[Ben Holmes]

(10) Oswald's pretense with a co-worker that he didn't know JFK's route

Sheer speculation on Bugliosi's part. Before you can label this a 'pretense', you must show that Oswald knew for a fact that JFK would be passing in front of the building. Bugliosi has been unable to do this.

This is another example of presuming guilt, then taking any action or speech to 'prove' that guilt.

[Ben Holmes]

(10-27-2016, 01:52 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  (10) Oswald's pretense with a co-worker that he didn't know JFK's route

Sheer speculation on Bugliosi's part. Before you can label this a 'pretense', you must show that Oswald knew for a fact that JFK would be passing in front of the building. Bugliosi has been unable to do this.

This is another example of presuming guilt, then taking any action or speech to 'prove' that guilt.

Notice that Patrick had nothing to say.

So clearly, he agrees that it's silly to label this "pretense" on Oswald's part.

[Patrick C]

Not really interested, it is a moot point.

Oswald wouldhave known the route would be at least down Main....and probably that it was right on Houston and left on Elm. That he did not acknowledge that to his co workers is really not important whether he was the assassin or not.

It is possible Oswald was not 100% sure of that last section, he may have considered a shot across to Main - the Carcano was lethal at 200 yards + so he could have taken that view.

It is likely of course that Oswald did  not expect to get a chance to make the shots and indeed that he did not decide who to shoot until the last 30 minutes or do...Connally or JFK....we will never know. I suspect he set out to get Connally, but he lost the plot and went for the POTUS......simple.

No doubt either way that Oswald was the lone gunman.

Open and shut case. Simple.

[Ben Holmes]

(10-30-2016, 06:07 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  Not really interested, it is a moot point.

IOW's ... you simply cannot defend Bugliosi's use of this "evidence" to indict Oswald.
 

(10-30-2016, 06:07 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  Oswald wouldhave known the route would be at least down Main....and probably that it was right on Houston and left on Elm. That he did not acknowledge that to his co workers is really not important whether he was the assassin or not.

More speculation parading as evidence, eh Patrick?

The truth is, you simply cannot defend the silliness of Vincent Bugliosi - yet don't have enough honesty to flat contradict Bugliosi on these silly statements.
 

(10-30-2016, 06:07 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  It is possible Oswald was not 100% sure of that last section, he may have considered a shot across to Main - the Carcano was lethal at 200 yards + so he could have taken that view.

He could also have thought that Santa Claus would be in the parade, and he could go down to the street, wave at Santa, and get a present.

These absolutely GROUNDLESS speculations aren't going to over-ride the evidence, are they Patrick?
 

(10-30-2016, 06:07 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  It is likely of course that Oswald did  not expect to get a chance to make the shots and indeed that he did not decide who to shoot until the last 30 minutes or do...Connally or JFK....we will never know. I suspect he set out to get Connally, but he lost the plot and went for the POTUS......simple.

No doubt either way that Oswald was the lone gunman.

Open and shut case. Simple.

It's truly amusing how you can go from a refusal to address the point made... claiming that you're not "interested" ... and that it's a "moot point" - then end up with your silly claim that it's an "Open and shut case."

It takes a true believer to make that sort of leap.

Unfortunately, it takes more than faith to actually make the case using real evidence...

[Patrick C]

You have no "organic" understing and appreciation  of the case Ben, 

You have no ability to weigh up the pros and cons.

I think it like defending a religion to you ....right...?

I think I have used up my 30 minutes on your site today for the week so hey

Pip Pip......

PS .....Is anyone else contributing? 

Shame you got banned from Amazon Ben - that was for calling people child molestors right....

[Ben Holmes]

(10-30-2016, 08:20 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  You have no "organic" understing and appreciation  of the case Ben, 

You have no ability to weigh up the pros and cons.

I think it like defending a religion to you ....right...?

I think I have used up my 30 minutes on your site today for the week so hey

Pip Pip......

PS .....Is anyone else contributing? 

Shame you got banned from Amazon Ben - that was for calling people child molestors right....

Quite the coward, aren't you Patrick?

You ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to get specific...

And by sticking with broad generalities, no counter argument can be raised.

Tell us Patrick, why are you so afraid to deal with the evidence in this case? You've been totally unable to refute this:

Quote:(10) Oswald's pretense with a co-worker that he didn't know JFK's route

Sheer speculation on Bugliosi's part. Before you can label this a 'pretense', you must show that Oswald knew for a fact that JFK would be passing in front of the building. Bugliosi has been unable to do this.

This is another example of presuming guilt, then taking any action or speech to 'prove' that guilt.

... and merely whining ad hominems won't change that fact, will it?