 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
And Corbutt didn't...
>>> I'll be more than happy to cite, source, and support every one of
>>> them and jam them up your nose. All you have to do is
>>>claim I made them up. Go ahead. Make my day.
>>
>> No, all I have to do is point out that you posted empty claims.
>
>You are unable to support your claim
To who?
>> That's a fact.
>>
>Yes it is. Thanks for admitting it.
The English language doesn't permit one to "admit" what someone else
did. "Admitting" that you post empty claims is a very weird phrase.
>> 52 to go... but I predict you'll be long gone before they are all
>> posted. You're a coward.
>
>If the other 52 are as lame as #1, don't waste your time.
You've not even addressed this one.
We have evidence for more than a single Thursday visit. That's a fact
that you've not touched on at all.
Such cowardice!
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'll be more than happy to cite, source, and support every one of
>>> them and jam them up your nose. All you have to do is
>>>claim I made them up. Go ahead. Make my day.
>>
>> No, all I have to do is point out that you posted empty claims.
>
>You are unable to support your claim
>> That's a fact.
>>
>Yes it is. Thanks for admitting it.
did. "Admitting" that you post empty claims is a very weird phrase.
>> 52 to go... but I predict you'll be long gone before they are all
>> posted. You're a coward.
>
>If the other 52 are as lame as #1, don't waste your time.
We have evidence for more than a single Thursday visit. That's a fact
that you've not touched on at all.
Such cowardice!
Ben Holmes
Apr 11, 2023, 9:53:28 AM4/11/23
to
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 17:20:20 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Logical fallacy deleted.
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ben Holmes
Apr 11, 2023, 9:55:32 AM4/11/23
to
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 03:56:12 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>From a similar 2017 discussion:
>
>BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> Why are you desperately trying to imply that this [Charles Givens'
> testimony] supports Bugliosi's claim that Oswald said he was on the
> 6th floor at the time of the assassination???
Von Penis knows full well that there's evidence that Oswald *DID* go
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>From a similar 2017 discussion:
>
>BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> Why are you desperately trying to imply that this [Charles Givens'
> testimony] supports Bugliosi's claim that Oswald said he was on the
> 6th floor at the time of the assassination???
downstairs.
Before the assassination.
Notice folks, that Von Penis isn't willing to CITE the thread he's
cherry-picking from.
That fact tells the tale...
David Von Pein
Apr 13, 2023, 5:48:47 PM4/13/23
to
Ben Holmes
Apr 13, 2023, 5:58:29 PM4/13/23
to
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 06:55:29 -0700, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 03:56:12 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>><davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>From a similar 2017 discussion:
>>>
>>>BEN HOLMES SAID:
>>>
>>> Why are you desperately trying to imply that this [Charles Givens'
>>> testimony] supports Bugliosi's claim that Oswald said he was on the
>>> 6th floor at the time of the assassination???
>>
>>Von Penis knows full well that there's evidence that Oswald *DID* go
>>downstairs.
>>
>>Before the assassination.
So I added it back in to show lurkers what a coward Von Penis is.
>>Notice folks, that Von Penis isn't willing to CITE the thread he's
>>cherry-picking from.
>>
>>That fact tells the tale...
>
>
>https://groups...
Why? You'll never defend it if I refute it here...
Ben Holmes
May 2, 2023, 9:00:19 AM5/2/23
to
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 13:40:50 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 4:28:36?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 13:23:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
You're lying, Chickenshit. You just HATE context... it always proves
you a liar.
>> Quote the preceding sentences that introduced these 53 items.
>
> Non sequitur.
You're lying, Chickenshit. You just HATE context... it always proves
you a liar.
>> You know... CITE & SUPPORT WHAT YOU CLAIMED.
>
> You claim to be refuting Bugliosi. Show you are addressing the actual points he made.
To who?
>> But, of course... you won't.
>>
No, simply further proof that you're a liar.
> Either you are addressing the points Bugliosi actually made or you
> are not.
Feel free to quote him.
> You are not.
Empty claim from a liar...
wrote:
>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 4:28:36?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 13:23:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:12:34?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> Posting this series again just for Corbutt - who clearly doesn't
>>>> understand, and perhaps never read any critical refutations of
>>>> Bugliosi before...
>>>>
>>>> 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...
>>>>
>>>> Note for future posts (this will come up time and time again) - many
>>>> morons will whine that I didn't quote the ENTIRE statement of Bugliosi
>>>> - yet they failed to complain when this list - IN THIS FORM, was
>>>> posted in the censored forum by a believer.
>>>
>>>> Posting this series again just for Corbutt - who clearly doesn't
>>>> understand, and perhaps never read any critical refutations of
>>>> Bugliosi before...
>>>>
>>>> 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...
>>>>
>>>> Note for future posts (this will come up time and time again) - many
>>>> morons will whine that I didn't quote the ENTIRE statement of Bugliosi
>>>> - yet they failed to complain when this list - IN THIS FORM, was
>>>> posted in the censored forum by a believer.
>>>
>>> Either you are addressing the points Bugliosi actually made or you are not. You are not.
>>
>> Quote the name of the chapter that these items are found in.
>
> No sequitur.
>>
>> Quote the name of the chapter that these items are found in.
>
You're lying, Chickenshit. You just HATE context... it always proves
you a liar.
>> Quote the preceding sentences that introduced these 53 items.
>
You're lying, Chickenshit. You just HATE context... it always proves
you a liar.
>> You know... CITE & SUPPORT WHAT YOU CLAIMED.
>
To who?
>> But, of course... you won't.
>>
>>>> (1) Oswald always visited Marina in Irving on a Friday. Nov 21 was the
>>>> first Thursday visit ever.
>>>
>>>> first Thursday visit ever.
>>>
>>> This is what Bugs actually wrote...
>> This is what BT George actually wrote...
>>
>> Oops, I already posted it.
>>
>> Have you told him he lied???
>
> Non sequitur.
>> This is what BT George actually wrote...
>>
>> Oops, I already posted it.
>>
>> Have you told him he lied???
>
No, simply further proof that you're a liar.
> Either you are addressing the points Bugliosi actually made or you
> are not.
> You are not.
Empty claim from a liar...
Ben Holmes
May 2, 2023, 9:00:19 AM5/2/23
to
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 13:37:29 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 4:25:17?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>No citations
>>>No documents
>>>No testimony
>>>No exhibits
>>>No witness videos
>>>
>>>You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.
>>>
>>>What they DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and ( when that doesn't work ) insults.
>> Indeed!
>>
>> That's all they have... lies and logical fallacies... that is, when
>> they aren't running away.
>>
>> We've only looked at item #1 out of 53 reasons Oswald is the sole
>> murderer of JFK.
>>
>> And it failed to support the claim.
>
> Who`s claim?
If you can't figure it out, then that would make you an illiterate
moron, wouldn't it?
wrote:
>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 4:25:17?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 13:15:22 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
>> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 2:29:09?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is what conspiracy hobbyists inevitably do. They can't deal with the evidence
>>>> of Oswald's guilt so they invent cockamamie excuses to dismiss it. Once you
>>>> dismiss all the evidence of Oswald's guilt, you are left with no evidence at all
>>>> because all the credible evidence points to Oswald and no one else. That is
>>>> really what the conspiracy hobbyists want because without any evidence to
>>>> deal with, they are left with a blank canvas which they can paint however they
>>>> want.
>>>>>
>> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 2:29:09?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is what conspiracy hobbyists inevitably do. They can't deal with the evidence
>>>> of Oswald's guilt so they invent cockamamie excuses to dismiss it. Once you
>>>> dismiss all the evidence of Oswald's guilt, you are left with no evidence at all
>>>> because all the credible evidence points to Oswald and no one else. That is
>>>> really what the conspiracy hobbyists want because without any evidence to
>>>> deal with, they are left with a blank canvas which they can paint however they
>>>> want.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note for future posts (this will come up time and time again) - many
>>>>> morons will whine that I didn't quote the ENTIRE statement of Bugliosi
>>>>> - yet they failed to complain when this list - IN THIS FORM, was
>>>>> posted in the censored forum by a believer.
>>>>>
>>>>> morons will whine that I didn't quote the ENTIRE statement of Bugliosi
>>>>> - yet they failed to complain when this list - IN THIS FORM, was
>>>>> posted in the censored forum by a believer.
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) Oswald always visited Marina in Irving on a Friday. Nov 21 was the
>>>>> first Thursday visit ever.
>>>>>
>>>>> first Thursday visit ever.
>>>>>
>>>No documents
>>>No testimony
>>>No exhibits
>>>No witness videos
>>>
>>>You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.
>>>
>>>What they DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and ( when that doesn't work ) insults.
>> Indeed!
>>
>> That's all they have... lies and logical fallacies... that is, when
>> they aren't running away.
>>
>> We've only looked at item #1 out of 53 reasons Oswald is the sole
>> murderer of JFK.
>>
>> And it failed to support the claim.
>
> Who`s claim?
If you can't figure it out, then that would make you an illiterate
moron, wouldn't it?
Ben Holmes
May 2, 2023, 9:00:19 AM5/2/23
to
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:39:27 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 6:14:56?PM UTC-4, Charles Schuyler wrote:
Amusingly, not *ONE* believer has yet addressed the fact that I
proved, BY CITATION, that Bugliosi simply lied.
wrote:
>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 6:14:56?PM UTC-4, Charles Schuyler wrote:
proved, BY CITATION, that Bugliosi simply lied.
Ben Holmes
May 2, 2023, 9:00:19 AM5/2/23
to
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
"For the very first time, Oswald went to Irving with Frazier on
Thursday evening..." - Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, pg 955
Lie again, Chickenshit. But try to make it less obvious.
wrote:
Thursday evening..." - Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, pg 955
Lie again, Chickenshit. But try to make it less obvious.
Ben Holmes
May 2, 2023, 9:00:20 AM5/2/23
to
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 17:02:46 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
You already confirmed what BT George said.
wrote:
Ben Holmes
May 2, 2023, 9:00:20 AM5/2/23
to
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 16:42:14 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
If you want to call BT George a liar, you're going to have to go tell
him... I'm not interested.
wrote:
him... I'm not interested.
Ben Holmes
May 2, 2023, 9:00:20 AM5/2/23
to
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 13:23:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:12:34?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Posting this series again just for Corbutt - who clearly doesn't
>> understand, and perhaps never read any critical refutations of
>> Bugliosi before...
>>
>> 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.
>
> wife and daughters at the Paine residence in Irving, he’d go on a
> Friday evening and return to Dallas on Monday morning. The
> assassination was on Friday, November 22, 1963. For the very first
> time, Oswald went to Irving with Frazier on Thursday evening, November
> 21, obviously to pick up his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle for the
> following day."
His ENTIRE argument hinges on this assertion: "For the very first
claimed "Oswald went to Irving on Friday - so he's the assassin."
So what Bugliosi actually wrote is what I dealt with... and it's a
blatant lie on his part.
And on yours.
> This is true, according to Frazier.
>
> Mr. BALL - Did he ride home with you in your car on weekends?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.
> Mr. BALL - On Friday nights.
> Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Sorry stupid, this also proves that Oswald played with a Yoyo.
> Also...
>
> Mr. BALL - Your memory is that he went,, he rode home with you every Friday and came back the following Monday?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
Sorry moron, this also prove that Oswald wore red shoes.
> The rest below is irrelevant, it doesn`t speak to when Frazier
> drove Oswald to Oak Cliff. That was always on Fridays, and only on
> Fridays.
Then he couldn't have been there on the day Bugliosi said he was.
You'll have to kill yourself to go tell Bugliosi that.
wrote:
>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:12:34?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Posting this series again just for Corbutt - who clearly doesn't
>> understand, and perhaps never read any critical refutations of
>> Bugliosi before...
>>
>> 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...
>>
>> Note for future posts (this will come up time and time again) - many
>> morons will whine that I didn't quote the ENTIRE statement of Bugliosi
>> - yet they failed to complain when this list - IN THIS FORM, was
>> posted in the censored forum by a believer.
>
>> morons will whine that I didn't quote the ENTIRE statement of Bugliosi
>> - yet they failed to complain when this list - IN THIS FORM, was
>> posted in the censored forum by a believer.
>
> Either you are addressing the points Bugliosi actually made or you are not. You are not.
This is a proven lie.
>> (1) Oswald always visited Marina in Irving on a Friday. Nov 21 was the
>> first Thursday visit ever.
>
> This is what Bugs actually wrote...
>
> "1. Whenever Oswald had Wesley Frazier drive him out to visit his
>
> wife and daughters at the Paine residence in Irving, he’d go on a
> Friday evening and return to Dallas on Monday morning. The
> assassination was on Friday, November 22, 1963. For the very first
> time, Oswald went to Irving with Frazier on Thursday evening, November
> 21, obviously to pick up his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle for the
> following day."
His ENTIRE argument hinges on this assertion: "For the very first
time, Oswald went to Irving with Frazier on Thursday evening..."
If it weren't unique, it wouldn't mean anything. Bugliosi never
claimed "Oswald went to Irving on Friday - so he's the assassin."
So what Bugliosi actually wrote is what I dealt with... and it's a
blatant lie on his part.
And on yours.
> This is true, according to Frazier.
>
> Mr. BALL - Did he ride home with you in your car on weekends?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.
> Mr. BALL - On Friday nights.
> Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Sorry stupid, this also proves that Oswald played with a Yoyo.
> Also...
>
> Mr. BALL - Your memory is that he went,, he rode home with you every Friday and came back the following Monday?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
Sorry moron, this also prove that Oswald wore red shoes.
> The rest below is irrelevant, it doesn`t speak to when Frazier
> drove Oswald to Oak Cliff. That was always on Fridays, and only on
> Fridays.
Then he couldn't have been there on the day Bugliosi said he was.
You'll have to kill yourself to go tell Bugliosi that.
0 new messages